1. 1 FY 2010 Enforcement and Compliance Data Reporting Webinar Session One March 25, 2010

2. 2 We will have a Q&A Session at the end of the Webinar. Kindly remember to hold all of your questions until the end. We’ll begin at 2PM

3. Dan Palmer, RAB3 Populating the “Case Summary” Field in ICIS At the close of FY 2009, when OECA was preparing to post an interactive map of all of EPA’s FY09 concluded enforcement cases on EPA’s Web site, OECA management focused its attention on two incompatible facts: 1)The Summary / Non-Compliance or Corrective Action Description field in ICIS (commonly referred to as the “Case Summary Field”) is displayed to the public in ECHO; and 2)The Case Summary Field sometimes includes enforcement confidential information. The result was a mandatory (and rushed) review of the Case Summary Field by all regions and correction of this problem for all FY09 enforcement cases.

4. Dan Palmer, RAB4 Populating the “Case Summary” Field in ICIS Case Summary Field Rule #1 is: “No Confidential Information in the Case Summary Field EVER”

5. Dan Palmer, RAB5 Populating the “Case Summary” Field in ICIS What information is confidential? –Generally, information that is not FOIAble Enforcement confidential information –Litigation strategy –Bottom-line penalty –Opinions about progress of the case –Etc. Attorney-client privileged information Attorney work product information Business/trade confidential/protected information

6. Dan Palmer, RAB6 Populating the “Case Summary” Field in ICIS OECA management also observed that the Case Summary Field is very unevenly populated, sometimes having an extensive case description, sometimes having little or no information. OECA management concluded that the case summary fields ought to use a uniform format applied to ALL enforcement cases and should be a place where EPA tells its story about the case to the public.

7. Dan Palmer, RAB7 Populating the “Case Summary” Field in ICIS Case Summary Rule #2 is: “Always follow soon-to-be-issued guidance that will describe how to write the ICIS Case Summary (and will include examples) ”

8. Dan Palmer, RAB8 Populating the “Case Summary” Field in ICIS What will this new Case Summary Guidance say? –Put the same kind of information into the Case Summary Field that you put into a press release that announces the conclusion of an enforcement case What was this case all about? What did this case achieve? What makes this case important? –Remember that the public is the audience for whatever information you put into this field. The public will read it in ECHO The public will find it using the Annual Results map

9. Allison Donohue, IUTB9 Geospatial Data Previous experience with lat/long data Short Term Recommendation Update/Confirm geospatial data in ICIS when an enforcement action is concluded and data is entered Long Term Evaluating the potential to update ICIS lat/long data with FRS data Guidance will be coming out on the entry of geospatial data to ICIS

10. Naisa Thaker, RAB10 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010

11. Naisa Thaker, RAB11 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 - Outline Completely discontinued GPRA Measures Discontinued GPRA Measures that will still be Reported Reported Measures New GPRA Measures Data Entry & Retrieval Additional Resources

12. Naisa Thaker, RAB12 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 Completely Discontinued FY2010 GPRA Measures The following GPRA measures were discontinued for FY2010 and will not be reported: Measure 179- Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollution be reduced, treated, or eliminated Measure 180 - Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental management practices. Measure 182 - Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site compliance inspections and evaluations. Measure 988 - Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of EPA assistance. Measure 992 - Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance

13. Naisa Thaker, RAB13 The following GPRA measures were discontinued for FY2010 but will continue to be reported: Measure 176 - Pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a result of audit agreements Measure 178 - Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions Measure 183 - Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs) GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 Discontinued GPRA Measures that will still be Reported in FY2010

14. Naisa Thaker, RAB14 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 New GPRA Measures for FY 2010 AIR Measure 400 - Reduce, treat, or eliminate air pollutants through concluded enforcement actions. Measure 401 - Total number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment for air as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions. WATER Measure 402 - Reduce, treat, or eliminate water pollutants through concluded enforcement actions Measure 403 - Total number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment for water as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions. LAND Measure 404 - Reduce, treat, or eliminate toxics and pesticides through concluded enforcement actions. Measure 405 - Reduce, treat, or eliminate hazardous waste through concluded enforcement actions. Measure 406 - Total number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or the prevention of pollution into the environment for land as a result of EPA enforcement and compliance actions.

