I
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Special Report
Congressional Request
Regarding EPA Clean Water
Enforcement Actions
Report No. 2005-S-00001
October 18, 2004
-------
Report Contributors:
Julie Hamann
Gerry Snyder
Andrew Creath
Renee McGhee-Lenart
Dan Engelberg
Kwai Chan
Abbreviations
CAFO
CSO
FTE
FY
ICIS
NPDES
OECA
DIG
SSO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Combined Sewer Overflows
Full-Time Equivalent
Fiscal Year
Integrated Compliance Information System
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Inspector General
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2005-S-00001
October 18, 2004
Why We Did This Review
yardi20M request &ai we
farther evaluate BPA's claim
thitt the decline in cfean water
for fey a diversion
of these «soaKs«s to enforce
vie Nations. To address this
determine whether:
(I) ii takes wore resources to
adckess wet weather clean
EPA resources $a wet weather
gdistity' areas; a*Kl (3) the
number of enforcement actions
defined over th» fe$t 5 fiscal
Background
Consent was raised about the
A^tty V&Mfttnittaeat *o flte
pfeaii water enforcement
function when a 2005 internal
KPt'BS enforcement actions
3
For fljrt&er Information,
conteicf oMr Office of
Congressional antf PuWle
Uabwm at (202) 5$6^391.
Wport,
cHcJuw die ftrftowtng Hnki
Congressional Request Regarding
EPA Clean Water Enforcement Actions
What We Found
According to respondents from the 10 EPA regions, wet weather enforcement cases
require more resources to complete than traditional National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions. Further, 8 of the 10 regions
said that conducting enforcement actions against combined sewer
overflows/sanitary sewer overflows requires more resources than other types of wet
weather actions.
Evidence suggests that EPA has shifted NPDES compliance and enforcement staff
from traditional NPDES program activities to work on wet weather issues. All five
of the EPA regions that provided information from Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 through
2003 delineating traditional and wet weather resources indicated that they have
shifted resources to address wet weather violations of the Clean Water Act.
Contrary to the implicit assumption stated in the information request, the annual
number of EPA formal NPDES enforcement actions slightly increased rather than
decreased between FY 1999 to FY 2003. However, the change was not uniform
over this period. A large increase occurred at the beginning of the period, followed
by a large 1-year decline. Clean Water Act enforcement actions have increased in
the last 2 fiscal years.
Based on these findings, we cannot conclusively support or refute EPA's claim that
a decline in EPA formal NPDES enforcement actions has been compensated for by
a diversion of these NPDES resources against wet weather discharge violations.
Continuous, significant shift of resources toward addressing wet weather cases over
the last 5 years has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the share of
wet weather enforcement actions, which we would have expected to see if EPA's
assertion were true. However, we could neither prove nor disprove EPA's 2003
assertion due to a lack of staffing data and the fact that other potential explanations
may exist for the absence of a correlation. Other possible explanations include a
lag between resource inputs and enforcement actions and a possible increase in non-
enforcement-reiated activities by EPA staff.
-------
-------
Table of Contents
At a Glance
Results of Special Review
Introduction 1
Regional Officials Indicate That Wet Weather Cases
Are More Resource Intensive than Traditional Actions 2
Evidence Suggests NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Staff
Have Shifted to Wet Weather Activities 2
Enforcement Actions Have Increased Slightly in Last 5 Years 3
Conclusion 4
A Background 6
B Scope and Methodology 8
C EPA NPDES Compliance and Enforcement FTEs 10
D EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions 12
E EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions and NPDES Compliance
and Enforcement Staff (Data from Regions 3,4,5,8, and 10 Only) 15
F Distribution 17
-------
Results of Special Review
Introduction
Enforcement against Clean Water Act violations is an essential component of the nation's water
pollution control program The importance EPA places on enforcement is illustrated by its setting
"compliance and environmental stewardship" as one of its five strategic goals. However, concern
was raised about the Agency's commitment to the clean water enforcement function when a 2003
internal report noted that formal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
enforcement actions against major facilities had declined over the previous 3 years. EPA officials
explained the decline by declaring that an increasing share of EPA's clean water enforcement
efforts are directed toward correcting more complex wet weather violations of the Clean Water
Act. Because these cases are more complex in EPA's view, the Agency says the decline in actions
does not reflect a decrease in the Agency's commitment to enforcing the Clean Water Act, since it
has been compensated for by a diversion of NPDES resources to enforce against wet weather
discharge violations. We reported on this issue in an October 2003 report. In a subsequent March
2004 letter, we were asked to further examine this claim
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is responsible for ensuring
facilities comply with their NPDES permits. Under EPA's NPDES program, permits are issued to
point source dischargers to control the levels of pollutants entering surface waters. Point source
discharges include those coming from the
traditional large major facilities as well as
discharges associated with wet weather
issues. Wet weather pollution is the result of
excess water following a rainfall. Point
source dischargers include those in the
accompanying table.
