FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 1

FY 2013

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

Draft

 National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance 

February 10, 2012

Publication Number: 

305P12001
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 2

Table of Contents

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

A. PROGRAM OFFICE ................................................................................................................................................4

B. INTRODUCTION/ CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................4

C. PROGRAM PRIORITIES ..........................................................................................................................................4

D. ACHIEVING COMPLIANCE FOR NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PRIORITIES ...............................................................8

E. CROSS CUTTING STRATEGIES IN THE FY2011-2015 STRATEGIC PLAN .................................................................9

F. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM FY2012 ...............................................................................................................13

SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS ...............................................17

SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 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 Enforcement Actions, As Appropriate ......................................................22

SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION.....................................................................................................................24

A. CLEAN AIR ACT (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 PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION....................................................................................33

A. CLEAN WATER ACT (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. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (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 PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES POLLUTION............................................................50

A. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (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 ...........................52
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 3

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes....................................................................................56

6. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................57

B. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (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. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (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. Relevant Policies and Guidance ............................................................................................................76

D. SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS......................................................................................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 PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT...................................................................................81

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities ...........................................................................................................81

SECTION VII: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS THROUGH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ..........................................83

A. SPECIFIC FEDERAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS.........................................................83

SECTION VIII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA PROGRAMS 

UNDER 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 313: ..........................................................................................................................................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 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS ..............................................91

A. ANNUAL COMMITMENT SYSTEM........................................................................................................................91

B. FTE RESOURCE CHARTS ....................................................................................................................................92

SECTION X. LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................93
FY2013 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) regional enforcement programs, and states and 

federally-recognized Indian Tribes (tribes) implementing EPA-approved inspection and 

enforcement programs1. OECA designs, develops, implements and oversees national 

enforcement programs, while the regional offices work with states, tribes, and others to 

implement these programs. The OECA National Enforcement Program Managers Guidance

(NPMG) for fiscal year (FY) 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 enforcement 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, 

incentives, 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, hazardous 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 programs 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 Strategic 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 those 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 priorities, and other key enforcement actions to achieve EPA‘s 

enforcement goals.

C. Program Priorities 

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

 

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 the inspection and enforcement program. 

2 The Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 5

Taking Action on Climate Change: Enforcement supports the 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 greenhouse 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 taking 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 protective enforcement, permitting and 

standards, especially in communities that are disproportionately affected by pollution 

now. OECA will continue to work with states and tribes to improve monitoring of 

compliance with air pollution standards and make sure that action is taken against serious 

violations that affect community air quality. 

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals: As the Agency steps up its review of chemical safety 

and pushes for reform, OECA will work closely with 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 environmental justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement 

program by using EJ criteria when enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to 

meet RCRA 2020 goals and ensuring 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, including 

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 states and work to define the shared accountability 

of EPA, states and tribes 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 for 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 Policy 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 states and 

tribes for protecting the environment and public health. With the current economic 

challenges, it is important that EPA and its partners work efficiently and effectively to do 

the most we can with the resources we have. At the same time, OECA will strengthen 

oversight of states that implement federal environmental programs, and support states 

that take strong enforcement action to protect their citizens by making sure that we hold 

all states to a comparable standard. 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 communities. 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, acid and glass sectors

o Climate and clean energy

Assure compliance with Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

Encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions through settlements

Target energy sector compliance with air, water and waste rules

o Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals

Prevent releases of hazardous chemicals that threaten public health or the 

environment
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 7

Press for prompt cleanup of hazardous sites in communities, ensuring that the 

polluter pays

Reform chemical management enforcement and reduce 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 delivering on our joint 

commitment to a clean and healthy environment.

o Shared accountability

Make joint progress with states and tribes toward clean air and water goals, 

and protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals

Work toward shared focus on protecting vulnerable communities

o Strengthened oversight

Assure strong and effective state enforcement of federal environmental laws

Press for consistent enforcement across states and Regions, 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 not 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 environmental decisions and public engagement through 

NEPA

To help implement these enforcement goals, OECA selects a limited number of National 

Enforcement Initiatives based upon significant environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. 

In FY 2010, EPA re-examined the existing initiatives to look for opportunities to clarify goals 

and measures, more accurately identify universes of sources, and, where necessary, to change the 

focus of an Initiative. In addition, EPA considered candidates for new National Enforcement 

Initiatives. After consulting with EPA programs and Regions, states, tribes, and the public, 

OECA adopted the following National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011 through 2013. More 

information on each is found in the media sections of this guidance:

Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater 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 sectors
FY2013 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 consider 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) targeting 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/resources/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 regional and state results 

entered in OECA databases, 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 activity and an agreed-upon 

approach between the Regions and the national program manager for achieving fiscal year 

performance expectations. 

Regional Priorities

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

situation that may not affect other Regions. Some problems cross regional boundaries and 

Regions are working together to address them. For example, in response to the President‘s May 

12, 2009, Executive Order 13508—Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, Regions 2, 3, 4, 

and 5 are working with OECA to address nitrogen deposition to the Bay from large industrial air 

sources of NOx. The Regions will build on work already begun under the national enforcement 

initiatives to evaluate the compliance of power plants and other industrial sources in the 

Chesapeake Bay air shed emitting more than 1000 tons of NOx per year. Any resulting 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 9

enforcement actions would seek to achieve significant NOx reductions through complying 

actions, as appropriate. In addition, Region 3 will take steps to evaluate the potential impacts on 

the Bay of ammonia (NH3) 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 identified 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 three of the five crosscutting strategies by instructing the Regions to undertake activities in FY2013 that contribute to 

the cross-cutting strategies‘ goals. Specific examples in the FY2013 guidance include the 

following:

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism

Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the Clean Water Act

(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 state information from Indian country information;

Information will be made available to communities, including tribal communities, who lack 

access to the internet;

The Criminal Enforcement program will continue to develop its use of new outreach methods 

such as Facebook, Twitter and mobile applications to encourage the public‘s reporting of 

potential violations and to provide leads through the fugitives website 

http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/.

Agency Focus on Electronic 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 between 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 Compliance Assurance supports this goal. The 

specific activities which must be carried out in support of this are discussed on pages 34 and 

41 of this guidance.

The Environmental Information Exchange Network has provided the foundation for EPA, 

states and 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, 

states 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 regulations 

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 paper 
FY2013 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 electronic. The 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 International 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-specific 

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 protection 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 environmental 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 directed 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 appropriate, 

are discussed in Section II of this guidance.

OECA‘s national enforcement initiatives address some of the more 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 overburdened 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 potential 

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 national 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 national 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 (mg/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. 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. 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 protect 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 been identified that, while not exhaustive, 

illustrate the investment the agency has made across offices in direct assistance to 

communities. For example, since 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. Finally, 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, Regions are asked to consider the following 

opportunities where appropriate: 1) Strengthen involvement and increase investment in 
FY2013 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) Work 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/indexnew.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 applicants 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 regulations 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 Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/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 appropriate 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 describes specific expectations for Regions 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 21st 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 Regions are supporting the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance 

by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve targeting 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 electronic copies of required performance 

test 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 to 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 as an Agency. This requires 

some difficult choices on our part.

