$
<
73
\
Ml
(T
PRQrt^
b
2
ui
(J
T
J
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
Limited Knowledge of the Universe
of Regulated Entities Impedes
EPA's Ability to Demonstrate
Changes in Regulatory Compliance
Report No. 2005-P-00024
September 19, 2005
-------
Report Contributors:
Erin Barnes-Weaver
Kim Bryant
Manju Gupta
Jeff Hart
Ben Webster
Abbreviations
CAA
Clean Air Act
CWA
Clean Water Act
ECHO
Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
GAO
Government Accountability Office
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG
Office of Inspector General
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
-------
£
<
33
V
^60S%
V PRO^4-0
o
LU
a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2005-P-00024
September 19, 2005
Why We Did This Review
To enforce its regulations and
achieve maximum compliance,
a regulatory agency must know
its entire regulated universe.
We sought to determine how
well the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
(OECA) knows the
composition and size of its
regulated universe, as well as
how OECA determines and
reports compliance levels
across the regulated universe.
Background
OECA compiled its regulated
universe table to provide
consistent numbers when
presenting compliance
information to Congress, the
public, and other stakeholders.
The information also aids EPA
in making management
decisions about compliance and
enforcement resource
allocations. In the universe
table issued in September 2001,
OECA reported an inventory of
approximately 41.1 million
regulated entities.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2005/
20050919-2005-P-00024.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Limited Knowledge of the Universe of
Regulated Entities Impedes EPA's Ability to
Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance
What We Found
OECA has limited knowledge of the diverse regulated universe for which it
maintains responsibility. OECA has not updated its universe table since
generating it in 2001, even though some universe figures for reviewed program
areas have changed substantially. EPA has used the 2001 table as a source for
describing the size of its regulated universe in public documents. Various data
quality issues impact OECA's ability to adequately identify the size of its
regulated universe and associated compliance information. OECA concentrates
most of its regulatory activities on large entities and knows little about the
identities or cumulative impact of small entities. OECA cannot effectively use
universe figures to assist with its regulatory activities. OECA does not develop
programmatic compliance information, adequately report on the size of the
universe for which it maintains responsibility, or rely on universe figures to assist
with planning.
OECA's limited universe knowledge prevents it from determining overall
compliance levels in five of the six regulatory program areas we reviewed. This
hinders OECA's ability to generate valid programmatic compliance information
and effectively determine program success. In addition, OECA lacks adequate
transparency in publicly reporting some currently available compliance
information.
What We Recommend
We recommend that OECA biannually update publicly released universe figures,
and produce complete, reasonably accurate, and current universe data. Further,
OECA should better describe its enforcement and compliance role, develop an
objective to obtain better reporting from States, and request EPA program offices
to analyze and report on the cumulative impact of violations from small entities.
Also, we recommend that OECA develop and publish information that
demonstrates changes in compliance levels, and better share existing compliance
data and analyses that will provide external stakeholders with an improved
understanding of programmatic compliance levels. EPA agreed with some of our
recommendations, but not those related to biannually updating universe figures,
developing an objective to obtain better reporting from States, or for developing
programmatic compliance information.
-------
^£0SX
i - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| X\\/V 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
V
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 19, 2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes
EPA's Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory Compliance
Report No. 2005-P-00024
FROM:
Jeffrey K. Harris /s/
Director for Program Evaluation, Cross-Media Issues
TO:
Granta Y. Nakayama
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
This is our final report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This evaluation report contains our
findings that describe the problems we have identified and corrective actions we recommend.
This evaluation report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings contained in this report
do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers will make final
determinations on matters in this report in accordance with established procedures.
We met with Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance managers on June 13, 2005, to
discuss our preliminary findings, and provided our draft report on June 30, 2005. EPA did not
concur with all of our recommendations. EPA provided its official written comments in two
documents. We have included EPA's summary memorandum response in its entirety as
Appendix D. EPA's second document - the Agency's response, including detailed comments on
our recommendations - is available on OIG's Web site, with the report. We are also including
lists of publicly available compliance and enforcement measures, provided to us in EPA's
response, in Appendix F.
-------
Action Required
EPA Manual 2750 requires you as the action official to provide this office with a written
response to this report within 90 calendar days of the final report date. Your response should
address all recommendations and must include your concurrence or nonconcurrence with all
recommendations. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, please
describe the actions that are ongoing and provide a timetable for completion. If you do not
concur with a recommendation, please provide alternative actions addressing the findings
reported. For your convenience, this report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/.
Attachment
cc: Phyllis Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Michael M. Stahl, Director, Office of Compliance, OECA
Walker B. Smith, Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, OECA
Greg Marion, Audit Followup Coordinator, OECA
-------
Table of C
At a Glance
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 3
2 OECA Has Limited Knowledge of the Regulated Universe 6
Universe Table Not Updated Since 2001 Despite Significant Changes 6
Data Quality Problems Affect OECA's 2001 Universe Figures 7
OECA Could More Clearly Describe Its Role 10
OECA Does Not Focus Its Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Activities on a Greater Part of the Regulated Universe 11
OECA Does Not Know the Cumulative Impact of Small Entities 14
Recommendations 15
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 15
3 OECA Cannot Determine Changes in Compliance for Five of Six
Sample Program Areas 16
OECA Cannot Generate Programmatic Compliance Information
for Five of Six Program Areas 16
OECA Is Not Sufficiently Transparent with Available Compliance Data 19
Recommendations 20
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 20
Appendices
A OECA's Regulatory Universe Identification Table - Executive Summary 22
B Environmental Statute Information and Program-Specific
Facility Size Classifications 26
C Details on Scope and Methodology 28
D Agency Response Memorandum to Draft Report 32
E Agency Comments to OIG Recommendations and OIG Evaluation 36
F Publicly Available Compliance and Enforcement Measures 43
G Distribution 48
-------
Chapter 1
Purpose
To enforce its regulations and achieve maximum compliance, a regulatory agency
must know its entire regulated community. This knowledge enables an agency to
make more informed management decisions about compliance and enforcement
resource allocations, and provides Congress and the public with data on whether
compliance is increasing. Further, if entities realize they are unknown to a
regulatory agency, they may be less likely to comply with environmental
regulations, and enforcement actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may be unlikely to occur.
The EPA is responsible for implementing a large number of environmental
regulations over a diverse universe of regulated entities of differing size, nature of
operations, and complexity. To evaluate the effectiveness of EPA's enforcement
and compliance efforts, we plan to evaluate several interrelated issues. This
report addresses the nature and composition of the regulated universe, and
answers the following questions:
• How well does EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OEC A) know the composition and size of its regulated universe?
• How does OECA determine and report levels of compliance in the regulated
universe?
In subsequent reports, we plan to address how to best measure compliance status,
determine EPA's tools and strategies for improving compliance, and consider the
changes that occur as a result of those tools and activities.
Background
Importance of Knowing the Regulated Universe
Knowledge of the size and character of the regulated community is fundamental
to a regulatory agency's effectiveness. Identifying the regulated universe enables
regulatory agencies to develop effective enforcement and compliance strategies,
as well as establish deterrence among the regulated community. Current and
complete universe information facilitates evaluation, highlights the scope of
responsibilities, increases transparency, and improves the ability to manage
enforcement and compliance efforts.
1
-------
We developed the following list of the benefits of a known universe based on
interviews with OECA staff and reviews of environmental policy literature
(see Table 1-1):
Table 1-1: Benefits of Knowing the Full Regulated Universe
Evaluation Current and complete universe figures can allow for improved internal and external
analysis and reporting of the impact of a regulatory agency's activities.
Scope Universe data discloses the size and nature of a regulatory agency's
responsibilities. Knowledge of the universe provides the agency with a definitive
baseline on the number, size, location and character of entities subject to particular
regulations and statutes. This is especially important as entities shut down, start up,
move, or change their operations.
Transparency EPA has a longstanding commitment to transparency - to publicly account for its
decisions and explain why it took or did not take certain actions. During his
confirmation hearing, current EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson listed one of his
guiding principles as pursuing "as open and transparent a decision making process
as possible." Increased information disclosure allows external stakeholders to
better understand a regulatory agency's activities. Since the passage of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, EPA has used
information disclosure as a means to improve environmental performance. OECA
documents note how continued and increased release of information keeps with the
Administrator's emphasis on greater transparency. Public disclosure also holds the
Agency accountable for all lessons learned, including both successes and failures.
Management Current and complete universe information can assist with the following
management activities:
• Targeting: Updated universe data provides information on how many entities
can and will be affected by regulatory agencies' enforcement and compliance
activities, and thus enables better targeting strategies.
• Retrospective Analyses: Comprehensive regulated universe information can
assist a regulatory agency in conducting retrospective analyses on the success
of their enforcement and compliance activities in certain program areas.
• Rule-making: OECA staff said EPA has used universe data in regulatory
decisions and analyses.
• Priority-Setting: Knowledge of the regulated universe enables regulatory
agencies to more easily establish defensible priorities in focusing resources.
OECA's 2001 Universe Table
In September 2001, OECA compiled figures detailing the size of the regulated
universe for which it was responsible. OECA produced its 2001 Regulatory
Universe Identification Table (see Appendix A) after receiving criticism for not
having an adequate knowledge of its regulated universe. According to senior
2
-------
OECA managers, OECA also generated the universe figures to provide a single
definitive source for internal briefings and external presentations. For example:
• Prior to 2001, OECA staff cited a variety of inconsistent numbers when
discussing the regulated universe. During congressional budget hearings,
OECA could not provide consistent accounts of its regulated universe.
• In a July 2001 report,1 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated
OECA could not demonstrate "the universe of entities subject to regulation
under federal environmental laws." GAO also noted OECA could not
adequately explain variations in enforcement activity across regions, or how it
distributed resources and determined priorities.
The 2001 Regulatory Universe Identification Table shows that OECA's universe
totaled approximately 41.1 million entities. OECA developed the table by using
Agency databases and consulting 36 sources for the 58 program areas included in
the table. In developing the table, OECA produced a methodology that could be
used to generate future universe data. Staff in the Office of Compliance
coordinated with the Office of Regulatory Enforcement (now the Office of Civil
Enforcement) and program offices to obtain numbers for universe program areas.
OECA staff asked relevant program staff to provide program descriptions, a data
source to generate the universe number, and any data caveats. OECA staff
emphasized that a source, database, or document had to support the universe
number used in the table; institutional knowledge or a "gut" feeling were not
adequate. OECA staff described the methodology as a resource-intensive process.
Since 2001, EPA has described the number of regulated entities as approximately
41 million based on OECA's universe table. For example, EPA cited this figure
in public documents, such as the EPA Strategic Plan 2003-2008.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation field work on EPA's knowledge of its regulated
universe and compliance status between January and April 2005. We generally
performed our evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.
To answer both the universe and compliance objectives, we judgmentally selected
six sample program areas, as case studies, from OECA's 2001 Regulatory
Universe Identification Table. We based this sample on information gathered
from our preliminary research. An initial analysis of the Regulatory Universe
Identification Table showed that OECA's universe consisted of a total of
approximately 41 million entities. These included a diverse and complex mix of
entities of varying sizes and types. Small entities made up a much greater part of
1 GAO-Ol-812, Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help EPA to Achieve Its
Strategic Goals, July 2001.
