FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 1 

# FY 201 3

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance (OECA)

Draft

National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance

February 10 , 2012

Publication Number:

305P12001FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 2 

### Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

A. P ROGRAM O FFICE

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4

B. I NTRODUCTION / C ONTEXT

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

C. P ROGRAM P RIORITIES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4

D. A CHIE VING C OMPLIANCE FOR N ATIONAL AND R EGIONAL P RIORITIES

................................ ............................... 8

E. C ROSS C UTTING S TRATEGIES IN THE FY2011

- 2015 S TRATEGIC P LAN

................................ ................................ . 9

F. S IGNIFICANT C HANGES FROM FY2012

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 13

SECTION I: OECA GUID ANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS

................................ ............... 17

SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTIC E PROGRAM PERFORMANC E EXPECTATIONS

........ 17

1. Advance EJ goals through Selection and Implementation of National Enforcement Initiatives

........... 18

2. Advance EJ Goals Through Targeting and Development of Compliance and Enforcement Actions

.... 19 3. Enhance Use of Enforcement and Compliance Tools to Advance EJ Goals in Regions’ Geographic

Initiatives to Address Overburdened Communities

................................ ................................ ............... 20

4. Seek Appropriate Remedies in Enforcement Actions to Benefit Vulnerable and Overburdened Communities

and Address EJ Concerns.

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 5. Enhance Communication with Affected Communities and the Public Regarding EJ Concerns and the Distribution and Benefits of En forcement Actions, As Appropriate

................................ ...................... 22

SECTION III: KEY PRO GRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRES S ENVIRONMENTAL

PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24

A. C LEAN A IR A CT (CAA)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 24 1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

................................ ................................ ............................. 24 2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities

................................ ................................ ................ 25 3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

............................... 26 4. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ ........................ 29 5. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 30

SECTION IV: KEY PROG RAM PRIORITIES AND S TRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION

............................................................ ........................ 33

A. C LEAN W ATER A CT (CWA)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 33

1. Clean Water Act Action Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ . 33

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

................................ ................................ ......................... 35

3. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities

................................ ................................ ............................... 37

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 38

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ .................... 43

6. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 45

7. Relevant Policies and Guidance

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 45

B. S AFE D RINKING W ATER A CT (SDWA)

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 45

1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities

................................ ................................ ............................... 47

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 48

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ .................... 48

4. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 49

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 49

SECTION V: KEY PROGR AM PRIORITIES AND ST RATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICID ES POLLUTION

................................ ............................ 50

A. R ESOURCE C ONSERVATION AND R ECOVERY A CT (RCRA)

................................ ................................ ................ 50

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

................................ ................................ ......................... 50

2. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ 51

3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 52

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 52FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 3

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ .................... 56

6. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 57

B. T OXIC S UBSTANCES C ONTROL A CT (TSCA)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58

1. Link with Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s Top Priorities

................................ ... 60

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 61

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ .................... 66

4. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 67

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 68

C. F EDERAL I NSECTICIDE

, F UNGICIDE AND R ODENTICIDE A CT (FIFRA)

................................ ................................ 68

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities

................................ ................................ .......... 68

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 68

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ .................... 75

4. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 76

5. Relev ant Policies and Guidance

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 76

D. S PECIFIC C OMPREHENSIVE E NVIRONMENTAL R ESPONSE C OMPENSATION AND L IABILITY A CT (CERCLA)

E NFORCEMENT P ROGRAM P ERFORMANCE E XPECTATIONS

................................ ................................ ...................... 77

1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 77

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 77

3. Working With States and Tribes

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 80

4. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 80

SECTION VI: KEY PROG RAM PRIORITIES AND S TRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROBLEMS THROUGH CRI MINAL ENFORCEMENT

................................ ................................ ................... 81

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 81

SECTION VII: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITI ES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTA L

PROBLEMS THROUGH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AL POLICY ACT

................................ .......... 83

A. S PECIFI C F EDERAL A CTIVITIES P ROGRAM P ERFORMANCE E XPECTATIONS

................................ ......................... 83

SECTION VIII: NATION AL PROGRAM REQUIREME NTS FOR ADDITIONAL O ECA PROGRAMS

U NDER GOAL 5

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 85

Specific Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Program Performance Expectations

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 85

1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities

................................ .............................. 85

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

........................... 85

A. EPCRA 3 13:

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 85

B. EPCRA 311/312

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 87

C. CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 87

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

................................ ................................ .................... 87

4. Improve Transparency

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 87

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 88

D. Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations

................................ ................... 88

E. State Review Framework (SRF) Expectations

................................ ................................ ........................ 90

SECTION IX. FY 2013 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMIS SION INSTRUCTIONS

................................ .............. 91

A. A NNUAL C OMMITMENT S YSTEM

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 91

B. FTE R ESOURCE C HARTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 92

SECTION X. LIST OF ACRONYMS

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 93FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Program Office

This guidance applies to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), all Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regi onal enforcement programs, and s tates and federally

- recognized Indian Tribes (tribes) implementing EPA

- approved inspection and enforcement programs 1 . OECA designs, develops, implements and oversees national enforcement programs, while the regional offices work with s tates, t ribes, and others to implement these programs. The OECA National Enforcement Program Managers Guidance (NPMG) for fiscal year (FY) 2013 describes how EPA should work with state and tribal governments to enforce environmental laws that protect and improve the quality of the Nation‘s environment and public health.

B. Introduction/ Context

EPA‘s national enforcem ent and compliance assurance program is multi

- media in scope and breadth. The national program assures compliance with ten distinct federal environmental statutes using a variety of tools, including civil and criminal enforcement, compliance assistance,

i ncentives, and monitoring, as well as other strategies to improve compliance, such as publication of compliance information. OECA implements a total of 28 separate program areas dealing with prevention and control of air pollution, water pollution, hazard ous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. The statutory and regulatory requirements of these programs apply to a diverse universe of regulated entities. EPA works closely with the states and tribes to assure that compliance assurance and enforcement p rograms achieve the protections of the environmental laws and provide a level playing field for responsible businesses.

The majority of the work in the FY 2013 NPMG is accomplished under Goal 5

- ―Enforcing

Environmental Laws‖ in the FY 2011

- 2015 EPA Stra tegic Plan. 2 Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan describes how EPA will address violators and pollution problems through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement, promote compliance and deter violations by achieving set enforcement goals, including th ose for national enforcement initiatives with special emphasis on potential environmental justice concerns and those in Indian country.

The FY 2013 NPMG is organized to describe, for each statutory authority, the national enforcement and program office pr iorities, and other key enforcement actions to achieve EPA‘s enforcement goals.

C. Program Priorities

OECA‘s work aligns with and implements the Administrator‘s priorities in the following ways:

1 When referring to states and tribes throughout this NPM guidance, OECA is referring to states and tribes authorized to implement federal programs. EPA implements programs in states and Indian country until EPA approves the state or Tribe to implement th e inspection and enforcement program.

2 The Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.htmlFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 5

Taking Action on Climate Change : Enforcement supports th e Agency‘s climate strategy by achieving reductions of global warming pollution in settlements of enforcement actions. OECA will support the integrity of the monitoring and reporting system for global warming pollution by assuring compliance with the gree nhouse gases reporting

rule.

Improving Air Quality : Enforcement helps improve air quality in communities by targeting large pollution sources, especially in the utility, acid, cement, glass and natural gas exploration and production industries, and takin g aggressive action to bring them into compliance, which may include installing controls that will benefit communities and improve emission monitoring. OECA is working closely with the Office of Air and Radiation to reduce toxic air pollution, through pro tective enforcement, permitting and standards, especially in communities that are disproportionately affected by pollution

now. O ECA will continue to work with states and tr ibes to improve monitoring of compliance with air pollution standards and make sur e that action is taken against serious violations that affect community air quality.

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals : As the Agency steps up its review of chemical safety and pushes for reform, OECA will work closely with the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to achieve its goals. The enforcement program will take action when we find violations of standards for high

- concern chemicals.

Cleaning Up Our Communities : Enforcement ensures that parties responsible for contamination step up to their cleanup responsibilities. By ensuring that the polluter pays whenever possible, OECA‘s efforts result in more cleanups, which protect more communities from exposure and returns properties to productive use. OECA will also use enforcement to spur cleanup at RCRA corrective action sites where the cleanup progress is stalled. Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority for OECA's waste programs, promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people. OECA will continue to integrate envi ronmental justice into its Site Remediation Enfor cement program by using EJ criteria when enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals and ensur ing that institutional controls are implemented at sites in environmental justice areas of concern.

Protecting America‘s Waters : OECA‘s water enforcement program is focusing on the compliance problems that are the biggest threat to the nation‘s waters, incl uding overflows of raw sewage and uncontrolled storm water discharges, as well as discharges of animal manure from concentrated animal feeding operations. At the same time, OECA will increase oversight of the s tates and work to define the shared accountab ility of EPA, states and t ribes for clean water, working closely with the Office of Water. OECA will improve transparency, to enlist the public in holding sources and government

accountable.

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working fo r Environmental

Justice : In all OECA‘s enforcement work, as described above, OECA protects communities by targeting enforcement in areas where we find serious noncompliance,FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 6

including in communities that face multiple pollution threats. OECA works with other federal agencies to make sure environmental justice considerations are included in their

decision

- making process as they prepare environmental analyses (environmental impact statements or environmental assessments) under the National Environmental Po licy Act (NEPA). OECA also will make available more understandable information on facility compliance and government response, so that people have better access to more information about the facilities in their communities, including information they need to take action to improve their own communities.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships : EPA shares accountability with s tates and

t ribes for protecting the environment and public health. With the current economic challenges, it is important t hat EPA and its partners work efficiently and effectively to do the most we can with the resources we have. At the same time, OECA will strengthen oversight of s tates that implement federal environmental programs, and support s tates that take strong enfor cement action to protect their citizens b y making sure that we hold

all s tates to a comparable standard. Similarly, OECA consults, as appropriate, with tribes when implementing federal environmental programs in Indian country and takes

enforcement actions to ensure that same degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country as elsewhere in the United States.

OECA‘s overall enforcement goals for FY 2013 are to:

Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communiti es . EPA will use vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air and chemical hazards, as well as advance environmental justice by protecting vulnerable

communities.

o Clean water

In follow

- up to the Clean Water Act action plan, EPA is revamping enforcement and working with permitting to focus on the biggest pollution problems, such as Getting raw sewage out of the water Cutting pollution from animal waste Reducing polluted storm water discharges Assure clean drinking water for all communities, including in Indian country Clean up great waters that matter to communities, e.g, Chesapeake Bay

o Clean air

Cut toxic air pollution in communities Reduce air pollution from largest sources, including coal

- fired power plants,

cement, ac id and glass sectors

o Climate and clean energy

Assure compliance with Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions through settlements Target energy sector compliance with air, water and waste rules

o Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals

Prevent releases of hazardous chemicals that threaten public health or the

environmentFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 7 Press for prompt cleanup of hazardous sites in communities, ensuring that the polluter pays Reform chemical management enforcement and re duce exposure to pesticides, focusing on specific areas aimed to help achieve clean water, clean air, and climate and clean energy, and to protect people from exposure to hazardous

chemicals.

Reset our relationship with States to make sure we are delive ring on our joint commitment to a clean and healthy environment

.

o Shared accountability

Make joint progress with states and t ribes toward clean air and water goals, and protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals Work toward shared focus on protecting vulnerable communities

o Strengthened oversight

Assure strong and effective s tate enforcement of federal environmental laws

Press for consistent enforcement across s tates and R egions, ensuring fairness and a level playing field

o Establish new model for shared accountability and strengthened oversight, starting

with water Build focus on highest priority problems into grants, enforcement and permitting agreements Define clear expectations for state performance Take federal action where minimum expectations are n ot met

Improve transparency

o Make meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible using 21st century technologies

o Hold government accountable through public information on state and federal performance

o Promote better federal environment al decisions and public engagement through

NEPA

To help implement these enforcement goals, OECA selects a limited number of National Enforcement Initiatives based upon significant environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. In FY 2010, EPA re

- examine d the existing initiatives to look for opportunities to clarify goals and measures, more accurately identify universes of sources, and, where necessary, to change the focus of an Initiative. In addition, EPA considered candidates for new National Enforcem ent Initiatives. After consulting with EPA programs and R egions, states, t ribes, and the public, OECA adopted the following National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011 through 2013. More information on each is found in the media sections of this guidance:

Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater discharges out of our waters Cutting animal waste to protect surface and ground waters Reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal

- fired utility, cement, glass, and acid s ectorsFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 8

Cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities‘ health Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations

Strategies to implement these initiatives are developed by regional and headquarter teams and include goals, measures, and options for innovative approaches.

D. Achieving Compliance for National and Regional Priorities

EPA, states and tribes need to c onsider how to best use the mix of compliance and enforcement tools (compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, civil and criminal enforcement) to address all the regulated entities contributing to the environmental problem. The strategic use of these tools along with the identification of partners to help implement them will allow for the efficient use of Agency resources and effective approaches to solving large scale issues.

Strategic use of the tools will benefit EPA, states and tribes by: 1) tar geting limited compliance monitoring and enforcement resources on the bad actors; 2) building capacity and coordination across partners; and 3) expanding governments‘ effectiveness and demonstrating governments‘

commitment. More information on the use of integrated strategies is found in the Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an Integrated Strategic Approach (March 2007) http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resour ces/policies/assistance/index.html

.

Program Reviews

OECA monitors regional, state and tribal implementation activities in a set of annual

commitments at mid

- year and at the end of a fiscal year based upon r egion al and s tate results

entered in OECA databa ses, the Annual Commitment System (ACS), and data collected in the implementation of national enforcement initiatives. In addition, OECA senior managers conduct an annual program review of each regional office. The performance expectations and activities outlined in this guidance are the starting point from which headquarters and the regional offices discuss the management of program activities and the distribution of resources. These discussions result in regional commitments for a specific level of act ivity and an ag reed

- upon approach between the R egions and the national program manager for achieving fiscal year performance expectations.

Regional Priorities

EPA R egions may have additional priorities that are specific for a particular environmental

situa tion that may not affect other R egions. Some problems cross regional boundaries and

R egions are working together to address them. For example, i n response to the President‘s May
12, 2009, Executive Order 13508

— Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restorati on , Regions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are working with OECA to address nitrogen deposition to the Bay from large industrial air

sources of NO

x . The R egions will build on work already begun under the national enforcement

initiatives to evaluate the compliance of powe r plants and other industrial sources in the Chesapeake Bay air shed emitting more than 1000 tons of NO

x per year. Any resultingFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 9

enforcement actions would seek to achieve significant NO

x reductions through complying actions, as appropriate. In addition, Region 3 will take steps to evaluate the potential impacts on the Bay of ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

E. Cross Cutting Strategies in the FY2011

- 2015 Strategic Plan

As part of the FY 2011

- 2015 Strategic Plan, the Agency has i dentified five cross

- cutting fundamental strategies designed to change the way the Agency works and delivers environmental and human health protection. OECA‘s NPM guidance directly supports thre e of the five cross

cutting strategies by instructing the R egions to undertake activities in FY201 3 that contribute to

the cross

- cutting strategies‘ goals. Specific examples in the FY201 3 guidance include the following:

Expanding the Conversation on Env ironmentalism

Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the C lean W ater A ct (CWA) will be made public, where possible, on a regular basis in a manner easily understood and used by the public ; Compliance data will distinguish s tate information from Indian country information ;
I nformation will be made available to commun ities, including tribal communities, who lack

access to the internet ;
The Criminal Enforcement program will c ontinue to develop its use of new outreach methods

such a s F acebook, T witter and mobile applications to encourage the public‘s reporting of potential violations and to provide leads through the fugitive s website http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/.

Agency Focus on Electro nic Reporting: On March 24, 2011, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe issued a memorandum in which he affirmed his support for using the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) as the preferred means of environmental data sharing betwee n EPA, states, tribes, and others. Also, this memorandum affirmed the unanimous ECOS resolution calling for full implementation of the Exchange Network, and represented a renewed joint commitment to success of the

Network. The Office of Enforcement and C ompliance Assurance supports this goal. The specific activities which must be carried out in support of this are discussed on pages 3 4 and

41 of this guidance.

The Environmental Information Exchange Network has provided the foundation for EPA

, states an d tribes to now move aggressively to convert from old fashioned paper reports to electronic reporting. To reduce burden, improve compliance, expand the information available to the public about pollution that affects them, and improve the ability of EPA

,

s tates and tribes to implement environmental programs, the Agency has commenced a comprehensive initiative to convert to electronic reporting. EPA is focusing this initiative in

two main areas: (1) developing an Agency wide policy to ensure that new regul ations include electronic reporting in the most efficient way; and (2) developing and then implementing an Agency plan to convert the most important existing paper reports to electronic, while also looking for opportunities to reduce or streamline outdated paperFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 10

reporting. Since this work is cross

- cutting, EPA has established an Agency Electronic Reporting Task Force to lead and manage this work.

The Agency invites the provision of examples to the Electronic Reporting Task Force of experiences in moving from paper to electronic reporting. We are interested in learning from

the states and tribes about their successes and challenges in converting from paper reporting

to elec tronic. T he Agency will keep states and tribes informed about its progress in this

initiative. If a state would like to share information with the Electronic Reporting Task Force, please contact David Hindin (OECA) and Andy Battin (OEI) for more information.

Strengthening State, Tribal and Internat ional Partnerships

Regions will continue to implement the CWA Action Plan in FY2013 by collaborating with

states to address NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities, including work

- sharing; A majority of program narratives in the FY2013 guidance contain specific activities regarding state and tribal relationships; Regions should consult, as appropriate, with tribes when conducting civil inspections and enforcement activity consistent with the applicable media and/or program

- spe cific compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies, and OECA‘s ―Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy‖ (1/17/01) . Consultations, civil inspections and enforcement activity should ensure the same degree of p rotection of human health and environmental protection in Indian country as elsewhere in the U.S.

Working for Environmental Justice (EJ) and Children’s Health

The impact of enforcement and compliance efforts in communities overburdened by

exposure to e nvironmental risks, including minority, low

- income and indigenous communities, as well as those with greater concentrations of sensitive populations, is an important consideration as OECA undertakes investigations and compliance activities. Regions are di rected to use the Agency‘s environmental justice tools and methodologies as they consider any environmental justice aspects to their enforcement and compliance

activities. Specific OECA EJ performance expectations, which include children‘s health as approp riate, are discussed in Section II of this guidance.

OECA‘s national enforcement initiatives address some of the m ore complex pollution problems, especially those confined to a particular sector or source type, and can have positive impacts on children‘s health. For example:

o Reducing widespread air pollution from large sources, especially the coal

- fired utility, cement, glass, and acid sectors can lessen adverse health effects such as asthma, respiratory diseases and premature death in communities overb urdened by exposure to environmental risks and vulnerable populations, including children.

o Preventing raw sewage from contaminating surface and ground waters reduces children‘s exposure to disease

- causing pathogens or other contaminants which have poten tial

adverse health effects.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 11

o Addressing the human health and environmental threats from of mining and mineral processing can reduce exposure to asbestos and lead poisoning in children.

OECA’s FY 2013 Children Health Measure: In addition to the nat ional initiatives, OECA reduces risks to children through compliance monitoring and enforcement of lead based paint (LBP) rules. Recent data show that tremendous progress has been made in the continuing effort to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a na tional public health concern. Based on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA has measured progress by tracking reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead

- levels (EBLLs) of 10 micrograms per deciliter (m g/dL) or higher. CDC data released in 2009 indicated that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning at 10 mg/dL has declined from approximately 1.6 percent

of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006.

At the same time, however, new data are revealing adverse health effects to children at lower lead levels than previously recognized. Thus, even though initial gains have been encouraging,

EPA wishes to achieve further reductions in the incidence of children with EBLLs lower than 10 mg/dL. Mon itoring and enforcement efforts to promote compliance with LBP rules, particularly

the Re novation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, advance the goal of eliminating and preventing LBP hazards, which are the primary single cause of childhood lead poisoning. These efforts support the Agency‘s mission to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. For this reason, the LBP component of OECA‘s TSCA 01 ACS commitment, which focuses on inspections, will serve as OECA‘s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to prote ct children‘s health.

Better Serving Communities

In FY 2013, EPA will institutionalize its commitment to support communities both through the resources EPA offers and the means by which we coordinate among programs. Since March 2010, when Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe convened a

multi

- region, multi

- program effort to steer the Agency towards using communities as one of the Agency‘s ―organizing principles,‖ significant progress has been made. A subset of 27 ―community

- based programs‖ have bee n identified that, while not exhaustive, illustrate the investment the agency has made across offices in direct assistance to communities. For example, s ince its inception in 1994, OECA‘s Environmental Justice Small Grants Program has awarded more than $23 million in funding to 1,253 community

- based organizations, and local and tribal organizations working with communities facing environmental justice issues

. Additionally, geomapping capabilities were completed in March 2012 to help the Agency identify and track where EPA is working in communities through grants and technical assistance. The geomapping has the potential to better coordinate Headquarters and regional efforts and improve the ability to identify potential gaps in service to communities. F inally, new grants policy guidance also went into effect in March establishing a  ̳One EPA‘ approach to coordinating and implementing community

- based grant programs.

In implementing EPA‘s long

- term goals for an improved environment and better public

health in communities, for FY 2013, R egions are asked to consider the following opportunities where appropriate: 1) Strengthen involvement and increase investment inFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 12

one or more of the Agency‘s programs that comprise the Community

- Based Coordination Network; 2) Support ongoing inter

- agency partnerships that align resources or activities in communities (e.g. the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, the

HUD

- DOT

- EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities, the Urban Waters partnership and others); 3) Adhere to OGD‘s Community

- Based Grants Policy, including implementing identified best practices for streamlining competitions, considering combining competitions, and implementing protocols to geo

- code projects for inclusion in Agency

- wide mapping; 4) Wo rk with OGD and OEJ to post competition schedules and other grant information ; 5) Utilize OSWER‘s Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) contract to provide technical assistance for communities that find it difficult to manage grants ( Contact : Howard Corcoran, OARM, 202

- 564

- 1903 ); and 6) Increase the amount of training provided to regional staff to work within tribes and other communities (for example, OITA‘s Working Effectively with Tribal Governments online training, http://intranet.epa.gov/aieointr/training/tribal/EPA/mainmenu/launchPage.htm

, the EJ Fundamentals Course available through http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/neti/index

new.html ).

Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

It is a priority of the Agency to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/t6lawrg.htm. This statute prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, including limited English proficiency (LEP), by entities receiving Federal financial assistance. As required by implementing EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, EPA appli cants must complete EPA Form 4700

- 4 to demonstrate compliance with Title VI and other non discrimination statutes and regulations, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/adobe/4700

- 4_sec.pdf . The regula tions also impose specific obligations on grant recipients, including providing compliance information, establishing grievance procedures, designating a Title VI Coordinator, and providing notices of non

- discrimination, http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/40p0007.pdf

. Title VI requires EPA financial assistance recipients to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. To implement that requirement, and consistent with Executive Order 13166, http://www.epa.gov/cvilrights/docs/eo13166.pdf. , the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance to recipients entitled, " Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Financial Assistance Recipien ts Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons." http://frwebgate.access.gpo. gov/cgi

bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004_register&docid=fr25jn04

- 79.pd OCR also published a Title VI Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06

- 2691.pdf

. In coordination with the grants management community, OARM will work with OCR and the Office of General Counsel to develop and implement appr opriate grant conditions, training programs and monitoring strategies to help achieve compliance with Title VI and implementing regulations and guidance.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 13

All recipients of EPA financial assistance have an affirmative obligation to implement

effective Title VI compliance programs and ensure that their actions do not involve discriminatory treatment and do not have discriminatory effects even when facially neutral. Recipients should be prepared to demonstrate that such compliance programs exist and are being implemented or to otherwise demonstrate how they are meeting their Title VI obligations.

F. Significant Changes from FY2012

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance‘s FY 2013 guidance continues to focus

on the Administrator‘s and Assistant Administrator‘s goals, and on aligning enforcement and compliance priorities with those of the other EPA national program managers as appropriate

. The FY 2013 guidance descr ibes specific expectations for R egions in implementing the Assistant

Administrator ‘s priorities and explains how the enforcement program supports the priorities of other EPA national programs. Some notable changes in specific programs contained within this guidance are as follows:

Next Generation Compliance: OECA has identified a critical new investment area aimed at instituting next generation compliance practices to build 21 st century technical capabilities and efficiencies in assuring compliance. Consistent with EPA‘s desire to better address large regulated universes with approaches that go beyond traditional inspection and enforcement activities, OECA and the R egions are supporting the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve targeting and transparency and advancing ne w monitoring technologies to identify violations impacting public health and harming the environment. F or consent decrees that include a requirement to conduct a performance test(s), R egions should seek having electronic copies of required performance

tes t reports submitted to the Agency through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) when

feasible.

Budget Challenges for FY 2013: Anticipating tight budgets in FY 2013 and beyond,

OECA needs to take steps now to ensure that limited resources remain available t o focus on our highest priorities

-- the pollution problems that pose the greatest threat to human health

and the environment. Addressing our highest priorities in a time of declining resources requires us to consider what we may no longer be able to do a s an Agency. This requires

some difficult choices on our part

.

Earlier this year, OECA, working closely with EPA R egions and program offices, identified our high

- priority areas, and at the same time, identified areas where, out of necessity, we should consider stopping or reducing work. The budget challenges facing all of us have

forced OECA to scale back on otherwis e important work such as Superfund enforcement and

other areas discussed in the media

- specific sections of this guidance. However, even as we

make difficult choices and cut back in certain areas, OECA retains and will use our capacity to respond to the mo st egregious cases via criminal enforcement.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 14

This guidance identifies those areas where we will focus our resources

-- both in advancing the Administrator's and EPA's enforcement program goals. As stated above , it also flags those areas we anticipat e will be subject to reduced emphasis or disinvestment. These difficult choices reflect the need to ensure that we can deploy adequate resources to effectively address our highest priorities in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, and that budget reductions mean some redirection and further focus is

necessary.

This guidance directs that

, as we develop disinvestment plans for areas of partial and complete disinvestments, we do not initiate new work (e.g., inspections) in th ese areas without senior management approvals. Consultation with senior managers in Headquarters

should occur in these instances.

More specific plans for the disinvestment areas are forthcoming, and will describe how

OECA intends to effectively reduce t he level of activity in these areas and ensure that our highest priorities are fully implemented, including the need to create room for and invest in next generation technologies and practices. In order to implement these plans and focus on the highest pri orities, it will be critical to maintain travel funds for compliance monitoring and enforcement and scale back on other types of travel instead if Regional travel is limited

. OECA is seeking regional input on the disinvestment guidance in a separate effor t that is underway and will finalize the disinvestment plans by the end of March 2012. OECA anticipates re

- training staff who work in the disinvestment areas to take on other compliance

assurance and enforcement work, and ultimately shifting resources to those highest priorities.