Earlier this year, OECA, working closely with EPA Regions 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 otherwise 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 most 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 anticipate 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 these 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 the 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 priorities, 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 effort 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 Regions should consult 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 significantly 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. 

Toxic 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 

Regions 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 pollutants (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 at petroleum refineries and chemical, petrochemical, and polymer manufacturers. 

Under the Air Toxics National Enforcement Initiative (NEI), the Regions are targeting 

compliance evaluations (including CAA Section 114 information requests) at facilities in 

these 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 enforcement approaches, 

i.e., a flaring efficiency enforcement alert combined with individual-facility flaring notices, 

and using HQ contractor resources to enhance the Regions‘ ability to evaluate facilities' 

compliance based on their 114 responses, respond to violations, 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 Planning 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 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. 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 necessary 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 

guidance identifies activities the Regions and states 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 

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, it will be important to ensure that 

OECA‘s internal 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 with 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 16

Regions to provide guidance on consistent use of EJ Screen around the country. Sections in 

this 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, Regions will be required to re-credential many 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 tribal credentials) must conduct an annual inventory 

including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials. OECA will work 

the Regions to establish a schedule and necessary steps for the re-credentialing of inspectors. 

Compliance Monitoring National Dialogue: OECA will be holding a national dialogue on 

how to expand the range of compliance monitoring activities to be credited under media 

Compliance Monitoring Strategies (CMS). This is necessary as the regulated universe 

continues to grow while federal 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 contributing to our coverage goals. EPA Regions, 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 Lydon 

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.gov
FY2013 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 Goals, 2) making 

progress in attaining compliance within the national enforcement initiative areas and 3) 

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

EPA will post the FY 2013 NPM draft Guidance to allow Regions, states, tribes, and others to 

review and comment on the draft. In the past, OECA has received comment from Regions, 

states, tribes, 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 Internet showing the action taken 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 regional 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 communities, engages 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 overburdened 

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 Regions are implementing the strategies and activities outlined in Advancing 

Environmental Justice through Enforcement and Compliance, one 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 concerns3into 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-income, 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 Action”

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej-rulemaking.html).
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 18

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

benefit overburdened communities4. OECA also plans to accelerate efforts to communicate 

more effectively with vulnerable and overburdened communities about enforcement actions and 

program activities. 

OECA has developed five strategies for Advancing Environmental Justice through Enforcement 

and Compliance5:

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 use 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 communication with affected communities and the public regarding EJ concerns 

and the distribution and benefits of enforcement actions, as appropriate.

For FY2013, OECA will address our Plan EJ 2014 goals through the following performance 

expectations.

1. Advance EJ goals 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 Initiatives 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 strategy 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 disproportionate 

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 communities. In FY2013, OECA 

and all Regions will implement the National Enforcement Initiatives 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 experience disproportionate environmental harms 

and risks as a result of greater vulnerability to environmental hazards. This increased vulnerability may be 

attributable to an accumulation of both negative and lack of positive environmental, health, economic, 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/ceinitiatives.html
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 19

2. Advance EJ Goals through 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 achieve 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 and 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 actions 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 participate 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, it will be important to ensure that OECA‘s internal 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 with Regions to provide guidance on using the 

national tool to develop consistent use of EJ Screen around the country. Sections in this 

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

COMMITMENT 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.

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 Technical Directive.

In December, 2011, the Office of Criminal Enforcement issued the policy, ―OCEFT 

Policy to Integrate Environmental Justice Concerns in Assessments of Criminal 

Investigations‖ and will use the EJSEAT, or EJ Screen when it becomes available, as part 
FY2013 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 Advance EJ Goals in Regions’ 

Geographic 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 problems. 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. 

Regions, together with states, 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 of 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 overburdened 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 reach 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 Concerns

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 to 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 these 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 may 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 Development 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 members 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 

geographic 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 cases considered 

to have potential EJ concerns the criminal investigation team will meet with the regional EJ 

coordinator to obtain additional information supporting the preliminary EJ determination as 

well as the community‘s health and environmental problems. OCEFT will increase efforts to 

benefit affected communities by working with DOJ to (1) explore innovative uses of criminal 

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. The 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 overburdened 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 geographic area.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 22

5. Enhance Communication 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 and overburdened communities. OECA recognizes that 

communities have a legitimate need to be informed and to understand 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 community. 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 available 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 need 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 adversely 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 are 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 increased 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 

governments, 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 communication 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 complicated and can be difficult for the public to understand 

and to follow. To increase affected communities‘ ability to understand 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 enforcement information more available to the public. EPA‘s 

enforcement actions frequently provide significant benefits to vulnerable and 

overburdened communities, including reduction of air or water pollution, cleanup of toxic 

and hazardous waste, and additional community 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 entitled ―Guidance on Characterizing and Communicating 

Environmental Justice Benefits Achieved in Enforcement Actions‖ (Sept. 2011). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 24

SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION 

A. Clean Air 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 -Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

o Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) – major sources

o Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) – area sources

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (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 Moving Sources)

Section 129 Solid Waste 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 Affects Communities’ Health: In 1990, Congress identified 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), currently totaling 187, that present significant threats to human 

health and have adverse ecological impacts (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html). The 

pollutants are known or suspected to cause 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 communities, 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 Toxics 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 evaluation 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 Pollution 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 facilities 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 pollutants 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 environmental 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 and 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 work 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) under 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 its search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we 

develop ―clean energy‖ sources that protect our air, water and land. Some energy extraction 

activities, such as new techniques for 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 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 assure 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 contribute 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 will 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 sources 
FY2013 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 

problems.

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 result of equipment leaks or low 

stack height, can cause disproportionate exposure for neighboring communities. In industrial 

areas, these communities frequently have significant low income and minority populations. 

Serious health effects caused by air pollution 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, tribal 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 Enforcement 

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 pollution. Regions 

should work 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, but not limited to, the National Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment (NATA) data, chemical toxicity data, non-attainment areas, and the 

Environmental 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 

important 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 communities by addressing and ultimately resolving serious 

air violations in order to bring sources into compliance.

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

actions against facilities determined to have High Priority Violations (HPV).
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 March 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 regulated 

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 compliance. 

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 techniques to our compliance 

monitoring toolbox. As additional activities are identified, EPA will consider how to 

incorporate them into the CAA CMS and the annual negotiations between Regions and 

delegated agencies regarding commitments for compliance monitoring plans.

In addition, the Regions should:

Continue any on-going investigations and initiate new ones, as appropriate. Activities 

reported as investigations should meet the definition of an investigation as provided in the 

CMS and minimum data requirements. Regions must review and approve state 

implementation plans (SIPs) as well as track the compliance status of sources within various 

regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act. Both initiated and completed investigations 

are to 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 

should ensure that Title V permits do not shield sources subject to a pending or current CAA 

enforcement action or investigation, and that draft Title V permits include appropriate 

placeholder language for the applicable requirement at any affected units. Regions should 

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

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

Include evaluations of the proper use and disposal of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons 

(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) inspections 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 population 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 28

that exceeds 100,000 people; 2) any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal 

to 25; and/or 3) facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the 

previous five years. (Note: facilities that have only program 1 processes6are 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 facilities, 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 document 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 enforcement 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. 

Compliance assistance (non-centers) is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction in 

investment. OECA, working with the Regions, 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. 

Settle 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 inspectors 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 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. 

 

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 include a requirement 

to conduct a performance test(s), Regions 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 Regions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and other 

sources (as appropriate). [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, PCEs and 

investigations. Projected investigations under this commitment are those investigations initiated 

by the Regions for the air enforcement program outside of the National Enforcement Initiatives, 

and identified by the air program (e.g., MACT, NSPS).

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 state 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 most significant environmental sources of pollution 

and the most serious noncompliance.

Where a delegated state, tribe or local agency is not meeting performance expectations, the 

Regions should take enforcement actions to address serious violations, particularly 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 

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

raise awareness about issues needing attention to achieve the goals of the federal 

environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between and among states 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 strong 
FY2013 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 agencies. 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 CMS 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 and ensuring progress with 

corrective actions identified in the SRF reports. 

Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes 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 

monitoring and enforcement context and contains threshold criteria 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.

COMMITMENT CAA06: 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 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, 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 local 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. Agreements with delegated agencies to provide 

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

memorandum of understanding (MOU), State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs), 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 31

Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)/ Performance Partnership 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 ongoing work. 

OECA is addressing the excess emissions of air pollutants 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 FY2013. 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 

voluntary 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 transition to nonozone 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 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. 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

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

The Air Facility System Business Rules Compendium 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/data/systems/air/afsbusinessrulescompendium.p

df

The Air Facility System Minimum Data Requirements 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf

CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicy.pdf

CAA National Stack Testing Guidance 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/stacktesting.pdf

Area Source Rule Implementation Guidance

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/areasource.pdf

The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/issue-ta-rpt.pdf

The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations Workbook

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/hpvmanualrevised.pdf

CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/penpol.pdf

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 IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION 

A. Clean Water Act (CWA)

OECA addresses water pollution problems resulting from noncompliance with our nation‘s 

environmental statutes and regulations, including the following CWA programs:

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (including general 

and individual permits from sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater 

treatment facilities and their collection systems, concentrated animal feeding operations 

(CAFOs), industrial 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 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, 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 accountability, self-monitoring, selfcertification, 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 against 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 Administrator‘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 regulations as appropriate. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 34

For FY2013, 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 implementing 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 adopting 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 Compliance 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% 

participation 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. Permit writers should consider comments provided by inspectors 

and/or enforcement personnel in developing appropriate permit conditions. 

4. Where the Regions have direct implementation responsibilities, and where data can be 

made available, utilize multi-sector 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 compliance 

assistance. Consider innovative approaches to deal with more routine paperwork 

violations.

6. Actively market and implement the use of NetDMR or other 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 framework 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 should broaden the scope of targeting, monitoring, enforcement and state 

oversight beyond traditional NPDES majors. New targeting tools, such as the DMR 

Pollutant Loading Tool, can be used to determine the source, location and amount of

discharged pollutants. It includes a subset of non-major facilities, and can be found at: 

www.epa.gov/pollutantdischarges.

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

Implementation strategies have been developed for the National Enforcement Initiatives that 

include final goals and measures, and guidance on implementation. Region–specific 

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

process.

The FY 2011 – 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CWA programs are:

Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation’s Waters: EPA 

will continue its enforcement focus on reducing discharges of raw sewage and contaminated 

stormwater into our nation‘s rivers, streams and lakes. Older urban areas with aging sewer 

systems are problematic because these systems were not designed to handle heavy rainfall and 

snowfall, nor can they handle the added burden of growing urban populations 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 sewage contains pathogens that threaten public 

health, leading to beach closures and public advisories against fishing and swimming. This 

problem particularly affects older urban areas, where minority and low income communities are 

often concentrated. In addition, stormwater runoff from urban streets and construction sites 

carries sediment, metal, oil and grease, acid, chemicals, toxic materials and industrial waste into 

surface waters. Many cities use rivers as the source of their drinking water, and contaminants in 

the water increase the difficulty and expense of treating the water for drinking water use. 

The 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. In FY2011-2013, 

this National Enforcement Initiative focuses 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 increased 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 to 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 36

reduce stormwater 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 the incorporation of green 

infrastructure 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 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 able to be incorporated 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 Strategy 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 

feeding 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 animal 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 associated 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 FY2013, 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 resources will be used to assure that CAFOs that already have permits are 

in compliance with those permits. Each Region will consider a variety of factors to prioritize its 

CAFO activities (i.e., outreach, compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement). These factors include, but are not limited to, identifying watersheds or water 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 37

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

water sources and vulnerable communities, and status of authorized state CAFO programs.

Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws: As the nation 

expands its search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we 

develop ―clean energy‖ sources that protect our air, water and land. Some energy extraction 

activities, such as new techniques for 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 water 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 wastewaters. 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 requirements 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 protection 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 plans for details about expectations and commitments 

for stormwater, wastewater, CAFOs and air deposition. Implementation plans include goals 

and measures with targets for accomplishing activities to support each, e.g., three MS4 audits 

per year. Relevant information related to compliance and enforcement is posted at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html#watershed
FY2013 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 subsistence 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 states and Indian country, and authorized states and tribes, 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 Loading 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 that 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 within 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 ―NPDES 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 estimates of pollutant discharge amounts to allow users to 

sort on the facilities with the largest pollutant loads and largest pollutant load over limits. 

In FY2013, EPA Regions and states should be using the model as a tool for targeting the 

most serious water quality 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 Regions 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 Regions and states 

will begin to use in FY 2013 on the parameters for conducting periodic ―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 addition, 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 determine 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 appropriate, are taken to address 

serious violations contributing to a community‘s water quality problems. 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 

appropriate for their Region, including CWA Action Plan projects, the Chesapeake Bay 

Compliance 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 Country. (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 auditing 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 Users (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 accordance 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 without 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 this program. 

OECA is working with the Regions to develop a disinvestment plan for any existing or 

ongoing work. Rules 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. 

There 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 Review 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 integrated and streamlined 

NPDES enforcement and permitting oversight review process, including guidance and 

training for EPA Regions and states. 

Where authorized states 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 should focus oversight resources on the most pressing 

performance problems in states. Regions and states 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 404 permitting requirements. If CWA violations are 

identified, enforcement action should be taken where appropriate. 

HQ, and Regions as necessary, will coordinate with Coast Guard in implementing the 

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

coordinate as necessary with Coast 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 migrate 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 Exchange 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 represented 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 migrate, and what assistance is needed for the 

migration, if any. PCS will be turned off by the third quarter of FY 2013.

Regions should support 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 report, Regions 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 

investment. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the 

reduction in work.

Regions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to selfdisclosures as discussed on page 14. 