3
-------
the universe than major and large entities. A review of OECA's planning
documents also showed that a handful of programs were selected as national
priorities, and others were described as core programs. While OECA is ultimately
responsible for regulating all 41 million entities, it focuses its regulatory attention
on national priority program areas, while the States are primarily responsible for
core programs. To conduct a balanced evaluation of OECA's knowledge of the
regulated universe, it was important to select a sample that reflected the mix of
program areas for which OECA is both ultimately responsible and it had
represented as falling under its regulatory authority in its Regulatory Universe
Identification Table.
We selected the sample program areas using the following criteria:
• Program areas from across major environmental statutes;
• Program areas including a mix of large and small entities because OECA
included both groups in its overall universe count; and
• A mix of national priority and core programs.
Applying these criteria, we selected the sample program areas listed in Table 1-2.
We included details on the applicable statutes, program areas, and distinctions
between the different sizes of entities in Appendix B.
Table 1-2: Environmental Statutes and Sample Program Areas
Statute
Program Area
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Minor Stationary Sources and Synthetic Minors *
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Stormwater Permits
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Total Number of Farms and Business Sites
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Regulated under Pesticides Programs
Toxic Substances Control Act
Core TSCA - Other Manufacturers, Processors,
(TSCA)
Distributors, Users, and Exporters
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA)
Public Water Systems: Community Systems
Resource Conservation and
Small Quantity Generator Facilities
Recovery Act (RCRA)
* Synthetic minors are stationary sources that have the capacity to emit at or above the
major source threshold but are considered minor sources because they place physical
or operational limitations on their capacity to emit pollution.
We did not quantitatively extrapolate the results from our judgmental sample
across OECA's entire regulated universe. Similarly, we did not use our
judgmental sample to generalize to OECA's entire regulated universe. During the
course of our review, however, we did find conditions that were systemic. We
interviewed OECA managers to determine whether a condition was limited to the
program area under review, or whether it was an OECA-wide policy or practice.
4
-------
When OECA managers confirmed that it was an OECA-wide policy or practice,
we presented it as a finding with an appropriate recommendation. These findings
and recommendations may therefore be broader than the program areas under
review within the sample. However, they are accompanied by appropriate
explanatory caveats. Both Chapters 2 and 3 include such findings and
recommendations.
We did not independently verify the accuracy or reliability of data provided by
OECA staff for our program area sample. We conducted limited work regarding
fraud, and did not test internal controls. We followed the guidance and
definitions provided in the GAO guidance document, Assessing the Reliability of
Computer-Processed Data, to answer our evaluation objectives. We reviewed
existing information on OECA's data problems, limitations, and corrective
actions, and conducted interviews with OECA staff knowledgeable about
enforcement and compliance data systems. We designed our scope to examine
universe data at a national level and, as such, did not trace documents or data
from original points of regional, State, or local data entry to final database output.
See Appendix C for more details on our scope and methodology.
5
-------
Chapter 2
OECA Has Limited Knowledge of the
Regulated Universe
OECA has limited knowledge of the regulated universe for which it maintains
responsibility. OECA has not updated its Regulatory Universe Identification
Table since generating that table in 2001, even though some universe figures have
changed substantially. In addition, various data quality issues impact OECA's
ability to adequately determine reliable and current information on the size and
composition of its regulated universe. OECA concentrates most of its compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities on large entities, and knows little about the
identities or cumulative pollution effects of small entities. Therefore, OECA
cannot effectively use universe figures to assist with its regulatory activities. It
cannot develop programmatic compliance information, adequately report on the
size of the universe for which it maintains responsibility, or rely on these numbers
to assist with management and regulatory planning. Further, in publications,
OECA could more clearly qualify its role in relation to the roles played by States
and others.
Universe Table Not Updated Since 2001 Despite Significant Changes
While the number of entities in our universe sample has changed, OECA has not
updated the universe table as a whole. To determine whether any significant
changes in the size of the sampled universe have occurred, we requested that
OECA staff provide us with the current number of regulated entities for our
sampled program areas. Between 2001 and 2005, the universe for these program
areas increased by 35 percent. Although we had limited our review of the size
increase to only the six sampled areas, this indicates that the numbers of entities
changed over time and OECA needs to update the numbers. Table 2-1 illustrates,
for example, how some areas changed very little, while others changed
significantly:
6
-------
Table 2-1: Change in Sample Universe Figures by Program Area, 2001 and 2005
Program Area
2001
2005
Percent
Change
CAA - Minor Stationary Sources
CAA - Synthetic Minor Sources
96,866
17,248
101,370
20,795
+ 5 %
+ 21 %
CWA - Stormwater Permits
380,000
>550,000
+ 45 %
FIFRA - Farms and Businesses, etc.
2,246,512
2,168,241
-4%
TSCA - Other Manufacturers, etc.
3,758,176
6,063,948
+ 61 %
SDWA - Public Water Systems:
Community Systems
54,101
52,838
-2%
RCRA - Small Quantity Generator
Facilities
202,965
178,771
- 12 %
Total
6,755,868
9,135,963
+ 35 %
Following the release of the Regulatory Universe Identification Table in
September 2001, OECA planned to begin updating the table in December 2001.
OECA intended future iterations to provide regional breakouts of the regulated
universe in addition to national figures. However, OECA has not produced new
universe figures since it released the original table in 2001, and continues to cite
the number of entities from the 2001 table. OECA staff attributed this to a lack of
resources. However, they indicated they are considering updating information on
certain areas selected as national priority programs. OECA selected a handful of
programs as national priorities based on patterns of noncompliance or the threat of
significant environmental risk. In a December 8, 2004, response to our questions,
senior managers from OECA's Office of Compliance indicated they did not
believe the universe numbers had changed dramatically. Some OECA staff,
however, said it is difficult to provide precise universe figures for some program
areas because they fluctuate frequently.
Regulatory agencies should attempt to maintain a reasonably accurate count of the
regulated entities, by program area, under their purview. Knowledge of the
regulated universe allows an environmental regulatory body like OECA to better
understand the patterns of noncompliance in a sector or population, assess the
production process and practices used by entities, and determine the state of
environmental management sophistication in the sector or population. Without
reliable universe information, OECA lacks both a definitive baseline on the
number, size, and character of entities subject to regulation, as well as the
information necessary to provide a denominator for compliance rates.
Data Quality Problems Affect OECA's 2001 Universe Figures
The data that constitute OECA's numbers in the universe table are subject to
several data quality issues. With the exception of SDWA, we found universe data
for the sampled program areas was not reliable. The EPA Office of Inspector
7
-------
General (OIG), GAO, and the National Academy of Public Administration have
previously reported data quality problems. We based our conclusions using
definitions from GAO's Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data,
which defines reliable data as being both complete and accurate, and provides the
following definitions:
• Complete: The data contain all of the data elements and records needed for
the engagement.
• Accurate: The data reflect the data entered at the source or, if available, in the
source documents.
Table 2-2 shows where we determined that a number of program areas do not
have reliable or current data. Some program areas rely on estimated or
extrapolated data, and the estimates were not based on supportable information.
According to OECA, its inability to ensure desired data quality occurred due to
data gaps. Data gaps occur in cases where regulations do not require States to
report data to OECA. OECA managers said that obtaining additional reporting
from States would require approvals by the Office of Management and Budget, or
additional regulatory actions.
Table 2-2: Data Quality of Sample Program Areas
Program Area
Reliable Data *
Current Data
CAA - Minor Stationary Sources
CAA - Synthetic Minor Sources
No
No
No
No
CWA - Stormwater Permits
No
Unknown
FIFRA - Farms and Businesses, etc.
No
Unknown
Core TSCA - Other Manufacturers, etc.
No
No
SDWA - Public Water Systems:
Community Systems
Yes
Yes
RCRA - Small Quantity Generator
Facilities
No
Unknown
* Reliable data must be both complete and accurate.
Results from Table 2-2 are explained below:
• CAA Minor Stationary Sources: CAA minor source data are incomplete
because States are not required to report CAA minor stationary source data.
In addition, State and local agencies do not evaluate all minor source entities
regularly, so the data are not kept current.
• CAA Synthetic Minor Sources: According to OECA staff, the Agency does
not have a complete, accurate, or current universe of CAA synthetic minor
sources even though State and local regulatory agencies are required to report
the data to EPA. The staff also noted that State and local agencies do not
evaluate all synthetic minor sources regularly, so the data are not kept current.
8
-------
• CWA Stormwater: EPA's Office of Water staff said they estimated the
figure used in the 2001 table, but they could not provide a supportable basis
for the estimate. They suggested the number might have come from
extrapolated projections from the seven States for which EPA had not
delegated the CWA stormwater program. It, therefore, does not necessarily
represent a reliable estimate for the true national universe of entities subject to
stormwater regulations.
• FIFRA: Approximately 99 percent of the FIFRA universe of 2,246,512
entities is estimated. It includes three subgroups: pesticide production
establishments (12,442), commercial pest control firms (40,000), and farms
(2,194,070). OECA has limited knowledge of the largest subgroup: farms.
FIFRA provides primacy to States, and OECA has limited involvement with
the FIFRA universe. The statute requires commercial establishments to
register pesticides, and this component of the universe includes only those
who register. The number of non-registrants is not known.
• TSCA: The numbers for the TSCA universe are not reliable for the sample
program area. The sample included a large group (3,758,176) described as
"other manufacturers, processors, users, distributors, and exporters of
chemical substances in the U.S...." OECA estimated this number from the
Dun and Bradstreet sector data of entities, which is composed of
manufacturing, wholesale, and retail trades. However, according to OECA
staff, its compliance and enforcement activities only focus on a small subset
of the total Core TSCA universe - the 13,513 chemical manufacturers. This
number for chemical manufacturers was generated from the 1997 U.S.
Economic Census. This 1997 figure was used in the 2001 universe table, and
was also provided as the current universe number. Therefore, both the 2001
and 2005 figures are outdated.
• SDWA: We take no exception to the published universe figures for SDWA.
The sample for SDWA included Public Water Systems: Community Systems.
This universe is well defined. We did not independently test the SDWA data.
• RCRA: The RCRA small quantity generator facility universe number is
incomplete. The designation of large quantity versus small quantity depends
on the amount of waste generated and stored. According to OECA staff, these
facilities are not required to notify EPA if their status changes from a small to
large facility. The facilities can easily change from small to large generators,
and the staff explained how it is difficult for OECA to generate a reliable
universe figure because of this flux.
9
-------
The EPA OIG, GAO, and the National Academy of Public Administration have
previously reported problems with OECA's data quality.2 High quality data in
EPA's national databases are essential for credible measures, reports, and
analyses. In response to weaknesses identified by external sources, OECA issued
guidance in March 2002 on improving data quality, titled Final Enforcement and
Compliance Data Quality Strategy, which states:
EPA managers and members of Congress rely on this data to hold EPA
programs accountable and to inform their decision-making... Accurate
data, in an accessible and usable form, is essential to support Agency
planning and targeting... Documenting performance [for the Government
Performance and Results Act] requires timely, high quality data... Proof
of high quality gives rise to confidence among the public, industry, and
other users of enforcement and compliance data.