Audit Policy/Self

- Disclosures: The EPA R egions should c onsult with Headquarters before initiating any new work in response to self

- disclosures. For FY 2013, the Audit Policy/Self Disclosure program is one of the areas where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in this area to a level of minimal national coverage. Although the Audit Policy/Self

- Disclosure program has yielded a significant number of annual disclosures, the

environmental benefit from those disclosures is estimated to be s ignificantly less than from traditional enforcement, and the disclosures have generally not focused on the highest priority areas.

RCRA Subtitle C Program: OECA deleted the ACS commitment RCRA 04 for financial assurance. However, the NPM Guidance emphasizes that financial assurance compliance evaluations should be part of any Compliance Evaluation Inspection.

T oxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Program : Starting in FY2013, the One TSCA approach includes activities in each TSCA focus area not subject to FY 2013 disinvestment. The extent of those activities is dependent on the suite of problems the Region identifies, and

the resources available to address them. Many of the activities are likely to be ones that

R egions have previously conducted, but were not captured in the ACS process.

CAA 112(r) Program: Potential changes to the definition of high risk facilities under the CAA 112(r) program have been reflected in this year‘s NPM Guidance.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 15

Air Toxics National Enforcement Initiative : Industrial facilities emit significant amounts

of hazardous air pollut ants (HAPs). Causes include noncompliance with regulations intended to prevent the incomplete combustion of HAPs in steam

- assisted flares due to low heat

content and over

- steaming. EPA has determined that these problems are particularly likely to

occur a t petroleum refineries and chemical, petrochemical, and polymer manufacturers.

Under the Air Toxics National Enf orcement Initiative (NEI), the R egions are targeting compliance evaluations (including CAA Section 114 information requests) at facilities in

th ese sectors. The goal of the flaring enforcement enhancements are to improve EPA's efficiency and effectiveness in targeting, enforcing against, and reducing illegal emissions of HAPs from flares. We will do so by piloting innovative, efficient enforceme nt approaches, i.e., a flaring efficiency enforcement alert combined with individual

- facility flaring notices, and using HQ contr actor resources to enhance the R egions‘ ability to evaluate facilities' compliance based on their 114 responses, respond to vio lations, and meet existing ACS commitments more efficiently. In addition, we will use the results to demonstrate compliance and pollution control impacts beyond individual flaring enforcement actions to show general deterrence

.

Integrated Municipal Plan ning Approach : EPA is engaging stakeholders to develop and implement an Integrated Municipal Planning Approach to address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations related to their municipal sewer system infrastructure. This approach will allow municipali ties to prioritize CWA requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first, while maintaining existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality. All or part of an integr ated plan may be incorporated into the remedy of enforcement actions. After the details of the development and implementation of this Approach are finalized, OECA will decide what modifications to the National Municipal Enforcement Initiative are necessa ry to promote and implement it. More detail about the changes and their implications will be made available after a series of meetings with states, local governments and environmental groups are held

and it is finalized. More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/integrated_planning_framework%20_draft.pdf

.

Preparation for implementing the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule: This guid ance identifies activiti es the R egions and s tates must complete to prepare for implementing the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, including support of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network).

EJ Screen: OECA will continue to participate in the cross

- agency work of the EJ Screen Workgroup, which is developing a nationally consistent EJ screening tool (EJ Screen) for Agency

- wide use. In the interim, OECA will continue to use its internal tool, the

Environm ental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and other information to support targeting and development of enforcement actions and to enhance performance reporting. As we implement Plan EJ 2014, it will be important to ensure that

OECA‘s i nternal guidance to enforcement case teams is consistent with the approach(es) being developed by the EJ Screen Workgroup. Therefore, upon completion of EJ Screen, OECA expects to phase out EJSEAT and other screening tools, and will be working withFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 16

R egion s to provide guidance on consistent use of EJ Screen around the country

. Sections in

th is guidance referring to EJSEAT will change as a result of the transition to EJ Screen.

FY 2013 Children’s Health Measure for OECA : As proposed, the Lead Based Paint component of OECA‘s TSCA 01 ACS commitment, which focuses on lead inspections, will serve as OECA‘s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to protect children‘s

health

.

Inspector Credentials: In FY 2013, R egions will be required to re

- credential m any of their inspectors. Documentation of the requirements and the process for obtaining credentials are established in EPA Order 3510. EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints

and distributes credentials (i.e. state and t ribal credenti als) must conduct an annual inventory including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the c redentials. OECA will work

the R egions to establish a schedule and necessary steps for the re

- credentialing of inspectors.

Compliance Monitoring Nationa l Dialogue: OECA will be holding a national dialogue on how to expand the range of compliance monitoring activities to be credited under media

C ompliance Monitoring Strategies (C MS ) . This is necessary as the regulated universe continues to grow while fede ral and state resources become scarcer. Traditionally, on

- site compliance inspections and investigations have been the primary means for providing coverage of the regulated universe. There are many additional activities regulatory agencies

do to monitor facility

- level compliance that can and should be considered along with inspections and investigations as contributi ng to our coverage goals. EPA R egions, states and tribes should participate in this national dialogue in 2012, and be ready to implement the

outcome of this discussion in 2013.

G . Contacts

For general questions or comments on the OECA National Program Managers Guidance please

contact:

Maureen L ydon Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Office of Compliance Planning, Measures, and Oversight Division 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, M2221A Washington, DC 20460

Email: lydon.maureen@epa.govFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 17

SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS

OECA has structured the NPM Guidance to focus on the performance expectations of the national enforcement program in terms of 1 ) achieving the Enforcement G oals, 2 ) making progress in attaining compliance within the national enforcement initiative areas and 3 )

supp orting the EPA program offices in achieving their environmental and public health goals.

EPA will post the FY 201 3 NPM draft Guidance to allow R egions, state s, t ribes, and others to

review and comment on the draft. In the past, OECA has received comment from R egion s,

s tate s, t ribes, and other stakeholders

. OECA will respond to the comments and incorporate changes, as needed, in the final documents. The final guidance and a Response to Comments Summary will be posted on the I nternet showing the action ta ken in the final guidance as a result

of comments.

SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

EXPECTATIONS

OECA plays a dual role in setting performance expectations for environmental justice. First, OECA oversees national and regiona l compliance assurance and enforcement programs. In this role, OECA ensures that facilities in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental problems are complying with the law. OECA aggressively applies regulatory tools to protect

these commu nities, en gages our regional, federal, state and tribal partners to meet community needs, and fosters community involvement in EPA‘s decision

- making processes by making

information available , as appropriate

.

Second, OECA is the National Program Manager for the Agency‘s Environmental Justice (EJ) Program , operating as the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) . The EJ Program promotes environmental justice to foster public health and sustainability in overburde ned

communities and works to enable all major EPA Headquarter and Regional offices to address environmental justice as part of their day

- to

- day business

. In FY13, the OEJ will continue its work with EPA Regional Offices to provide communities with funding, technical support, and tools to empower them to take action to address issues in their

communities.

OECA and all R egions are implementing the s trategies and a ctivities outlined in Advancing Environmental Justice through Enforcement and Compliance , on e of the five cross

- cutting areas identified for Agency

- wide action in EPA‘s Plan EJ 2014. OECA‘s goals under this Plan are to fully integrate consideration of EJ concerns 3 into the planning and implementation of program

3 EPA defines ―environmental justice‖ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EJ concerns with respect to ―fair treatment‖ arise where there are actual or potential disproportionate impacts on minority, low

- income, or indigenous populations that exist prior to or that may be created by a proposed action. EJ concerns with respect to ―meaningful involvement‖ arise where there is an actual or potential lack of opportunities for minority, low

- inc ome, or indigenous populations, or tribes, to effectively and appropriately participate in decision

- making. These terms are discussed in more detail in Part I of

EPA‘s “Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice during the Development of an Act ion” (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej

- rulemaking.html).FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 18

strategies, case targeting strateg ies, and development of remedies in enforcement actions to

benefit overburdened communities 4 . OECA also plans to accelerate efforts to communicate more effectively with vulnerable and overburdened communities about enforcement actions and program activiti es.

OECA has developed five strategies for Advancing Environmental Justice through Enforcement and Compliance 5 : 1. Advance EJ goals through selection and implementation of National Enforcement

Initiatives.

2. Advance EJ goals through targeting and development of compliance and enforcement

actions.

3. Enhance u se of enforcement and compliance tools to advance EJ goals in Regions‘ geographic initiatives to address overburdened communities.

4. Seek appropriate remedies in enforcement actions to benefit vulnerable and overburdened

communities and address EJ concerns.

5. Enhance c ommunicat ion with affected communities and the public regarding EJ concerns and the distribution and benefits of enforcement actions, as appropriate

.

For FY201 3 , OECA will address our Plan EJ 2014 goals through the following performance expectations.

1. Advance EJ g oals through Selection and Implementation of National Enforcement

Initiatives

OECA will continue to look for opportunities to address EJ concerns as it implements the

National Enforcement I nitiatives for FY2011

- 13. A ―Strategy Implementation Team,‖ consisting of OECA headquarters and regional representatives, developed implementation strategies and performance measures for each of the National Enforcement Initiatives. Each

initiative‘s str ategy discusses how EJ concerns can be addressed in carrying out its activities,

e.g. by considering EJ concerns. The Agency also will seek appropriate judicial and administrative remedies that reduce or eliminate pollution that may have a disproportionat e impact on overburdened populations.

To support EPA‘s cross

- cutting fundamental strategy on Environmental Justice and Children‘s Health, OECA‘s EJ Council is evaluating how existing program initiatives/activities can be enhanced, as part of Plan EJ 2014

, to maximize environmental and human health benefits for disproportionately burdened commu nities. In FY2013, OECA

and all R egions will implement the National Enforcement Initiative s consistent with this commitment, including reporting on these benefits.

4 In Plan EJ 2014, EPA uses the term ―overburdened‖ to describe the minority, low

- income, tribal, and indigenous populations or communities in the United States that potentially e xperience disproportionate environmental harms and risks as a result of greater vulnerabi lity to environmental hazards. This increased vulnerability may be

attributable to an accumulation of both negative and lack of positive environmental, health, economi c, or social

conditions within these populations or communities.

5 The link to OECA‘s Plan EJ 2014 implementation plan is: http://www.epa.gov/environmental justiceplan

- ej/ce

initiatives.htmlFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 19

2. Adv ance EJ Goals t

hrough Targeting and Development of Compliance and Enforcement Actions

OECA and the Regions place a high priority on addressing EJ concerns as the specific targeting and case selection strategies for both National Enforcement Initiative and other enforcement cases are implemented. As discussed above, the Strategic Implementation Teams for each Initiative have identified potential opportunities to protect and benefit overburdened communities when selecting and developing specific cases to ac hieve the Initiative goals. For example, facilities that are impacting or threatening the drinking water supplies of poor rural communities could be given priority attention when Teams are selecting specific CAFO facilities for enforcement action. OECA a nd the Regions will also give specific consideration and attention to overburdened communities, including those in Indian country, when selecting enforcement actions to address other important compliance problems. For example, in selecting enforcement act ions to address violations of drinking water standards, we will give high priority to addressing violations at water supply systems that serve poor and tribal communities, as well as children, one of our most vulnerable populations.

OECA will continue to p articipate in the cross

- agency work of the EJ Screen Workgroup, which is developing a nationally consistent EJ screening tool (EJScreen) for Agency

- wide use. In the interim, OECA will continue to use its internal tool, the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and other information to support targeting and development of enforcement actions and to enhance performance reporting. As we implement Plan EJ 2014, i t will be important to e nsure that OECA‘s internal guidance to

enfo rcement case teams is consistent with the approach(es) being developed by the EJ Screen Workgroup. Therefore, upon completion of EJ Screen, OECA expects to phase out EJSEAT and other screening tools, and will be working with R egions to provide guidance on using th e national tool to develop consistent use of EJ Screen around the country. Sections in th is guidance referring to EJSEAT will change as a result of the transition to EJ Screen.

COMMITMENT EJ01: HQ will analyze FY12 EJ SEAT data to consider develo p ing a baseline for a budget measure related to case initiations in areas with EJ concerns

.

In FY 2013, OECA will evaluate and begin post

- pilot implementation of the Technical Directive: Reviewing EPA Enforcement Cases for Potential Environmental Justice Concerns and Reporting Findings to the ICIS Data System . Regions and OECA will review new enforcement cases for potential EJ concerns and enter the EJ data into ICIS

in accordance with the Technical Directive.

Each region will review its civil enforcement cases initiated in FY 2013 for

Environmental Justice concerns in accordance with the internal Technical Directive. All enforcement cases with an EJSEAT score of 1, 2, or 3 will receive an enhanced level of

review for EJ concerns in accordance with the Tech nical Directive.

In December, 2011, the Office of Criminal Enforcement issued the policy, ―OCEFT Policy to Integrate E nvironmental Justice Concerns in Assessments of Criminal Investigations‖ and will use the EJSEAT, or EJ Screen when it becomes available, as partFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 20

of assessments for potential EJ concerns. OCEFT has modified its Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) to track EJ reviews.

3. Enhance Use of Enforcement and Compliance Tools to Ad vance EJ Goals in Regions’ Geog raphic Initiatives to Address Overburdened Communities

Regions will continue to develop integrated strategies to focus on particular geographic areas in their Regions with overburdened communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental prob lems. Integrated strategies consider the full range of EPA‘s enforcement and compliance assurance tools to identify and address environmental problems in areas with EJ concerns that are caused or made worse by violations of federal environmental laws.

R egions, together with state s, tribes and other partners as appropriate, should evaluate facility compliance in overburdened communities selected for strategic focus. These evaluations should be targeted using the best available data and methods in light o f the overall objectives of EPA‘s enforcement and compliance assurance work. In this way, community

- focused initiatives will complement the national enforcement initiatives and

other sector

- based and program

- specific enforcement activities, meeting OECA‘s goal of strategically using limited compliance monitoring and enforcement resources to address the most significant issues first. Regions should tailor compliance and enforcement actions to enhance EPA‘s ability to gain environmental benefits in overbur dened communities. For example, this could

include use of multi

- media inspections and/or process inspections to comprehensively address potential impacts from violations at a given facility. OECA and the Regions should consider activities to effectively r each large numbers of small sources with environmental violations that have significant local impacts on

overburdened communities.

4. Seek Appropriate Remedies in Enforcement Actions to Benefit Vulnerable and

Overburdened Communities and Address EJ Con cerns

OECA and the Regions, and the Environmental Enforcement Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are jointly heightening their focus in civil enforcement cases on potential options to obtain meaningful environmental benefits to specific overburdened communities impacted by violations of federal environmental laws. These efforts go beyond traditional injunctive relief to stop illegal pollution, to provide for mitigation of the environmental harm caused by illegal pollution and, where appropriate and agreed to by defendants, Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) to provide benefits to communities. For example, in a case involving illegal discharges of pollutants from a facility that damaged a tribal fishing area, the relief ordered (in addition t o stopping the illegal discharges) included restocking the fishing ground. EPA has also been successful in obtaining SEPs from defendants to retrofit diesel school buses to reduce children‘s exposure to air pollution. We will continue and

accelerate thes e types of efforts to reduce pollution burdens that have a disproportionate impact on overburdened populations.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 21

In addition to the benefits that can be obtained for overburdened communities through judicial and administrative enforcement actions, there ma y be other, parallel opportunities to obtain additional benefits for the community through cooperation with other federal agencies, state or local governments, and/or the business community. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmen t may be able to provide housing assistance or other community benefits in a ―brownfields‖ area where EPA has taken enforcement action to clean up environmental contamination. State or local governments may have projects or grant funding that can be used to improve the community‘s infrastructure or environment in an area that is also the focus of EPA compliance or enforcement action. In situations where air emissions from multiple industrial facilities continue to adversely affect community health despite their compliance with emission limitations, some business communities may be willing to work together to take voluntary action to further reduce the emissions that adversely affect the community. Examples of such voluntary actions may

include: a health clinic established and operated together with local, state and community members; a household hazardous waste collection drive; a local company voluntarily agreeing to post compliance monitoring information directly on a public website to allow community m embers to check on compliance; ―good neighbor agreements‖ between local companies and communities to address facility impacts not regulated by a permit or other law. OECA and the Regions will identify specific opportunities, in cases or regional geographi c initiatives, to work with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and/or the business community to complement and leverage benefits resulting from enforcement activities. OECA and the Regions will document and share recommendations

and best practices for taking action on these opportunities.

OECA‘s criminal enforcement program is engaged in similar activities. In c ases considered to have potential EJ concerns the criminal investigation team will meet with the regional EJ

coordinator to o btain additional information supporting the preliminary EJ determination as well as the community‘s health and environmental problems. O CEFT will increase efforts to benefit affected communities by working with DOJ to (1) explore innovative uses of crimin al sentencing options, e.g., community service or environmental compliance plans, and (2) take into account information obtained pursuant to the Crimes Victim‘s Rights Act (CVRA) when developing environmental crimes case resolutions, e.g., restitution. Th e CVRA provides crime victims with multiple rights, including the right to be heard in a sentencing proceeding and the right to full and timely restitution. The CVRA also authorizes the courts to fashion reasonable procedures to give effect to the statute ‘s requirements when multiple crime

victims

– such as a neighborhood or community

– are involved. Restitution and community service may partially or fully remedy the harm caused by the violation(s), as well as improve

the environment of the affected overb urdened communities and the health of its residents. Even where the specific pollution and/or harmful effects caused by the crime may no longer be mitigated or remedied, community service can address similar threats in the same ecosystem or general geogra phic area.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 22

5. Enhance Communicat ion with Affected Communities and the Public Regarding EJ Concerns and the Distribution and Benefits of Enforcement Actions, As Appropriate

OECA and EPA Regions

, with the Department Of Justice

, will continue to increase their

communication with affected communities and the public about enforcement strategies and actions that may affect vulnerable a nd overburdened communities. OECA recognize s that communities have a legitimate need to be informed and to understan d the federal government‘s enforcement activities to protect their environment, and to have their voices heard when solutions are being considered to redress environmental problems caused by

violations of federal environmental laws that affect their commun ity. As OECA implements Plan EJ 2014, we commit to increase our outreach to communities and to provide more information about environmental problems caused by failure to comply with federal environmental laws, our efforts to address those problems, and a vailable judicial and administrative solutions to those problems that can address the communities‘ concerns and

needs.

At the same time, it is important for affected communities , including Tribal governments, to understand the legitimate and essential nee d to protect the confidentiality of enforcement activity when a case is under development and in settlement negotiations . This is essential to assure that effective enforcement, and its ultimate benefits for the community, will not be

undermined and adver sely affected by premature disclosure of confidential enforcement information. While this consideration will necessarily limit the amount and kind of information that EPA is able to share with the community at various stages of enforcement activity, we ar e committed to sharing as much information as possible to enable communities to be informed and to have their voices heard in the determination of appropriate resolutions

for violations of federal environmental laws that affect communities.

While incr ease d communication is important, it is no less important to receive input from

affected communities on potential violations. We will continue to invite tips and complaints, including through such means as OECA‘s on

- line reporting badge and the EPA fugitives webpage.

OECA and the Regions will review their enforcement dockets to identify communities

with EJ concerns that could benefit from enhanced communication and consultation regarding enforcement activities, and provide the communities , including Tribal

go vernments, with additional information (consistent with the confidentiality requirements needed to protect the integrity of enforcement actions). OECA and the Regions will also provide opportunities for communities to provide input

on EJ concerns and remedies to be sought in enforcement actions that affect their communities. This information will be provided through EPA‘s website, local information repositories, and other appropriate means. To assist in identifying the risks and pollution experienced by a community due to environmental crimes and potential remedies, OECA and DOJ will consider information obtained pursuant to the Crime Victim‘s Rights Act (CVRA). In these situations, appropriate CVRA mechanisms may be utilized for outreach to and commu nication with victims, input into case resolution, and sentencing.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 23

OECA and the Regions recognize that EPA‘s enforcement processes, e.g. the enforcement processes concerning hazardous waste site cleanup that affect communities with EJ concerns, are often c omplicated and can be difficult for the public to understand

and to follow. To increase affected communities‘ ability to understa nd our enforcement processes, EPA will continue to improve the accessibility to communities of the information provided on EPA ‘s website, develop and make available fact sheets to better explain EPA‘s enforcement process at particular sites, and update for internal EPA use a compendium of ―best practices‖ that will encourage and facilitate EPA employees‘

efforts to make enforceme nt information more available to the public. EPA‘s enforcement actions frequently provide significant benefit s to vulnerable and overburdened communities, including reduction of air or water pollution, cleanup of toxic and hazardous waste, and additional c ommunity benefits such as diesel bus retrofits and other benefits made available through Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). However, the community is able to appreciate these benefits only to the extent that it is aware of them. Therefore, OECA and the Regions will continue accelerating our efforts to communicate, through press releases, our website and other means, the benefits of our enforcement actions for vulnerable and overburdened communities, consistent with the

internal memorandum entitle d ― Guidance on Characterizing and Communicating Environmental Justice Benefits Achieved in Enforcement Actions ‖ (Sept. 2011).FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 24

S ECTION I I I : KEY PROGRAM PRIORIT IES AND STRATEGI E S TO ADDRESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION

A . Clean A ir Act (CAA)

OECA addresses air pollution problems through the following CAA programs:

Part 60

- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

Part 61

- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

Part 63

- M aximum Achievable C ontrol T echnology (MACT)

o M aximum Achievable C ontrol T echnology (MACT)

– major sources

o Generally Available Control Technology (GACT)

– area sources
N ew S ource R eview /P revention of S ignificant D eterioration (NSR/PSD) Enforcement of State Implementation Plans and plans developed and approved under Section 111(d) Title V Operating Permits

Part 82

- Title VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection Section 112(r) Prevention of Accidental Releases Title II (Emission Standards for M oving Sources)

Section 129 S olid W aste Combustion

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

The relevant FY 2011

– 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CAA programs are discussed below. Region

- specific commitments for activities to support the goals and measures are negotiated through the ACS process.

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affect s Communities’ Health : In 1990, Congress identified hazardous air pollutants (H APs ), currently totaling 187

, that present significant threat s to human

health and have adverse ecological impacts ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html ). The pollutants are known or suspected to c ause cancer and other serious health effects, such as reproductive or birth defects. The threats posed by HAPs may be particularly significant for communities overburdened by exposure to environmental risks, including urban minority and

low

- income communit ies, as well as those with greater concentrations of sensitive populations. The CAA and EPA‘s regulations impose strict emission control requirements (known as

―Maximum Achievable Control Technology‖ or ―MACT‖) for these pollutants, which are emitted by a wide range of industrial and commercial facilities. For FY2011

- 13, EPA will target and reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants in three areas where the Agency has determined there are high rates of noncompliance: (A) leak detection and repair; (B) waste gas flares; and (C) excess emissions, including those associated with startup, shut down and malfunction. Through the Air T oxics Initiative, EPA will undertake compliance monitoring and enforcement

activities to maximize environmental and human health benefits , which is particularly important for disproportionately burdened communities. As part of this effort, OECA will utilize innovative monitoring and evaluati on techniques and partner with EPA‘s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Office of Research and Development. OECA will also provide equipment and training to inspectors to enhance the effectiveness of on

- site activities.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 25

Reducing Widespread Air Pollutio n from the Largest Sources, Especially the Coal

- fired Utility, Cement, Glass, and Acid Sectors : The NSR/PSD requirements of the CAA require certain large industrial facilities to install state

- of

- the

- art air pollution controls when they build

new faciliti es or make ―significant modifications‖ to existing facilities. However, many industries have not complied with these requirements, leading to excess emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. These pollutan ts can be carried long distances by the wind and can have significant adverse effects on human health, including asthma, respiratory diseases and premature death. These effects may be particularly significant for communities overburdened by exposure to en vironmental risks and vulnerable populations, including children. In recent years, EPA has made considerable progress in reducing excess pollution by bringing enforcement actions against coal

- fired power plants, cement manufacturing facilities, sulfuric an d nitric acid manufacturing facilities, and glass manufacturing facilities. However, work remains to be done to bring these sectors into compliance with the CAA and protect communities burdened with harmful air pollution.

Therefore EPA will continue this w ork as a National Enforcement Initiative for FY2011

- 2013. EPA will also place emphasis on compliance evaluations and enforcement actions relating to the carbon black industry

.

As of January 2, 2011, EPA also began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) und er its NSR program. EPA will endeavor to ensure these pollutants are also addressed in any process changes or modification that gives rise to NSR requirements.

Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws: As the nation expands it s search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we develop ―clean energy‖ sources that protect our air, water and land. Some energy extraction activities, such as new techniques for gas extraction, pose a risk of pollu tion of air, surface waters and ground waters if not properly controlled. For example, an unprecedented acceleration

of natural gas leasing and development has led to a significant rise in the level of air pollution throughout the intermountain West. Dri lling and fracking activities have led to concerns about ground water pollution and the safety of drinking water supplies in various parts of the country. To address these emerging problems, OECA‘s energy extraction initiative is focusing on efforts

to as sure that natural gas extraction activities are complying with federal requirements to prevent pollution of our air, water and land. EPA is addressing incidences of noncompliance from natural gas extraction and production activities that may cause or contr ibute to harm to public health

and/or the environment.

2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities

OECA addresses top OAR priorities in the following ways:

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) : OECA continues to support the Agency‘s climate strategy by recognizing reductions of global warming pollution in settlements of enforcement actions. OECA and OAR will implement a National Implementation Strategy for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program , which w ill provide guidance to Regions on compliance monitoring and enforcement activities to support the integrity of the GHG monitoring and reporting system. As noted above, OECA will also ensure that sourcesFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 26

undertaking certain process changes or modification that result in significant GHG emissions go through proper New Source Review permitting.

Air Toxics in Communities : OECA will address this Agency priority through the 2011

– 2013 National Enforcement Initiative

- cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities‘ health. OECA also is working closely with OAR and ORD to reduce toxic air pollution through standards, permitting, compliance monitoring and assistance activities, and enforcement, especially in communities overburdened by environmental prob lems.

3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

Air pollution is of great concern to communities both near its source and remotely located. Air pollutants that are emitted closer to the ground, for example as a re sult of equipment leaks or low stack height, can cause disproportionate exposure for neighboring communities. In industrial areas, these comm unit i es frequently have significant low income and minority populations.

Serious health e ffects caused by air pol lution include difficulty in breathing, exacerbation of respiratory and cardiac conditions, and cancer.

In addition to the activities being conducted pursuant to the national enforcement initiatives, Regions and delegated state , t ribal and local agencies should:

Implement programs in accordance with existing national compliance and enforcement policy and guidance (e.g., the CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS); the CAA National Stack Testing Guidance, the Timely and Appropriate Enfor cement Response to High Priority Violations (HPV Policy); and the Area Source Implementation Guidance to address significant air pollution problems that adversely affect impacted communities with special attention directed toward reducing toxic air polluti on. Regions

should wor k with delegated state, tribal and local agencies to ensure that they are familiar with national guidance, aware of the flexibilities within the guidance, and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. To identify the most important air pollution problems and the most serious violations, use targeting tools and other information, including, bu t not limited to, the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data, chemical toxicity data, non

- attainment areas, and the

Env ironmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT). Community input should also be considered. Regions and delegated agencies should continue to work with EPA Headquarters to develop new targeting tools to help focus resources on the most

im portant problems.