15. Naisa Thaker, RAB15 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 Data Entry The changes in the GPRA measures do not result in any changes to entry of environmental benefit data to ICIS. The “entities changing behavior” data is entered into three different ICIS modules: 1. Enforcement; 2. Compliance Monitoring; and 3. Compliance Assistance. Measure 401 (Air), Measure 403 (Water), and Measure 406 (Land) The only change to data entry involves the CA module where the complying action fields have been changed to accommodate the new GPRA measures. Guidance on entering this data to the CA module will be issued shortly by CASPD.

16. Naisa Thaker, RAB16 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 Data Retrieval Data Retrieval: Two reports will shortly be posted in ICIS for retrieving the new GPRA data. 1) A revised Direct and Preventative Environmental Benefits Report (Version 2.5) - In the Environmental Benefit QA Reports Folder of the Federal Enforcement and Compliance Reports Folder in Business Objects. - Report produces breakouts Pounds reduced/ treated/ eliminated by Air, Water, and Toxics/ pesticides. - Based on Destination Media (Air, Water, Land breakouts), not Statute. You will find the revised report in the same location, as a new Version 2.5

17. Naisa Thaker, RAB17 2) “Entities Changing Behavior” Report (working name, not final) - The report is still being written and has yet to be posted in ICIS. - The report will produce a count of entities that have changed their behavior by reducing, eliminating, or preventing pollution as a result of an EPA activity. - The Report counts Entities, not Activities (a coverage measure) - An entity can get one count per category (Air, Water, Land), per Fiscal Year, regardless of the number of activities associated with it. An entity can get a max of three counts – one for each category (Air, Water, Land). - The Report looks at entities/activities in four enforcement compliance areas: Enforcement, Compliance Incentives, Compliance Assistance, and Compliance Monitoring. - The Report breaks out the counts of entities based on Primary Law Section Violated (CWA, SDWA go into the Water category; CAA goes into the Air category; RCRA, TSCA, FIFRA, etc. go into the Land category). - If there is Multi-statute case that crosses categories, a count will be given to each category. In other words, there will be multiple counting of a single entity. GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 Data Retrieval (cont.)

18. Naisa Thaker, RAB18 GPRA Performance Measure Changes for FY 2010 Additional Resources Attachment 5 – Topic #5, page 5 Reporting Plan Attachment 3 -Criminal Enforcement GPRA Measures -Site Remediation GPRA Measures -FY2010 GPRA Targets

19. Naisa Thaker, RAB19 Big Case Information FY 2010 Enforcement Compliance Data Reporting Webinar Thursday, March 25, 2010 Naisa Thaker-RAB/ETDD

20. Naisa Thaker, RAB20  Expansion of Big Case Definition to Include Certain Air Toxics Cases: Pounds of Pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated, estimated amount of 200,000 pounds or greater in CAA Air Toxics only Purpose: In accordance with an approved recommendation of the Measures Review Board, the Big Case definition is being expanded in FY 2010 to include Air Toxics enforcement cases that produce 200,000 lbs. or more in pollutant reductions of air toxics emissions. This will be used in the Big Case projections and in Key Management Measure 3. Big Case Information Expansion of Definition

21. Naisa Thaker, RAB21 Big Case Information Data Entry Air toxics cases that are expected to produce pollutant reductions that meet this threshold should be entered into the ICIS Big Case projection screen as is done for Big Cases now. Note: a case that produces 200,000 lbs. of emission reductions, only a portion of which are air toxics, would not qualify for inclusion on the Big Case list. The case must have 200,000 + lbs. of air toxic emission reductions.

22. Naisa Thaker, RAB22 Data Retrieval: Because currently there is no way to automatically identify in ICIS air toxic cases that meet the Big Case threshold, the regions and OECA offices should contact Naisa Thaker (202-564-2944; thaker.naisa@epa.gov) to inform her of these cases so that she may manually add them to the official Big Case projection list. This should be done at the time the case is first projected as a Big Case, and again when the case is lodged or concluded. Big Case Information Data Retrieval

23. Naisa Thaker, RAB23 Big Case Information When to identify an action as a Big Case? - Ideally, at the point of referral. - If not at the Referral, at the point where you expect there to be more than a 50% chance of the case concluding in the current or future fiscal year.

