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. . - > ------- |