Environmental Compliance and Enforcement
EPA's Effort to Improve and Make More Consistent Its Compliance and Enforcement Activities Gao ID: GAO-06-840T June 28, 2006The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces the nation's environmental laws and regulations through its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). While OECA provides overall direction on enforcement policies and occasionally takes direct enforcement action, many enforcement responsibilities are carried out by EPA's 10 regional offices. In addition, these offices oversee the enforcement programs of state agencies that have been delegated the authority to enforce federal environmental protection regulations. This testimony is based on GAO's reports on EPA's enforcement activities issued over the past several years and on observations from ongoing work that is being performed at the request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. GAO's previous reports examined the (1) consistency among EPA regions in carrying out enforcement activities, (2) factors that contribute to any inconsistency, and (3) EPA's actions to address these factors. Our current work examines how EPA, in consultation with regions and states, sets priorities for compliance and enforcement and how the agency and states determine respective compliance and enforcement roles and responsibilities and allocate resources for these purposes.
EPA regions vary substantially in the actions they take to enforce environmental requirements, according to GAO's analysis of key management indicators that EPA headquarters uses to monitor regional performance. These indicators include the number of inspections performed at regulated facilities and the amount of penalties assessed for noncompliance with environmental regulations. In addition, the regions differ substantially in their overall strategies to oversee states within their jurisdictions. For example, contrary to EPA policy, some regions did not require states to report all significant violators, while other regions adhered to EPA's policy in this regard. GAO identified several factors that contribute to regional variations in enforcement. These factors include (1) differences in philosophy among regional enforcement staff about how best to secure compliance with environmental requirements; (2) incomplete and unreliable enforcement data that impede EPA's ability to accurately determine the extent to which variations occur; and (3) an antiquated workforce planning and allocation system that is not adequate for deploying staff in a manner to ensure consistency and effectiveness in enforcing environmental requirements. EPA recognizes that while some variation in environmental enforcement is necessary to reflect local conditions, core enforcement requirements must be consistently implemented to ensure fairness and equitable treatment. Consequently, similar violations should be met with similar enforcement responses regardless of geographic location. In response to GAO findings and recommendations, EPA has initiated or planned several long-term actions that are intended to achieve greater consistency in state and regional enforcement actions. These include (1) a new State Review Framework process for measuring states' performance of core enforcement activities, (2) a number of initiatives to improve the agency's compliance and enforcement data, and (3) enhancements to the agency's workforce planning and allocation system to improve the agency's ability to match its staff and technical capabilities with the needs of individual regions. However, these actions have yet to achieve significant results and will likely require a number of years and a steady top-level commitment of staff and financial resources to substantially improve EPA's ability to target enforcement actions in a consistent and equitable manner.
GAO-06-840T, Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: EPA's Effort to Improve and Make More Consistent Its Compliance and Enforcement Activities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-840T
entitled 'Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: EPA's Effort to
Improve and Make More Consistent its Compliance and Enforcement
Activities' which was released on June 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U. S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 28, 2006:
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement:
EPA's Effort to Improve and Make More Consistent Its Compliance and
Enforcement Activities:
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-06-840T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-840T, testimony before the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces the nation‘s
environmental laws and regulations through its Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA). While OECA provides overall direction
on enforcement policies and occasionally takes direct enforcement
action, many enforcement responsibilities are carried out by EPA‘s 10
regional offices. In addition, these offices oversee the enforcement
programs of state agencies that have been delegated the authority to
enforce federal environmental protection regulations.
This testimony is based on GAO‘s reports on EPA‘s enforcement
activities issued over the past several years and on observations from
ongoing work that is being performed at the request of this Committee
and the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
House Committee on Appropriations. GAO‘s previous reports examined the
(1) consistency among EPA regions in carrying out enforcement
activities, (2) factors that contribute to any inconsistency, and (3)
EPA‘s actions to address these factors. Our current work examines how
EPA, in consultation with regions and states, sets priorities for
compliance and enforcement and how the agency and states determine
respective compliance and enforcement roles and responsibilities and
allocate resources for these purposes.