24. Naisa Thaker, RAB24 Data Entry: In an effort to provide the most accurate and up-to-date Big Case Projection data possible for the FY2010 mid-year data certification, we are requesting that regions and HQ update ALL Big Case records in ICIS by Wednesday, April 14, 2010. Please update Big Case records in ICIS by entering missing data and by ensuring that existing records are as accurate as possible. Again, the data entry deadline for the Big Case review is COB Wednesday April 14, 2010. Official Big Case Projection Data Pull – OC-RAB will pull the data on Thursday, April 15, 2010. Estimated projections for FY2010 and FY2011 will be based on the March data pull, as well as several additional Big Case data pulls throughout FY2010, so it is crucial that the Big Case data set is regularly updated. Purpose: In FY2010, Big Case projection data will continue to play a role in assessing enforcement case outcome progress and forecasting EOY results. Big Case Information Data Entry Deadline

25. Naisa Thaker, RAB25 Big Case Information Additional Resources IPOD - Big Case Criteria Definition - FY2009 Big Case Guidance Reporting Plan - Attachment 5, Topic # 8, page 9 (Definition) - Attachment 5, Topic #24, page 30 (Deadlines)

26. Dan Palmer, RAB26 Entering the Civil Judicial Complaint Filed Date to ICIS The requirement: –Enter the complaint filed date to ICIS within 10 working days of the filing of the civil judicial complaint in court. This rule also applies to a “proof of claim” filed in a bankruptcy case –For national cases, all participating regions should enter the same complaint filed date. Please assure that this date is timely entered to ICIS for all cases.

27. Dan Palmer, RAB27 The Civil Judicial Complaint Filed and National Cases The Problem: We have been over-counting the number of civil judicial complaints filed –Why? For national cases, we have been counting a complaint for every region participating in the case – though there is truly only one complaint that was filed for the national case. Solution: manually back out of the complaints filed count for all but the lead region’s complaint –This is what we did at EOY FY 2009 –This is what we will do for MY and EOY FY 2010

28. Dan Palmer, RAB28 The Civil Judicial Complaint Filed and National Cases So, for us to know which are the extra complaint counts we need to back out of our count, we need to know which region is the lead region –For cases where the complaint is filed at a point in time very different from the time the case is concluded, this means the lead region must be identified much earlier than had previously been true. Now, the regions participating in a national case need to identify the lead region at the time of, or before, the complaint is filed in court. –This can be a problem with bankruptcy cases where identification of a lead region can be difficult (unlike other case, in bankruptcy cases the lead region is generally NOT the region where the case is filed) –We are working on a solution to this problem for bankruptcy cases and may issue further guidance.

29. Dan Palmer, RAB29 The Civil Judicial Complaint Filed and National Cases –It also means that we need to have the lead region for each national case identified in ICIS The lead region for a national case is to add “(Lead)” to the enforcement action name in its ICIS record for the case.

30. Dan Palmer, RAB30 New Consent Decree Tracking Measures New guidance issued in FY 09, effective in FY 10 –“Guidance on Tracking Civil Judicial Consent Decree Implementation in ICIS,” July 22, 2009 Establishes four measures for tracking how effectively the regions are tracking compliance with open consent decrees. –Consent Decree tracking milestone data must be entered to ICIS for all concluding civil judicial enforcement actions, including retroactively for all cases with open CDs that concluded in FYs 2009, 2008 and 2007. –We begin collecting data on these measures (and measuring regional performance relative to these measures) at mid-year 2010, NOW. There is a new worksheet in the FY 2010 Certification Workbook for collecting this data.

31. Dan Palmer, RAB31 New Consent Decree Tracking Measures Consent Decree Tracking Measure 1: Number and Percentage of Open CDs in ICIS with a Federal Penalty that Either Lack a Corresponding Schedule Event or Have the Schedule Event but the Schedule Date has Passed with No Actual Date Entered to ICIS Categories 4/15/2010 Data Pull Alternative Number Justification/Explanation Do you agree with all the final pull numbers in this column? (Click on cell to right and select "yes" or "no") # of Open CDs with a Penalty # of CDs with “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone not Entered to ICIS % of CDs with “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone not Entered to ICIS #DIV/0! # of CDs with “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone Entered to ICIS but the Milestone “Schedule Date” has Passed and No “Actual Date” was Entered % of CDs with “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone Entered to ICIS but the Milestone “Schedule Date” has Passed and No “Actual Date” was Entered #DIV/0! # of CDs with either a) “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone not Entered to ICIS or b) “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone Entered to ICIS but the Milestone “Schedule Date” has Passed and No “Actual Date” was Entered % of CDs with either a) “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone not Entered to ICIS or b) “Pay Required Civil Penalty Amount In Full” Milestone Entered to ICIS but the Milestone “Schedule Date” has Passed and No “Actual Date” was Entered #DIV/0! Example CD Tracking Measure Table from FY 2010 Certification Workbook:

32. Dan Palmer, RAB32 New Consent Decree Tracking Measures The four new CD Tracking Measures are: # and % of open consent decrees in ICIS with a federal penalty (completed Federal Penalty Required field) that either 1) lack a corresponding Schedule Event or 2) the Scheduled Date has passed with no Actual Date entered; # and % of open consent decrees in ICIS with a SEP (entered in the SEP screen) that either 1) lack a corresponding Schedule Event or 2) the Schedule Date has passed with no Actual Date entered; # and % of all open consent decrees in ICIS that either 2) lack an Achieve Final Compliance With All Obligations Under This Order milestone or 2) the corresponding Schedule Date has passed with no Actual Date entered; and # and % of open consent decrees, more than 12 quarters old, for which 1) a timely overall consent decree compliance status review has not been conducted pursuant to the schedule required under this Guidance and/or 2) an appropriate Final Order Status designation has not been entered into ICIS.

33. Dan Palmer, RAB33 New Consent Decree Tracking Measures One CD Tracking Report is already posted in ICIS (under National Standard Reports) : –“CD Tracking QA Report” – for identifying the judicial cases that have an open CD and therefore need to be tracked and to see what CD milestone data has been input to ICIS for these cases Two new CD Tracking Measure Reports soon will be posted in ICIS (also under National Standard Reports): A report that produces data for Measures 1, 2 and 3 (Penalty payment, SEP completion, and “Achieve Final CD Compliance” status tracked) A report that produces data for Measure 4 (Overall CD Compliance Status tracked) –these two reports will be used for populating the CD tracking data into the Certification Workbook.

34. Lauren Spath, RAB34 Counting Facility Response Plan (FRP) Inspections in FY 2010 New for FY 2010, regions are now required to enter Clean Water Act (CWA) §311(j) Facility Response Plan (FRP) inspections into ICIS –FRP inspections are to be entered to ICIS using the Law Section, "CWA : 311 : Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability : FRP."

35. Lauren Spath, RAB35 Counting Facility Response Plan (FRP) Inspections in FY 2010 CWA §311(j) Spill Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) and FRP inspections, when conducted during the same facility visit, will be counted as separate inspections –When this occurs, regions should enter the two inspections into ICIS as separate records

36. Lauren Spath, RAB36 Counting Facility Response Plan (FRP) Inspections in FY 2010 FRP inspections will be counted at mid-year and end-of-year in a new inspection category (a new row in the Certification Workbook) FRP inspections will be included in the Certification Workbook tables for both total inspection counts and ICDS inspection counts on the following worksheets: –Inspections –ICDS –Inspections/Evaluations Conducted by Tribal inspectors using Federal Credentials

37. Seth Heminway, CASPD37 Top 10 Compliance Assistance Reporting Tips 10. Enter non-inspection compliance assistance activities into ICIS. 9. To be CA, the activity must tell people how to comply with Federal Regulations. 8. Tribal Activities should be captured as national priority 7. New in FY 09 year: Targeted Outreach-Web—allows for consistent measurement of CA on the Web across EPA. Must be content-rich html pages and PDF downloads that are sector or statute specific. URLs should include Region code. Submit candidates to HQ (Seth Heminway through Regional CACs) twice a year. HQ will have contractors compile data quarterly and provide to CACs for ICIS entry. 6. There is no generic ICR in place for FY 2010. Find how you can measure outcomes w/o an ICR in Lisa Lund’s 12/19/08 memo and attachment at http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/caspd/cacoordinators/measurement/index.html. http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/caspd/cacoordinators/measurement/index.html –Can do non-directive request for feedback, pre-post tests, data reviews, and make observations. –Workshop evaluations are not permitted w/o an ICR!