COMMITMENT 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 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 compliance monitoring under the NPDES CMS. At the end of 

the year, provide for each state 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 EPA Regions and state 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 of 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 42

memoranda of understanding and memoranda of agreement 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 404 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 potential serious Section 404 violations and take appropriate enforcement 

response to address these violations. Share effective techniques with OECA for use in 

developing the national wetlands enforcement strategy.

Utilize existing regional cross training opportunities 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 

Regions 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 contract 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 company-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 operated 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 Product Schedule Requirements for use of dispersants 

and other substances. 

Investigate, target and develop informal, administrative and judicial enforcement actions 

to address spill prevention, and facility response planning violations at facilities subject 

to EPA regulations, including offshore platforms within EPA jurisdiction. Also 

investigate, target, and develop informal, administrative and judicial enforcement actions 

to address discharge violations (spills) wherever 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, conduct inspections and enforcement investigations as needed to confirm 

violations or develop enforcement cases. These activities are intended to be conducted 

by enforcement staff or contractors, when 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 means. 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 Materials 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 spills 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 meetings, 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 region and authorized state, working together, should conduct a CWA annual 

planning process that brings the different components of the regional and state NPDES program 

(water quality standards and assessment, permitting and enforcement) to the table together, 

identifies and discusses national, regional, and state priorities versus available resources at both 

the state and federal levels, and results in collaborative annual work plans that use all available 

mechanisms to get work done, such as federal and state work-sharing, innovative approaches to 

monitoring facilities or addressing violations. 

Regions should:

Hold annual planning meetings with each authorized state to develop collaborative 

annual work plans.

Convene routine and regular meetings between the EPA region and authorized state to 

discuss progress towards meeting annual permitting and enforcement commitments, and 

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

Where authorized states are not meeting performance expectations, EPA Regions should 

take enforcement actions to address serious violations. EPA Regions should focus 

oversight resources to the most pressing performance problems in states and should work 

to demonstrably improve state performance through these actions. EPA Regions need to 

take action when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve goals 

of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between authorized

states. 

Conduct a sufficient number of oversight NPDES inspections to ensure the integrity and 

quality of each authorized state or tribe compliance monitoring programs. EPA Regions 

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

ensure proper state inspection conduct and documentation. Oversight inspections are not 

"joint" inspections. Oversight inspections can be conducted by accompanying state 

inspectors during inspections, or conducting a separate inspection at the same facility at a 

later date to verify the same findings. 

Implement 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 percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner

o results of SRF and permit quality reviews and progress in correcting identified 

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 enforcement context and contains threshold criteria 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.

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

credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize 

Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (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 reporting 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 states and tribes to verify that their compliance and 

enforcement data is accurate and input into national databases.

Compliance monitoring activities conducted pursuant to the goals in CMS and the statespecific plans should be reported into the appropriate national information system, either 

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

and reporting timeframes for those systems. States must ensure that all required 

compliance and enforcement data is input or transmitted to the national databases. States 

utilizing CMS flexibility should 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 Guidance

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 Regions to address imminent and substantial endangerment circumstances 

under Section 1431 of the SDWA.

PWSS Program

EPA‘s focus on regulated drinking water systems, 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 agencies are to address drinking water violations and protect public health by 

returning violating public water systems (PWSs) to compliance. Following the concepts of the 

ERP, the Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT) generates a list of all PWS that have unresolved 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 46

violations and identifies those systems that have the most serious, most numerous, and longestlasting 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 these 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 that 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 resolved 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 having 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 expectation that primacy agencies will simultaneously be working to 

reduce their backlog 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. 

As a longer term goal, 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 contact 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, Congress 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 recommended 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 

accurate, timely and complete reporting. As resources allow, HQ and the Regions will conduct 

file reviews of the compliance and enforcement data in SDWIS for their primacy agencies. 

With regard to compliance assistance, Regions 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 Regions, is developing a plan to implement 

the reduction in work.

Similarly, Regions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to selfdisclosures as discussed on page 14. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

The UIC program is an area where OECA anticipates a reduction 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 systems that 

are not complying with the standards and may need technical assistance. Through crossprogram 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 Drinking 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, 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 report7.

State, territory and tribal breakouts shall be indicated in the comment field of the Annual 

Commitment System.

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 Regions will regularly discuss progress returning systems to compliance, 

identifying 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 

assessing data completeness based on violation data to determine if rules are being implemented 

in a timely manner.

The Regions 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, and 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 meeting 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 has 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, 

Regions 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. Also, 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 oversight function with respect to direct implementation programs. 

OECA will engage with Regions on a regular basis to ensure that Regions are directly 

implementing the program in Indian country, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia effectively 

and are applying the ETT and ERP. Regional primacy (direct implementation) in Indian 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). OECA’s Guidance on the

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation 

tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enforcement context and contains threshold criteria 

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.

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 available to 

the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History Online website at http://www.epaotis.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.htmUIC Program
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 50

SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES 

POLLUTION 

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

OECA‘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 program.

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

One of the Administrator‘s priorities is ―cleaning up our communities‖ - using 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 sites are on the Superfund 

National Priorities List and more sites are being added every year, including operating facilities. 

EPA has spent over $2.4 billion to address the human health and environmental threats to 

communities, such as exposure to asbestos and lead poisoning in children, as a result of mining 

and mineral processing. In some cases, EPA had to relocate families because of these threats, 

especially those to children in low income communities. EPA has inspected 65 mining and 

mineral processing sites that pose significant risk to communities and found many to be in 

serious non-compliance with hazardous waste and other environmental laws. Contamination of 

groundwater and potable water has occurred at many sites, sometimes requiring alternative 

drinking water supplies or removal of lead-contaminated soil from residential yards. In other 

cases, toxic spills into waterways from mining and mineral processing caused massive fish kills 

and impacted the livelihood of low income communities. Some workers at mining and mineral 

processing facilities have been 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 nongovernmental TSDFs. RCRA01 and RCRA01.s apply to TSDFs owned or operated by nongovernmental 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 commitments 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 their 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 state, and Indian Country where applicable, the number 

of operating non-governmental TSDFs, to be inspected by the Region during the year8. Regions 

must commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each state 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. 

Financial responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core program and 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.

