U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
EPA'S CURRENT OVERSIGHT PRACTICES
(V
09tOS OQ *
*M*S '
t-.-j£ 'S'fl
Program Evaluation Division
Office of Management Systems
and Evaluation
August 1983
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter I .... Introduction
Chapter II ... Major Findings 3
Chapter III .. .
How the Programs View and Approach
Oversight- ............... $
Chapte.: IV ... How the Program Conduct Oversight ... 12
Chapter V . .
. . How the Programs Review and Evaluate
Permits/Grants'and Compliance
Monitoring/Enforcement 23
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose;
The Deputy Administrator's Task Force on State-Federal Roles
commissioned a study to determine how the Agency currently conducts
performance and quality review of the federally-mandated environmental
programs that have been delegated to the States. The report is
descriptive rather than prescriptive, since it covers only current
practice, leaving the job of shaping new methods of oversight to
others undertaking work for the Task Force.
The schedule of the State-Federal Roles Task Force dictated
this .study be completed in four weeks. As a result, the study
team relied to a large extent on existing and readily available
data. For example, while all program offices were interviewed at
length, only two of 10 Regions participated in the entire review.
The time frame also eliminated exploring in great detail oversight
procedures for each program managed by a given program office.
The interview results convey a summary picture.of EPA oversight
and do not substitute for a more fully researched and documented
evaluation. Nevertheless, the study team believes this report
covers the major.issues in oversight and that the reader may confi-
dently draw general conclusions from the findings set forth.
Methodology;
The study builds on data collected from the Headquarters
program offices. The bulk of the information comes from interviews
conducted in Headquarters, to which is added information gathered
in telephone interviews with two Regions and two Air program offices
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. In all Headquarters
interviews, the interviewees were asked to speak in terms of EPA
overseeing the States, not Headquarters overseeing the Regions.
For each of the 13 delegated programs, the interviewers met with
one or two people expert on the subject of State oversight, using
a standard, interview format reflected in the outline of this report.
Report format; . -
The information collected for this report is presented in
Chapters III-V. Chapter III explores EPA's general approach and
attitude towards oversight. Chapter IV presents an analysis of
how the oversight process is conducted and Chapter V explores in
more detail how oversight of specific program activities is conducted
The programs interviewed are listed below, under the rele-
vant program office.
-------
PROGRAM OFFICES INTERVIEWED
Office of Wa-ter:
o Drinking Water
o UIC
o Water Planning
o Permits
o Compliance
o Construction Grants
Office,of Air, Noise and Radiation:
o Air Enforcement
o Existing Sources
o New Sources
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
o RCRA Permits
o RCRA Compliance Monitoring
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances:
o Pesticides Enforcement
Office of Administration:
o Grants Administration Division
-------
-3-
Chapter II,
MAJOR FINDINGS
1. Oversight Policy and Approach
o The top two-reasons cited by the programs for conducting
oversight are: 1) to .make sure the purposes of the enabling
legislation are being met (5 programs), and 2) to develop a
cooperative relationship with the States (3 programs).
o The lack of a consistent national policy/guidance is identi-
fied by 85% of the program offices as the weakest aspect
of SPA oversight.
o 62% of EPA program offices do not have written guidelines
for oversight of delegated State programs.
o EPA's oversight system varies a great deal from Region to
. Region, in terms of both purpose and methods.
o Three Regions have written Regional oversight.guidance currently
in operation.
o The Regional Offices strongly emphasize the need for training
of Regional and State staff, for technical assistance to
the States, and for improvements in enforcement and com-
pliance.
2. Implementation of.Oversight
o EPA sets and tracks formal oversight objectives. In 75% of
the program offices, Headquarters sets and tracks oversight
objectives for the Regions. 95% of the Regions set and
track oversight objectives with the States.
o 50% of EPA's programs target the examination of State ac-
complishments in speci-fic activities such as permit develop-
ment and grant reviews.
o 95% of the program offices include the results of review and
evaluation of State programs in an accountability document.
o The overall purpose of review of State program planning and
management is to ensure that the States are complying with
regulations and that the purposes of the- enabling legislation
are being met.
-------
-4-
o 80% of the program offices, stated the primary reason for
communication between EPA and the States is to discuss
specific problems in State programs. Telephone calls are
the primary means of communication for 95% of EPA's programs.
o EPA does not emphasize .training and technical assistance:
- _ No formal training is provided for Regional staff con-
ducting oversight;
Training and technical assistance for State staff are not
emphasized when problems in State programs are found,
unless there is major turnover in State staff;
- Use of IPAs for State assistance is virtually
non-existent; and
- EPA specialists are used very infrequently to directly
assist States, and only for very short periods of time
(i.e., several days).
3. Specific Oversight Activities; Review of Permits/Grants and
Cbmpl iance Mon i tor ing/Enf brcerneh t '
"" ..... *
o The primary purpose of review and evaluation of permits/ grants
is to ensure compliance with EPA regulations and a focus
on national priorities.
Permits/Grants
o When individual mistakes are found in either active or
closed permit/grant files, EPA most often works with thi
State to correct specific errors.
o 83% of the programs report that wnen permit/grant files are
reviewed, Regions target specific categories (i.e., major
permits vs. minor permits).
Compliance/Enforcement . - '
»
o No one method dominates selection of compliance monitor-
ing/enforcement files for review.
o Negotiation with States is the preferred EPA response to
patterns of problems in State investigation and enforce-
ment cases.
-------
-5-
CHAPTER III. HOW PROGRAMS VIEW AND APPROACH OVERSIGHT
The objective of this chapter is to facilitate an under-
standing of the philosophy and general approach behind EPA's
oversight of State programs. To do this, this section presents
the definition and objectives of oversight in general, the status
of oversight guidance, incentives for State cooperation, and the
overall strengths and weaknesses of EPA oversight policy. This
general information provides the background for the more specific
details of the oversight process described in Chapters IV and V.
1. OVERSIGHT GUIDANCE
In trying to depict how EPA currently conducts oversight,
the first step was to determine how much formal oversight guidance
.is.used by Headquarters and the Regions when overseeing environ-
mental programs delegated to _the States.
The responses to this question show there is only "a brief
history of specific oversight guidance in the Agency. However,
'as delegation becomes a reality for a high percentage of EPA's
programs, the Agency program offices are beginning to turn their
attention to specific guidance for the Regions to use when overseeing
delegated programs. One interviewee said, "Getting Regional
oversight of States off the ground is dominating our thoughts."
a. Oversight guidance
Six of the 13 program offices interviewed said they do have
defined, written guidance for the Regions to use when doing
oversight. Of those six, two said their system has been in
place less than four months, and another said the guidance was
outdated.
Of the seven programs that,do not have specific oversight
gu-idance, two have plans in draft stages.
b. Flexibility
For the six programs that have oversight, guidance, half
said the Regions had a lot of flexibility in its use. Two said
that the Regions have some flexibility in using Headquarters
oversight guidance, and one reported no flexibility.
-------
-6-
c. Regional Variation
Respondents reported considerable Regional variation in
the oversight process. Half reported a great deal of variation,
while half reported some variation.
Those program offices allowing Regional variation in the
oversight process gave several reasons, including: differences
Li«wW«Ben the States in each Region, emphasis on decentralization,
relations between particular States and their Regions, and maturity
of State programs.
. One respondent said, "Our policy is not a 'get out of the
way and let the States do it1 policy. We do want the States to
have a clear understanding of how overview will be done (methods
and procedures), but we also want to allow for creative thinking
[by the States] ."
Regional View
a. Oversight policy ' .
All 10 Regions were surveyed to find out which have an
oversight policy. Three Regions have a written oversight policy
for delegated State programs. Of the seven remaining, two are in
the process of developing a policy, one has a written policy
that has not yet been implemented and another has a policy, but it
is not written down.
Response Number of respondents
Policy 3
No policy 7
b. Flexibility
Two Regions were surveyed for this and all the following
questions. Both Regions reported a great deal of flexibility in
using oversight guidance from Headquarters.
One Region pointed out that flexibility is most evident when
Regional guidance preceded Headquarters guidance. The other
Region reported all programs except one have a great deal of
flexibility despite required accountability systems and annual
reviews. Even the remaining program has some degree of flexibility,
after minimum requirements are met.
-------
/'
-7-
2. HEADQUARTERS/REGIONAL OVERSIGHT OBJECTIVES
One aim of the study was to determine if formal oversight
objectives are currently developed and tracked by Headquarters
and the Regional Offices.
Although in general most of the programs said they did
not have national guidance or a defined system of oversight,
most Headquarters program offices do set formal oversight
objectives for the Regional oversight of State programs. The
Regional Offices in turn set oversight objectives in cooperation
with the States. -
Nine of the 13 program offices interviewed said Headquarters
does set and track formal, written oversight objectives for
the Regions at the beginning of the year. All but one of those
offices reported that the Regions develop oversight objectives
using State input.
Regional View
Both Regions develop written oversight objectives together
with the States. These objectives-are tracked, primarily
through grant agreements. One Region also uses State-EPA Agreements
(SEAs) and EPA's personnel performance standards. The other
Region prefers grant agreements, which can be used as an EPA
request for specific State performance, and views SEAs primarily
as State requests for EPA action.
