Board presses Guam EPA on enforcement and permitting capacity; DOD pilot for design review raises conflict concerns

Board members pressed Guam EPA staff March 20 for details on enforcement activity, inspector staffing and how complaints are handled, saying the public perception is that the agency is often tolerated rather than enforced. "I feel like for a lot of people, EPA Guam EPA is something they have to tolerate, instead of something they need to inspect," Director Hoss said during the meeting.

Acting Deputy Glenn Cinecas walked the board through the agency’s enforcement workflow: complaints are logged and referred to the appropriate program, a field inspection is conducted, and inspectors issue a notice of violation or a notice of violation and order of compliance as needed. "If, after the compliance period, there's no action, then we proceed with the notice of violation order of compliance, which then puts them on the card," Cinecas said. He described the administrative penalty order (APO) process and noted that unresolved matters can be referred to the Attorney General’s Office or pursued in court; he added that alleged violators may contest NOV/OC actions and request a hearing before a hearing officer.

Cinecas said inspection schedules rotate between field work and administrative duties (permit and paperwork time). He described a rotating pattern in which some weeks emphasize field inspections and complaint response and other weeks emphasize permit and administrative work. Cinecas also reported coordination with other enforcement entities: Guam Police Department, port and airport police, park rangers and mayor’s councils may issue litter citations under existing law.

Board members and staff discussed resource constraints. Cinecas said staffing and vehicle shortages limit the agency’s ability to do more frequent spot checks and that the agency is addressing vacancies through recruitment. Ron Charfruz, introduced as an acting supervisor for inspectors, identified himself during the discussion and confirmed that inspectors do day-to-day field checks, grease-trap and septic inspections and follow-up maintenance inspections as resources permit.

Separately, the board heard about a Department of Defense–led pilot that would allow DOD‑employed or contracted professional engineers to perform a preliminary design review against a Guam EPA permit checklist to speed processing for certain projects. Agency staff described the pilot as limited and case-by-case: after 30 days on a permit, a DOD request could trigger the use of two third‑party engineers to streamline the review and help bring a package into compliance. "It's a pilot that we were looking at trying out to see how that works out," Cinecas said.

Board members raised concerns about third-party reviewers being employed by entities with a vested interest in the projects and about ensuring Guam EPA retains final approval authority. A board member asked how the self‑certification would be used and stressed that Guam EPA would remain the final approver. Cinecas reiterated that Guam EPA would do final approval and that self‑certification was intended to check completeness and compliance with the agency’s checklist, not to replace agency review.

No formal changes to enforcement policy or permit rules were adopted at the March 20 meeting; the board directed staff to provide follow‑up information on enforcement metrics and on how the DOD pilot would be scoped and controlled.