COMMITMENT RCRA01.s: Project by state the number of operating TSDFs to be inspected 

by the state 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 

responsibility 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: Inspect each operating TSDF operated by states, 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 Clean 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 presence 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 states should inspect pollution problems that matter to communities, and develop 

enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits. Regions, in their oversight 

and direct implementation roles, including in Indian Country, and authorized states are expected 

to follow the guidance in the RCRA CMS. (EPA directly implements 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 problems of concern to communities, 

states may utilize flexibility 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 

communities 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. These focus 

areas should be considered a high priority for Regions and states when developing strategies for 

targeting compliance assurance work. These should also specifically be discussed between 

authorized states and Regions when developing annual plans for respective activities in the 

Region. The areas of concern are:

Surface Impoundments: EPA, with support from authorized states, continues to focus on 

problems associated with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in unlined surface 

impoundments. There are thousands of industrial surface impoundments across the 

country, many of which adversely impact communities through air, surface water, and/or 

groundwater contamination, particularly in the chemical manufacturing and petroleum 

refining sectors. 
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 and 

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 materials. However, sham recycling and 

recycling not done in compliance with RCRA requirements can result in significant 

adverse impacts to human health and the environment. This area of concern will include 

a focus on zinc fertilizer manufacturing that uses hazardous 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 the 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 Analysis 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, concerns 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 achieve the RCRA Corrective Action 2020 Goals, 

EPA and authorized states 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 that meaningful cleanup progress is being made at all 

facilities subject to corrective action, Regions and authorized states should be monitoring 

compliance with orders and permits, identifying substantial noncompliance with such 

instruments, and taking enforcement actions where appropriate. When monitoring 

compliance with orders and permits, Regions should use electronic reporting tools 

whenever feasible.

The Regions should: 

Conduct compliance monitoring and pursue enforcement to ensure that pollution problems 

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 

credentialed 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 

Coordination in the RCRA Program.‖ 

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. 

With regard to compliance assistance, Regions 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 Regions, is developing a 

plan to implement the reduction in work.

Similarly, Regions 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 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 country. 

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 the inspection 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 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. 

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

assurance instruments received by the states within each region. For those states that are not 

authorized for corrective action, the Regions should be reviewing the financial assurance 

instruments as part of EPA‘s role of implementing 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 the completion of this 

program measure.

COMMITMENT OSRE04: 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 state 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 55

to ensure appropriate action is taken to address noncompliance. If possible, return facility 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 financial responsibility violations.

Approved states have primary responsibility for determining facility compliance, ensuring 

adequate inspection coverage of the regulated universe, taking appropriate actions in response to 

non-compliance, and playing a vital role in alerting EPA to regulatory implementation problems.

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 significant 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. 

Generally, 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 include:

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/operators 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 states and tribes 

that do not have delivery prohibition programs or are not state authorized programs. 

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 compliance assistance, Regions 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 investment. OECA, working with the Regions, is 

developing a plan to implement the reduction in work.

Regions should consult with HQ before initiating any new work in response to selfdisclosures as discussed on page 14. 

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

RCRA compliance monitoring is a collaborative effort between OECA, Regions, and authorized 

or approved states. Each of these entities performs complementary but distinct roles. OECA 

provides national program leadership, and oversight of Regional and state programs, aimed at 

increasing program effectiveness and national consistency.

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

Ensure the most serious environmental problems caused by noncompliance are addressed. 

Regions should accomplish this primarily through annual planning with states, state 

program oversight, strategic and targeted federal inspections and enforcement in states, and 

through direct implementation in Indian country. Regions provide capacity-building 

support to states on complex or multi-state issues; and consult with states to identify 

compliance problems that may warrant areas of national focus. Regions should meet and 

consult regularly (for example, quarterly) with each authorized state to maintain 

communication on progress towards meeting annual permitting and enforcement 

commitments, enhancing program performance and ensuring fairness and a level playing 

field. 

Take action to ensure serious violations are addressed where states are not meeting 

performance expectations. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing 

performance 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 are encouraged to report to the Regions and OECA, any patterns of noncompliance 

they may identify through their 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 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 enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s 

consideration of enforcement actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and 
FY2013 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 investigations 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 conduct on-site evaluations, the Regions and authorized or approved states 

need to use available resources in the most effective manner. 

RCRA Corrective Action

RCRA corrective action is implemented by EPA and 43 authorized states and territories. On 

April 27, 2010, OECA and OSWER jointly issued the ―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 and coordination between EPA and states to meet this goal. Regions should be 

working closely with their state partners to implement NESCA. NESCA provides guidance to 

Regions and states for targeting enforcement efforts and to address special considerations that 

arise in the enforcement arena, such as ensuring enforceable requirements and deadlines in 

permits and orders are clearly identified, dealing with companies having financial difficulties,

using 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 submissions for compliance.

EPA and its state 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 noncompliance 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 state enforcement actions.

Regions are expected to use their own comparable existing mechanisms to inform the 

public. States are encouraged to do likewise.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 58

Compliance data should distinguish state information from Indian Country information.

Information should be made available to communities, including tribes, who lack access 

to the internet.

7. Relevant Policies and 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/compliance/civil/rcra.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup

B. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Toxic Substances Control Act provides EPA with authority to require reporting, recordkeeping 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, states) under 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 chemicals 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. Headquarters should 

be consulted before initiating 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. 

To help implement the One-TSCA approach, the TSCA ACS commitments 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 national 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 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 contributing to our coverage goals. EPA Regions, states and tribes should 

participate in this 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 

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. 

OC Resources Provided for TSCA Implementation

Past 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 available 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 state compliance and 

enforcement activities. The Regions conduct oversight of the state programs and grants. 

Regional direct implementation of the asbestos, PCB and LBP programs has been expected to 

complement state implementation activities. Regional direct implementation activities and grant 

oversight for asbestos and PCBs will 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 states and two tribes authorized for the §402(a) lead abatement program; 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 60

2) five 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 programs. 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., activities 

that determine compliance status) and not for enforcement or administrative support [beyond 

nominal administrative expenses (5 – 10%)]; such diversions would be inappropriate.

Screening Tools and Checklists

OC plans to develop and refine screening tools/checklists that the Regions may use to support 

multi-media activities that can be included in the Region‘s TSCA02 reporting commitment. 

These tools will be designed for an inspector to quickly complete while at a facility conducting 

an inspection for programs 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 with additional 

coverage for the TSCA programs. The Regions and states are free to develop and use their own 

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 Regions 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 regard to compliance assistance, Regions 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 Regions, is developing a plan to implement 

the reduction in work. Similarly, Regions 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, 

tribes and territories to promote compliance with all of the LBP rules, with a significant focus 

on the RRP Rule. 

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: exposure may cause reduced intelligence, learning disabilities, behavior

problems, and other developmental 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 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.

COMMITMENT 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). 

For Regional ACS planning purposes, Regions should target their FY2013 ACS 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 FY2013 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 adjustments 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 resources 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 leadbased 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 be 
FY2013 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. TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program

Regions and authorized states are expected to implement the CMS for LBP, including the 

principles and activities identified for the RRP, §402 Abatement, §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 among the regulated universe; and 2) 

using non-traditional approaches to promote compliance by regulated operations. 

Regions should implement the program 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 

compliance 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 discussed above, to 

effectively accomplish these objectives, the CMS establishes that Regions must know the 

regulated universe to the extent practicable, and prioritize the environmental problems to be 

addressed (i.e., focus on hot spots). 

For LBP inspections, once the universe is known, the Region should use the targeting principles 

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 there 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 followup 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 and promote a high level of compliance across the regulated community

(each Region will determine the 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 primarily 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 so 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 63

that, while focusing 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 complaints and coordinate with OECA to bundle 

cases from multiple Regions 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: 

In areas where Regions conduct integrated strategies (as part of the national RRP 

enforcement strategy or otherwise), include 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 programmatic (non-enforcement) offices in the region to encourage 

states to seek authorization for the RRP program. 

