1

ERP States 

Produce 

Results

WWW.EPA.GOV/INNOVATION

2007 Report

States’ Experience 

Implementing the 

Environmental 

Results Program

EPA 100-R-07-009

December 2007
2

Table of Contents

1 ERP Addresses Small Sources of Pollution Efficiently and Effectively ..............................1

1.1 Small Sources Present a Large Challenge ..................................................................1

1.2 The ERP System Integrates Several Tools....................................................................2

1.3 More States Are Implementing ERP, Delivering Results .............................................2

2 How Does ERP Work?.....................................................................................................5

2.1 Conduct a Comprehensive Inventory of Facilities......................................................5

2.2 Conduct Statistically Based Baseline Inspections ......................................................6

2.3 Provide Plain-Language Compliance Assistance Across Environmental Media ..........6

2.4 Collect Facility Self-Certification Forms.....................................................................7

2.5 Target Compliance Assistance and Enforcement Actions...........................................9

2.6 Conduct Statistically Based Post-Certification Inspections.........................................9

2.7 Use Data for Informed Decision-Making ................................................................10

Focus on Measures That Summarize Performance...................................................10

Environmental Business Practice Indicators (EBPIs).................................................11

The Role of Statistics in Decision-Making................................................................12

Other Factors in Assessing Performance..................................................................12

3 ERP Results Consistently Show Improvement ...............................................................13

3.1 ERP Groups Improve on Priority Indicators, Across the Board .................................13

3.2 “Sector Snapshots” Show Progress, Sustained Performance.....................................15

Compliance Rates...................................................................................................15

Group Compliance Scores......................................................................................16

3.3 Results Suggest Improvements in Environmental Condition.....................................17

Dry Cleaners ..........................................................................................................17

Printers...................................................................................................................18

4 Agencies May Use Resources More Effectively With ERP..............................................19

4.1 States Report Enhanced Targeting Capabilities ........................................................19

4.2 ERP May Reduce the Need for Enforcement............................................................20

4.3 ERP Can Complement or Replace Permitting ..........................................................20

4.4 Statistics and Technology Provide Economies of Scale ............................................21

4.5 ERP’s Results Can Help Meet Demands for Better Measurement .............................22

4.6 Many Businesses Value ERP as Fair and Helpful......................................................22

4.7 ERP Offers the Public Visible Improvements and Broader Accountability ...............23

4.8 ERP Can Offer an Effective, Voluntary Option .........................................................23

4.9 ERP Appears to Be a Cost-Effective Alternative........................................................24

Environmental Performance Under ERP Compared to “Inspect Everyone” Approach 25

ERP Resource Use Compared to “Inspect Everyone” Approach ..............................26

Greatest Efficiency Requires Manageable, Up-Front Investment ..............................26

New ERPs Benefit From Peer and EPA Support........................................................27

5 ERP’s Future Promises Improvement, Experimentation, and Growth ............................28

5.1 More States Work to Produce Results......................................................................29

5.2 Agencies Act to Improve Comparability of Results..................................................29

5.3 Agencies Apply ERP Tools in Innovative Ways.........................................................29

Applying the ERP Tools in New Ways......................................................................29

Alternative to New or More Stringent Regulation ....................................................30

Impaired Water Bodies and Watersheds..................................................................30

5.4 States Convene an ERP Consortium ........................................................................31

5.5 EPA Plans to Further Explore Questions Raised by ERP ...........................................32
1

The Environmental Results Program (ERP) is an integrated approach to addressing environmental 

problems associated with various business sectors and other groups having large numbers of small 

facilities. While individual facilities within these groups may release 

small amounts of pollution, the aggregate impact can be significant. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Center 

for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) has prepared this report in order 

to update the story of ERP, the implementation of which has grown 

substantially since Massachusetts first developed it 10 years ago. This 

report identifies the many states now using ERP and the environmental 

problems they are seeking to address, describes the results and 

benefits state ERPs are generating, and discusses some of the new 

directions being explored within the ERP community.

ERP Addresses Small Sources of Pollution 

Efficiently and Effectively

“ERP has thrived in 

Massachusetts because 

it delivers real results: a 

cleaner environment, a 

better business climate, 

and more efficient 

government.”

— Robert Golledge, Former 

Commissioner of Massachusetts’ 

Department of Environmental Protection1

1.1 Small Sources Present a Large Challenge

Over the past 30 years, U.S. environmental policy has 

achieved a great deal of success in improving the quality 

of air, water, and land in the United States, especially 

with regard to many of the largest sources of pollution. 

Increasingly, however, environmental agencies are seeing 

critical problems to which multitudes of small sources 

of pollution are substantial contributors. For example, 

hazardous air pollutants released by dry cleaners and 

auto body shops can significantly degrade air quality. 

Likewise, leaks from petroleum underground storage 

tanks (USTs) and uncontrolled runoff from animal 

feedlots, parking lots, and auto salvage yards can worsen 

the quality of many water bodies and sources of drinking 

water. Such polluting facilities can number in the tens 

of thousands nationally. For instance, the United States 

has over 130,000 retail gas stations,2

 the vast majority of 

which are likely to have underground storage tanks.

Consequently, while each small source of pollution may 

pose a modest threat, these sources in sum can represent 

as important an environmental problem as many major 

industrial facilities. In addition, regulatory agencies 

typically struggle to both identify all such facilities and 

assess their performance. Also, such facilities often 

lack sufficient awareness or technical expertise to meet 

their regulatory responsibilities and to minimize their 

environmental impacts.

Many states are finding that the conventional tools of 

permitting, inspections, enforcement, and compliance 

assurance may not always be well-suited to small 

sources of pollution when applied in a traditional 

manner. Resource constraints increasingly confronting 

most environmental agencies—often in core regulatory 

programs—are driving states to seek more efficient and 

sustainable approaches that integrate traditional tools 

and other strategies.

1
2

1.2 The ERP System

Integrates Several Tools

Increasingly, states report ERP to be a cost-effective 

approach to addressing the environmental problems 

described previously—an approach that produces 

objective data measuring overall sector performance over 

time. 

As Figure 1 (right) illustrates, ERP is an integrated system 

of: 

\ Plain-language compliance assistance that promotes 

pollution prevention (P2); 

\ Facility self-assessment and self-certification; 

\ Agency inspections to assess performance; and 

\ Statistically based performance measurement. 

In ERP, regulators also typically conduct a comprehensive 

facility inventory and undertake targeted enforcement 

actions. The elements of ERP can work together to improve 

performance across a business sector or other group of 

pollution sources, while deploying government resources 

strategically and efficiently. 

Figure 1. ERP: Interlocking Tools, 

Integrated System

1.3 More States Are Implementing ERP, 

Delivering Results 

In 1997, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) first began applying ERP in the dry cleaner 

and photo processor sectors. Now, 18 states in eight of EPA’s 

10 regions have developed or are implementing at least one 

ERP. These initiatives aim to address challenging environmental 

issues in 11 sectors/groups. (See Table 1, next page.) ERP states 

have also banded together with EPA to form a new States ERP 

Consortium, an association that aims to promote and facilitate 

the use of ERP tools, when appropriate, to solve pressing 

environmental problems. (See Section 5.4 of this report for more 

information on the Consortium.) 

EPA has actively supported the diffusion of ERP across states 

since EPA’s Innovation Action Council (IAC) endorsed the 

approach for “scale up” in 2000.3

 In making its decision, the 

IAC considered at least three factors: documented evidence 

of performance improvements in Massachusetts’ first years of 

ERP; a favorable evaluation of the initiative by the National 

Academy of Public Administration (NAPA); and the significant, 

cumulative environmental threat that can be posed by large 

groups of small pollution sources, such as in the sectors where 

“[ERP] complements Minnesota’s 

ongoing efforts to partner with 

smaller-scale animal feeding 

operations in a way that focuses 

on results. We are pleased 

with the efforts of producers, 

who have worked to learn 

more environmentally friendly 

business practices that may be 

more cost effective as well. With 

the success witnessed in our 

pilot project, we look forward 

to broadening the program’s 

application.”

— Brad Moore, Commissioner of 

Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency
3

Table 1. ERP States, by Sector/Group

Sector/Group ERP States

Animal Feedlots (Small) MN

Auto Salvage Yards IN, RI

Auto Body Shops DE, MD*, ME, NY, RI, WA

Auto Repair Shops FL*, MD*

Dry Cleaners MA, MI, NH, NV

Gas Stations RI, VA, VT

Oil & Gas Extraction Facilities LA

Photo Processors MA

Printers MA, NY, WI

Stormwater Dischargers ME, RI

Underground Injection Wells IL

*No longer implementing ERP.6 Note that MD had one ERP that covered both 

auto body and auto repair.

ERP is now being applied. ERP shows high potential 

for cost-effectively achieving results with these small 

entities, which historically are under-regulated—in 

part because their large numbers can seem daunting to 

tackle with traditional approaches. For instance, several 

states have developed or are planning ERPs for one 

such group, auto body shops—which number more 

than 30,000 nationwide and are associated with serious 

environmental and health impacts.4

Six states have now completed measuring the results 

of at least one ERP: Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, 

Maryland, Maine, and Rhode Island. These states have 

seen initial average performance improvements of 5 to 

30 percentage points on measures tracking the most 

important compliance and best management practices, 

across environmental media.5

 These improvements 

have been observed in just the first cycle of ERP 

inspections, compliance assistance, self-certification, 

and performance measurement. Results from longer-term 

ERP efforts show those initial performance improvements 

increasing or being maintained over time. The box below 

discusses some of the reasons regulators believe ERP 

may help improve the performance of sectors where it is 

applied, and points readers to more detailed information 

on ERP performance data.

Why Do ERP’s Performance Improvements Happen? 

The six states that have completed at least one ERP have seen average sector improvements of 5 to 30 

percentage points for the most important indicators of environmental performance—after just one round of 

inspections and self-certification. Why? 

Regulators believe that ERP’s mix of compliance assistance, self-certification, and agency verification drives 

facilities to hold themselves more accountable and gives facilities the capability and incentive to improve 

performance. Further, a recent extensive evaluation of the Massachusetts dry cleaners ERP suggests that 

the cooperative ERP approach helps engender trust vis-à-vis industry, increasing the willingness of facility 

owners and operators to proactively improve their environmental performance.7

For a more detailed example discussing the improvements realized by one state, see the case study discussing 

Rhode Island’s experience with ERP (next page). For substantial detail on ERP results to date for all six states, 

see Section 3 of this report. The appendix to this report, published separately, provides additional performance 

data, a detailed list of sources, and explanations of EPA’s data verification and analysis approach for key 

analyses conducted by EPA for this report.

Evidence of performance improvements reported by 

ERP states to date has led EPA to endorse ERP and to 

support its state partners. EPA has provided support 

through technical assistance, $2.9 million in startup 

grant funding, and, in some cases, the flexibility to use 

resources that otherwise might be dedicated to more 

traditional oversight programs. 
Case StudyRhode Island Successfully Adapts ERP Approach

Auto Body Shops Present a Problem. In 2002, auto body shops in Rhode Island represented a serious 

environmental and public health concern. The sector had historically been ignored by regulators even 

though many shops were using highly hazardous methylene chloride paint strippers, as well as releasing 

toxic sanding dust and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the environment. Further, research by staff 

at the state’s Department of Environmental Management (DEM) suggested that lead paint dust had been 

carried home to workers’ families on contaminated work clothes, and that the average level of lead in 

auto body workers’ blood was greater than five times the national average.8

 

ERP Offers a Potential Solution. Solving this problem with the usual approaches was not an option, 

because of resource constraints. Rhode Island’s DEM and business leaders in the sector saw the 

answer in the efficiency of Massachusetts’ ERP approach, modified for Rhode Island’s circumstances. 

While Massachusetts typically requires businesses to submit self-certification forms, Rhode Island 

opted to design a voluntary self-certification program. Whether or not they participated, shops needed 

to comply with standards. To encourage participation, DEM offered compliance assistance and the 

opportunity to come into compliance without fear of enforcement action. Further, non-participants were 

informed they were more likely to be targeted for inspection.

Many Facilities Sign Up. Responding to these incentives, and demonstrating their commitment to 

resolving worker and community concerns, 47% of the state’s 367 facilities submitted self-certification 

forms.9

 

“I’m Doing It Wrong Over Here.” Twenty percent of the state’s shops 

indicated they were out of compliance—particularly with issues 

impacting worker health and safety—and submitted plans to address 

their problems.10 The state requires that all plans be signed by 

responsible company officials committing to take specific actions by 

specific dates.

Performance Improves across the Sector. DEM audited random 

samples of all facilities—both certifiers and non-certifiers—before 

and after the initiative. Inspectors observed sector-wide improvements 

averaging 21 percentage points across all indicators. (See Section 3 for 

more information.) 

DEM Finds More ERP Opportunities. DEM has since expanded its ERP activities to include a mandatory 

certification program for underground storage tank (UST) facilities and voluntary certification programs 

for auto salvage yards and small construction sites. The Department also completed a second round of 

auto body self-certification in 2006 and conducted post-certification random inspections in late 2007. 

Analytical results are expected in 2008.