Point Source Dischargers
Municipal wastewater treatment facilities
Industrial wastewater treatment facilities
Wet weather sources:
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
Stormwater discharges
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
This report responds to the request that we
further evaluate EPA's claim that the decline ^^-^^^^^^^^
in EPA formal NPDES enforcement actions has been compensated for by a diversion of these
NPDES resources to enforce against wet weather discharge violations. We informed
Congressional staff that we could respond to this request by answering the following questions:
1. Does it take more resources to initiate and resolve wet weather cases in comparison to
traditional NPDES program enforcement cases?
2. Has there been a shift of EPA resources from the traditional NPDES program areas to
wet weather priority areas?
3. Have the number of EPA formal NPDES enforcement actions declined over the last
5 fiscal years?
-------
1
Due to the nature of the request, our results are based only on an analysis of formal NPDES
enforcement actions and the number of compliance and enforcement staff. We interviewed OECA
and regional officials and obtained information from (1) EPA's Integrated Compliance Information
System (ICIS) database, and (2) regional official responses to an OIG questionnaire. We did not
conduct a review of management practices within OECA, nor did we evaluate the potential water
quality improvements stemming from these activities. Appendix A provides additional background
information. Our scope and methodology are presented in Appendix B.
Regional Officials Indicate That Wet Weather Cases
Are More Resource Intensive Than Traditional Actions
Based on responses from regional NPDES program officials, wet weather enforcement cases
require more resources to complete than traditional NPDES program enforcement actions.
EPA officials said that the case development process, negotiation process, and post-settlement
oversight for wet weather cases are much more complex than for traditional NPDES cases. We
asked each region to rank the different NPDES program categories in terms of the amount of
resources needed to complete three key NPDES enforcement actions: (1) administrative orders,
(2) administrative penalty orders, and (3) judicial orders. Eight of 10 regions identified
CSOs/SSOs as requiring the most resources to complete under all three types of actions. The
regions identified traditional NPDES program enforcement actions as requiring the least amount of
resources. We did not evaluate possible lag times between resource inputs and corresponding
enforcement actions.
Evidence Suggests NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Staff
Have Shifted to Wet Weather Activities
The evidence provided suggests EPA
has shifted NPDES compliance and
enforcement staff from traditional
NPDES program activities to work
on wet weather issues (see
AppendixC, Tables C.I and C.2, for
a list of EPA NPDES resources). For
the five regions providing data, EPA
NPDES compliance and enforcement
staff addressing wet weather issues,
as measured by Fult-Time Equivalents
(FTEs), increased 59 percent from
FY 1999 to FY 2003, while those
addressing non-wet weather programs
decreased 36 percent. FY 2003 was
the first year in which more FTEs
addressed wet weather issues than
non-wet weather. See Figure 1.
The shift in resources is particularly
Flgu
Cot
(F
120-
100
£ 60
u.
*>[") -
re 1 : EPA FTEs Working on NPDES
npliance and Enforcement Program
legions Reporting 3, 4, 5, 8, & 10)
-i, *
« ^
^ ^r»-~«==:
* *
FY1999 FY2000 FY2f»1 FY2002 FY2003
--Traditional * Wet Weather -*-- Total
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
See Table C.3. Note: Total line only includes FTEs addressing
NPDES traditional and wet weather issues; FTEs addressing
other support activities were not included.