38. Seth Heminway, CASPD38 Top 10 Compliance Assistance Reporting Tips 5. New this year: measurement of outcomes section is different—can report on various reported and observed outcomes. This data feeds into GPRA measures. 4. For all site Visits, Revisits, Ongoing Facility-specific Work, and Workshop/training, a separate record and measurement of outcomes is required - should have a 1:1 ratio with number of entities reached –Can use planned record to create multiple actual records of a similar activity. 3. Other Activity types can be aggregated (multiple activities in one record)—Outreach, Tools Developed, Response to inquiry, Meeting/presentation. 2. For Mid-year FY 2010, HQ will pull data entered by 4/2/10 for QA/QC; provide feedback to Regions & HQ offices by 4/9/10. All data corrections by 4/14/10. 1. See the “How-to” Guide for Compliance Assistance Reporting at http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/caspd/cacoordinators/reporting/index.html. http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/caspd/cacoordinators/reporting/index.html

39. David Sprague, RAB39 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives –National Enforcement Initiative Result Splits worksheet Why create? When should it be used? Example screen shots showing how to use the sheet Updating totals in the appropriate certification workbook sheets Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative –Core Program and National Enforcement Initiative Result Splits worksheet Why create? When should it be used? Example screen shots showing how to use the sheet Exceptions Updating totals in the appropriate certification workbook sheets David Sprague 202-564-4103 3/25/2010

40. David Sprague, RAB40 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives A sheet has been added to the certification workbooks to make it easier for the Regions to report the split of outcomes for a particular case between two priorities. –An example case could have the following two priorities flagged: “2010 - WW - CSOs >= 50K serv. pop'n.”, and “2010 - WW - Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)” –“National Priority” has been changed to “National Enforcement Initiative” –Worksheet name: “NEI Result Splits” In the past headquarters has had to call Regions to get these splits. This worksheet enables the Regions to report this information upfront and adjust their necessary workbook National Initiative totals prior to returning their certification workbooks to HQ. The worksheet is user friendly –Since HQ can identify these cases much of the information will be pre- populated by HQ –Much of the remaining information will be automatically calculated by the worksheet based on information entered by the Region.

41. David Sprague, RAB41 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives This worksheet should only need to be used occasionally since there are not very many multiple priority case each year. The National Initiatives, settlement information, monetary values, and environmental benefit amounts from ICIS will be pre-populated.

42. David Sprague, RAB42 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives, continued HQ will pre-populate the following information into the worksheet –Settlement information –Monetary totals and Environmental Benefit totals

43. David Sprague, RAB43 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives, continued The worksheet defaults to allocating 100% of the outcomes to the second priority:

44. David Sprague, RAB44 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives, continued Fill in the Environmental Benefit information for the first priority The information for the second priority will automatically calculate

45. David Sprague, RAB45 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives, continued Fill in the percentages for the monetary values for the first priority The amounts for the first priority will automatically calculate The percentages and amounts for the second priority will automatically calculate

46. David Sprague, RAB46 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Multiple National Enforcement Initiatives, continued In addition to filling out the “NEI Result Splits” worksheet, the region should enter revised numbers and the justification into each of the affected National Enforcement Initiative worksheets in the certification workbook to reflect the correct splits. The justification may include a reference to the National Enforcement Initiative Result Splits worksheet in the certification workbook.

47. David Sprague, RAB47 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative The certification workbook sheet: “Core-NEI Result Splits” should be used to provide the split of outcomes between the Core Program and a National Enforcement Initiative. Since Headquarters can not identify which cases need this split, this worksheet will be blank. FYI, OCEA is aware of only one case so far that has addressed both the core program and a National Priority (Equistar in FY08).

48. David Sprague, RAB48 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative, continued Select the Enforcement Initiative addressed from the pull down:

49. David Sprague, RAB49 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative, continued Fill in the settlement, monetary values, and environmental benefit amounts from ICIS:

50. David Sprague, RAB50 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative, continued Fill in the Environmental Benefit information for the priority The information for core will automatically calculate

51. David Sprague, RAB51 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative, continued Fill in the percentages for the monetary values for the priority The amounts for the priority will automatically calculate The percentages and amounts for core will automatically calculate

52. David Sprague, RAB52 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative, continued The CAA and CWA National Priority Environmental Benefits reports already do some splitting of amounts between National Enforcement Initiatives and core. CAA National Priority Environmental Benefits report –only counts hazardous air pollutant amounts with the Air Toxics priorities. CWA National Priority Environmental Benefits report –does not count amounts to destination media Air with the CWA priorities. If environmental benefit amounts are already correctly split between core and the National Enforcement Initiative –the Environmental Benefit portion of the worksheet does not need to be filled in. –the settlement information and the monetary values and split still need to be filled in.