What GAO Found:
EPA regions vary substantially in the actions they take to enforce
environmental requirements, according to GAO‘s analysis of key
management indicators that EPA headquarters uses to monitor regional
performance. These indicators include the number of inspections
performed at regulated facilities and the amount of penalties assessed
for noncompliance with environmental regulations. In addition, the
regions differ substantially in their overall strategies to oversee
states within their jurisdictions. For example, contrary to EPA policy,
some regions did not require states to report all significant
violators, while other regions adhered to EPA‘s policy in this regard.
GAO identified several factors that contribute to regional variations
in enforcement. These factors include (1) differences in philosophy
among regional enforcement staff about how best to secure compliance
with environmental requirements; (2) incomplete and unreliable
enforcement data that impede EPA‘s ability to accurately determine the
extent to which variations occur; and (3) an antiquated workforce
planning and allocation system that is not adequate for deploying staff
in a manner to ensure consistency and effectiveness in enforcing
environmental requirements.
EPA recognizes that while some variation in environmental enforcement
is necessary to reflect local conditions, core enforcement requirements
must be consistently implemented to ensure fairness and equitable
treatment. Consequently, similar violations should be met with similar
enforcement responses regardless of geographic location. In response to
GAO findings and recommendations, EPA has initiated or planned several
long-term actions that are intended to achieve greater consistency in
state and regional enforcement actions. These include (1) a new State
Review Framework process for measuring states‘ performance of core
enforcement activities, (2) a number of initiatives to improve the
agency‘s compliance and enforcement data, and (3) enhancements to the
agency‘s workforce planning and allocation system to improve the
agency‘s ability to match its staff and technical capabilities with the
needs of individual regions. However, these actions have yet to achieve
significant results and will likely require a number of years and a
steady top-level commitment of staff and financial resources to
substantially improve EPA‘s ability to target enforcement actions in a
consistent and equitable manner.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-840T].
To view the full product, click on the link above. For more
information, contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) difficulties in ensuring consistent and
equitable enforcement actions among its regions and among the states.
Our testimony today is based on reports we have issued on EPA's
compliance and enforcement activities over the past several
years,[Footnote 1] and provides some observations from the ongoing work
that we are performing at your request and that of the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, House Committee on
Appropriations. As you know, we are assessing how EPA, in consultation
with regions and state agencies, sets priorities for compliance and
enforcement and how the agency and the states determine respective
compliance and enforcement roles and responsibilities and allocate
resources for these purposes. As part of this effort, we are assessing
EPA's initiated and planned actions to address key factors that result
in inconsistencies--identified in our previous work--in carrying out
its enforcement responsibilities. We expect to complete this ongoing
review on EPA and state enforcement and issue our report in March 2007.
EPA seeks to achieve cleaner air, purer water, and better protected
land in many different ways. Compliance with the nation's environmental
laws is the goal, and enforcement is a vital part of the effort to
encourage state and local governments, companies, and others who are
regulated to meet their environmental obligations. Enforcement deters
those who might otherwise seek to profit from violating the law, and
levels the playing field for environmentally compliant companies.
EPA administers its environmental enforcement responsibilities through
its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). While OECA
provides overall direction on enforcement policies, and occasionally
takes direct enforcement action, many of its enforcement
responsibilities are carried out by its 10 regional offices (regions).
These regions, in addition to taking direct enforcement action, oversee
the enforcement programs of state agencies that have been delegated
authority for enforcing federal environmental protection
requirements.[Footnote 2]
In my testimony today, I will describe the (1) extent to which
variations exist among EPA's regions in enforcing environmental
requirements, (2) key factors that contribute to any such variations,
and (3) status of the agency's efforts to address these factors.
In summary, as we previously reported on regional efforts to enforce
provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the regions
vary substantially in the actions they take to enforce environmental
requirements. These variations show up in key management indicators
that EPA headquarters officials have used to monitor regional
performance, such as the number of inspections performed at regulated
facilities and the amount of penalties assessed for noncompliance with
environmental regulations. For example, in fiscal year 2000, the number
of inspections conducted under the Clean Air Act compared with the
number of facilities in each region subject to EPA's inspection under
the act varied from a high of 80 percent in Region 3 to a low of 27
percent in Regions 1 and 2.
We also reported that it is important to understand the reasons for
some of these variations, such as a regional determination to conduct
more in-depth inspections at a fewer number of facilities instead of
conducting less intensive examinations at many more facilities.