-------
evident when analyzing the ratio of NPDES compliance and enforcement staff addressing wet
weather issues in comparison to the total number of staff working on the NPDES compliance and
enforcement program for the five regions providing data. The ratio nearly doubled from
32 percent in FY 1999 to 59 percent in FY 2003 (see Appendix E, Table E.3). These five regions
were only responsible for about 30 percent of the completed enforcement actions during this
period.
However, because the other five regions (including Regions 2 and 6, which were responsible for
more than half of the enforcement actions during this time period) did not provide data for all
5 years, we could not conclude that this shift in FTEs reflects a national trend (see Appendix C,
Table C.3). Our findings would have additional support if EPA tracked compliance and
enforcement staff working on different segments of the NPDES program. We did not evaluate
non-enforcement activities conducted by NPDES compliance and enforcement staff.
Enforcement Actions Have Increased Slightly in Last 5 Years
The number of EPA formal NPDES enforcement actions slightly increased from FY 1999 to
FY 2003. However, the movement was not uniform over this period. A large increase occurred at
the beginning of the period, with a subsequent large 1-year decline in FY 2001. The number of
clean water enforcement actions then increased in FY 2002 and FY 2003. See Figure 2.
The vast majority of the
increase in FY 2000 and the
decrease in FY 2001 was due
to changes in the number of
enforcement actions to correct
stormwaler violations. Fifty-
two percent of all formal
enforcement actions completed
in FY 2000 were stormwater
actions, compared to only
38 percent in FY 2001. See
Appendix D, Tables D. 1 and
D.2, for a complete list of
enforcement actions for each
category and for each region
from FY 1999 to FY 2003.
Fi
1400 -
.. innn .
0 ftnfl -
400 -
0.
gure 2: EPA NPDES Enforcement Actions by
Category (All 1 0 Regions Reporting)
A
-.""'" vx
» X. .*-"""
^ *''' ^x-
.X!<^--^_ V"- ^ -» -.-'' ''"$
FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003
Traditional * Wet weather * Total
Data Source: ICIS 6/15/04, verified by EPA region officials 7/30/04.
See Table D.1.
For the 5 fiscal years analyzed, total EPA NPDES formal enforcement actions, wet weather actions,
and non-wet weather actions exhibited the following results:
-------
Table 1: EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions by Category
Wet weather
CSO/SSOs
CAFOs
Stormwater
Subtotal
Non-wet weather
All non wet
weather
Total
FY1999
75
63
225
363
626
989
FY2000
100
71
648
819
421
1,240
FY2001
57
34
293
384
385
769
FY2002
53
22
294
369
462
831
FY2003
70
41
430
541
485
1,026
Total
355
231
1.890
2,476
2,379
4,855
Source: OECA officials pulled enforcement actions from ICIS, 6/15/04; verified by EPA regions 7/30/04.
In our analysis of enforcement actions, we expected to see a corresponding increase in wet weather
actions as the staff addressing wet weather issues increased. However, when analyzing the
percentage of wet
weather actions to total
actions for the five
regions with FTE data,
the percentage of wet
weather actions reached
a peak in FY 2000 and
then declined despite a
steady increase in the
percentage of wet
weather FTEs to total
wet weather and
traditional FTEs.
See Figure 3 and
AppendixE, Tables E.I,
E.2, and E.3.
80% -
t
A
inOjt
JflO/.
no/. .
Figure 3: Percent of Wet Weather Actions to Total
Actions and Percent of Wet Weather FTEs to Total
Wet Weather and Traditional FTEs (Regions
Reporting 3, 4, 5, 8, & 10)
*^
^"-^---^
-* ^
«"""
* *
FY1999
FFY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003
* Pe rcent of Wet Weather Actio ns to Total Actions
-«- Percent of Wet Weather FTEs to Total Wet Weather and Traditional FTEs
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
Conclusion
We were unable to assess the validity of EPA's claim that the decline in EPA formal NPDES
enforcement actions is due to a diversion of these resources to enforce against more complex wet
weather discharge violations. EPA regional officials stated that wet weather enforcement actions
are more complex and resource intensive than traditional clean water enforcement cases.
