Information on the Environmental Protection Agency's Actual and Proposed Funding for Enforcement Activities for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003
Gao ID: GAO-02-1096R September 27, 2002GAO reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to reduce the number of full-time employees from its enforcement budget for compliance monitoring and civil enforcement activities to evaluate EPA's statements that (1) the jobs being eliminated are ones that EPA has allowed to lapse or has been unable to fill and (2) the reductions will be managed through normal attrition, without any loss of enforcement expertise and without shifting staff to nonenforcement functions. GAO found that EPA received a total of 1,464.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions for civil enforcement and compliance-monitoring functions under its Environmental Program and Management appropriation. EPA's fiscal year 2001 operating plan included full funding for the FTE positions provided for civil enforcement and compliance-monitoring activities. According to Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OECA) officials, the agency had no specific plans to leave vacancies open in anticipation of planned reductions in the workforce for compliance monitoring and civil enforcement. According to EPA officials, the agency does not assume or use any attrition rate in developing its annual budget. Instead, EPA establishes FTE ceilings for each of its program offices, which are expected to manage their resources according to their ceiling. EPA officials stated that EPA's fiscal year 2002 proposed operating plan did not restore 121.8 FTE positions for civil enforcement and compliance monitoring that had been available during fiscal year 2001. Under its fiscal year 2001 budget, OECA received $30,465,100 for its contracting activities and has requested $26,487,200 for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2002, EPA anticipates that it will spend 50 FTE for OECA's counterterrorism activities. OECA has developed a draft Human Capital Strategy but has not performed the workload study GAO recommended in a prior report. However, OECA has been working with EPA's human resources office, in a pilot effort, to develop a methodology for a workforce assessment.
GAO-02-1096R, Information on the Environmental Protection Agency's Actual and Proposed Funding for Enforcement Activities for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2003
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1096R
entitled 'Information on the Environmental Protection Agency's Actual
and Proposed Funding for Enforcement Activities for Fiscal Years 2001
through 2003' which was released on October 08, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
September 27, 2002:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Robert Menendez:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Information on the Environmental Protection Agency‘s Actual
and Proposed Funding for Enforcement Activities for Fiscal Years 2001
through 2003:
This report summarizes the information we obtained in response to the
issues you raised regarding the Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA)
proposal to reduce the number of full-time employees from its
enforcement budget for compliance monitoring and civil enforcement
activities. As agreed, the information is intended to help you evaluate
EPA‘s statements that (1) the jobs being eliminated are ones that EPA
has allowed to lapse or has been unable to fill and (2) the reductions
will be managed through normal attrition, without any loss of
enforcement expertise and without shifting staff to nonenforcement
functions.
Our responses to the issues below are based on the information we
obtained relating to EPA‘s appropriations process for fiscal years 2001
through 2003. We obtained the information by interviewing EPA officials
in the Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OECA), who are responsible
for developing and monitoring OECA‘s budget. We also reviewed
documentation that these officials provided us on EPA‘s (1) enacted
operating plan for fiscal year 2001, (2) budget request and enacted
operating plan for fiscal year 2002, and (3) budget request for fiscal
year 2003.
[End of section]
Issue 1:
Identify the total number of full-time employees provided for civil
enforcement and compliance-monitoring functions (non-Superfund) in
EPA‘s budget as approved by the Congress in the Fiscal Year 2001
Appropriations Act for HUD-VA-Independent Agencies and as reflected in
the agency‘s operating plan for fiscal year 2001, which described in
detail how the agency planned to implement the budget approved by the
Congress.[Footnote 1]
GAO‘s Response:
As approved by the Congress and reflected in EPA‘s operating plan for
fiscal year 2001, EPA received a total of 1,464.8 full time equivalent
(FTE) positions for civil enforcement and compliance-monitoring
functions (non-Superfund) under its Environmental Program and
Management (EPM) appropriation. Of this total, 954.8 FTE positions were
provided for the civil enforcement program and 510.0 for the
compliance-monitoring program.
Issue 2:
Determine whether the fiscal year 2001 operating plan for Environmental
Programs and Management activities, which was based on the EPA budget
approved by the Congress, included full funding (salaries and expenses)
for the FTE positions provided for civil enforcement and compliance
monitoring (non-Superfund).
