Targeting within the Enforcement and Compliance Program

1. Targeting within the Enforcement and Compliance Program

2. Overview • Basics of Targeting and Key Roles • Tools • Key Targeting Examples Showing How Tools Can Help Identify Problems • New Directions In Targeting

3. I. Why target? • Given limited resources, ensures that the most significant violations are identified and addressed. • Informed deployment of inspection and enforcement resources will have a significant bearing on the results and program success.

4. Why Target? • Not possible to provide on-site inspection/evaluation coverage of 100% of the regulated community (~5 million facilities). • Field presence deters and detects violations.

5. Basic Targeting Criteria • Risk based (toxicity, exposure, pounds of pollutant). • Designed to ensure coverage of the regulated community. • Focused on addressing high rates of non-compliance in a specific industry or industrial process. • Respond to public complaints. • Follow-up to ambient monitoring or remote sensing data. • Follow-up to previous enforcement order.

6. What Are the OECA, Regional and State Roles in Targeting? • Targeting efforts normally fall into: • Strategic (sector priorities) • Tactical (choosing facilities for inspection/enforcement) • OECA • Strategic targeting primarily related to national priority selection. • For tactical targeting, OECA’s role as been as a “tool provider”. • Corporate-wide/watershed/national issues targeting. • Regions • Perform some strategic targeting and analysis, and some tool development. • Decide which targets (facilities) to evaluate (focus on finding problems). • Review and coordinate on state inspection plans. • States • Ensure that universes of facilities are frequently evaluated (less emphasis on targeting to find problems). • However, the existing compliance monitoring strategies incorporate an element of targeting by focusing on larger facilities, etc.

7. Ways to Enhance Targeting • Focus on corporate and cross-boundary issues such as priority watersheds and non-attainment zones. • Targeting within national priorities and emerging priorities. • Finding important cases in the core (e.g., Massey). • Differential oversight/Level playing field • weighting inspections/enforcement toward states that do not have a strong program. • Targeting in sectors or regulatory areas that require more complex investigations and monitoring • Example, schools project, fence line monitoring efforts, etc. • Targeting activities to align with EJ communities.

8. II. What Tools Are Available to Assist with Targeting? • The Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) is the primary targeting tool. • OTIS Can Screen for • Non-inspected facilities • High pollutant and/or carcinogen release • Violators in priority watersheds • Repeat violators • Environmental justice concerns • Unregulated facilities • Map results • Analyze trends/patterns by state/Region

9. III. Examples of Targeting Analysis • The CWA Inspection Targeting Model provides a ranking of all CWA standard permits within a state based on violation, enforcement and water quality information. • OTIS allows users to interface with external data (such as D&B) and compare those records to EPA’s list of regulated facilities. • OECA has used OTIS to identify facilities that have not properly applied for CAA Title V permits. • OTIS allows users to match up impaired waters with facilities that are releasing pollutants related to the impairment.

10. Example of OTIS Query with Mapped ResultsCWA Non-majors DMR/Violation Data in Indiana Facilities in Indiana with greater than 25 effluent violations in 3 years Also not inspected in last 3 years (1 facility) Also on Priority Watersheds

11. Selecting Receptor Populations (Schools) and Use of Risk Data to Identify Possible Risk Sources

12. Example: Targeting to Address EJ concerns in Milwaukee • Area selected for focus using screening-level EJ indicators (EJSEAT-based). • Place-based focus allowed for more detailed, cross-program analysis of data on potential targets (e.g., OSHA data and ATSDR Health Studies). • Looked for overlap with sector priorities (e.g., LDAR). • Focus on larger facilities this year; next will include smaller facilities in significant sectors, aiming for strong deterrence and compliance assistance across sector. • Enforcement presence can support local economic development efforts when focused on high-impact and undesired land uses. Area appears to have had a relatively low past enforcement presence by state and EPA.

13. Example: Role in Strategic Targeting • Portland Cement NSR: • Sector with high emission levels. • Research showed a trend to higher-sulfur fuels (petroleum coke). • Enforcement potential determined through review of Title V permits, and review of technical literature available from a local industry association library. • R5 Air program encourages creative thinking and research to identify possible future national and regional priorities.

14. IV. New Directions In Targeting Possibilities: • Better use of risk, cancer, and spatial data. • Working from receptor populations or problem areas (e.g., schools, cancer hotspots, watersheds, etc.) back to causes. • Create Inspection Targeting Models that can produce rankings tailored to the greatest problems. • Better use of web technology to track priority area universe and associated targeting data and results. • Setting goals in places we want investments. • Examples: • EPA increases inspections in EJ areas by x% per year. • EPA inspections or enforcement increase in a chosen priority watershed, or in a state that is not meeting expectations. • EPA establishes a goal for % of wet weather inspections identifying violations.

15. How are Others Using Our Data To Target? • Examples of public interest in targeting problems. • Schools with poor air quality (use of risk data with receptor focus) • Coal ash impoundments and selenium releases (reaction to event) • Lack of CWA enforcement for DMR violations at non-majors (data analysis driven - many violations, little enforcement) • Chesapeake Bay (ecosystem focus) • These are areas that OECA will need to be involved in, but are not part of the priority selection process. • How do these external drivers interact with our planned work? How can we have the necessary flexibility to address emerging problems that do not align with planned activities? • Is there a way to anticipate where external analysis are coming from so we can get a head of the curve?