Moreover, it also appears likely that an increasing share of EPA's NPDES enforcement resources
have been directed to address wet weather cases. However, the continuous, significant shift of
resources toward addressing wet weather cases over the last 5 years has not been matched by a
-------
corresponding increase in the wet weather share of clean water enforcement actions; we would have
expected to see this if EPA's assertion were true. We could neither prove nor disprove EPA's
assertion due to a lack of staffing data, and the fact that other potential explanations may exist for
the absence of a correlation. These possible explanations include a lag between resource inputs and
enforcement actions, and possible increase in non-enforcement-related activities by EPA staff.
Moreover, it is important to note that our current review suggests that total NPDES enforcement
actions have not declined; overall enforcement actions increased in both FY 2002 and FY 2003.
-------
Appendix A
Background
Under EPA's NPDES program, permits are issued to point source dischargers to control the levels
of pollutants into the waters of the United States. Permits are issued by States with approved
NPDES programs and by EPA regions for non-delegated States. Presently, 45 States have
approved NPDES programs.
At the Federal level, EPA's Water Permits Division, part of the Office of Water, administers the
NPDES program and provides program guidance to the regions and States. The Water Permits
Division is responsible for regulating the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States
through the NPDES program.
EPA's OECA is responsible for ensuring facilities comply with their NPDES permits. OECA
ensures compliance with U.S. environmental laws by employing various approaches, including
compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and civil and criminal enforcement. OECA sets forth
the goals, priorities, and activities for the national environmental enforcement and compliance
program through its memorandum of agreement guidance. This guidance provides the basis for
development of individual agreements between OECA and each region identifying overall program
direction and specific activities and expected results.
Historically, the NPDES program has been focused on large (major) sources, including municipal
and industrial wastewater facilities. Permits were issued to small facilities as well, but most of the
inspection and enforcement activities were directed towards the major facilities. In the early 1990s,
States began to report that the majority of their water quality problems were associated with wet
weather issues, including stormwater, CSOs, SSOs, and CAFOs. During the 1990s, EPA
developed programs to deal specifically with these wet weather sources. In the FY 1998/1999
Memorandum of Agreement, EPA made wet weather a priority enforcement area because States
had indicated that these sources of pollution were contributing to impaired waterways. Wet
weather continues as one of OECA's national priorities.
In February 2003, OECA completed an internal analysis of the major facilities of the NPDES
compliance and enforcement program. Major facilities are generally defined as industrial facilities
and municipal dischargers designed for flows of greater than one million gallons per day and
represent the traditional component of OECA's NPDES program. OECA's data showed a
45-percent decrease in EPA formal enforcement actions at major facilities fromFY 1999 to
FY 2001. According to OECA officials, the decline in formal major NPDES enforcement actions
was due to shifts in resources to OECA's wet weather priority area See Figure A for the number
of EPA formal enforcement actions completed at major facilities in the last 5 fiscal years.
-------
In this report, we report on trends in
EPA's NPDES formal enforcement
actions including but not limited to
majors. Our results differ somewhat
from the OECA analysis because our
analysis is based on all of EPA's
NPDES formal enforcement actions
including majors, wet weather, etc.
OECA's analysis focuses only on the
number of enforcement actions
associated with major facilities.
Figure A: Number of EPA Formal NPDES
Enforcement Actions Completed at Major Facilities
350 -I
300 -
250 -
g 200
< 150 -
100
50 -
0 -
304
I
216
201
174 18°
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal Year
Source: OECA data from EPA's Permit Compliance System,
5/15/04. Number of formal enforcement actions includes final
administrative orders, final administrative penalty orders,
consent decrees, and court orders.
-------
Appendix B
Scope and Methodology
On March 30, 2004, Congress sent a letter to the EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) asking
us to update an October 10, 2003, OIG report on the management, staffing, and funding needs of
the EPA's OECA. The OIG is responding separately to each item in that letter. This report
provides our response to the third item, which requested that we evaluate EPA's claim that the
decline in formal NPDES enforcement actions has been compensated for by a diversion of these
NPDES resources to enforce against wet weather discharge violations.
Our review looked only at formal enforcement actions and the associated staff resources, or FTEs,
in EPA's NPDES program. We obtained information about EPA formal NPDES enforcement
actions from EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (1CIS) database. We asked each
region to verify the information and to add any enforcement actions not previously listed in ICIS.
We interviewed staff in OECA's Office of Compliance and Office of Regulatory Enforcement, as
well as regional officials. OECA officials helped us develop and pre-test a questionnaire requesting
data on enforcement actions, compliance and enforcement staff, and the amount of time required to
conduct enforcement activities. We sent the questionnaire to OECA officials and EPA regions
requesting compliance and enforcement data. We analyzed the data gathered through these
activities and summarized our findings in this report.
We used the questionnaire to gain information on the amount of time needed to complete NPDES
formal enforcement actions. We asked each region to rank the amount of resources needed to
complete administrative orders, administrative penalties, and judicial orders for traditional NPDES
programs, CSOs/SSOs, CAFOs, and stormwater.
To determine whether a shift had occurred in resources and to gain an understanding of available
information, we interviewed OECA officials from the Office of Compliance and Office of
Regulatory Enforcement, and regional officials. Subsequently, we sent a questionnaire to all
10 EPA regions and OECA Headquarters asking each entity to provide information on the total
number of EPA FTEs working in the NPDES compliance and enforcement program for each fiscal
year from FY 1999 through FY 2003. We also asked the regions to provide the number of FTEs
working in each program sector for the same time frame. Program sectors included traditional
NPDES programs, CSOs/SSOs, CAFOs, and stormwater.
To determine whether the number of EPA formal NPDES enforcement actions had declined from
FY 1999 through FY 2003, it was necessary to define "formal enforcement action" and obtain
enforcement action data We spoke with Office of Compliance officials, who provided us EPA's
definition of "formal enforcement actions." Office of Compliance provided us spreadsheets pulled
from ICIS listing the number of formal EPA enforcement actions for each region and OECA
Headquarters for each year for FY 1999 through FY 2003. While OECA engages in activities such
as compliance assistance and compliance incentives beyond enforcement actions, the analysis
provided only addresses formal EPA enforcement actions; the analysis does not include State
NPDES enforcement actions.
-------
Each ICIS spreadsheet contained the case name and number for the five different types of formal
enforcement actions that we analyzed. We asked each region to review the spreadsheets to:
ensure each case related to an NPDES formal enforcement action;
ensure all cases were identified; and
categorize the formal NPDES formal enforcement action into one of the following program
categories: (1) non-wet weather, (2) CSOs/SSOs, (3) stormwater, or (4) CAFOs.
In situations where discrepancies occurred between information provided from ICIS and the
regional reported information, we used the regional information because we believe the regional
officials are in the best position to provide information on enforcement actions completed. We used
this methodology to determine enforcement actions for all regions with the exception of Region 6.
Due to Region 6's large volume of enforcement actions, Region 6 provided us a list of formal
enforcement actions and categorized each action into one of the following: (1) non-wet weather, (2)
CSOs/SSOs, (3) stormwater, or (4) CAFOs. We matched Region 6's categorized list of formal
enforcement actions with the Office of Compliance list and classified each action as a civil judicial
referral, civil judicial settlement, administrative compliance order, administrative penalty complaint,
or final administrative penalty order based on the Office of Compliance list.
The scope of our work consisted of gathering, providing, and explaining information requested by
Congress, not audit or evaluation services. However, we did conduct our work in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, with the
following exceptions: we did not (a) evaluate management controls, (b) determine compliance with
laws and regulations, (c) evaluate the controls over the systems that produced this information, and
(d) selectively verify the data to source documents.
We provided a draft version of this report to the Agency for review, and the Agency did not
provide any comments.
-------
Appendix C
EPA NPDES Compliance and Enforcement FTEs
Table C.1: EPA Headquarters NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Program FTEs
Office of Compliance :v;> ;: : '
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
19
16
20
14
22
14
35
34
36
Source: OECA Headquarters 8/20/04.
Note: FTE information was not provided for FYs 1999 and 2000.
Table C.2: EPA Regional NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Program FTEs
Region 1
Region t
Region^
Region 4
Region S
Regions
Region?
Regions
Regions
Region 1B
FY1999
18
-
31
50
42
-
-
15
-
28
FY2000
18
-
33
50
40
-
15
12
18
26
FV20H
19
35
31
50
39
-
16
12
16
24
FY2002
19
32
30
46
36
-
14
11
15
23
FY2003
18
30
28
46
38
52
13
11
15
22
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
Notes: FTE information was not provided for those instances marked with a dash {-).
Region 3 FTE numbers were revised in order to use criteria consistent with other Regions.
10
-------
Table C.3: EPA Regional NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Program FTEs -
Traditional and Wet Weather Issues
Region 1 ... Traditional
i^4.4> 4;-I: :< Wet weather
;Regten: 2 ;:'.. Traditional
"Cv^.w:--. Wet weather
?.lpgj^j3 1-* ? Traditional
'.; E3:l'',5!l i; Wet weather
vRej|ioft:;4;:>->;;: Traditional
/ "i ' :£. ; ?! ?. :;.? : :£ ' I \ Wet weather
vRieg^tolft::^:::;.:;:.: Traditional
::';p«:i'i:'g:::;:;::-;;:':-'.::s Wet weather
:|{ies||Bi;i: i; Traditional
[^:^;STj?';l: Wet weather
:ite|pi|i:Ii: f Traditional
:^:,|.:>^:.:;ft;|:-;f : .Wet weattier
:|{^|ftiq*t;|,;;::;;.; Traditional
:|':tf?:;:|:J;:|?::;|;;;i'; Wet- weather
:;R«jtoi>':9:v;::; Traditional
£.32 '! £ W8* weather
RegiiMilO Traditional
^v^!^;;4" Wet weather
FY1999
-
-
-
-
5
3
25
13
23
13
-
-
-
2
1
;
16
3
FY300B
-
'-
-
-
3
7
25
13
22
14
.
-
8
4
2
1
;
14
3
FY2QQ1
-
-
-
2
8
25
12
20
16
-
- .
9
4
2
2
;
13
3
FY2002
-
-
-
*
3
9
17
14
16
16
.
-
8
3
2
3
;
12
4
FY39B3
4
8
-
*
2
9
17
14
15
19
22
18
4
6
2
5
2
9
9
5
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
Notes: FTE information was not provided for those instances marked with a dash (-).
In some situations, regions were able to provide us information on the number of FTEs working in
the NPDES compliance and enforcement program; however, these regions were not able to
delineate traditional and wet weather resources.
The FTE numbers presented in Table C.3 do not include region FTE numbers working on other
activities, which include State oversight responsibilities, data entry etc. Therefore, the FTE
numbers in Table C.3 will not sum to the FTE numbers in Table C.2.
11
-------
Appendix D
EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions
Table D.1: EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions by Region
FY1999
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
!-l|wj^'3:;--';;< ;
::RBg|ig«::fir1t:
mm&^
mM'$t:i
''Mii$3^&^.
Region 10
pBBfcMQ^.
^Tbts*|rV-;i
55
140
59
119
59
442
37
10
21
46
1
989
FY2000
34
185
130
129
42
571
40
12
44
53
0
1,240
fY2M1
23
137
69
97
51
247
23
36
32
54
0
769
FY2002
40
221
49
75
44
299
12
22
55
14
0
831
FY2003
47
192
78
133
55
346
54
50
41
30
0
1,026
Totals
199
875
385
553
251
1,905
166
130
193
197
1
4,855
Percent
4.1%
18.0%
7.9%
11.4%
5.2%
39.2%
3.4%
2.7%
4.0%
4.1%
0.0%
100.0%
Source: (CIS 6/15/04, verified by EPA region officials.
Note: OECA Headquarters' low number of NPDES formal enforcement actions occurred because, while
OECA Headquarters assists in many enforcement actions, OECA allows the regions to count these
actions.
12
-------
Table D.2: EPA NPOES Formal Enforcement Actions by Category and Type of Enforcement Action
,' -:' ': :'.':-/ ;:'': "'oSv '*'':':-':';*'-*':-'
" %JMUJfcfr'-tjlfcV 'frrtViiifr' '
'.'"' SfTf!9*;; VWwJJEwl w J/'
CSOs/SSOs
CAFOs
Stormwater
:;;N<»j^yet:Wi?W
All Non-wet
weather
ff$|^£\:;4B:
-s&xm:mM$Kmmm;mm&
l^A'J^^.'^lTj-it^f'f^h^'
Civil Judicial Referrals
Civil Judicial Settlements
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
Final Administrative
Penalty Orders
Subtotal
Civil Judicial Referrals
Civil Judicial Settlements
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
Final Administrative
Penalty Orders
Subtotal
Civil Judicial Referrals
Civil Judicial Settlements
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
Final Administrative
Penalty Orders
Subtotal
l*»*;:-*- ?-: !;.?: ;Tt>.^-f '^1^ &
Civil Judicial Referrals
Civil Judicial Settlements
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
Final Administrative
Penalty Orders
Subtotal
:;;,:;:. : :;.:;: ^ :;,. ;;, ;; -. %. y ^g- gSiJa&Sm
Civil Judicial Referrals
Civil Judicial Settlements
Administrative Compliance
Orders
Administrative Penalty
Complaints
Final Administrative
Penalty Orders
Total
Ijipiaii!;
^f£!;4"4%'
3
2
61
9
0
75
5
0
34
12
12
63
22
0
98
89
16
225
18
15
355
77
161
626
^:M'iS;fe;::i
48
17
548
187
189
989
Siililijfsip
<&K^X,$:ZW
10
1
75
5
9
100
2
0
38
19
12
71
11
2
239
205
191
648
11
15
246
63
86
421
:'S?₯%j%:%:?i?ofo?4^:J?i?f.J:
34
18
598
292
298
1,240
stf-i?-?
9
0
32
6
10
57
1
0
14
3
16
34
6
5
139
53
90
293
19
16
199
75
76
385
Mi'WV's
35
21
384
137
192
769
lilllSiBfiiS-
;:-''-:::''-::|:.:;;:v«..:;i :::.;:.:.;:
2
8
35
4
4
53
2
4
12
2
2
22
3
4
147
77
63
294
12
14
295
81
60
462
:Si|:§:-^1:''0
19
30
489
164
129
831
.mfc
: :'*:;,-.;;,' ,_.;;,;,;;,
16
6
35
8
3
70
1
1
30
5
4
41
29
2
244
84
71
430
13
11
249
115
97
485
:::;;:;;:M;I;;
59
22
558
212
175
1,026
13
-------
Source: OECA officials pulled enforcement actions from I CIS, 6/15/04; EPA region officials categorized type of
action, 7/30/04.
Definitions
EPA "Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Programs" defines a formal enforcement action as one that requires actions
to achieve compliance, specifies a timetable, contains consequences for noncompliance that are independently
enforceable without having to prove the original violation, and subjects the person to adverse legal consequences for
noncompliance. EPA classifies the following five types of actions as formal enforcement actions:
Civil Judicial Referrals: A request from EPA to the Department of Justice for a "Civil Judicial Action,"
which is a formal lawsuit, filed in court, against persons or entities that have failed to comply with statutory
or regulatory requirements or with an Administrative Order.
Civil Judicial Settlements: A settlement is generally an agreed-upon resolution to an enforcement case. In
a judicial context, settlements are embodied in Consent Decrees signed by all parties to the action and the
judge and filed in the appropriate court.
Administrative Compliance Orders: Corrective action proposed by the Agency for an alleged violator to
undertake in a "Civil Administrative Action."
Administrative Penalty Complaints: Enforcement actions taken by EPA without involving a judicial court
process. This initiates a Formal Administrative Action by EPA that seeks penalties to address alleged
violations.
Final Administrative Penalty Orders: Resolution of a Civil Administrative Penalty Action to address an
alleged violation. The matter is either settled or it is adjudicated before an EPA Administrative Law. An
adverse initial decision may be appealed to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board.
Note: The NPDES formal enforcement actions for CSOs/SSOs and CAFOs differ somewhat due to
methodological issues from information reported in the OIG's October 10, 2003 report, Congressional
Request on EPA Enforcement Resources and Accomplishments (Report No. 2004-S-00001). In the
previous report, Tables 8.2 and 8.3 presented information on the number of civil administrative and judicial
orders issued since 1995 concerning overflows of sanitary sewers or combined sewers and EPA Clean
Water Act enforcement actions filed since 1997 against owners or operators of CAFOs. The information in
the previous report was provided by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement. The information in this report
was obtained from formal enforcement actions listed in I CIS. In addition, in this report, we defined formal
enforcement actions to include civil judicial referrals, civil judicial settlements, administrative compliance
orders, administrative penalty complaints, and final administrative penalty orders.
14
-------
Appendix E
EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions and
NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Staff
(Data from Regions 3,4, 5, 8, and 10 Only)
Table E.1: EPA NPDES Formal Enforcement Actions
Region $
Region 4
Regions
Region 8
Region to
Totals ;
Combined
Totals
PY19S8
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
20 39
63 56
46 13
10 0
16 30
155 138
293
FV2000 '
Vfet
Trad. Weather
Issues issues
12 118
10 119
37 5
11 1
23 30
93 273
366
FY2JHH
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
19 50
8 89
42 9
27 9
39 15
135 172
307
FY2Q02
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
11 38
30 45
34 10
17 5
9 5
101 103
204
FY2W3
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
27 51
52 81
32 23
32 18
25 5
168 178
346
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
Note: While the remaining five regions did provide some of the requested information, the table only
includes information from those five regions that provided both enforcement actions and FTE
data for the 5 fiscal years requested.
15
-------
Table E.2: NPDES Compliance and Enforcement FTEs
Rsgfcjna
Rijg&MX
staf$pfc
Region s%
Ks^mw
foial^:':F
OimWhed
l|ta||:;:;f
FY1999
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
5 3
25 13
23 13
2 1
16 3
71 33
104
FY2000
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues issues
3 7
25 13
22 14
2 1
14 3
66 38
104
Fy20«Ft
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
2 8
25 12
20 16
2 2
13 3
62 41
103
, nraKs
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
3 9
17 14
16 16
2 3
12 4
50 46
96
FY2003
Wet
Trad. Weather
Issues Issues
2 9
17 14
15 19
2 5
9 5
45 52
97
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
Note: While the remaining five regions did provide some of the requested information, the table only
includes information from those five regions that provided both enforcement actions and FTE
data for the 5 fiscal years requested.
Table E.3: Percentage of Wet Weather Actions to Total Enforcement Actions
and Percentage of Wet Weather FTEs to Total Wet Weather and Traditional FTEs
(Regions 3,4, 5, 8, and 10 Only)
Actions to Total Number of
47%
75%
56%
51%
51%
FTEs to Totai Wet Weather
and Traditional NPDES
32%
37%
40%
48%
59%
EnforCeirnen; 1 Ff £&:
Source: EPA regions' responses to OIG questionnaire 7/30/04.
Note: While the remaining five regions did provide some of the requested information, the table only
includes information from those five regions that provided both enforcement actions and FTE
data for the 5 fiscal years requested.
16
-------
Appendix F
Distribution
United States Senate
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
The Honorable Ron Wyden
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Acting Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
Agency Audit Foilowup Official (the CFO) (271OA)
Agency Foilowup Coordinator (2724A)
Audit Liaison, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Liaison, Office of Water
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301 A)
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs (1101 A)
Inspector General (2410)
17
------- |