Have a clearly defined process for identifying, targeting, evaluating, prioritizing, and responding to CAA violations. Work together to initiate civil and criminal enforcement actions, as appropriate, and whenever necessary to protect com munities by addressing and ultimately resolving serious

air viol ations in order to bring sources into compliance. Evaluate all violations, determine an appropriate response, and take timely and appropriate actions against facilities determined to have High Priority Violations (HPV).FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 27

Enter data in AFS on all federally

- reportable violations, not just HPVs, consistent with the  ̳Clarification Regarding Federally

- Reportable Violations for Clean Air Act Stationary Sources‖ (―2010 FRV Clarification‖) issued on Mar ch 22, 2010. Negotiate settlements and track compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders and take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the terms of federal enforcement

actions. Participate in a national dialogue to broaden the types of activities that may be counted as compliance monitoring under the CAA CMS. Traditionally, on

- site compliance evaluations and investigations have been the primary means for undertaking coverage of the regulate d universe. However, as the regulated universe of sources continues to expand and challenge our ability to conduct on

- site evaluations, EPA and delegated agencies need to use available resources in the most effective manner to determine facility complianc e.

The CAA CMS does currently encourage the use of a variety of techniques to determine compliance (on

- site and off

- site FCEs, PCEs, and Investigations). Nevertheless, a national dialogue to identify additional activities and analyses that provide facility

- specific compliance status information would add important tools and technique s to our compliance monitoring toolbox. As additional activities are identified, EPA will consider how to incorporate them into the CAA CMS and t he annual negotiations between R egions and delegated agencies regarding commitments for compliance monitoring plans.

In addition, the Region s should:

Continue any on

- going investigations and initiate new ones, as appropriate. Activities reported as investigations should meet the definition of an investigation as provided in the CMS and minimum data requirements. Regions must review and approv e state implementation plans (SIPs) as well as t rack the compliance status of sources within various regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act. Both initiated and completed investigations

are t o be reported in AFS. Review Title V permits consistent with national guidance and ensure the delegated agencies/tribes are reviewing the certifications consistent with the CMS. Regions also

shou ld ensure that Title V permits do not shield sources subject to a pending or curre nt CAA enforcement action or investigation, and that draft Title V permits include appropriate placeholder language for the applicable requirement at any affected units. Reg ions should ensure that consent decree requirements, including required schedules of compliance are incorporated into underlying federally enforceable non

- Title V and Title V permits. Include evaluations of the proper use and disposal of ozone

- depleting ch lorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halon fire suppressants and other ozone depleting substances (ODS) as part of routine full compliance evaluations (FCEs)/partial compliance evaluations (PCEs) to the extent the regulations apply. Inspect federal facilities

, initiate enforcement actions to address non

- compliance at federal

facilities , and seek penalties, where appropriate, consistent with the 1997 penalty policy for CAA violations by federal agencies

. Perform CAA section 112(r) in spections at regulated facilities in the Region, including high

risk facilities. A high risk facility is one that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1) facilities whose reported Risk Management Program (RMP) worst

- case scenario populationFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 28

that e xceeds 100,000 people; 2) any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal to 25; and/or 3) facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the previous five years. (Note: fa cilities that have only program 1 processes 6 are not considered high risk). Inspections at high

- risk facilities should also include an evaluation of compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements. Regional program managers may, after consultation with and approval by headquarters, alter the population and/or hazard index thresholds for their region in order to include additional facilities on the regional high

- risk list. Regions may use this approach to account for region

- by

- region variations in population density, types of covered facil ities, facility geographic clustering or other factors. However, all changes to the high

- risk criteria must first be approved by headquarters. Evaluate facilities that experience significant chemical accidents to determine compliance

with CAA sections 112 (r)(1) and (7) and pursue an appropriate enforcement response for any violations. Conduct CAA section 112(r) inspections in accordance with the 2011 ―Guidance for Conducting Risk Management Program Inspections under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)‖

This docum ent established final EPA policy on involvement of facility employees and employee representatives in EPA and delegated agency on

- site compliance inspections as provided for in CAA section 112(r)(6)(L). Focus on identifying RMP non

- filers and initiating e nforcement in accordance with the June 30, 2010 memorandum titled  ̳Identification of Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 68‘.

Consult with Headquarters ( HQ ) before investing in new compliance assistance work.

Co mpliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in

investment. O ECA, working with the R egions, is developing a plan to implement the

reduction in work. Consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to self

- disclosures as discussed on page 14

. Se ttle or litigate cases filed in years prior to FY 2013. Exercise authority in accordance with the 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule and the Amendments to the CAA Civil Penalty Policy. Ensure compliance with environmental statutes in Indian country unless and until a Tribe obtains primacy. Regions should, when appropriate, authorize state and tribal inspectors to

conduct compliance evaluations on EPA‘s behalf. Authorization decisions, training, and tracking of state and tribal inspec tors should be undertaken consistent with OECA‘s Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which pr ints and distributes credentials (i.e.

state and t ribal credentials) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials.

6 Program 1: Processes which would not affect the public in the case of a worst

- case release (in the language of Part 68, processes ―with no public receptors within the distance to an endpoint

from a worst

- case release‖) and with no accidents with specific offsite consequences within the past five years are eligible for Program 1, which imposes limited hazard assessment requirements and minimal prevention and emergency response requirements.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 29

Support the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve compliance, transparency and targeting as well as by advancing new monitoring technologies to enhance the ability to identify violations that may harm public health and/or the environment. For example, for consent decrees that inc lude a requirement

to conduct a performance test(s), R egions should seek having electronic copies of required performance test reports submitted to the Agency through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) when feasible.

COMMITMENT CAA04 : The number of compliance evaluations (or other agreed upon compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national dialogue on CAA compliance monitoring) to be conducted by the R egions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appr opriate). [Note: Region should break out evaluation projections by source classification and by compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and Investigations).] In the comment section, each region should also provide the number of federal facility FCEs, PC Es and investigations. Projected investigations under this commitment are those investigations initiated by the Regions for the air enforcement program outside of the National Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air program (e.g., MACT, NSPS).

4. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

The Regions should work with the delegated state, local and tribal agencies to identify priorities and align resources to implement the above commitments. This includes:

Holding annual planning meetings with senior federal and state management to discuss air quality standards, permitting, and enforcement when developing program goals and annual monitoring and enforcement work plans. Convening routine and regular (several times per year) meetings with senior state management to assess progress in how the s tate has been performing overall in its implementation of the program. These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. Regular frequency of these meetings is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Such meetings also will help to further region/state/local communications to ensure resources are used most effectively to address the mos t significant environmental sources of pollution and the most serious noncompliance.

Where a delegated s tate , tribe or local agency is not meeting performance expectations, the Regions should take enforcement actions to address serious violations , particul arly in the absence of an appropriate response by the state

. The Regions should focus oversight resources to the most pressing performance problems and work to demonstrably improve

s tate performance through these actions. The Regions need to take action when necessary to

raise awareness about issues need ing attention to achieve the goals of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between and among s tates and Indian Country

. The Regions should ensure delegated agencies implement compliance monitoring and enforcement programs in accordance with national guidance/policy (e.g., the CAA CMS; HPV Policy; CAA National Stack Testing Guidance; Area Source Implementation Guidance), and consistent with revisions to national emission standards, including the treatment of emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events. The Regions should monitor the level and quality of efforts undertaken by the delegated agencies to ensure stro ngFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 30

enforcement of environmental laws. Enforcement actions, whether taken by the Regions, delegated states , tribes or local agencies, should be timely, appropriate, and accurately reported. Negotiating facility

- specific CMS plans with all delegated agencie s. Throughout the year, the Regions are to be evaluating progress and working with delegated agencies to revise such CMS plans as necessary. Such planning processes are to aid the delegated agencies in fully utilizing the flexibilities available in the C MS and tailoring strategies to state/local

- specific

circumstances. Having frequent (at least monthly) discussions with delegated agencies to ensure consistent implementation of the HPV Policy. Implementing the State Review Framework for the CAA Program a nd ensuring progress with corrective actions identified in the SRF reports. Regional direct implementation in Indian country includ es applying the various CAA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies, and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation with federally

- recognized tribes in the civil compliance

m onitoring and enfor cement context and contains threshold criter i a for EPA‘s consideration

of enforcement actions

. The threshold criteria are n ot intended to, and should not, result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere

in the U.S.

COMMITMENT CAA 06 : Ensure that delegated state, tribal and local agencies implement their compliance and enforcement programs in accordance with the CAA CMS and have negotiated facility

- specific CMS plans in place. The R egions are to provide the number of FCEs at majors and 80% synthetic minors to be conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate program implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a delegated agency negotiates with a Region an alternativ e CMS plan or alternative activities (pursuant to the CAA CMS national dialogue) , this c ommitment should reflect the alternative plan. [Note: Break out evaluation and activity projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by source classific ation]. Prior to approving an alternative plan, Regions should consult with the Office of Compliance (OC) and provide OC with information on how the state , tribal or local agency compliance monitoring air resources will be redirected and the rationale for making the change.

5. Improve Transparency

The Regions should:

Work with the delegated state, tribal and loc al agencies to verify that their compliance and

enforcement data is added to the Air Facility System (AFS), the national repository for air stationary source compliance monitoring and enforcement data. Enter complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the AFS Information Collection Request (ICR) and Agency policies. Agree ments with delegated agencies to provide complete, accurate, and timely data should be incorporated in documents such as memorandum of understanding (MOU), State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs),FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 31

Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)/ Performance Partners hip Grants (PPGs) or Section 105 grant agreements. Such complete, accurate, timely data is a critical component of effective transparency. Work with EPA Headquarters to ensure that when delegated agencies use the flexibilities

offered in the CMS to tailor their strategy to state/local specific circumstances, such use of flexibility is taken into account to accurately represent delegated agency performance in program reviews and to the public. Work with EPA Headquarters to modernize AFS.

The Acid Rain enforcement program is an area of disinvestment for FY2013. OECA and EPA Regions will not conduct any new work, including inspections, in this program. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a disinvestment plan for any existing or ong oing work. OECA is addressing the excess emissions of air polluta nts such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, leading causes of acid rain, through its focus on reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal

- fired utility, cement, glass, and acid sectors, by ensuring

that certain large industrial facilities install state

- of

- the

- art air pollution controls when they build new facilities or make ―significant modifications‖ to existing facilities.

The Stratospheric Ozone enforcement program is an area where OECA anticipates a significant

reduction in investment in FY20 13. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work; please consult with Headquarters before investing in new work in this program. Through a multitude of innovative and flexible regulatory approaches and

voluntar y programs, the Agency continues to meet its responsibility for protecting the stratospheric ozone layer. Our program office implements regulatory programs to phase out the production and import of ozone

- depleting substances in the U.S. and guides the tra nsition to non

ozone depleting substitutes while ensuring adherence with the Montreal Protocol. Through regulatory and voluntary efforts as well as international engagement, education, and outreach, the Agency will continue to make significant strides to protect the ozone layer, the environment, and people's health.

The Wood Heater program and the Asbestos NESHAPs program are also areas where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence. Headquarters should be consulted

before init iat ing any new work in these areas . OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in these areas to a level of minimal national coverage. Anticipated changes to the Wood Heater program will allow OECA to refocus its work in this area. In the Asbestos NESHAP program

, OECA and the Regions will focus national

- level civil resources

and utilize criminal enforcement to respond to the most egregious cases.

6. Relevant Policies and Guidance

Additional information about OECA‘s CAA programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/index.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html

Li st of relevant CAA policies and guidance:FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 32

T he Air Facility System Business Rules Compendium www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/data/systems/air/afsbusinessrulescompendium.p

df The Air Facility System Minimum Data Requirements www.epa.gov/compl iance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cms policy.pdf CAA National Stack Testing Guidance www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/stacktesting.pdf

Area Source Rule Implementation Guidance http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/areasource.pdf The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Re sponse to High Priority Violations www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies /civil/caa/stationary/issue

- ta

- rpt.pdf The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement R e sponse to High Priority Violations Workbook www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/hpvmanualrevised.pdf CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/penpol.pdf CAA Section 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy

http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/caa112r

- enfpol.pdf
Guidance for Conducting Risk Management Program Inspections under Clean Air Act
Section 112(r) www.epa.gov/oem/docs/chem/audit_gd.pdf
Civil Penalty Policies http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/penalty/FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 33

SECTION I V : KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRA TE GIES TO ADDRESS

ENVIRO N MENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION

A. Clean Water Act (CWA)

OECA addresses water pollution problems resulting from non c ompliance with our nation‘s

environmental statutes and regulations, including the following CWA programs: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (including general and individual permits from sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater

treatment facilities and their collection systems, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), industrial stormwater , and vessels).
Pretreatment Program Biosolids/Sludge Program CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program CWA Section 311 (Oil Pollution Act, including the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program)

1. Clean Water Act Action Plan

OECA

, together with EPA R egions, s tates and tribes with program delegation, and the Office of

Water

, continues to implement the CWA Action Plan (―the Action Plan‖) issued in October

2009. Pursuant to the Action Decision Document, issued in May 2011, EPA is making four fundamental changes to revamp the NPDES permitting, compliance and enforcement program to better address today‘s serious water quality problems:

1. Switch from existing paper reporting to electronic reporting, resulting in increased efficiency and improved transparency of the NPDES program.

2. Use ―Next Generation Compliance‖ approaches to create a new paradigm in which regulations and permits compel compliance via public accou ntability, self

- monitoring, self

certification, electronic reporting and other methods.

3. Address the most serious water pollution problems by fundamentally re

- tooling key NPDES permitting and enforcement practices, while continuing to vigorously enforce ag ainst serious

violators.

4. Conduct comprehensive and coordinated permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs to improve state and EPA performance in protecting and improving water quality.

These elements are consistent with the Assistant Administrato r‘s goals for the compliance and enforcement program, listed on pages 6

- 7 of this Guidance.

Regions and authorized states should participate in workgroups tasked with designing and implementing these changes as well as use the new tools, policies and re gulations as appropriate.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 34

For FY 20 1 3 , Regions should participate in the following CWA Action Plan efforts:

1. In preparation for implementing the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, the Regions must:

a. Ensure states not already migrated to ICIS

- NPDES meet all milestones and schedules for migrating by end of first quarter FY2013.

b. Actively market and implement the use of NetDMR by permittees for the electronic transfer of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) to ICIS

- NPDES. The Regions should also begin i mplementing OECA‘s new electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) tool which is planned to be completed by the end of first quarter FY2013 contingent on FY2012 funding;

c. Ensure their states are preparing for the implementation of the electronic reporting rule by ad opting the use of EPA electronic reporting tools (NetDMR, eNOI), or developing their own state e

- reporting tools. The plan is to have the first reporting under the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule begin January 2014.

d. Work closely with the Office of Complia nce to individually evaluate their states readiness to implement the electronic reporting rule, including:

i. CROMERR

- compliant electronic reporting tools;

ii. State system readiness; and

iii. Level of participation using the state e

- reporting tools (i.e., 90%

part icipation by NPDES

- regulated facilities)

.

2. Where appropriate, and in accordance with any subsequent guidance, enforcement actions should require electronic reporting, as appropriate, for all data required by the

enforcement actions.

3. Where appropriate, and in accordance with any subsequent guidance, compliance and enforcement personnel should provide relevant feedback to permitting offices regarding permit prioritization and modifications to consider when new permits are developed or a permit is renewed. P ermit writers should consider comments provided by inspectors and/or enforcement personnel in developing appropriate permit conditions.

4. Where the R egions have direct implementation responsibilities, and where data can be made available, utilize multi

- sect or general permit (MSGP) violation and benchmark data to support monitoring , targeting and enforcement

. 5. Actively participate in CWA Action Plan projects including those to address effluent violations reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) using new strategies and tools, such as expedited administrative enforcement actions and electronic complianc e assistance. Consider innovative approaches to deal with more routine paperwork

violations.

6. Actively market and implement the use of NetDMR or ot her e

- DMR tools by permittees

for the electronic transfer of DMR to ICIS

- NPDES, supported by use of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network), by all NPDES permitted facilities.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 35

7. Designated regional and HQ managers and staff should use the results of the 2012 environmental management system (EMS) gap analysis and help to draft new approaches

for a revised CWA enforcement management system EMS framework that supports the principles described in the 2009 CWA Action Plan. This f ramework will supersede the existing CWA/NPDES EMS that is used to prioritize violations for appropriate enforcement responses. Full implementation of the NPDES electronic reporting rule will be a key pre

- requisite to implementing the new EMS.

8. Regions sho uld broaden the scope of targeting, monitoring , e nforc e ment and state oversight beyond traditional NPDES majors. N ew targeting tools , such as the DMR Pollutant Loading Tool

, can be used to determine the source, location and amount of discharged pollutants . It includ es a subset of non

- major facilities , and can be found at: www.epa.gov/pollutantdischarges

.

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

Impl ementation strategies have been developed for the National Enforc ement Initiatives that

include final goals and measures, a nd guidance on implementation. Region

– specific commitments for activities to support the goals and measures are negotiated through the ACS

process.

The FY 2011

– 2 013 national enforcement initiatives for CWA programs are:

Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation’s Waters : EPA will continue its enforcement focus on reducing discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater into our nation‘s rivers, streams and lakes. Older urban areas with aging sewer

systems are problematic because these systems were not designed to h andle heavy rainfall and snowfall, nor can they handle the added burden of growing urban popul ations and industrial discharges. As a result, untreated sewage may overflow from sewers into waterways, or back up into city streets or basements of homes. Raw s ewage contains pathogens that threaten public health, leading to beach closures and public advisories against fishing and swimming. This problem particularly affects older urban areas, where minority and low income communities are

often concentrated. In a ddition, stormwater runoff from urban streets and construction sites carries sediment, metal, oil and grease, acid, chemicals, toxic materials and industrial waste into surface waters. Many cities use rivers as the source of their drinking water, and conta minants in the water increase the difficulty and expense of treating the water for drinking water use.

The CWA requires municipalities to treat sewage before it is discharged and to control contaminated stormwater discharges, but many municipalities are not complying with these requirements. EPA‘s enforcement efforts in recent years have resulted in agreements by many cities to remedy these problems, but the problem remains in many other cities. I n FY2011

- 20 13,

t his National Enforcement Initiative focus es on reducing discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) by obtaining cities‘ commitments to implement timely, affordable solutions to these problems, including increas ed use of green infrastructure and other innovative approaches

. EPA is committed to working with communities to incorporate green infrastructure, such as green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement, into permitting and enforcement actions toFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 36

reduce s tormwater pollution and sewer overflows. Regions should consider and promote the opportunity to utilize green infrastructure controls in municipal enforcement actions. Green infrastructure approaches have the potential to help reduce and /or eliminate CSOs and SSOs in a cost effective manner while providing a variety of environmental and community benefits, including improved water and air quality, increased energy efficiency, green spaces and economic development. For these reasons, EPA is committed to th e incorporation of green

infrastruc ture projects into municipal settlements where appropriate. Information on green infrastructure projects can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home. cfm?program_id=298

. Regions should also implement the Integrated Municipal Planning Approach ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/integrationplans.cfm ) to address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations related to their municipal sewer system infrastructure. EPA engaged stakeholders to develop and implement an Integrated Municipal Planning Approach to address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations related to their municipal sewer system infrastructure. This approach will allow municipalities to prioritize CWA requireme nts in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first, while maintaining existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality. All or part of an integrated plan may be able to be inco rporated into the remedy of enforcement actions. After the details of the development and implementation of the Approach are finalized (anticipated by Spring 2012), OECA will decide what modifications to the National Municipal Enforcement

Initiative Stra tegy are necessary to implement this Approach. More detail about the changes and their implications will be made available after it is finalized. More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/integrated_planning_framework%20_draft.pdf

Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Waters: Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a subset of livestock and poultry animal

feed ing operations (AFOs) that meet the regulatory thresholds of number of animals for various animal types. Animals are kept and raised in confined situations for a total of 45 days or more in any 12

- month period and feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise feeding in pastures, fields, or on rangeland. At these facilities, live animals as well as mortalities, feed, and animal wastes may be congregated on a small land area. These operations generate significant volumes of anim al waste which, if improperly managed

, can result in environmental and human health risks such as water quality impairment, fish kills, algal blooms, contamination of drinking water sources, and transmission of disease

- causing bacteria and parasites associ ated with food and waterborne diseases. EPA‘s goal is to take action to reduce animal waste pollution from livestock and poultry operations that impair our nation‘s waters, threaten drinking water sources, and adversely impact vulnerable communities. EPA‘s regulations require permit coverage for any large CAFO that discharges manure, litter, or process

wastewater into waters of the U.S. CAFOs that discharge but do not have NPDES permits are in

violation of the CWA. EPA will continue to focus enforcement investigations on these facilities

, particularly in priority areas

. For FY 20 13, OECA and the Regions will focus primarily on existing large and medium CAFOs identified as discharging without a permit to waters of the U.S. In addition, some res ources will be used to assure that CAFOs that already have permits are in compliance with those permits. E ach Region will consider a variety of factors to prioritize its CAFO activities (i.e., outreach, compliance assistance, compliance monitoring

, and

enf orcement). These factors include , but are not limited to, identifying watersheds or waterFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 37

bodies where CAFOs are negatively affecting water quality, proximity of CAFOs to drinking

water sources and vulnerable communities, and st atus of authorized state CAF O programs.

Assuring E nergy E xtraction S ector C ompliance with E nvironmental L aws : As the nation expands its search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we develop ―clean energy‖ sources that protect our air, water a nd land. Some energy extraction activities, such as new techniques for gas extraction, pose a risk of pollution of air, surface waters and ground waters if not properly controlled. For example, an unprecedented acceleration

of natural gas leasing and development has led to a significant rise in the level of air pollution throughout the intermountain West. Drilling and hydraulic fracturing (― fracking ‖) activities have led to concerns about ground water pollution and the safety of drinking w ater supplies in many parts of the country

. Of particular concern are current practices in the industry to discharge or haul processes wastewaters to POTWs or centralized waste treaters who may not have controls in place to effectively treat these wastewa ters. Concerns also exist about potential to contaminate drinking water sources. To address these emerging problems, OECA‘s energy extraction initiative will focus on efforts to assure that natural gas extraction activities are complying with federal requi rements to prevent pollution of our air, water and land. This initiative will be undertaken in particular areas of the country where natural gas extraction activities are concentrated, and the focus and nature of our enforcement activities will vary with the type of activity and pollution problem presented.

3. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities

OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the CWA in the following ways:

Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters : As part of aggressively going after pollution that

matters to communities and working toward environmental justice , OECA‘s enforcement and compliance efforts will be particularly focused on protecting communities

, especially underserved or economically distressed communities, by getting raw sewage out of the water, cutting pollution from animal waste, and reducing polluted stormwater runoff. See http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters

.

Strengthening Protections for Our Waters : OECA is improving protect ion of water through

the CWA Action Plan ( http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html ). See

section A.1.

Chesapeake Bay : Regions 2, 3, 4 and 5 should refer to the Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy implementation plan s for details about expectations and commitments for stormwater, wastewater, CAFOs and air deposition . Implementation plans include goals and measures with targets for accomplishing act ivities to support each, e.g ., three MS4 audits per year. R elevant information related to compliance and enforcement is posted at : http://www.epa.gov/complianc e/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html #watershedFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 38

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

Communities across the country depend on clean water as a source of drinking water, a habitat to support healthy ecosystems and as a resource for recreation and fishing. They expect protection from exposure to water contaminated by raw sewage, animal waste and pollutants in urban

stormwater run

- off.

Direct exposure to raw sewage and associated high levels of disease

- causing organisms can be a particular problem for communities located in older urban areas where the aging municipal wastewater infrastructure may be failing or unable to handle the demands of a growing urban population. When pipes break, equipment fails or the system exceeds capacity, untreated wastewater flows into waterways, homes and city streets, most significantly exposing the community to pathogens. Urban water bodies can also be assaulted by large volumes of uncontrolled polluted stormwater from streets, parking lots, and commercial and industrial businesses. Many of these older urban areas include minority and low income communities.

Exposure to animal waste from CAFOs may particularly affect low income and minority populations in rural areas. Water bodies polluted by the waste can cause human illness after swimming or wading and result in contaminated fish and shellfish. This is a particular problem with respect to su bsistence fishing, which is most frequent in minority and low income populations.

OECA, together with the Office of Water and authorized state and tribal water control agencies will work to identify at

- risk waters and use appropriate regulatory tools, including setting strong water quality standards, issuing protective and enforceable NPDES permits and addressing serious violations through effective enforcement

, to ensure water quality protection and

restoration.

A. CWA NPDES Program

Regions with non

- authorized s tates and I ndian country, and authorized state s and t ribes, should:

Target to identify serious sources of pollution and serious violations. Use the new tools developed pursuant to the CWA Action Plan, such as available ambient monitoring data,

the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Lo ading Tool (http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/), and other GIS resources , to target the most significant sources of pollutants on those water bodies and watersheds . Priority should be given to

water bodies th at are not meeting water quality standards and that have disproportionate impacts on individual communities.

Utilize the Inspection Targeting Model for the CWA , as appropriate, and provide feedback to OECA. The model includes ―Is the facility or outfall w ithin 15 miles upstream of a drinking water intake?‖ as part of its indexing . This model can be accessed through OTIS ( www.epa

- otis.gov/otis/itm ). Develop annual compliance monitoring plans that take advantage of the flexibility available in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (issued October 17,FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 39

2007, hereafter ―NPDE S CMS‖)

. Target inspections to identify and address serious water quality problems where NPDES compliance and enforcement tools will be effective in addressing the pollution problem. In 2012, EPA updated the Inspection Targeting Model with annual estimate s of pollutant discharge amounts to allow users to sort on the facilities with the largest pollutant loads and largest pollutant loa d over limits. In FY2013, EPA R egions and states should be using the model as a tool for targeting the most serious water q uality problems

. Participate with authorized agencies in a national dialogue on what activities count as ―compliance monitoring‖ under the 2007 NPDES CMS. Traditionally, on

- site inspections and investigations have been the primary means for providing coverage of the regulated universe. The rapidly expanding universe of NPDES regulated sources has outpaced our ability to conduct on

- site inspections at all permittees. The R egions and authorized agencies need to use their resources in a way that maximizes the reach of their compliance monitoring activities

. Out of the national dialogue on compliance monitoring, in 2012 OECA expects to issue additional guidance that R egions and states will begin to use in FY 2013 on the parameters for conducting p eriodic ―off

- site‖ evaluations of permittee compliance. Any off

- site evaluations that are counted under the CMS will need to be sufficient to ascertain permittee compliance , be well documented

and reported to a national data system. The guidance on off

- site evaluations may cover things such as CWA Section 308 Information Requests, subpoenas, review of a year‘s worth of DMRs coupled with information provided by the permittee on calibration of discharge monitoring equipment and ambient sampling. In additi on, starting in 2012 and continuing in 2013

. OECA will be conducting a study to evaluate whether the CMS is achieving the desired results and whether any adjustments are needed. Ensure that all available data regarding violations are evaluated to determi ne the seriousness of the violation and the appropriate response. Facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC) should be considered for appropriate follow

- up action, along with point sources with serious effluent limit violations, unpermitted discharges, systemic reporting problems or violations at facilities with potential to seriously impact water quality. Ensure that civil enforcement actions, where appro priate, are taken to address serious violations contributing to a community‘s water quality proble ms. Ensure compliance with federal consent decrees and administrative orders where appropriate. Implement targeted ―real time‖ (quick response) enforcement activities to address CWA violations impacting communities‘ waters, such as violations at concentrated animal feeding operations.