4
5

2 How Does ERP Work?

ERP combines innovative approaches with 

conventional regulatory tools in a rigorous and 

repeating process. Synergy among the tools can 

help improve environmental performance at each 

stage. States have developed some variations on 

ERP, but the general approach, tools, and steps in 

the process remain the same. Figure 2 (right) is a 

stepwise diagram of the major tasks in a typical 

ERP. This section describes the ERP process in 

more detail, and demonstrates how each step is 

intended to help support those that follow. 

2.1 Conduct a Comprehensive 

Inventory of Facilities

Often, states have not developed a comprehensive 

inventory of small-source polluters within the various 

sectors that can be effectively targeted by ERP. ERP 

implementers strive to better identify the universe of 

sources, in order to reach as many businesses as possible 

with ERP and to accurately assess the performance of the 

sector as a whole. ERP states use a variety of public and 

private data sources and data collection approaches to 

compile much more complete lists of relevant facilities 

than are typically maintained. 

Once completed, the ERP inventory often shows that 

only a fraction of the businesses in a sector were on 

a state’s “radar screen.” For instance, Massachusetts’ 

statewide ERP inventories increased the numbers of 

facilities in each of DEP’s sector databases by about 4 to 

20 times. The number of printers in DEP’s database grew 

from about 250 facilities to around 1,000; its records of 

photo processors rose from approximately 100 to about 

500; and its dry cleaners listings expanded from about 

30 facilities to around 600.11 

ERP inventories do not always include so many facilities, 

such as when ERP is implemented as a pilot program in 

a portion of a state. In fact, experience shows that ERP’s 

Figure 2. A Typical ERP Cycle

Step 1: Inventory. Identify the myriad small facilities 

that are sources of pollution, many of which are 

often unknown to regulators.

Step 2: Statistical Baseline Inspections. Conduct 

random inspections to accurately measure existing 

environmental performance and focus outreach on 

the biggest problems.

Step 3: Compliance Assistance. Work with trade 

associations to create and provide plain-language, 

user-friendly assistance that improves compliance 

and promotes pollution prevention.

Step 4: Self-Certification. Facilities conduct selfassessments using a detailed checklist closely 

linked to assistance materials. Responsible officials 

certify to their facilities’ environmental performance 

on each item. If necessary, they submit plans to 

return to compliance.

Step 5: Targeted Follow-Up. Identify potential 

problem facilities via certification analysis, and target 

them for inspections, correspondence, or phone 

calls. Provide assistance and/or initiate enforcement, 

as needed.

Step 6: Statistical Post-Certification Inspections. 

Conduct random inspections to accurately 

estimate performance changes and verify facility 

certifications.

Step 7: Informed Decision-Making. Assess 

performance data and consider whether to adjust 

compliance assistance or other strategies directed 

at the sector or, if sufficient progress has been made 

over time, target resources elsewhere.

Renew Assistance and Certification (As Deemed Necessary)

benefits can be reaped on a more local level with smaller 

populations of facilities. For example, Maryland’s ERP, 

discussed later in this report, demonstrated performance 

improvements while focusing solely on a single 

neighborhood in Baltimore.
6

2.2 Conduct Statistically Based Baseline Inspections

samples of facilities that may not be representative, 

leaving agencies with greater uncertainty about overall 

sector/group performance. (Sections 2.6 and 2.7 discuss 

the role of statistics in ERP in greater detail.)

To date, the number of baseline inspections conducted 

by states ranges from 35 to more than 250, with most 

states conducting 35 to 50 site visits. The precise number 

of visits depends on how the state chooses to balance 

the resources available for site visits with the need for 

increased confidence in the results—because doing more 

inspections means having greater certainty in the results.

Once the facilities to be targeted by ERP have been 

identified, a state will randomly select a sample of those 

facilities. Next, inspectors assess performance at each of 

these facilities using detailed checklists. Using the data 

from these inspections, states can accurately estimate the 

sector/group’s performance level before the beginning 

of compliance assistance and certification. For instance, 

agencies typically calculate the percentage of facilities 

achieving key compliance and pollution prevention 

practices. This information can help agencies identify 

problem areas to highlight during compliance assistance, 

and serve as a baseline for understanding whether sector/

group performance changes over time.

ERP’s random sampling approach is intended to help 

ensure that the set of facilities visited is representative of 

the overall sector or group being targeted. This random 

sampling provides agencies with the foundation for 

statistically calculating how confident they can be that 

the findings from these inspections shed light on overall 

sector/group performance. By contrast, many other 

policy and measurement approaches collect data from 

2.3 Provide Plain-Language Compliance 

Assistance Across Environmental Media

Many business owners want to comply with environmental regulations 

to protect their workers and communities, but they may not always 

know how—or even where—to start. ERP tries to help by reaching out to 

facilities with fact sheets, workbooks, workshops, and even videos. 

Agencies actively work with key members of the business community, 

such as trade associations, to ensure outreach approaches are as helpful 

as possible. The best ERP materials are easy to use and intuitive to facility 

operators, translating regulatory requirements into plain language. For 

instance, ERP workbooks are written in terms the operators are familiar 

with, not legalistic regulatory language. They simply tell businesses 

what they need to do and how to complete the certification form. 

The workbooks typically provide information on requirements for all 

environmental media (e.g., air, water, and waste). They also discuss 

pollution prevention practices that are good for the environment, worker 

health and safety, and/or businesses’ bottom line. 

“Small-business owner/

operators want to do the 

right thing, if we only 

know how. We need it 

to be simple and easy to 

understand. We want to 

protect our [real estate] 

investment and protect 

the environment, too. We 

have grandchildren who 

we want to enjoy the same 

environment as we have. 

ERP looks good....” 

— George Gardner of Gardner Foreign 

Auto Parts in Pompano Beach, Florida12
2.4 Collect Facility Self-Certification Forms 

Reflecting ERP’s integrated nature, its compliance 

assistance workbooks help facilities conduct 

standardized self-assessments of their operations on a 

regular basis (usually annually). Facility self-assessment 

checklists are typically integrated into certification 

forms and correspond closely with the checklists used 

by agency inspectors. This correlation is intended to 

better enable facilities to address an agency’s concerns 

and priorities, and to empower the agency to measure 

progress and track the accuracy of certification forms.

Following a self-assessment, a responsible official for 

each facility signs and submits a certification form 

that specifies whether or not the facility is meeting the 

requirements and best practices laid out by the agency. 

In some ERPs, the submission of certification forms 

is mandatory. In others, like the Rhode Island auto 

body ERP discussed in the case study box in Section 1, 

certification is voluntary. Whatever the approach chosen 

by states, all facilities are still expected to comply with 

applicable regulatory requirements. 

If facilities indicate any noncompliance, they must 

also submit return-to-compliance plans. In return-tocompliance plans, facilities indicate how and within 

what time frame they will comply with regulatory 

requirements. While agencies retain the authority to take 

enforcement action in all cases, they generally refrain 

from enforcement against good-faith actors who selfreport problems and act promptly to correct violations. 

The next page explains how ERP states consider and 

utilize the self-reported data from ERP.

7

ERP Workbooks Connect to Self-Certification Forms

A page from Florida’s ERP workbook (above, left) explains the potential environmental and health hazards of used antifreeze, 

and what steps auto repair shops must take to comply with state regulations for handling the substance. A blue arrow at the top 

of the page helps indicate that all facilities must answer question 20 on the self-certification form, as to whether they generate 

used antifreeze. The corresponding page in the self-certification form (above, right) shows question 20 under a header related to 

used antifreeze. Shops indicating that they generate used antifreeze are instructed to answer a subsequent question about their

compliance status, and they are told to refer to pages 52 and 53 of the workbook.

13

ALL REPAIR SHOPS

 Yes

Review and

complete all

worksheets in

Section 5.2 of the

Workbook.

19. Does your shop manage containers of used oil filters

properly?

Refer to page 51 in the Workbook.

 Yes  No

Fill out a Return-toCompliance Plan

18. Does your shop dispose of used oil on-site? This means

disposing of used oil to a septic tank, storm drain, surface

water, the ground, a dumpster, or by open burning.

Refer to page 48 in the Workbook.

 Yes

Fill out a Return-toCompliance Plan

 No

20. Does your shop generate used antifreeze? 

Refer to page 52 in the Workbook.

 Yes

Review and

complete all

worksheets in

Section 5.4 of the

Workbook.

 No

Skip to Question 22

21. Does your shop meet all requirements for recycling and/or

disposing of used antifreeze?

Refer to page 53 in the Workbook.

 Yes  No

Fill out a Return-toCompliance Plan

 No

Skip to Question 20

 No

Fill out a Return-toCompliance Plan

16. Does your shop generate used oil and/or oil filters?

Refer to page 45 in the Workbook.

 Yes 17. Does your shop properly dispose of used oil and properly

manage containers and tanks of used oil?

Refer to page 48 in the Workbook.

III. Used Oil and Oil Filters

IV. Used Antifreeze

14. Does your shop generate waste car batteries?

Refer to page 43 in the Workbook.

 Yes

Review and

complete all

worksheets in

Section 5.1 of the

Workbook.

15. Does your shop comply with all requirements for waste

batteries? 

Refer to page 44 in the Workbook.

 Yes

 No

Skip to Question 16

 No

Fill out a Return-toCompliance Plan

II. Waste Batteries

CAPP Compliance Certification Form—continued

CAPP Compliance Certification Form

DEP FORM 62-730.900(7)(b) 10-10-2002

CAPP7B-5

CAPP QUESTION

ALL REPAIR SHOPS 52

ANSWER THIS QUESTION FIRST:

Does your shop generate used antifreeze?

YES - Complete this section

NO - Skip to Section 5.5

Most coolant/antifreeze is made of water and

ethylene or propylene glycol. Ethylene glycol is

toxic to wildlife, which are attracted to its sweet

taste. Ethylene glycol can cause skin irritation and,

if inhaled, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and heart

palpitation. Large amounts of ethylene glycol can damage kidneys,

the heart and the nervous system. Propylene glycol is not as

harmful. During use antifreeze often picks up hazardous amounts of

lead, cadmium, chromium, benzene and solvents. For this reason

used coolant/antifreeze is often toxic hazardous waste.

20.

This is the answer to

question #20 on the

Compliance

Certification Form

Y N

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

There are two options for management of waste coolant/antifreeze:

Option A - The preferred option is to recycle.

` Keep all receipts and documentation of used antifreeze shipments and filter management. The

written receipts or records must include:

 Name and address of the generator and the recycling facility for off-site shipments;

 The amount of used antifreeze shipped off-site or recycled on-site;

 The amount of waste antifreeze filters shipped off-site; and the

 Date of shipment or recycling.

` If you recycle antifreeze on-site at your shop, there will be wastes such as sludges, filters, or

resins. Unless you know through lab testing that they are NOT hazardous, you must store and

dispose of them as regulated hazardous waste.

Option B - If you do not recycle your used coolant/antifreeze, IT WILL BE REGULATED AS

HAZARDOUS WASTE unless you are able to prove, through periodic laboratory testing,

that it is not hazardous waste (see Appendix IV), or you must follow all regulatory

requirements based on your generator status.

Container Management, Section 3.1(CESQG) or 4.1 (SQG);

Employee Training, Section 3.2 (CESQG) or 4.2 (SQG);

Spills and Leaks, Section 3.3 (CESQG) or 4.3 (SQG);

Emergency Preparedness, Section 3.4 (CESQG) or 4.4 (SQG); and

5.4 Used Coolant/Antifreeze

 Waste Disposal and Documentation, Section 3.5 (CESQG) or 4.5 (SQG).

5.4 Used Coolant/Antifreeze
What Is the Role of Self-Reported Information?

Newcomers to the ERP concept often express concerns about letting facilities identify their own compliance levels. Such 

concerns generally appear founded on a misconception that ERP primarily relies upon self-reported data to determine 

group performance, as well as a correct understanding of the historic difficulty agencies have had in verifying selfreported data.13 To the contrary, ERP states typically use self-reported data in low-risk ways that can add substantial value 

to efforts to improve sector performance. ERP states are comfortable with and confident about the certification process for 

many reasons:

\ Sector-wide compliance assessments are based on agency site visits, not facility-reported data. Statistical analysis 

of data from inspections has allowed states to demonstrate objectively that sector performance is improving. (See 

Section 3 for performance data.)

\ Random and targeted inspections can enable verification and (when necessary) enforcement. When an inspector 

visits a facility that has self-certified, he or she can assess the veracity of its certification form and can follow up with 

appropriate enforcement action if certification responses appear to have been falsified. 

\ Surprising numbers of facilities report noncompliance. In the first cycle of an ERP, up to 34% of facilities have selfreported that they are out of compliance on at least one issue.14 Further, ERP states typically follow up with each facility 

to ensure its plan to return to compliance has been implemented.

\ Performance may be improving even if some certification data are inaccurate. Levels of certification accuracy appear 

to vary across ERPs, while inspector observations consistently indicate that group performance has improved after ERP 

implementation. (Section 3 of this report has substantial detail on objectively measured performance improvements.) 

