Environmental Protection

The environmental compliance enforcement program relies heavily upon inspections by regional and state enforcement staff to detect violations and evaluate overall facility compliance. Variations exist among EPA's regional offices in the steps they take to enforce environmental compliance. For example, in fiscal year 1998, inspection coverage for Clean Air Act-related programs was 27 percent in the Chicago region and 74 percent in the Philadelphia region. That same year, the EPA Inspector General reported that in four of six states included in a clean-air audit, inspectors did not always complete tests required and the regions did not ensure that they did so. Factors contributing to variations in regional enforcement programs include differences in philosophical approach to enforcement, and differences in state laws and enforcement authorities. Nearly all regional and state enforcement officials interviewed said that differences in state laws and enforcement authorities contribute to the variations in enforcement programs. Furthermore, incomplete and inaccurate national enforcement data entered into EPA's national databases hinders the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's assessment of the program requirements. EPA has tried to achieve greater consistency by providing comparative data on regional performance, improving regional-state communications, and developing regional audit protocols.

GAO noted that: (1) variations exist among EPA's regional offices in the actions they take to enforce environmental requirements, as illustrated by a number of key indicators that EPA headquarters enforcement officials have used to monitor regional performance; (2) GAO also found variations in regions' overall strategies in overseeing the states within their jurisdiction, which may result in more in-depth reviews in some regional programs than in others; (3) EPA headquarters enforcement officials emphasize that the data, by themselves, do not offer the appropriate context to help determine the extent to which the variations pose problems; (4) the officials note, however, that the data are useful for identifying general trends and possible strengths and weaknesses in regional and state programs, along with potential issues to investigate at greater length; (5) also corroborating the variation it identified among regional enforcement activities, GAO found broad agreement in its interviews with EPA and state enforcement officials on key factors that contribute to such variations; (6) among the factors most commonly cited by these officials are: (a) differences in the philosophical approaches among enforcement staff about how to best achieve compliance with environmental requirements; (b) differences in state laws and enforcement authorities, and in the manner in which regions respond to these differences; (c) variations in resources available to both state and regional enforcement offices; (d) the flexibility afforded by EPA policies and guidance that allow states a degree of latitude in their enforcement programs; and (e) incomplete and inadequate enforcement data which hamper EPA's ability to accurately characterize the extent of variations; (7) EPA headquarters and regional enforcement officials have a number of efforts underway to help achieve greater consistency in regional enforcement activities; (8) at the headquarters level, enforcement officials are developing performance information that will allow for comparisons among both regions and states in their conduct of key enforcement responsibilities; (9) a number of EPA regional offices have also sought to ensure more consistency in their state oversight by developing and applying new audit protocols in their state reviews and by encouraging more effective communication between and among regional and state enforcement staff; and (10) however, a number of factors will continue to challenge EPA's ability to ensure consistent regional enforcement, including the absence of reliable data on how both states and regions are performing their enforcement responsibilities.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: