	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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The region or the state responsible for  carrying out the enforcement program is responsible for entering data into  EPA’s national databases. “managers in the regions and in OECA headquarters have become increasingly frustrated  that they are not receiving from  the reports and data analyses  they need to manage their programs… 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  performance measures  do not effectively characterize changes in compliance or other outcomes  because OECA lacks reliable compliance rates and other reliable outcome  data. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. For example,  initiatives to improve EPA’s ability to manage for environmental results  are essentially long-term.
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 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.

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.