Accordingly, we recommended that EPA clarify which enforcement actions
it expects to see consistently implemented across the regions and
direct the regions to supplement its reporting with information that
helps explain why variation occurred. We did not focus our work on the
effects of inconsistent enforcement on various types of businesses,
including small businesses, the particular focus of the Committee's
hearing today. However, in performing our work we noted that a recent
study for the Small Business Administration,[Footnote 3] as well as
other studies, have suggested that environmental requirements fall most
heavily on small businesses. To the extent that this is the case, small
businesses could be especially disadvantaged by any inconsistencies and
inequities in EPA's enforcement approach. EPA has made progress toward
resolving challenges in its enforcement activities that we have
previously identified. Nonetheless, each of the challenges is complex
and will require much more work and continued vigilance to overcome.
Our work has identified several factors contributing to regional
variations: (1) differences in the philosophy of enforcement staff
about how to best achieve compliance with environmental requirements;
(2) incomplete and inadequate enforcement data, which hamper EPA's
ability to accurately determine the extent of variations; and (3) an
antiquated workforce planning and allocation system that is not
adequate for deploying staff to ensure greater consistency and
effectiveness in enforcing environmental requirements.
Finally, EPA recognizes that to ensure fair and equitable treatment,
core enforcement requirements must be consistently implemented so that
similar violations are met with similar enforcement responses,
regardless of geographic location. Accordingly, and in response to our
findings and recommendations, the agency has initiated or planned
actions that are intended to achieve greater consistency in regional
and state enforcement activities. These actions include the following:
* Developing the State Review Framework. This framework involves a new
process for conducting reviews and measuring the performance of core
enforcement programs in states with delegated authority (as well as
nondelegated programs implemented by EPA regions). Although the process
is a promising means for ensuring more consistent enforcement actions,
it is too early to assess whether the process will result in more
consistent enforcement actions and a level playing field for the
regulated community across the nation.
* Improving management information. EPA has a number of ongoing
activities to improve the agency's enforcement data, but the data
problems are long-standing and complex. It will likely require a number
of years and a steady top-level commitment of staff and financial
resources to substantially improve the data so that they can be
effectively used to target enforcement actions in a consistent and
equitable manner.
* Enhancing workforce planning and allocation. For the past several
years, EPA has taken measures to improve its ability to match its staff
and technical capabilities with the needs of individual regions and
states. For example, EPA developed a human capital strategy and
performed a study of its workforce competencies. Nonetheless, the
agency still needs to determine how to deploy its employees among its
strategic goals and geographic locations so that it can most
effectively use its resources, including its compliance and enforcement
resources.
Regional Enforcement Activities Vary Substantially:
EPA's enforcement program depends heavily upon inspections by regional
or state enforcement staff as the primary means of detecting violations
and evaluating overall facility compliance. Thus, the quality and the
content of the agency's and states' inspections, and the number of
inspections undertaken to ensure adequate coverage, are important
indicators of the enforcement program's effectiveness. However, as we
reported in 2000, EPA's regional offices varied substantially on the
actions they take to enforce the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
Consistent with earlier observations of EPA's Office of Inspector
General and internal agency studies, we found these variations in
regional actions reflected in the (1) number of inspections EPA and
state enforcement personnel conducted at facilities discharging
pollutants within a region, (2) number and type of enforcement actions
taken, and (3) the size of the penalties assessed and the criteria used
in determining the penalties assessed. For example, as figure 1
indicates, the number of inspections conducted under the Clean Air Act
in fiscal year 2000 compared with the number of facilities in each
region subject to EPA's inspection under the act varied from a high of
80 percent in Region 3 to a low of 27 percent in Regions 1 and 2.
Figure 1: Percentage of Total Regulated Facilities Inspected Under the
Clean Air Act During Fiscal Year 2000, by EPA Region:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's analysis of EPA data.
[End of figure]
While the variations in enforcement raise questions about the need for
greater consistency, it is also important to get behind the data to
understand the cause of the variations and the extent to which they
reflect a problem. For example, EPA attributed the low number of
inspections by its Region 5, in Chicago, to the regional office's
decision at the time to focus limited resources on performing detailed
and resource-intensive investigations of the region's numerous electric
power plants, rather than conducting a greater number of less intensive
inspections.
We agree that regional data can be easily misinterpreted without the
contextual information needed to clarify whether variation in a given
instance is inappropriate or whether it reflects the appropriate
exercise of flexibility by regions and states to tailor their
priorities to their individual needs and circumstances. In this regard,
we recommended that it would be appropriate for EPA to (1) clarify
which aspects of the enforcement program it expects to see implemented
consistently from region to region and which aspects may appropriately
be subject to greater variation and (2) supplement region-by-region
data with contextual information that helps to explain why variations
occur and thereby clarify the extent to which variations are
problematic.
Our findings were also consistent with the findings of EPA's Inspector
General and OECA that regions vary in the way they oversee state-
delegated programs. In this regard, contrary to EPA policy, some
regions did not (1) conduct an adequate number of oversight inspections
of state programs, (2) sufficiently encourage states to consider
economic benefit in calculating penalties, (3) take more direct federal
actions where states were slow to act, and (4) require states to report
all significant violators. Regional and state officials generally
indicated that it was difficult for them to ascertain the extent of
variation in regional enforcement activities, given their focus on
activities within their own geographic environment. However, EPA
headquarters officials responsible for the air and water programs noted
that such variation is fairly commonplace and does pose problems. The
director of OECA's water enforcement division, for example, told us
that, in reacting to similar violations, enforcement responses in
certain regions are stronger than they are in others and that such
inconsistencies have increased.
Similarly, the director of OECA's air enforcement division said that,
given the considerable autonomy of the regional offices, it is not
surprising that variations exist in how they approach enforcement and
state oversight. In this regard, the director noted, disparities exist
among regions in the number and quality of inspections conducted and in
the number of permits written in relation to the number of sources
requiring permits.
In response to these findings, a number of regions have begun to
develop and implement state audit protocols, believing that having such
protocols could help them review the state programs within their
jurisdiction with greater consistency. Here, too, regional approaches
differ. For example:
* Region 1, in Boston, has adopted a comprehensive "multimedia"
approach in which it simultaneously audits all of a state's delegated
environmental programs.
* Region 3, in Philadelphia, favors a more targeted approach in which
air, water, and waste programs are audited individually.
* In Region 5, in Chicago, the office's air enforcement branch chief
said that he did not view an audit protocol as particularly useful,
noting that he prefers regional staff to engage in joint inspections
with states to assess the states' performance in the field and to take
direct federal action when a state action is inadequate.
We recognize the potential of these protocols to achieve greater
consistency by a region in its oversight of its states, and the need to
tailor such protocols to meet regional concerns. However, we also
believe that EPA guidance on key elements that should be common to all
protocols would help engender a higher level of consistency among all
10 regions in how they oversee states.
Several Factors Contribute to Variations in Regional Enforcement
Programs:
While EPA's data show variations in key measures associated with the
agency's enforcement program, they do little to explain the causes of
the variations. Without information on causes, it is difficult to
determine the extent to which variations represent a problem, are
preventable, or reflect appropriate regional and state flexibility in
applying national program goals to unique circumstances. Our work
identified the following causes: (1) differences in philosophical
approaches to enforcement, (2) incomplete and inaccurate national
enforcement data, and (3) an antiquated workforce planning and
allocation system.
Regions Differ in Their Philosophical Approaches to Enforcement:
While OECA has issued policies, memorandums, and other documents to
guide regions in their approach to enforcement, the considerable
autonomy built into EPA's decentralized, multilevel organizational
structure allows regional offices considerable latitude in adapting
headquarters' direction in a way they believe best suits their
jurisdiction. The variations we identified often reflect different
enforcement approaches in determining whether the region should (1)
rely predominantly on fines and other traditional enforcement methods
to deter noncompliance and to bring violators into compliance or (2)
place greater reliance on alternative strategies, such as compliance
assistance (workshops, site visits, and other activities to identify
and resolve potential compliance problems). Regions have also differed
on whether deterrence could be achieved best through a small number of
high-profile, resource-intensive cases or a larger number of smaller
cases that establish a more widespread, albeit lower profile,
enforcement presence. Further complicating matters are the wide
differences among states in their enforcement approaches and the
various ways in which regions respond to these differences. Some
regions step more readily into cases when they consider a state's
action to be inadequate, while other regions are more concerned about
infringing on the discretion of states that have been delegated
enforcement responsibilities. While all of these approaches may be
permissible, EPA has experienced problems in identifying and
communicating the extent to which variation either represents a problem
or the appropriate exercise of flexibility by regions and states to
apply national program goals to their unique circumstances.
National Enforcement Data Are Incomplete and Inaccurate:
OECA needs accurate and complete enforcement data to determine whether
regions and states are consistently implementing core program
requirements and, if not, whether significant variations in meeting
these requirements should be corrected. The region or the state
responsible for carrying out the enforcement program is responsible for
entering data into EPA's national databases. However, both the quality
of and quality controls over these data were criticized by state and
regional staff we interviewed.
Internal OECA studies have also acknowledged the seriousness of the
data problem. An OECA work group, the "Targeting Program Review Team,"
stated that key functions related to data quality, such as the
consistent entry of information by regions and states, were not working
properly and that there were important information gaps in EPA's
enforcement-related databases. Another OECA work group concluded in
2006, "OECA managers do not have available to them timely, complete,
and detailed analyses of regional or national performance." A third
OECA work group asserted that the situation has deteriorated from past
years, noting:
"managers in the regions and in OECA headquarters have become
increasingly frustrated that they are not receiving from [the Office of
Compliance] the reports and data analyses they need to manage their
programs—[and there] has been less attention to the data in the
national systems, a commensurate decline in data quality, and
insufficient use of data by enforcement/compliance managers."
Consistent with our findings and recommendations, EPA's Office of
Inspector General recently reported that, "OECA's 2005 publicly-
reported GPRA [Government Performance and Results Act] performance
measures do not effectively characterize changes in compliance or other
outcomes because OECA lacks reliable compliance rates and other
reliable outcome data. In the absence of compliance rates, OECA reports
proxies for compliance to the public and does not know if compliance is
actually going up or down. As a result, OECA does not have all the data
it needs to make management and program decisions. What is missing
most, the biggest gap, is information about compliance rates. OECA
cannot demonstrate the reliability of other measures because it has not
verified that estimated, predicted, or facility self-reported outcomes
actually took place. Some measures do not clearly link to OECA's
strategic goals. Finally, OECA frequently changed its performance
measures from year to year, which reduced transparency." For example,
between fiscal years 1999-2005, OECA reported on a low of 23
performance measures to a high of 69 measures, depending on the fiscal
year.
Although EPA is working to improve its data, the problems are extensive
and complex. For example, the Inspector General recently reported that
OECA cannot generate programmatic compliance information for five of
six program areas; lacks knowledge of the number, location, and levels
of compliance for a significant portion of its regulated universe; and
concentrates most of its regulatory activities on large entities and
knows little about the identities or cumulative impact of small
entities. Consequently, the Inspector General reported, OECA currently
cannot develop programmatic compliance information, adequately report
on the size of the universe for which it maintains responsibility, or
rely on the regulated universe data to assess the effectiveness of
enforcement strategies.[Footnote 4]
EPA's Workforce Planning and Allocation System Is Not Adequate for
Effectively Deploying Staff to Regions:
As we reported, EPA's process for budgeting and allocating resources
does not fully consider the agency's current workload, either for
specific statutory requirements, such as those included in the Clean
Water Act, or for broader goals and objectives in the agency's
strategic plan. Instead, in preparing its requests for funding and
staffing, EPA makes incremental adjustments, largely based on
historical precedents, and thus its process does not reflect a bottom-
up review of the nature or distribution of the current workload. While
EPA has initiated several projects over the past decade to improve its
workload and workforce assessment systems, it continues to face major
challenges in this area.
If EPA is to substantially improve its resource planning, we reported,
it must adopt a more rigorous and systematic process for (1) obtaining
reliable data on key workload indicators, such as the quality of water
in particular areas, which can be used to budget and allocate
resources, and (2) designing budget and cost accounting systems that
are able to isolate the resources needed and allocated to key
enforcement activities.
Without reliable workforce information, EPA cannot ensure consistency
in its enforcement activities by hiring the right number or type of
staff or allocating existing staff resources to meet current or future
needs. In this regard, since 1990, EPA has hired thousands of employees
without systematically considering the workforce impact of changes in
environmental statutes and regulations, technological advances in
affecting the skills and expertise needed to conduct enforcement
actions, or the expansion in state environmental staff. EPA has yet to
factor these workforce changes into its allocation of existing staff
resources to its headquarters and regional offices to meet its
strategic goals. Consequently, should EPA either downsize or increase
its enforcement and compliance staff, it would not have the information
needed to determine how many employees are appropriate, what technical
skills they must have, and how best to allocate employees among
strategic goals and geographic locations in order to ensure that
reductions or increases could be absorbed with minimal adverse impacts
in carrying out the agency's mission.
EPA Has Initiated or Planned Actions to Achieve Greater Consistency in
Enforcement Activities:
Over the past several years, EPA has initiated or planned several
actions to improve its enforcement program. We believe that a few of
these actions hold particular promise for addressing inconsistencies in
regional enforcement activities. These actions include (1) the creation
of a State Review Framework, (2) improvements in the quality of
enforcement data, and (3) enhancements to the agency's workforce
planning and allocation system.
EPA's State Review Framework Holds Promise, but It Is Too Early to
Assess Its Effectiveness:
The State Review Framework is a new process for conducting performance
reviews of enforcement and compliance activities in the states (as well
as for nondelegated programs implemented by EPA regions). These reviews
are intended to provide a mechanism by which EPA can ensure a
consistent level of environmental and public health protection across
the country. OECA is in the second year of a 3-year project to make
State Review Framework reviews an integral part of the regional and
state oversight and planning process and to integrate any regional or
state corrective or follow-up actions into working agreements between
headquarters, regions, and states. It is too early to assess whether
the process will provide an effective means for ensuring more
consistent enforcement actions and oversight of state programs to help
ensure a level playing field for the regulated community across the
country. Issues that still need to be addressed include how EPA will
assess states' implementation of alternative enforcement and compliance
strategies, such as strategies to assist businesses in their efforts to
comply with environmental regulations; encourage businesses to take
steps to reduce pollution; offer incentives (e.g., public recognition)
for businesses that demonstrate good records of compliance; and
encourage businesses to participate in programs to audit their
environmental performance and make the results of these audits and
corrective actions available to EPA, other environmental regulators,
and the public.
Efforts Are Underway to Improve Data, but Critical Gaps Remain:
Regardless of other improvements EPA makes to the enforcement program,
it needs to have sufficient environmental data to measure changes in
environmental conditions, assess the effectiveness of the program, and
make decisions about resource allocations. Through its Environmental
Indicators Initiative and other efforts, EPA has made some progress in
addressing critical data gaps in the agency's environmental
information. However, the agency still has a long way to go in
obtaining the data it needs to manage for environmental results and
needs to work with its state and other partners to build on its efforts
to fill critical gaps in environmental data. Filling such gaps in EPA's
knowledge of environmental conditions and trends should, in turn,
translate into better approaches in allocating funds to achieve desired
environmental results. Such knowledge will be useful in making future
decisions related to strategic planning, resource allocations, and
program management.
Nevertheless, most of the performance measures that EPA and the states
are still using focus on outputs rather than on results, such as the
number of environmental pollution permits issued, the number of
environmental standards established, and the number of facilities
inspected. These types of measures can provide important information
for EPA and state managers to use in managing their programs, but they
do not reflect the actual environmental outcomes that EPA must know in
order to ensure that resources are being allocated in the most cost-
effective ways to improve environmental conditions and public health.
EPA also has worked with the states and regional offices to improve
enforcement data in its Permit Compliance System and believes that its
efforts have improved data quality. EPA officials said that the system
will be incorporated into the Integrated Compliance Information System,
which is being phased in this year. According to information EPA
provided, the modernization effort will identify the data elements to
be entered and maintained by the states and regions and will include
additional data entry for minor facilities and special regulatory
program areas, such as concentrated animal feeding operations, combined
sewer overflows, and storm water. Regarding the National Water Quality
Inventory, the Office of Water recently began advocating the use of
standardized, probability-based, statistical surveys of state waters so
that water quality information would be comparable among states and
from year-to-year.
While these efforts are steps in the right direction, progress in this
area has been slow and the benefits of initiatives currently in the
discussion or planning stages are likely to be years away from
realization. For example, initiatives to improve EPA's ability to
manage for environmental results are essentially long-term. They will
require a long-term commitment of management attention, follow-through,
and support--including the dedication of appropriate and sufficient
resources--for their potential to be fully realized. A number of
similar initiatives in the past have been short-lived and unproductive
in terms of lasting contributions to improved performance management.
The ultimate payoff will depend on how fully EPA's organization and
management support these initiatives and the extent to which identified
needs are addressed in a determined, systematic, and sustained fashion
over the next several years.
EPA Has Improved the Management of its Human Capital System, but
Challenges Remain in Allocating Staff to Match Enforcement Requirements
in its Regions:
Since the late 1990s, EPA has made progress in improving the management
of its human capital. EPA's human capital strategic plan was designed
to ensure a systematic process for identifying the agency's human
capital requirements to meet strategic goals. Furthermore, EPA's
strategic planning includes a cross-goal strategy to link strategic
planning efforts to the agency's human capital strategy. Despite such
progress, effectively implementing a human capital strategic plan
remains a major challenge. Consequently, the agency needs to continue
monitoring progress in developing a system that will ensure a well-
trained and motivated workforce with the right mix of skills and
experience. In this regard, the agency still has not taken the actions
that we recommended in July 2001 to comprehensively assess its
workforce--how many employees it needs to accomplish its mission, what
and where technical skills are required, and how best to allocate
employees among EPA's strategic goals and geographic locations.
Furthermore, as previously mentioned, EPA's process for budgeting and
allocating resources does not fully consider the agency's current
workload. With prior years' allocations as the baseline, year-to-year
changes are marginal and occur in response to (1) direction from the
Office of Management and Budget and the Congress, (2) spending caps
imposed by EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and (3)
priorities negotiated by senior agency managers.
EPA's program offices and regions have some flexibility in realigning
resources based on their actual workload, but the overall impact of
these changes is also minor, according to agency officials. Changes at
the margin may not be sufficient because both the nature and
distribution of the workload have changed as the scope of activities
regulated has increased and as EPA has taken on new responsibilities
while shifting others to the states. For example, controls over
pollution from storm water and animal waste at concentrated feeding
operations have increased the number of regulated entities by hundreds
of thousands and required more resources in some regions of the
country. However, EPA may be unable to respond effectively to changing
needs and constrained resources because it does not have a system in
place to conduct periodic "bottom-up" assessments of the work that
needs to be done, the distribution of the workload, or the staff and
other resource needs.
Mr. Chairman, to its credit, EPA has initiated a number of actions to
improve its enforcement activities and has invested considerable time
and resources to make these activities more effective and efficient.
While we applaud EPA's actions, they have thus far achieved only
limited success and illustrate both the importance and the difficulty
of addressing the long-standing problems in ensuring the consistent
application of enforcement requirements, fines and penalties for
violations of requirements, and the oversight of state environmental
programs. To finish the job, EPA must remain committed to continuing
the steps that it has already taken. In this regard, given the
difficulties of the improvements that EPA is attempting to make and the
time likely to be required to achieve them, it is important that the
agency remain vigilant. It needs to guard against any erosion of its
efforts by factors that have hampered past efforts to improve its
operations, such as changes in top management and priorities and
constraints on available resources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
If you have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Major contributors to this
testimony include Ed Kratzer, John C. Smith, Ralph Lowry, Ignacio
Yanes, Kevin Bray, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
Footnotes:
[1] See GAO, Environmental Protection: More Consistency Needed Among
EPA Regions in Approach to Enforcement, GAO/RCED-00-108 (Washington,
D.C.: June 2, 2000); Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce
Strategy Would Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals, GAO-01-812
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001); and Clean Water Act: Improved
Resource Planning Would Help EPA Better Respond to Changing Needs and
Fiscal Constraints, GAO-05-721 (Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005).
[2] For many federal environmental programs, EPA either authorizes
states to administer the federal program or retains authority to
administer the program for the state. The state programs that have been
approved by EPA are described as "delegated" in this testimony for
clarity and consistency with EPA program terminology.
[3] W. Mark Crain, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, a
report prepared at the request of the Small Business Administration's
Office of Advocacy (Washington, D.C., September 2005).
[4] EPA Office of Inspector General, Limited Knowledge of the Universe
of Regulated Entities Impedes EPA's Ability to Demonstrate Changes in
Regulatory Compliance, Report No. 2005-P-00024, September 19, 2005.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
