A key aspect of being effective is figuring out what needs your attention right now and what can wait until later. EPA seems to understand this. Every three years, EPA creates a set of national enforcement priorities setting out the areas in which it will focus its inspections, compliance assistance and enforcement actions over the course of those three years. It provides for interesting reading.
For example, the priorities for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were:
- Air toxics
- New source review/prevention of significant deterioration
- Concentrated animal feeding operations
- Municipal combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows
- Storm water
-
Mineral processing
-
Financial responsibility
-
Indian country
The Agency is in the process of setting its priorities for 2011, 2012 and 2013. To identify the possible areas of consideration, EPA collected information from the various regions, states, tribes, associations and the public. Based on the information it received, EPA created the following list of candidates for the upcoming enforcement priorities:
- Air Toxics – EPA is proposing to continue to focus on leak detection and repair and the presence of hazardous air pollutants near schools;
- Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) – this initiative would focus on the regulation of surface water runoff carrying animal waste into waterways. There is no discussion of air or odor issues;
- Environmental Justice – a review of burdens that pollution has disproportionately placed on vulnerable populations including children, communities of color, Native Americans and the poor;
- Indian Country Drinking Water – it has been determined that the level of noncompliance of public water systems in Indian country is significantly hirer than at comparable public water systems outside of Indian country. This initiative would attempt to identify the reasons why and find a method of correcting those deficiencies;
- Marine Debris – this would focus on debris that is improperly discharged into a water way. Enforcement of current regulations and cleanup activities would be key components of the initiative. It is viewed as a good fit to address along with municipal runoff issues;
- Mineral Processing – mineral processing and mining use strong chemicals and generate large volumes of waste for disposal. Over the past decade, significant damage has been done to the environment from these operations. This initiative would focus on inspections and sampling by EPA;
- Municipal Infrastructure – the storm water and sanitary sewer piping for many cities is outdated and frequently causes discharge events. This initiative would require significant modifications and repairs to many of the city systems;
- New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration – EPA has determined that many air pollutant sources have made operational changes that have resulted in increased air emissions, but failed to obtain proper permitting. The industrial sectors which will be reviewed are coal-fired electric utilities, cement manufacturing facilities, sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing facilities, glass manufacturing facilities and lime manufacturing sites;
- RCRA Enforcement – increased emphasis on cleanups of contaminated facilities and creation of a nationally consistent approach to enforcement at all RCRA facilities;
- RCRA Financial Assurance – increased enforcement of determining that sufficient funds are set aside for response and closure of RCRA facilities;
- Resource Extraction – various forms of resource extraction, such as mountaintop mining and oil and gas development, have caused increased concerns about a rise in levels of air pollution and water quality degradation. This initiative would increase the focus on the regulation of these resource extraction activities under CAA, CWA and SDWA, with emphasis on federal lands and Indian Country;
- Pesticides at Day Care Facilities – a study done in 2001 of wipe samples from indoor services at day care centers identified at least one pesticide in every day care center studied. Some centers had up to ten different kinds of pesticides in use. This initiative would investigate the use and effect of pesticides at day care centers;
- Surface Impoundments – many industrial facilities use surface impoundments to treat or store non-hazardous liquid and solid waste which can contaminate surface water, groundwater and air. Additionally, hazardous waste storage in such impoundments without a RCRA permit is a violation of law. EPA estimates there are 18,000 surface impoundments operating and that inspection and oversight is a worthwhile initiative;
- Wetlands – recent studies show a pattern of wetland loss under the Clean Water Act which justifies an enforcement initiative;
- Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides – studies show that farm worker families have a higher level of pesticide exposure than non-farm worker families. In light of the number of farm workers and pesticide applicators, an initiative of inspections for both product and use compliance is necessary.
Cynthia Giles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, spoke at the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council on January 29, 2010. At that time, Ms. Giles indicated that the fifteen new enforcement areas for consideration were likely too many and that, when finally published, there will likely be fewer than nine initiatives for the 2011 through 2013 period. She also indicated that air toxics emissions, large animal feeding operations and new source review violations will likely make the cut for the national enforcement priorities.
It is important for businesses and legal practitioners to carefully note the final list of initiatives. At least over the past three years, a great deal of the EPA’s enforcement activities have been conducted on the topics that they identified as initiatives and there is every reason to believe that this will continue in the future. To be forewarned . . . .
is designed to address lead paint when encountered in home renovation. Some changes were made to the Rule, but a delay of implementation of the Rule was refused by EPA even though the changes resulted in doubling the number of regulated companies. However, it looks like EPA has had a slight change of heart.