In addition, Regions should:

Implement CWA specific geographic compliance and enforcement strategies, as

appr o pr iate for their Region, including CWA Action Plan projects , the Chesapeake Bay Complian ce and Enforcement Strategy, and other region

- specific geographic initiatives. Routinely review all DMRs and non

- compliance reports received for compliance with permit requirements where the Region directly implements the program , including in

Indian Count ry . (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.)FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 40

Evaluate the effectiveness of the regulatory authority‘s pretreatment program by inspecting and audi ting pretreatment POTWs. In conjunction with POTW inspections, Regions and states should ensure that POTWs approved for implementing the pretreatment program are carrying out their responsibilities, including annual inspections of Significant Industrial U sers (SIUs). Where states retain pretreatment program authority, Regions should assess each state program‘s performance in conducting annual inspections of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). Regional audits or inspections should be conducted in accordan ce with the NPDES CMS and can be conducted in conjunction with other compliance inspections at major and minor POTWs, such as compliance evaluations (CEIs), or separately. For Industrial Users (IUs) in non

- authorized states that discharge into POTWs withou t approved pretreatment programs, the Regions will inspect the IUs in accordance with the NPDES CMS. The Biosolids enforcement program is an area of disinvestment for FY2013. OECA and EPA Regions will not conduct any new work, including inspections, in t his program. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a disinvestment plan for any existing or ongoing work. R ules governing biosolids are self

- implementing, with straightforward performance standards and strong recordkeeping and reporting requirements that provide a fair amount of transparency and accountability . Many states have programs in place

. T here is also an existing third party certification process and ISO 1400 management program available , all which make the biosolids program a lower priority for investment

. Use all available data to benchmark and monitor state performance using data from federal and state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and other audit or evaluation reports. These include State R eview Framework reviews, Office of Water Permit Quality Reviews, MOA reviews, regular EPA/state meetings to review performance, data not entered into national databases and GAO and/or IG reviews of state performance. In FY2013, EPA will implement an integ rated and streamlined NPDES enforcement and permitting oversight review process, including guidance and training for EPA Regions and states

. Where authorized s tates have exhibited a widespread and long

- standing problem with significant aspects of their permitting or enforcement programs, Regions should object to permits or take direct enforcement actions in those states in accordance with EPA‘s June 22, 2010 Memorandum titled, ―Interim Guidance to Strengthen Performance in the NPDES Program .‖ Regions sh ould focus oversight resources on the most p ressing performance problems in states. Regions and s tates must work together to demonstrably improve state performance. Regions should investigate the CWA compliance status of surface mining facilities

within each Region, including mountaintop removal mining operations. Regions should evaluate the compliance status of such facilities with respect to both NPDES permitting requirements and CWA section 4 04 permitting requirements. If CWA violations are

identifi ed, enforcement action should be taken where appropriate. HQ, and R egions as necessary, will c oordinate with Coast Guard in implementing the

Vessel General Permit MO U and review of Coast Guard deficiency data . Regions will

coordinate as necessary with C oast Guard sector offices on conducting joint inspections

with Coast Guard. Continue implementing the Federal Facility Integrated Strategy on Stormwater.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 41

Work with states that are currently using the NPDES Permit Compliance System (PCS) to prepare to mig rate to the modernized data system, ICIS

- NPDES by the end of the first quarter of FY 2013. On March 24, 2011, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe issued a memorandum in which he affirmed his support for using the National

Environmental Information Exc hange Network (Exchange Network) as the preferred means of environmental data sharing between EPA, states, tribes, and others. Also, this memorandum affirmed the unanimous ECOS resolution calling for full implementation of the Exchange Network, and repres ented a renewed joint commitment to success of the Network. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance supports this goal. Regions must work closely with the Office of Compliance to evaluate their states remaining in PCS on their readiness to mig rate, and what assistance is needed for the migration, if any. PCS will be turned off by the third quarter of FY 20 13. Regions should s upport the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve targeting and transparency as well as by advancing new monitoring technologies to enhance the ability to identify violations impacting public health and harming the environment. For example, for consent decrees that include a requirement to conduct sampling or to repo rt, R egions should seek to obtain electronic reporting to ICIS

- NPDES. Regions should consult with HQ before investing in new compliance assistance work. Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in

inves tment. OECA , working with the R egions, is developing a plan to implement the

reduction in work. Regions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to self

disclosures as discussed on page 14

.

COMMITMENT CWA07: By December 31, 201 2 , provide a specific NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each authorized s tate in the Region

, target ing the most significant sources with potential to impact water quality. The plan should provide universe information for the CMS categories; sub

- categories covered by the CMS and combined EPA and

s tate expected accomplishments for each category and subcateg ory. The plan should identify

trade

- offs made among the categories utilizing the flexibilit ies in the 2007 NPDES CMS policy and any amendments or further guidance as a result of the national dialogue on expanding the range of activities to be counted as c ompliance monitoring under the NPDES CMS . At the end of the year, provide for each s tate a numerical report on EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and subcategory . To increase the transparency of NPDES inspection data, OECA will

work with E PA R egions and s tate associations to develop formats for releasing inspection data on CMS implementation performance on a state

- by

- state basis.

B. CWA Section 404

– Discharge of Dredge and Fill material

Regions should:

Coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies ( e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Fish and Wildlife Service) which have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use ofFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 42

memoranda of understanding and memoranda of ag reement or other appropriate

mechanisms. Meet with Corps Districts on an annual basis to establish regional priorities and communicate priorities to OECA

. Review field level agreements with Corps Districts, and revise to make them consistent

with Section 4 04 Enforcement Strategy, as appropriate

. Regions should utilize the Office of Water‘s DARTER (Data on Aquatic Resources Tracking for Effective Regulation) system as well ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) in their targeting efforts to identify potential repeat and flagrant violators (ICIS continues to be the data base of record for tracking EPA information on

CWA section 404 enforcement actions)

. Develop methods to effectively leverage other program resources to more systematically identify pot ential serious Section 404 violations and take appropriate enforcement response to address these violations. Share effective techniques with OECA for use in developing the national wetlands enforcement strategy

. Utilize existing r egional cross training op portunities as well as opportunities identified by

OECA to cross

- train inspectors and to train other federal and state agencies and stakeholders to identify CWA section 404 violations

. The Section 404 Enforcement Strategy was piloted during FY 2011

- 2012, and the

R egions are expected to work with OECA in implementing the strategy in 2013.

C. CWA Section 311

– Oil Pollution Act

The activities described below are intended to be conducted by enforcement staff or

contractors. OECA has contrac t resources available to support such work

Regions should:

Participate in multi

- regional judicial enforcement cases to address spills from inter

- state pipelines and others, such as production facilities, on a company

- wide basis. Cases

should include com pany

- wide injunctive relief requirements to prevent future spill violations at all facilities of the owner or operator. Participate in multi

- regional judicial enforcement cases to address facility response plan (FRP) violations at facilities owned or ope rated by the same company. Cases should include company

- wide injunctive relief requirements to improve facility response planning and implementation at all facilities of the owner or operator. Investigate and develop informal, administrative and judicial enforcement actions to address noncompliance with EPA P roduct S chedule R equirements for use of dispersants

and other substances

. Investigate , target and develop informal, administrative and judicial enforcement actio ns to address spill prevention, and facility response planning violations at facilities subject to EPA regulations, including offshore platforms within EPA jurisdiction. Also

i nvestigate , target, and develop informal, administrative and judicial enforcement actions

to address discharge violations ( spill s) wher ever the violation occurs, whether or not the spill occurred at a facility subject to EPA‘s spill prevention or facility response planning regulations.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 43

When appropriate, in the context of an enforcement action or enforcement targeting effort, c onduct inspections and enforcement investigations as needed to confirm violations or develop enforcement cases. Th ese activities are intended to be conducted by enforcement staff or contractors, whe n needed for enforcement targeting or case development. Conduct enforcement investigations to identify noncompliance, target appropriately for enforcement response, and build cases for enforcement actions. Enforcement investigations could include use of CWA Section 308 and/or 311(m) information requests, independent audits, interviews, review of inspection reports

, coordination with state and other federal agencies, use of public tips and complaints, review of public databases, or other investigative mea ns. Whenever spill or regulatory enforcement is pursued at facilities subject to EPA regulations, the case development staff should evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with all spill prevention and facility

response plan requirements and should include claims in the enforcement case to address all noncompliance in these areas. As part of enforcement targeting work, review spill notification reports to the National Response Center, pipeline spill reports to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materia ls Safety Administration, spills reported to states and other available sources to identify spill violations. Issue CWA 308 information requests to confirm violations and identify causes of the spills. Take appropriate enforcement action to address spill s of oil and hazardous substances that have occurred, to include penalties and injunctive relief to prevent future violations from similar causes across all facilities of the same owner or

operator. Participate in OECA

- led coordination and strategy meetin gs, as appropriate. Where opportunities exist, coordinate with OECA and OEM to provide outreach and assistance to the agricultural sector on Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule that will be required to come into compliance in 2013.

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

Every EPA r egion and authorized s tate, working together, should conduct a CWA annual planning process that brings the different components of the regional and state NPDES program (water quality standards and assessment, permitting and enforcement) to the table together, identifies and discusses national, regional, and state priorities versus available resources at both the state and federal levels, and results in collaborative annual work plans that use all a vailable mechanisms to get work done, such as federal and state work

- sharing, innovative approaches to monitoring facilities or addressing violations.

Regions should:

Hold annual planning meetings with each authorized s tate to develop collaborative annual work plans. Convene routine and regular meetings between the EPA r egion and authorized s tate to discuss progress towards meeting annual permitting and enforcement commitments, and

how the s tate has been performing overall in the NPDES program.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 44

Where authorized s tates are not meeting performance expectations, EPA R egions should

take enforcement actions to address serious violations. EPA R egions should focus oversight resources to the most pressing perfo rmance problems in s tates and should work

t o demonstrably improve state performance through these actions. EPA R egions need to take action when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between authorized

s tates. Conduct a sufficient number of oversight NPDES inspections to ensure the integrity and quality of each authorized state or tribe compliance monitoring programs. EPA R egions have flexibility to determine the appropriate number of oversight inspe ctions needed to ensure proper state inspection conduct and documentation. Oversight inspections are not "joint" inspections. Oversight inspections can be conducted by accompanying state inspectors during inspections, or conducting a se parate inspection at the same facility at a later date to verify the same findings. Implement Round 3 of the State Review Framework (SRF) for the NPDES program in conjunction with permit quality reviews and assure implementation associated with corrective actions identified in the SRF reports. Consider the following information when conducting state program oversight:

o consideration of the full regulated universe of NPDES permittees in developing a CMS plan, focusing on the most important sources and most serious noncompliance , and in conducting reviews of state enforcement programs

o number of SNCs identified ( and percent of universe), especially those related to

effluent exceedance or illegal discharges by state and by region

o number (and per cent) addre ssed in a timely and appropriate manner

o results of SRF and permit quality r eviews and progress in correcting id entified

issues. Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various clean water compliance monitoring strategies, enforcement policies, and OECA’s Guidance on

the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001).

OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation with federally

- recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enfor cement context and c ontains threshold criter i a for

EPA‘s consideration of enforcement actions

. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S.

Ensu re that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. state and tribal credentials) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 45

6. Improve Transparency

Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the CWA should be made public by the Regions and Headquarters, where possible, on a regular basis in a manner easily understood and used by the public. If data systems are not able to support re porting at end

- of

- year FY 2012 , the Regions should manually report using instructions specified in the multi

- program fiscal year reporting guidance memorandum. Regions should work with the s tates and t ribes to verify that their compliance and

enforcement d ata is accurate and input into national databases. 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 accord ance with documents which establish data requirements and reporting timeframes for those systems. States must ensure that all required compliance and enforcement data is input or transmitted to the national databases. States utilizing CMS flexibility shou ld report on the commitments in their CMS plan . EPA encourages states to expand their use of the national databases to include compliance and enforcement data that pertains to the entire NPDES universe. Regions should review the oil and hazardous substance spills reported to the National Response Center (NRC) to ensure they are timely and accurately reported. Regions should make information available to communities, including tribal communities, who lack access to the internet

.

7. Relevant Policies and Guid ance

Additional information about OECA‘s CWA programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/cwa/index.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm

B. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

OECA addresses drinking water pollution problems through the following SDWA programs: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program; and Working with R egions to address imminent and substantial endangerment circumstances

under Section 1431 of the SDWA.

PWSS Program

EPA‘s focus on regulated drinking water syst ems, including those in Indian country, protects the public from the potential acute and chronic health effects of drinking water that fails to comply with the SDWA. The Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) establishes EPA‘s expectations of how primacy agenc ies are to address drinking water violations and protect public health by

return ing violating public water systems ( PWSs ) to compliance. Following the concepts of the
ERP, t he Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT) generates a list of all PWS that have unresolve dFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 46

violations and identifies those systems that have the most serious, most numerous, and longest

lasting unresolved drinking water violations

.

The ETT assigns to each drinking water violation a numerical point value weighted for its severity, and applies a formula that generates a total score for each PWS with unresolved

violations. Because violations of health

- based standards and major violations of monitoring and reporting requirements for acute contaminants present the most serious risks to the public‘ s health, violations of the se types are assigned the higher point values. Major monitoring and reporting violations related to chronic contaminants, minor monitoring and reporting violations, and public notification violations are assigned lower point values. Violations that have been returned to compliance or th at are attached to an addressing formal enforcement action have a point value of zero. The higher a PWS‘s total ETT score, the more serious is its overall

unresolved noncompliance.

The ERP provides that all drinking water violations at PWSs are to be r esolved and that PWSs

are to be returned to compliance. Additionally, the ERP directs that if a PWS reaches an ETT score of 11 or higher before its violations are resolved, that PWS will be considered a priority system that must , within six months of hav ing reached a score of 11, either return to compliance

or receive formal enforcement action that compels the system to return to compliance in a timely

fashion. It is OECA‘s ex pectation that primacy agencies will simultaneously be working to
reduce their b acklog of systems that have already been at a score of 11 or higher for more than 6

months. Most primacy agencies (either EPA, states, tribes or territories) have markedly reduced their backlog of priority systems in the past years.

A s a longer term go al, primacy agencies are encouraged to address violations at non

- complying

PWSs before they become priority systems. A quick response to SDWA violations decreases the risks to public health and allows primacy agencies flexibility to use a variety of tools such as assistance and informal enforcement actions as they work with PWSs to develop the technical, financial, and managerial capacity that will allow them to achieve sustained compliance. By focusing resources on PWSs in this way, the ERP helps ensure those PWSs return to compliance in a timely manner. This proactive approach is especially important in addressing violations at PWSs in Indian country, as it allows for timely notice to the tribe as soon as a violation is identified. The purpose of this c ontact is to discuss the system‘s options for returning to compliance and to ensure that the coordination and consultation encouraged by EPA‘s tribal policies occur on a schedule consistent with the ERP.

OECA strongly encourages primacy agencies to improve the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of violation reporting and enforcement response data they report to SDWIS/FED. EPA is responsible for ensuring that primacy agencies fulfill the conditions of their primacy agreements, including fully reporting inventory, compliance and enforcement data to EPA. When primacy agencies do not properly report information in SDWIS, EPA cannot assure the integrity of the program or reliably report to the public, Cong ress and other oversight bodies. Inaccurate and incomplete data result in incorrect and inconsistent ETT scores within and across states. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) in FY2011 highlighted the seriousness of underreporting

SDWA data and recomme nded action by EPA to improve the quality of data reported by states.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 47

OECA is committed to partnering with OGWDW to improve the quality of data on PWSs in SDWIS, and asks regional enforcement staff and managers to work with their states to promote

accura te, timely and complete reporting. As resources allow, HQ and the R egions will conduct file reviews of the compliance and enforcement data in SDWIS for their primacy agencies.

With regard to compliance assistance, R egions should consult with HQ before investing in new

work in this area . Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in investment. OECA, working with the R egions, is developing a plan to implement

the reduction in work.

Similarly, R egions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to self

disclosures as discussed on page 14

.

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

The UIC program is an area where OECA anticipates a r eduction in investment due to declining

resources and competing priorities. EPA expects to be able to address the highest priority UIC issues with available resources, recognizing that the states do a significant amount of work in this

area. EPA has authorized 33 states and 3 territories to run the UIC program for all well classes and it shares responsibility with 7 states. EPA runs the full program in 10 states and most programs on tribal lands. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work; please consult with Headquarters before investing in new work in this program. The Energy Extraction Strategy Implementation Team will work with OECA to determine how reductions in this program affect the Implementation Strategy.

1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities

OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the SDWA by supporting the core national program areas that are critical to ensuring safe drinking water. The areas where OECA provides support include: Development or revision of drinking water standards; Ensuring that states have the tools needed to begin implementing new rules as they take effect; Implementation of drinking water standards and technical assistance to water systems to enhance their technical, managerial, and financial capacity; Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; and Underground Injection control (UIC).

By participating on regulatory workgroups, OECA addresses enforcement and compliance issues in the early stages of the drinking water standards. In implementing the program, OECA and primacy agencies will work with the Office of Water in identifying syste ms that are not complying with the standards and may need technical assistance. Through cross

program collaboration in the areas like capacity development, operation certification, and sanitary surveys, the Office of Water and OECA can leverage available tools and resources

to obtain safe water.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 48

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

The ETT and ERP apply equally to all public water systems in the U.S., regardless of the size or which agency implements the Safe Dr inking Water program. EPA‘s goal is to ensure that all consumers receive equal protection of their drinking water.

OECA will continue to place emphasis on drinking water in schools and in Indian country.

In accordance with the ERP, all PWSs that reach a score of 11 or higher (priority systems) are to be addressed with a formal enforcement action or returned to compliance within six months of the quarterly ETT report on which the system first is reported as having a score of 11 or higher

. OECA headquarters will track primacy agency performance in meeting the timely and appropriate provisions of the ERP

.

COMMITMENT SDWA02:

During FY 2013, t he primacy agency must address with a formal enforcement action o r return to compliance the number of priority systems equal to the number of its PWSs that have a score of 11 or higher on the July 2012 ETT report 7

. State, territory and tribal breakouts shall be indicated in the comment field of the Annual Commitment Sys tem.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

Regions are responsible for working with states, territories, and tribes with primacy in an oversight capacity to ensure that the ETT is used and the ERP is implemented as intended.

OECA and the R egions will regularly discuss progress returning systems to compliance

, identify ing those for which return to compliance is impracticable, and regional performance overall in implementation of the program . OECA will work with the primacy agencies on

asses sing data completeness based on violation data to determine if rules are being implemented in a timely manner.

The R egions will hold regular in

- depth discussions with their states, territories, and tribes with primacy that include, but are not limited to, progress in returning systems to compliance, monitoring compliance progress on orders, number of systems addressed, number of systems in violation, consistency and appropriateness of compliance determinations and data quality, preparation for new rules, a nd overall performance in implementing the program . These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. EPA strongly suggests a minimum of quarterly communication as a best practice for ensuring progress in m eeting goals.

7 A primacy agency‘s success at addressing violations will be tracked by means of the quarterly ETT reports. Numerical targets may be adjusted at mid

- year. While it remains the ERP‘s goal that all of a priority system‘s violations will be returned to compliance, a primacy agency ha s met its commitment under the 2013 SDWA ACS with respect to a priority system if the score for that system has been brought below, and remains below, eleven.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 49

Where states and tribes with primacy are not meeting performance expectations established by this commitment or systems are in substantial noncompliance with state enforcement orders,

R egions should take action to ensure the systems with the most serious violations are addressed or returned to compliance. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance problems in states/territories/tribes with primacy and should work to improve performance through these actions. A lso, EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. state and tribal credentials) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials.

OECA will perform this ov ersight function with respect to direct implementation programs. OECA will engage with R egions on a regular basis to ensure that R egions are directly implementing the program in Indian country, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia effectively

and are app lying the ETT and ERP

. Regional primacy (direct implementation) in India n country
includes applying the various SDWA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies, including the SDWA ERP and ETT, and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001) . O ECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation

tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enfor cement context and contains threshold criter i a for EPA‘s consideration of enforcement action s

. The threshold criteria are n ot intended to, and

should not result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in t he U.S.

4. Improve Transparency

OECA headquarters will continue its annual national report on PWS compliance and enforcement as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and on progress in returning systems to compliance. Past reports are posted on the EPA website at : http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/accomplishment/sdwa/

Compliance and enforcement data for all drinking water systems will continue to be avai lable to the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History Online website at http://www.epa

otis.gov/echo/index.html

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance

SDWA compliance and enforcement policies and guidance can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/sdwa/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/index.cfm http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/wsg.cfm

Information about EPA‘s tribal programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/tribal/laws/sdwa.htm http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/index.htm UIC ProgramFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 50

S ECTION V : KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGI E S TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES

POLLUTION

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

OECA‘s RCRA program addresses the management of solid and hazardous waste and underground storage tanks (UST ) . For more information on the management of hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C, readers are urged to review the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) which provides detailed information about goals and measures, policies which allow flexibility from OECA‘s expectations, program oversight, and other aspects of the RCRA compliance monitoring p rogram.

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

One of the Administrator‘s priorities is ―cleaning up our communities‖

- u sing all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement and compliance efforts, to focus on making safer, healthier

communities. The relevant FY 2011

– 2013 national enforcement initiative for RCRA program that supports this Agency priority is:

Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations

Mining and mineral processing facilities generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other industrial sector, based on EPA‘s Toxic Release Inventory. Many of these facilities have impacted surrounding communities and continue to pose high risk to human health and the environment. For example, 95 mining and mineral processing site s are on the Superfund National Priorities List and more sites are being added every year, including operating facilities. EPA has spent over $2.4 billion to address the human health and environmental threats to communities, such as exposure to asbestos an d lead poisoning in children, as a result of mining and mineral processing. In some cases, EPA had to relocate families because of these threats, especially those to children in low income communities. EPA has inspected 65 mining and mineral processing sit es that pose significant risk to communities and found many to be in

serious non

- compliance with hazardous waste and other environmental laws. Contamination of groundwater and potable water has occurred at many sites, sometimes requiring alternative

drink ing water supplies or removal of lead

- contaminated soil from residential yards. In other cases, toxic spills into waterways from mining and mineral processing caused massive fish kills and impacted the livelihood of low income communities. Some workers at mining and mineral processing facilities have been exposed to spills and mismanagement of toxic and hazardous waste. EPA will continue its enforcement initiative to bring these facilities into compliance with the law and protect the environment and nearby communities.

Region

– specific commitments for activities to support the goals and measures are negotiated through the ACS process. It is expected there will be approximately 12 mineral processing inspections required for 2013 nationally.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 51

2. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

RCRA dictates minimum inspection frequencies for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF)

- annually for TSDFs operated by state/local governments, and biennially for non

governmental TSDFs. RCRA01 and RCRA01.s apply to TSDFs owned or operated by non

governmental entities, and to TSDFs owned but not operated by state/local/tribal governments. RCRA03 applies to TSDFs operated by state/local/tribal governments. The inspections performed under these RCRA commitmen ts should generally be Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) . The RCRA CMS allows states (or Regions with direct implementation responsibility) to conduct Focused Compliance Inspections (FCIs) in lieu of CEIs at TSDFs if the states have approval from t heir Region (Regions with direct implementation responsibility should have approval from HQ) and the TSDF meets the established requirements (i.e., has been inspected at least two times and has no significant noncompliance)

.

COMMITMENT RCRA01: Project by s tate, and Indian C ountry where applicable , the number

of operating non

- governmental TSDFs

, to be inspected by the Region during the year 8 . Regions must commit to inspect a t least two (2) TSDFs in each s tate or Indian country unless OECA

approves a deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are given for states with small universes where it might not make sense for a Region to inspect two TSDFs per year.

Fina ncial responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core program and e valuating compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H should be included as part of the inspection of

each TSDF ( although such evaluations do not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the same people who conduct the field inspections ). If a Region determines that there are unique circumstances in the Region or with a particular TSDF, the Region may contact Headquarters to discuss undertaking a detailed evaluation of compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H at another TSDF.

COMMITMEN T RCRA01.s: Project by s tate the number of operating TSDFs to be inspected by the s tate during the year.

Only one inspection per facility counts towards this coverage measure. The RCRA CMS establishes minimum annual inspection expectations for TSDFs: The inspections for RCRA01 and RCRA01.s should be CEIs. CEIs include evaluating compliance with the financial assurance requirements, 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H. Financial

respo nsibility is an important component of the RCRA core program and should be included as part of the inspection of each TSDF (although the financial responsibility reviews do not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the same people who

conduct the field inspections).

COMMITMENT RCRA03: I ns pect each operating TSDF operated by s tates , local, or Tribal

governments.

8 Currently there is only one TSD in Indian country.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 52

3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities

OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for RCRA in the following ways:

Safe Waste Management and Cle an Up, Recycling, and Resource Conservation : OECA maintains an overall enforcement presence in RCRA that supports OSWER programs and rule making efforts including those regarding CERCLA 108(b) and Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs).

Support continued progress towards the 2020 Corrective Action aspiration goals by targeting enforcement on facilities that have not made meaningful progress.

Emergency Preparedness, Implementing the EPAct, Response and Homeland Security : OECA maintains an overall enforcement prese nce in RCRA that supports OSWER

programs.

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

a. RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program

Regions and s tates should inspect pollution problems that matter to communities, and de velop enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits. Regions, in their oversight and direct implementation roles, including in Indian Country, and authorized s tates are expected to follow the guidance in the RCRA CMS. ( EPA directly implement s the RCRA program in Indian country in coordination with Tribes because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal programs.)

To enable states to monitor and identify environmental probl ems of concern to communities,

s tates may utilize flexibil ity in the RCRA CMS to deviate from their large quantity generator (LQG) requirements. RCRA facilities may cause air, surface and groundwater pollution. Because these facilities are frequently associated with industrial operations, surrounding

communitie s are often low income and minority. EPA may screen for potential environmental justice concerns at RCRA facilities by analyzing demographics and environmental factors.