For instance, Massachusetts DEP has seen relatively accurate certification, with sector-wide agreement between 

inspector and facility responses as much as 86% of the time.15 Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) looked at certification accuracy in a different way. DEP inspectors found that 74% of randomly sampled auto 

repair shops were out of compliance on at least one issue on which the facility had previously indicated compliance 

on its first self-certification form.16 Despite this inconsistency, DEP inspectors’ observations also indicate that the 

sector’s performance on key indicators improved by an average of 7 percentage points after self-certification, and 

that the sector’s compliance rate also improved. (See Section 3 for details.) Further, none of the self-certification 

inconsistencies involved issues of significant noncompliance.17

\ Certification accuracy appears to improve over time. As facilities better understand their obligations and agencies 

better communicate their concerns, certification accuracy appears to increase in later certification cycles. For 

example, Florida found that the proportion of inspected facilities with completely accurate certification forms increased 

by 14 percentage points from the first round of certification to the second.18

\ States choose when to trust certification data. Based on inspector observations, professional judgment, and common 

sense, agencies are able to decide which kinds of certification data are likely to be accurate and can serve as a basis 

for decision-making.

\ Inaccuracies can be used to improve outcomes. Some inaccuracy is to be expected, and can even be helpful. 

As discussed in the next section, inaccuracies identified during desk analysis of certification data can provide an 

opportunity for agencies to find “needles in the haystack,” targeting facilities that need compliance assistance or 

enforcement. 

8
9

2.5 Target Compliance Assistance and Enforcement Actions

The self-certification process is not just for helping 

facilities improve their performance, but also for 

identifying those facilities most in need of further 

technical assistance or possible enforcement action. 

ERP states can use the large quantity of certification 

data made available through the process as one tool to 

identify “red flag” facilities—i.e., those which require 

follow-up ranging from a simple helpful phone call to a 

formal enforcement action. 

Figure 3 (right) illustrates how facility return-tocompliance plans and self-certification “red flags” 

might help a state locate many of the scattered facilities 

needing the most attention—a targeting process that 

might not be possible without ERP certification data. 

Widespread inaccuracies with respect to certain selfcertification questions can suggest communication 

problems that need to be addressed in future rounds of 

compliance assistance and certification. 

Such follow-up can be a cost-effective way for the 

state agency to identify and improve the performance 

of lagging facilities. Follow-up also demonstrates that 

an agency is paying attention to self-certification data, 

which helps assure facilities that their submissions are 

not just a paperwork exercise. This assurance, in turn, 

encourages facilities to take great care in preparing 

their self-certification forms. Without ERP, this kind of 

adaptive management might be more difficult. Section 

4.1 provides more information on such targeting, in the 

context of discussing ERP’s cost-effectiveness.

2.6 Conduct Statistically Based Post-Certification Inspections

The ERP process next calls for more random inspections at another representative sample of all facilities. This round of 

inspections serves two primary purposes—one that relates to the actual facilities that are visited, and one that relates to 

all facilities in the sector. 

First, inspectors are able to observe how well the facilities visited are performing. These findings can be compared 

to the performance reported on each participating facility’s certification form. Agencies typically undertake standard 

enforcement approaches when they encounter violations, particularly those associated with false self-certification. 

Second, just like with the baseline inspections before certification, the random sampling approach allows agencies 

to use statistical methods to draw inferences about all facilities being targeted by ERP—not just those facilities visited 

by inspectors. Consequently, regulators can better understand how well the entire population is performing and how 

accurately facilities within the population are certifying. Further, regulators can compare estimates of the population’s 

post-certification performance to estimates of its baseline performance, and understand how certain they can be that 

any observed changes in performance have actually occurred. 

Figure 3. Needles in a Haystack?

ERP Data Can Help Find Problem Facilities

Non-compliant facilities identified through return-to-compliance plans

Non-compliant facilities identified through self-certification mistakes

All other facilities in the sector
10

2.7 Use Data for 

Informed Decision-Making

Each round of random inspections provides substantial 

information about sector performance at that particular 

point in time. Agencies analyze these data to address 

several key questions: the extent to which performance 

has improved; whether adequate performance has been 

achieved and, if so, whether it has been maintained over 

time; and areas in which the sector must improve.

The wealth of data ERP creates to help answer these 

questions can be a double-edged sword. These data 

can present an opportunity to better understand 

environmental problems facing regulatory agencies, but 

they can also seem overwhelming if the agency does not 

have a clear strategy and a rigorous approach for data 

assessment. ERP states’ response to this conundrum is 

typically to first concentrate data analysis on indicators 

that summarize group performance with regard to agency 

priorities—pursuing issues in finer detail if data indicate 

a closer look is merited. ERP states also apply principles 

of statistics, as well as their best professional judgment, to 

gauge how confidently to move ahead.

Focus on Measures That Summarize Performance.

ERP states collect detailed data in their inspections, 

but regulators don’t give equal weight to every single 

compliance item. Instead, they focus measurement 

activities on what they consider to be the most important 

aspects of facility and sector performance. Most 

states focus analytical efforts initially on the building 

blocks of ERP measurement, Environmental Business 

Practice Indicators (EBPIs, described further in the next 

paragraph). States can also calculate concise figures that 

provide a “snapshot” of sector or group performance, 

such as a traditional compliance rate or what can be 

called a “group compliance score,” a new measure 

created by Massachusetts. When feasible, regulators can 

also estimate changes in public health or environmental 

conditions, such as pollution reductions. Section 3 

presents state data on each of these kinds of measures: 

EBPIs, “sector snapshots,” and measures of environmental 

conditions.

Examples of Performance 

Improvements on Environmental 

Business Practice Indicators 

(EBPIs)

A. Do auto body shops dispose of hazardous waste 

properly? In Delaware, compliance with hazardous 

waste regulations grew from 66% to 91% in one year. 

B. Do auto repair shops illegally discharge polluted 

wastewater? In its first year of ERP, Florida saw a drop 

of 12 percentage points in the incidence of sampled 

facilities with illegal discharges. 

C. Are dry cleaners properly checking for equipment 

leaks? After the first two rounds of annual selfcertification, Massachusetts observed an increase of 

33 percentage points in the use of this key emissionreduction practice.19

D. Do auto body shops utilize solvents that are low 

in volatile organic compounds (VOCs)? Maine’s 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) saw 

an increase of 48 percentage points in the use of 

environmentally friendly solvents, from 49% to 97% in 

one year. 

E. To what extent are neighborhood car repair 

operations following preferred painting procedures? 

Maryland saw the number of facilities using emissionreducing painting practices jump from 40% in 2002 to 

62% in 2004. 

F. Do auto body shops use methylene chloride, a 

dangerous paint-stripping chemical? Before ERP 

certification, Rhode Island found 33% of facilities were 

using methylene chloride; after, they found only 5% 

choosing to use it.

Notes: Percentages are of relevant, randomly sampled facilities. Results 

from Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are 

“statistically significant” at a 95% confidence level, meaning we can be 

confident that performance changed among all facilities targeted by ERP. 

Maryland’s result is not significant, because of particularly small sample 

sizes. Except where noted above, changes were observed in the first ERP 

cycle. 

Sources: Unless indicated by endnote, data sources for this box are the 

same as for Table 2 in this Report. Sources for Table 2 are presented in the 

appendix, Section 1.
11

Environmental Business Practice Indicators (EBPIs).

For many sectors, there can be well over 100 questions 

on a comprehensive ERP inspection form or facility selfaudit checklist, covering both major and minor issues. 

This level of detail helps agencies work with individual 

facilities to thoroughly improve compliance, but can be 

overwhelming to regulators looking at the sector as a 

whole, because individual data points can number in the 

tens of thousands. Concentrating on the highest-priority 

concerns in the sector can conserve analytical resources 

and focus management attention. EBPIs can help do 

this because they summarize performance data on a 

subset of checklist questions regarding what an agency 

considers to be the most important compliance and best 

management practices. 

The sidebar (previous page) gives examples of actual 

EBPIs chosen by states, and performance improvements 

shown by those indicators. Most ERP states choose 

between 10 and 30 EBPIs, depending on the sector 

and the state’s needs. States typically choose EBPIs that 

track facility and sector behavior across all relevant 

environmental media categories (e.g., air, water, and 

waste). EBPIs generally cover both compliance and 

“beyond-compliance” activities, and sometimes practices 

related to occupational safety and health. 

Figure 4 (right) illustrates the two typical types of EBPIs, 

and how they fit with the questions on a comprehensive 

checklist. The first type, represented by EBPIs #1 through 

#3 in the figure, can be called a “roll-up” EBPI, because 

it rolls up, or summarizes, the answers to several subquestions. For a real-world example, look at EBPI “E” 

in the sidebar on the previous page. This EBPI from 

Maryland summarizes inspector responses on several 

different checklist questions, all of which involve 

painting practices that can reduce air emissions from 

auto body shops. 

The second type of EBPI, represented by EBPI #4 in 

Figure 4, can be called a stand-alone EBPI. A stand-alone 

EBPI is linked to one important question on the facility 

checklist. This kind of EBPI can indicate performance on 

a single, salient issue, or it can be used as a “leading” 

indicator of performance on other questions that are not 

tracked. For instance, EBPI “F” in the sidebar (previous 

page) is a stand-alone indicator that examines Rhode 

Island auto body shops’ use of methylene chloride, a 

greenhouse gas and an extremely important worker 

health and safety issue.

Figure 4. The Link Between EBPIs 

and ERP Checklist Questions

 1. _______________

 2. _______________

 3. _______________

 4. _______________

 5. _______________

 6. _______________

 7. _______________

 8. _______________

 9. _______________

 10. _______________

11. _______________

 12. _______________

 13. _______________

14. _______________

EBPIs Questions

EBPI #1

EBPI #2

EBPI #3

EBPI #4

 15. _______________

 16. _______________

 17. _______________

 18. _______________
12

The Role of Statistics in Decision-Making. From a 

measurement perspective, the ideal way to understand 

how a population of facilities is performing is to take 

a census of that population, visiting all facilities over a 

relatively limited time frame in order to evaluate their 

performance. Doing so can provide regulators with little 

doubt that they are basing decisions on the very best 

available information about the group being investigated.

Such census approaches can be resource-intensive, 

however, so regulators using a variety of policy 

approaches often base their decisions on data collected 

from only a sample of facilities. As a result, regulators 

usually are not sure how well the data from their 

samples represent the whole group being investigated. 

If a sample is not drawn carefully, it may not reflect 

the performance of the group as a whole. For instance, 

imagine an agency’s sample includes a disproportionate 

number of facilities that are less likely to be in 

compliance than other facilities—such as facilities 

with a history of complaints. In such cases, inspectors 

may find the performance of sampled facilities to be 

worse than typical. Using data from the sample to draw 

inferences about the rate of noncompliance in the overall 

population—i.e., inferring that the overall population is 

performing more poorly than it actually is—might lead to 

biased policy decisions. 

Using statistics enables regulators to clarify how 

certain they can be that data taken from a random, 

yet representative, sample of facilities reflects the 

performance of the group as a whole. For instance, 

the box presented earlier in this section shows several 

EBPIs for which ERP inspectors observed “statistically 

significant” changes between the baseline and postcertification random samples. “Statistically significant” 

means we can be confident that a change occurred in 

the group as a whole. 

How confident? Each of those changes was statistically 

significant at a 95% confidence level. A 95% confidence 

level means there is at most a 5% chance we would be 

mistaken in saying there was a change in performance for 

the group as a whole. Other observed changes that are 

not statistically significant may indeed point to genuine 

changes in the whole group, but we cannot be as certain 

that they occurred—oftentimes because states are basing 

their inferences upon small samples of the population. 

Smaller sample sizes typically allow only fairly large 

observed changes to be deemed “significant” at a 95% 

confidence level, a very rigorous level that is used in 

this report and is the most common one used by ERP 

states. (Some states may choose to use a 90% confidence 

level—lower, but still generally considered acceptable as 

long as it meets an agency’s decision-making needs.)

Other Factors in Assessing Performance. ERP states 

do not solely rely upon determinations about statistical 

significance and other statistical tests, however. Other 

ways of looking at the data can help regulators credibly 

assess the performance levels of facilities, by using 

professional judgment and common sense. 

For instance, certification data can provide valuable 

information, even though the information is self-reported. 

Return-to-compliance plans are one example. ERP 

states feel it is unlikely that facilities will knowingly 

claim to be out of compliance when they are actually in 

compliance. Consequently, high rates of submission of 

return-to-compliance plans for particular EBPIs suggest 

performance improvement on those EBPIs, even if the 

change in performance observed by inspectors is not 

statistically significant.

Similarly, statistically significant change may not be 

the best benchmark of success when performance is 

already at a high level. Some states have found there are 

EBPIs for which inspectors observed 100% compliance 

among facilities before certification. In such cases of 

high-performing facilities, one would not expect (or 

desire) statistically significant change, because such 

change could only be downward. In this case, a lack of 

significant change is a sign that facilities are maintaining 

their high performance level.

Using statistics enables regulators 

to clarify how certain they can be 

that data taken from a random, yet 

representative, sample of facilities 

reflects the performance of the 

group as a whole.
13

ERP Results Consistently Show 3 Improvement

As discussed in Section 2, ERP states focus on the most important aspects of performance in three 

primary ways: (1) by tracking progress on individual indicators of compliance and best practices; (2) by 

compiling “sector snapshots” that summarize, in a single metric, group performance across multiple 

measures; and (3) by estimating environmental outcomes, such as emissions reductions. 