3. DELEGATED AUTHORITY
When asked whether the States' hav.ing delegated authority,
primacy, or authorization to run a program has an impact on
oversight, most respondents (nine of 13) said this variation .
made no difference in their oversight policy..
Four program offices did perceive a difference in oversight
pplicy dependent on whether the States had delegated authority,.
primacy, 'or authorization. However; they were unable to describe
specific differences.
Regional view
The two Regions^ like the program offices, generally
reported no differences in oversight policy.
-------
4. INCENTIVES FOR STATE COOPERATION/COMPLIANCE WITH EPA POLICY
An additional focus of the inquiry was whether incentives
exist for States to cooperate with EPA program guidance.
Nine of 13 respondents reported that incentives are built
into their oversight programs. Funding/grants and greater State
autonomy were mentioned most frequently, by five and three
respondents respectively. Keeping "the Feds out of [States']
hair" was cited as a strong incentive. Of the .four respondents
who did not perceive incentives, two reported professionalism as
an implicit incentive.
Regional View
One Region perceiving its program as having incentives
~ited EPA's role in setting similar standards between States
to eliminate an unfair competitive edge in industrial recruit-
ment as the greatest incentive. The same Region also viewed
grants and technical assistance as incentives, as well as "our
being there and caring."
The other Region described its oversight program as having
"very long sticks and short carrots."
5. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF OVERSIGHT
The following responses describe a general picture of
oversight as viewed from Headquarters program offices. Along
with giving a summary view, program offices categorized their
oversight program as either an ongoing or an audit system.
Five of the 13 respondents defined oversight as ensuring
States meet the requirements of the law and EPA policy. Three
respondents described oversight as a cooperative State-EPA effort,
Of these three, one respondent emhpasized the identification
and correction of problems, and interstate communication of
innovative solutions.
Description of oversight Number of times mentioned
Ensure requirements of law '
and policy are met 5
Develop and maintain cooperative
State-EPA relationship 3
Early warning system to identify
problems 2
Assess State capabilities 1
Describe critical areas for State
program implementation and
develop performance standards 1
Program is inconsistent 1
-------
Type of oversight
Ongoing only
Audit only
Ongoing and audit
Number of times mentioned
9
0
3
RegJLonal View
One Region said it aims to assure adequate State performance
and conducts audits at certain points during the year. The
other Region emphasizes developing a good working relationship
with the States, based on mutual understanding of State and EPA
goals and objectives. For the second Region, EPA requirements
and formal objectives are viewed in the context of the State/EPA
relationship. This Region has an ongoing oversight system.
6. STRENGTHS IN OVERSIGHT PROCEDURE
Program representatives were asked to describe the strengths
of their oversight system. . .
Responses varied widely. Four respondents identified over^.
sight functions such as information collection and evaluation as
strong points of Regional oversight. Program areas such as permits,
inspection, and compliance were mentioned by an additional four
respondents. Three emphasized maintaining a cooperative relationship
with the States as the main strength in oversight. Each program
felt they were.doing well in a given area except for two offices,
which stated they were.doing nothing or very little well.
Program responses below are grouped into .three main categories.
Area of oversight
Oversight functions:
Information collection
Evaluation
3
1
Number of times mentioned
Program areas:
Permits . 2
Inspections 1
Compliance 1
Other:
Cooperative relation-
ship with States 3
Meeting legal require-
ments 1
Nothing specific, pro-
gram runs well 1
Not doing well in any area 2
-------
-10-
Regional View
Both Regions emphasized the importance of a good relationship
with the States.
One Region cited as a strength in oversight its willingness
to allow a great deal of State input (which results in increased
State commitment) and to have the involvement of high level Regional
and State officials in planning goals. The Region identified the
willingness of its staff to make specific commitments as an addi-
tional strength.
7.
AREAS OF OVERSIGHT WHICH NEED IMPROVEMENT
Programs were asked to describe which areas of their oversight
process need to be strengthened. . .
Respondents identified a variety of areas for improvement.
Eleven offices cited the lack of a consistent national oversight
policy as a major problem. Other areas mentioned were the need
for improved State accountability, and the lack of incentives
and leverage to encourage State compliance. One office cited
the need for "national program guidance for State reviews, the
assurance guidance will be implemented, and resources to do the
job."
Weak areas in oversight
Consistent national policy/guidance
State accountability
Front-end planning for Regions and States
incentives/leverage -
Resources (people)
Feedback on EPA policy
Training
Self-initiated reviews
Number of times mentioned
11
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
-------
-11-
Reqional View
.Both Regions emphasized the need for training.
One Region emphasized training in oversight for Regional
staff, particularly in techniques for assisting poor performance
States without making them feel guilty. They would also like to
be able to reduce oversight for States that are managing their
delegated programs well.
The other Region pointed out the need for staff capable of
providing training and technical assistance to States does not
decrease with delegation. "Oversight and technical assistance
are the name of the.game." Therefore senior, experienced staff
should not be cut from Regional Offices when programs are delegated.
This Region also emphasized the need for improvements in enforcement
and compliance.
-------
-12-
CHAPTER IV. HOW THE PROGRAMS CONDUCT OVERSIGHT
This chapter examines the nuts and bolts issue of how EPA
conducts its oversight. Topics discussed include the specific
elements of a State program looked at in oversight, when reviews
are done, and the uses of review results. Respondents explained
the overall purpose of their oversight, defined their oversight
goal and the methods used to achieve that goal*
The issue of State-EPA communication is also explored in this
section. Respondents discuss both the reasons for and methods of
communication with the States, as well as their formal information
collection systems. A"discussion of training of EPA and State
employees, and the use of EPA specialists and IPAs is included
in this chapter as well.
1. SPECIFIC OVERSIGHT ELEMENTS
In order to gain an understanding of the goal of Agency
oversight, it is important to note what the program offices look
at when'overseeing a delegated program.
a. General Philosophy
One program office said it looks at each specific and discrete
element of a State program;
Two programs said they look at some elements of the program;
Six said they look at the program as a whole, not at any
specific elements, and
Three program offices said they look at something totally
different (i.e. results, compliance outcomes, basis for and number
of permits).
b. Specific Items Overseen
When asked to identify specific elements overviewed, those
elements selected most frequently from a provided list were:
Number of .times
Element mentioned
Compliance and monitoring procedures 7
Grants 5
Overall program planning and management 5
Draft permits 4
Final permits 4
Financial and accounting procedures 4
Permft process and procedures 3
In-progress and completed enforcement actions 3
Other (Specific items spelled out in the.law) 1
-------
-13-
c. Most Important Areas__o£ Oversight
Interviewers asked each program office to identify what
area is most important in their overview of State programs.
Those items identified include:
Number of times
Area ' mentioned
Permits and permitting 2
Grant review 2
File review/audit 2
Up-front planning ' 2
Fulfillment by States of inspection guidance and
annual review l
Daily contact to develop an early warning system 1
Pretreatment program implementation 1
Compliance trends . 1
Overall program management 1
Regional View
Of the two Regional offices interviewed/ one-said it reviews
each program element (named .In 'b1 above). The other Region
said it looks at the program as a whole. That Region said it
performs a more stringent overview in the first year of delegation
and subsequently aims to reduce reviews of specific program
elements in favor of overall program planning and management.
One Region said it views oversight as a package, with all-
elements equally important; the other cited review of compliance
monitoring procedures as their main concern.
2. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF OVERALL PROGRAM PLANNING, MANAGEMENT
The following series of questions deals with why and how
programs conduct reviews and evaluations of the States' overall
program planning and management. The questions sought to determine
any underlying philosophies guiding the Agency in overseeing the
States.
a. Overall Purpose
Interviewers first asked each respondent to define the
overall purpose of their oversight activities. The purposes of
review and evaluation mentioned most often are: to make sure
regulations are being followed, to evaluate grant commitments and
to determine whether the purpose of the enabling legislation is
being met.
-------
-14-
Review of Program Planning and Management;
Primary Purpose
Number of times
mentioned
Ensure States are complying with regulations
Ensure the pvrposes of the program (i.e. CAA, CWA)
are being met
Identify State problems
Ensure State are meeting grant commitments
Ensure States have adequate resources/capacity to
operate the program
4
2
2
After that general question, the 13 program representatives
pointed out, from a provided list, one or more specific elements
which could also be counted as purposes of their review and evaluation,
Secondary Purposes
Assure consistency with national policy
Identify problems in State programs
Ensure proper use of funds
Compare State accomplishments against commitments
information collection to fulfill congressional
requirements
Identify needs for technical assistance/training
Identify patterns of mistakes in State decisions
Identify priority State environmental problems
Identify individual mistakes in State decisions
b. Goal of Review
Number of times
mentioned
' . 12
9
9
9
8
8
6
5
4
Avoiding mistakes in State programs is the most frequently
cited goal of Regional review.
Goal
Responses
Avoid big mistakes
Avoid most mistakes
Other:
Avoid most big mistakes
Avoid a pattern of mistakes
Determine what is positive about a program
and spread the word
No goal, we haven't determined what a mistake is
We don't grade papers, but seek to evaluate
effectiveness of the overall program
4
4
5
-------
-15-
\
c. Methods of Review
In the 13 program interviews conducted, 11 mentioned on-site
interviews as one method they use in conducting oversight. Prom a
provided list, the respondents selected one or more methods they
use in oversight. The small number of open file reviews done
suggest that few real-time reviews and many after-the-fact reviews
are conducted.
Six programs said they do not conduct file reviews, open or
closed, as a part of the overall program review and evaluation.
Number of times
Methods mentioned
On-site interviews 11
Mid-year or annual evaluation 10
Review of required State reports 8
Front-end planning . 8
Telephone . 8
Meetings in State offices 7
File reviews, complete . .6
File reviews, open . . 4
Financial audits . - ' . . 3
d. Time-frame'for Reviews
For this question, the programs come down evenly divided on
the question of real-time or after-the-fact reviews. There is
some inconsistency between those programs who said they do
real-time reviews in part *c" above and those programs that
said they do real-time reviews in this question. The programs that
said they do after-the-fact reviews in 'c1 and in this question
are consistent.
Response Yes
After-the-fact reviews . 6
Real-time reviews 5
Both . 2
e. Overview of How Results are Used
From a provided list, respondents identified how they
use the information acquired during oversight.
Use Number of times mentioned
Negotiate and place conditions in grants 9
Provide on-site assistance/consultation 7
Provide training to State employees 6
Make changes in grant funding . 5
Provide technical reports, manuals, other documents 4
Intervene in open or active State permits/actions 2
Override State decisions on completed permits/actions 2
-------
-16-
Regional View
The same Region that said it oversees specific elements in a
program indicated specific reasons for doing evaluations, while
the other Region said its primary purpose is to ensure the States
meet Federal requirements, and to work with the States as a partner.
Both Regions seek to avoid the big mistakes, and said they conduct
predominantly real-time reviews.
In performing oversight, one Region said it uses front-end
planning and mid-year/annual evaluations while the other said it
emphasizes encouraging informal relationships and frequent
face-to-face meetings.
3. USE OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION RESULTS
a . Exit Briefings
All but one of the programs interviewed said they have
exit briefings, reports or close-out meetings at the conclusion
of a review. One respondent added this did vary from Region
to Region.
b. Use of Results in Policy Documents
. *
Twelve of 13 respondents said the results of reviews are fed
into a policy or accountability document. The one respondent
who said results were not used reported much regional variation.
c. Application of Results to Existing Agreements
The programs that feed the. review results into some type of
policy document named several specific documents:
Uses Number of times mentioned
Grant agreement 6
State-EPA Agreement (SEA) 3
Memorandum of Agreement 2
Mid-year report 1
Cooperative Agreement . 1
Annual review 1
d. Follow-yg
Eleven of the 13 programs said they do follow-up to see what
tne States do with the review results. Some added that this
occurs during the next regularly scheduled review.
Regional View
«
Both Regions questioned said they have exit briefings and
follow-up after an evaluation.
-------
-17-
4. CHANGES IN OVERSIGHT LEVEL
One specific result of review and evaluation is the possible
changing in the level of future oversight activities. Most
program offices indicated their level of oversight does change
based on past State performance. Only one said their program is
"fairly well set in concrete." Another went so far as to.say
that oversight procedures for its program are "set in jello."
Several program offices did say their formal reporting
systems were set by law and therefore can not be adjusted.
a. Kinds of Changes Yes
Adjust the amount of State autonomy '9
Change the frequency of reviews, assistance 3
Other (Depends on Region, State capabilities) 2
b. Effects of Changes in State Staff
. Most- respondents said turnover, in State staffs rarely cause
any problems. Specific actions taken by the Agency due to'a .
Change in State staff are:
Action
Provide special training
Intensify oversight
Do nothing
Other:
Provide contract dollars if needed
Develop lines of communication
Varies by Region
Depends on the staff level of the change
Number of times
mentioned
6
4
1
4
Regional View
The two Regions questioned take sharply different approaches
to flexibility in the level of oversight. One tends to make no
adjustments, while the other will adjust oversight based on State
performance and aims to maintain established State capability.
In regard to a change in State staff, one Region said it
does provide special'training. The other Region said a change in
State staff is not a problem since the States promote from within.
This Region does work to get to know the new people in order to
maintain good communications.
-------
-18-
5. USE OF SPECIALISTS, IPAs, TRAINING OF STATE EMPLOYEES
One possible result of oversight could be the use of EPA
specialists or IPAs, or the training of State people operating the
programs. Current practices in these areas are examined below.
a. Specialists
When EPA specialists are used as a result of review and
evaluation, they are usually placed in the State office for
x ppriod of several days. Although infrequently used, special-
ists are usually brought in as a result both of State request
and EPA suggestion. In no program were EPA specialists used
solely at EPA's suggestion.
Number of times
Where mentioned
In the State office 7
On-site at the facility 3
Other 4
Duration
Days . -6
Months 2
Six months - . ' . 1
One year 0
Source of Request
State request 4
EPA suggestion 0
Both 6
b. IPAs
Seven of the 13 program offices interviewed indicated they
do, on occasion, use the Intergovernmental Personnel Act to
provide needed personnel to a State. However, those programs that
said IPAs are used also said that at the most this represented only
one or two people per year per Region.
c. Training of State Employees
If training of State employees is provided as a result of an
evaluation, it is evenly distributed between on-the-job, in the
Regional office, in the State office and at other facilities.
Number of times
Where mentioned
In the State office ' 5
In the Regional office 4
On-the-job 4
In Headquarters 1
Other (seminars, universities) 3
-------
-19-
The number of State employees trained in a Region per year
ranges from 10 to several hundred. One interviewee said, "We
should do more training. State staff can be as capable [as EPA
staffs], if not more so."
Regional View
There is Regional variation in the use of EPA specialists and
IPAs. Both Regional representatives said their Regions do
offer training for State employees. However, one Regional
spokesman emphasized the need for training" funds in the
budget and for an increased use of IPAs. The same spokesman said the
personnel provided by Regions through IPAs are of high quality
(since the States are fami-liar with Regional personnel), and
therefore the IPA system is not abused in the Regions.
6. OVERSIGHT TRAINING FOR REGIONAL STAFF
None of the 13 program representatives said their program
has a formal training program for Regional staff conducting
oversight.
Some program offices did indicate the need for .such a program,
while a few said training programs like this are: being developed
for. use in 1984. . -.,-.. - '
v-
Regional View
Both Regions interviewed said they basically have only
informal training programs for Regional staff conducting oversight.
One Region has formal training proposed for 1984, the other
relies on informal, on-the-job training in the form of a developmental
program for senior staff. Use of junior staff to perform oversight
is not viewed as appropriate.
7.. REGIONAL-STATE COMMUNICATION
As one interviewee pointed out, "Oversight is easy when you
have good communication with a State." Another said, "We have
more communication with some States. If we get a lot of
communication, we know the status of the program. If there is no
communication, we don't know and therefore we tend to think the
program is bad.". ;
The following responses give an idea of how EPA and the
States communicate on oversight matters.
a. Methods of Communication
From a provided list, 12 program respondents selected the
telephone as the means of communication they use the most.
Respondents could select more than one method.
-------
-20-
Method of Conrniunication
Telephone
Meetings in State offices
Meetings in SPA offices
Informal get-togethers
Written communication
b. Reasons for Communication
Number of times mentioned
12
4
3
3
3
An opportunity to discuss specific problems in a State
program was mentioned by 10 out of the 13 program respondents as
the most important reason for communication.
Reason
Number of times mentioned
To discuss specific problems in State programs
To communicate a change in EPA rules and regs
To collect basic information
To find out State needs
c. Initiator of Communication
10
5
4
3
. There is no clear leader in who,, the States or the Agency,
initiates contact. Most respondents said it depends- on the.
situation. ' - .
d. Frequency
All but one of the 13 program offices said the Regions and the
States communicate several times a month, eight of those 12 adding
that contact is usually weekly,, if not daily. The other respondent
said communication varies a great deal from Region to Region.
e. Learning of State Needs
EPA spokesmen said the Agency usually learns of State needs
three ways (some respondents gave more than one answer).
Responses
Phone calls
Regularly scheduled meetings
Other (intermittent meetings, letters)
Regional View
Number of times mentioned
10
8
2
The two Regions interviewed showed an interesting contrast
in their reasons for and methods of communication with the
States.
«0ne Region said it relies mostly on meetings in State offices
for contact, but also uses the other modes of communication
mentioned above. This Region said the most important reason for
-------
-21-
contact is to communicate changes in EPA rules and regulations
and that i.t usually initiates contact with its States. This
Region reported direct communication occurring several times a
month and said they usually learn of State needs through regularly
scheduled meetings and complaints/alerts from third parties.
The other Region interviewed said the most important reason
for contact is to maintain good working relationships with the
State, and that both the States and the Region initiate contact.
This Region said it relies primarily on telephone calls and
informal get-togethers and reported daily direct communication
with the States. Daily contact allows this Region to be
aware of State needs and, "if you pay attention to the States,
you will find out as you go along."
8. .FORMAL INFORMATION COLLECTION SYSTEM
This study found that 10 of 13 programs do have a formal
reporting or information collection system as a part of their over-
sight system and the information collected is used for several
purposes, mainly to measure progress or success and to allocate-
grant funds.
a. Names.of Systems used .
PCS -- Permit Compliance System -- .." ,
Quarterly Non-compliance Reports i
GICS Grants Information Control System .
MSIS Model State Information System
APRS Annual Federal Reporting System
MAS Management Accountability System
FRDS Federal Reporting Data System .
HWDMS Hazardous Waste Data Management System
Grants Regulation System
b. Types of Information Collected
Repondents reported they collected information on grants,
permits (how many issued, when, expiration date), inspections
and compliance rates (number of violations).
c. Uses of Information
From a provided list, the 13 interviewees selected uses for the
information collected.
Number of times
Uses . mentioned
To measure progress or success 8
To allocate grant funds 4
To fulfill legal or policy requirements 4
To plan the obligation and outlay of funds 3
Other: 6
Congressional inquiry (2)
Budget (2)
Identify problems to justify increasing inspections
Track commitments
-------
-22-
Regional View
Both Regions have a formal reporting or information sys-
tem and use data to measure progress in meeting program
objectives.
In both Regions, the systems feed into existing ones for
programs. In'addition to the main purpose of data collection
described above, one Region also uses data to fulfill legal or
policy obligations and to identify problems. The other Region
uses Construction Grants data to plan the obligation and out-
lay of funds.
-------
-23-
CHAPTER V.
HOW THE PROGRAMS REVIEW AND EVALUATE PERMITS/GRANTS
AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING/ENFORCEMENT
Discovering how programs review and evaluate specific acti-
vities touches at the core of oversight. Two oversight activity
categories permits and grants, and compliance^ monitoring and
enforcement were selected for close examination. The program
responses provide more information on how two specific acti-
vities are reviewed and evaluated in the oversight process.
Not every program answered both the permit/grant and
the compliance monitoring/enforcement sections. Usually, -
one of the two categories was selected depending upon which one
applied to the particular program's activities.
1. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PERMITS AND GRANTS
a. Purpose . , . . , .
In order to understand why the programs review perm-its
and grants, it is.important to know the program's purpose in
doing the review.
Most of the respondents said the purpose of reviewing permits
and grants was to ensure the States are complying with program
regulations. Several mentioned the purpose is to make sure the
State program.is focusing on national priorities as outlined
in the various program policy guidances. Two programs said the
purpose of review is to evaluate .how well the States make
decisions on spending grant funds.
The responses did not cluster around a particular item,
although all emphasized that in reviewing permits and grants
they are in some way checking up on the States, rather than
intentionally seeking ways to assist them.
Response
Number of times
mentioned
Ensure States are complying with regulations 4
Ensure States are focusing on national priorities 3
Evaluate how States are choosing to spend grant funds 2
Ensure proper procedures and data analysis is being
used 1
Ensure that acceptable results are being obtained 1
-------
-24-
b. Method of file selection
One objective of the study was to determine what method is
used to select the permit or grant files to be reviewed.
From a provided list, six programs selected "target
specific classes and examine all the files in that class,
major and minor." Three programs look at a percentage
frr** cnocial classes. A few evaluate a random selection of
permits or grants drawn from the total file inventory.
Number of times
Methods . selected
All permits/grants in one or more specified
classes 6
Fixed percentage of permits/grants, randomly
selected from specified classes 3
Fixed percentage of permits/grants, randomly
selected from general inventory 2
c. Time-frame .."".-
A purpose of the study was to ascertain whether file
reviews are real-time or after-the-fact.
The responses showed that reviews are almost evenly divided
between those two time-frames.
Number of times
Response selected
After-the-fact 5
Real-time 3
Both 1
A goal of the study was. to discover how EPA responds in
the following situations:
d. Mistakes in draft permits/grafts
Generally, the programs are fairly low-key about individual
mistaken at the draft stage. Most programs said they negotiate
and work with the State to correct the error.
-------
-25-
Response
Negotiate to satisfy requirements
Due to State program variation, mistakes
are inevitable
All errors are worked out before they become
a problem
Tell States to correct
EPA corrects the problem
Number of times
mentioned
1
1
1
e. Mistakes in final permits/grants
The usual response is to direct the State to correct the
error. Several programs said there are never errors in the
final permits because mistakes are always discovered and corrected
in the draft stage.
Response
* ' f
Mistakes are always corrected:in draft stage
Downplay and correct, unless the State acted
in bad-faith
Instruct the States to correct the mistakes
Consult with the States, in order to prevent
errors
Number of times
mentioned
2
1
f. Patterns of mistakes
Overall, training is provided in response to patterns of
mistakes. Otherwise, EPA makes comments and requires appro-
priate changes to-be made in future permits/grants.