Issues of emerging environmental concern to EPA and communities are listed here. The se focus

areas should be considered a high priority for R egions and s tates when developing strategies for targeting compliance assurance work. These should also specifically be discussed between

authorized states and R egions when developing annual plans f or respective activities in the Region. The areas of concern are:

Surface Impoundments : EPA , with support from authorized s tates, continues to focus on problems associated with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in unlined surface impoundments. There are thousands of industrial surface impoundments across the country, many of which adversely impact communities through air, surface water, and/or groundwater contamination, particularly in the chemical manufacturing and petroleum refining sectors.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 53

Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities : These facilities conduct treatment of industrial

solid waste from third

- parties. Through recent inspections, EPA has identified several such facilities that were grossly mismanaging hazardous wastes, and treating a nd discharging these wastes without permits. This area of concern will include a focus on

wastewater treatment units.

Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities : EPA supports the environmentally beneficial recycling of hazardous wastes and secondary material s. However, sham recycling and recycling not done in compliance with RCRA requirements can result in significant adverse impacts to human health and the environment. This area of concern will include a focus on zinc fertilizer manufacturing that uses haz ardous waste in the production

process.

Coke Manufacturing : There are approximately 20 coke manufacturing facilities in the United States. EPA has recently inspected and identified multi

- media compliance problems at some of these facilities, including t he illegal land disposal of hazardous waste. This sector produces several listed and characteristic hazardous waste streams that are excluded from RCRA if recycled without being land disposed. EPA intends to conduct focused inspections within this sector to ensure compliance.

Waste A nalysis Plans at Commercial TSDFs : EPA has conducted sampling at TSDFs to determine if the facilities‘ waste analysis plans and treatment of the waste were adequate. Based on the results of the sampling, c oncerns have been identified with the treatment and stabilization techniques and the sampling and analysis of hazardous waste treated to meet the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for land disposal.

RCRA Corrective Action: To help achi eve the RCRA Corrective Action 2020 Goals

, EPA and authorized s tates should focus enforcement resources on facilities that have not made meaningful progress in achieving remedial objectives, and on financially marginal or bankrupt facilities. To ensure tha t meaningful cleanup progress is being made at all

facilities subject to corrective action, R egions and authorized s tates should be monitoring compliance with orders and permits, identifying substantial noncompliance with such instruments, and taking enfor cement actions where appropriate. When monitoring compl iance with orders and permits, R egions should use electronic reporting tools

whenever feasible.

The Regions should:

C onduct complianc e monitoring and pursue enforcement to ensure that pollution pr oblems that matter to communities are aggressively addressed.

Regions and states are encouraged to support the OC‘s RCRA inspector training development effort.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 54

Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and

creden tialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). Enhance coordination in the RCRA program pursuant to the ―Best Practices to Enhance

Coordin ation in the RCRA Program.‖

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e.

state and t ribal credentials) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials.

With re gard to compliance assistance, R egions should consult with HQ before investing in new work in this area. Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in inves tment. OECA, working with the R egions, is developin g a plan to implement the reduction in work.

Similarly, R egions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to

self

- disclosures as discussed on page 14

.

COMMITMENT RCRA02: Project by state and Indian C ountry, the number of LQGs,

in cluding those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the Region during the year. Each Region must commit to inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each state , and 20% of the r egion‘s LQGs

universe in Indian C ountry, unless OECA approves a deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are given for states with small universes where it doesn‘t make sense for a Region to inspect 6 LQGs per year or 20% of the Region‘s LQG universe in Indian country.

R egions should select at least 2 of the Region's total LQG inspections at facilities described in the high priority section as areas of emerging environmental concern. Regions may work with OECA to coordinate these inspections, including whether the inspec tion will be conducted at a TSDF or LQG. In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility LQG inspections.

COMMITMENT RCRA02.s: Project by s tate the number of LQGs to be inspected by the s tate during the year. At least 20 percent of the L QG universe should be c overed by combined federal

and s tate inspections unless an alternative plan is approved under the RCRA CMS.

The RCRA corrective action financial responsibility measure may include the review of financial

assurance instruments rece ived by the states within each r egion. For those s tates that are not

authori zed for corrective action, the R egions should be reviewing the financial assurance instruments as part of EPA‘s role of im plementing and enforcing the corrective action program

in unauthorized states and Indian Country. Regions conducting financial assurance instrument reviews for the RCRA Subtitle C closure/post

- closure regulatory program (under RCRA01) may also review any corresponding corrective action submissions as part of th e completion of this

program measure.

COMMITMENT OSRE0 4 : Regions must commit to inspect at least one (1) RCRA corrective action financial assurance instrument per state, with at least 50% being financial test or corporate guarantee reviews

. Where the submission is noncompliant, take appropriate enforcement action to address noncompliance (e.g., notice of violation). Or, where appropriate, work with the stateFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 55

to ensure appropriate action i s taken to address noncompliance . If possible, return faci lity to compliance by end of fiscal year.

b. RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Subtitle I Program

A major focus of the RCRA UST program is to maintain an enforcement presence concerning leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, closure, and f inancial responsibility violations. Approved s tates have primary responsibility for determining facility compliance, ensuring adequate inspection coverage of the regulated universe, taking appropriate actions in response to

non

- compliance, and playing a v ital role in alerting EPA to regulatory implementation problems.

Since the majority of states have the primary responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the UST requirements, OECA does not believe the remaining work justifies the current resource commitment for compliance monitoring and enforcement and anticipates a s ignificant reduction

in investment. EPA is shifting resources to ensure that we can deploy adequate resources to effectively address our highest priorities in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, given budget reductions. EPA intends to maintain adequate compliance monitoring and enforcement resources to directly implement the UST program in Indian Country with Tribes and tribal consortia and to ensure compliance with the Energy Policy Act. EPA will also continue to support EPA‘s Office of Underground Storage Tanks in promulgating any UST regulations. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work; please consult with Headquarters before investing in new work in this program.

Gene rally, EPA actions will complement and provide oversight of state activities. Remaining regional work will generally focus on enforcement and compliance activities as described below

and will be consistent with the guidance under development for reduction in work:

UST inspections that will produce the greatest environmental and human health benefits (e.g., leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, and financial responsibility). Factors to consider in identifying facilities for inspection under the UST program includ e:

Owners and operators of USTs located in Indian country; Owners and operators with UST facilities in multiple states;

Mid

- level distributors with multiple UST facilities; Problem noncompliers ; (i.e.; repeat violators; owners/opera tors who fail to cooperate in an effort to return to compliance); Owners and operators of facilities with USTs that endanger sensitive ecosystems or sources of drinking water; and Corporate

, government

- owned , and federal central fueling facilities.

Enforcement actions and assessment of penalties, as appropriate. Regions will consult

with the states on use of the delivery prohibition, when appropriate, to address significant noncompliance. It is recognized that this tool may not be an option for stat es and t ribes that do not have delivery prohibition programs or are not state authorized p rograms. Focus on developing large complex cases involving noncompliance on a corporate

- wide basis or noncompliance in multi

- state operations.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 56

With regard to compli ance assistance, R egions should consult with Headquarters (HQ) before investing in new work in this area. Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in inves tment. OECA, working with the R egions, is developing a pla n to implement the reduction in work.

Regions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to self

disclosures as discussed on page 14.

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

RCRA compliance monitoring is a collaborative effort betwe en OECA, Regions, and authorized or approved s tates

. Each of these entities performs complementary but distinct roles. OECA provides national program leadership, and oversight of Regional and state programs, aimed at increasing program effecti veness and national consistency.

To the extent practicable, R egions and authorized or approved states should:

Ensure the most serious environmental problems caused by noncompliance are addressed. Regions should accomplish this primarily through annual p lanning with s tates, s tate program oversight, strategic and targeted federal inspections and enforcement in s tates, and through direct implementation in Indian country. Regions provid e capacity

- building

support to s tates on complex or multi

- state issues; and consult with s tates to identify compliance problems that may warrant areas of national focus. Regions should meet and consult regularly (for example, quarterly) with each authorized s tate to maintain communication on progress towards meeting annual pe rmitting and enforcement commitments, enhancing program performance and ensuring fairness and a level playing

field.

Take action to ensure serious violations are addressed where states are not meeting performance expectations. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performanc e problems in states and work to demonstrably improve state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action where states are not addressing serious violations to communicate necessary improvements to state programs in order to achieve goals of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between states

.

States a re encouraged to report to the R egions and OECA, any patterns of noncompliance they may identify through th eir inspections or other activities.

Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various RCRA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Ind ian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation with federally

- recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enfor cement context and contains t hreshold criter i a for EPA‘s

consideration of enforcement actions

. The threshold criteria are n ot intended to, andFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 57

should not, result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S.

Participate with authorized or approved states in a national dialogue to expand the range of compliance monitoring activities that may be counted under the RCRA compliance monitoring strategy. Traditionally, on

- site compliance inspections and investigation s have been the primary means for undertaking coverage of the regulated universe. However, as the regulated universe of sources continues to expand resulting in a significant challenge to our ability to co nduct on

- site evaluations, the R egions and authori zed or approved states

need to use available resources in the most effective manner.

RCRA Corrective Action

RCRA corrective action is implem ented by EPA and 43 authorized s tates and territories. On April 27, 2010, OECA and OSWER jointly issued t he ― National Enforcement Strategy for

Corrective Action ‖ (NESCA ) . This strategy encourages EPA and states to continue to work in partnership to achieve the 2020 Corrective Action goals and emphasizes the need for close

communication an d coordination between EP A and s tates to meet this goal. Regions should be working closely with their state partner s to implement NESCA

. NESCA provide s guidance to Regions and s tates for targeting enforcement efforts and to address special considerations that

arise in the enforc ement arena, such as ensuring enforceable requirements and deadlines in permits and orders are clearly identified , dealing with companies having financial difficulties,

us ing CERCLA authorities, ensuring institutional controls are effective and enforceable and long

- term stewardship requirements are met, and increasing the transparency and community

involvement of enforcement efforts. OECA will continue to provide training to both Regions

and states on how to review financial test and corporate guarantee su bmissions for compliance.

EPA and its s tate partners are currently in the process of assessing the contribution of NESCA in achieving progress toward the 2020 Corrective Action Goals.

Regions and authorized states should:

Enhance coordination within your offices and among regulatory partners. Emphasize compliance monitoring, including ensuring that a compliance schedule is in place at all EPA

- lead and state

- lead facilities under a permit or order, determining whether nonco mpliance with cleanup milestones exists, and taking appropriate action in cases of noncompliance.

6. Improve Transparency

At the end of the fiscal year or when otherwise available, OECA will make essential information, such as the following, available to the public via OECA‘s web page, or by other means:

Results of the State Review Framework; Results of the Annual Commitment reporting; and Highlights of significant EPA and s tate enforcement actions. Regions are expected to use their own comparable existin g mechanisms to inform the public. States are encouraged to do likewise.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 58

Compliance data should distinguish s tate information from Indian C ountry information.

Information should be made avail able to communities, including t ribes, who lack access

to the internet

.

7. Relevant Policies and Guidance

Additional information about OECA‘s RCRA programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/rcra/index.html http://www.epa.gov/co mpliance/civil/rcra.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup

B. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Toxic Substances Control Act provide s EPA with authority to require reporting, record

keeping and testing requirements

, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or

mixtures . TSCA also addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals, including lead

- based paint (LBP)

, formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

, and asbestos.

OECA addresses toxics problems through the following TSCA programs:

Lead

- based Paint Risk Reduction Program

. New and Existing Chemicals Programs (TSCA Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13 ). Formaldehyde in composite board products (a new addition to TSCA). PCB Program. Asbestos Program

, which includes the Worker Protection Standard, Model Accreditation Plan Program

, and Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

OECA received appropriated funding for portions of the LBP, PCB and Asbestos programs to be given to identified states, tribes and territories (collectively, s tates) und er State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) for implementation of those programs. Additionally, OECA has received funds appropriated for Environmental Program and Management (EPM) LBP compliance monitoring activities

. These funds are not to be directed to other programs or for

other uses.

PCB and AHERA compliance monitoring and enforcement were identified as areas where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence. While PCBs and Asbestos can still pose a significant threat to human health and the environment when mismanaged, at this time, EPA is focusing its limited TSCA compliance monitoring resources on the lead based paint and new and existing che micals programs, described below. EPA is shifting resources to ensure

that we can deploy adequate resources to effectively address our highest priorities in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, given budget reductions

. H eadquarters should

be consulted before init iating any new work in the PCBs or asbestos areas

. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work to a level of minimal national coverage for PCBs and asbestos, which is expected to be finalized by the end of March 2012

.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 59

TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy

On September 16, 2011, the TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) became effective. The CMS adopts a strategic ―One

- TSCA‖ program approach , which focuses TSCA resources on addressing the Region‘s most significant TSCA challenges

.

T o help implement the One

- TSCA approach , t he TSCA ACS commitment s will include a new commitment to report the Region‘s other compliance monitoring activities beyond inspections and investigations (see the CMS for further details on compliance monitoring activities)

.

OECA will be holding a natio nal dialogue on how to expand the range of compliance monitoring activities to be credited under media CMS. This is necessary as the regulated universe continues to grow while federal and state resources become more scarce. Traditionally, on

- site complia nce inspections and investigations have been the primary means for providing coverage of the regulated universe. There are many additional activities regulatory agencies do to monitor facility

- level compliance that can and should be considered along with inspections and investigations as contributing to our coverage goals. EPA Regions, states and tribes should

p articipat e in th is national dialogue in 2012, and be ready to implement the outcome of this

discussion in 2013.

Consistent with EPA‘s desire to better address large regulated universes (e.g., the vast universe subject to the LBP Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule [ RRP Rule]) with approaches that go beyond traditional inspection and enforcement activities, Regions are expected to support the Ag ency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve targeting and transparency as well as by advancing new monitoring technologies to enhance the ability to identify violations impacting public health and harming t he environment.

OC Resources Provided for TSCA Implementation

P ast EPA budgets have included two line items for TSCA: 1) STAG funds for state implementation of the LBP, PCB, and Asbestos programs; and 2) EPM dollars to fund compliance monitoring activities in the LBP program.

Funding for State

/Tribal Programs

In the past, OECA has made about $5 million ($M) in STAG funds ava ilable annually for implementing the LBP, Asbestos, and PCB programs. OC has distributed these funds to the Regions, who then negotiate grant agreements with the states to support s tate compliance and

enforcement activities. The Re gions conduct oversight of the s tate programs and grants. Regional direct implementation of the a sbestos, PCB and LBP programs ha s been expected to comple ment s t ate implementation activities. Regional direct implementation activities and grant oversight for asbestos and PCBs w ill be addressed in the aforementioned FY 2013 disinvestment plans.

Currently, $1.5M (of the total $5M STAG dollars) support LBP programs. These funds are divided among: 1) 41 s tates and two t ribes authorized for the § 402(a) lead abatement program;FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 60

2) f ive states authorized for the § 406(b) Pre

- renovation Education (PRE) program; and 3) twelve states authorized for the RRP program. The remaining $3.5M in STAG funds support
twelve asbestos waiver states, fourteen non

- waiver states and nine PCB state progr ams. OECA

will evaluate the continued use of STAG funds for PCBs and asbestos and the oversight of state

grants when developing a plan to significantly disinvest from PCB and AHERA compliance monitoring and enforcement

.

Funding for Regional Programs

OECA has made about $1.2M in EPM funds available annually for regional Senior Environmental Employee (SEE) inspectors for LBP direct implementation programs. It is important that these EPM funds be used only for compliance monitoring activities (i.e., act ivities that determine compliance status) and not for enforcement or administrative support [beyond nominal administrative expenses (5

– 10 %)] ; s uch diversions would be inappropriate

.

Screening T

ools and C

hecklists

OC plans to develop and refine screenin g tools/checklists that the Regions may use to support

multi

- media activities that can be included in the Region‘s TSCA 02 reporting commitment. These tools will be designed for an inspector to quickly complete while at a facility conducting an inspection for program s other than TSCA. The use of these tools may help the Region to target for further inspections or to determine that the facility is likely to be in compliance with the applicable TSCA requirements. In any event, these tools will provide EPA w ith additional coverage for the TSCA programs. The Regions and states are free to develop and use their o wn checklists/screening tools that are as least as inclusive as the HQ tools. If they do, they are expected to share those tools with HQ, the other R egions and states. OC will ask for electronic copies of such tools during the monthly conference calls and will establish a location where they will be available for anyone to review and use for their own programs.

With reg ard to compliance assistance, R egions should consult with HQ before investing in new work in this area. Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a

reduction in inves tment. OECA, working with the R egions, is developing a plan to implement

the reduction in work. Similarly, R egions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to self

- disclosures as discussed on page 14

.

1. Link with Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s Top Priorities

OECA addresses the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) priorities for TSCA programs in the following way:

Reduce Lead Risks : OECA provides overall direction to Regions and authorized states

, t ribes and territories to promote compliance with all of the LBP rules

, with a significant focus

on the RRP R ule

. Assess and Reduce Risks from New and Existing Chemicals : OECA focuses on compliance with TSCA Section 5.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 61

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

TSCA‘s enforcement programs are significant to communities because they address chemicals that can pose serious risks to human health and the environment . Lead

- based paint is particularly dangerous to children : e xposure may cause reduced intelligence, learning disabilities, behavior problems

, and other development al delays . Because LBP is found in pre

- 1978 buildings, it is

more common in communities predominated by older housing; in some cases, this housing is in

low

- income

, minority

, and environmental justice (EJ) communities. Due to these risks, OECA has made ensuring compliance with the TSCA LBP requirements its top priority for the TSCA compliance monitoring and enforcement program.

ACS Commitments and Implementation

COMMITMENT TSCA01 : Project the total number of FY2013 TSCA inspections. In the comment field of the Annual Commitment System (ACS), the Region shall break out the number of projected inspections by TSCA program area (LBP, New and Existing Chemicals, formaldehyde,). Note: For the reasons discussed in the executi ve summary, the LBP component of this TSCA ACS commitment (TSCA 01) will serve as OECA’s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to protect children's health.

COMMITMENT TSCA0 2 : Report other compliance monitoring activities at the end of the

year; and break

- out the description of other such activities by TSCA program area. (See the CMS and the future outcomes of the compliance monitoring national dialogue for more details).

For Regional ACS planning purposes, Regions should target their FY 201 3 A CS commitments based upon a historic baseline (e.g., the last three years of representative TSCA resources available for inspections and other compliance assurance activities), and describe how those resources will be utilized in FY2013. If the Region‘s F Y2013 bid is significantly lower than its recent past output (or lower than national output norms consistent with resources), then the Region should be prepared to explain the rationale for such deviation to Headquarters.

Regions may need to make a djustme nts before or during the fiscal year to accommodate potential activities for the new formaldehyde rule (discussed below). Such potential activities include work with other programs related to TSCA screening activities

. In addition, some inspection resour ces may be shifted to other compliance monitoring activities (e.g., where a Region has a backlog of enforcement actions, it may shift inspection resources to work with local housing code authorities to ensure any ordered repairs to target housing are done in compliance with the RRP requirements).

Regions that remain invested in the new and existing chemicals program should direct 10 percent of their TSCA resources to ensuring the safety of chemicals (new and existing chemicals) and the formaldehyde rule (where appropriate) and 90 percent of their TSCA resources to the lead

based paint (LBP) program. All other Regions should devote up to 5 percent of their TSCA resources to the formaldehyde rule (where appropriate) and the remaining percent of their TSCA resources to the LBP program. Almost all (i.e., 95 percent) of the LBP resources should beFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 62

directed to the RRP Rule. Section 1018 inspections should only be conducted in response to tips and complaints or as part of a RRP or abatement inspection.

a . TSC A Lead Risk Reduction Program

Regions and a uthorized states are expected to implement the CMS for LBP , including the principles and activities identified for the RRP, § 402 A batement, § 406 PRE , and § 1018 rules as an integral part of the Region‘s One

- TSCA program. The CMS articulates and encourages

coordinated activities aimed at : 1) determining compliance a mong the regulated universe ; and 2) using non

- traditional approaches to promote compliance by regulated operations

.

Regions should implement the pro gram priorities and activities set out in detail in the CMS

. Those activities include conducting an appropriate balance of the various types of inspections (e.g., record reviews

, training course audits, and work

- site inspections) ; and conducting other

com pliance assurance activities , such as using checklists and other screening tools for cursory compliance reviews

, working with local housing code authorities to help ensure only certified firms are used for repair and renovation work on pre

- 1978 housing

. As discuss ed above, to effectively accomplish these objectives, the CMS establishes that Regions must k now the regulated universe to the extent practicable

, and prioritize the environmental problems to be

addressed (i.e., focus on hot spots)

.

For LBP in spections, once the universe is known, the Region should use the targeting princip les

set forth in the CMS

. Additionally, Regions may wish to focus RRP inspection activities at primary schools and large child care centers where there is a better chance of obtaining access to the facility and observe contractors‘ actual compliance with required work practices because children are present and the renovation activities may occur over a long period. While at these facilities, inspectors should also see if the re are any opportunities to leverage resources as

described in the CMS.

Regions should:

Respond appropriately to tips and complaints, as described in the CMS; and actively f ollow

up on the highest priority action items as determined through an objective triage process such

as described in the CMS.

Target for, and conduct audits at the Region‘s most active EPA

- accredited training provider

programs to assure a nd promote a high level of compliance across the regulated community (each Region will determine t he appropriate number of audits based on the particulars of that Region)

.

Focus efforts in high

- priority lead ―hot spots‖ as described in the CMS (e.g., geographical

areas with evidence or indicators of significant or wide

- spread EBLLs ).

Focus prima rily on RRP/PRE compliance. At least 95% of the Region‘s LBP compliance efforts should be directed to RRP/PRE, and no more than 5% to new § 1018

- only compliance. The CMS encourages Regions to employ integrated strategies and targeting soFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 63

that, while focu sing primarily on RRP/PRE, the Region may concomitantly monitor for and enforce compliance with other LBP rules (the § 1018 and § 402 Abatement rules), as appropriate (e.g., the Region may conduct § 1018 inspections in conjunction with RRP/PRE inspections of property management firms that also conduct property renovations).

Use a variety of methods to inspect for RRP/PRE compliance: record review inspections for RRP and PRE; and field work practice for RRP.

―Bundle‖ press activities related to filing co mplaints and coordinate with OECA to bundle

cases from multi ple R egions as appropriate.

Partner with state and local government code enforcement and building permit programs and state/local health departments to conduct joint inspections.

In addition, Regions should do the following :

I n areas where Regions conduct integrated strategies ( as part of the national RRP

enforcement strategy or otherwise ), i nclude methods to better target compliance monitoring

and enforcement activities, such as partnering with state and local health departments and health care providers to identify lead hot spots and individual properties associated with

EBLL children

.

Work with their LBP program matic (non

- enforcement) offices in the r egion to encourage

states to seek authorization for the RRP program.

Conduct appropriate oversight of authorized s tate § 402 and § 406 programs.

Closely investigate the applicability of the LBP regulations to housing at federal facilities because of variations in housing arrang ements particularly at some military bases.

All of these considerations should be covered when reporting activities for the Region‘s TSCA 02 commitment (above).

b. TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs

The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Program is exc lusively a Federal program that provides for review of the toxicity of chemicals prior to their manufacture and importation to prevent

unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. To assist the R egions in targeting inspections, OECA commits to w orking with OCSPP to obtain lists of facilities for targeting inspections. Additionally OC plans to develop a tool to help all media inspectors 1) screen for facilities potentially subject to core TSCA requirements when performing their pre

- inspection activities for the facility; and 2) ask a few appropriate questions in the field to help determine the facilities compliance with TSCA if applicable.

The R egions should:FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 64

F ocus TSCA compliance activities on chemical manufacturing, distribution, processing, use, or disposal in emerging technologies and/or use of new chemicals.

Increase the use of TSCA sub poenas for investigation of potential noncompliance

Where field activities are conducted (inspections or screening), focus on ensuring facility compliance with:

o TSCA § 5

- new chemicals requirements su c h as Pre

- manufacturing Notice (PMN); Significant New Use Rules (SNUR‘s); Low Volume Exemptions (LVE‘s), and on chemicals of concern including short chained and other chlorinated paraffins, fractions and other priority or Action Plan chemicals or targets. Target existing chemical reporting an d record keeping requirements such as TSCA § 8(c), (d)

and (e) and the Chemical Data Reporting Rule. Bundle the settlement or litigation of multiple TSCA § 4 and nanotechnology cases. Evaluate and prioritize tips and co m plaints and follow

- up as appropriate . Targeting for future inspections based on credible leads from tips and complaints should also be considered. Regions implementing this program are also expected to follow

- up on all referrals received from headquarters, s tates, t ribes, and the public. Regions not implementing this program should refer tips and complaints the Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division

within the Office of Civil Enforcement. Obtain information through inspections and/or subpoena as appropriate. Initiate civil

enforcement ac tions, as appropriate, to bring facilities into compliance. Focus compliance, monitoring and enforcement efforts on the 2011 Chemical Data Reporting

Rule.

c. TSCA Formaldehyde Programs

On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was signed into

law. It restricts formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products sold or manufactured in

the U.S.

-- including those imported. These products include hardwoo d plywood, medium

density fiberboard, and particle board, as well as goods made from these wood products. The law amends TSCA by adding title VI.

The law requires EPA by January 1, 2013, to implement formaldehyde emission standards that apply to products sold in the United States, based on the rules originally established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). In addition to these standards, Title VI requires third

party testing and certification to ensure that subject products comply with the sta ndards, and it directs EPA to work with Customs and Border Protection and other relevant federal agencies to enforce the standards for imported products.

During the first year of implementation, EPA should focus on (1) determining the universe of composit e wood product manufacturers, third

- party certifiers (TPCs) and accrediting bodies and (2) emissions testing compliance by composite wood product manufacturers.

OCSPP is currently planning a database which will store information received from composite

wo od product manufacturers. If the database is fully functioning by 2013, the database should be checked to determine the universe of composite wood product manufacturers.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 65

Information submitted to TPCs by composite wood product manufacturers can be inspect ed and checked against information in the database for compliance with the formaldehyde rule

. Accrediting Bodies can be inspected to determine who the TPCs are and whether the TPCs are operating in accordance with the rule.

d. TSCA PCB Programs

As not ed above, the PCB program is an area where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence due to a challenging fiscal climate and the need to make difficult

choices

. While PCBs can still pose a significant threat to human health and the environment when mismanaged, at this time, EPA is focusing its limited TSCA compliance monitoring resources on the lead based paint and new and existing chemicals programs, described above. OECA is shifting resources away from PCB compliance monitoring an d enforcement to ensure that we can deploy adequate resources to effectively address our highest priorities in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, given budget reductions. OECA will maintain a very limited number of resources for the PCB compliance monitoring and enforcement program to help address situations involving PCB non

- compliance that poses a significant threat to public

health or the environment. Headquarters should be consulted before initiating any new work in

th e area of PCBs. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in this area to a level of minimal national coverage.

e. TSCA Asbestos Program/ AHERA

Similarly, the AHERA Asbestos program is an area where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence due to limited resources and competing priorities

. While asbestos can still pose a significant threat to human health and the environment when mismanaged, at this time, EPA is focusing its limited TSCA compliance monito ring resources on the lead based paint and new and existing chemicals programs, described above. OECA is shifting resources away from AHERA compliance monitoring and enforcement to ensure that we can deploy adequate resources to effectively address our hi ghest priorities in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, given budget reductions. OECA will maintain a very limited number of resources for the AHERA compliance monitoring and enforcement program to help address

situations involv ing AHERA non

- compliance that poses a significant threat to public health or

the environment. Headquarters should be consulted before init iating any new work in the asbestos/AHERA program . OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in this area to a level of minimal national coverage.