53. David Sprague, RAB53 Splitting Outcomes from an Enforcement Case Between Core and a National Enforcement Initiative, continued In addition to filling out the “Core-NEI Result Splits” worksheet, the region should enter revised numbers and the justification into the affected National Enforcement Initiative worksheet in the certification workbook to reflect the correct amounts. The justification may include a reference to the Core Program and National Enforcement Initiative Result Splits worksheet in the certification workbook.

54. David Sprague, RAB54 Final Order Types Why are we talking about this? Final Order Types counted in our case counts Facility Counts Post Final Order Types Reporting Results from Post Final Order Types Resolution Types Not Counted David Sprague 202-564-4103 3/25/2010

55. David Sprague, RAB55 Why Are We Talking About This? We have received many questions regarding: –which final order types are counted in our bean counts of conclusions –how facility counting is done in by the Conclusions report –the Post Final Order Types

56. David Sprague, RAB56 Final Order Types Counted by the Federal Enforcement Conclusions and NODs report Final Order Types counted as ACOs: –Administrative Compliance Orders –Superfund Administrative Order For Cost Recovery –Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) –Federal Facility Compliance Agreement Final Order Types counted as FAPOs: –Administrative Penalty Order With or Without Injunctive Relief

57. David Sprague, RAB57 Final Order Types Counted by the Federal Enforcement Conclusions and NODs report, continued Final Order Types counted as Civil Judicial Conclusions: –Consent Decree or Court Order Resolving a Civil Judicial Action Final Order Type counted as Audit Policy NODs: –Notice of Determination

58. David Sprague, RAB58 Federal Enforcement Conclusions and NODs report and Facility Counting The Conclusions report includes “Non-Lead Participant in Multi-Regional Case” in the FAPO and Civil Judicial Conclusions facility counts –This is one of the Post Final Order Types (more on these in subsequent slides) These additional facilities are not shown in the regular detail lists, but instead are shown in the Multi-Regional details list (list of facilities from National cases). –Non-Lead Participants receive outcomes and facilities counts for National Cases. However they do not receive a case count. This is because there is only one Conclusion per National Case but all facilities and outcomes must be counted.

59. David Sprague, RAB59 Federal Enforcement Conclusions and NODs report - FAPOs Facility Count Counts in “FAPOs Facility Count” report tab (of the Conclusions report) equals the sum of the facilities shown in the –“Details – FAPOs” report tab, and –“Details – Multi-Regional” report tab.

60. David Sprague, RAB60 Federal Enforcement Conclusions and NODs report - Civil Judicial Conclusions Facility Count Counts in “Civil Jud Concl Facility Count” report tab (of the Conclusions report) equals the sum of the facilities shown in the –“Details - Civil Jud Concl” report tab, and –“Details – Multi-Regional” report tab.

61. David Sprague, RAB61 Example Civil Judicial Conclusions Facility Count Six Region 1 CAA facilities for FY 2009 are counted in the “Civil Jud Concl Facility Count” report tab.

62. David Sprague, RAB62 Example Civil Judicial Conclusions Facility Count, continued Only 3 facilities are listed in the “Details - Civil Jud Concl” report tab.

63. David Sprague, RAB63 Example Civil Judicial Conclusions Facility Count, continued The remaining 3 facilities are listed in the “Details – Multi-Regional” report tab.