The individual performance metrics often vary among states—and particularly sectors—in part because 

ERP provides states with the flexibility to tailor their measurement to issues of particular interest. This 

variety in reporting has made the development of this report challenging and limits comparability among 

ERPs. Nevertheless, shared performance improvement is evident among the six states that have completed 

a full ERP cycle in one or more sectors: Delaware, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island. This section summarizes results from those states. (The appendix to this report, published 

separately, provides more detail on the results, data sources and EPA’s approach to data verification and 

analysis.)

3.1 ERP Groups Improve on Priority Indicators, Across the Board 

To date, all ERP states have reported seeing progress 

on Environmental Business Practice Indicators (EBPIs) 

across multiple regulatory or performance categories. The 

observed improvements are statistically significant in many 

cases. 

Table 2 (next page) summarizes results from each of the 

completed ERPs, showing initial average improvements 

of 5 to 30 percentage points across each ERP’s EBPIs. For 

example, the table summarizes results observed by the 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 

(DEM) for its auto body ERP. DEM’s results were reported 

in a peer-reviewed publication, American Journal of Public 

Health, in May 2007.20
14

DEM inspectors observed improvements on 19 of 24 

performance indicators. Seven of those 19 improvements 

are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. 

Improvements were observed across each of the 

following categories: hazardous waste management, 

air pollution control, wastewater discharge, and 

worker health and safety. Overall, Rhode Island results 

demonstrate an observed performance increase of 21 

percentage points, when averaged across all indicators. 

This is not to say that every ERP indicator shows 

performance improvements. For instance, for two EBPIs, 

Rhode Island inspectors observed 100% of facilities 

achieving each EBPI in both rounds of inspections, 

Table 2. Observed Average EBPI Improvement in First ERP Self-Certification Cycle

State Sector Number of 

EBPIs

Number Improving 

(# Significant*)

Number Worsening 

(# Significant*)

Number Unchanged 

From Initial 100% 

Performance

Average Improvement (Percentage 

Points)†

DE Auto Body‡ 19 17 (13) 1 (0) 1 30

FL Auto Repair 17 13 (7) 3 (0) 1 7

MA Dry Cleaners 15 5 (0) 5 (0) 5 5

MA Photo 

Processors 8 3 (1) 2 (0) 3 12

MA Printers 25 17 (1) 6 (0) 2 13

MD Auto Body/

Repair‡ 5 4 (1) 1 (0) 0 12

ME Auto Body‡ 22 18 (3) 4 (0) 0 10

RI Auto Body‡ 24 19 (7) 3 (0) 2 21

Total 135 96 (33) 25 (0) 14 N/A

Notes:

* “# Significant” indicates the number of EBPIs, either improving or worsening, for which the observed change reflects a statistically significant difference. The significance figures here are based upon a 95% confidence level, which means we are 95% confident that the true percentage of facilities in the population (as opposed to the 

sample) achieving such EBPIs has increased.

† For each ERP, the average percentage point improvement represents a simple (not weighted) average of the percentage point changes in EBPI values after the first 

round of self-certification (e.g., if 40% of facilities were in compliance with an EBPI in the baseline, with 60% in the post-certification round of inspections, the change 

would be 20 percentage points; the average for an ERP is an average of all these percentage point changes, positive or negative). EBPIs for which there was no improvement, but for which there was already 100% performance, were not included in the calculation of average improvement, because improvement is not possible in that 

circumstance. This analysis includes both compliance and pollution prevention EBPIs.

‡ Each of these ERPs utilized a voluntary certification approach. However, readers should recognize that the results presented here are based upon random samples of 

the entire population of facilities in the sector targeted by the ERP, not just the facilities that voluntarily submitted self-certification forms. 

A detailed list of data sources and methodological notes underlying this table is available in Section 1 of the appendix to this report.

making it impossible to show improvement. DEM also 

observed performance decreases associated with three 

EBPIs (although none were statistically significant). 

Nevertheless, when considered in aggregate, states’ 

experience to date demonstrates a net performance 

gain across all EBPIs. In fact, the bottom line of Table 

2 indicates that, for every EBPI showing decreased 

performance, nearly four show improvements. And, 

while states found that more than one-third of observed 

performance improvements were statistically significant 

at a 95% confidence level, they found none of the 

observed performance decreases to be statistically 

significant at that level. 
15

What happens when states do not see progress on key 

indicators? One of the potential benefits of ERP is that 

its measurement system can allow states to identify 

facilities lagging behind in performance, so that agencies 

can target their efforts appropriately. For instance, a 

key emission-reducing practice among dry cleaners 

is to ensure that cleaning machines have completed 

all operations before doors are open and clothes are 

transferred. After Massachusetts noted that the state’s 

dry cleaners continued to have poor practices in this 

area after the first ERP cycle, DEP communicated its 

concern to the trade association, which in turn drew 

the attention of facilities to the matter. The next round 

of random inspections documented that performance 

had improved, because more dry cleaners had installed 

lockout mechanisms to prevent premature opening of 

machines.21

3.2 “Sector Snapshots” Show Progress, Sustained Performance 

In addition to examining individual EBPIs, states 

can calculate “sector snapshots” to summarize the 

performance of business sectors subject to an ERP. 

These benchmarks express performance levels even 

more concisely than EBPIs—communicating, in a single 

metric, the extent to which businesses are achieving 

compliance or other agency goals. Environmental 

agencies have historically calculated a sector snapshot 

called the “compliance rate” to assess performance in 

regulatory programs. This section begins by describing 

how the traditional compliance rate is typically 

calculated, and provides an example of Florida’s 

observed change in compliance rates. The section also 

discusses how the “group compliance score” developed 

by Massachusetts can complement the traditional 

compliance rate as a performance management tool. 

Compliance Rates. The compliance rate is an easily 

calculated summary measure of a regulated group’s 

compliance level. The compliance rate has been 

customarily used by EPA and states to help guide agency 

activities. A compliance rate can be calculated in a 

few different ways. Most commonly, it is expressed 

as the percentage of facilities in full compliance with 

all regulatory requirements—a key goal of many 

environmental agencies. Compliance rates are often 

focused upon a single environmental medium—such as a 

compliance rate for air regulations. 

Agencies typically calculate compliance rates based on 

whatever facility data they have available, which may 

not be representative of the population as a whole. ERP’s 

random, representative sampling approach can allow 

states to more confidently express compliance rates—

and their changes over time—for sectors as a whole. For 

instance, Florida inspectors observed that the proportion 

of what it called “straight-A” auto repair facilities—those 

with no violations of any kind, across environmental 

media—had risen 17 percentage points among randomly 

sampled facilities after two rounds of self-certification.22 

This improvement is statistically significant at a 95% 

confidence level.

Although ERP allows for calculating a statistically 

based compliance rate, states implementing ERP have 

not substantially relied upon on the compliance rate 

in describing the performance of their ERP groups or 

sectors, for two primary reasons. First, ERP states tend 

to focus more on the most important indicators of 

performance (i.e., the EBPIs), arguing that doing so can 

help regulators allocate resources and attention to the 

highest priority issues. Some kinds of compliance rates 

address this concern—focusing only on “significant 

noncompliance” and counting facilities as out of 

compliance only if they fail to meet one or more core 

indicators of performance. 

Second, compliance rates—whether indicator-focused 

or not—are limited in their ability to show gradations 

in performance. Because of how they are calculated, 

compliance rates can only indicate the proportions of 

facilities that have either perfect records or imperfect 

records, and whether those proportions are changing 

over time. As such, compliance rates are a valuable 

measure for determining the extent to which full 

compliance is being achieved. Yet, compliance rates 

do not provide information on how imperfect those 

imperfect facilities are. Is the average facility achieving 

almost nothing, nearly everything, or something in 

between? And, over time, is performance among these 

imperfect facilities getting better or getting worse? 

Mathematically, the traditional compliance rate cannot 

answer these questions. For instance, if a facility was 

achieving 10% of indicators, then improved to 90%, 

the compliance rate calculation would treat the facility 

as out of compliance in both cases. The performance 

improvement, although substantial, would not be 

reflected in the measure.
16

Group Compliance Scores. Massachusetts has found a 

way to begin to address these questions with its “group 

compliance score,” which is rooted in a mathematical 

concept called an index. It expresses the extent to which 

facilities are achieving compliance-related EBPIs, as 

observed by inspectors during random visits to facilities. 

A score of 80%, for instance, would mean that, on 

average, each facility is achieving 80% of the indicators 

that apply to it. 

Massachusetts uses this score to reflect varying degrees 

of compliance at individual facilities. The following 

example illustrates the potential decision-making value 

of the group compliance score. Imagine a situation 

in which no facility visited by inspectors during the 

baseline round of ERP random inspections is achieving 

even a single EBPI. In this case, both the group 

compliance score and the compliance rate would equal 

0%. But what if inspectors observe facilities achieving an 

average of 85% of all indicators after ERP certification, 

but still no single facility is achieving all EBPIs? In 

this case, the compliance rate would remain at 0%, 

showing no facility had as yet achieved the goal of full 

compliance. The group compliance score would be 85%, 

complementing the compliance rate by reflecting the 

substantial progress in the sector. 

In practice, what has the group compliance score shown 

about the performance of ERP sectors in Massachusetts? 

The metric demonstrates that each sector’s score is higher 

than when Massachusetts began implementing ERP in 

1997. As Figure 5 (right) shows, the photo processing 

sector showed a dramatic increase from 57% in 1997 to 

98% just five years later. In the dry cleaning and printing 

sectors, performance started at a relatively high level, 

and has been maintained or improved over time. In the 

Figure 5. Massachusetts Group 

Compliance Scores, Over Time

Notes:

(1) Massachusetts did not evaluate changes in group compliance scores for 

statistical significance. Retroactively doing so was beyond the scope of this 

report.

(2) Graph reflects most recent available data. Massachusetts has decreased 

inspection frequency over time for these sectors because of their trends toward 

sustaining high performance levels. The next round of random inspections is 

anticipated later in 2007, for the dry cleaning sector.

(3) Dry cleaners data points: 1997, 84%; 1998, 84%; 2000, 97%; and 2002, 98%.

(4) Photo processors data points: 1997, 57 %; 1998, 71%; 2000, 96%; and 2002, 

98%.

(5) Printers data points: 1998, 82%; 1999, 89%; and 2003, 86%.

For data sources and analytical notes, see appendix, Section 2.

case of printers, performance has remained relatively 

steady, between 80% and 90%. With dry cleaners, no 

change was observed after the first round of certification, 

but Massachusetts inspectors saw performance jump 

higher in later years, leveling off near 100%. 
As explained on page 8, ERP measures typically do 

not rely on self-reported data. However, Massachusetts 

believes these data are reliable because the state does 

not perceive that dry cleaners have any incentive to 

falsely report—there is no penalty or reward based 

upon perc usage and waste levels.24 Further, while the 

state’s inspectors do not currently verify self-reported 

perc usage against on-site facility records, the fact that 

they could do so may create a disincentive against 

falsification.25

3.3 Results Suggest Improvements in Environmental Conditions

The leading edge of state ERP efforts involves estimating 

changes in environmental conditions, or outcomes, 

associated with ERP initiatives. Doing so for any kind 

of initiative can be quite challenging, because such 

estimation requires adequate underlying data, numerous 

assumptions (such as emissions rates associated with 

a variety of business practices), and consideration of 

extraneous factors that could impact environmental 

conditions. In the face of these challenges, Massachusetts 

has experimented with a variety of different approaches 

for estimating environmental outcomes for each of its 

three sectors. Presented below are the results for two 

outcome measures, from the dry cleaning and printing 

sectors, in which Massachusetts has high confidence. 

Dry Cleaners. Traditional dry cleaning relies upon the 

use of perchloroethylene, a toxic and volatile solvent 

also known as “perc.” Massachusetts dry cleaners must 

report information on perc usage and waste disposal 

on ERP certification forms. Using those data, the state 

estimates that dry cleaners reduced average perc 

waste by 28% and average perc air emissions by 32% 

between the first round of self-certification in 1997 and 

the second round in 1998. These improvements are 

responsible for a 151-ton reduction in annual perc waste 

and a 135-ton reduction in annual perc emissions.23 

Dry cleaners in Massachusetts 

reduced their annual air emissions 

of perchloroethylene by an estimated 

135 tons by the second round of selfcertification (1998). This amount would 

be enough to fill the lungs of over 3.6 

million adults.26

17
18

Printers. Massachusetts explored a number of ways 

to measure how changes in the practices of the state’s 

printing businesses, as measured by several different 

EBPIs, could translate into changes in environmental 

conditions in the state. DEP inspectors observed varied 

performance over time, with EBPIs indicating positive as 

well as negative changes. Only one of those estimated 

outcomes is presented here, because it is based on the 

only statistically significant EBPI performance change (at 

a 95% confidence level) among the subset of EBPIs DEP 

examined. 

Massachusetts inspectors observed that, in 1998, only 3% 

of facilities they visited were utilizing ultraviolet (UV) ink, 

so called because it is cured with ultraviolet light. UV ink 

is environmentally preferable because it contains little 

or no amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a 

class of pollutants that can cause respiratory problems 

and often contributes to the formation of ground-level 

ozone. Although UV ink emits much less (if any) of the 

air pollution that can result from the use of standard 

printing inks, printers are not compelled by regulation to 

use the inks. However, Massachusetts has consistently 

encouraged printers, through ERP, to switch to this ink as 

a voluntary pollution prevention measure. By 1999, 9% 

of randomly sampled facilities were utilizing UV ink, and 

in 2003, the figure had grown to 23%.