States that have ―waiver‖ status are expected to:

Within a reasonable period of time, investigate and respond appropriately to any tips/complaints containing allegations that provide a reasonable basis to believe that a

violation has occurred.

Conduct inspections and take appropriate enforcement action in each s tate and in Indian

C ountry to assure equitable protection and ensure compliance with the TSCA asbestos regulations

. E nforce under state law , in states that have "waiver" status

.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 66

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

The Regions should work with states and t ribes to identify any obstacles to implementation of the expectations above and work to resolve them

. This includes convening routine an d regular meetings between the r egion and s tates to discuss progress towards m eeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and how the s tate has been performing overall in its implementation of the program

.

The Grants Administration Division issued guidance for the TSCA grants program that requires that negotiated grant workp lans prominently display the following three Essential Elements:

Essential Element 1

- Strategic Plan Goal; Essential Element 2

- Strategic Plan Objective; and

Essential Element 3

- Workplan Commitments plus time frame. Regional Program Offices must

elect ronically enter workplans and progress report information into an IT application currently being developed.

Where states are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight resources to the most pr essing performance problems in s tates and should work to demonstrably improve state performance through these actions. OECA and the Regions will use a variety of mechanisms to ensure adequate oversight, including regular meetings an d consultations with s tates/ t ribes, grant reviews and oversight inspections

.

Regions should provide:

Regional updates on actions and outcomes through discussions with OECA (generally, through existing channels of communication).

Review of sta te inspection reports, feedback to states , and enforcement actions as appropriate, where inspections are conducted by states with EPA credentials. Additionally, Regions should provide reports to OECA in accordance with Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Ins pector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. state and t ribal credentials) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials.

Consultation with Tribes on the central role that enforcemen t and compliance plays in

EPA‘s direct implementation program and overs ig ht of approved tribal programs. Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various TSCA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Poli cy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation with federally

- recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enfor cement context and contains threshold criter i a for EPA‘s

consideration of enforcement actions

. The threshold criteria are not intended to, andFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 67

should not result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S.

The Regions should wor k with the state/local agencies and Tribes to identify priorities and align resources to implement the above commitments. This includes:

Participating with delegated agencies in the ongoing dialogue at the national level to discuss what activities may be counted under a compliance monitoring strategy. Traditionally, on

- site compliance evaluations and investigations have been the primary means for undertaking coverage of the regulated universe. However, as the regulated

universe of sources continues to e xpand resulting in a significant challenge to our ability

to co nduct on

- site evaluations, the R egions and delegated agencies need to use available

resources in the most effective manner.

On a program specific basis:

a. TSCA Lead

- Based Paint Program (LBP)

To ens ure national consistency, OECA‘s role is to provide appropriate oversight of r egional

LBP programs.

Regions should f

ocus primarily on state program oversight a nd capacity

- building to

ensure s tates are appropriately using tools to help ensure compliance, and more importantly, integrating those tools to help effectively reduce EBLLs and LBP hazards in

identified lead hot spots ; support states and t ribes on complex or multi

- s tate or multi

t ribal compliance issues; and consult with states and t ribes to identify issues that may

warrant areas of national focus

.

b . TSCA Asbestos

Encourage s tates and t ribes to develop their own regulations and apply for a ―waiver‖ where applicable.

4. Improve Transparency

The Regions should:

Work with the states and t ribes using EPA credentials to ensure that the data on inspections they conduct on EPA‘s behalf is input into national databases. For waiver s

states , ensure compliance and enforcement data are p rovided in aggregate form as part of midyear and end of year evaluation reports. (Not applicable to lead program.) Enter all federal inspections (including ICDS) and enforcement cases into ICIS. Publicize regional enforcement actions taken through press r eleases. Distinguish state compliance data from Indian country information. Make information available to communities, including Trib al communities , who may

lack access to the internet

.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 68

5. Relevant Policie s and Guidanc e

Additional information about OECA‘s TS CA programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/index.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/index.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/asbestoes.html

C. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

A major focus of EPA‘s FIFRA program is to ensure compliance by pesticide registrants and to provide assistan ce, training, and oversight to s tates and t ribes carrying out FIFRA

- related compliance and enforcement activities under co operative enforcement agreements. The statute gives states primary compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibility for the use of pesticides within their respective jurisdictions. However, EPA directly implements FIFRA in Indian country , including com pliance monitoring and enforcement for pesticide use, although Tribes enforce similar provisions under their own tribal code s through enforcement agreements
with EPA

. For more information on the FIFR A compliance monitoring program, readers are urged to rev iew the FIFRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) which provides detailed information about the FIFRA core program implementation, targeting, prioritizing and types of inspections, program oversight, and other aspects of the FIFRA compliance monitoring pr ogram, as well as the Joint EPA OPP/OECA State and Tribal Cooperative Agreement Guidance which

directs state and tribal activities to establish compliance monitoring priorities.

For FY 2013, R egions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to
self

- disclosures as discussed on page 14 . Similarly, compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a r eduction in investment. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work to a level of minimal n ational coverage in the areas of self

disclosure and compliance assistance (non

- centers).

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities

OECA‘s compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts support the FIFRA program priority of a strong field prese nce to ensure that the risk mitigation decisions of the Office of Pesticides Program (OPP) result in their intended protections and to reduce pesticide risk. In addition, both OECA and the Office of Pesticide Programs‘ (OPP) identify Pesticide Occupationa l Worker Safety as one proposed regional

- specific priority focus area. Effective implementation of EPA‘s occupational safety programs is one of OPP‘s highest priorities, and a key component of OPP‘s strategy to ensure the safety of pesticide chemicals, pr event pollution and advance environmental justice and children‘s health.

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

EPA protects human health and the environment by ensuring compliance and effectively enforcing FIFRA re gulatory requirements through federal inspections and enforcement. The core program also protects human health and the environment, including water resources,FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 69

through support and oversight of state and tribal monitoring and enforcement of pesticide

use/mi suse.

EPA will ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of FIFRA regulatory requirements. The core program should include compliance and enforcement activities covering: protecting workers, pesticide registration and labeling, data quality requir ements 9 , efficacy and compositional integrity of hospital disinfectant products, pesticide producing establishment registration and annual production data reporting, import/ export requirements, registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse effects and compl iance monitoring and enforcement of non

compliant pesticides.

In conducting this work, all Regions are expected to participate in Focus Areas A and B discussed on the following pages. States and tribes with cooperative enforcement agreements may also b e come involved in supporting these activities, as appropriate, by including relevant

activities in the ir negotiated cooperative agreements.

FIFRA Imports of Non

- compliant Pesticides

EPA‘s enforcement program address es the illegal importation of noncompliant pesticide products into the United States by bringing enforcement actions against importers and others, and working with other governments, agencies and stakeholders to prevent and reduce risks of

unsafe products en tering our country. EPA Regions have been the primary source of inspections

and enforcement for this area

. Stat es may become involved through r egion

- to

- s tate referrals to monitor import compliance

, or s tates may encounter imported products during the cou rse of their compliance monitoring inspections.

EPA has work ed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to identify pesticides and/or pesticide devices in violation of FIFRA and prohibit illegal imports from entering the U.S.

channels of trade.

C urrently, the FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program manually reviews FIFRA Notices of Arrival (NOA s ) for pesticide products and devices entering the U.S. and provides direction and guidance to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as to whether the pesticide should be allowed to enter U.S. commerce. CBP, along with EPA and other participating agencies, is developing a new electronic system that will process the majority of NOAs without requiring manual review and approval by EPA. T herefore, EPA plans to reduce

its resources dedicated to this work to a minimal national presence. Headquarters should be consulted before initiating any new work in this area. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in this area to a level of minimal national coverage.

Within the context of this plan under development, EPA will continue to work with CBP‘s Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CBP CTAC) by combining and leveraging resources to implement national operations strategically focusing on importers with a history of

9 The FIFRA Good Laboratory Practices Standa rds Program is a Headquarters only program and an area where, due to budgetary restrictions, OECA will reduce its program work to a minimum national presence.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 70

noncompliance or significant importation activity f rom countries frequently associated with noncompliant shipments.

Focus Area A: Supplemental Registrations

Supplemental pesticide registrations are a continu ed source of concern for regulators across the country. States, which conduct thousands of marketplace inspections each year, have raised

concern over supplemental or ―distributor products‖ labels for years, citing them as a major source of noncompliance. Su pplemental registrations are distributor labels approved for marketing as a sub

- registration to a registered pesticide. Although required to be consistent with the labels of the basic registered products, distributor product labels frequently deviate

subst antially from the EPA accepted labels. Such unapproved product labeling can lead to misuse and misapplication as well as p ose significant risks to the users who rely on product labels to inform them about proper and safe pesticide use. D ue to the potenti al risk associated with the use of improperly labeled pesticides, it is important that the EPA aggressively pursue compliance for supplemental registrations.

EPA issues s upplemental registrations for a wide range of pesticide products in every toxicity

ca tegory , including agricultural chemicals, pesticides used for residential pest control, lawn and garden pesticides, as well as for disinfectants and other antimicrobial products. To address noncompliance in this focus area, EPA will place emphasis on regi strants with a large number of current supplemental registrations or registrants marketing Tox 1 category distributor products. EPA will determine distributor p roduct compliance by undertaking a comprehensive review of product labeling and product chemistr y, when appropriate.

Each Region will conduct inspections as appropriate to monitor for label/labeling compliance, product composition, and compliance with the provisions as described in to 40 CFR § 152.132

, including the restrictions on where and how a supplemental distributor pesticide may be produced and packaged. This should include any contract manufacturing agreement(s) that should be in place. States may wish to participate, too, and can be a significant source of information about noncompliant dis tributor products.

The EPA should develop e nforcement actions to address corporate

- wide compliance. Regions

should coordinate with the Office of C ivil Enforcement‘s Waste and Chemical Enforcement

D ivision and other Regions in developing corporate

- wide cas es. In addition, Regions should take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence and compliance impact.

Focus Area B: Region

- Specific Focus Area Developed in Consultation with States

In FY13, in addition to the focus area A above, R egions will develop a separate focus area with their State Lead Agencies (SLAs) to address a FIFRA enforcement issue of regional and state significance. Although SLA and EPA enforcement priorities differ, t here are many issues where EPA and state interests overlap and as such, may be good candidates for an NPM focus area. This focus area presents a unique opportunity for R egions and state s to comprehensively address a pesticide enforcement problem area. Fo r example, an EPA Region might choose in consultation with its states to focus on rodenticide products. Under this scenario, states mightFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 71

look a rodenticide product misuse or pesticide applicator certifications while the Region would look at rodenticide p roduction and labeling.

The State FIFRA Issues Research Group (SFIREG) conducted a survey of state enforcement priorities and most common FIFRA violations, and identified several overlapping areas including p esticide misuse (over application, unlabeled pesticides ) and p esticide drift

. Additional issues identified by EPA that may be appropriate for a coordinated enforcement focus

area under this FY13 are listed below.

Fumigants/Fumigation
Worker Safety
Retail Marketing

Container/Containment

More detail on each of these areas is provided below. In developing a focus area, the R egions

should consult with the s tates to identify the states‘ top enforcement priorities and focus on an environmental or human health problem that advances both state and federal enforcement

programs.

Commitment FIFRA

- FED1 : Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections

. Each Region

should conduct a minimum of ten (10) FIFRA inspections. In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility inspections.

Option 1: Fumigants/Fumigation

Fumigants are a class of highly toxic pesticides that are efficacious in a gaseous stage, making them very hazardous to handle and use. These products have a wide range of application use, including treatment of residential structures, warehouses, transportation vehicles, grains and other agricultural commodities, and soil. Improper or inadequate use directions and safety precautions on the product labeling and improper use of these products often result in serious

exposure incidents potentially leading to death or hospitalization. Due to the potential risk associated with fumigant use, it is critical that EPA and the s tates work collaboratively to proactively monitor compliance with existing product labeling requirements

, as well as proper use of fumigant products.

T he NPM Guidance‘s fumigant s/ fumigation focus area is primarily targeted on product regulatory compliance and use/application compliance for all areas of fumigation including structural (residential and commerci al), 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 a nd volume/frequency of use). For FY2012, participating Regions are expected to implement one or more of the compliance monitoring approaches identified below and to initiate appropriate enforcement actions.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 72

EPA has primary responsibility for monitoring c ompliance and initiating enforcement action against violators of pesticide user requirements where states lack primacy and in Indian country unless a Region and a tribe maintain a cooperative enforcement agreement. In addition, s tates have primary respons ibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action against violators of pesticide use requirements (referred to as ―primacy). Regions are encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts

. Federal involvement or support can provide significant benefits by addressing noncompliance from a national corporate

- wide perspective, facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple s tates and/or Regions, and enhancing public awareness.

OECA will wo rk with OPP to obtain FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) information across a broad class of pesticide fumigants including structural, grain, and soil, among others. Section 6(a)(2) information, together with information regarding fumigant incidents from the s tates, p ress and other available sources, will help target fumigant uses where an enforcement monitoring presence may significantly deter future violations.

Regions should work with their s tates to identify federal and state PEI opportunities, with special emphasis placed on the priority fumigants frequently involved in exposure incidents (i.e., sulfuryl fluoride, methyl bromide, aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, metamsodium, and chloropicrin). State PEI s can be applied toward meeting negotiated PEI s commitments within existing cooperative agreements. Physical samples of fumigant gases should not be taken; only documentary samples of the labeling, container, and other appropriate materials should be sampled. Physical samples of non

- gas fumigants can be sampled and analyzed.

When monitoring compliance in application settings subject to FIFRA‘s Worker Protection Standards (WPS), such as on

- farm use of grain or soil fumigants, compliance with the WPS labeling requirements should also be monitored.

Enf orcement actions should be pursued under both s tate and f ederal authorities, as appropriate. Similarly, EPA will pursue enforcement actions under FIFRA when noncompliance arises in Indian country. Significant use or product compliance violations discovere d during state or tribal investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when appropriate. Regions should work with s tates and t ribes to identify opportunities within existing cooperative agreements for federal involvement or case support (particularly in cases involving human exposure, death, or other serious non

- compliance). Headquarters will pro vide assistance, as needed, to s tates

, t ribes, and R egions in support of enforcement actions. Headquarters will develop a plan to coordinate filing of enforcement cases to ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.

Option 2: Worker Safety

Agricultural farm workers and pesticide applicators face a disproportionately high risk of exposure to pesticides (from mixing, loading and applying pesticides; hand labor tasks in pesticide treated crops; and pesticide drift from neighboring fields). Studies show that farmFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 73

worker families have higher levels of pesticide exposure than non

- farm worker families (take

home exposure t ransfer of pesticide residues and proximity of housing to treated areas). There are 2 million farm workers in the US, over a million certified applicators, and 2

– 3 million noncertified applicators applying pesticides under the supervision of certified app licators. It is important to protect farm workers from occupational pesticide hazards to ensure their safety in the workplace and viability as a community.

Under FIFRA, s tates with primacy enforce pesticide use, including the w orker p rotection

s tandard s

. States with primacy also conduct compliance monitoring inspections. Regions are encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. Where EPA implements FIFRA, including in Indian country, the Agency enfo rces requirements governing pesticide use and conducts compliance monitoring inspections. Tribes with cooperative enforcement agreements with EPA may conduct compliance monitoring inspections

under their own tribal codes.

To optimize the risk reduction p otential of compliance monitoring, Regions are expected to place particular emphasis on farming activities that typically involve frequent use of highly toxic pesticides, such as in fruit and vegetable production and on

- farm grain and soil fumigation.

Com pliance monitoring and enforcement activities should include product and use inspections.

Performance expectations for an active federal cooperative compliance/enforcement role within the Worker Safety focus area include:

Regions should work with their state and tribal partners to target federal and state PEI s (focusing on high toxicity pesticides subject to FIFRA‘s Worker Protection Standards (WPS) labeling requirements and associated with high

- risk applications/uses such as fruit and vegetable production or on

- farm grain and soil fumigation) to ensure label compliance. Regions should m onitor use compliance in application settings (e.g., on

- farm grain or soil fumigation, applications to fruit and/or vegetable crops) subject to WP S and monitor compliance with the WPS labeling requirements. Focus should be on p esticides with high risk for exposu r e. Enforcement actions should be pursued under s tate

, f ederal, or t ribal authorities

, as appropriate. In order to optimize the deterrent impact of the enforcement action, significant misuse violations should be investiga ted in a comprehensive manner to determine comprehensive compliance with FIFRA.

States and tribes should be encouraged to refer use and non

- use cases to EPA, when appropriate. Reg ions are expected to work with s tates to identify opportunities within existi ng agreements for federal involvement or support (particularly cases involving exposure or death). Significant use or product complianc e violations discovered during state or t ribal investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforc ement, when appropriate.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 74

Headquarters will pro vide assistance, as needed, to states, tribes, and R egions in support

of enforcement actions.

S tate and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA must be trained and credential

per Guidance for Issuing Fe deral EPA Inspector Credentials for Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004)

Option 3: Retail Marketing

Until recently, EPA has focused enforcement against the producer or registrant of violative product(s). However, retailers of noncompliant products must also comply with FIFRA. One action against a retailer may result in bringing numerous pesticides into compliance with FIFRA. Taking enforcement at the retail level, as well as at the producer or registrant level, can have a very significant impact on gaining product compliance. Deterrence likely increases due to heightened end

- use consumer awareness and the adverse publicity generated against the retail store, the product, and the manufacturer.

Retail marketers of pesticide products are positioned to directly interact with the consuming public, so any enforcement action taken against products being off ered for sale is quickly noted by the buying public and, as a result, purchasing patterns of the consumers can be quickly altered, thus creating a significant financial impact on all businesses with a financial interest in

the distribution and sale of the pesticide product(s) involved. This provides a tremendous incentive for registrants to quickly return the product(s) to compliance so that a positive business relationship with retailers can be preserved and a positive image can be presented and/or restor ed with the consuming public.

Regions should focus on national or regional retail chains operating multiple stores nationwide

or in a multi

- state area. Such stores often market similar products throughout their network of stores so that compliance issues can have corporate

- wide implications. Such consumer

- based retail stores typically offer a wide variety of pesticide device products, so addressing noncompliance at this level can immediately impact multiple pesticide producers.

Alternatively, Regions m ay elect to target major distributors who sell directly to specialized niche markets rather than to the general public. Examples of these retailers might be distributors that sell pesticide products and other supplies directly to hospitals, beauty salons and barber shops, funeral homes, and restaurants. These industries typically do not deal directly with traditional retail outlets for their supplies but instead purchase from specialized niche

distributors. These direct

- retailers often handle very specia lized products not commonly found in the retail stores targeted to the general public and, as a result, compliance may not be as closely monitored. Additionally, many of these retailers handle distributor

- label disinfectants, a product sector which has a long history of noncompliance.

Performance expectations for the retail marketing focus area include:

Regions should conduct compliance monitoring inspections at targeted retailers. Regions should work with their state and tribal partners to encourage producer

establishment and marketplace inspections in support of this focus area, includingFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 75

targeting follow

- up PEI s at producers of violative products discovered at the retail inspections. Regions may consider making inspection referrals to the states/tr ibes to

follow

- up on leads and otherwise supplement federal efforts. Regions are expected to take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.

Option 4: Container/Containment

To ensure effective imple mentation of the new container/containment regulations, Regions, states and tribes should monitor compliance with the requirements in all areas of the regulated universe and for all aspects of the container/containment rule. In particular, inspections sho uld focus on compliance with container design and labeling, residue removal, and containment requirements for registrants, re

- fillers, agricultural retailers, commercial applicators, and custom blenders, as appropriate. User inspections, conducted by stat es and tribes, should focus on compliance with label directions for storage, cleaning, and disposal of containers. States and tribes have been actively addressing the new regulations and are likely to continue that emphasis under the State Grant Guidance.

For Regions electing to participate in the container/containment focus area, performance expectations include:

C onducting compliance monitoring inspections at targeted producers, distributors, and other regulated non

- user entities subject to the contain er/containment rule.

Work ing with states and tribal partners to encourage a full range of user and non

- user inspections to monitor all aspects of compliance for the container/containment rule in support of this focus area. States and tribes should be enco uraged to refer significant noncompliance cases to EPA for enforcement action.

Tak ing enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

The Regions should work with s tates and t ribes to im plement the expectations above including:

Convene routine an d regular meetings between the r egion and s tate to discuss progress towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and how the s tate has been performing overall in its implementation of the program. Note: meetings can be via conference calls but at least one meeting each year should be face

- to

- face. Regions may rely upon existing communications with states to meet the intent of th is requirement.

Where s tates are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take enforcement to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance problems in s tates and should work to demonstra bly improve state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action when necessary to communicate what needs attention to achieve the goals of the federal environmental laws and to ensure a level playing field among s tates. Negotiate, oversee the implementation of and review state and tribal performance underFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 76

the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements following existing policy and guidance. When doing mid

- or end

- of

- year reviews, include a review of cases based on complaints by farm

- workers and those involving one of the NPM guidance focus areas to evaluate whether the enforcement response was appropriate.

Provide states and t ribes targeting assistan ce, especially related to inspections of producer

establishments.

Ensure that sta te and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004 ).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. state and t ribal credentials) to conduct an annual inventory including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials. Regional direct implementation in Indian co untry includes applying the various FIFRA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation with federally

- recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enfor cement context and contains threshold criter i a for EPA‘s

consideration of enforceme nt actions

. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S.

4. Improve Transparency

OECA intends to modernize and update the FIFR A

- TSCA Tracking System/National Compliance Database (FTTS/NCDB) that contain information on pesticide inspections and enforcement action by state and tribal grantees

, in order to improve data quality and provide more timely data entry and public access to data

. Until a revised and modernized system is in place, Regions are expected to continue to assure the timely and accurate entry of state and tribal performance data into FTTS and enter their own federal inspection and enforcement data into

ICIS

.

5. Relevan t Policies and Guidance

Additional information about OECA‘s FIFRA programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/index.html http://wwwp.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/wps.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/fifra/index.html

Policies and guidance pertinent to the FIFRA focus areas can be found at the following :
FY2011

- 2013 Grant Guidance: http://www. http: //www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html

FIFRA Enforcement Response Policies : http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/fifra/ FIFRA State Primacy Enforcement Responsibilities: Final Interpretive Rule:FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 77

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/1983frnotice.pdf

Procedures Governing the Rescission of State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for

Pesticide Use Violations: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/gra nts/fifra/1981frnotice.pdf EPA WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08

- 10

- appendix 4c.pdf Factors To Consider When Establishing A Risk

- Based Targeting Strategy For Worker Protection Outreach And Compliance Monitoring Activities: http: //www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08

- 10

- appendix4d.pdf Multilingual Labeling for Imports: http://www.epa.gov/complianc e/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/multilanglabel.pdf Questions and answers on supplemental labeling, effective date, registration status for labeling purposes, foreign purchaser acknowledgement statements, and confidentiality: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/supplabel.pdf Questions and answers on research and development pesticides and active ingredi ent
concentrations: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/ai.pdf FIFRA Inspection Manual: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/index.html WPS Inspection Manual: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/wps/index.html Project Officer Manual: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/ag/manual.html

D. Specific Comprehensive Environmenta l Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Enfo rcement Program Performance Expectations

1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities

OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for CERCLA in the following way :

Cleaning Up Our Communities : In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA‘s cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multiyear effort in 2010 to

better us e assessment and cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment. By bringing to bear the relevant tools available in each of

the cleanup programs, including enforcement, EPA will better leverage the resources

available to address needs at individual sites.

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

Due to budget ary challenges and a reduction in available resources, Superfund enforcement is an area where OECA anticipates a significant reduction in investment. Given the reduction in Superfund enforcement resources, we will focus on those enforcement activities that a chieve the biggest return on our investment. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work

. As noted above, by bringing to bear the relevant toolsFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 78

available in each of the cleanup programs, EPA will better levera ge the resources available to

address needs at individual sites.

The Brownfields program is also an area where OECA will reduce its program work to a minimal national presence. EPA's Brownfields enforcement program is disinvesting from site

specific do cuments to address potential liability concerns and will direct concerned parties to

CERCLA's self

- implementing landowner liability protections and applicable EPA guidance

documents. Headquarters should be consulted before initiating any new work in this a rea. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in this area to a level of minimal national coverage.

EPA‘s CERCLA Enforcement program protects communities by requiring responsible parties to conduct cleanups, preserving federa l dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing parties. Superfund enforcement ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an ―enforcement first‖ approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and paying

for clean ups. EPA negotiates cleanup agreements with potentially responsible parties at hazardous waste sites and, where negotiations fail, either takes enforcement actions to require cleanup or expends Superfund appropriated dollars to clean up the sites. In som e cases, EPA takes both actions. When EPA uses appropriated dollars, it takes action against any viable responsible parties to recover cleanup costs. Aggressively pursuing responsible parties to clean up sites ultimately reduces direct human exposure to hazardous pollutants and contaminants, provides for long

- term human health protections and makes contaminated properties available

for reuse.

As part of the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI), OECA will take early and focused enforcement

efforts to com pel cleanup. Those efforts include increasing enforcement earlier in the pipeline at

non

- emergency removal action and remedial investigations/feasibility study (RI/FS) stages; expediting remedial action by holding parties accountable to negotiation timefr ames and scheduled cleanup commitments; and rejuvenating the process for early identification of responsible parties to support increased site assessment, national priorities (NPL) listings, and early enforcement activities.

Under the ICI, OECA is reaffir ming its commitment to ―enforcement first‖ in all aspects of the Superfund program (i.e., removals, remedial, long

- term stewardship, etc.). Regions should continue to focus on activities that maximize PRP involvement at Superfund sites.

EPA‘s Superfund enforcement GPRA goals and performance expectations for FY 2013 are:

COMMITMENT OSRE

- 01 : Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of

remedial action at 99% of non

- federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable par ties.

COMMITMENT OSRE

- 02 : Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to DOJ, filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write

- off.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 79

COMMITMENT HQ

- VOL : Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed (VCMA): As part of

the Goal 5 sub

- objective, Support Cleaning up Our Communities, OECA has added the following new GPRA target:

By 2015, obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic y ards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement

actions.

OECA has reported VCMA for contaminated soil and groundwater media as separate measures

in its annual results since 2004. Th e new measure combines the two and elevates them to the

GPRA level. The GPRA t arget is a national target and R egions are not required to post

commitments in ACS.