64. David Sprague, RAB64 Post Final Order Types Administrative Post Final Order Types: –Amendment to Administrative Order or Consent Agreement –Enforceable Final Order Activity Producing Results –Federal Facility Record of Decision (ROD) –Non-Lead Participant in Multi-Regional Case Judicial Post Final Order Types: –Enforceable Final Order Activity Producing Results –Judicial Order Amending or Enforcing Consent Decree –Non-Lead Participant in Multi-Regional Case

65. David Sprague, RAB65 Use of the Post Final Order Types The Post Final Order Types are not counted by the Conclusions report –except the “Non-Lead Participant” type is included in the facility counts But, unlike the Conclusions report, results using one of the Post Final Order Types are included in the outcomes tallied by the following reports: –Inj Relf Penalty and SEP Values - All Civil Cases –Direct and Preventative Environmental Benefits –National Priority Environmental Benefits

66. David Sprague, RAB66 Excluded Resolution Types and Final Order Type The following resolution types are excluded from the Conclusions, Inj Relf Penalty and SEP Values, and Environmental Benefit reports: –Combined With Another Case(s), DOJ Declined, EPA Did Not Pursue, EPA HQ Declined To Refer, Superseded by Another Enforcement Action, Unknown, US Attorney Declined, Withdrawn By EPA HQ, Withdrawn by Region/State, Withdrawn: Deferred To State The following Final Order Type is excluded from these reports: –Final Order Revoking or Suspending a Permit

67. Donna Inman, NPMAS67 Hazard Waste Benefits Reporting RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action CERCLA Donna Inman 202-564-2511 3/25/2010

68. Donna Inman, NPMAS68 Reporting Reminders For cases where there are multiple pollutants, the affected unit should be reported once (either direct or preventative but not both) The total estimated quantity should be entered as “hazardous waste” Specific contaminants within the total mass of hazardous waste can be listed, but the amounts for them should be zero

69. Donna Inman, NPMAS69 Statut e Sectio nSection Description Actions with Direct Environmental Benefits/Response or Corrective Actions Preventative Actions to Reduce Likelihood of Future ReleasesAppropriate Units Potential Impacted Media RCRA3002Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste Waste Treatment Waste Minimization Storage Change Disposal Change Secondary Containment Labeling/Manifestin g Waste Identification Pounds (Direct) Cubic Yards (Preventive) Gallons (Preventive) Land Water (ground) Water (navigable/surface ) Air RCRA3003Standards for Transporters of Hazardous Waste Waste Treatment Waste Minimization Storage Change Disposal Change Secondary Containment Labeling/Manifestin g Waste Identification Pounds (Direct) Cubic Yards (Preventive) Gallons (Preventive) Soil Land Water (ground) Water (navigable/surface ) Air RCRA3004Hazardous Waste Treatment/Storage Disposal Standards Waste Treatment Waste Minimization Storage Change Disposal Change Secondary Containment Labeling/Manifestin g Waste Identification Pounds (Direct) Cubic Yards (Preventive) Gallons (Preventive) Land Water (ground) Water (navigable/surface ) Air RCRA3023Hazardous Waste Discharge to Federally Owned Treatment Works Removal of Contaminated Medium noneCubic Yards Water (ground) RCRA30004 U & V TSD Corrective ActionIn Situ and Ex Situ Treatment Removal of Contaminated Medium Containment noneCubic YardsSoil

70. Donna Inman, NPMAS70 Statute [1] [1] Section Section Description Actions with Direct Environmental Benefits/Response or Corrective Actions Preventative Actions to Reduce Likelihood of Future Releases Appropriate Units Potential Impacted Media CERCLA106AImminent & Substantial Endangerment Order In Situ and Ex Situ Treatment Removal of Contaminated Medium Containment noneCubic Yards Pounds Soil Land Water (ground) CERCLA120EFederal Facility Interagency Agreement In Situ and Ex Situ Treatment Removal of Contaminated Medium Containment noneCubic Yards Pounds Soil Land Water (ground) CERCLA122AAgreement to Perform Work under 104b In Situ and Ex Situ Treatment Removal of Contaminated Medium Containment noneCubic Yards Pounds Soil Land Water (ground) RCRA7003Imminent Order: Solid or Hazardous Waste In Situ and Ex Situ Treatment Removal of Contaminated Medium Containment noneCubic Yards Pounds Soil Land Water (ground) RCRA3008HImminent Order: Solid or Hazardous Waste In Situ and Ex Situ Treatment Removal of Contaminated Medium Containment noneCubic Yards Pounds Soil Land Water (ground) [1] [1] Note Prior to 2009, ICIS did allow the entry of CERCLA Section 106 cases in pounds even though it was not indicated in the ICIS filter table.