Conduct appropriate oversight of authorized state § 402 and § 406 programs. 

Closely investigate the applicability of the LBP regulations to housing at federal facilities 

because of variations in housing arrangements 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 exclusively 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 Regions in targeting 

inspections, OECA commits to working 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 Regions should:
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 64

Focus 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 subpoenas 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 such 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 and 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 complaints 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, states, tribes, 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 actions, 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 hardwood plywood, mediumdensity 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 thirdparty testing and certification to ensure that subject products comply with the standards, 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 

composite 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 

wood 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 inspected 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 noted 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 and 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 

the 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 monitoring 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 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 AHERA compliance monitoring and enforcement program to help address 

situations involving AHERA non-compliance that poses a significant threat to public health or 

the environment. Headquarters should be consulted before initiating 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 state and in Indian 

Country to assure equitable protection and ensure compliance with the TSCA asbestos 

regulations. 

Enforce 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 tribes to identify any obstacles to implementation of 

the expectations above and work to resolve them. This includes convening routine and regular 

meetings between the region and states to discuss progress towards meeting annual program and 

enforcement commitments, and how the state 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 workplans 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 

electronically 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 pressing 

performance problems in states 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 and consultations with states/tribes, 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 state 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 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. 

Consultation with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in 

EPA‘s direct implementation program and oversight 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 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 enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s 

consideration of enforcement actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and 
FY2013 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 work 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 expand resulting in a significant challenge to our ability 

to conduct on-site evaluations, the Regions 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 ensure national consistency, OECA‘s role is to provide appropriate oversight of regional 

LBP programs.

Regions should focus primarily on state program oversight and capacity-building to 

ensure states 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 tribes on complex or multi-state or multitribal compliance issues; and consult with states and tribes to identify issues that may 

warrant areas of national focus. 

b. TSCA Asbestos

Encourage states and tribes to develop their own regulations and apply for a ―waiver‖ 

where applicable.

4. Improve Transparency

The Regions should:

Work with the states and tribes using EPA credentials to ensure that the data on 

inspections they conduct on EPA‘s behalf is input into national databases. For waivers 

states, ensure compliance and enforcement data are provided in aggregate form as part of 

midyear and end of year evaluation reports. (Not applicable to lead program.)

Enter all federal inspections (including ICDS) and enforcement cases into ICIS.

Publicize regional enforcement actions taken through press releases.

Distinguish state compliance data from Indian country information.

Make information available to communities, including Tribal communities, who may 

lack access to the internet.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 68

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance

Additional information about OECA‘s TSCA programs can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/index.html

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 assistance, training, and oversight to states and tribes carrying out FIFRA-related 

compliance and enforcement activities under cooperative enforcement agreements. The statute 

gives states primary compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibility for the use of 

pesticides within their respective jurisdictions. However, EPA directly implements FIFRA in 

Indian country, including compliance monitoring and enforcement for pesticide use, although 

Tribes enforce similar provisions under their own tribal codes through enforcement agreements

with EPA. For more information on the FIFRA compliance monitoring program, readers are 

urged to review 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 program, 

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, Regions 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 reduction in investment. OECA is working with the Regions to 

develop a plan for reducing work to a level of minimal national coverage in the areas of selfdisclosure 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 presence 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 Occupational 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, prevent 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 regulatory 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/misuse.

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 requirements9, 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 compliance monitoring and enforcement of noncompliant 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 become involved in supporting these activities, as appropriate, by including relevant 

activities in their negotiated cooperative agreements.

FIFRA Imports of Non-compliant Pesticides

EPA‘s enforcement program addresses 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 entering our country. EPA Regions have been the primary source of inspections 

and enforcement for this area. States may become involved through region-to-state referrals to 

monitor import compliance, or states may encounter imported products during the course of their 

compliance monitoring inspections. 

EPA has worked 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.

Currently, the FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program manually reviews 

FIFRA Notices of Arrival (NOAs) 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. Therefore, 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 Standards 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 from countries frequently associated with 

noncompliant shipments. 

Focus Area A: Supplemental Registrations

Supplemental pesticide registrations are a continued 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. Supplemental 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 

substantially from the EPA accepted labels. Such unapproved product labeling can lead to 

misuse and misapplication as well as pose significant risks to the users who rely on product 

labels to inform them about proper and safe pesticide use. Due to the potential risk associated 

with the use of improperly labeled pesticides, it is important that the EPA aggressively pursue 

compliance for supplemental registrations.

EPA issues supplemental registrations for a wide range of pesticide products in every toxicity 

category, 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 registrants with a large number of 

current supplemental registrations or registrants marketing Tox 1 category distributor products. 

EPA will determine distributor product compliance by undertaking a comprehensive review of 

product labeling and product chemistry, 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 distributor products.

The EPA should develop enforcement actions to address corporate-wide compliance. Regions 

should coordinate with the Office of Civil Enforcement‘s Waste and Chemical Enforcement 

Division and other Regions in developing corporate-wide cases. 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, Regions 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, there 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 Regions and states to comprehensively address 

a pesticide enforcement problem area. For example, an EPA Region might choose in 

consultation with its states to focus on rodenticide products. Under this scenario, states might 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 71

look a rodenticide product misuse or pesticide applicator certifications while the Region would 

look at rodenticide production 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 pesticide misuse (over application, unlabeled pesticides) and pesticide 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 Regions 

should consult with the states 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 states work collaboratively to

proactively monitor compliance with existing product labeling requirements, as well as proper

use of fumigant products.

The NPM Guidance‘s fumigants/fumigation focus area is primarily targeted on product 

regulatory compliance and use/application compliance for all areas of fumigation including 

structural (residential and commercial), transportation vehicles and containers, soil, agricultural 

commodities, and other products.

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

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

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 compliance 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, states 

have primary responsibility 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 states 

and/or Regions, and enhancing public awareness.

OECA will work with OPP to obtain FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) information across a broad class of

pesticide fumigants including structural, grain, and soil, among others. Section 6(a)(2)

information, together with information regarding fumigant incidents from the states, press and

other available sources, will help target fumigant uses where an enforcement monitoring

presence may significantly deter future violations.

Regions should work with their states 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 PEIs can be applied toward meeting negotiated PEIs 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.

Enforcement actions should be pursued under both state and federal authorities, as appropriate.

Similarly, EPA will pursue enforcement actions under FIFRA when noncompliance arises in 

Indian country. Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during state or tribal

investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when 

appropriate. Regions should work with states and tribes to identify opportunities within existing 

cooperative agreements for federal involvement or case support (particularly in cases involving 

human exposure, death, or other serious non-compliance). Headquarters will provide assistance, 

as needed, to states, tribes, and Regions in support of enforcement actions. Headquarters will 

develop a plan to coordinate filing of enforcement cases to ensure optimum deterrence effect and 

compliance impact.