GAO‘s Response:
EPA‘s fiscal year 2001 operating plan included full funding (salaries
and expenses) for the FTE positions provided for civil enforcement and
compliance-monitoring (non-Superfund) activities. The EPA fiscal year
2001 operating plan for Environmental and Management activities
included $137.5 million for payroll, travel, administration, and a
working capital fund (for telecommunications, Internet use, and other
aids to enable employees do their jobs) associated with these
activities--$89.1 million for civil enforcement and $48.4 million for
compliance monitoring.
Issue 3:
Determine whether planning for expected budget cuts in fiscal year 2002
led EPA to leave open vacancies in fiscal year 2001 for compliance
monitoring and civil enforcement (non-Superfund) to the levels that
were provided for in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act and
reflected in the agency‘s operating plan for that year. How many
positions were ultimately allowed to lapse in anticipation of these
reductions in the enforcement workforce?
GAO‘s Response:
According to OECA officials, the agency had no specific plans to leave
vacancies open in anticipation of planned reductions in the workforce
for compliance monitoring and civil enforcement (non-Superfund). They
noted, however, that managers were probably inclined not to fill all
vacancies, anticipating that FTE positions would soon need to be
reduced under the fiscal year 2002 budget.
OECA officials also told us that, in fiscal year 2001, approximately 65
FTE vacancies were not utilized in EPA‘s Goal 9, Objective 1,
Subobjectives 1 and 2, which include civil enforcement and compliance
monitoring, as well as criminal enforcement training, data management,
and capacity-building activities. They said that the vacancies were not
filled in part because of a government-wide freeze on hiring from
November 2000 through February 2001, following the presidential
election.
Issue 4:
Identify the attrition rate (voluntary retirement or departure of
employees) that EPA assumed or assumes for its fiscal year 2001, 2002,
and 2003 budgets. Indicate whether reductions to civil enforcement and
compliance-monitoring staff planned for fiscal year 2002 and 2003
exceed projected attrition rates. Determine whether EPA had planned (or
is planning) to transfer enforcement staff to nonenforcement functions
as part of proposed reductions to civil enforcement and compliance-
monitoring functions.
GAO‘s Response:
According to EPA officials, the agency does not assume or use any
attrition rate in developing its annual budget. Instead, EPA
establishes FTE ceilings for each of its program offices, which are
expected to manage their resources according to their ceiling.
EPA had proposed reductions of 270 FTE positions for OECA‘s enforcement
activities during fiscal year 2002. Of these FTE positions, the agency
had planned to redirect 70 positions to nonenforcement programs and to
achieve the remaining reduction of 200 FTEs by not filling vacancies
that were expected to occur during the year. EPA officials told us that
they did not determine the number of FTE positions that would be
redirected specifically from civil enforcement and compliance-
monitoring programs. While the redirection of 70 FTEs was implemented,
145 of the remaining 200 FTEs were restored in the November 2001
conference committee report accompanying EPA‘s fiscal year 2002
appropriations act.
For fiscal year 2003, EPA is requesting a reduction of 76 FTE positions
for civil enforcement and compliance-monitoring (non-Superfund)
activities from fiscal year 2002 enacted levels. EPA does not intend to
redirect any of these enforcement FTE positions to other activities.
Rather, EPA plans to achieve these reductions by not filling vacancies
that occur during the year.
Issue 5:
Determine whether EPA‘s fiscal year 2002 operating plan restored FTE
positions for civil enforcement and compliance monitoring (non-
Superfund) to the fiscal year 2001 levels, as directed by the Congress
in the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Act for HUD-VA-Independent
Agencies.
GAO‘s Response:
EPA officials told us that EPA‘s fiscal year 2002 proposed operating
plan did not restore 121.8 FTE positions for civil enforcement and
compliance monitoring (non-Superfund) that had been available during
fiscal year 2001. They told us that the funding received from the
Congress for fiscal year 2002 was not sufficient to fund these FTEs.
Subsequently, an additional 30 FTEs (24 non-Superfund) were restored to
civil enforcement and compliance monitoring in fiscal year 2002.
Issue 6:
Compare the FTE positions for civil enforcement, compliance-monitoring,
and incentive programs (non-Superfund) in the fiscal year 2001 budget
for OECA as approved by the Congress and reflected in the operating
plan for that year with the amount projected in fiscal year 2003 in the
administration‘s proposal to the Congress.
GAO‘s Response:
Table 1 compares the fiscal year 2001 positions with the amount
projected in fiscal year 2003 in the administration‘s proposal to
Congress.