OECA Could More Clearly Describe Its Role
Of the 41.1 million entities listed in the 2001 universe table, EPA maintains only
1.6 million facility or entity records in its compliance and enforcement databases.
This represents less than 4 percent of the total facilities for which OECA is
responsible. Many of those entities represent those for which EPA has direct
regulatory authority. For most entities, EPA has authorized States to implement
environmental programs and conduct enforcement activities in accordance with
environmental laws. Among the program areas we evaluated, OECA is the primary
regulatory authority only for TSCA. For the other program areas, the States are the
primary regulators, with OECA providing an oversight role, although in certain
instances EPA may become involved in compliance activities and enforcement
actions.
Some documents in which EPA includes the 41.1 million figure do not clearly
indicate OECA's shared role in conducting its regulatory responsibility. These
include the Agency's 2005-2007 National Program Guidance, and EPA responses
to prior EPA OIG and GAO reports. EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan and
OECA's response to the 2006 Office of Management and Budget Program
Assessment Rating Tool do explain that EPA works cooperatively with States, as
well as local and tribal agencies, to secure and maintain compliance. OECA staff
stated they never intended to imply that OECA had direct responsibility for
41.1 million entities. However, without appropriate explanatory caveats, external
stakeholders might misinterpret the figure to mean that OECA actually ensures
environmental protection by directly regulating all 41.1 million entities.
2 These documents include OIG's EPA's Key Management Challenges (2003), GAO's Human Capital:
Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals (2001), and the
National Academy of Public Administration's Evaluating Environmental Progress: How EPA and the States Can
Improve the Quality of Enforcement and Compliance Information (2001).
10
-------
OECA Does Not Focus Its Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Activities on a Greater Part of the Regulated Universe
According to OECA staff, EPA's enforcement and compliance monitoring
activities focus on major and large entities or sources, which represent only a
small fraction of the total universe shown in OECA's universe table. OECA has
mostly focused on larger and major entities, and has not conducted or obtained
analyses showing the cumulative impact of the vast number of entities that emit
pollution below the threshold of major or larger entities. EPA has focused on
major and larger entities because any one of the larger entities can have a greater
individual impact than any of the smaller entities by itself. However, given the
much greater number of small entities in the sample, and the potential cumulative
impact from this vast part of the regulated universe, we find it is important for
OECA to know the cumulative environmental impact of entities that fall below
the major or large threshold. Information on small entities could help OECA
better prioritize where to focus resources and facilitate effective management.
The following charts illustrate the proportion of large and small entities in the
CAA, CWA, RCRA, and SDWA program areas (FIFRA and TSCA do not
formally distinguish between large and small entities). We generated each chart
using data from OECA's 2001 Regulatory Universe Identification Table. The
charts demonstrate that smaller entities comprise a much larger percentage of
OECA's total universe than large entities. We include general statutory
information and program-specific facility size classifications in Appendix B.
CAA: OECA concentrates its CAA resources on major stationary sources and
large polluters. Using 2001 universe figures, major stationary sources, minor
sources, and synthetic minor sources total 137,982 entities. Major stationary
sources represent only 4 percent of OECA's CAA regulated universe when
including other CAA entities such as mobile sources.
Chart 2-1: CAA Regulated Universe - 2001
~ Large Facilities (Major
Stationary Sources)
¦ Small Facilities (Minor
Stationary Sources)
¦ Small Facilities
(Synthetic Minor
Stationary Sources)
~ Other Facilities
(includes mobile
sources)
11
-------
CWA Stormwater Permits: The CWA stormwater program is a subset of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The
stormwater permits program was instituted in two phases. The first phase
required permits for large municipal waste water systems, industrial plants, and
large commercial construction sites. Phase two permit requirements cover a much
greater number of smaller municipal waste water systems and smaller
construction sites. In a majority of cases, States issue general permits, and only a
small percent of these permits are in OECA's databases. Analyses have shown
that stormwater overflow is a major source of water pollution. The universe of
stormwater sources is not well known even though stormwater has been a priority
area since fiscal year 2001. Stormwater continues as a national enforcement
priority program in fiscal year 2005, and OECA has developed a national strategy.
The strategy puts emphasis on providing compliance assistance and developing an
inventory of watersheds. OECA plans to devote more resources to focus on these
sources.
Chart 2-2: CWA-NPDES Regulated Universe - 2001
1%
~ Large Facilities (Major
Permitted Facilities)
¦ Small Facilities (Minor
Permitted Facilities)
~ Other Facilities (includes
wet weather facilities
(stormwater permits))
RCRA: OECA concentrates most of its regulatory resources on large quantity
generator facilities, although they comprise less than 10 percent of the combined
total of RCRA facilities, according to OECA's 2001 universe figures. The
percentage of large quantity generator facilities in the total RCRA universe drops
to 4 percent when including other facilities such as conditionally-exempt small
quantity generators.
16%
83%
12
-------
Chart 2-3: RCRA Regulated Universe - 2001
42%
35%
19%
~ Large Facilities (Large
Quantity Generators)
1 Small Facilities (Small
Quantity Generators)
¦ Small Facilities
(Conditionally-Exempt
Small Quantity
Generators)
~ Other Facilities
SDWA: While OECA is familiar with the SDWA public water system universe,
OECA does not expend its regulatory resources on all types of drinking water
entities. The majority of the U.S. population gets its drinking water from a small
number of public community water systems. EPA's annual report to Congress on
national public water system compliance includes information on large public
community water systems. The States, not OECA, are responsible for most
compliance activities across drinking water systems. SDWA was a national
priority enforcement area for OECA until 2005.
Chart 2-4: SDWA Regulated Universe - 2001
84%
1
~ Large Facilities (Public Water
Systems - Community Water
Systems)
¦ Small Facilities (Non-
Transient and Transient
Community Water Systems)
~ Other Facilities (includes
Class l-V Wells)
TSCA: While Core TSCA does not formally distinguish between large and small
entities, OECA concentrates its compliance and enforcement resources on 13,513
13
-------
chemical manufacturing entities out of 3,771,689 entities in the universe table.
This is 0.4 percent of the stated Core TSCA universe.
OECA staff mentioned that they use compliance assistance to help smaller entities
become compliant. They also provided various reasons why they generally focus
compliance monitoring and enforcement resources on large entities. OECA
officials said they should concentrate resources on large entities because:
Large entities are often priority enforcement and compliance monitoring
areas;
States address small entities through core program implementation and OECA
specifies to States how frequently they should inspect small entities;
The large size of program area universes, and an accompanying lack of
resources; and
The difficulty in identifying and analyzing RCRA small quantity generator
facilities because of their transient nature.
OECA Does Not Know the Cumulative Impact of Small Entities
In most program areas in our sample, OECA does not know the cumulative
effects of pollution from small entities. OECA did not provide information on
any analyses that study the cumulative environmental or health effects of small
entities. Of our sample program areas, OECA focuses compliance and
enforcement resources on small and medium entities in only the CWA stormwater
and Core TSCA program areas. EPA's concern that stormwater runoff
significantly impairs water quality contributed to designating the stormwater
program as a national enforcement priority in prior years, and continuing it as a
priority in fiscal 2005. While Core TSCA regulations do not formally distinguish
between large and small entities, OECA TSCA staff recently focused on smaller
chemical manufacturers because the staff believed they are less likely to
understand their Core TSCA obligations than large chemical manufacturers.
While no formal impact assessments have been undertaken, some States and EPA
regions have argued that RCRA small quantity generator facility inspections
represent some of the most environmentally significant activities that regions and
States conduct. RCRA enforcement staff said they are collecting small quantity
generator facility information, and may consider shifting OECA's RCRA
resources in coming years.
We acknowledge that analyzing the cumulative environmental effect of small
entities is not OECA's direct responsibility. However, given that OECA
crosscuts all of the Agency's program offices, we believe OECA should request
that program offices conduct these studies if OECA does not do the analyses
themselves. The knowledge generated by these analyses would allow OECA to
establish more defensible priorities of its own activities, as well as better organize
and coordinate the efforts of its State partners.
14
-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
2-1 Biannually update publicly released universe figures by tracking and
recording the number of entities over which OECA has oversight and
primary regulatory responsibility.
2-2 When producing its biannual universe update, use reliable data to generate
complete and current universe numbers that meet national data quality
standards similar to those outlined in OECA's Final Enforcement and
Compliance Data Quality Strategy.
2-3 Describe OECA's enforcement and compliance role in relation to States
and other partners when the Agency publicly releases universe figures.
2-4 Develop an objective of having the most up-to-date and reliable data on all
entities that fall under its regulatory responsibility. OECA should adopt
the goals of requiring States to track, record, and report data for entities
over which States have regulatory responsibility. To achieve this goal,
OECA should develop a multi-State, multi-program pilot program of
collecting data that States track, record, verify, and report.
2-5 Request that EPA program offices analyze and report to OECA the
cumulative impact of violations by regulated entities that pollute below the
thresholds of major or large entities. OECA should use any cumulative
impact analyses conducted by program offices to support OECA's
management decisions.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Even though OECA agreed with the premise that knowing the size and character
of the regulated universe is a fundamental activity for a regulatory agency, OECA
has not agreed to update its knowledge of the universe of entities for which it
maintains regulatory responsibility. Specifically, OECA agreed with
Recommendations 2-2 and 2-3, but disagreed with Recommendations 2-1, 2-4,
and 2-5. Appendix D includes the Agency memorandum that contains summary
comments. Appendix E includes the Agency's comments on specific
recommendations and other general comments, and our evaluation of those
comments. The Agency's detailed comments are available on the EPA OIG Web
site. We have made some appropriate changes to the report in response to the
Agency's comments.
15
-------
Chapter 3
OECA Cannot Determine Changes in Compliance for
Five of Six Sample Program Areas
OECA could not determine or report on the levels of compliance with
environmental regulations for five of our six sample regulatory areas. OECA's
National Program Guidance for 2005-2007 states that "OECA's national
enforcement and compliance assurance program is responsible for maximizing
compliance." OECA conducts several activities to determine and report
compliance. However, in five of the six sample program areas, OECA could not
determine and report overall programmatic compliance levels because it lacks
current and complete knowledge of the regulated universe. Data quality problems
further hindered OECA's ability to generate valid programmatic compliance
information. The lack of programmatic compliance information impedes OECA's
ability to determine which programs are working and how effective they are in
achieving goals. As a result, OECA cannot demonstrate changes in overall
compliance in the regulated universe. OECA generates region- and State-specific
noncompliance statistics and data for internal reports, but lacks sufficient
transparency by not publicly sharing some of this compliance-related information
with external stakeholders.
OECA Cannot Generate Programmatic Compliance Information for
Five of Six Program Areas
Reliable compliance information is essential for a regulatory agency to plan, set
goals, evaluate the results of its strategy, and demonstrate results to external
stakeholders. Statutes and regulations provide the basic framework of regulatory
compliance, along with various policies.
OECA cannot generate programmatic compliance information for five of the
program areas in our sample due to its limited knowledge of the full universe of
regulated entities. In these five sample areas, OECA maintained only facility-
specific noncompliance information for a limited part of that universe: the larger
or major entities in the program. OECA cannot determine the compliance of most
minor and synthetic minor stationary air sources, small quantity waste generator
facilities, and stormwater dischargers because OECA does not currently require
States to report data on minor and small sources. As discussed in Chapter 2,
minor and smaller entities constitute a much greater number of OECA's total
regulated universe than large entities.
Lack of knowledge of the number, location, and levels of compliance of this
significant portion of the universe leaves a large gap in OECA's knowledge of
overall compliance in each program. Within most of our sample, OECA has not
16
-------
been able to quantitatively demonstrate the success of its strategies, nor show an
increase in the percent of entities in compliance, because OECA does not know
the full universe of regulated entities.
In Table 3-1, we summarize whether compliance information for the program area
was available, and provide additional information after the table, based on
discussions with OECA staff, about available programmatic compliance
information. During discussions with OECA managers, we found that the lack of
data was systemic and not limited to only the program areas under review.
Table 3-1 shows by program area whether: OECA could provide programmatic
compliance information, OECA has defined a significant noncompliance or high
priority violator category, and the area is or has been a national priority program
since 2001.
Table 3-1: Summary of Programmatic Compliance Information for Sample Areas
Sample Program Area
Programmatic
Compliance
Information
SNC/HPV *
Applicable
National
Priority
Program
2001 2005
CAA - Minor Stationary Sources
CAA - Synthetic Minor Sources
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
CWA - Stormwater Permits
No
No
Yes
Yes
FIFRA - Farms and Businesses, etc.
No
No
No
No
Core TSCA - Other Manufacturers,
etc.
No
No
No
No
SDWA - Public Water Systems:
Community Systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
RCRA - Small Quantity Generator
Facilities
No
Yes
No
No
* SNC/HPV: Significant Noncompliance/High Priority Violator
CAA Minor Stationary Sources: OECA did not have information on levels of
compliance for minor sources because it did not require States to report them in
the national Air Facilities Subsystem database or provide associated compliance
and enforcement information.
CAA Synthetic Minor Sources: OECA does not have complete data on the
synthetic minor sources, even though States and local regulatory agencies are
required to report on these entities. OECA staff said they have focused mainly on
major sources because OECA considers them a greater source of air pollution.
In April 2001, EPA issued the Clean Air Act Stationary Source Compliance
Monitoring Strategy, which recommends that State and local agencies focus
compliance monitoring activities on a subset of the synthetic minor universe.
However, OECA staff indicated that they do not have current or complete
knowledge of compliance status of all synthetic minor sources.
17
-------
CWA: According to OECA staff, there is a high level of noncompliance with
stormwater regulations. Even though this has been a priority area since 2001,
OECA cannot provide programmatic or facility-specific compliance information
because it does not have a good knowledge of this universe. In most cases, States
issue general permits for stormwater regulations, and EPA does not have detailed
data on these permits. In fiscal year 2005, OECA again selected the Stormwater
program area as a national enforcement priority program due to runoff concerns.
FIFRA: OECA cannot provide overall compliance information for the FIFRA
program area because it does not have data for the universe of 2,246,512
regulated entities. OECA staff said that, according to statutes, States have
primacy in implementing the FIFRA enforcement and compliance program.
OECA provides grants to States, and States then report the number of inspections
and violations found. However, OECA cannot demonstrate levels of
programmatic compliance based on the results of States' targeted inspections.
TSCA: OECA cannot determine overall compliance for the Core TSCA universe
because OECA can only make compliance determinations by conducting
inspections. According to OECA staff, OECA has not inspected even a small
portion of the 3,758,176 Core TSCA regulated entities. Core TSCA enforcement
staff uses the Enforcement Response Policy to assess the gravity of violations and
determine appropriate enforcement actions on a case-by-case basis. After
concentrating compliance monitoring on larger manufacturing entities for many
years, OECA staff indicated that they would pay more attention to providing
compliance assistance to smaller entities. However, OECA cannot presently
provide compliance information on the Core TSCA universe.
SDWA: EPA reports on the status and progress of the SDWA program to
Congress annually, and SDWA has been a national enforcement and compliance
priority for many years. OECA generated programmatic compliance rates to
report changes in compliance in the SDWA Public Water Systems - Community
Systems universe. However, OECA generated the rates with incomplete
violations data, resulting in underreporting. States conduct the majority of
SDWA inspections and enter information and violations in the Safe Drinking
Water Information System database. Both EPA OIG and OECA audits3 of that
database have shown that States do not provide consistently high quality
violations data and do not enter many violations in the database.
RCRA: OECA does not know the universe or compliance levels for the small
quantity generator universe and therefore cannot provide information to show
levels of RCRA compliance. As discussed in Chapter 2, RCRA facilities can
change generator size status from small to large. However, if they do not notify
EPA, the status change will not be discovered until the facility is inspected.
3 EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-0008, EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality
Shortcomings, March 5, 2004; and OECA 2002 National Public Water System Compliance Report, Providing Safe
Drinking Water in America, December 2004.
18
-------
According to OECA staff, not all RCRA facilities are inspected annually, and a
significant percentage of small quantity generator facilities have never been
inspected.
OECA Is Not Sufficiently Transparent with Available Compliance Data
While OECA generates many types of compliance reports for management use
from the data provided by States and EPA regions, OECA does not release many
of these reports to external stakeholders. The internal reports include monthly
management reports, watch lists, and performance analyses. From the
information provided by States and regions in Agency databases, OECA develops
data, statistics, rates, and analyses for internal OECA and regional management.
OECA organizes analyses and data by region and State. Some of the rates that
measure noncompliance include significant noncompliance rates, recidivism rates,
time to attain compliance, and "hit rates" that show the number of significant
noncompliance violations found from inspections.
OECA provides performance results annually to external audiences in measures
such as pounds of pollutants reduced, dollars of fines and penalties, number of
inspections, and compliance assistance provided. The external reports and
publicly reported data do not demonstrate results in terms of levels of compliance
or noncompliance across regulated program universes. OECA provides facility-
specific compliance information on approximately 800,000 facilities in its public
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, but the system
does not provide programmatic compliance information.
Transparent regulatory information allows Congress and the public the
opportunity to review and analyze compliance data. Also, State compliance data
can show regional and geographical differences in environmental problems,
approaches, and solutions. EPA has a longstanding commitment to transparency,
which can improve data quality because States might more timely and carefully
enter enforcement and compliance data that is open to public scrutiny.
Through fiscal 2002, OECA publicly released most of the rates and data in its
Measures of Success Reports, but OECA currently releases this information only
to Agency personnel. According to OECA staff, they do not publicly release
internal rates and data because:
• People may misunderstand and misrepresent the rates and data derived from
targeted inspections and compliance monitoring, since the data do not
represent the noncompliance levels of the whole regulated universe.
• Congress and the public may be unduly alarmed by the high level of
noncompliance because inspections are targeted based on high risk or
suspected noncompliant activity.
19
-------
• Experts could create programmatic compliance rates from the facility-specific
information in the ECHO database; therefore, OECA does not need to
generate programmatic information.
• States do not want to publish statistics because people may make comparisons
among States and draw incorrect inferences without the proper context.
• OECA must keep some information confidential for enforcement actions.
While we agree that some information must be kept confidential for conducting
enforcement actions, we do not agree with the other reasons. If the data is based
on targeted inspections, or only represents some States or regions, OECA can
provide explanatory notes to avoid misrepresentation and prevent Congress and
the public from misunderstanding what the data represents. Providing significant
noncompliance rates, with appropriate qualifying explanations, can still
demonstrate the success of pursuing known violators. The credibility of EPA's
decisions can increase when external audiences understand how the Agency came
to its decisions. Further, even experts cannot generate programmatic compliance
information from the facility specific compliance information in the ECHO
database because, according to OECA statements, this database only contains
compliance data on approximately 800,000 entities, whereas OECA has described
its regulated universe as approximately 41 million entities.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
3-1 To show the results of its national enforcement and compliance program
in maximizing compliance with environmental statutes, develop and
publish information that demonstrates changes in compliance levels within
the regulated universe, by program areas. Include any appropriate
explanations of data quality issues or data caveats.
3-2 Share compliance data and analyses with external stakeholders to provide
a better understanding of programmatic compliance levels; include
explanatory notes as needed to ensure proper representation and
understanding.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
OECA did not concur with Recommendation 3-1, and as an alternative proposed
that it would share with the public any statistically valid noncompliance rates
developed in the past year and any that OECA will develop in the future. This
alternative is not adequate considering the limitations OECA itself acknowledged
in its September 29, 2004, memo to us requesting assistance in developing
methodologies for producing statistically valid noncompliance rates. The Agency
concurred with Recommendation 3-2 to increase transparency. OECA included
20
-------
two tables with lists of reports that we included as Appendix F. However, OECA
did not agree to publish other compliance information that shows significant
noncompliance rates, 'hit' rates, recidivism, and the time taken to bring violators
to compliance. Appendix E includes the Agency's comments on specific
recommendations and other general comments, and our evaluation of those
comments.
21
-------
Appendix A
OECA's Regulatory Universe Identification Table -
Executive Summary
Our analysis of OECA's September 2001 Regulatory Universe Identification Table found that
OECA listed 14 statutes that had one or more programs (or programmatic descriptions). OECA
included "federal facilities," "tribes," "wetlands," "UST" (underground storage tanks), and
"multi-media" as statutes even though they are not, by themselves, statutes. We identified 58
separate program areas under the 14 statutes. Further, OECA consulted 36 different sources to
obtain the universe numbers for the 58 programs. Data sources came from both within and
outside of EPA and included enforcement and media-specific databases, final rule documents,
Bureau of Indian Affairs data, and Census information. The universe table also included
estimates when no database or source existed for a given regulatory area. In this case, according
to OECA staff, the estimate served as the best source for the universe number.
In the cover letter that accompanied OECA's universe table, OECA explained that the total
universe of entities in EPA's compliance and enforcement databases is approximately
1.6 million. OECA derived the rest of the universe numbers from various other sources,
including Agency publications and databases. We noted that OECA incorrectly totaled its
universe of regulated entities. While the Executive Summary states that OECA's universe is
41.1 million entities, we found, after reviewing the figures, that OECA's 2001 regulatory
universe should have been listed as 41.8 million entities. We also found other math transcription
errors while analyzing OECA's universe table, including two instances where the number listed
in OECA's universe table for a particular program did not match the number OECA listed in the
executive summary for that same program. For example, under the CWA National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System statute, OECA lists a number of 29,688 for "biosolids/sludge
active POTWs" (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) in the universe table, but lists that figure as
29,668 in the Executive Summary.
We transcribed the following table and endnotes directly from OECA's September 2001
Regulatory Universe Identification Table. To maintain the integrity of the source document, we
did not spell out abbreviations or correct any spelling, punctuation, or spacing errors.
22
-------
OECA Regulatory Universe Identification Table - Executive Summary
Statute
Programmatic Description
Universe Estimate
Universe in Database
CAA
Major Stationary Sources (AFS)
23,868
Minor Stationary Sources (AFS)
96,866
Synthetic Minor Stationary Sources (AFS)
17,248
Chlorofluorocarbon Sources (AFS)
4,292
Asbestos Work Practice Standards Notifications
(NARS)
96,954
Section 112(r) Risk Management Plans
15,081
Mobile Sources
324,830
CWA
Major permitted facilities (PCS)
6,599
NPDES
Minor Permitted facilities (PCS)
87,844
Pretreatment significant industrial users
30,000
Biosolids (Sludge) (PCS)
29,668
5,143
Wet Weather facilities - Stonnwater permits
380,000
41,613
CAFOs
12,660
Wetlands
Total acreage
105.5 M
RCRA
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD)
Facilities*
2,393
2,973
Large Quantity Generator (LQG) Facilities*
20,876
30,231
Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Facilities
202,965
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
(CESQGs) Facilities
108,780
Transporter Facilities
13,223
RCRA Non-Notifier Facilities
7,076
"Other" Facilities in RCRAInfo
230,870
SDWA
Public Water Systems: Community Systems
54,101
Public Water Systems: Non-Transient Non-
Community Systems
20,429
PWS: Transient Non-Community Water Systems
93,034
UIC: Class I Wells
533
UIC: Class II Wells
156,215
UIC: Class III Wells
15,452
UIC: Class IV Wells
4
UIC: Class V Wells
650,000
207,429
23
-------
Statute
Programmatic Description
Universe Estimate
Universe in Database
FIFRA
Total Registered Pesticides
Total Registrants with active pesticide
registrations
20,000
1,963
Pesticide Production Establishments (Active)
12,442
Commercial Pest Control Finns
40,000
Agricultural Sector
Total Number of Farms
Total Amount of Farm Acreage
2,194,070
947,340,000
Total Number of Agricultural Workers
4,135,315
Total Number of Farms And Business Sites
Regulated Under Pesticide Programs
2,246,512
EPCRA
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reoortine
Universe - Total number of facilities
22,639
Total Number of 311/312 Facilities
559,600
TSCA
Core TSCA - Chemical Manufacturers
- Other manufacturers, processors,
distributers, users and exporters
13,513
3,758,176
Polvchlorinated Biohenvls (PCBs) - Storase &
Disposal Sectors
Commercial Storers
Commercially Permitted Disposal Companies
Commercial Decontamination Facilities
Scrap Metal Oven Facilities
89
48
4
7
PCBs- Utilitv/Non-utilitv Waste Generators
Electrical Utility Industry
Total Number of Non-Utility Establishments
with PCB-contaminated Equipment
Company-registered Transformer Facilities
- Transformers in operation
3,215
6,404,244
2,500
20,742
Lead-based (Pb) Paint - 402/404
Total Training Program Providers
Lead-based Paint activities
- Finns
- Individual Workers
177
4,069
17,249
Pb-based oaint - 1018
- Targeted Housing
- Real Estate Finns
- Real Estate Agents
- Property Managers
99,500,000
92,000
352,000
243,000
24
-------
Malulc
Program malic Description
I ni\cisc I'.siimalc
Pb-based Paint - 406
- Annual Number of Target Units Subject to
Renovation Requirements
- Total Number of affected Renovation Firms
- Total Number of Contractor Personnel most
likely to be involved in Pb-based paint renovation
activities:
18,500,000
482,000
2,272,000
Total Number of Entities Regulated under
Asbestos AHERA/MAP Programs
5,356,984
Federal
Facilities
Number of Federal Facilities Subject to
Environmental Regulations
11,670
Tribes
Number of Federally Recognized Tribes
556
Total Population
1,400,000
Total Acreage of Tribal Lands
54,893,267
Federal, industrial, commercial, and municipal
facilities located on Tribal areas
1,645
CERCLA
National Priorities List (NPL) Sites (non-federal
facility) - Proposed, Final & Deleted
1,349
Total number Non-NPL Sites (non-federal
facility)
8,884
NPL Federal Facilities - Total number of sites
(Proposed, Final & Deleted)
176
Non-NPL Federal Facilities - Total number of
sites
781
OPA
Oil Storage Facilities Subject to SPCC
Requirements
469,289
UST
Active Underground Storage Tanks
713,666
Multi-
media
Facilities tracked by two or more media programs
(CAA, CWA, or RCRA)
15,733
The total universe estimate of entities under the responsibility of EPA's enforcement and compliance programs is approximately
41.1 million (the sum of all bolded numbers in the universe estimate and universe in database columns).
The total universe of entities maintained in EPA databases is approximately 1.6 million. This is the sum of the numbers in the
universe in database column, except for the RCRA TSD and LQG numbers, which were summed from the universe estimate
column (see the asterisked footnote below regarding the RCRA data), and excluding the federal facility, tribal, and multimedia
numbers, which are accounted for in the media-specific counts.
Note: In summing entities across media categories, an unknown amount of multiple-counting (i.e., of the same facility regulated
by several EPA programs) is inevitable.
Universe Estimate provides a documented estimate of all facilities/entities, taken from Agency publications, ICRs, databases, and
other sources. Universe in Database provides a snapshot of the number of facilities/entities that are tracked by EPA program
databases. Please refer to the full version of this table for detailed information about each universe category and estimate.
*: Both universe estimate and universe in database numbers are generated from RCRAInfo data. The universe estimate number
represents the subset of handlers with inspection, violation, and/or enforcement activity within the past five years ("active" per
FY2001 RECAP definition).
September 21, 2001 Version 4.exec
USEPA / OECA / OC / EPTDD / IUTB
25
-------
Appendix B
Environmental Statute Information and
Program-Specific Facility Size Classifications
The following briefly summarizes the environmental statutes that cover our sample program
areas. Where applicable, we described how OECA defined large and small, or major and minor
entities (FIFRA and TSCA programs do not distinguish between large and small entities).
CAA
Background
The Clean Air Act (CAA) created a national program to control the damaging effects of
air pollution.
Large/Small Entity Classifications
Stationary sources of air pollution include factories, processing plants, chemical
plants, refineries, and utilities.
Major Stationary Source: Any stationary source or group of sources located in a
contiguous area, with potential to emit more than 100 tons of pollutant per year, or,
for hazardous air pollutants, 10 tons per year.
Minor Stationary Source: Any stationary source that has the potential to emit air
pollutants at less than the major stationary source thresholds, or is not classified as a
synthetic minor source, and is subject to Federal regulations.
Synthetic Minor Source: Any stationary source that has the capability to emit air
pollutants at or above the major stationary source threshold but is considered a minor
source because it places physical or operational limitations on its capacity to emit
pollution.
CWA
Background
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary Federal law that protects the Nation's
waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal areas.
Large/Small Entity Classifications
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program controls
water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge into U.S. waters. The
majority of NPDES facilities are classified as either:
Major Permitted Facilities: Municipal or industrial facilities that directly discharge
effluent, based on design flow or a qualifying permit rating score.
Minor Permitted Facilities: Municipal or industrial facilities that directly discharge
effluent, but are not designated as major dischargers.
Stormwater Permits: Permits issued through a two-phased national program for
regulating non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges and run-off. Phase I
required stormwater permits for large municipalities, industrial plants, and commercial
construction sites. Phase II requires permits for smaller municipalities and smaller
construction sites.
FIFRA
Background
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates the sale,
distribution, and use of pesticides through a registration system.
26
-------
RCRA
Background
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates hazardous and
municipal and industrial solid waste generated nationwide. RCRA Subtitle C
establishes a system for controlling hazardous waste from the time of generation until
ultimate disposal and includes regulations for the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes.
Large/Small Entity Classifications
The statute defines three categories of generator facilities based on volume:
Large Quantity Generator Facilities:
• Greater than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month (approximately
2,200 lbs); or
• Greater than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per calendar month (approximately
2.2 lbs).
Small Quantity Generator Facilities:
• Between 100 kg (approximately 220 lbs) and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per
calendar month; and
• Accumulate less than 6,000 kg (approximately 13,200 lbs) of hazardous waste at
any time.
Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity Generator Facilities:
• Less than 100 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month; or
• Less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per calendar month; and
• Accumulate less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute hazardous
waste, or 100 kg of any residue from the cleanup of a spill of acute hazardous
waste at any time.
SDWA
Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ensures public health protection by public water
systems complying with all health-based standards, including monitoring and reporting
requirements. Through the Public Water System Supervision program, EPA
implements and enforces drinking water standards to protect public health.
Large/Small Entity Classifications
EPA defines Public Water Systems, by type and number of people they serve, as
either community systems or non-transient non-community systems. A community
system is a public water system that supplies water to at least 15 service connections
or 25 people year-round in their primary residences. Non-transient non-community
systems serve at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. Transient
non-community water systems serve at least 25 persons (not the same 25 persons)
over 6 months per year. EPA does not regulate drinking water wells that supply water
to fewer than 25 people.
TSCA
Background
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes EPA to secure information on
and regulate all new and existing chemical substances, as well as control any
substances determined to cause unreasonable risk to public health or the
environment. "Core" TSCA regulates industrial chemicals, exclusive of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls, lead-based paint, and asbestos.
27
-------
Appendix C
Details on Scope and Methodology
To gain a general understanding of OECA's regulated universe and associated enforcement and
compliance activities and resources, we reviewed policy and guidance documents, including:
~ Supplemental Information for EPA Fiscal
Year 2003 Annual - Integrity Act Report and
Key Management Challenges
~ Memoranda of Agreement Guidance
Priorities - Fiscal Years 1996-2007
~ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget
~ Fiscal Year 2005-2007 National Program
Guidance
~ Enforcement Response Policies for program
area sample
~ Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Performance Plan
and Congressional Justification
~ End-of-Year Accomplishments Reports
We also interviewed staff in the following OECA offices:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Office of Civil Enforcement
~ Air Enforcement Division
~ Water Enforcement Division
~ RCRA Enforcement Division
~ Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division
Office of Compliance
~ National Planning Measures and Analysis Division
~ Enforcement Targeting and Data Division
~ Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division
~ Compliance Assistance and Sector Programs Division
We reviewed relevant reports, including:
EPA Office of Inspector General
~ EPA's Key Management Challenges (2001, 2002, 2003)
~ Information Technology: Unreliable Data Affects Usability of DOCKET Information (2002)
Government Accountability Office
~ Environmental Information: EPA Needs Better Information to Manage Risks and Measure
Results (2000)
~ Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help EPA to Achieve Its
Strategic Goals (2001)
~ Major Management Challenges and Program Risks - Environmental Protection Agency (2003)
National Academy of Public Administration
~ Evaluating Environmental Progress: How EPA and the States Can Improve the Quality of
Enforcement and Compliance Information (2001)
~ Environmental Performance Measures in a Federal System (2000)
Environmental Council of States
~ Report to Congress - State Environmental Agency Contributions to Enforcement and
Compliance (2001)
28
-------
Sample of Six Regulatory Program Areas
We reviewed and summarized environmental statutes for our sample program areas (see
Appendix B for descriptions). The table below lists the 2001 universe numbers for the six
environmental statutes covering our sample program areas, with specific program areas reviewed
in bold type. Our six sample areas comprise just over 16 percent of OECA's 2001 total universe
of regulated entities. We obtained the numbers from the Executive Summary OECA included
with its 2001 Regulatory Universe Identification Table (see Appendix A).
Statute
Programmatic Description
2001 Universe Number
CAA
Major Stationary Sources
23,868
Minor Stationary Sources
96,866
Synthetic Minor Stationary Sources
17,248
Others (includes mobile sources)
441,157
CAA Total 579,139
CWA
NPDES - Major Permitted Facilities
6,599
NPDES - Minor Permitted Facilities
87,844
NPDES - Stormwater Permits
380,000
NPDES - Others (includes biosolids and Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations)
72,328
CWA Total 546,771
RCRA
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
2,393
Large Quantity Generator Facilities
20,876
Small Quantity Generator Facilities
202,965
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Facilities
108,780
Others (includes transporters, non-notifiers, and other
facilities included in EPA's RCRA data system)
251,169
RCRA Total 586,183
SDWA
Public Water Systems: Community Water Systems
54,101
Public Water Systems: Transient and Non-Transient
Non-Community Systems
113,463
Others (includes underground injection control wells)
822,204
SDWA Total 989,768
FIFRA
Total Number of Farms and Business Sites Regulated
under Pesticide Programs
2,246,512
FIFRA Total 2,246,512
TSCA
Core TSCA - Chemical Manufacturers
13,513
Core TSCA - Other Manufacturers, Processors,
Distributors, Users and Exporters
3,758,176
Others (includes facilities related to Polychlorinated
Biphenyls and lead-based paint)
31,341,591
TSCA Total 35,113,280
Sample Prograrr
Area Total 6,755,868
Table Total 40,061,653
29
-------
To answer both the universe and compliance objectives, we judgmentally selected the six sample
program areas, as case studies, from OECA's 2001 Regulatory Universe Identification Table.
This sample was based on information gathered from our preliminary research. A preliminary
analysis of the Regulatory Universe Identification Table showed that OECA's universe of
41 million entities included a diverse and complex mix of entities of varying sizes and types.
Small entities made up a much greater part of the universe than the major and large entities.
A review of OECA's planning documents also showed that a handful of programs were selected
as national priorities, and others were described as core programs. While OECA is ultimately
responsible for regulating all 41 million entities, it focuses its regulatory attention on national
priority program areas, while the States are primarily responsible for core programs. To conduct
a balanced evaluation of OECA's knowledge of the regulated universe, it was important to select
a sample which reflected the mix of program areas for which OECA is both ultimately
responsible and it had represented as falling under its regulatory authority in its Regulatory
Universe Identification Table.
OECA's Knowledge of Its Regulated Universe
To determine OECA's knowledge of the composition and size of its regulated universe, we
analyzed OECA's 2001 regulated universe table. We compared 2001 universe figures to 2005
data provided by OECA staff for six sample program areas. We met with staff in EPA's Office
of Water to discuss OECA's universe number for the CWA-NPDES stormwater program. We
also interviewed OECA staff to understand any challenges associated with obtaining accurate
universe numbers for our sample regulatory programs, as well as to discuss the benefit of
knowing the composition and size of the regulated universe. We did not independently verify
the accuracy of data provided by OECA. We did review EPA's fiscal 2005 Annual Performance
Plan for Goal 5, where EPA identified data problems, limitations, and reliability issues in
OECA's databases and data. We used that information to identify limitations in the reliability of
OECA's universe numbers. In addition, we applied a methodology described in GAO's October
2002 report, Assessing the Reliability of Computer Processed Data (GAO-03-273G). We
reviewed additional data quality materials, including OECA's:
~ "Enforcement and Compliance Reporting
Process for FY 2004" Memorandum
(March 12, 2004)
~ "Final Enforcement and Compliance Data
Quality Strategy" (March 25, 2002)
~ Data quality quarterly reviews
~ "Ensuring Integrity of Reporting Enforcement
and Compliance Data" Memorandum
(May 6, 2003)
~ Information from OECA's Web site on various
enforcement and compliance databases
Changes in Regulatory Compliance
To determine how OECA determines and reports levels of compliance in its regulated universe,
we reviewed general information on compliance monitoring as well as how OECA defines
compliance through its enforcement response policies. We interviewed representatives from the
National Academy of Public Administration, the Environmental Law Institute, and the
Environmental Compliance Consortium on how OECA measures changes in regulatory
compliance. We interviewed OECA managers and staff to understand how they determine and
30
-------
report compliance in our sample program areas, as well as any challenges associated with
demonstrating changes in regulatory compliance. We discussed conditions we identified during
the review of the sample with OECA managers to determine whether the problems were limited
to the program areas, or whether they were systemic and OECA-wide conditions. In instances
where the condition was systemic, we reported it as a general condition. We analyzed the cause
of the problem, and developed recommendations to address the cause of the condition.
31
-------
Appendix D
Agency Response Memorandum to Draft Report
as
o
\ c
''L PRCrt^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
August 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's Agency Response to the
Draft, "Evaluation Report: Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated
Facilities Impede's EPA's Ability to Demonstrate Changes in Regulatory
Compliance," dated June 30, 2005
FROM: Thomas V. Skinner
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Jeffrey K. Harris
Director
Program Evaluation, Cross-Media Issues
Office of Inspector General
Introduction
Today, on behalf of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and
as the designated "Action Official," I am forwarding to you our consolidated Agency Response
(Response) regarding the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) draft "Evaluation Report: Limited
Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Facilities Impede's EPA's Ability to Demonstrate
Changes in Regulatory Compliance," dated June 30, 2005.
In accordance with the instructions provided in your June 30, 2005 memorandum, the
Response addresses the factual accuracy of the draft Evaluation Report. Consistent with those
instructions, the Response also specifically indicates whether OECA concurs with each of the
recommendations proposed by the OIG. Further, to the extent that action has already been
initiated or planned to address issues identified in the draft Evaluation Report, the Response
32
-------
specifically identifies those actions that have been initiated or planned. Finally, your June 30,
2005 memorandum expressly states that the "final report will include an assessment of [the]
comments" made in the Response. Consequently, I am specifically requesting that this
memorandum and the attached Response be attached to, and be made a part of, the final version
of the draft Evaluation Report.
Principal Concerns
While we appreciate the effort made by the OIG to provide a useful review of the data we
had developed in 2001 to better understand the regulatory universe, we were troubled by a
number of practices which were used in this evaluation. We would ask that the OIG consider our
concerns both for purposes of possible revisions to this evaluation and as suggestions about the
conduct and content of future evaluations. Given the amount of time that the staff and managers
of OECA and OIG are investing in these evaluations, it is important that the evaluations focus on
the most important issues, provide clear and meaningful findings, and yield recommendations
that add value and improve the effectiveness of our Agency programs.
Here are the general comments we offer about the report as a whole. Comments on
specific findings and recommendations are included in the attached response.
1. Limitations of Judgmental Sampling. We are very concerned that judgmental
sampling of six segments of the regulated universe produced results that are biased
(i.e., not representative of the larger population being
examined). Judgmental sampling can only characterize the
types of problems that might exist in the full set of universe
data, but it cannot quantify the size of the problem for the full
set of universe data. While the OIG states that it "cannot use our judgmental sample to
generalize to OECA's entire population," that caveat did not constrain the OIG from
making a very sweeping set of recommendations to address the issues it identified
through the use of a technique with very significant limitations. (See pages 2 and 3 of
our attached response for a full description of our concerns.)
2. Findings Broader Than the Supporting Evidence. In several instances, the evaluation
presents findings that are much broader than the issue the OIG is raising or the evidence
it is providing. The primary example of this problem is the
finding entitled, "OECA Does Not Focus Activities on
Majority of Facilities," on page 8 of the draft evaluation.
While it may be true that in recent years enforcement actions
have focused increasingly on larger facilities associated with OECA's national
enforcement priorities (though we note that the OIG presents no quantitative evidence of
this), OECA's compliance assistance program since its inception has been focused on
serving smaller facilities which often lack the resources or expertise to achieve and
maintain compliance. Of the 14 OECA-sponsored online Compliance Assistance Centers
(visited more than one million times last year), 12 are serving sectors comprised
primarily of small businesses. In addition, other compliance assistance initiatives in
sectors dominated by small businesses (e.g., dry cleaners, construction, auto repair) have
See OIG Response in
Appendix E, Note 1
See OIG Response in
Appendix E, Note 2
33
-------
been undertaken to provide tailored assistance to meet the specialized needs of small
businesses. (See pages 8 and 9 of our attached response for a full description of our
concerns.)
A second example of the IG drawing findings which are too broad is its assertion that
"OECA Lacks Transparency in Sharing Data," on page 15 of the draft report. In our
response we point out the many different types of compliance data we make available to
the public. We describe the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) web
site which has been used by two million visitors to find facility-specific inspection and
enforcement data. We also detail in Table 3 (pages 19-21), the various types of
compliance data we make publicly available for all the major EPA programs. The OIG
may want more transparency, but to say that OECA lacks transparency in sharing data is
inaccurate.
3. Recommendations Broader than the Findings Being Addressed. Several of the
recommendations seem disproportionate to the problem they are meant to solve. The
primary example of this disproportionality is
Recommendation 2.4, specifically the portion of the
recommendation directing OECA to require states to "track,
record, and report data for facilities over which states have
regulatory responsibility... [and] develop a multi-state, multi-program pilot program for
tracking, recording, verifying, and reporting of state data." Because the OIG has
identified that OECA has not updated its universe table since 2001 and a determination
(through a non-representative judgmental sample of six regulated populations) that the
universe table must be updated, it now recommends a very large and resource-intensive
goal of increasing state reporting. In our response, we describe the significant regulatory,
procedural and resource barriers to increasing state reporting. We believe that the
"solution" (i.e., significant new data reporting requirements for states) is a complete
mismatch and way out of proportion to the "problem" (i.e., the need for more reliable
universe data). (See page 6 of our response for a full description of our concerns about
increasing the reporting burden on states.)
4. Exclusion of Relevant Information. We believe the evaluation at times ignores
important information about OECA programs and leads to poorly conceived findings and
recommendations. For example, in the section about
OECA's description of its role, the evaluation does not
provide a complete and accurate description of the relative
roles of EPA and the states, opting instead for a very
simplistic view which seems to color the OIG's judgment about the findings and
recommendations in the report. Additionally, as described above, the OIG fails to take
into account that OECA's compliance assistance program is and always has been focused
on sectors comprised of small facilities. As a result, the OIG makes an inaccurate finding
that "OECA Does Not Focus Activities on Majority of Facilities."
See OIG Response in
Appendix E, Note 3
See OIG Response in
Appendix E, Note 4
34
-------
5. Disconnect from Procedural /Resource Barriers and Competing Demands. In some
of the recommendations in this evaluation, the OIG does not take into account the
regulatory and procedural obstacles that would be
encountered and the significant resource commitments that
would be necessary for implementation. Similarly, the OIG
seems never to consider existing demands already placed on
organizations and the relative importance of those demands versus proposed OIG
recommendations. The OIG's recommendation for increased state reporting of data
would require a large investment of personnel and energy to overcome the regulatory and
procedural barriers and resource shortfalls described in our response (see page 6).
Moreover, it could well disrupt OECA's and the states' progress toward modernizing
single-media data systems and incorporating them into the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS).
We look forward to working with you to finalize this report and on future evaluations of
OECA programs.
cc: Phyllis Harris
Michael Stahl
Walker Smith
See OIG Response in
Appendix E, Note 5
35
-------
Appendix E
Agency Comments to OIG Recommendations
and OIG Evaluation
The Agency comments consisted of two parts - a transmittal memorandum with summary
discussion, and a document with detailed comments. We included the memorandum as
Appendix D; the detailed comments are available on the EPA OIG Web site at
www.epa.gov/oig. Two lists of reports that were part of OECA's detailed comments are
provided in Appendix F. Appendix E includes each specific OIG recommendation, the Agency's
comments on those recommendations, and our evaluation of comments from both Agency
comment documents. In this appendix, we first evaluate the Agency's comments from the
detailed comment document to our recommendations, and follow this in Notes 1 through 5 with
our responses to the five points discussed in the Agency's memorandum in Appendix D.
OIG Recommendation 2-1: Biannually update publicly released universe figures by tracking
and recording the number of entities over which it has oversight and primary regulatory
responsibility.
Agency Comments: Non-concur. As an alternative, only universe figures updated
within the previous two years will be released to the public. OECA will begin the process
of updating universe figures for populations associated with its national priorities and
complete that update within six months. Further, OECA will remove the 41 million
universe figure from its National Program Guidance and not use it in any future public
documents.
OIG Evaluation: Updating the universe numbers for populations associated with the
handful of national priority program areas is a beginning. However, it will not indicate
the complete universe of regulated entities for which OECA is responsible for ensuring
compliance. Not releasing the number of regulated facilities will subject EPA to the
same July 2001 GAO criticism noted in Chapter 1 of this report. GAO had stated that
OECA could not demonstrate "the universe of entities subject to regulation under federal
environmental laws." OECA has not provided any reasons to show there is more value to
updating the universe of the five national priority areas in lieu of all program areas.
Additionally, OECA has not provided any timetable for updating universe information on
a regular basis. OECA officials said OECA management has assigned other projects
higher priority. Nevertheless, as OECA itself has recognized, knowledge of the size and
character of the regulated universe is fundamental for a regulatory body, and we continue
to recommend that OECA assign a higher priority to regularly updating that universe.
OIG Recommendation 2-2: When producing its biannual universe update, use reliable data to
generate complete and current universe numbers that meet national data quality standards similar
to those outlined in OECA's Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy.
36
-------
Agency Comments: Concur. When updating universe figures as described in response
to recommendation 2.1, OECA will use complete, accurate, and current data in
accordance with national data standards including those in OECA's Data Quality
Strategy.
OIG Evaluation: OECA qualified its concurrence to ensure the quality of the universe
data by referencing its response to Recommendation 2-1 on updating the numbers for
national priority program areas only. We consider this a good start, but it will not meet
the objective of knowing the full universe of regulated entities. OECA also commented
that we should describe the data problems in universe numbers as data gap problems,
explaining that data gaps exist when the statutes do not specifically require States to
report data to EPA. OECA indicated that requiring more data would be burdensome to
States due to shortfalls in State resources. OECA explained its use of estimates where
data gaps existed, and objected to our using GAO criteria to evaluate data quality.
We have modified the text to provide additional sources we used to find weaknesses in
data quality. We also revised the discussion of the problems we found in the estimated
numbers in OECA's universe table. We cannot provide an opinion on the issue of
resources as we have not analyzed OECA's resource allocations and the process by
which management assigns relative weight to tasks as part of this evaluation.
OIG Recommendation 2-3: Describe OECA's enforcement and compliance role in relation to
States and other partners when the Agency publicly releases universe figures.
Agency Comments: Concur. OECA will develop and add a more precise description to
relevant documents to more clearly explain the respective roles and responsibilities of
EPA and the states in maximizing compliance in the regulated universe.
OIG Evaluation: We accept the concurrence.
OIG Recommendation 2-4: Develop an objective of having the most up-to-date and reliable
data on all entities that fall under its regulatory responsibility. OECA should adopt the goals of
requiring States to track, record, and report data for entities over which States have regulatory
responsibility. To achieve this goal, OECA should develop a multi-State, multi-program pilot
program of collecting data that States track, record, verify, and report.
Agency Comments: Non-concur. While OECA believes that it currently subscribes to
an objective of having current and accurate facility data, we believe this recommendation
fails to take into account the significant procedural and resource barriers which impede
expanded collection and reporting of data from states. Further, we believe that given the
resource constraints under which the states are operating, a multi-state, multi-program
pilot would be resisted vehemently by the states.
As an alternative, OECA and the states will continue on their current path of
modernizing single-media data systems and integrating them into ICIS (Integrated
Compliance Information System). The modernization process is being done in full
37
-------
consultation with states, on a schedule developed jointly by EPA and the states, and will
achieve many of the improvements sought by the OIG.
OIG Evaluation: We are aware of resource and procedural barriers in collecting
additional information from States, and therefore recommended that OECA obtain
knowledge in incremental steps by conducting pilot data collection programs. The pilot
might reveal that data are readily available in some of the States. Also,
Recommendation 2-4 addresses the problem of smaller and minor entities. OECA still
needs to indicate how the modernization of OECA's data systems will address the
condition under discussion.
OIG Recommendation 2-5: Request that EPA program offices analyze and report to OECA the
cumulative impact of violations by regulated entities that pollute below the thresholds of major
or large entities. OECA should use any cumulative impact analyses conducted by program
offices to inform OECA's management decisions.
Agency Comments: Non-concur. As an alternative, OECA will request from program
offices any and all currently available data and analyses of cumulative impact of small
facilities. OECA will make this request within sixty days of the date of the final version of
this OIG evaluation. OECA will use this information to identify emerging problems in
sectors comprised of smaller facilities.
OIG Evaluation: Collecting available analyses from program offices, and using the
information to identify emerging problems in smaller facilities, is a move in the right
direction. OECA may find that many such analyses exist within program offices.
However, we recommend that OECA also request analyses for program areas where such
analyses have not been done. As shown in Chapter 2, small and minor entities comprise
a large part of the regulated universe; thus, it is important that OECA know their
cumulative impact. OECA occupies a distinctive position in EPA in that it cuts across
the Agency's program offices. At a minimum, OECA can use these data and analyses to
support its decisions to focus its enforcement and monitoring activities.
OIG Recommendation 3-1: To show the results of its national enforcement and compliance
program in maximizing compliance with environmental statutes, develop and publish
information that demonstrates changes in compliance within the regulated universe, by program
areas. Include any appropriate explanations of data quality issues or data caveats.
Agency Comments: Non-concur. As an alternative, OECA will share with the public
any statistically-valid compliance rates it has developed in the past year and any
statistically valid rates it will develop in the future.
OIG Evaluation: We reiterate that OECA should develop and publish information that
shows changes in the levels of compliance within various program universes. OECA's
proposed alternative to publish only statistically valid rates falls short of the
recommendation, considering the limitations OECA itself stated in its request for
assistance from us in developing methodologies for producing statistically valid
38
-------
noncompliance rates. In the detailed response to this report (available on the EPA OIG
Web site at www.epa.gov/oig). OECA listed a total of 10 projects to develop statistically
valid noncompliance rates from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006. Each of the projects
deals with a very limited sector or population. Given the limited number and scope of
OECA's statistically valid noncompliance rates, releasing only those rates would show
extremely limited results of OECA's efforts to maximize compliance in the regulated
universe.
Additionally, we note that OECA's response to Recommendation 3-1 is inconsistent with
its response to Recommendation 2-1. In our opinion statistically valid noncompliance
rates cannot be generated without knowledge of the size of a program area's universe.
Therefore, OECA's response to this recommendation is untenable.
OIG Recommendation 3-2: Share compliance data and analyses with external stakeholders to
provide a better understanding of programmatic compliance levels; include explanatory notes as
needed to ensure proper representation and understanding.
Agency Comments: Concur. OECA will expand the amount of compliance data it will
make available to the public on the EPA web site. The data which will be added to the
web site is listed in Table 4 and includes a wide variety of information about compliance
monitoring, enforcement cases, citizen complaints, cases resulting from voluntary
disclosures, and more. OECA will post this data on the web site within 60 days of the
release of the final version of this evaluation.
OIG Evaluation: We commend OECA for its concurrence with Recommendation 3-2
and its expansion of the amount of compliance data it plans to make available on the EPA
Web site. We have provided, in Appendix F, two tables from OECA's response.
Releasing this additional information will increase transparency. However, we found that
OECA did not include some other compliance-related rates that OECA generates. We
reiterate the recommendation that OECA should publish the other compliance
information that shows significant noncompliance rates, 'hit' rates, recidivism, and the
time taken to bring violators to compliance. If OECA presents the information with
appropriate explanations, readers should understand what the data represents. This
information more directly links to compliance than most other measures OECA currently
releases or plans to release. They show the results of OECA's enforcement and
compliance monitoring activities on noncompliant entities and facilities.
Notes on Principal Concerns
In this section we provide a summary of OECA's comments (italicized) from the Agency
memorandum (included in full in Appendix D), followed by our evaluation.
NOTE 1 - Limitations of Judgmental Sampling: We are very concerned that judgmental
sampling of six segments of the regulated universe produced results that are biased (i.e., not
representative of the larger population being examined).
39
-------
OIG Response: We do not consider OECA's critique of our sampling approach and
subsequent analysis valid. We used a qualitative - not quantitative methodology in this
evaluation. Therefore, OECA's concerns about quantifying from our sample are not
applicable. To clarify any questions on our methodology, we added more details in the
report and provide some additional detail and rationale below.
The use of a judgmental sample was appropriate to answer our objectives. We selected a
small judgmental sample to obtain case studies for a 'qualitative' and not a 'quantitative'
evaluation. We did not quantify, or extrapolate, the results from our sample across the
entire universe. While we did determine that the size of the sample had changed by
35 percent between 2001 and the present, this figure clearly did not apply to the entire
universe. During the course of our review, when we found a condition that was systemic,
we interviewed OECA managers to determine whether the condition was limited to the
program area under review or was an OECA-wide policy or practice. Only when OECA
managers confirmed that it was an OECA-wide policy or practice did we present it as a
broader finding with a recommendation. We included appropriate explanatory caveats in
those cases.
We determined that case study analysis was an appropriate research design for our review
because our objective sought to determine how well OECA knew the composition and
size of universes within program areas. Statistical models are best used to measure
across cases, while case studies are best to investigate within a case since they allow one
to explore more in depth. While a judgmental sample limits generalization, the
accompanying in-depth analysis can allow the evaluator to pursue questions that arise and
determine whether a problem is endemic across the universe or confined to the sample.