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 farm
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 73

worker families have higher levels of pesticide exposure than non-farm worker families (takehome exposure transfer of pesticide residues and proximity of housing to treated areas). There

are 2 million farm workers in the US, over a million certified applicators, and 2–3 million

noncertified applicators applying pesticides under the supervision of certified applicators. It is

important to protect farm workers from occupational pesticide hazards to ensure their safety in

the workplace and viability as a community.

Under FIFRA, states with primacy enforce pesticide use, including the worker protection

standards. States with primacy also conduct compliance monitoring inspections. Regions are

encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. 

Where EPA implements FIFRA, including in Indian country, the Agency enforces requirements

governing pesticide use and conducts compliance monitoring inspections. Tribes with 

cooperative enforcement agreements with EPA may conduct compliance monitoring inspections 

under their own tribal codes.

To optimize the risk reduction potential of compliance monitoring, Regions are expected to place

particular emphasis on farming activities that typically involve frequent use of highly toxic

pesticides, such as in fruit and vegetable production and on-farm grain and soil fumigation.

Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities should include product 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 PEIs 

(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 monitor use compliance in application settings (e.g., on-farm grain or soil 

fumigation, applications to fruit and/or vegetable crops) subject to WPS and monitor 

compliance with the WPS labeling requirements. Focus should be on pesticides with 

high risk for exposure.

Enforcement actions should be pursued under state, federal, or tribal authorities, as 

appropriate.

In order to optimize the deterrent impact of the enforcement action, significant misuse 

violations should be investigated 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.

Regions are expected to work with states to identify opportunities within existing 

agreements for federal involvement or support (particularly cases involving exposure or 

death).

Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during state or tribal 

investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when 

appropriate.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 74

Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, to states, tribes, and Regions in support 

of enforcement actions.

State and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA must be trained and credential 

per Guidance for Issuing Federal 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 offered 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 restored 

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 may 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 specialized 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, including 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 75

targeting follow-up PEIs at producers of violative products discovered at the retail 

inspections. Regions may consider making inspection referrals to the states/tribes 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 implementation 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 should 

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 states 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:

Conducting compliance monitoring inspections at targeted producers, distributors, and 

other regulated non-user entities subject to the container/containment rule.

Working 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 encouraged to refer significant 

noncompliance cases to EPA for enforcement action. 

Taking 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 states and tribes to implement the expectations above including:

Convene routine and regular meetings between the region and state to discuss progress 

towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and how the state has 

been performing overall in its implementation of the program. Note: meetings can be via 

conference calls but at least one meeting each year should be face-to-face. Regions may 

rely upon existing communications with states to meet the intent of this requirement.

Where states 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 states and should work to demonstrably 

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 states.

Negotiate, oversee the implementation of and review state and tribal performance under
FY2013 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 tribes targeting assistance, especially related to inspections of producer 

establishments.

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

credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize 

Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials 

(i.e. state and tribal credentials) to conduct an annual inventory including an annual 

physical possession check of 10% of the credentials. 

Regional direct implementation in Indian country 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 enforcement context and contains threshold criteria 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.

4. Improve Transparency

OECA intends to modernize and update the FIFRA-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. Relevant 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/grants/fifra/1981frnotice.pdf

EPA WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-appendix4c.pdf

Factors To Consider When Establishing A Risk-Based Targeting Strategy For Worker

Protection Outreach And Compliance Monitoring Activities:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-appendix4d.pdf

Multilingual Labeling for Imports:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/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 ingredient

concentrations:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/ai.pdf

FIFRA Inspection Manual:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/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 Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Enforcement 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 use 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 budgetary 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 achieve 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 tools 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 78

available in each of the cleanup programs, EPA will better leverage 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 sitespecific documents 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 area. 

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 federal 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 cleanups. 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 some 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 compel 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 timeframes 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 reaffirming 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 parties.

COMMITMENT OSRE-02: Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for 

sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to 

DOJ, filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-off. 
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 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.

In addition, the CERCLA enforcement program tracks many program-level measures. These 

measures 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 Guidance 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 

other applicable enforcement authorities (such as imminent and endangerment orders in 

applicable circumstances), when federal facilities are not complying with the terms of the 

agreements or with other legal requirements. Additionally, Regions and Headquarters offices 

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 Regions 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 

implement 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 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 this program. 

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 environmental 

justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement program by: 

Affirming its commitment to ensure that Regions and States use EJ criteria when 

enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals.
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 Initiative10 designed to enhance 

headquarters and regional program 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. 

Compliance data will distinguish state information from Indian country information. Information 

should be made available 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.pdf
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 81

SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES 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 investment. 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 criminal 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 Tier 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., death 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 to 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 opening 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. 

Criminal 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 for 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 82

recording additional input and a final EJ determination selection when investigating 

environmental crimes. Cases considered to have potential EJ concerns 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 concerns.

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 criminal 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 adhere to OECA‘s parallel 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 Special 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 Law Enforcement Partners That Support State and 

Tribal Environmental Crimes Investigations and Prosecutions

The criminal enforcement program will work with the states, Regions, tribal 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 state, 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 potential 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 criminal enforcement 

information 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 Expectations

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 most 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 international 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, cathode 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 available 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 justice, 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 actions 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 decisionmaking 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 

NPDES programs; off-shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deepwater ports, EPA 

laboratories and facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants.

Making Categorical Exclusion determinations or 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 Environment 

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 Federal 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 Act of 2009. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 85

SECTION VIII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA 

PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5

In addition to the national initiatives and programs that can be specifically assigned to one of the 

four Strategic sub-objectives of water, air, waste/toxic/pesticides, and criminal enforcement, 

OECA has several programs that contribute to the goals of more than one sub-objective. These 

programs are: 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 chemicals at facilities. The EPA, states, tribes, 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 companies report accurately and within required time frames. Regions 

and states should inspect facilities that may be contributing to pollution problems that matter to 

their respective communities, and develop enforcement cases that produce significant 

environmental benefits.

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 facility 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 Significant 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 errors 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 MEWeb 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 where OECA anticipates a reduction in 

investment. OECA, working with the Regions, 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 focusing 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 high 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

Regions 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 

chemicals, 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-risk 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 that 

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 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 where OECA anticipates a reduction in 

investment. OECA, working with the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the 

reduction in work.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

The Regions should continue coordinating with states and tribes. 

4. Improve Transparency

The Regions should

Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases.

Enter all federal civil judicial consent decrees into ICIS.
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/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra.html

D. Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations

EPA‘s compliance and enforcement program involves more than 30,000 federal facilities and 

installations spread across nearly 30% of the nation‘s territory, among which are some 10,000 

currently regulated under the Agency‘s various statutes. As such, it is one of the EPA‘s largest 

and most diverse sectors to oversee. 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 No. 13514 on federal environmental 

sustainability makes clear. EPA‘s federal facilities enforcement and compliance programs are at 

http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federalfacilities/index.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 significant and require 

consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources to make these consultations timely and 

effective.

Regions are encouraged to target federal facilities as part of 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 achieve 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 action 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 with 
FY2013 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 commitment. 