In addition, the CERCLA enforcement program tracks many program

- level measures. These

measu res and their definitions can be found in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) at: http://epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim11.html

.

OSWER's National Program Managers Guid ance for FY2013 helps establish priorities for EPA's Federal Facilities enforcement program. EPA has CERCLA Section 120 interagency agreements, known as Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), in place at all but two of 173 federal facility NPL sites. Those agreements govern the cleanups conducted by the facilities and delineate EPA‘s oversight of those cleanups. In particular, the FFAs identify procedures for resolving disputes and ensuring accountability. Regions are expected to use the agreements, or

oth er applicable enforcement authorities (such as imminent and endangerment orders in applicable circumstances), when federal facilities are not complying with the terms of the agreements or with other legal requirements. Additionally, Regions and Headquarte rs offices must collaborate to establish remaining and new agreements.

Superfund federal facilities oversight and enforcement, however, is an area where OECA anticipates a significant reduction in investment. Given this reduction in Superfund enforcement resources, EPA must target enforcement to the highest priority sites and to those instances where

the biggest potential return is realized on our enforcement dollars. Further, EPA will work with

OSWER and the R egions on how to better utilize FFAs to make site performance data available to the public and otherwise empower citizen involvement to enhance cleanup oversight and accountability. OECA, working with OSWER and the Regions, is developing a plan to impleme nt the reduction in work, which will address a reduction in the Agency‘s ability to staff cleanup disputes and enforce CERCLA FFAs, as well as EPA‘s interest in greater transparency for the public at these sites. Since all fed eral facility enforcement act ions are ―nationally significant‖ by OECA policy and require consultation with Headquarters, this consultation will be even more important as the Regions contemplate new work in this program.

Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority for OECA's waste pr ograms, promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people. OECA will continue to integrate environmental justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement program by: Affirming its commitment to ensure that Regions and States use EJ cri teria when enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 80

Affirming its commitment to ensure that institutional controls are implemented at sites in environmental justice areas of concern. Conducting an environmental justice review of new policy and guidance documents before they become final.

3. Working With States and Tribes

EPA will be implementing its Community Engagement Initiative 10 designed to enhance headquarters and regional progra m engagement with states

, tribes, local communities and stakeholders to meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency response, and the management of hazardous substances and waste. The initiative provides an opportunity for EPA to refocus and renew its vision for community engagement, build on existing good practices, and apply them consistently in EPA processes. Proactive, meaningful engagement with states , local governments and communities will enable EPA to obtain better information about the environmental problems and local situations

- leading to more informed and effective policies and decisions.

4. Improve Transparency

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is the main database for Superfund information. The public can request specific reports by going to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ . In addition, Regions should continue to provide site

- specific fact sheets, which include enforcement information, on regional web pages.

Co mpliance data will distinguish s tate information from Indian country information. Information

should be made avai lable to communities, including Tribal communities, who lack access to the

internet

.

10 Information on the Community Engagement Initiative can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/cei_action_plan_12

- 09.pdfFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 81

S ECTION V I : KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGI E S TO ADDRESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities

The criminal enforcement program will emphasize:

EPA‘s Enforcement Goals, National Enforcement Initiatives for FY 2013

- 14 and Regional Enforcement Priorities Focusing Enforcement through Case Tiering Integrating Environmental Justice (EJ) into EPA's criminal enforcement program investigations

Criminal cases addressing Vessel Pollution, Stormwater, AHERA Asbestos and UST: Due to budgetary restrictions and the need to focus scarce resources, these are areas where OECA anticipates a significant reduction in in vestment. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work; CID field offices will consult with Headquarters before investing in new work in these programs.

Case Tiering. During FY 2013, the crim i nal enforcement program will continue to implement and refine its case ―tiering‖ system to focus scarce investigative resources using criteria, data and methodologies linked to OECA‘s goals. The objective is to focus enforcement efforts by increasing the percentage of Ti er 1 and Tier 2 cases, which is both a GPRA measure and a key national priority of the criminal enforcement program. The case tiering methodology prioritizes cases based on four categories of information:

1) Human health and environmental impacts (e.g., dea th or serious injury), 2) The nature of the pollutant and the release, (e.g., toxic pollutant, continuing violation) 3) Subject characteristics (e.g., significant organizational and/or repeat violators), and 4) Strategic Case Factors (e.g., program

- wide threats t o an environmental protection regime, potential links to broader criminal networks)

.

Based on these factors, all cases are ―tiered‖ with Tier 1 cases being the most important. Any case involving death or actual serious injury is automatically a Tier 1 case. The tier designation is used throughout the investigative process including the ope ning of leads, case selection and prosecution and direction of resources for case support. (Note: a case‘s tier classification may change as cases are investigated and additional information uncovered).

Environmental Justice : One of the main duties of EPA‘s criminal enforcement program is to serve and protect the most vulnerable communities by using law enforcement tools to protect their health and local environment. EJ is a critical concept in meeting that objective.

Crimin al enforcement has issued a policy on integrating environmental justice concerns in assessments of criminal investigations, and will use EPA's screening tools and regional input along with other relevant information when tiering criminal cases. OCEFT has modified its Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) to track an EJ screening score, a text entry section forFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 82

recording additional input and a final EJ determination selection when investigating environmental crimes. Cases considered to have potential EJ co ncerns for criminal enforcement purposes meet the threshold level for a heightened analysis. The criminal enforcement program will then meet with the regional EJ coordinator to obtain additional information supporting why the case has potential EJ concern s.

The program will also continue to work with tribal law enforcement organizations to strengthen the effectiveness of environmental enforcement in Indian country.

2. Link with Critical Program Office Priorities

EPA‘s enforcement program relies on crimi nal and civil program coordination at a strategic level, and

– in parallel proceedings

– on a case

- specific basis, to bring to bear the most appropriate enforcement tools to protect human health and the environment.

Each program will a dhere to OECA‘s pa rallel proceedings policy when both civil and criminal violations are present in an individual case, and will ensure all civil and criminal staff are trained on parallel proceedings.

At the Regional level, the enforcement offices will work with the Specia l Agents

- In

- Charge (SACs) to continue and strengthen joint case screening, share salient information and plan how to address violations using the most appropriate administrative, civil or criminal enforcement

tools.

. 3. Strengthen Relationships with La w Enforcement Partners That Support State and Tribal Environmental Crimes Investigations and Prosecutions

The criminal enforcement program will work with the s tates, R egions, t ribal governments, and other law enforcement organizations as appropriate to:

Help these organizations build capacity to pursue environmental crime and provide investigative support to state

- lead prosecutions where appropriate. Provide targeted training to s tate, tribal and law enforcement partners to enhance their abilities to safely spot, report and address environmental violations. Continue international enforcement efforts, e.g., working with INTERPOL to combat the illegal transnational shipment and disposal of electronic waste (e

- waste).

4. Improve Transparency

The criminal enforcement program will:

Publicize EPA‘s criminal enforcement efforts and successes to deter other potential

violators. Continue to encourage the public‘s reporting of pote ntial violations and to provide leads through the fugitive web site.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 83

Ensure that the public can access information about completed criminal prosecutions through the Summary of Criminal Prosecutions. Work with OECA's Office of Compliance to incorporate cri minal enforcement

i nformation into EPA's State Review Framework.

SECTION VII: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THROUGH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT

A. Specific Federal Activities Program Performance Expect ations

Federal activity compliance work focuses on three areas: fostering compliance and pollution prevention through international cooperation; assisting other federal agencies in making environmentally sound decisions which include early public involvement and transparency by complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and guiding EPA‘s own compliance with NEPA and applicable statutes and Executive Orders. This work implements two of OECA‘s FY 2013 goals by addressing pollution that matters mo st to communities and promoting transparency.

Regions should work to assure international compliance and prevent illegal trans

- boundary movement of hazardous waste by:

Improving environmental performance and cooperation in accordance with Goal 6 of the U.S./Mexico Border 2020 Plan (Regions VI and IX). Enhancing 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., mercury), and other regulated substances (Border Regions). Improving performance of joint responsibilities along the border and ports of entry into the United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through appropriate contact channels (all Regions). Promoting 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). Reviewing 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, recommending consent or objection to notifications within the time periods allowed under applicable i nternational agreements (all Regions). As a regular part of Regional inspection activities, conducting periodic inspections of U.S. facilities which receive imported hazardous waste (TSDFs) and generators and other primary exporters of hazardous waste, c athode ray tubes (CRTs) and spent lead acid batteries (SLABs), based on information provided by OFA which identifies those facilities participating in import and export shipments.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 84

Regions should implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by:

Fulfilling EPA‘s obligations under NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act by reviewing and commenting on all major proposed federal actions to ensure identification, elimination, or mitigation of significant adverse effects, and making the comments ava ilable to the public. Ensuring that projects likely to have significant impacts (e.g., transportation, mountaintop mining, and energy) receive sound environmental analysis, use cooperation among agencies to resolve differences, consider environmental jus tice, incorporate innovation and support public involvement through a more streamlined and transparent environmental review

process Ensuring that 70 percent of significant impacts identified by EPA during the NEPA review of all major proposed federal acti ons will be mitigated. (GPRA measure) Ensuring that at least 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment or EIS requirements (e.g., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source NPDES permits and EPA facilities) are expected to result in no significant environmental impact. Promoting Environmental Justice considerations throughout the environmental decision

making process and encouraging public involvement early in the process to maximize

transparency. Making categorical exclusion determinations or preparing environmental analyses (EISs or

EAs ) and posting them on the internet for EPA

- issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for new sources, for states/tribes without authorized

NPD ES programs; off

- shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deepwater ports, EPA laboratories and facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants. Making Categorical Exclusion determinations or preparing environmental analyses (EAs or EISs) and posting them on the internet for Special Appropriation grants (including the Colonias Wastewater Construction and Project Development Assistance program) for wastewater, drinking water supply, and solid waste collection facilities; Border Envi ronment Infrastructure Funds (for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects); and reviews conducted under ―EPA‘s Voluntary NEPA Compliance Policy.‖
Entering the results of their ' 309 reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the Lotus Notes EIS Tracking Database maintained by HQ OFA, and the Special Appropriations Act Projects (SAAP) system maintained by HQ OW, respectively. Additionally, Regions should report to the Office of Fede ral Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews and NEPA compliance actions pursuant to the Government Performance Reporting Act (GPRA) reporting process, and provide other reports as may be required by the American Recovery

and Reinvestment Ac t of 2009.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 85

SECTION V III : NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA

PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5

In addition to the national initiatives and programs that can be specifically assigned to one of the four Strategic sub

- objectives of water, air, waste/tox ic/pesticides, and criminal enforcement, OECA has several programs that contribute to the goals of more than one sub

- objective. These programs are: Multi

- media, Compliance Incentives, Indian country, and Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, OECA has specific training and state oversight program requirements.

Specific Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Program Performance Expectations

EPCRA includes two distinct programs, Community Right

- to

- Know under EPCRA 313 and

release notification and emergency preparedness under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304, 311 and 312. The EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for information on chemical releases entering the environment, and on the storage of che micals at facilit ies. The EPA, states, t ribes, local entities, and communities rely on the combined EPCRA/CERCLA information to prepare local chemical emergency response plans, and to more safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies.

The EPA must ensure that com panies report accurately and within required time frames. Regions

a nd states should inspect facilities that may be contributing to pollution problems that matter to their respective communities, and develop enforcement cases that produce significant

enviro nmental benefits.

1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities

OECA addresses the top Office of Environmental Information priority for the EPCRA programs by increasing compliance of non

- reporters and never

- reporters.

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities

A. EPCRA 313:

Regions are expected to:

o Inspect or send information request letters to enforcement targets developed by OECA with assistance from OEI for FY 2012 to address the following categories of

concern as resources allow:

 Twenty potential non

- reporters (facilities that report in one year but fail to report the following year)

 Potential never

- reporters (target facilities in the same sectors where a company may not have reported and a similar facility in the sector did report)

 Potential data quality issues (facilities with significant changes in release estimates from one year to the next or facilities in the same sector where a facility reports significantly more/less than a similar f acility in the sector)FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 86  OECA may provide additional targeting as part of an initiative focused on communities, chemicals, sectors of concern or new regulations . Some new TRI regulations are expected to be finalized in FY 2012.

o Resolve Notices of Signifi cant Errors (NOSEs) for enforcement targets developed by OECA with assistance from OEI for reporting years 2007 to the present for using invalid forms, missing signatures, invalid id and invalid chemical name, no data in section 7 and other significant err ors that prevent entry of data. Electronic reporting will eliminate future NOSEs. This would be accomplished by issuing a Notice of Noncompliance. If the facility still does not comply, a complaint should be issued.

o Resolve the outstanding TRI MEW eb Noncertifiers for reporting year 2010.

Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow

- up, as needed.

Any inspections resulting from any of these targeting efforts will count towards the Region‘s overall inspection commitments.

In addition , Regions should:

Work with the Air, RCRA and Water compliance and enforcement programs to add EPCRA questions to information requests where appropriate, evaluate the responses, and take appropriate enforcement actions or combine with other enforcement actions.

Respond to OECA‘s requests for reviewing draft TRI regulations for enforceability, the revised draft section 313 enforcement response and penalty policy, and any other documents or proposed actions where OECA requests regional input on enforcement

matters.

Consult with Headquarters before initiating any new work in response to self

- disclosures as discussed on page 14

Consult with Headquarters before investing in new compliance assistance work. Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area whe re OECA anticipates a reduction in

inves tment. OECA, working with the R egions, is developing a plan to implement the

reduction in work.

OECA will assist in targeting inspections, but the Regions are 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.

COMMITMENT EPCRA 01 : Conduct at least four (4) EPCRA 313 data quality inspections.

COMMITMENT EPCRA 02 : Conduct at least twenty (20) EPCRA 313 non

- reporter inspections.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 87

B. EPCRA 311/312

EPCRA 311/312 enforcement is an area of disinvestment for FY2013. OECA will continue

EPCRA compliance monitoring and enforcement by focu sing on EPCRA 313 and EPCRA

304/CERCLA 103 work in FY 2013. Both the regulated facilities and communities are now more accustomed to the requirements of EPCRA 311/312, allowing EPA to shift resources to

other h igh priorities. OECA and EPA Regions will not conduct any new work, including inspections, in the EPCRA 311/312 program. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a disinvestment plan for any existing or ongoing work.

C. CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304

Re gions should:

Use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal resources on national and regional priority areas. In targeting for inspections, Regions should consider the presence of significant quantities of CERCLA hazardous or EPCRA extremely hazardous

che micals, proximity to population centers, a history of significant accidental releases, and any other information that indicates a facility may be high

- risk. Evaluate compliance with EPCRA section 304 and CERCLA section 103 during CAA section 112(r) high

- ri sk facility inspections (as described in the CAA Section of this guidance). Within a reasonable period of time, evaluate and respond, if appropriate (including taking enforcement action where appropriate) to any tip or complaint containing allegations tha t provide a reasonable basis to believe that a violation has occurred.

Evaluate certain continuous release submissions for accuracy and compliance and take appropriate enforcement actions for non

- compliance. Consult with Headquarters before initiating an y new work in response to self

- disclosures as discussed on page 14. Consult with Headquarters before investing in new compliance assistance work. Compliance assistance (non

- centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in

inves tment. OECA, worki ng with the R egions, is developing a plan to implement the

reduction in work.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

The Regions should continue coordinating with s tates and t ribes.

4. Improve Transparency

The Regions should

Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases. Enter all federal civil judicial consent decrees into ICIS.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 88

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance

Additional information about OECA‘s EPCRA programs can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra/index.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/epcra/i ndex.html http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra.html

D. Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations

EPA‘s compliance and enforcement progra m involves more than 30,000 federal facilities and installations spread across nearly 30% of the nation‘s territory, among which are some 10,000 currently regulated under the Agency‘s various statutes. As such, it is one of the EPA‘s largest

and most dive rse sectors to oversee. Further, EPA holds these federal agencies accountable to the same standard of environmental compliance as other members of the regulatory community. This equal accountability is specifically required by CERCLA, envisioned by most other statutes and affirmed under Presidential executive order. In addition, federal agencies are now expected to go beyond compliance and serve as an example to others regarding environmental stewardship and management , as Presidential Executive Order N o. 13514 on federal environmental sustainability makes clear. EPA‘s federal facilities enforcement and compliance programs are at http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federalfacilities/in dex.html

Given limited EPA resources, the Agency‘s primary focus in this sector has increasingly been on monitoring and enforcement, given stewardship opportunities and reliable compliance assistance offered by others, especially at FedCenter , the sector‘ s on

- line environmental stewardship and compliance assistance center sponsored by more than a dozen federal agencies. FFEO, in partnership with other federal agencies, will operate and expand FedCenter as the central point for federal agency collaboration on greenhouse gas emission response and other green compliance initiatives associated with Executive Order 13514. See http://www.fedcenter.gov/

All federal facility enforcement actions are considered nationally si gnificant and require consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources to make these consultations timely and

effective.

Regions are encouraged to target federal facilities as part of all National Enforcement Initiative areas, as well as Regional priorities, national initiatives targeted at geographic areas, EJ areas and federal facilities Integrated Strategies areas. FFEO and the Regional Federal Facility Program Managers also annually negotiate Integrated Strategies as part of the National Federal Facilities Program Agenda. These integrated strategies align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship activities and help achi eve environmental and health benefits by addressing those problems that matter to communities. In FY 2013, Regions are expected to continue to implement Integrated Strategies dealing with storm water, federal underground storage tanks,

RCRA corrective act ion sites and vulnerable communities. FFEO and the Regions will also continue to pursue exploratory integrated strategy areas in FY 2013. These areas focus on enforcement actions at Government Owned/Contractor Operated/Government Owned/Privately Operated ( GOCO/GOPO) facilities, HCFCs/CFCs enforcement and inspections associated withFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 89

the disposal of unneeded federal real estate. Inspections in these areas, as well as energy extraction enforcement activities on federal lands, qualify for credit under this com mitment.

1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in

Communities

Clean water action plan: Regions are expected to continue implementing the Integrated Strategies on stormwater. Regions and FFEO are expected to continue to implement a 2011 enforcement settlement with the Department of the Interior‘s (DOI‘s) Indian Affairs program for violations at its schools and water treatment plants across Indian country. In addition, FFEO will complete new inspection targeting capabilit ies for improved monitoring of vulnerable

communities associated with federal facilities.

In order to protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals, Regions are expected to sustain a vigorous inspection and enforcement program at federal facilities, especially focused on National Enforcement Initiatives, Integrated Strategy areas and Regional priorities. Underground Storage Tanks, PCBs and AHERA/asbestos, are all areas where, due to declining resources, OECA will need to reduce its program work to a m inimal national presence. The R egions are supposed to consult Headquarters before initiating any new work in these areas. OECA is working with the Regions to develop a plan for reducing work in these areas to a level of minimal national coverage.

FFEO strongly encourages the Regions to take appropriate and timely enforcement actions to improve compliance at federal facilities. For FY 2013, federal facility resources should give first priority to taking such actions, as defined within relevant media

- spe cific policies, for each federal facility inspected as a consequence of Integrated Strategies efforts. Where appropriate, FFEO advocates including environmental management system (EMS) improvements and SEPs as part of enforcement action settlements. Furthe r, FFEO recommends that the Regions promote greater public awareness and consider greater public engagement through increased transparency of federal facility compliance activity and enforcement actions, which should serve to leverage our own oversight act ivities across affected communities.

Enforcement Follow Up and Projections

At mid

- year each Region must project the number of formal (1) federal facility enforcement case initiations and (2) federal facility settlements for FY 2013. The projections sho uld not include Records of Decision at federal facility CERCLA sites. The projections should be emailed by the Regional Enforcement Division Director to the Director of OECA‘s Federal Facility Office at the

end of the 2 nd fiscal quarter. Since these projections are outside the ACS system, they are not commitments by the Regions.

Cleanup at Hazardous Sites

Please note the reference at Section V.D

, earlier in this Guidance

, to OSWER‘s NPMG which establishes priorities fo r EPA‘s Federal Facilities CERCLA Enforcement program. OECA, working with OSWER and the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work,FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 90

which will address a reduction in the Agency‘s ability to staff cleanup disputes and enforce

CERCLA Fe deral Facility Agreements (FFAs). Since all federal facility enforcement actions are ―nationally significant‖ by OECA policy and require consultation with Headquarters, this consultation will be even more important as the Regions contemplate new work in t his program.

COMMITMENT FED

- FAC05: Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities inspections primarily to support national Integrated Strategy areas, which include stormwater, federal underground storage tanks (UST), RCRA corrective action sites, vulnerable communities and inspections associated with the disposal of unneeded federal real estate. Three exploratory categories from FY 2012

-- inspections at Government Owned/Contractor Operated/Government Owned/Privately Operated (GOCO/GOPO) faciliti es, for HCFCs/CFCs at federal installations and related to energy extraction on federal lands

– will also count. These 10 inspection commitments can be achieved through any combination of single media or multimedia inspections, with the following limitati ons: (1) a maximum of two UST inspections can count toward this goal; (2) a maximum of four vulnerable community inspections can count toward this goal; and (3) for any multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as up to four inspections toward this g oal if up to four of the individual inspections support the Integrated Strategies and/or official Regionally

- designated priorities. Further, (4) up to four official Regionally

designated priorities can count toward the commitment, if the Region determines that inspections up to that number are more desirable than the same number of Integrated Strategy inspections in the Region. Finally, all of these inspections may simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required in any National Enforcement Initiati ve or other core program area.

2. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

Regions are expected to hold s tates accountable for responsible federal facility compliance monitoring and enforcement activity.

3. Improve Transparency

Regions are expected to share environmental information appropriately with the public for federal facility environmental violations, including through press releases for all enforcement actions, and at federal facility cleanup sites. EPA will seek opportunities for legislativ e change

, when appropriate, to ensure federal agency environmental accountability under federal laws.

E . State Review Framework (SRF) Expectations

In FY 2013, Regions are asked to support the SRF in the following ways:

Develop a plan for completing all Round 3 Reviews by the end of FY 2016, generally completing at least 1 state per year.

Conduct all Round 3 SRF reviews of state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs scheduled for FY 2013.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 91

Conduct all CWA reviews using the integrated CWA

- NPDES program oversight process (permit and enforcement reviews).

D raft integrated reports for the CWA portion of the reviews following HQ guidance

. U se data verification and annual data metric analysis to inform regular discussions with

states and to tra ck performance. Review MOAs as part of the CWA

- NPDES review process in light of the OW/OECA criteria for MOA review and checklist to be developed by the end of FY 2012

. Ensure that MOAs are updated as needed by the end of FY 2017.

Follow the Round 3 SRF process and guidance and use Round 3 templates.

Ensure commitments to implement recommendations for program improvements are captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant agreements between

the Region and state

, with accountability fo r c arrying out those commitments. Use all available data to benchmark and monitor the enforcement performance of their states. Data sources include but are not limited to federal and state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and other audit or evaluation reports.

Enter both draft and final SRF reports, including data metric a nalys e s
, file reviews, recommendations, state comments, and benefits arising from SRF reviews, into the Lotus

Notes SRF Track er database upon completion of the review. Monitor progress of states and tribes in carrying out the recommendations of SRF Rounds 1 and 2, and record progress quarterly in the SRF Tracker. Use results of SRF reviews to inform annual planning and regular progress meetings with

states. W here progress toward resolving SRF recommendations is not being made, Regions should escalate their responses.

COMMITMENT SRF01 : Develop a plan to complete all Round 3 state reviews by the end of

FY 2016 and submit it to OC by October 30, 2012. Before the plan is due, OC and OWM will have a discussion with each Region about their plan. Subsequently, OC and OWM will hold annual discussions with Regions to establish whether any modifications to the schedules are

necessary. Identify th e states where Round 3 reviews will be conducted in FY 2013. Conduct all Round 3 SRF reviews of state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs scheduled for FY 2013. Conduct all CWA reviews using the integrated CWA

- NPDES program oversight process (permit and enforcement reviews ). Review existing MOAs as part of the CWA

- NPDES review

process in light of the OW/OECA criteria for MOA review and checklist to be developed in FY

2012. E nsure that MOAs are updated as needed.

SRF guidance, policies, and templates for reporting a re found at http://www.epa

otis.gov/srf/srf_tracking.html

.

SECTION IX

. FY 20 1 3 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A . Annual Commitment System

Following the release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, Region s should hold discussions with

s tate s and t ribe s to d iscuss the highest priority work across the Region and s tate s for theFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 92

upcoming year. This work should be an integration of national, regional and state priorities, and consider permitting and enforcement activities that will lead to improvements in compliance and

in environmental conditions. The Region s and s tate s should discuss how to work together to ensure that the highest priority work gets done, including consideration of this NPM Guidance

, along with guidance of other EPA programs

.

Regions and s tate s should develop draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance that relate to state and tribal activities. Regions should also assess their own resource levels in relation to the priority work identified in the regional/state discussions and the state and tribal contributions to that work, and the work outlined in the NPM Guidance.

OECA will hold a planning discussion with eac h Region at the senior management level during the spring of 201 2 to discuss the strategic allocation of the Region ‘s resources, with the goal of informing the negotiation of the ACS commitments for the Region for the coming year. OECA

understands that th e demands of ensuring compliance with the myriad of environmental laws and programs covered by this NPM Guidance may exceed a Region ‘s resources, and wants to ensure that available resources are put towards addressing the most important sources and most se rious violations that affect the environment and public health.

NPMs will initiate the commitment process in the system by entering a value in the ―Proposed Bid‖ field for each commitment measure by May 25, 2012. Current schedules call for Region s

to ent er their draft targets into the an nual commitment system by July 6 , 201 2 . By completing OECA and regional senior management discussions prior to this time, the process for resolving any issues and finalizing annual regional targets should be streamlined. During this same time, Region s should engage s tate s and t ribe s 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 c ommitments should be final by October 2 6 , 201 2

.

B

. FTE Resource Charts

The Region s should complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in previous planning cycles. Charts organize FTE information by goal, objective, and sub

- objective, and then cross

walk to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts is significant due to increased interest from the Office of Management and Budget, the Insp ector General, and Congress. Regions will rece ive FTE templates and it is imperative that Region s submit these completed documents to Michele McKeever on September 30, 20 1 2

.

20 1 2 Final

– Enter the Region ‘s final FTE allocation for FY20 1 2 in the 20 1 2 Final

column.

201 3 Proposed

– Enter the Region ‘s proposed FTE allocation for FY201 2 in the 201 3 Proposed column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency

receives the FY201 1 enacted budget after October 1, 20 1 2

. Therefore thi s number is a ―best guess‖ estimate.FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 93

SECTION X. LIST OF ACRONYMS

A

ACS

– Annual Commitment System

AHERA

– Asbestos Hazard and Emergency Response Act

AFS

– Air Facilities System

AFS ICR

- Air Facilities System

– Information Collection Request

AST

– Above Ground Storage Tank

ASDWA

– Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

B

BIA

– Bureau of Indian Affairs

BMP

– Best Management Practices

BoP

– Bureau of Prisons

C

CA

– Compliance Assistance

CAA

– Clean Air Act

CAC

– Compliance Assistance Coordinator

CACDS

– Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet

CAFO

– Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

CBP

– Customs and Border Protection

CBI

– Confidential Business Information

CCDS

– Case Conclusion Data Sheet

CDC

- Centers for Disease Control

CEC

– Commission for Environmental Cooperation

CEI

– Compliance Evaluation Inspection

CERCLA

– Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CESQG

– Conditionally

- exempt Small Quantity Generato r CFC

– Chlorofluorocarbon

CID

– Criminal Investigation Division

CIPs

– Compliance Incentive Programs

CMS

- Compliance Monitoring Strategy

CRT

– Cathode Ray Tubes

CSOs

– Combined Sewer Overflows

CSS

– Combined Sewer Systems

CWA

– Clean Water Act

D

DARTER

- Data on Aquatic Resource Tracking for Effective RegulationFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 94

DMR

– Discharge Monitoring Report

DOH

– Department of Homeland Security

DOJ

– Department of Justice

E

EA

– Environmental Assessment

EIS

– Environmental Impact Statement

EJ

– Environmental Justice

EJAC

– Environmental Justice Areas of Concern

EJSEAT

– Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool

EBLLs

- E levated Blood L ead L evels

EMP

– Environmental Management Practices

EMR

– Environmental Management Review s

EMS

– Environmental Management System

EPA

– Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA

– Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act

ERPs

– Enforcement Response Policies

ERP

– Environmental Results Program

ESD

– Explanations of Significant Differences

ETT

– Enforcement Targeting Tool

F

FCE

– Full Compliance Evaluation

FEMA

– Federal Emergency Management Agency

FFA

– Federal Facility Agreement

FFEO

– Federal Facilities Enforcement Office

FIFRA

– Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FTE

– Full Time Equivalent

FTTS/NCDB

– FIFRA

- TSCA Tracking System/National Compliance

Database

FRP

– Facility Response Plan

FRV

– Federally Reportable Violations

FUDS

- F ormerly U sed Defense S ites

FY

– Fiscal Year

G

GACT

– Generally Available Control Technology

GAO

– Government Accounting Office

GHG

– Greenhouse Gas

GIS

– Geographic Information System

GME

– Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation

GOCO

– Government Owned/ Contractor OperatedFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 95

GOPO

– Government Owned/Privately Operated

GPRA

– Government Performance and Results Act

H

HAP

– Hazardous Air Pollutant

HCFC

- Hydrochlofluorocarbons

HPV

– High Priority Violators

HPPG

– High Priority Performance Goal
HQ

- Headquarters

HUD

– Housing and Urban Development

I

IAC

– Innovative Action Council

ICDS

– Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet

ICI

- Integrated Cleanup Initiative

ICIS

– Integrated Compliance Information System

ICIS

– NPDES Integrated Compliance Information System

– National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ICR

– In formation Collection Request

IG

– Inspector General

INECE

– International Network for Environmental Compliance and

Enforcement

IU

– Industrial U sers

IPOD

– ICIS Policy on Demand

L

LBP

– Lead

- based Paint

LDAR

- Leak Detection and Repair

LEA

– Local Education Authority

LGEAN

– Local Government Environmental Assistance Network LQG

– Large Quantity Generator

LVE

- Low Volume Exemptions

M

MACT

– Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MDR

– Minimum Data Requirements

MITC

- M ethyl I sothiocyanate

MOA

– Memorandum of Agreement

MOU

– Memorandum of Understanding

MS4

– Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSGP

– Multi

- sector General PermitFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 96 N NAAQS

– National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEI

– National Enforcement Initiative

NEIC

– National Enforcement Investigations Center

NEJAC

– National Environmental Justice Advisory Council

NEPA

– National Environmental Policy Act

NESCA

– National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action

NESHAP

– National Emissions Standards for H azardou s Air Pollutants

NETI

– National Enforcement Training Institute

NOA

– Notice of Arrival

NOV

– Notice of Violation

NOx

– Nitrogen Oxide

NPDES

– National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL

– National Priorities List

NPM

– National Program Manager

NRC

– National Response Center

NRCS

– Natural Resource Conservation Services

NSPS

– New Source Performance Standards

NSR

– New Source Review

NTP

– National Training Plan

O

OAM

– Operation and Maintenance

OAP

– Office of Administration and Policy

OC

– Office of Compliance

OCE

– Office of Civil Enforcement

OCEFT

– Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training

OCFO

– Office of Chief Financial Officer

OCIR

– Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

OCSPP

- Office of Chemical Safety, Pesticides, and Prevention

ODS

– Ozone Depleting Substances

OECA

- Office of Compliance and Assurance

OEI

– Office of Environmental Information

OEJ

– Office of Environmental Justice

OFA

– Office of Federal Activities

OGD

– Office of Grants and Disbarment

OIG

– Office of the Inspector General

OMB

– Office of Management and Budget

OPA

– Oil Pollution Act

OPP

– Office of Pesticide Programs

OSHA

- Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSWER

– Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OTIS

– Online Tracking Information SystemFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 97 P

PBT

– Persistent Bio

- accumulative Toxics

PCB

– Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCE

– Partial Compliance Evaluation

PCS

– Permit Compliance System

PEI

– Production Establishment Inspections

PFA

– Preliminary Financial Assessments

PM10

– Particulate Matter

PMN

- Pre

- manufacturing Notice

POTW

– Publically Operated Treatment Works

PPA

– Performance Partnership Agreement

PPG

– Performance Partnership Grants

PRE

- P re

- renovation E ducation

PRP

– Potentially Responsible Party

PSD

– Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PWS

– Public Water System

PWSS

– Public Water System Supervision

R

RCRA

– Resource Conservation Recovery Act

RCRAInfo

– Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information

RECAP

– Regional Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program

RED

– Re

- registration Eligibility Decision

RI/FS

– Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Study

RMP

– Risk Management Plan

ROD

– Record of D ecision

RR+P

– Renovation, Repair and Painting

S

SAAP

– Special Appropriations Act Projects

SAC

– Special Agent

- in

- Charge

SCAP

– Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Planning

SDWA

– Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS/ODS

– Safe Drinking Water Information System/ Operational Data System

SEC

– Securities and Exchange Commission

SEE

– Senior Environmental Employment

SEP

– Supplemental Environmental Project

SIP

– State Implementation Plan

SGTM

– State Grant Template Measures

SITS

– Strategy Implementation TeamsFY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 98

SLAB

- S pent L ead A cid B atteries

SLPD

– Special Litigation and Projects Division

SNCs

– Significant Noncompliance

SNURs

- Significant New Use Rules

SOC

– Significant Operational Compliance

SO2

– Sulfur Dioxide

SPCC

– Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

SPIM

- Superfund Program Implementation Manual
SQG

– Small Quantity Generator

SRF

– State Review Framework

SSO

– Sanitary Sewer Overflows

STAG

- - State and Tribal Assistance Grant

SWPPP

– Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

T

TRI

– Toxic Release Inventory

TSCA

– Toxic Substance Control Act

TSD

- Treatment, Storage and Disposal

TSDF

– Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility

TSS

– Total Suspended Solids

TVA

– Tennessee Valley Authority

U

UIC

– Underground Injection Control

UNICOR

– trade name of Federal Prison Industries

USCBP

- U.S. Customs and Border Protection

UST

– Underground Storage Tank

V

VCMA

– Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed

VOC

– Volatile Organic Compounds

W

WCED

- Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division

WPS

– Worker Protection Standards

WW

– Wet Weather1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

FY 201 3 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX

G/O/S * ACS

Code Measure Text Non

Commitment

Indicator (Y/N) State

Performance

Measure (Y/N) Planning Target 1 National Target (FY

2013 Pres. Bud)

5 EJ01 HQ will analyze FY12 EJSEAT data to consider developing

a baseline for a budget measure related to case initiations in

areas with EJ concerns. N N N N

5 CAA 04 The number of compliance evaluations (or other agreed upon

compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national dialogue on CAA compliance monitoring) to be conducted by the Regions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate). [Note: Region should break

out evaluat ion projections by source classification and by compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and Investigations).] In the comment section, each region should also provide the number of federal facility FCEs, PC Es and investigations. Projected investigations u nder this commitment are those investigations initiated by the Regions for the air enforcement program outside of the National Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air program (e.g., MACT, NSPS). N N N N

5 CAA 06 Ensure that delegated state, tribal and local agencies

implement their compliance and enforcement programs in accordance with the CAA CMS and have negotiated facility

specific CMS plans in place. The Regions are to provide the N N N N

1 See measures text for each ACS commitment for specific expectations.2 number of FCEs at majors and 80% synthetic minors to be conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate program implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a delegated agency negotiates with a Region an alternative CMS plan or alternative activities (pursuant to the CAA CMS national dialogue), this commitment should reflect the alternative plan. [Note: Break out evaluation and activity projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by source classification]. Prior to approving an alternative plan, Regio ns should consult with the Office of Compliance (OC) and provide OC with information on how the state, tribal or local agency compliance monitoring air resources will be redirected and the rationale for making the change.

5 CWA07 By December 31, 2012, provide a specific NPDES

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each authorized state in the Region, targeting the most significant sources with potential to impact water quality. 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 flexibilities in the 2007

NPDES CM S policy and any amendments or further guidance as a result of the national dialogue on expanding the range of activities to be counted as compliance monitoring under the NPDES CMS. At the end of the year, provide for each state a numerical report on EPA a nd state inspection plan outputs, by category and subcategory. To increase the transparency of NPDES inspection data, OECA will work with EPA Regions and state associations to develop formats for releasing inspection data on CMS implementation performance on a state

- by

- state basis. N N N N

5 SDWA0 2 During FY 2013, the primacy agency must address with a

formal enforcement action or return to compliance the number of priority systems equal to the number of its PWSs that have a score of 11 or higher on the July 2012 ETT N N N N3 report. State, territory and tri bal breakouts shall be indicated in the comment field of the Annual Commitment System.

5 RCRA01 Project by state, and Indian Country where applicable, the

number of operating non

- governmental TSDFs, to be inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each state or Indian country unless OECA approve s a deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are given for states with small universes where it might not make sense for a Region to inspect two TSDFs per year. Financial responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core

program a nd evaluating compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H should be included as part of the inspection of each TSDF (although such evaluations do not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the same people who conduct the field inspections). If a Region determines that there are unique circumstances in the Region or with a particular TSDF, the Region may contact Headquarters to discuss undertaking a detailed evaluation of compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H at another

TSDF. N N N N

5 RCRA01.

s Project by state the number of operating TSDFs to be inspected by the state during the year.

Note: Only one inspection per facility counts towards this

coverage measure. The RCRA CMS establishes minimum annual inspection expectations for TSDFs: The inspections

for RCRA01 and RCRA01.s should be CEIs. CEIs include evaluating compliance with the financial assurance requirements, 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H. Financial

respo nsibility is an important component of the RCRA core program and should be included as part of the inspection of each TSDF (although the financial responsibility reviews do not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the same people who conduct the field inspections). N N N N4

5 RCRA03 I nspect each operating TSDF operated by states, local, or

Tribal governments. N N N N

5 RCRA02 Project by state and Indian Country, the number of LQGs,

including those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the Region during the year. Each Region must commit to inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each state, and 20% of the region’s LQGs universe in Indian Country, unless OECA approves a deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are given for states with small universes where it doesn’t make sense for a Region to inspect 6 LQGs per year or 20% of the Region’s LQG universe in Indian co untry. Regions should select at least 2 of the Region's total LQG inspections at facilities described in the high priority section as areas of emerging environmental concern. Regions may work with OECA to coordinate these inspections, including

whether t he inspection will be conducted at a TSDF or LQG. In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility LQG inspections. N N N N

5 RCRA02.

s Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the state during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG universe should be covered by combined federal and state inspections unless an alternative plan is approved under the

RCRA CMS. N N N N

5 OSRE

- 04 Regions must commit to inspect at least one (1) RCRA

corrective action financial assurance instrument per state, with at least 50% being financial test or corporate guarantee

reviews . Where the submission is noncompliant, take appropriate enforcement action to address noncompliance (e.g., notice of violatio n). Or, where appropriate, work with the state to ensure appropriate action is taken to address noncompliance. If possible, return facility to compliance by end of fiscal year. N N N N5

5

TSCA01 Project the total number of FY2013 TSCA inspections. In

the comment field of the Annual Commitment System (ACS), the Region shall break out the number of projected inspections by TSCA program area (LBP, New and Existing Chemicals, formaldehyde,). Note: F or the reasons discussed in the executive summary, the LBP component of this TSCA ACS commitment (TSCA 01) will serve as OECA’s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to protect children's

health. N N N N

5 TSCA02 Report other compliance monitoring activities at the end of

the year; and break

- out the description of other such activities by TSCA program area. (See the CMS and the future outcomes of the compliance monitoring national dialogue for more details). N N N N

5 FIFRA

-

FED1 Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. Each Region

should conduct a minimum of ten (10) FIFRA inspections. In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility inspections. N N N N

5 OSRE

- 01 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start

of remedial action at 99% of non

- federal Superfund sites that
have viable, liable parties

. N N N N

5 OSRE

- 02 Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases

for sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to DOJ, filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write

- off. N N N N

5 HQ

- VOL Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed (VCMA)

. As

part of the Goal 5 sub

- objective, Support Cleaning up Our Communities, OECA has added the following new GPRA N N Y (See narrat ive.) N6 target: By 2015, obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions.

OECA has reported VCMA for contaminated soil and groundwater media as separate measures in its annual results

since 2004. The new measure combines the two and elevates them to the GPRA level. The GPRA target is a national target and Regions are not required to post commitments in

ACS.

5 EPCRA

01 Conduct at least four (4) EPCR A 313 data quality inspections. N N N N

5 EPCRA

02 Conduct at least twenty (20) EPCRA 313 non

- reporter inspections. N N N N

5 FED

- FAC05 Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities

inspections primarily to support national Integrated Strategy areas, which include stormwater, federal underground storage tanks (UST), RCRA corrective action sites, vulnerable communities and inspection s associated with the disposal of unneeded federal real estate. Three exploratory categories from FY 2012

-- inspections at Government Owned/Contractor Operated/Government Owned/Privately Operated (GOCO/GOPO) facilities, for HCFCs/CFCs at

federal installa tions and related to energy extraction on

federal lands

– will also count. These 10 inspection commitments can be achieved through any combination of single media or multimedia inspections, with the following limitations: (1) a maximum of two UST inspecti ons can count toward this goal; (2) a maximum of four vulnerable community inspections can count toward this goal; and (3) for any multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as up to four inspections toward this goal if up to four of the

individual in spections support the Integrated Strategies N N N N7 and/or official Regionally

- designated priorities. Further, (4) up to four official Regionally

- designated priorities can count toward the commitment, if the Region determines that inspections up to that number ar e more desirable than the same number of Integrated Strategy inspections in the Region. Finally, all of these inspections may simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required in any National Enforcement Initiative or other core program area.

5 SRF01 Develop a plan to complete all Round 3 state reviews by the

end of FY 2016 and submit it to OC by October 30, 2012. Before the plan is due, OC and OWM will have a discussion with each Region about their plan. Subsequently, OC and

OWM will hold annual disc ussions with Regions to establish whether any modifications to the schedules are necessary. Identify the states where Round 3 reviews will be conducted in FY 2013. Conduct all Round 3 SRF reviews of state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs scheduled for FY 2013. Conduct all CWA reviews using the integrated CWA

NPDES program oversight process (permit and enforcement reviews). Review existing MOAs as part of the CWA

NPDES review process using the new model MOA template. Ensure that MOAs are updated as needed. N N N N

* Goal/Objective/Sub

- Heading1 

### Explanation of Changes between FY 201 2 and FY 201 3 NPM Guidance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Instructions Change from FY 201 1 Guidance Document Reason for Change Location of Information

Briefly describe the significant changes from the FY 201 2 guidance and specify whether it is a deletion, addition, or modification. Changes to measures may be grouped. Provide the reason for the change and indicate whether the change is in response to an Agency initiative, internal process or comment on the draft guidance (e.g., b udget decisions, Administrator’s priorities, regulation, initiative, result of measures revi ew, etc.). Identify where in the document the

new or modified information can be found ( by page number and section

)

.

Template

Change from FY 201 2 Guidance Document Reason for Change Affected Pages and Sections

Priorities Changes to priorities and strategies are inter

related in certain instances

. To avoid unnecessary repetition, p lease see strategy changes highlighted

below.

Strategies Next Generation Compliance : OECA has

identified a critical new investment area aimed at instituting next generation compliance practices

to build 21 st century technical capabilities and efficiencies in assuring compliance. OECA and the Regions are supporting the Agency’s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve t argeting and transparency and advancing new monitoring technologies to identify violations impacting public health and harming the environment. For consent decrees that include a requirement to conduct a performance test(s), Regions should seek having ele ctronic copies of required performance test reports submitted to the Agency through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) This is c onsistent with EPA’s desire to better address large regulated universes with approaches that go beyond traditional inspection

and enforcement activities

. See pages 9, 13, 29, 33, 34, 41

and 59.2 when feasible.

Clean Water Act Action Plan: OECA, together with EPA regions, states and tribes with program delegation, and the Office of Water, continues to implement the CWA Action Plan (“the Action Plan”) issued in October 2009. Pursuant to the

Action Decision Document, issued in May 2011,

EP A is making four fundamental changes to revamp the NPDES permitting, compliance and enforcement program to better address today’s serious water quality problems. The proposed changes take into account work already accomplished and continuing improvements to better address today’s water quality problems. See p a g e s 33

- 34.

Integrated Municipal Planning Approach: EPA engaged stakeholders to develop and implement an Integrated Municipal Planning Approach to address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations related to their municipal sewer system infrastructure. This approach will allow municipalities to prioritize CWA requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first, while maintaining existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality. All or part of an integrated plan may be incorporated into the remedy of enforcement actions. See pages 15 and 36.

Inspector Credentials: In FY 2013, regions will be required to re

- credential many of their inspectors. EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. state and tribal credentials) must conduct an annual inventory including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials. OECA will work the regions t o establish a schedule and necessary steps for the re

credentialing of inspectors. See page 16.

Compliance Monitoring National Dialogue: OECA will be holding a national dialogue on how This is necessary as the regulated universe continues to grow while federal and state See page 16.3 to expand the range of compliance monitoring

activities to be cr edited under media Compliance Monitoring Strategies (CMS). resources become scarcer. Traditionally, on

- site compliance inspections and investigations have

been the primary means for providing coverage of the regulated universe. There are many additional activities regulatory agencies do to monitor facility

- level compliance that can and should be considered along with inspections and investigations as contr ibuting to our coverage goals. EPA regions, states and tribes should participate in this national dialogue in 2012, and be ready to implement the outcome in 2013.

Budget Challenges for FY 2013: Anticipating tight budgets in FY 2013 and beyond, OECA

needs to take steps now to ensure that limited resources remain available to focus on our highest priorities

-- the pollution problems that pose the greatest threat to human health and the

environmen t.

The FY 2013 OECA NPM guidance identifies those areas where OECA and the regions will

focus our resources

-- both in advancing the Administrator's and EPA's enforcement program goals. It also flags those areas we anticipate will be subject to reduced empha sis or disinvestment; these media specific areas are discussed within the appropriate context in the draft OECA NPM guidance

. These difficult choices reflect the need to ensure that we can deploy adequate resources to effectively address our highest prio rities in ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, and that budget reductions mean some redirection and further focus is necessary. See pages 13

- 14, 31, 40, 47, 55, 58, 65, 69, 77

- 79, 81 and 87.

Environmental Information Exchange

Network: The NPM guidance provides updated

information on the Environmental Information Exchange Network . It also invites the provision of examples to the Electronic Reporting Task Force of experiences in moving from paper to electronic reportin g. To reduce burden, improve compliance, expand the information available to the public about pollution that affects them, and improve the ability of EPA, states and tribes to implement environmental programs, the Agency has commenced a comprehensive ini tiative to

convert from paper reporting to electronic See pages 9, 34 (#1) and 41(first bullet).4 reporting. The NPM guidance discusses the

focus of this initiative in two main areas

. The Agency is also interested in learning from states

and tribes about successes and challenges in converting from paper reporting to electronic. If

a state or tribe would like to share information with the Electronic Reporting Task Force, please contact David Hindin (OECA) and Andy Battin (OEI) for more information.

Environmental Justice (EJ) : Expanded narrative addressing children’s health and screening of civil and criminal enforcement

cases for EJ concerns

. The narrative was expanded to further address children’s health. Also, the narrative addresses

OECA ’s evaluat ion and post

- pilot implementation of the Technical Directive: Reviewing EPA Enforcement Cases for

Potential Environmental Justice Concerns and Rep orting Findings to the ICIS Data System

. See page 18 (last paragraph), bullets on page 19, page 21 (second paragraph), and page 22 (last bullet).

T oxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy : Starting in FY2013, the One TSCA approach includes activities in each TSCA focus area not subject to

FY 2013 disinvestment. One

- TSCA means that each Region is expected to use all available compliance monitoring capabilities (within all relevant offices in the Region, at Headquarters, and among participating states) to address the Region’s most significant TSCA challenges, while sustaining essential capacity in all of its TSCA

program areas not subject to disinvestment. See pages 14 and 59.

CAA Section : Updates to activities for regions, states, tribes and local agencies

. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities , including national dialogue on compliance monitoring and support of next generation compliance activities

. See pages 26

- 29

.

CWA Section : Updates to activities for regions and states. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities , including but not limited to preparing for implementation of proposed NPDES electronic reporting rule

. See pages 34

- 35, 38

- 43.5 SDWA Section : Updates to activities for regions and states. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See pages 46

- 47.

RCRA Section : Updates to activities for regions and states. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See pages 51, 54

- 55

, 57.

TSCA Section : Updates to activities for regions and states. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See pages 58

- 65.

FIFRA Section : Updates to activities for regions, s tates, tribes. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See pages 68

- 71

.

CERCLA : Updates to activities for regions

. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See page s 78

- 79

.

Criminal Enforcement Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See page 81.

Federal Activities Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See page 84, 3 rd bullet

.

EPCRA 313 Section : Updates to activities for regions

. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See page 86.

EPCRA 311/312 Section : Updates to activities for regions

. Reflects change in focus for EPCRA program. See page 87.

CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304 Section : Updates to activities for regions

. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See page 87.

Federal Facilities Section : Updates to activities for regions

. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See page s 88

- 90

.6 State Review Framework : Updates to activities for regions

. Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013

activities. See pages 90

– 91.

Annual

Commitment

Measures CAA 07: Deleted commitment CAA 07.

This addressed the reporting of Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs) in the national data system

AFS. The regions are still working to ensure the entry of 100% of MDRs in AFS. The importance of this activity has not changed. But this is part of the core program and it was deemed unnecessary to have an ACS measure. Deleted from page 31.

RCRA 04 Subtitle C Program: Deleted

commitment RCRA 04 for financial assurance. However, the NPM Guidance emphasizes that financial assurance compliance evaluations should be part of any Compliance Evaluation Inspection. Financial responsibility was an OECA National Enforcement Priority from 2005

- 2010. In FY 11 and FY 12, OECA used an ACS commitment

to ensure continued focus on financial assurance compliance monitoring as it transitioned from a priority back to a core program function.

OECA believes that transition is now successfully c omplete and does not see a

continued need for RCRA04. Deleted from page 54.

CWA09: Deleted commitment CWA 09 which read as follows: Regions should submit

summaries of the collaborative EPA/state ann ual work planning process addressing NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities, including work

- sharing, to the Office of Compliance and the Office of Wastewater Management by October 31, 2011,

for FY 2013 activities. Regions wi ll continue to conduct collaborative

EPA/state ann ual work planning processes addressing NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities, including work

- sharing. It was deemed unnecessary to have an ACS commitment on

this. Deleted fro m page 45.

CWA 10: Deleted CWA 10 which read as

follows: Regions should focus their CWA enforcement work towards meeting the national target of 37% for concluding federal judicial and administrative enforcement actions resulting in a reduction of pollutants that pertain to facilities discharging into waters that do not achieve water The Goal was to increase the percentage of our

enforcement actions taken in waters that do not meet water quality standards. The FY 2011 target was 37%, compared to an FY 2009

baseline of 32%. In FY 2011, EPA focused approximately 60% of its water quality enforcement actions to facilities discharging to Deleted from CWA section.7 quality standards. The Regions should report their data per the November 2010 guidance issued by OECA, and any subsequent updates issued for

FY2012. waters that do not meet water q uality standards. Given this achievement, the Agency has chosen another area of focus (Electronic Reporting) for

its FY 2012

- 2013 Priority Goal.

EJ01: Headquarters (HQ) added this commitment which involves the analysis of FY 2012 EJ SEAT data by HQ. Headquarters believes it’s important to analyze FY 12 EJSEAT data to consider developing a baseline for a budget measure related to case

initiations in areas with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. Added to page 19.

TSCA 01: The Lead Based Paint (LBP) component of OECA’s TSCA 01 ACS commitment, which focuses on inspections, will

serve as OECA’s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to protect children’s

health. TSCA 01 was an FY 2012 measure, but

identification of th e LB P component as a children ’s health measure is new. Monitoring and enforcement efforts to promote compliance with LBP rules, particularly the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, advance the goal of eliminating and preventing LBP hazards, which are the primary single cause of childhood lead poisoning. These efforts support the Agency’s mission to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. See page 11 and 61

.

TSCA02 : Added commitment TSCA02, which

reads as follows: Report other compliance

mon itoring activities at the end of the year; and

break

- out the description of other such activities by TSCA program area. (See the CMS and the future outcomes of the compliance monitoring national dialogue for more details). T See explanation next to Compliance Monitoring National Dialogue on the bottom of page 2, top of page 3 above. See page 61.

OSRE Commitment HQ

- VOL : Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed (VCMA). HQ added new GPRA national target. Regions are not required to post commitments in

ACS. As part of the Goal 5 sub

- objective, Support Cleaning up Our Communities, OECA has added the following new GPRA target: By 2015, obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of conc luded

CERCLA and RCRA corrective action Added to page 79.8 enforcement actions. OECA has reported VCMA for contaminated soil and groundwater media as separate measures in its annual results

since 2004. The new measure combines the two

and elevates them to the GPRA level. The GPRA target is a national target and Regions are not required to post commitments in ACS.

CAA04, CAA06, RCRA 01, 01.s, 02, OSRE 04, CWA07, FIFRA Fed1, Fed

- Fac05, SRF

- 01 : Language was modified (slightly in some instances) under each of these ACS commitments. Language was modified (slightly in some instances) to reflect focus of FY 2013 activities. See pages :

- 29 (CAA04),

- 30 (CAA 06),

- 41 (CWA07),

- 51 (RCRA01, 01.s),

- 54 (RCRA02 & OSRE04),

- 71 (FIFRA Fed1),

- 90 (Fed Fac 05) and

- 91 (SRF01).

Contacts Maureen Lydon