Statistical analysis of the inspector findings shows that 

Massachusetts can be 95% confident not only that an 

improvement occurred in the population between 1998 

and 2003, but also that the proportion of all printers 

statewide using UV ink increased by at least 1% and 

perhaps as much as 38% from 1998 to 2003—a wide 

margin due to small sample sizes, but informative 

nonetheless. By incorporating this range of performance 

improvement data into Massachusetts’ environmental 

outcome analysis methodology, it can be estimated that 

the increased use of UV ink among printers led to a 

reduction in statewide VOC emissions of between 157 

and 8,011 tons per year (TPY), with a midpoint of 4,084 

TPY.27 Massachusetts does not have clear evidence that 

the change is solely attributable to ERP, but the measure 

nonetheless helps show that printers are moving in the 

right direction and helping the environment. Even if ERP 

is not fully driving the change, ERP can allow a much 

better understanding of whether change is occurring, and 

to what extent.
19

Agencies May Use Resources More 4 Effectively With ERP

The evidence that sectors have improved and maintained performance after ERP has been applied 

appears to be a primary factor motivating states to implement new ERPs and to continue with existing 

ones. But agencies also indicate they are adopting ERP because they believe it will empower them 

to use their increasingly scarce resources much more effectively. As this section discusses in detail, 

states implementing ERP have reported enhanced targeting capabilities, reduced long-term need for 

enforcement, improved permitting approaches, and an effective voluntary policy option. ERP states 

also take advantage of cost savings associated with using statistics and automation, and they benefit 

from delivering measurable mission-based results and from better meeting stakeholder demands. These 

reported benefits, when considered along with results from ERPs to date, suggest that ERP can represent 

a cost-effective option for regulating sectors or groups with large numbers of pollution sources.

4.1 States Report Enhanced Targeting 

Capabilities

As discussed earlier, EPA and states have historically focused 

traditional regulatory approaches on easier-to-target large businesses, 

where a single agency action may have a significant environmental 

impact. Currently, however, regulators increasingly face the challenge 

of addressing impacts of regulated groups comprising many small 

polluting facilities. For these sources, limited information is typically 

available to help regulators prioritize their resources. 

ERP self-certification data provide a means to efficiently identify 

facilities most in need of attention. States can mine certification 

data to identify and follow up with facilities that did not return 

self-certification forms, that submitted return-to-compliance plans, 

and that provided self-certification responses that are internally 

inconsistent or otherwise raise “red flags.” Such inconsistencies 

can mean facilities either do not understand their obligations or are 

neglecting them. When data analysis identifies a facility in need of 

attention, agencies can choose the most appropriate response, ranging 

from providing compliance assistance to initiating enforcement 

actions. The box at right describes a Massachusetts targeting success 

story that impacted the performance of numerous facilities.

At least one state has found that targeted ERP inspections may be 

more likely to find problems than random inspections—although 

random inspections are still considered critical for measurement 

purposes and for deterring regulatory violations. Massachusetts’ 

preliminary analysis of ERP data indicates that facilities targeted 

for inspection based upon suspicious certification data have been 

substantially more likely to have serious problems than facilities 

Cost-Effective Targeting 

Through ERP

Massachusetts’ analysis of ERP 

certification forms and accompanying 

wastewater sampling data allowed the 

state to identify and address pervasive 

problems at three major retail chains, 

each with numerous photo processing 

facilities. Without ERP, these persistent 

violations may not have been detected. 

Massachusetts’ efforts led to the payment 

of $215,000 in civil and administrative 

penalties by the three companies 

combined. Further, the state suspended 

an additional $131,000 in penalties on 

the condition that two of the companies 

implement initiatives intended to ensure 

against such violations in the future. The 

other company also agreed in settlement 

to take similar steps to improve the 

environmental performance of its stores.28

The president of the Environmental 

League of Massachusetts indicated his 

satisfaction with the effort: “Thanks to the 

DEP, the enforcement picture is becoming 

very clear: Photo processors that don’t 

take care of the environment expose 

themselves to fines. This is a very positive 

development.”29 
inspected during random visits. Massachusetts examined four rounds of random and targeted inspections across 

three different sectors. Enforcement actions resulted from 63% of targeted inspections, as opposed to 42% of random 

inspections—a difference of 21 percentage points. The analysis did not specifically examine the seriousness of the 

violations, but anecdotal information from inspectors suggests that more serious violations are found during targeted 

inspections.30

ERP inspection data may help improve the focus and effectiveness of compliance assistance as well. Baseline data 

from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP’s) auto body ERP indicated that only 29% of sampled 

shops were meeting the requirement to recycle mercury-containing fluorescent light bulbs. Consequently, DEP staff 

emphasized in workshops, workbooks, and certification forms why and how to recycle the bulbs—and facilities 

responded. Maine’s second random sample discovered 85% compliance with this requirement. This 56 percentage 

point improvement is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.31

4.2 ERP May Reduce the Need for Enforcement 

In many ERPs, a surprising number of businesses 

submit return-to-compliance plans the first time they 

self-certify—suggesting that facilities can improve their 

compliance even without an inspector at their doors 

and with limited direct resource investment by the state. 

Three states with voluntary certification programs for 

auto body facilities provide evidence to support this 

finding. In Rhode Island, 20% of all facilities in the 

state volunteered that they were out of compliance and 

submitted return-to-compliance plans the first time they 

self-certified. In Delaware, the figure was 13%. In Maine, 

34% self-declared violations.32

But what happens after that? States track the 

implementation of return-to-compliance plans to ensure 

that facilities follow through with plan implementation. 

Further, data from random inspections demonstrate that 

once ERP facilities achieve compliance, they typically 

maintain that level of environmental performance, requiring 

less and less attention from regulators. This improved 

performance means facilities need to submit fewer returnto-compliance plans after the first cycle of ERP. 

Sustained, documented high levels of performance 

can offer regulators flexibility in strategically targeting 

resources. For instance, regulators in Florida and 

Massachusetts saw a substantial drop in return-tocompliance plan submissions after early certification 

cycles, backed up by inspection results showing 

sustained performance at high levels. In response, Florida 

chose to reallocate inspection resources from the auto 

repair sector to other, higher-priority sectors. For its part, 

Massachusetts chose to reduce the frequency of random 

ERP site visits, believing that facility performance would 

be sustained. ERP’s measurement approach allows 

states to confirm such beliefs by periodically checking 

on facility performance. For example, Massachusetts 

conducted follow-up random inspections in the dry 

cleaning sector in 2007, and the state will be analyzing 

the data in order to understand whether the sector has 

maintained the high level of performance described in 

Section 3.

4.3 ERP Can Complement or Replace Permitting

ERP has the potential to enhance the performance of 

traditional permit programs, and in some cases even 

replace them. In Massachusetts, ERP’s industry-wide 

environmental performance standards and annual selfcertification submissions replaced certain state permits in 

the dry cleaning, printing, and photo processing sectors. 

Although ERP cannot substitute for federally required 

permits for large-scale facilities, it can complement 

other traditional permitting programs. For instance, ERP 

measurement and self-certification could potentially help 

core regulatory program offices to improve and verify 

performance in some permitted sectors. ERP could also 

20
be used as a vehicle for implementing general permitting programs, which require facilities to periodically report on 

and certify to specified compliance standards—similar to a mandatory ERP self-certification. To those features, ERP adds 

compliance assistance and performance measurement to create an even more robust system.

Finally, ERP may be used as a tool for implementing new regulations that could, but may not necessarily, trigger 

permitting requirements—informing the regulated community about new requirements and helping to ensure 

compliance. For instance, EPA is actively exploring the extent to which ERP could help implement pending new 

regulations facing small “area sources” of air pollution. Some of these categories of small area sources, like auto body 

shops, are sectors or groups for which states have already successfully developed ERPs.

Figure 6. Economies of Scale with Statistics

Note: Figures are based upon a 95% confidence level and maximum margin of 

error of approximately +/- 12 percentage points.

20,000

NUMBER OF FACILITIES

20,000 FACILITIES

(66 inspections)

15,000

5,000

0

All other facilities in sector

Randomly sampled facilities

200 FACILITIES

(50 inspections)

2000 FACILITIES

(64 inspections)

More and more, ERP is being implemented in sectors 

with very large numbers of pollution sources, such as 

among oil and gas extraction operations, small animal 

feedlots, and facilities with underground storage tanks. 

Large populations of facilities can present significant 

opportunities for states to take advantage of economies 

of scale in automation and statistics. 

Information technology can offer states the opportunity 

to substantially streamline their processes and readily 

assess the performance of individual facilities, groups of 

facilities, or entire sectors. For instance, Massachusetts 

DEP’s ERP tracking and analysis system saves substantial 

staff time by automatically screening certification data for 

inconsistencies and generating performance results reports. 

Statistics plays its role in efficiency by offering what 

some consider to be surprising economies of scale. As 

populations of facilities grow larger and larger, agencies 

only need to undertake relatively small numbers of 

additional random inspections to achieve the same 

confidence in their results from a statistical point of 

view. Figure 6 (right) shows an example of how states 

need proportionally fewer random inspections as the 

sector population grows, even by orders of magnitude. 

For instance, imagine that a state planned to conduct 

50 random baseline inspections among a population 

of 200 facilities. If they instead had a population of 

2000 facilities, they could achieve the same statistical 

confidence in their results by doing just 14 more 

inspections, for a total of 64. With 20,000 facilities, they 

would need to do only two more inspections, for a total 

of 66.33

4.4 Statistics and Technology Provide Economies of Scale

21
22

4.5 ERP’s Results Can Help Meet Demands for Better Measurement 

Increasingly, regulatory agencies are being required to set measurable goals and document their performance against 

those goals. Many agencies struggle to meet the requirements of these performance measurement obligations. For 

instance, EPA strives to show credible measurable progress in achieving its core mission, as required under the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the White House Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB’s) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) initiative. 

Agencies often find particular difficulty in tracking mission-oriented outcomes, such as improvements in compliance 

or environmental quality. Agencies’ customary measures—like numbers of inspections conducted or the total penalties 

associated with enforcement actions—fail to tell the full story.

ERP performance data can help states demonstrate project outcomes to those stakeholders demanding credible tracking 

of the outcomes of agency efforts. Furthermore, ERP’s portraits of group performance can allow for more informed 

priority-setting and budgeting.

4.6 Many Businesses Value ERP as Fair and Helpful 

ERP can help create a level playing field by holding 

all businesses to a uniform standard and following 

through with enforcement action. In many ERP 

states, business owners actually ask the state to make 

certification mandatory rather than voluntary. In 

Massachusetts, where regulations allow the state to 

reduce the frequency of certification when a sector 

has demonstrated sustained high performance levels, 

business leaders in at least one sector have urged the 

state not to do so.

Businesses also appreciate ERP’s consistent emphasis 

on all environmental media. Most agencies do not 

typically take a multimedia approach in working with 

regulated facilities. Instead, agencies often interact with 

facilities via several different offices or departments, 

each responsible for a separate environmental medium 

(e.g., air, water, and waste). ERP, on the other hand, 

is a single, focused package that is intended to help 

businesses better manage all aspects of environmental 

compliance. 

Further, ERP’s regular certification process may help 

businesses routinize environmental management and 

reduce compliance problems related to employee 

turnover. It may also help save money, because the 

plain-language, step-by-step certification process can 

substantially reduce the need for consultants.

Praise for ERP from the 

Business Community

“[T]he ERP model is working and has 

reduced the burden on DEP and on 

regulated sectors with absolutely 

no reduction in environmental 

protection....

 

“The ERP model, combined with DEP’s 

continued focus on electronic data 

initiatives, has saved the business 

community hundreds of thousands of 

dollars in fees and consultant time.”

— Robert A. Rio, Esq., Senior Vice President 

for Government Affairs, Associated 

Industries of Massachusetts (AIM). AIM 

describes itself as the largest employer 

association in Massachusetts.34
23

4.7 ERP Offers the Public Visible Improvements and Broader Accountability 

Residents Credit ERP for 

Neighborhood Improvements

The Maryland Department of the Environment 

focused its ERP on auto repair and body shops 

in the Park Heights neighborhood of Baltimore, a 

low-income area with a high minority population. 

Regulators were concerned about “environmental 

justice” issues in this neighborhood because 

these shops were considered by many residents 

to be a blight on the community and were in close 

proximity to schools and facilities for health care, 

child care, and elder care.

Project partners randomly surveyed residents after 

the project to gauge how they felt about ERP’s 

accomplishments. They found that 47% of a large 

sample of residents knew about the project, and 

87% of those believed the project was working 

to improve the neighborhood’s environmental 

conditions. Further, the survey indicated that 

residents perceived a number of neighborhood 

improvements over the timeframe of the project. 

These improvements include perceived reductions 

in discarded parts and tires, used oil spills, odors, 

smoke, and nighttime noise.35 

The success of this project shows that, while ERP 

may be most cost-effective on a larger scale, 

it can help create meaningful and noticeable 

improvements at the local level as well.