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 capabilities 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 minimal national presence. The Regions 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-specific 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. Further, 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 activities 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 should 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 2nd 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 for 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 Federal 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 this 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) facilities, 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 limitations: (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 goal if up to four of the individual inspections support the Integrated Strategies 

and/or official Regionally-designated priorities. Further, (4) up to four official Regionallydesignated 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 Initiative or other core program area. 

2. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes

Regions are expected to hold states 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 legislative 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).

Draft integrated reports for the CWA portion of the reviews following HQ guidance.

Use data verification and annual data metric analysis to inform regular discussions with 

states and to track 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 for carrying 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 analyses, file reviews, 

recommendations, state comments, and benefits arising from SRF reviews, into the Lotus 

Notes SRF Tracker 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. Where 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 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 in light of the OW/OECA criteria for MOA review and checklist to be developed in FY 

2012. Ensure that MOAs are updated as needed. 

SRF guidance, policies, and templates for reporting are found at http://www.epaotis.gov/srf/srf_tracking.html.

SECTION IX. FY 2013 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Annual Commitment System

Following the release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, Regions should hold discussions with 

states and tribes to discuss the highest priority work across the Region and states for the 
FY2013 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 Regions and states 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 states should develop draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance 

that relate to state and tribal activities. Regions should also assess their own resource levels in 

relation to the priority work identified in the regional/state discussions and the state and tribal 

contributions to that work, and the work outlined in the NPM Guidance. 

OECA will hold a planning discussion with each Region at the senior management level during 

the spring of 2012 to discuss the strategic allocation of the Region‘s resources, with the goal of 

informing the negotiation of the ACS commitments for the Region for the coming year. OECA 

understands that the demands of ensuring compliance with the myriad of environmental laws and 

programs covered by this NPM Guidance may exceed a Region‘s resources, and wants to ensure 

that available resources are put towards addressing the most important sources and most serious 

violations that affect the environment and public health.

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 Regions 

to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system by July 6, 2012. By completing 

OECA and regional senior management discussions prior to this time, the process for resolving 

any issues and finalizing annual regional targets should be streamlined. During this same time, 

Regions should engage states and tribes in negotiations to complete the grant process (PPAs, 

PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including translating regional targets into formal commitments 

supported by state-by-state agreements. All commitments should be final by October 26, 2012.

B. FTE Resource Charts

The Regions should complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in previous planning 

cycles. Charts organize FTE information by goal, objective, and sub-objective, and then crosswalk to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts is significant 

due to increased interest from the Office of Management and Budget, the Inspector General, and 

Congress. Regions will receive FTE templates and it is imperative that Regions submit these 

completed documents to Michele McKeever on September 30, 2012.

2012 Final – Enter the Region‘s final FTE allocation for FY2012 in the 2012 Final 

column.

2013 Proposed – Enter the Region‘s proposed FTE allocation for FY2012 in the 2013

Proposed column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency 

receives the FY2011 enacted budget after October 1, 2012. Therefore this 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 Generator

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 Regulation
FY2013 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 - Elevated Blood Lead Levels 

EMP – Environmental Management Practices

EMR – Environmental Management Reviews

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 - Formerly Used Defense Sites 

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 Operated
FY2013 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 – Information Collection Request

IG – Inspector General 

INECE – International Network for Environmental Compliance and 

Enforcement

IU – Industrial Users 

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 - Methyl Isothiocyanate

MOA – Memorandum of Agreement

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSGP – Multi-sector General Permit
FY2013 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 Hazardous 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 System
FY2013 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 - Pre-renovation Education 

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 Decision

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 Teams
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 98

SLAB - Spent Lead Acid Batteries

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 Weather
1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

FY 2013 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX

G/O/S*

ACS 

Code Measure Text

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N)

State 

Performance 

Measure 

(Y/N)

Planning Target1 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 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 Regions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and 

other sources (as appropriate). [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, PCEs and 

investigations. Projected investigations under this 

commitment are those investigations initiated by the Regions 

for the air enforcement program outside of the National 

Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air program 

(e.g., MACT, NSPS).

N N N N

5 CAA06

Ensure that delegated state, tribal and local agencies 

implement their compliance and enforcement programs in 

accordance with the CAA CMS and have negotiated facilityspecific 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, 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 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 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 compliance 

monitoring under the NPDES CMS. At the end of the year, 

provide for each state 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 EPA Regions and state associations to 

develop formats for releasing inspection data on CMS 

implementation performance on a state-by-state basis.

NNN N

5

SDWA02

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 

NN

 

 N

 

 N
3

report. State, territory and tribal 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 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. Financial 

responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core 

program and 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.

NNN 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 

responsibility 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).

NNN N
4

5 RCRA03

Inspect each operating TSDF operated by states, local, or 

Tribal governments. 

NNN 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 country. 

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 the inspection will be conducted at a TSDF or LQG. 

In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal 

facility LQG inspections. 

NNN 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. 

NNN 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 violation). 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.

NNN N
5

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: For 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.

NNN 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). 

NNN 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.

NNN 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.

NNN 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. 

NNN 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 narrative.)

 N
6

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) EPCRA 313 data quality 

inspections.

NNN N

5

EPCRA 

02

Conduct at least twenty (20) EPCRA 313 non-reporter 

inspections. 

NNN 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 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) facilities, 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 

limitations: (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 goal if up to four of the 

individual inspections support the Integrated Strategies 

NNN N
7

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 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 discussions 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 CWANPDES program oversight process (permit and enforcement 

reviews). Review existing MOAs as part of the CWANPDES review process using the new model MOA template. 

Ensure that MOAs are updated as needed. 

N N N N

*Goal/Objective/Sub-Heading 
1

Explanation of Changes between FY 2012 and FY 2013 NPM Guidance

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Instructions

Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document Reason for Change Location of Information

Briefly describe the significant changes from the FY 2012 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., budget decisions, Administrator’s priorities, 

regulation, initiative, result of measures review, etc.).

Identify where in the document the 

new or modified information can be 

found (by page number and section).

Template

Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document Reason for Change Affected Pages and Sections

Priorities

Changes to priorities and strategies are interrelated in certain instances. To avoid unnecessary 

repetition, please 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 21st 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 targeting 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 electronic copies of required 

performance test reports submitted to the Agency 

through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

This is consistent 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, 

EPA 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 pages 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 to establish a 

schedule and necessary steps for the recredentialing 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 credited 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 contributing 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 

environment.

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 emphasis 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 priorities 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 reporting.

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 initiative 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 evaluation and post-pilot 

implementation of the Technical Directive: 

Reviewing EPA Enforcement Cases for 

Potential Environmental Justice Concerns and 

Reporting Findings to the ICIS Data System. 

See page 18 (last paragraph), 

bullets on page 19, page 21 

(second paragraph), and page 22 

(last bullet).

Toxic 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, states, 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 pages 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, 3rd 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 pages 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 complete 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 annual 

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 will continue to conduct collaborative 

EPA/state annual 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 from 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 quality 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 the LBP 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 

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). 

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 concluded 

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