71. Donna Inman, NPMAS71 Workaround for select RCRA §7003 cases Currently, in-situ and ex-situ treatment, removal of contaminated medium and containment actions are allowed for RCRA § 7003 cases. A number of RCRA cases under §7003 authority however require waste treatment and waste minimization actions defined only under RCRA §§ 3002, 3003, & 3004 In order to report RCRA Subtitle C waste treatment and minimization actions occurring under §7003 authority, the regions must include §3002, §3003 or §3004 as the secondary law in its ICIS entry and enter “waste treatment” or “waste minimization” as the complying action type.

72. Joe Annotti, FFEO72 Recording Federal Facility Enforcement Actions in ICIS Current Situation –No way to differentiate between federal and non- federal facilities Limited Solution –Use of “FF” in Enforcement Action Name is effective but inefficient

73. Joe Annotti, FFEO73 Proposed Changes to ICIS Additional field in Enforcement Action entry screen –Allows for filtering of Federal Facility actions Incorporate a FF Designator –Check box –Drop down menu Data Quality –Accurately identify Federal Facilities in enforcement data Coordination –Addition of other fields (Env.Justice, Indian Country, and Small Business) will help analysis

74. Joe Annotti, FFEO74 CERCLA 120(e) FFAs in ICIS Goal –Increase ability to track RODs under existing FFAs Process –Create Enforcement Action profile in ICIS to correlate with RODs for new FFAs Issues –There will only be 3-4 FFAs in the future –Users need to enter FFAs into ICIS to ensure better data management

75. Dan Palmer, RAB75 More Guidance Coming in FY 2010 – 1) New Measure for Greenhouse Gas Reductions Measuring reductions of greenhouse gases from enforcement actions –Workgroup in progress is addressing a series of questions about how to best proceed –Plan is to pilot calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions and release of data on this new measure in FY 2010 –Full implementation of new measure in FY 2011 Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) Fluorinated Gases

76. Dan Palmer, RAB76 More Guidance Coming in FY 2010 – 2)Identifying Enforcement Cases that Address EJ and Entering that Information into ICIS Identifying enforcement actions that involve environmental justice matters –A workgroup is being formed that will produce guidance on identifying enforcement cases that address EJ matters and how to enter that data into ICIS. The guidance will establish the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) as the tool for identifying enforcement cases that involve EJ. The region may use another tool following the EJSEAT assessment if there is a (compelling?) need. There are a number of issues with this approach that still must be resolved by the work group.

77. Dan Palmer, RAB77 More Guidance Coming in FY 2010 – Identifying Enforcement Cases that Address EJ and Entering that Information into ICIS

78. Dan Palmer, RAB78 More Guidance Coming in FY 2010 – Identifying Enforcement Cases in ICIS that Address EJ Issues that must be resolved by the EJ work group: 1.If a region wants to deviate from EJSEAT and use another method for identifying EJ issues, it needs to be determined what procedure will be required to allow this to happen. Will the region have to first notify OECA and request approval of the use of an alternative method? 2.If a region is allowed to deviate from EJSEAT, will we require this information to be captured in ICIS in some way? 3.What additional changes to ICIS are necessary, if any, to capture the information needed to accurately report out our EJ accomplishments and to meet management needs?

79. Dan Palmer, RAB79 More Guidance Coming in FY 2010 – 3) Improved ICIS Case Summaries Improved ICIS Case Summaries discussed previously. OC developing straw guidance and examples now, to be provided to the Regions for comment.

80. 80 More Guidance Coming in FY 2010 – 4) Entry of Geospatial (Lat/Long) Data Guidance to be issued on entry of geospatial (lat/long) data (as discussed earlier) We will automate population of geospatial data to ICIS if possible and to the extent practicable.

81. 81 Presenter Contact Info Dan Palmer, RAB Chief palmer.daniel@epa.gov (202) 564-5034 Sara Ager, RAB Reporting Team Leader ager.sara@epa.gov (202) 564-7968 Allison Donohue, ITUB donohue.allison@epa.gov (202) 564-2195 Naisa Thaker, RAB thaker.naisa@epa.gov (202) 564-2944 Seth Heminway, CASPD heminway.seth@epa.gov (202) 564-7017 Lauren Spath, RAB spath.lauren@epa.gov (202) 565-0016 David Sprague, RAB sprague.david@epa.gov (202) 564-4103 Donna Inman, NPMAS inman.donna@epa.gov (202) 564-2511 Joe Annotti, FFEO annotti.joseph@epa.gov (202) 564-0013