For its part, the public has shown an awareness of 

ERP’s positive impacts, such as visible improvements 

attributed to Maryland’s ERP (see box at left). On a 

larger scale, reports on sector performance can enable 

agencies to show public interest groups and concerned 

citizens the extent to which regulators are achieving 

their mission and allocating resources appropriately. 

States also typically make individual certification forms 

available upon public request, allowing citizens to 

check on the performance of facilities in their own 

neighborhoods. Some agencies envision going further, 

using the Internet to make non-confidential certification 

information immediately available to the public. Such 

information could be bundled with mapping software to 

enable each citizen to see what nearby businesses are 

reporting about their performance.

4.8 ERP Can Offer an Effective, 

Voluntary Option

Many ERP states have found voluntary certification to 

be an effective alternative to mandating that facilities 

submit certification forms, which is sometimes not 

feasible. As Table 2 showed earlier, results from several 

voluntary-certification ERPs clearly indicate that 

performance has improved post-ERP—not just among 

volunteers, but across the sector as a whole. 

Why? No thorough analysis has been undertaken 

yet, but the data provide clues suggesting that 

voluntary-certification ERPs have been effective to 

date at engendering trust between state agencies and 

industries, which in turn may help drive broad-based 

changes in behavior. Experience to date suggests that 

higher proportions of facilities may submit return-tocompliance plans when an ERP has voluntary, rather 

than mandatory, certification. Further, ERPs to date have 

generally seen high levels of voluntary certification, and 

states anecdotally report that many facilities that do not 

submit certification forms still appear to conduct selfaudits and improve their performance. 
It is not yet possible to say whether, and 

under what circumstances, a voluntary 

certification approach may work better than 

a mandatory one. This question may be 

explored more in future years. Perhaps it is 

telling that state staff managing voluntary 

certification programs tend to say they 

would prefer that the certification be made 

mandatory, for a variety of reasons—such as 

to level the playing field for businesses, to 

increase the economies of scale associated 

with managing certification data, and to 

improve their own ability to garner program 

management resources, such as by charging 

certification fees. Nonetheless, when 

mandatory certification is not feasible or 

desired, it appears that ERP can offer an 

effective, voluntary option.

4.9 ERP Appears to Be a Cost-Effective Alternative

24

Maine’s Voluntary Approach 

Engages Businesses

“[T]he Environmental Results Program has increased 

our Department’s ability to work with smaller 

businesses and gain their engagement in protecting 

the Maine environment. By using the ERP compliance 

assistance and education model, many more smaller 

businesses in the state are aware of compliance 

regulations and how to implement them....” 

— David P. Littell, Commissioner of Maine’s 

Department of Environmental Protection

ERP results to date, combined with the various other 

benefits described elsewhere in this report, strongly 

suggest that ERP can be a cost-effective option for 

regulating sectors or groups with large numbers of 

pollution sources. It would be instructive to compare 

each existing ERP with comparable traditional 

approaches, specifically in terms of costs and 

performance levels. Doing so is challenging, however, 

in large part because of the difficulty in directly 

comparing traditional compliance programs with ERP: 

Traditional programs do not typically have comparable 

data depicting sector-wide performance levels, and state 

environmental agencies differ significantly in how they 

track their resource expenditures.

EPA is working with states to overcome this measurement 

challenge. For instance, Rhode Island DEM has received 

a grant from the National Center for Environmental 

Innovation to conduct a detailed study comparing the 

cost-effectiveness of its ERP for underground storage 

tanks (USTs) to the cost-effectiveness of one or more 

traditional approaches for regulating USTs. Results of that 

study are anticipated in 2008.

To more closely assess ERP’s cost-effectiveness for the 

purpose of this report, EPA examined two dry cleaner 

programs, in Massachusetts and Michigan, whose data 

lend themselves to comparison. Massachusetts’ dry 

cleaners have been regulated under the ERP model since 

1997, and achieved very high scores on EBPIs the last 

two times Massachusetts conducted random inspections 

of the sector. The approach to dry cleaner compliance 

assurance taken by the Air Quality Division of Michigan’s 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has 

been more traditional, with the state inspecting every 

dry cleaning facility once per year and providing 

compliance assistance upon request. Michigan DEQ’s 

census-based inspections approach for this sector stems 

from particular circumstances: annual inspections of 

dry cleaning facilities are required under an industrysupported Michigan law, and Michigan DEQ’s dry 

cleaning program is substantially funded through a 

license fee paid by dry cleaning facilities.36 The next two 

subsections compare these two programs on the basis of 

the environmental performance of the dry cleaners they 

regulate and the personnel resources each program uses 

to implement its goals.
25

Environmental Performance Under ERP Compared 

to “Inspect Everyone” Approach. In December 2006, 

as part of implementing a pilot ERP, Michigan DEQ 

completed random inspections of its 

dry cleaner population, using an EBPIbased checklist to evaluate “baseline” 

sector performance. Inspection results 

show how well a random sample of 262 

Michigan dry cleaners is performing 

on the state’s EBPIs, after having been 

regulated for years under Michigan’s 

annual-inspection program, but before 

ERP self-certification had begun.37 

Those data can be compared to results 

from Massachusetts DEP’s dry cleaners 

inspections during the most recent 

ERP random sample in 2002. Those 

Massachusetts results demonstrate 

how well a representative sample of 

25 Massachusetts dry cleaners was 

performing on that state’s EBPIs after the 

fifth round of ERP self-certification in 2002.38 

EPA worked with staff from the two states to identify six 

comparable EBPIs, and examined each state’s findings 

from random inspections for those EBPIs. The ability to 

draw conclusions from the comparison is somewhat 

Dry cleaners regulated 

under Massachusetts’ 

ERP appear to perform 

as well as those 

regulated under an 

“inspect everyone, 

every year” approach, 

while allowing staff 

resources to be applied 

toward other issues.

limited because of the small number of indicators 

that are comparable—all related to the prevention 

and control of air pollution—and also because the 

small size of Massachusetts’ sample 

makes that state’s figures much less 

precise than Michigan’s. The data 

analysis nonetheless suggests that 

both populations of dry cleaners were 

performing fairly well on the selected 

indicators, and does not point to 

substantial differences in performance 

among each state’s dry cleaners at 

the points in time EPA examined. On 

average, 82% of dry cleaners visited by 

Michigan inspectors were achieving the 

EBPIs in question; for Massachusetts, 

the figure is also 82%. A look at 

performance on individual EBPIs shows 

similar equality: each state’s randomly 

inspected dry cleaners were performing 

better than those of the other state on 

three of the six indicators. Also, the largest observed 

difference in compliance proportions is six percentage 

points, and none of the observed performance 

differences are statistically significant.39 (For more 

information on data sources and analysis, see Section 5 

of the appendix.) 
26

ERP Resource Use Compared to “Inspect Everyone” 

Approach. Dry cleaners in each state appear to be 

performing at similar levels after years of experience 

under each state’s respective regulatory approach. How 

do the two different approaches compare in terms of 

resource usage? To examine this question, EPA compared 

each state’s estimated annual staffing deployment, as a 

proxy for overall resource expenditures.40 

Michigan DEQ utilizes approximately 4.75 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) employees per year to manage its dry 

cleaner program, inspecting each of nearly 900 facilities 

once a year (including both those using perc and those 

using other solvents). For its part, Massachusetts DEP 

estimates it expends a maximum of two FTEs per year 

to maintain its ERP for roughly 600 perc dry cleaners, 

and approximately 1.5 FTEs in years where it does not 

conduct random inspections. In the first six years of 

ERP (1997-2002), Massachusetts conducted four rounds 

of random inspections. On this basis, EPA estimated 

average Massachusetts dry cleaners ERP FTE usage at 

1.83 per year.41 Adjusting for differences between the 

states in numbers of hours per FTE and numbers of 

perchloroethylene dry cleaners, EPA estimates that the 

Massachusetts approach utilizes approximately 50% 

fewer FTEs than the traditional Michigan approach. (For 

more information on data sources and analysis, see 

Section 5 of the appendix.) 

When considered along with the other information 

presented in Sections 3 and 4 of this report, this 

comparison suggests that, when allowed by law, 

agencies might be able to achieve resource efficiencies 

by using an ERP approach, thereby enabling agencies 

to shift personnel resources, such as inspectors, to other 

pressing priorities. This comparison, combined with the 

performance data available on ERPs to date, suggest 

states may be able to make this shift while maintaining 

existing performance levels in the sector. Before doing 

so, however, states must carefully weigh the extent 

to which reductions in inspections will increase their 

uncertainty about environmental performance in a 

sector. For instance, regulators moving from a census 

inspections regime to an ERP approach, especially one 

with small-sized random samples, may need to grapple 

with substantially different levels of uncertainty. In those 

cases and others—if resources are sufficient—states may 

wish to find a middle ground between efficiency and 

measurement certainty. 

 

Greatest Efficiency Requires Manageable, UpFront Investment. The apparent efficiency associated 

with ERP does not come without some investment, 

of course. For instance, a review of workplans for 12 

states receiving EPA grant funds to implement ERP 

shows an average startup cost for ERP of approximately 

$226,000.42 States typically spread out these 

expenditures over a period of about three years, the 

typical implementation time for the first ERP cycle. 

States pursuing advanced data management approaches 

have higher-than-average investment costs, but may 

generate greater-than-average operating efficiencies. 

Currently, data are too limited to develop more precise 

estimates of startup and operating costs, but EPA intends 

to work with states to improve the data in this area, and 

present findings in future reports.

Even without substantial grant funding, states can find 

that startup costs are not insurmountable. After all, 

Massachusetts developed and increased its use of ERP 

largely with in-state resources, even while adapting to 

substantial budget and personnel cuts. Rhode Island’s 

first ERP was also 

primarily funded 

by the state itself. 

Further, now that 

Rhode Island and 

Delaware have 

completed their 

first ERP cycles 

for the auto body 

sector, these states 

are continuing to 

implement ERP for 

this sector using 

relatively small 

expenditures of their 

own resources. 
27

New ERPs Benefit From Peer and EPA Support. 

Achieving ERP efficiencies appears to have grown 

easier over time as a result of accumulated benefits of 

state and EPA investments. For instance, workbooks, 

checklists, and helpful information about lessons learned 

are available for those sectors that have already been 

piloted by one or more states. A large community of 

ERP states has formed a States ERP Consortium that 

conducts frequent meetings by phone and in person 

to share lessons learned. States also report that readily 

available state and federal ERP tools and documents have 

improved implementation efficiency and reduced startup 

time. The box below (“Transferable Tools Streamline ERP 

Startup”) provides a sample of available resources.

As mentioned, EPA has 

helped to defray upfront 

costs with grants and 

other support. Since 2002, 

the National Center for 

Environmental Innovation 

has awarded $2.9 million 

in State Innovation Grants, 

helping 14 states to initiate 

new ERPs. Moreover, 

EPA staff and contractors 

develop tools to share with 

states developing ERPs, 

and provide states with 

free technical assistance, 

especially on measurement 

approaches and ERP best practices. Performance 

partnership agreements with EPA regional offices have 

allowed states to utilize enforcement resources on ERP 

inspections. 

More recently, Massachusetts was awarded resource 

flexibility “credit” through EPA’s State Review Framework 

(part of EPA’s enforcement program accountability 

system). This flexibility was granted based on the 

recognized success of the state’s ERP for dry cleaners 

and the overall performance of Massachusetts’ core 

enforcement programs in air and waste. The state 

anticipates this arrangement will enable it to focus more 

resources on emerging priorities for environmental 

improvement while ensuring more traditional 

performance objectives are still being met.

 

Since 2002, the 

National Center 

for Environmental 

Innovation has 

awarded $2.9 

million in State 

Innovation Grants, 

helping 14 states to 

initiate new ERPs.

Transferable Tools

Streamline ERP Startup

With so many states implementing ERP, 

and with EPA and the recently formed 

States ERP Consortium providing long-term 

capacity-building support, many tools and 

resources are already available to reduce 

the costs of ERP startup and to share 

lessons learned.

Examples include:

\ Sector-specific workbooks, certification 

forms, inspector checklists, and other 

materials;

\ Novice-friendly statistical planning and 

analysis tools;

\ Automated data storage, processing, and 

analysis systems;

\ Detailed ERP implementation strategies and 

schedules; and

\ An online “ERP Roadmap” that provides 

implementation guidance for each phase of 

ERP, as well as an extensive ERP resource 

library.
28

Table 3 (below) demonstrates the expansion of ERP since it was first developed and implemented by 

Massachusetts 10 years ago. Now, 18 states have implemented or initiated an ERP in a total of 11 

sectors or groups, and 16 states currently have active programs. Four states are implementing multiple 

ERPs. Eleven of the 25 ERPs involve mandatory certification requirements, typically based on new state 

regulations. Eight of the 10 EPA regions now have experience with ERP in at least one of their states. 

As the following subsections discuss, 

EPA in the coming years anticipates 

that the number and type of ERP 

applications will grow, and that 

ERPs will produce increasingly 

more comparable environmental 

performance data. EPA plans to 

continue supporting states that are 

interested in adopting ERP, but also 

expects that states will increase their 

collaboration with one another, 

gathering to share information and 

develop new tools through the new 

States ERP Consortium. Finally, 

EPA plans to work closely with the 

Consortium and other interested 

parties to continue to explore 

important questions about ERP in 

future years. 