Table 1: FTE Positions for Civil Enforcement, Compliance-Monitoring,
and Incentive Programs (Non-Superfund) in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
Compared with the Administration‘s Proposed Fiscal Year 2003 Budget:
Program; Civil enforcement; Fiscal year 2001 operating plan for FTE
enforcement positions; 954.8; Fiscal year 2003 President‘s budget for
FTE enforcement positions: 848.2.
Program; Compliance monitoring; Fiscal year 2001 operating plan for FTE
enforcement positions; 510.0; Fiscal year 2003 President‘s budget for
FTE enforcement positions: 419.3.
Program; Compliance Incentives; Fiscal year 2001 operating plan for FTE
enforcement positions; 94.9; Fiscal year 2003 President‘s budget for
FTE enforcement positions: 82.8.
Program; Total; Fiscal year 2001 operating plan for FTE
enforcement positions; 1,559.7; Fiscal year 2003 President‘s budget for
FTE enforcement positions: 1,350.3.
[End of table]
Issue 7:
Compare the amount of contract dollars available to support OECA in
fiscal year 2001 with the amount that would be available under the
fiscal year 2003 budget proposed for EPA by the administration.
GAO‘s Response:
Under its fiscal year 2001 budget, OECA received $30,465,100 for its
contracting activities (non-Superfund). It has requested $26,487,200
for fiscal year 2003 (non-Superfund).
Issue 8:
Indicate the approximate number of OECA‘s FTE staff engaged in
counterterrorism investigation or support activities in fiscal year
2002. Determine if (1) EPA shifted 30 FTE positions from OECA‘s budget
for civil enforcement and compliance monitoring to support
counterterrorism activities, in addition to the 50 FTE positions
already provided by Congress and (2) whether OECA will fill more than
50 counterterrorism positions in fiscal year 2003, making the reduction
to environmental enforcement unnecessary.
GAO‘s Response:
For fiscal year 2002, EPA estimates that it will spend approximately 50
FTE for OECA‘s counterterrorism activities.
In January 2002, EPA was provided with funds to cover an additional 50
FTE for OECA‘s homeland security activities under a supplemental
appropriation. As part of EPA‘s 2002 operating plan submitted to the
Congress in April 2002, the agency proposed to allocate an additional
30 FTEs from enforcement to homeland security activities. However, in
July 2002, the Congress denied EPA‘s proposal. Prior to that date, some
enforcement staff had worked on homeland security activities, but
agency officials told us that all time spent on such activities during
fiscal year 2002 will be charged to the supplemental appropriation.
EPA officials told us that, by the end of fiscal year 2002, they
estimate that EPA will have filled approximately 50 FTEs for OECA‘s
counterterrorism activities.
Issue 9:
Last year, GAO recommended that the administration not proceed with
planned budget cuts for enforcement and monitoring functions without
completing a comprehensive workforce study to evaluate whether
enforcement resources are adequate to meet need. Indicate whether EPA
has undertaken such a study.
GAO‘s Response:
OECA has developed a draft Human Capital Strategy but has not performed
the workload study that we recommended. However, OECA has been working
with EPA‘s human resources office, in a pilot effort, to develop a
methodology for a workforce assessment. The overall objective is to
define the business line and the resources to accomplish the work.
OECA‘s draft human capital strategy focuses on the organizational needs
of OECA headquarters. The strategy recommends that each regional office
examine its enforcement workforce consistent with OECA‘s headquarters
strategy. Completing such an examination of regional needs is essential
for OECA to fully analyze its enforcement workload and accurately
determine the impacts of reducing its enforcement staff, shifting
resources to states, and ensuring that enforcement resources are
directed to the areas of greatest need.
Agency Comments:
We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. EPA
officials, including the Director of the Administration and Resources
Management Support Staff in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, generally agreed with the information contained in this
report and offered a number of detailed clarifications, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
We performed our work from July through August 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
As agreed with your office, we plan no further distribution of this
report until 7 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we
will send copies to the Administrator of EPA and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available upon request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this letter, please call me at (202)
512-3841 or Edward A. Kratzer, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6553.
William H. Roach also contributed to this assignment.
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by John B. Stephenson:
FOOTNOTES
[1] EPA‘s civil enforcement program helps protect the environment and
human health by assuring compliance with federal environmental laws.
Civil enforcement encompasses the investigations and cases brought to
address the most significant violations, and includes EPA
administrative actions and judicial cases referred to the Department of
Justice.