Response
Provide training
Make comments and 'require changes in future
permits/grants
SPA corrects the sample, ignores the rest
Other:
Provide training, money and exert political
pressure
Errors are worked out in advance
Place conditions on grants
Number of times
mentioned
3
I
3
-------
-26-
Regional View
One Region identified its purpose for reviewing permits or
grants as a method to ascertain whether the State has adequate
resources to run a uniform and consistent program. The other
Region reviews permits and grants in order to spot mistakes that
might develop into major problems.
Both Regions target certain specified classes of permits
or grants to review. One Region said they take a "judgment
sample," based on their knowledge of problem areas. Reviews in
both Regions are real-time and after-the-fact.
The general response to mistakes in permits and grants is
to work with the States to correct the problem. When in draft
form, each Region offers comments to bring the mistake to the
attention of the State. Response to mistakes in final permits
and grants varies, depending on the situation and severity.
One Region said it waits to see if a pattern develops.
Patterns of mistakes warrant close negotiation with the State
to solve the problem. One Region noted patterns often occur
when new regulations do not get communicated to the States.
2.
REVIEW AND EVALUATION 'OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND
ENFORCEMENT
Seven aspects of EPA's review and evaluation of compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities are presented in the
following subjects.
a.
Purpose
The study sought to determine why compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities are reviewed by the Regional Offices.
From the responses, it is clear that no one purpose
dominates. There is a slight emphasis on reviewing in oraer
to assess -the response of the States to violations and problems
and to .ensure the facilities are operating in compliance.
Response
Number .of times
mentioned
Adequacy of response to problems/violations 2
Ensure facilities operating in compliance 2
Determine if priorities are being met 1
overall program improvement 1
Determine
-------
-27-
b.
Method of file selection
The study showed there is a great deal of variation in
the way inspection and/or case files are selected for review.
Response
Fixed percentage of inspection/case files,
randomly selected
Fixed percentage of inspection/case files,
randomly selected from specified
categories
All files from specified categories
Other: Selection based on Region's criteria
Number -of times
mentioned
2
2
3
Respondents were asked how their programs, through the
Regional Offices, respond in the following situations:
c. Mistakes in active inspection files * . _
Generally, the respondents said the Regional Offices
work with the States to correct errors, but some Regions -
merely identify the problem in a program review.
Response
Notify State and work to correct problem
Note problem in program review
Response varies a great deal
Number of times
mentioned
3
2
1
d. Inappropriate State action in active enforcement case files
If the Regional Office finds the State has taken ah inappropriate
action,.the usual response is to .work with the State to correct
the .problem. If the situation- is not corrected or if the problem
is severe, then EPA takes a more active role and intervenes.
- Response
Work with State
Step in if case is severe
Response.varies from Region to Region
No cases of inappropriate action
Number of times
mentioned
3
3
1
1
-------
-28-
Inadequate State investigation in closed inspection file
Responses showed there is a wide variation of actions
taken if EPA finds an inadequate State investigation in a
closed inspection file.
Number of times
Response mentioned
Allow States the opportunity to correct
Work with States
If no action, move on to litigation
Issue notice of violation to the source
Put mistakes in program summary
EPA repeats inspection
2
1
1
1
1
1
f. Inappropriate State action in closed enforcement case
The few (4) who responded to this question, indicated
they generally work with the States to correct the problem.
g. Patterns of problems ininvestigation or'enforcement cases
Negotiation is the preferred EPA response when patterns
of problems in investigation or enforcement cases are found.
Response
Work with States to correct
Strengthen planning process
Provide assistance and training
Tighten up on States to correct the problem
Number of times
mentioned
4
1
1
1
Regional View
In regards to the purpose of reviewing compliance moni-
toring and enforcement, one Region alms for consistency with
established procedures. The other Region emphasized enforcement
is a weak area in their oversight program, because enforcement
is not well defined and a very sensitive area with the States.
In reviewing compliance monitoring and enforcement files, boih
Regions choose special classes to examine.
-------
-29-
In terms of mistakes in active inspection files, both Re-
gions look for. a pattern and established practice of mistakes.
One Region said it will work with the States .to correct indi-
vidual mistakes but usually does not get involved in enforce-
ment actions, while the other said it will take direct enforce-
ment action,.but only after conferring with a State.
When asked what it did if it finds a closed State investi-
gation .or enforcement action to be inadequate, one Region said
it does'not review closed inspection/enforcement files, the
other, said it views compliance/enforcement as ongoing; there-
fore, those files are never closed. That Region added that
it looks-:for patterns of mistakes and asks the^State to correct
major errors. This Region said it also may provide additional
training or increase the number of joint EPA/State inspections
performed each year. . - >
------- |