ERP’s Future Promises Improvement, 5 Experimentation, and Growth

ERP State ERPs Initiated ERPs

Completed

ERPs with Mandatory

Certification

Delaware 1 1 -

Florida† 1 1 1

Illinois 1 - -

Indiana 1 - -

Louisiana 1 - 1

Maine 2 1 -

Maryland† 1 1 -

Massachusetts 3 3 3

Michigan 1 - -

Minnesota 1 - -

Nevada 1 - -

New Hampshire 1 - 1

New York43 2 - 2

Rhode Island44 4 2 2

Vermont 1 - 1

Virginia 1 - -

Washington 1 - -

Wisconsin 1 - -

Total 25 9 11

* This table defines “ERP Activity” as the implementation of initiatives that use all of the ERP 

tools—i.e., combining compliance assistance, self-certification, inspections, and statistically based 

performance measurement. Many states are also implementing valuable “ERP-like” initiatives, utilizing subsets of those four ERP elements, that show promise to achieve demonstrable performance 

improvements. (See Section 5.3 for more information).

† No longer implementing ERP.45

Table 3. ERP Activity in 18 States*
29

5.1 More States Work to Produce Results

ERP results have thus far accumulated gradually because states typically 

take about three years to fully implement their first ERP, from conception 

to first post-certification statistical results. Nonetheless, each year more 

states finish an initial ERP performance cycle. In the next two years, 

EPA expects to see results from several ERPs—and several states—that 

are completing full measurement cycles for the first time. These efforts 

include ERPs for underground storage tanks, auto salvage yards, and 

animal feedlots. The results will be the first ever for these ERP sectors. 

EPA also expects to see results from new rounds of random inspections 

for the Massachusetts dry cleaner and Rhode Island auto body ERPs, 

which will provide additional insights into the long-term efficacy of ERP.

5.2 Agencies Act to Improve Comparability of Results 

ERP has appealed to regulatory agencies in part because 

of its adaptability to specific state circumstances. 

However, this adaptability has led to substantial 

variety in reporting that in turn makes assembling and 

comparing data from different ERPs—even in the same 

sector—quite challenging and resource-intensive. EPA 

expects to see increasing convergence among ERP 

states and others on indicators to be used for tracking 

the performance of business sectors and other groups. 

For instance, the States ERP Consortium (discussed in 

Section 5.4) plans to develop a set of recommended 

ERP reporting standards in order to help ensure that 

data reported by all Consortium members meet core 

minimum needs for transparency and comparability. 

This Consortium effort will draw substantially upon 

lessons learned in an important, ongoing ERP-related 

measurement initiative: the Common Measures 

Project. Explicit goals of this project are to encourage 

more widespread adoption of the ERP-style statistical 

performance measurement techniques and to allow 

participating states to benchmark their performance 

against others—whether using ERP initiatives or other 

traditional or innovative tools. Under this EPA-funded 

project, Massachusetts DEP is leading a group of several 

states in developing common measurement indicators 

for two regulated groups: auto body shops and small 

quantity generators (SQGs) of hazardous waste. SQGs 

are facilities—from a variety of sectors—that produce 

a moderate amount of waste defined by regulation 

as “hazardous.” Most states have hundreds, if not 

thousands, of SQGs and vary in their approaches for 

regulating those facilities. 

Common Measures Project participants have just begun 

their work on the auto body sector, but their work on 

SQGs is well underway, with participants having agreed 

upon EBPIs and a statistical approach for measuring 

SQG performance. Data from the Common Measures 

Project may soon help regulators adapt their approaches 

to regulating this important group, based upon the 

experience of other states. 

5.3 Agencies Apply ERP Tools in Innovative Ways

States are adapting ERP to serve new purposes, address 

emerging problems, and juggle competing priorities. 

Emerging experiments include applying some (but not all) 

ERP tools to address a problem, using ERP approaches as 

an alternative to new or more stringent regulations, and 

developing watershed-based ERP approaches. 

Applying the ERP Tools in New Ways. A number of 

states—such as Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island—are implementing initiatives that utilize 

more limited sets of the ERP tools. Some states—like 

those in the Common Measures Project—use ERPstyle statistical measurement approaches to assess the 

efficacy of various policy initiatives, not necessarily 

self-certification approaches. Other states are using 

certification approaches without random inspections. 
30

For instance, in 2000, Massachusetts began 

implementing a certification-based approach to address 

poor compliance by the state’s roughly 3,000 gas stations 

with vapor recovery regulations. Those regulations 

are intended to substantially reduce air emissions 

that can occur during the refueling of motor vehicles. 

Noncompliance 

meant that “at-thepump” releases of 

volatile organic 

compounds 

(VOCs) were not 

being sufficiently 

controlled, which in 

turn suggested that 

the state was at risk of violating national ambient air 

quality standards for ozone. EPA could have required 

Massachusetts to try to increase compliance through 

annual facility inspections, a resource-intensive 

proposition. In this case, however, EPA’s New England 

regional office approved Massachusetts’ plan for 

mandatory annual self-certification, combined with more 

stringent testing and self-inspection requirements. The 

state verifies performance through independent, thirdparty testing of vapor recovery system integrity, as well 

as targeted (not random) inspections. Now, 98% of the 

2.7 billion gallons of motor fuel dispensed annually in 

the state flows through certified facilities. Massachusetts 

estimates that this approach has substantially reduced 

emissions by controlling an additional 3,960 tons of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) each year.46

Alternative to New or More Stringent Regulation.

ERP may in some cases offer a promising alternative to 

new or more stringent regulation for both the potentially 

regulated community and for regulatory agencies. 

In 2005, motivated in part by a desire to postpone 

regulatory action, 74% of Massachusetts’ 3,600 dentists 

voluntarily certified that they were meeting new mercury 

management standards. This ERP-like initiative uses 

self-certification only, without random inspections. 

Massachusetts estimates this voluntary action resulted in 

an immediate annual reduction in mercury discharges 

of approximately 230 pounds, with further reductions 

anticipated as the state continues to encourage more 

dentists to certify. 49 These estimates are based on 

facility-reported data, bolstered by requirements that 

facilities provide independently verifiable information on 

hazardous waste disposal. 

Impaired Water Bodies and Watersheds. Some ERP 

states have already targeted their efforts in defined 

geographic areas impacted by specific environmental 

problems, such as air quality degradation or 

environmental justice issues. ERP partners are also 

exploring the use of ERP tools to demonstrably and 

effectively address water body impairments caused by 

stormwater runoff. EPA awarded two different State 

Innovation Grants in 2007 to explore this use of ERP. 

Under one grant, Maine DEP and Massachusetts DEP 

will be using a wholly voluntary certification approach 

to try to reduce discharges of polluted stormwater from 

drive-through facilities and shopping malls, respectively. 

Both states will be targeting high-priority watersheds, 

and strongly encouraging the adoption of voluntary best 

management practices by entities whose stormwater 

discharges are not otherwise subject to state regulation. 

Under the other grant, Rhode Island DEM will work 

with municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) on 

a mandatory ERP to reduce stormwater discharges from 

certain construction sites. 

Targeting multi-state watersheds may be the next step in 

this evolution. In a recent report, the National Academy 

of Public Administration identifies ERP as one of several 

innovative approaches that could have an impact in 

improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Basin.50

Mercury Falling

In its first year, a Massachusetts voluntary 

certification program for dentists, in lieu of 

regulation, reduced estimated annual mercury 

discharges by the equivalent of cleaning 

up approximately 171,000 broken mercury 

thermometers or salvaging about 130,000 

mercury-containing automotive switches.47,48 
31

5.4 States Convene an ERP Consortium 

Figure 7. Growing ERP Community Represented by a New Consortium of States

AK HI

WA

OR

CA

NV

TX

NM

AZ

CO

ID

MT

WY

UT

OK

KS

NE

ND

SD

MN

AR

LA

MS AL

IA

MO

WI

IL IN

KY

TN

GA

FL*

SC

NC

MI

OH

PA

WV VA

NY

ME

VT

NH

CT

NJ

DE

MA

MD*

RI

ERP Implementers

Learning States

Consortium Members

*Not currently implementing ERP.

In October 2006, a large group of states formed a 

consortium to explore, develop, promote, and implement 

the use of ERP approaches for addressing priority 

environmental issues efficiently and effectively (see 

Figure 7, below). The States ERP Consortium is officially 

organized as a “forum” of the Environmental Council 

of States (ECOS), and includes 18 states either currently 

using ERP or interested in learning how to use ERP. The 

National Center for Environmental Innovation is on 

the organization’s steering committee and is providing 

contractor support. 

The Consortium is implementing action plans in four 

areas its members deem critical to the growth of ERP: 

(1) Communicating results in order to build stakeholder 

support; 

(2) Sharing information among practitioners; 

(3) Promoting ERP as a proven compliance strategy, and 

expanding support for ERP within and beyond EPA; 

and 

(4) Enhancing and disseminating tools that streamline 

key aspects of ERP, such as automation and 

measurement. 

Consortium members hope that providing states with a 

common voice and more formal lines of communication 

will create new possibilities for identifying and 

addressing important problems associated with the use 

of ERP and its component tools. EPA is committed to 

working with the Consortium in the future to continue 

evaluating the many applications of ERP, communicating 

ERP results, and finding and developing opportunities to 

integrate ERP into the federal regulatory framework. For 

more information about the Consortium and its work, 

visit www.ERPstates.org.
32

5.5 EPA Plans to Further Explore 

Questions Raised by ERP

This document is the first major report on ERP activity 

since EPA produced The Massachusetts Environmental 

Results Program: User’s Guide for Government Agencies 

in 2002. Since that time, 17 additional states have 

implemented or begun developing ERPs for eight new 

groups or sectors. Many of these ERPs involve voluntary 

submission of self-certification forms by facilities, an 

innovation developed in the last five years. 

This report has compiled and presented results for eight 

ERPs, covering five sectors. The data from these ERPs, 

along with the lessons learned in implementing them, 

have helped make a case for regulators to consider using 

ERP when faced with problems caused by large numbers 

of small sources. Yet the full story of ERP is still unfolding. 

Many questions about ERP—particularly those related to 

environmental performance and cost-effectiveness—still 

bear further examination, especially as states provide 

new information. 

The box at right provides examples of some of the many 

questions EPA plans to explore in the coming years, 

using the wealth of data that ERP provides. EPA intends 

to work diligently to identify and execute approaches 

for addressing these and other questions, and invites the 

States ERP Consortium, the academic community, and 

other researchers to join in this important work.

Sample Issues for 

Further ERP Research

Environmental Performance 

Long-term performance of ERP, using new 

data from Massachusetts and other states 

that have been using ERP for a relatively 

long period 

Performance of ERP in the newest sectors 

Changes to the environment and public 

health that may occur as outcomes of ERP 

Efficacy of emerging “ERP-like” approaches 

that do not use all of the tools in the 

integrated ERP system

Cost-Effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness for agencies, relative to 

other compliance approaches

Costs of ERP implementation over time 

(after startup) 

Cost-effectiveness for the private sector 

Efficacy of Voluntary Approaches

Efficacy of ERP in promoting compliance 

versus efficacy in promoting voluntary 

best management practices and pollution 

prevention measures 

Relative efficacy of voluntary versus 

mandatory self-certification, in the same 

sector
1 Golledge, Robert, et al. “Regulating Small Business Facilities—

The Environmental Results Program.” ECOStates: The Journal of the 

Environmental Council of the States. Pages 5-7, 37-40. Fall 2003.

2 Nationwide figure for retail gas stations is 130,515. Source: 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census. NAICS code 447 

(Gasoline Stations). Accessed September 26, 2007 http://www.

census.gov/econ/census02/data/industry/E447.HTM. 

3 EPA’s Innovation Action Council comprises the senior career 

leadership of EPA’s program and regional offices.

4

Nationwide figure for auto body shops is 32,892. Source: U. S. 

Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census. NAICS code 8111211 

(Automotive Paint or Body Repair). Accessed September 26, 2007 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/us/US000_81.HTM.

5 Performance changes in this report are expressed in terms of 

“percentage points,” which is distinct from the expression of 

changes in terms of “percent.” For instance, imagine sector 

performance with regard to a particular regulatory requirement 

improved from 50% of facilities in compliance to 75% in 

compliance. That change can be described as an improvement 

of 25 percentage points, or a 50% increase. This report uses the 

former convention.

6 Maryland’s Department of the Environment implemented ERP on 

a small, pilot basis, but leaders of the initiative left the Department 

shortly after project completion and no further attempts to 

implement ERP are known to have occurred in the state. Florida’s 

Department of Environmental Projection (DEP) implemented ERP 

as a large pilot in two of the state’s six administrative regions. 

ERP measurement indicated facilities in those regions were 

already performing fairly well prior to self-certification. The sector 

showed further improvement after two cycles of mandatory 

self-certification in those regions. (See Section 3 of this report for 

performance data.) At that point, DEP determined that a statewide, 

full ERP for the auto repair sector would be unnecessary and not 

cost effective. DEP continues to offer the opportunity to all auto 

repair facilities statewide to conduct self-audits of their operations 

using ERP-based materials, but does not require self-certification 

and does not conduct regular ERP random inspections in the 

sector.

7 Lee, Eungkyoon. Why Did They Comply While Others Did 

Not?: Environmental Compliance of Small Firms and Implications 

for Regulation. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology. September 2005.

8 Sources: (1) Enander, Richard T., et al. “Chemical 

Characterization of Sanding Dust and Methylene Chloride Usage 

in Automotive Refinishing: Implications for Occupational and 

Environmental Health.” Pages 741-749. AIHA Journal. Volume 

63, Issue 6. 2002. (2) Enander, Rich. Rhode Island Department 

of Environmental Management. “Rhode Island’s ERP Experience: 

Automotive Refinishing Sector.” Presentation at 2004 California 

Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Results Program 

Workshop. Slides 6-7. September 30, 2004.

9 Enander, Richard T., et al. “Environmental Health Practice: 

Statistically Based Performance Measurement.” Pages 819-824. 

American Journal of Public Health. Volume 97. 2007. 

10 Enander, Richard T., et al. 2007. 

11 Initial inventory size: April, Susan and Tim Greiner. Evaluation 

of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program. Learning 

from Innovations and Environmental Protection: Research Paper 

Number 1. Page 27. National Academy of Public Administration. 

June 2000. Maximum inventory size: Peck, Susan. Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection. “erp universes by 

year.xls,” unpublished Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. E-mail 

communication with U.S. EPA contractor. March 23, 2007.

12 Golledge, Robert, et al. Fall 2003. 

13 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Environmental 

Enforcement: EPA Cannot Ensure the Accuracy of Self-Reported 

Compliance Monitoring Data. Washington: GPO, March 1993.

14 34% figure of noncompliance reporting based upon 34 facilities 

reporting noncompliance on one or more items, out of a postcertification universe of 100 facilities. Source: Maine Department 

of Environmental Protection, Office of Innovation. Auto Body 

Environmental Results Program: Final Report. Pages 4, 10. May 7, 

2007.

15Sources: (1) Massachusetts DEP. ERP Industry Progress Report: 

Photo Processing Industry. Page 8. July 2003. (2) Massachusetts 

DEP. ERP Industry Progress Report: Dry Cleaning Industry. Page 7. 

July 2003. (3) Massachusetts DEP. ERP Industry Progress Report: 

Printing Industry. Page 7. July 2003.

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Compliance 

Certification Program (CCP). Compliance Assistance for Auto 

Repair Pilot Project (CAPP). Florida 2001–2004 Project.” Slide 57. 

March 24, 2005.

17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “Compliance 

Certification Program (CCP). Compliance Assistance for Auto 

Repair. PILOT PROJECT Preliminary Results.” PowerPoint 

presentation, Slide 28. 2003. 

18 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Slide 57. 

March 24, 2005. 

19 Tetra Tech EM, Inc., for Massachusetts DEP. “Environmental 

Results Program for Dry Cleaners and Photo Processors, Round 2 

Versus Round 3 and Self-Certification, and Printers Round 1 Versus 

Round 2 and Self-Certification Data Analysis. Final Report.” Page 

5. July 16, 2001. 

20 Enander, Richard T., et al. 2007. 

21 DeGabriele, Steven. Director, Business Compliance Division, 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. “Re: other 

Biennial Report follow-up items.” E-mail to U.S. EPA contractor. 

January 8, 2007.

Notes

33
22 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Slide 33. 

March 24, 2005. 

23 For a description of the calculation and data sources, see 

appendix, Section 3. 

24 Steve DeGabriele and Susan Peck. Massachusetts DEP. 

Telephone interview with U.S. EPA NCEI staff and contractor. 

March 12, 2007.

25 Reilly, Paul. Dry cleaners ERP manager. Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection. “Re: relative perc usage 

data.” E-mail to U.S. EPA contractor. September 27, 2007.

26 For a description of the calculation and data sources, see 

appendix, Section 3.

27 Refer to appendix, Section 4, for more information on data 

sources and methodological approach.

28 Sources: (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The 

Massachusetts Environmental Results Program: User’s Guide for 

Government Agencies. Page 12. January 2002. (2) DeGabriele, 

Steven. “Re: [No subject.]” E-mail to U.S. EPA contractor. October 

31, 2007.

29 Hartwell, Christopher A. Simplify, Simplify: Alternative 

Permitting at the State Level. Reason Foundation. February 1999. 

Accessed October 9, 2007 http://www.reason.org/ps253.html.

30 DeGabriele, Steven. “Re: Information Requested.” E-mail to U.S. 

EPA contractor. November 2, 2006.

31 Sources: (1) Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 

Office of Innovation. May 7, 2007. (2) Lippert, Sara. Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection. “Re: Information Request 

for ERP Biennial Report.” E-mail to U.S. EPA contractor. November 

27, 2006.

32 Delaware data: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control. Final Report. EPA 2002 State Innovation 

Pilot Grant Program. December 2005. Maine data: Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Innovation. 

May 7, 2007. Rhode Island data, based upon 74 of 367 facilities 

submitting return-to-compliance plans: Enander, Richard T., et al. 

2007. 

33 This example and figure 6 both assume states are resourceconstrained and can only do a limited number of inspections, 

which has been common with the early ERPs. The figures are 

based upon a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 

approximately +/- 12 percentage points. For instance, if a state 

discovered 50% of facilities to be in compliance with an EBPI, 

it could be 95% confident that somewhere between 38% and 

62% of all facilities in the population were in compliance with 

that EBPI. ERP states have found that margins of error of this 

magnitude, and larger ones, have often been sufficient for ensuring 

quality policy decision-making. More inspections would be 

required to achieve smaller margins of error at each population 

size (assuming a confidence level of 95%), but similar economies 

of scale would still be observed. 

34 Rio, Robert A., Esq. Vice President for Associated Industries of 

Massachusetts. Letter to Ms. Karen Regas of Massachusetts DEP 

regarding “Amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 - For the Control of Air 

Pollution.” March 22, 2007.

35 McGrath, Dennis. “Report of the Results of a Survey of the Park 

Heights Neighborhood Before and After the Initiation of the Park 

Heights Environmental Compliance Assistance Program.” Schaefer 

Center for Public Policy, University of Baltimore. Attachment 7 to 

the Maryland Department of Environment’s Park Heights Project 

Final Report, prepared by Bernard A. Penner. June 30, 2004.

36 Sources: Ostrowski, James. Michigan DEQ. Telephone 

interview with U.S. EPA contractor. October 18, 2007. (2) Section 

133.13307 of the Michigan Public Health Code, Act 368 of 1978.

37 EPA decided to utilize random sample data, as opposed to data 

from the annual inspections of all facilities, for two reasons. First, 

Michigan DEQ recently adapted its inspection checklist to an 

ERP style checklist, allowing for greater comparability. Second, 

random sampling may help remove potential bias caused by 

inspectors visiting facilities at a relatively the same timeframe each 

year. Michigan’s large sample size still leaves high confidence in 

estimates of population performance.

38 2002 Massachusetts data were used for this analysis because 

results from the latest round, occurring in 2007, were not available 

for this report. 

39 At either a 90% or 95% confidence level.

40 A complete cost analysis of each program was beyond the 

scope of this report. Each state’s program benefits from additional 

resources not reflected in this estimate. For instance, Michigan’s 

dry cleaners receive technical assistance from a separately funded 

Clean Air Assistance Program, and the Massachusetts dry cleaners 

ERP has benefited from substantial investments in automation that 

have lowered operational costs across all Massachusetts ERPs. 

41 The actual, long-term FTE average may be marginally lower, 

since Massachusetts has reduced inspection frequency over 

time. Once Massachusetts completes its 2007 round of random 

inspections in the dry cleaner sector, it will have conducted five 

rounds of random sampling over 11 years of ERP. On that basis, 

Massachusetts DEP’s average FTE usage would be 1.73. EPA chose 

to use the higher average (1.83 FTEs), since 2007 performance 

data were not available for comparison.

42 Precise average is $225,565. Data from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency State Innovation Grants work plans for ERP 

implementation (2002-2006), as of spring 2007. State work plans 

included in analysis: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, 

and Wisconsin. Please note that the first full cycle of ERP would 

be considered the “implementation phase.” The true average 

implementation costs may be somewhat higher, since these state 

grant workplans may not account for all agency staff time involved 

in developing an ERP.

34
43 At present, New York intends that its ERPs for printers and for 

auto body shops will have, at minimum, mandatory certification 

covering certain hazardous waste aspects of ERP. It is also 

exploring regulatory and statutory authority for making mandatory 

the submission of a broader range of information, across 

environmental media. Source: Killeen, Tom. New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation. Telephone interview 

with U.S. EPA contractor. September 26, 2007.

44 This report presents results for only one completed Rhode Island 

ERP (for auto body shops), because results have not yet been fully 

analyzed for Rhode Island’s other completed ERP (for underground 

storage tanks). 

 45 See note 6.

46 In 1997, before initiating the program, the state was only able 

to demonstrate that 4,860 tons of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) were under control. As of 2005, the state demonstrated 

that 8,820 tons of VOCs were under control. Sources for 

vapor recovery program information: (1) Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection. “Stage II Goals and 

Measures—1997-2005,” Microsoft PowerPoint slide. Received 

from Steven DeGabriele via e-mail to U.S. EPA contractor on 

March 29, 2007. (2) Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection. “MA Using ERP Differently Than Full ERP for Dry 

Cleaners. Example 1: Stage II Vapor Recovery Program for Fuel 

Dispensers” draft. May 13, 2005.

47 Assumes average amount of mercury in mercury-containing, 

household thermometer equals 0.61 grams. Source: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to 

Congress. Volume II: An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury 

Emissions in the United States. Office of Air Quality Planning 

& Standards and Office of Research and Development. EPA452/R-97-004. Page 4-45. Washington: GPO, 1997.

48 Assumes average amount of mercury in mercury-containing 

automotive switch assemblies equals 0.8 g. Source: Adsit, Dan, 

et al. Michigan Mercury Switch Study. Alliance of Automotive 

Manufacturers, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, et 

al. 2002. 

49 The executive summary of this report, published prior to this 

report, incorrectly refers to estimated annual mercury reductions 

of “several hundred pounds,” suggesting 300 pounds or more. 

Source for dental mercury program information: Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection. “MA Using ERP 

Differently Than Full ERP for Dry Cleaners. Example 2: Voluntary 

Program for Dental Mercury Facilities” draft. May 13, 2005.

50 National Academy of Public Administration. Taking 

Environmental Protection to the Next Level: An Assessment of the 

U.S. Environmental Services Delivery System. Pages 33–35. 2007.

35

This report, along with its executive summary and appendix, were prepared for EPA under Contract No. EP-W-04-023.
36

Reader’s Notes
37

State ERP Contacts

Delaware .

Kimberly Chesser 

Small Business Ombudsman

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control 

kimberly.chesser@state.de.us

Florida

Michael Redig 

Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Department of Environmental Protection 

michael.redig@dep.state.fl.us

Illinois

Andrew Jankowski 

Office of Pollution Prevention

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Andrew.Jankowski@illinois.gov

Indiana

Rosemary Cantwell 

Industrial Waste Section 

Department of Environmental Management 

rcantwel@idem.in.gov

Louisiana

Melissa Lantz

Office of Management and Finance

Department of Environmental Quality 

melissa.lantz@la.gov

Maine

Julie Churchill 

Office of Innovation 

Department of Environmental Protection 

julie.m.churchill@maine.gov

Massachusetts

Steven DeGabriele 

Business Compliance Division

Department of Environmental Protection 

steven.degabriele@state.ma.us

Michigan

James Ostrowski

Environmental Science and Services Division 

Department of Environmental Quality 

OSTROWSJ@michigan.gov

Minnesota

Alister Innes 

Prevention & Assistance Division 

Pollution Control Agency 

alister.innes@pca.state.mn.us

Nevada

Jim Trent

Bureau of Waste Management

Division of Environmental Protection

jtrent@ndep.nv.gov 

New Hampshire

Rudolph Cartier, Jr., PE 

Small Business Ombudsman

Department of Environmental Services 

rcartier@des.state.nh.us

New York

Paul Counterman

Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials

Department of Environmental Conservation

prcounte@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Rhode Island

Ronald Gagnon

Office of Technical and Customer Assistance

Department of Environmental Management 

ron.gagnon@dem.ri.gov

Vermont

Marc Roy 

Waste Management Division

Department of Environmental Conservation 

marc.roy@state.vt.us

Virginia

Russell P. Ellison III 

Underground Storage Tank Compliance

Department of Environmental Quality 

rpellison@deq.virginia.gov

Washington

Michelle Underwood

Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction 

Department of Ecology 

mund461@ecy.wa.gov

Wisconsin

Renee Lesjak Bashel 

Small Business Clean Air Assistance Program

Department of Commerce 

Renee.Bashel@Wisconsin.gov

ERP Contacts at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Innovation

EPA welcomes your comments about this document.

Scott Bowles

bowles.scott@epa.gov 

Kimberly Green-Goldsborough

green-goldsborough.kimberly@epa.gov 

Beth A. M. Termini, Esq.

termini.beth@epa.gov 

For more information on ERP, including the executive summary and appendix of this report, visit www.epa.gov/erp.
38

Recycled/Recyclable – Printed with vegetable oil based inks 

on 100% (minimum 50% postconsumer) recycled paper.