S3ZZ
^ PRO^
%
m
a
p*
Office of Inspector General
Audit Report
ENFORCEMENT
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Report No. 2000-P-000018
June 30, 2000
-------
Inspector General Division
Conducting the Review:
Northern Audit Division
Program Office Involved:
Regions Covered:
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Regions 1 through 10
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
NORTHERN DIVISION
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
June 30, 2000
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Report No. 2000-P-000018
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
FROM: Charles Allberry /s/
Audit Manager
Northern Division
TO: Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance
This report concludes our review of EPA's multimedia enforcement program. The report
describes problems that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified and corrective
actions that the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) has initiated, or plans
to initiate. The audit report represents the opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on matters in
this audit report will be made by the EPA managers in accordance with established EPA audit
resolution procedures.
ACTION REQUIRED
In responding to the draft report and during the exit conference, your office provided corrective
actions, with milestone dates, for each recommendation. Therefore, no further response is
required, and we are closing this report in our tracking system. Please track all corrective actions
in the Management Audit Tracking System (MATS). Corrective actions provided at the exit
conference are included at the end of each chapter, and should be tracked in MATS.
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public.
5321
X ^
a
If you have any questions, please call Janet Kasper, Team Leader, (312) 886-3059 or Ernie
Ragland, Audit Liaison, (202) 260-8984.
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVE During discussions regarding future Office of Inspector General
(OIG) audits of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
enforcement program, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) officials expressed a concern that EPA was not
taking a multimedia approach to enforcement in areas where it
would be most beneficial. They believed that multimedia
enforcement would allow EPA to use resources more efficiently
and maximize the environmental results from enforcement actions.
As a result, the OIG performed an audit to answer the question:
"What progress has EPA made in implementing multimedia as a
tool for achieving compliance with laws and regulations?"
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Multimedia enforcement actions can result in significant
environmental benefits. Examples of three multimedia cases EPA
settled in fiscal year (FY) 1999 are Ashland Oil, Puerto Rico
Electric Power Authority, and Boston Department of
Transportation.
• In October 1998, EPA settled with Ashland, Inc., resolving
multimedia violations at three petroleum refineries. The
settlement resulted in $5.8 million in penalties, company
expenditures of $12 million to correct the violations, and
$14.9 million for supplemental environmental projects
(SEPs). The enforcement action resulted in reductions in
numerous pollutants, as listed in exhibit 1.
• In June 1999, EPA settled with Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority to bring all of its plants into compliance with all
environmental statutes. The settlement resulted in $1.5
million in penalties, $4.5 million in SEPs, and the Power
Authority spending over $200 million to comply with the
agreement.
• In January 1999, EPA settled with Boston Transportation
Department for violations of the Clean Air Act and Clean
Water Act. The settlement resulted in $28,650 in penalties
and the city spending about $200,000 to comply with the
l
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
agreement. The settlement resulted in a reduction of 470
pounds of volatile organic compounds per year.
OECA Can Do More to While OECA had encouraged use of multimedia as an
Promote Multimedia enforcement tool, it had not developed a comprehensive
Enforcement multimedia program. OECA had not (a) established a plan to
implement and manage the multimedia program, (b) clearly
communicated its philosophy regarding the role of multimedia
enforcement to EPA managers and staff, or (c) issued policies on
how or when to use the multimedia approach as an enforcement
tool. This condition occurred because OECA management decided
to focus resources on developing national expertise in multimedia
enforcement and sharing that knowledge with regions. The lack of
policies resulted in variations in the effectiveness of regional
approaches to multimedia enforcement. Without a plan, EPA was
not accountable for making progress in implementing the program.
OECA Needed to Evaluate OECA had not evaluated the effectiveness of multimedia
the Effectiveness of enforcement as a tool for ensuring compliance with laws
Multimedia Enforcement and regulations. OECA did not (a) have accurate information on
the number of actions, (b) always measure the benefits of actions
taken, or (c) know the cost of the actions taken. As a result,
OECA did not know whether the multimedia approach was an
effective or efficient tool for reducing noncompliance and
improving the environment and human health.
Impact of EPA Progress EPA management believed that a multimedia approach to
enforcement would be a more efficient use of resources and
maximize environmental results. However, EPA will not likely
achieve the full benefits of a multimedia approach without a
comprehensive plan for implementing multimedia enforcement
throughout EPA, and a way to evaluate results. In 1994 and 1995,
EPA reorganized enforcement functions in order to, among other
things, remove organizational impediments to multimedia
enforcement. Five years later, organizational and other types of
impediments to a comprehensive multimedia enforcement program
continued.
11
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
DRAFT REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA:
• Develop a plan to implement and manage the multimedia
enforcement program.
• Clarify what types of actions meet the definition of
multimedia enforcement and track the actions in the
Enforcement Docket Computer System.
• Establish an action plan for implementing the
recommendations to improve the completeness and
accuracy of information on benefits from multimedia
enforcement actions.
• Work with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to
develop a process to identify and track costs of multimedia
enforcement actions.
A full list of the recommendations is included at the end of chapters
2 and 3.
AGENCY COMMENTS
AND ACTIONS In responding to the draft report, the Assistant Administrator (AA)
for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance stated the OECA had
been a national leader in promoting multimedia enforcement since
1994, but agreed that more could be done to promote it. OECA
actions to promote multimedia enforcement include (a) national
enforcement guidance to regions that identified multimedia priority
sectors, (b) efforts to remedy significant violations by large
corporations, (c) guidance documents that cover more than one
media, and (d) a standing committee on multimedia enforcement.
The AA agreed to take action to collect the information needed to
more thoroughly evaluate program effectiveness. Between 1995
and 1998, OECA evaluated regional multimedia programs, but,
because of its lack of experience with multimedia enforcement, was
limited in its ability to set a standard for what constituted an
effective use of multimedia enforcement.
in
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
The AA agreed to take the following actions:
• Use the audit report as an impetus to reiterate OECA's
management philosophy, the objectives of multimedia
enforcement, definition of multimedia, and additional steps
necessary to implement multimedia enforcement.
• Work with regions to implement multimedia enforcement
through OECA management visits, the multimedia
enforcement standing committee, monthly conference calls
with the regional enforcement coordinators, and policies on
multimedia enforcement.
• Review and communicate the definition of multimedia
enforcement and ensure that definitions are consistent.
• Implement recommendations in an OECA study to improve
the collection of information on benefits from enforcement
actions.
• Submit a proposal to the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer to establish a workgroup to develop
recommendations for including information on all types of
enforcement actions into the Agency's accounting system.
The Agency's comments and actions are also summarized at the
end of chapters 2 and 3, and included in appendix 1.
OIG EVALUATION
The OIG concurs with the actions of the AA to improve program
implementation and evaluation. The Agency's actions, when
implemented, will address the findings and recommendations in the
report.
iv
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS vii
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Objective 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 3
2 OECA CAN DO MORE TO PROMOTE MULTIMEDIA ENFORCEMENT 5
Multimedia as an Enforcement Tool 5
Comprehensive Multimedia Program Needed 7
Planning and Policy Not a Priority 9
OECA's Decision Impacted Implementation 9
Conclusion 11
Draft Report Recommendations 11
Agency Comments and Actions 11
OIG Evaluation 13
3 OECA NEEDED TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF MULTIMEDIA ENFORCEMENT 14
Actions Not Accurately Identified 14
Benefits Not Always Measured 16
Cost of Actions Not Computed 17
Evaluation of Effectiveness Needed 19
Draft Report Recommendations 19
Agency Comments and Actions 19
OIG Evaluation 21
EXHIBITS
1 Environmental Benefits of Multimedia Enforcement 22
2 Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage 23
v
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
APPENDICES
1 Response to Draft Report
2 Distribution
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
25
31
vi
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
ABBREVIATIONS AND
DEFINITION OF TERMS
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
DOCKET Enforcement Docket Computer System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FY Fiscal Year
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
MED Multimedia Enforcement Division
Objectives Ends toward which activities are directed; goal.
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
Philosophy A system of fundamental or motivating principles; basis for action or belief. For
example, management's philosophy, or reason why it believes, that a multimedia
approach to enforcement would be more effective.
Policy Guideline for action.
Procedures A set of established forms or methods for carrying out activities.
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
Strategy Plan of action that directs activities toward the achievement of goals.
vii
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
This page was intentionally left blank.
viii
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVE During discussions regarding future Office of Inspector General
(OIG) audits of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
enforcement program, officials expressed a concern that EPA was
not taking a multimedia approach to enforcement in areas where it
would be most beneficial.1 They believed that multimedia
enforcement would allow EPA to use resources more efficiently
and maximize the environmental results from enforcement actions.
As a result, the OIG performed an audit to answer the question:
"What progress has EPA made in implementing multimedia as a
tool for achieving compliance with laws and regulations?"
BACKGROUND
The accomplishment of EPA's goals depends upon a strong
enforcement and compliance assurance program. Many of
America's environmental improvements over the last 25 years are
attributable to a strong set of environmental laws. The goal of
EPA's enforcement program is to ensure full compliance with the
laws intended to protect human health and the environment.
Enforcement actions can be either administrative or judicial, and
can include both civil and criminal remedies. Most enforcement
actions (a) inform the entity of the violation, (b) require the entity
to achieve and maintain compliance with the violated requirement,
(c) require the entity to correct the environmental damage
attributable to the violation within a set period of time, and/or (d)
except for certain responses to self-audits, impose sanctions for
noncompliance, including recovery of any economic benefits gained
through the noncompliance.
throughout the report, we refer to enforcement. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) has defined enforcement to include activities from inspection through when a facility returns to
compliance.
1
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
What is Multimedia EPA identifies a wide variety of actions as multimedia.2 At a
Enforcement? minimum, multimedia enforcement actions involve more than one
media (air, water, or land) or more than one law (Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, etc.). For example, a multimedia enforcement
action occurs when EPA reviews air and water issues during one
inspection, or when violations of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and Safe Drinking Water Act are combined into one
administrative order. Multimedia enforcement actions can also be
comprehensive reviews of all applicable laws at one facility and
taking one enforcement action to resolve all violations.
In 1991, the Administrator established a goal of 25 percent
enforcement with multimedia elements as part of the overall
integrated direction in which he was trying to move the Agency.
The multimedia approach was intended to further several
objectives: (a) greater environmental protection, risk reduction and
pollution prevention, (b) greater deterrence, and (c) greater
resource efficiency than single program/single media approaches
can accomplish alone. The multimedia approach was intended to
guide, but not supplant, important on-going implementation of
single media enforcement programs and the targeting that was
pursued in those programs.
In 1993, the Administrator announced the creation of OECA,
replacing the Office of Enforcement and consolidating
Headquarters enforcement programs. One of the principles that
guided the Administrator's decision was that multimedia, whole
facility approaches to enforcement represented the future of
environmental protection and should be pursued whenever
appropriate. The reorganization task force focused on increasing
efficiencies in the single media enforcement programs. The task
force also intended to remove organizational impediments to
effective targeting and integrated, multimedia approaches.
The enforcement reorganization resulted in increased emphasis on
multimedia enforcement at the national and regional level. Within
OECA, EPA created the Multimedia Enforcement Division (MED)
with the function of developing, implementing, and managing a
Consistency in EPA's identification of enforcement actions as multimedia is discussed in chapter 3.
History of Multimedia
Enforcement
2
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
multimedia program that emphasizes whole facility approaches to
enforcement. In fiscal year (FY) 2000, MED had about 11 staff
who worked primarily on multimedia enforcement. MED had
additional staff who were responsible for the budget and human
resources for Office of Regulatory Enforcement, and
implementation of policies for penalties and supplemental
environmental projects (SEP).
The Administrator required that the regions create an enforcement
coordinating office or consolidated enforcement division to
promote integrated, cross-program approaches to environmental
protection. Regions 1, 2, 6, and 8 have enforcement divisions. The
other regions have coordinating offices for enforcement.
Benefits of According to EPA documents and staff, a multimedia approach to
Multimedia Enforcement enforcement benefits the environment, regulated community, and
EPA.
Environmental Benefits
• More comprehensive and reliable assessment of a facility's
compliance with fewer missed violations.
• Higher probability to uncover or prevent problems before
they become a risk to either public health or the
environment.
Benefits to the Regulated Community
• Fits well with environmental auditing practices.
• May result in changes in corporate behavior toward
environmental compliance.
Benefits to EPA
• Better use of federal enforcement resources.
• More comprehensive look at the processes that facilities
use.
• Better understanding of cross-media problems and issues.
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY The audit was conducted from June 14, 1999, through March 15,
2000. Fieldwork was performed at OECA, and Regions 2 and 5.
All other regions were requested to provide information regarding
3
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
their multimedia enforcement programs. The audit did not include
an evaluation of state multimedia enforcement activities. Except as
noted in exhibit 2, we performed our work in accordance with
government audit standards. For further details on the scope and
methodology, see exhibit 2.
4
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
CHAPTER 2
OECA Can Do More to Promote Multimedia Enforcement
While OECA had encouraged use of multimedia as an enforcement
tool, it had not developed a comprehensive multimedia program.
OECA had not (a) established a plan to implement and manage the
multimedia program, (b) clearly communicated its philosophy
regarding the role of multimedia enforcement to EPA managers and
staff, or (c) issued policies on how or when to use the multimedia
approach as an enforcement tool.3 This condition occurred because
OECA management decided to focus resources on developing
national expertise in multimedia enforcement and sharing that
knowledge with regions. The lack of policies resulted in variations
in the effectiveness of regional approaches to multimedia
enforcement. Without a plan, EPA was not accountable for making
progress in implementing the program.
During the 1994 enforcement reorganization, OECA created MED
to develop a multimedia enforcement program and to promote its
implementation throughout the Agency. The organization and
functions manual states that MED is to "develop, implement and
manage EPA's multimedia enforcement program that emphasizes
whole facility and/or a whole geographic or sector-based approach
to enforcement." Also, according to its mission statement, MED is
dedicated to... "bringing regulated industries into compliance with
environmental laws by creating and promoting implementation of a
comprehensive multimedia program in Headquarters and regions."
MULTIMEDIA AS AN
ENFORCEMENT TOOL OECA and regions are using multimedia as an enforcement tool.
OECA activities to promote multimedia enforcement include: (a)
leading national cases, (b) providing inspector training, (c)
assisting regions, (d) developing targeting tools, (e) organizing
national conferences, and (f) establishing a national standing
committee. (See table 1 for details.) Regional multimedia activities
3For clarity, page vii includes definitions of the management terms, such as philosophy and policy, used in
this chapter.
5
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
include: (a) conducting multimedia enforcement actions, (b)
forming multimedia committees and teams, and (c) developing
targeting strategies.
Table 1
Summary of OECA Activities
Activity
Description
National enforcement cases
Developed the National Enforcement
Screening Strategy to identify and remedy
corporate patterns of noncompliance on a
multimedia basis. Led and assisted with multi-
facility, multi-regional enforcement actions.
Provided contractual support for case
development.
Inspector training
Developed and conducted training on
performing multimedia inspections.
Regional assistance
Serves as information clearinghouse for
multimedia enforcement issues. Each region
had a MED staff member whom they could
contact for assistance with multimedia
enforcement.
Targeting tools
Developed an electronic tool for regions to
use in identifying facilities in noncompliance in
more than one media. Developing other tools
to analyze the environmental conditions and
enforcement presence in a geographic area.
National conferences
Organizes conferences that focus on
multimedia enforcement issues.
Standing committee on
national cases
Committee of OECA and regional
representatives that discuss ways for
improving coordination of national cases.
6
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
In addition to promoting multimedia enforcement, OECA offices
besides MED had incorporated multimedia approaches into their
activities. OECA sector strategies look at all environmental issues
at facilities in a specific industry sector. OECA also encouraged the
use of imminent and substantial endangerment authorities on a
multimedia basis.
COMPREHENSIVE
MULTIMEDIA While OECA created MED more than five years ago to develop,
PROGRAM NEEDED implement, and manage the multimedia enforcement program, it did
not create a comprehensive program. OECA took actions to
encourage multimedia enforcement, but it did not have a plan for
developing, implementing, and managing the multimedia program.
OECA had not clearly communicated its philosophy regarding the
role of multimedia enforcement, and had not issued policies on how
or when to use it.
Planning is an important management function. Planning involves
deciding in advance what is to be done, how and when it is to be
done, and who is responsible. Planning also provides a basis for
controlling a program. The Public Manager's Guide states that
Effectiveness and efficiency in public programs are
far more likely to occur when objectives are
carefully thought out and prioritized, and strategies
with supporting activities are delineated in advance
of implementation.4
OECA had not clearly communicated its current philosophy, or
motivating principles, for taking a multimedia approach to
enforcement. In 1991, senior EPA management's philosophy was
that multimedia enforcement was an Agency-wide goal and was
intended to further several objectives: (a) greater environmental
protection, risk reduction and pollution prevention; (b) greater
deterrence; and (c) greater resource efficiency than single-media
approaches. A guiding principle for the 1994 enforcement
reorganization was that "multimedia, whole facility, approaches to
4Donald P. Crane, William A. Jones, Jr; The Public Manager's Guide, The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., Washington, DC, 1982, p. 79.
7
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
enforcement represent the future of environmental protection and
should be pursued whenever appropriate." In contrast, in discussion
regarding this audit, OECA management stated that there had been
a shift in how multimedia enforcement was articulated. Multimedia
is an enforcement tool, but no more important than other
enforcement tools. Though management's philosophy on the
importance of multimedia enforcement had changed since 1991 and
1994, OECA had not communicated the change in writing to EPA
staff. OECA needs to communicate its philosophy in writing to
guide the development of objectives, strategies, and activities
related to multimedia enforcement.
OECA had no policies for multimedia enforcement. In contrast,
OECA had policies regarding enforcement of single-media
programs. Each media program had an enforcement response
policy that covered issues such as what type of response is
appropriate, and in what time frame they should take the response.
However, the single media guidance was not applicable to
multimedia violations. For example, the Hazardous Waste Civil
Enforcement Response Policy allows multimedia violations to
exceed standard response times. This raises the question of how
quickly Headquarters and regions should take action to respond to
multimedia violations. Without a policy, there are no guidelines for
taking action and no basis for evaluating whether Headquarters and
regions are taking timely action to address violations.
EPA's enforcement program needs policies to ensure that there is
consistency among regional offices in how they use multimedia
enforcement. According to OECA's operating principles5,
environmental problems with similar circumstances should elicit
consistent and fair application of enforcement tools. The
development of response strategies should also include
consideration of statutory authorities to decide whether a single or
a multimedia approach might be most effective.
5Operating Principles for an Integrated Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program, issued by
OECA in 1996.
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
PLANNING AND
POLICY NOT A Until recently, OECA did not consider the planning and policy
PRIORITY aspects of developing a multimedia program as a priority. When
MED was formed in 1994, its priority was to gain experience with
multimedia enforcement, share the experience with regions, and
train regional staff to lead national enforcement cases. An
important factor in OECA's decision was that the regional
enforcement reorganizations did not take place until a year later,
and so, at the time, regions did not have established multimedia
offices. OECA management saw themselves as trying to implement
a national program, but without the power to do so because there
were not specific regional resources devoted to multimedia
enforcement. Therefore, management decided to rely on
convincing regions of the benefits of multimedia enforcement,
rather than preparing plans and policies it believed could not be
implemented. During discussions regarding this audit, OECA
management agreed that it may be an appropriate time to develop a
plan for implementing a comprehensive multimedia program.
With the enforcement reorganizations in 1995, regions established
either a consolidated enforcement division or an office to
coordinate all enforcement activities. As a result, each region had a
focal point for all enforcement activities, including multimedia. The
position description specifically states that the regional enforcement
coordinator (a) is a policy point of contact for OECA; (b) leads the
development of the regional enforcement program, including
integration of single media and multimedia activities; and (c)
coordinates, tracks, and evaluates the effectiveness of multimedia
enforcement activities. OECA should be using the enforcement
coordinators to implement a multimedia program in the regions.
OECA's decision to focus on building capabilities, rather than
planning and policies, had several impacts. First, it resulted in
variations in the effectiveness of regional approaches to multimedia
enforcement. Second, OECA and regions were not accountable for
making progress toward creating and implementing a
comprehensive multimedia program. Third, OECA did not realize
anticipated benefits from the enforcement reorganization.
OECA'S DECISION
IMPACTED
IMPLEMENTATION
9
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
The following examples illustrate how regions varied in their
approach to multimedia enforcement, which resulted in differing
levels of effectiveness of regional programs.
• OECA did not have a policy on identifying facilities for
multimedia enforcement actions. Region 6 used a detailed
formula that relied upon risk screening and environmental
justice evaluations using its Regional Geographic
Information System. According to regional staff, in 1999,
100 percent of Region 6's multimedia inspections resulted in
the identification of at least one significant violation. Most
other regions relied upon EPA and state staff to identify
candidates for multimedia inspections. About 55 percent of
the multimedia inspections in Region 5, and 66 percent of
the inspections in Region 2 resulted in at least one
significant violation. Because multimedia enforcement
inspections required more resources than other inspections,
it was important that regions select facilities that will likely
result in identifying violations.
• Because of differences in environmental regulations, Region
2 negotiates separate administrative orders for each type of
violation identified during a multimedia inspection. For
example, if an inspection resulted in air and water violations,
Region 2 would negotiate two administrative orders. In
contrast, Region 1 includes both violations in one order.
Without a written plan for creating and implementing a multimedia
program, holding OECA and regions accountable for making
progress toward implementing a multimedia program was difficult.
A written plan would identify (a) management's philosophy, or
motivating principles, for using a multimedia approach to
enforcement, (b) the objective or goal of the multimedia program,
and (c) a strategy for achieving the objective. The plan would serve
as a basis for measuring progress.
One goal of the enforcement reorganization was to remove the
organizational impediments to effective targeting and integrated,
multimedia approaches. More than five years later, impediments,
both real and perceived, continued to exist. Having a plan for
10
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
implementing the multimedia program would have increased the
likelihood that they would have addressed the impediments.
CONCLUSION
Although plans do not guarantee success of a program, they do
greatly enhance the probability of success. While EPA took
multimedia enforcement actions, OECA did not have a plan for
developing, implementing, and managing a multimedia enforcement
program. Without a plan, OECA and regions were not accountable
for making progress in using a multimedia approach and barriers to
multimedia enforcement continued to exist. Without policies,
regions varied in their approach to multimedia enforcement and the
effectiveness of their programs.
DRAFT REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA:
2-1 Develop a plan to implement and manage the multimedia
enforcement program. The plan needs to include:
• management's philosophy toward multimedia
enforcement;
• the objective of the multimedia program;
• a definition of multimedia enforcement (see chapter
3);
• a strategy, including specific steps it will take to
implement a comprehensive multimedia program;
and
• identification, development, and issuance of policies
on multimedia enforcement.
2-2 Use existing regional enforcement coordinators to promote
and implement multimedia enforcement in the regions.
AGENCY COMMENTS
AND ACTIONS In responding to the draft report, the Assistant Administrator (AA)
for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance agreed that more could
be done to promote multimedia enforcement, and stated that OECA
had been a national leader in promoting multimedia since 1994.
11
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
• Since 1996, national enforcement guidance to the regions
has included multimedia priority sectors and encouraged
regions to target geographic areas for multimedia emphasis.
• In 1994, OECA began a new effort to identify and remedy
significant violations by large corporations of multiple
environmental statutes at multiple facilities across the
country. Through this effort, EPA has begun to effect
change at the corporate level that has resulted in improved
compliance and environmental benefits across the country.
• OECA has developed guidance documents, such as the
Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy and Small
Business Policy that address more than one media. These
policies provide guidance to the regions in a number of key
areas that is applicable to all media, thereby eliminating one
barrier to multimedia enforcement actions - conflicting
single media policies.
• OECA established a standing committee on multimedia
enforcement that is developing a draft model case
management plan for large complex enforcement actions.
To address the first recommendation, the Assistant Administrator
stated that he intends to use the report as an impetus to reiterate
OECA's management philosophy, the objectives of multimedia
enforcement, definition of multimedia, and to identify any additional
steps, including new policies, necessary to implement multimedia
enforcement. A memorandum will be issued within 90 days of the
final OIG report that addresses this recommendation.
To address the second recommendation, OECA intends to continue
to use existing mechanisms to promote and implement multimedia
enforcement in the regions. The mechanisms include (a) OECA
management frequently visiting regions to review performance and
address policy issues and (b) the multimedia enforcement standing
committee. At the exit conference, Multimedia Enforcement
Division managers added that they would be using two other
mechanisms for promoting multimedia enforcement with the
regions: (a) issuing policies on multimedia enforcement where
12
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
needed and (b) discussing multimedia enforcement during monthly
conference calls with the regional enforcement coordinators.
OIG EVALUATION
We agree that OECA had taken action to implement multimedia
activities. However, without a plan, the likelihood of the activities
resulting in a comprehensive multimedia program decreased.
The cross media nature of OECA policies on supplemental
environmental policies and audits do eliminate conflicting single
media policies, which are a barrier to multimedia enforcement.
What these policies do not provide is guidance on taking whole
facility approaches to multimedia enforcement. Without guidelines,
OECA did not have a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the
multimedia approach or determining whether similar environmental
problems were eliciting similar approaches.
OECA actions to develop a plan to implement and manage the
multimedia program, when implemented, will address the first
recommendation.
To address the second recommendation on implementing
multimedia in the regions, OECA identified a number of actions it is
taking, or plans to take, that we agree will increase its efforts to
work with regions in developing their multimedia enforcement
programs.
13
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
CHAPTER 3
OECA Needed to Evaluate the
Effectiveness of Multimedia Enforcement
OECA had not evaluated the effectiveness of multimedia
enforcement as a tool for ensuring compliance with laws and
regulations. OECA did not (a) have accurate information on
number of actions, (b) always measure the benefits of actions taken,
or (c) know the cost of the actions taken. As a result, OECA did
not know whether the multimedia approach was an effective or
efficient tool for reducing noncompliance and improving the
environment and human health.
EPA had stated that the multimedia approach offers the potential
for greater environmental protection, deterrence, and resource
efficiency. However, OECA did not have complete information on
the numbers, benefits, and costs to decide whether the multimedia
enforcement program was achieving the potential benefits. OECA
did not have complete information because:
• OECA had not established a consistent definition of
multimedia enforcement,
• EPA staff did not understand how to measure benefits of
multimedia enforcement actions, and some benefits are not
quantifiable; and
• EPA's accounting system did not segregate the costs of
taking multimedia enforcement actions.
ACTIONS NOT
ACCURATELY
IDENTIFIED
OECA did not have accurate information on the number of
multimedia enforcement actions because it did not have a
consistent definition of what represents a multimedia enforcement
action. The Enforcement Docket Computer System (DOCKET)
tracked inspections, complaints, settlements, and SEPs that affected
more than one media as multimedia enforcement actions. MED
considered a multimedia enforcement action to be a comprehensive
review of all applicable environmental laws at a facility, but did not
14
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
track the number of actions that met its definition. Without a
consistent definition, OECA did not have accurate information on
where EPA took multimedia enforcement actions in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of the multimedia approach.
Regions report information on multimedia enforcement actions
through DOCKET. However, the value of the information was
diminished because there was not a consistent definition for
multimedia enforcement. OECA had two definitions for multimedia
enforcement: one for identifying multimedia actions in DOCKET
and a second that MED used.
• In DOCKET, regions can identify actions as multimedia if
the inspection, complaint, settlement, or SEP affects more
than one program.
• MED defines a multimedia program as one that is designed
to foster a comprehensive approach to the resolution of
environmental problems. Comprehensive is defined as
meaning that the programs look at applicable provisions of
all environmental laws.
The DOCKET data dictionary definition of multimedia enforcement
allows regions to identify more actions as multimedia than what
EPA intended. Agency documents issued during the 1994
enforcement reorganization indicated that the multimedia program
was to emphasize whole facility approaches. Using the DOCKET
definition, regions can identify an incident that affected only one
media as multimedia. If a facility fails to report a hazardous spill to
the National Response Center and to state and local officials, it is a
violation of two statutes, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA). In DOCKET, regions can identify violations of two
statutes as multimedia enforcement actions, regardless of the actual
impact. In a sample of 13 cases identified in DOCKET as
multimedia, two were failures to report violations of CERCLA and
EPCRA.
MED's definition more closely matches what EPA intended. The
definition emphasizes enforcement actions that look at all applicable
15
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
provisions of all environmental laws, which would be consistent
with the idea of a whole facility approach. MED could clarify its
definition by including examples of what types of enforcement
actions would be considered multimedia. OECA also needs to
revise the DOCKET definition so that it is consistent with the MED
definition to accurately track information on multimedia
enforcement actions.
BENEFITS NOT
ALWAYS MEASURED EPA staff did not always measure the benefits obtained from
multimedia enforcement actions. This occurred because (a) EPA
staff did not understand how to perform the calculations or
estimates, and (b) some benefits, such as changes in the
environment, are difficult to associate with specific enforcement
actions. Without information on the benefits of actions taken, EPA
cannot evaluate the effectiveness of the multimedia approach to
enforcement.
OECA collects information on the benefits of enforcement action
through DOCKET. The types of information related to benefits of
enforcement actions collected through DOCKET include:
• penalties assessed,
• type and cost of supplemental environmental projects,
• pollutants reduced or eliminated,
• actions taken to return to compliance or to meet the
requirements of the enforcement action, including the cost
of the actions, and
• qualitative impacts, such as human health protection and
ecosystem protection.
EPA staff did not routinely report information on pollution
expenditures and reductions from multimedia enforcement actions.
In a sample of ten multimedia cases completed in FY 1999,
information on the penalty and cost of the supplemental
environmental project was available for all cases. EPA staff
reported information on reductions in specific pollutants in six of
ten cases. In two additional cases, qualitative benefits, such as
improvements to human health were reported, but could not be
quantified.
16
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
A 1999 OECA study on the completeness of DOCKET found that
EPA staff reported pollution reduction benefits for 68 percent of
the enforcement cases concluded in FY 1998, for which pollution
reduction could be reported. The study found that the staff did not
always understand how to perform the calculations and estimates
that they needed to measure pollution reduction benefits. OECA
also found that there was an emphasis on collecting data to prove a
violation, which may not be sufficient to estimate the benefits of the
enforcement action. The study recommended that OECA develop a
guidance package that includes the purpose and intended use of the
benefit information, comprehensive and updated definitions of the
data fields, and program specific estimating scenarios. The study
also recommended that OECA take steps to ensure consistency and
technical quality of pollution reduction estimates. At the time of
the audit, OECA was working on an action plan for implementing
the recommendations.
Some benefits from multimedia enforcement actions cannot be
associated with specific enforcement actions. Improvements to
human health and the environment that result from an enforcement
action may be difficult to predict or place a dollar value on.
Because multimedia enforcement actions may focus on compliance
with all environmental laws, the action may result in changes to
corporate behavior that EPA cannot quantify. Since they can
quantify many benefits, EPA needs to emphasize routinely
measuring those benefits, while recognizing there are other benefits
that are not quantifiable.
COST OF ACTIONS
NOT COMPUTED OECA did not know how much it costs to take multimedia
enforcement actions. EPA did not design the accounting system to
identify costs of multimedia enforcement actions. Without cost
information, OECA could not evaluate whether a multimedia
approach was more efficient than other approaches to enforcement.
EPA designed its cost accounting system to track costs based on
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure.
Multimedia enforcement is part of goal 9, objective 1,
"Enforcement Tools to Reduce Noncompliance." This objective
includes costs associated with all enforcement actions, except
17
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Superfund. Costs of multimedia enforcement actions are not
separately identified.
Some EPA offices and programs do track the cost of activities. For
example, the National Enforcement and Investigation Center
(NEIC), which is part of OECA, tracks the labor hours associated
with inspections they perform, including inspections that support
multimedia enforcement actions. NEIC management used the
information to evaluate how much time they devoted to specific
projects. The Superfund program also tracks costs associated with
specific cleanups in order to recover the costs from responsible
parties.
Designing the cost accounting system to track costs associated with
goals and objectives can simplify preparation of the budget and
annual report. While these are highly visible uses of cost
accounting information, cost information can have a more profound
impact on the day-to-day operations of an Agency. The Chief
Financial Officers Council, in its report "Integrating the Budget
Structure, Financial Statements, and Performance Measures Into
One Understandable Package," identified the several important uses
for cost information.
• Improved Agency Decision Making. Ongoing
information relating to the costs of producing services
should allow managers to make informed program decisions
and necessary adjustments during the year.
• Linkage to Group Performance. Good cost accounting
systems will provide information on how an individual
program or regional office is performing compared with the
plan or other programs or regions. This information should
help efforts to benchmark program costs and help identify
best practices.
• Performance Measurement. Most efficiency and
effectiveness measures that relate outputs to resources
consumed to produce the outputs will require cost
information.
18
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
EVALUATION OF
EFFECTIVENESS All managers need evaluative information to make decisions on the
NEEDED programs they oversee: information that tells them whether, and in
what ways, a program is working well or poorly, and why. OECA
did not have complete information on the number of multimedia
actions taken, and the costs and benefits of those actions. As a
result, OECA could not perform an evaluation of the multimedia
approach to enforcement to decide whether it offered greater
environmental protection, deterrence, and resource efficiency.
DRAFT REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA:
3-1 Clarify what types of actions meet MED's definition of
multimedia enforcement.
3-2 Revise the DOCKET definition for multimedia to match
MED's definition.
3-3 Establish an action plan for implementing the
recommendations from the study on DOCKET.
3-4 Work with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to
develop a process to identify and track costs of multimedia
enforcement actions.
AGENCY COMMENTS
AND ACTIONS The Assistant Administrator (AA) for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance agreed to implement the recommendations, and stated
that OECA had taken some action in the past to evaluate the
effectiveness of regional multimedia enforcement programs. From
1995 to 1998, OECA evaluations of regional performance included
an evaluation of multimedia enforcement. The reviews were both
quantitative and qualitative, but due to a lack of experience with
multimedia enforcement, OECA was not able to set a standard for
what constituted an effective use of multimedia enforcement.
Regarding the tracking of costs to evaluate the effectiveness of
multimedia enforcement, OECA stated that it supports the idea of
changing the cost accounting so that it tracks activities, but OECA
19
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
does not believe that it would be useful for the multimedia program
to track costs, if single media enforcement program costs are not
tracked. Unless all costs are tracked, the Agency would lack the
information needed to determine cost effectiveness.
OECA, in the written response to the draft report, agreed to take,
or is taking, the following actions to address the recommendations:
• Review the definition of multimedia enforcement, make any
needed adjustments, and communicate it to the regions.
(Completion date - 4th quarter of FY 2000)
• OECA will ensure that DOCKET'S definition and MED's
definition of multimedia are consistent. Implementation of
any changes to the DOCKET definition will occur as part of
OECA's GEMS modernization project. (Implementation to
begin 1st quarter FY 2001.)
• OECA is already implementing recommendations from the
DOCKET study. A revised case conclusion data sheet and
definitions have been developed and transmitted to the
Regions on April 10, 2000. The eventual product will be a
comprehensive revised case conclusion data guidance and
training on calculating pollution reductions and other
environmental benefits. (Target completion date: 1st
quarter FY 2001.)
OECA management provided additional information regarding the
actions it plans to take to track the costs of enforcement actions.
On June 22, 2000, OECA submitted a proposal to the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer recommending a workgroup be established
to develop recommendations for including information on all types
of enforcement actions in the Agency's accounting system. OECA
management expects that the recommendations will result in a pilot
project and full implementation in FY 2002.
20
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
OIG EVALUATION
The corrective actions, when completed, will address the issues and
recommendations in this finding. Regarding the regional reviews,
as OECA stated its ability to set a standard to evaluate regional
multimedia programs in the past has been limited. Implementation
of the recommendations in this report should result in a basis for
evaluating the programs in the future.
21
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 1
Environmental Benefits of Multimedia Enforcement
Table 2
Pollution Reduction from Ashland Oil Multimedia Settlement
Pollutant
Reduction
Volatile Organic Compounds
5,011,450 pounds per year released to the air
Sulfur Dioxide
218,000 pounds per year released to the air
Hydrogen Sulfide
5,750 pounds per year released to the air
Benzene
30 megagrams per year released to the air
Total suspended particles
not quantifiable
Ammonia
97,650 pounds per year released to water
Phenol
950 pounds per year released to water
Oil and grease
11,700 pounds per year released to water
Biochemical oxygen demand and
chemical oxygen demand
153,400 pounds per year released to water
Petrol seeps
7.6 billion pounds per year released to the Mississippi
River
Toxic wastewater
4.065 billion pounds per year released to the Mississippi
River
22
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Exhibit 2
Page 1 of 2
^^^^^^cojje^lethodolog^intnMoi^udi^o^rag^^^^^
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY Government auditing standards require auditors to be free from
personal impairments and independent of the organization being
audited. One of the staff for this audit was on detail to the OIG,
and had previously been a member of the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Team in Region 5. To maintain
independence, the auditor did not participate in the fieldwork
performed in Region 5.
To evaluate EPA's progress in using multimedia enforcement as a
tool for achieving compliance with laws and regulations, we
performed the following activities.
• Evaluated the management controls relating to multimedia
enforcement. Weaknesses in the management controls are
discussed in chapters 2 and 3.
Interviewed OECA staff regarding the development,
implementation, and management of the multimedia
program.
Reviewed Agency documents regarding multimedia
enforcement.
Met with Region 2 and 5 staff to gain an understanding of
how they approached multimedia enforcement. We also
reviewed a sample of current multimedia enforcement
actions for the two regions to understand the multimedia
enforcement process.
Obtained information from each region regarding how they
approached multimedia enforcement, and the benefits and
problems associated with it.
23
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Exhibit 2
Page 2 of 2
• Reviewed a random sample of ten multimedia enforcement
actions completed in FY 1999 to evaluate the benefits of
multimedia enforcement.
In conducting the audit, we relied upon information from DOCKET
to identify multimedia enforcement actions. We did not conduct a
data validation review of DOCKET. This will be the subject of an
OIG review during FY 2000/2001.
We issued the draft report on March 28, 2000. The Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
responded to the draft report on May 16, 2000. We incorporated
the response into the report, and made other appropriate changes.
A complete copy of the response is included in appendix 1.
An exit conference was held with OECA Multimedia Enforcement
Division management on June 19, 2000. At the meeting,
management provided further explanation of the actions it would
take to address the report recommendations. These actions were
included as part of the Agency comments sections of the report,
and were integral in our decision that no further response was
needed.
PRIOR AUDIT
COVERAGE No prior audits have been performed of multimedia enforcement.
The OIG conducted a survey of Federal Facilities Enforcement and
Compliance (Report No.l999-P-209), that included a multimedia
approach to Federal facilities. The report suggested that the
Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, evaluate Region 6's
risk initiative as a possible method to prioritize compliance and
enforcement activities. Our audit of multimedia enforcement also
found that this initiative resulted in 100 percent of Region 6's
multimedia inspections in FY 1999 identifying at least one
significant violation, as described on page 10.
24
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Appendix 1
Page 1 of 6
* A \
5 Hi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MAY 16 2000
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Report No. 99-001076 "EPA's Multimedia Enforcement
Program"
In accordance with EPA Order 2750,1 am responding to the Office of the Inspector
General's (OIG) draft report of findings and recommendations concerning EPA's multimedia
enforcement program. We appreciate the insights the report provides in answering the question:
"What progress has EPA made in implementing multimedia as a tool for achieving compliance
with laws and regulations?" and agree with your findings that multimedia enforcement actions are
being taken and can result in significant environmental benefits. While the Agency has made great
progress in making multimedia enforcement an integral part of our enforcement program, we
agree with the OIG's findings that we can do more to promote and to evaluate the effectiveness
of multimedia enforcement. With a few exceptions that are noted below, we agree with the
recommendations set forth in the report and have included an action plan for implementing those
recommendations. In many instances, this plan reflects activities underway, some of which are
nearing completion.
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program Can Do More to Promote Multimedia
Enforcement
While we agree that OECA can do more to promote multimedia enforcement, we believe
that OECA has been a national leader in promoting a multimedia approach to remedying
environmental problems since its inception in 1994. Multimedia enforcement has been
incorporated into our planning by including it in our Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Guidance since FY 1996. The OECA MOA guidance articulates OECA's national enforcement
and compliance goals, objectives, and priorities which the regions, states, and other partners use
in planning their annual activities. Without fail, each two-year MOA Guidance has included
multimedia priority sectors and has encouraged the regions to target geographic areas for
FROM:
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
TO:
Nikki L. Tinsley
Inspector General
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 20% Postconsumer)
l ire original was signed by Sylvia K. Lowrance Jor Steven A. Herman.
25
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Appendix 1
Page 2 of 6
multimedia emphasis. For example, in the FY 2000/2001 MO A Guidance, two of the seven
national priorities are multimedia sectors. To address sectors, we have developed integrated
strategies that provide a comprehensive review of environmental issues at the facilities in the
sector.
After the enforcement reorganization, OECA (lead by the Multimedia Enforcement
Division (MED)) began a new effort to identify and remedy significant violations by large
corporations of multiple environmental statutes at multiple facilities across the country.
Historically, EPA and the states had primarily used a single-facility and single program approach
to evaluate compliance and initiate enforcement actions. This traditional approach meant that
examination of a large corporation's compliance with environmental requirements on a national,
multimedia, and multi-facility basis generally did not occur. Over the past couple of years, this
new effort has resulted in investigations and national enforcement actions. Through this
innovative approach to enforcement, EPA has begun to effect change at a corporate level that has
resulted in improved compliance and environmental benefits across all of a company's facilities (as
the OIG highlighted in Exhibit 1 of the report). This change in direction to the EPA's traditional
enforcement emphasis will be reflected in any guidance we issue on multimedia enforcement.
OECA has developed a number of guidance documents that are multimedia in nature. For
example, the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP) Policy, Audit Policy, Small Business
Policy, Small Communities Policy, and the OECA Cookbook on Imminent and Substantial
Endangerment. These policies provide guidance to the regions in a number of key areas that is
applicable to all media thereby eliminating one barrier to multimedia enforcement actions -
conflicting single media policies. In addition, some of these documents provide the tools to
facilitate multimedia enforcement. For example, the Cookbook gives Regions guidance on the
imminent and substantial endangerment provisions of all environmental statutes. This compilation
gives regions the information they need to be able to select the most advantageous statutory
provision to use in any type of enforcement action (e.g., the RCRA imminent and substantial
endangerment provision may be appropriate in a particular CWA case).
Finally, EPA senior managers for the enforcement and compliance assurance program
established a standing committee on multimedia enforcement last summer. This committee,
comprised of regional and headquarters managers is currently leading guidance development for
managing multimedia enforcement cases. One of their first tasks was to develop language for the
2000/2001 MO A, so that each region would have similar multimedia commitments. As of this
date, the committee is circulating a draft model case management plan for large complex
enforcement actions.
This section of the report incorrectly states that OECA failed to address the 1991 EPA
study on implementing multimedia enforcement which recommended that the Agency resolve
conflicts in the administrative procedures programs used for enforcement to facilitate taking
combined administrative actions. OECA addressed this issue in its revision of the Consolidated
Rules of Practice ("CROP"). The final rule (64 Fed. Reg. 4176, July 23, 1999) eliminated from
2
26
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Appendix 1
Page 3 of 6
the CROP all significant obstacles to multimedia administrative enforcement actions; one such
change was to make the time allowed to file an answer to a complaint consistent with all statutes.6
OECA Needed to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Multimedia Enforcement
The draft report states that "OECA had not evaluated the effectiveness of multimedia
enforcement as a tool for ensuring compliance with laws and regulations." While perhaps more
evaluation is needed, we do not agree that OECA did not evaluate multimedia effectiveness.
Over the period FY 1995-1998, OECA conducted evaluations of each Region's enforcement,
compliance, and site remediation program. The Regions' approach to multimedia screening,
inspections, and enforcement was a subject of discussion in our review of each Region and a
section on multimedia enforcement was included in the report written for each Regional
evaluation. Our inquiry was both quantitative and qualitative, though we did not attempt through
these reviews to define just what constituted a multimedia enforcement action because as reflected
in the report, we were focusing on building capacity for multimedia enforcement. Early on, due
to a lack of experience with multimedia enforcement, we were limited in our ability to set a
standard for what constituted an effective use of multimedia enforcement. These reports will be
made available to the OIG upon request.
On page 15 of the draft report, you have stated that"... EPA staff reported pollution
reduction benefits for only 27% of all enforcement cases concluded in FY 1998." This statement
may be misleading if you do not consider the context of pollutant loading reductions against the
expected outcomes of judicial and administrative actions. Most enforcement cases concluded in
1998, like other years, do not directly result in pollution reductions. Of the cases concluded in
1998, 40% were for penalty only; another 20% of the cases were for labeling or reporting
violations. Neither of these types of cases produce direct pollution reductions, so no such
reporting of pollution reduction benefit is expected. That leaves 40% of the 1998 concluded
cases for which reporting on pollution reduction benefits was appropriate. Of this set of
enforcement cases (for which a pollution reduction benefit was appropriate) a pollution reduction
benefit was cited 67.5% of the time.7
Attached please find OECA's responses to the IG's specific recommendations in the
Report. For each recommendation, we have provided a response regarding our corrective
action(s) and, where applicable, at time frame for completion of these corrective actions.
Should you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Greg Marion,
OECA's OIG Audit Liaison, at (202) 564-2446.
Attachment
3
This section was deleted from the final report.
7 The final report was revised based on Agency comments.
27
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
Charles Allberry
Sylvia Lowrance
Eric Schaeffer
Michael Stahl
Dennis DeVoe
David Nielsen
Frederick Stiehl
Greg Marion
Regional Enforcement Coordinators
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Appendix 1
Page 5 of 6
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Draft Report No. 99-001076
OIG Recommendations and EPA Response
OECA Can Do More to Promote Multimedia Enforcement
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA:
Develop a plan to implement and manage the multimedia enforcement
program.
OECA intends to use the final IG report as an impetus to reiterate OECA's
management philosophy, the objectives of multimedia enforcement, definition of
multimedia, and to identify any additional steps, including new policies, necessary
to implement multimedia enforcement. A memo will be issued within 90 days of
the final IG report that addresses this recommendation. Target completion date:
4th Q FY 00 (within 90 days of final report).
OECA intends to issue a number of Policies applicable to all media which will
facilitate multimedia enforcement.
• SEP Policy on Profitability of Pollution Prevention Projects.
Target completion date: 4th Q FY 00.
• SEP Policy on Environmental Management Systems. Target
completion date: 4th Q FY 00.
• Multimedia Administrative Case Guidance. Target completion
date: 1st Q FY 01.
• Use existing regional enforcement coordinators to promote and implement
multimedia enforcement in the regions.
OECA intends to continue to use existing mechanisms to promote and implement
multimedia enforcement in the regions. These mechanisms include:
• Frequent visits by the Assistant Administrator, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, and other program managers to each region to review
performance, address major policy issues, and identify need for assistance.
• Multimedia enforcement standing committee comprised of senior managers
for the enforcement and compliance assurance program
Target completion date: Ongoing
29
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Appendix 1
Page 6 of 6
OECA Needed to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Multimedia Enforcement
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OECA:
Clarify what types of actions meet MED's definition of multimedia
enforcement.
OECA will review MED's definition of multimedia, make any needed adjustments
and communicate it to the regions. Completion date: 4th Q FY 00.
Revise the DOCKET definition for multimedia to match MED's definition.
OECA will ensure that DOCKET'S definition and MED's definition of multimedia
are consistent. Implementation of any changes to the DOCKET definition will
occur as part of OECA's GEMS modernization project. Implementation to begin
1st Q FY 01.
Establish an action plan for implementing the recommendations from the
study on DOCKET.
In FY99 OECA conducted a thorough review of the case conclusion data and its
reporting process as implemented, and adopted a set of recommendations to
improve the consistency and quality of that information. OECA is already
implementing the recommendations from the study on DOCKET. OECA is hiring
contractor support for this effort; the procurement request has been submitted to
EPA's contract office. EPA in-house staff work has already begun. A revised
case conclusion data sheet and definitions have been developed and transmitted to
the Regions on April 10, 2000. The eventual product will be a comprehensive
revised case conclusion data guidance and training on calculating pollution
reductions and other environmental benefits. Target completion date: 1st Q FY
01.
Work with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to develop a process to
identify and track costs of multimedia enforcement actions.
As the IG has pointed out, EPA's cost accounting system to track costs based
on Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure identifies costs
associated with all (not separate media) enforcement actions, except Superfund
(whose costs are tracked separately). While OECA supports the idea of changing
the cost accounting so that it tracks activities, we do not believe that it would be
useful for the multimedia program to track costs, if single media enforcement
program costs are not tracked. Unless all costs are tracked, the Agency would
lack the information needed to determine cost effectiveness. OECA will work
with the Office of Chief Financial Officer to build into the Agency's cost
accounting system all types of enforcement actions. Target completion date:
Ongoing
2
30
Report 2000-P-000018
-------
EPA's Multimedia Enforcement Program
Appendix 2
Page 1 of 1
DISTRIBUTION
Headquarters
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201 A)
Chief Financial Officer (2710)
Agency Follow-up Official (3101)
Attn: Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resource Management
Agency Follow-up Coordinator (3304), Attn: Director, Resource Management Division
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (2201 A)
Headquarters Library (3404)
Regions
Regional Administrator
Regional Enforcement Coordinator
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
31
Report 2000-P-000018
------- |