We do not agree with OECA's opinion that the results of a judgmental sample are
automatically biased. Selection bias usually occurs when the sampling includes some
type of systematic error. In designing the sampling plan, we took care to capture an array
of program areas for which OECA bears responsibility: small and large, across media
areas, national priority and core programs, and those in which OECA shares regulatory
responsibility with States versus those it does not. This sampling technique explicitly
acknowledged the heterogeneity of OECA program areas. This sample is more
representative of the program areas OECA included in the universe totals than if we had
included only major programs or national priority programs in a sample.
NOTE 2 - Findings Broader than the Supporting Evidence: In several instances, the
evaluation presents findings that are much broader than the issue the OIG is raising or the
evidence it is providing.
OIG Response: We do not agree with OECA's comment. We revised some of the
report language to ensure statements may not be interpreted to imply more than intended.
We also expanded the description of our scope and methodology to explain when the
finding or recommendation is broader than the specific program area in our sample. As
discussed regarding Note 1, during the course of our review we found certain conditions
40
-------
that could be systemic across the entire universe for which OECA is responsible. After
confirming with OECA managers, we presented each as a finding that may be broader
than the specific program area in our sample. We added language to explain this. Also,
as suggested by OECA, we added discussion on OECA's use of compliance assistance
activities to target small businesses and entities. While OECA provides compliance
assistance to many small entities, it nevertheless does not focus the majority of its
compliance monitoring resources on small entities. In reviewing our sample areas we
found that many of OECA's databases do not include compliance monitoring histories, or
even facility identification information for many of the small entities over which OECA
has oversight responsibility. OECA's response does not address this point.
A second example of the IG drawing findings which are too broad is its assertion that 'OECA
Lacks Transparency in Sharing Data...."
OIG Response: We added Tables 3 and 4 from OECA's response to Appendix F of our
report (the tables are shown in our report as Tables 1 and 2). These tables list the types of
compliance information that OECA now releases. However, OECA does not publicly
release compliance information that can inform Congress and the public as to whether
compliance has increased across programs. While OECA makes facility-specific
compliance information available on its ECHO Web site, Congress and the public do not
have the ability to determine whether OECA is achieving its central goal of maximizing
compliance across the regulatory programs for which it is responsible. Programmatic
compliance information will allow OECA to know whether compliance is increasing or
decreasing, whether its targeting strategies are successful, and whether its mix of
compliance tools and methods is effective. It also provides Congress and the public the
means to determine whether there are regional and geographic differences in
environmental problems, approaches, and solutions. OECA already produces some
compliance rates in Online Tracking Information System management reports. We urge
OECA to release to the public the information it currently possesses internally, with the
necessary caveats.
NOTE 3 - Recommendations Broader than the Findings Being Addressed: Several of the
recommendations seem disproportionate to the problem they are meant to solve. The primary
example of this disproportionality is Recommendation 2-4, specifically the portion of the
recommendation directing OECA to require states to "track, record, and report data for facilities
over which states have regulatory responsibility... [and] develop a multi-state, multi-program
pilot program for tracking, recording, verifying, and reporting of state data. "
OIG Response: We do not agree with OECA's comment that the recommendations are
disproportionate to the problems they are supposed to remedy. We developed the
recommendations to match the breadth of the conditions and causes. If a condition is due
to a systemic cause, the recommendation addresses the cause of the problem. OECA has
oversight responsibilities over State compliance and enforcement activities of many small
entities. OECA agrees in its response that the knowledge of the size and character of the
regulated community is fundamental to a regulatory agency's effectiveness. Our analyses
show that some of OECA's universe has changed. OECA has explained it has data gaps
41
-------
because States do not report on smaller entities. Therefore we concluded that OECA
does not know the size, nature, or character of its full universe because of these gaps.
This limits OECA's ability to exercise its oversight responsibilities, and we developed
recommendations addressing this problem. Also, OECA needs a broad range of
knowledge of regulated entities for which it is responsible to fully exercise oversight, and
again we made recommendations accordingly. This data will provide OECA, Congress,
and the public with information on entities for which EPA is ultimately responsible.
NOTE 4 - Exclusion of Relevant Information: We believe the evaluation at times ignores
important information about OECA programs and leads to poorly conceived findings and
recommendations.
OIG Response: We do not agree with OECA's comments. We gathered and reviewed
extensive amounts of documentation and information, and held numerous meetings with
OECA staff and managers. We also met with external stakeholders and experts and
reviewed documents and reports from external sources (see Appendix C). We reported
the significant conditions that we identified as a result of the evaluation, and included the
information pertinent to presenting the findings and recommendations. We do not
believe we omitted important information in our draft report. Nonetheless, as suggested
by OECA, we added information on OECA's use of compliance assistance for interacting
with small entities, as well as additional information on various other issues.
OECA also commented that we offered a simplistic view of OECA's relationship with
the States that resulted in mischaracterized findings and recommendations. We recognize
that OECA has broad and varied relationships with States. One of these central
relationships is OECA's oversight of States' program activities, and without obtaining
knowledge of the full universe, OECA cannot fully exercise this oversight authority.
NOTE 5 - Disconnect from Procedural/Resource Barriers and Competing Demands:
In some of the recommendations in this evaluation, the OIG does not take into account the
regulatory and procedural obstacles that would be encountered and the significant resource
commitments that would be necessary for implementation.
OIG Response: We recognize OECA's regulatory and procedural constraints in
obtaining data from States that States are not required by statute to provide. However, in
our opinion, it is fundamental for OECA to have an adequate range of knowledge about
the entities it regulates, and OECA agrees with this central premise. Since it is critical for
OECA to have this knowledge, it should pursue the best possible procedures to get this
data. Due to the procedural constraints faced by OECA, we recommended that they
accomplish this incrementally. Expanded universe data will ultimately provide OECA,
and therefore Congress and the public, with increased information on entities for which
EPA is responsible for regulating compliance.
42
-------
Appendix F
Publicly Available Compliance and
Enforcement Measures
OECA provided the following two lists of reports that it plans to make publicly available
during 2005.
Tablel. Enforcement and Compliance Measures and Reports
Data
FY(s)
Available
Reports/Website in Which Measure Appears
Acres of Wetlands Mitigated
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts1, Numbers-at-a-Glance1
Administrative Compliance
Orders
2000-2004
Results Summary1, Five-Year Trend Charts1,
Numbers-at-a-Glance,ECH02
Administrative Penalties
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance, ECHO
Administrative Penalty Orders
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance, ECHO
Civil Case Highlights
2004
Case Highlights1, ECHO
Civil Judicial Referrals
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Civil Judicial Settlements
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, ECHO
Compliance Assistance Activity
2004
Case Highlights
Compliance Incentives Program
2000-2004
Results Summary
Complying Actions
2003-2004
Results Summary, ECHO
Criminal Case Highlights
2004
Case Highlights
Criminal Defendants Charged
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Criminal Fines and Restitution
2000-2004
Results Summary, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Criminal Investigations
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts
Criminal: Judicial Mandated
Projects
2000-2004
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Criminal: Pounds of Pollution
Reduced, Treated or Properly
Managed
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Cubic Yds of Contaminated Soil
to be Cleaned Up
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Cubic Yds of Contaminated
Water to be Cleaned Up
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Entities Reached through
Compliance Assistance
2000-2004
Results Summary
Environmental Crime Cases
Initiated
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts
43
-------
Data
FY(s)
Available
Reports/Website in Which Measure Appears
Environmental Homeland
Security Cases Initiated
2000-2004
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Facilities Resolved
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Final Administrative Penalty
Orders
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance, ECHO
Gallons of Wastewater/
Groundwater T reated
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
GPRA Goal 5 Civil Investigations
2004
Annual Performance Report3, Results Summary,
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
GPRA Goal 5 Complying Actions
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary, ECHO
GPRA Goal 5 Criminal
Investigations
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary,
Numbers-at-a- Glance
GPRA Goal 5 Develop and Use
Compliance Rates
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary
GPRA Goal 5 Entities Reached
through Compliance Assistance
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary,
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
GPRA Goal 5 EPA-Assisted
Inspections
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary, ECHO
GPRA Goal 5 Facilities with
Voluntary Disclosures
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary,
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
GPRA Goal 5 Federal
Inspections
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary,
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance, ECHO
GPRA Goal 5 Pollutant
Reductions
2004
Annual Performance Report, Results Summary, ECHO
Incarceration
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Injunctive Relief
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a- Glance, ECHO
Judicial Penalties
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance, ECHO
Pounds of Contaminated
Soil/Sediment to be Cleaned Up
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Pounds of Pollutants Reduced,
Treated or Properly Managed
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Linear Feet of Stream Mitigated
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Notices of Determination (NODs)
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Number at a Glance
People Protected by SDWA
Enforcement
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Referrals
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts
Stipulated Penalties
2002-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Superfund: % of Cost Recovery
Statute of Limitation Cases
Addressed with Total Past
Greater than or Equal to
$200,000
2000-2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
44
-------
Data
FY(s)
Available
Reports/Website in Which Measure Appears
Superfund: % of Remedial
Action (RA) Starts Where
Settlement Reached or
Enforcement Taken by the Time
of the RA Start (during the FY) at
Non-Federal Superfund Sites
that Have Known Viable, Liable
Parties
2004
Five-Year Trend Charts, Numbers-at-a-Glance
Superfund: Private Party
Commitments ($ in millions for
past cost)
1995-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Superfund: PRP-financed RA
Starts
2000-2003
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Superfund: PRP-lead RA Starts
(%)
2000-2003
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Superfund Private Party
Commitments ($ in millions for
future response work including
cash outs)
1995-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance
Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs)
2000-2004
Results Summary, Five-Year Trend Charts,
Numbers-at-a-Glance, ECHO
Statistically Valid Noncompliance
Rates for Combined Sewer
Overflows
2002,2004
2004 Combined Sewer Overflow Statistically Valid
Noncompliance Rate Study4
'The six reports comprising OECA's annual press release for FY 2004 are: Results Summary, Numbers-at-a-Glance,
Criminal Enforcement Highlights, Civil Enforcement Highlights, Compliance Assistance Highlights, and Five-Year
Trends. The reports are available onEPA's Web site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofVear
2The Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Web site (http://www.epa. gov/echo) provides facility-
level compliance monitoring, compliance status, enforcement action, and penalty data from 2002-2004 for facilities
regulated as Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary sources, Clean Water Act (CWA) permitted dischargers (under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste sites.
3The Annual Performance Reports for 1999 through 2004 are available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/gpra/
'Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/planning/priorities/cwacsosvnrstudv.pdf
45
-------
Table 2. Enforcement and Compliance Measures and Reports
Data
FY(s)
Available
Reports in Which Measure Appears
Acres of wetlands restored
2002-2003
FY 2002 - FY 2003 National Estimates of
Environmental Benefits
Administrative Penalty Order (APO)
complaints by statute/program
1991-2003
FY 1991 - FY 2003 Administrative Penalty Order
Complaints, FY 1999 - FY 2003 Case Initiations-
Administrative Orders
Administrative Compliance Orders by
statute
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Case Initiations-Administrative
Orders, FY 1999 - FY 2003 Case Conclusions
Administrative penalties by statute ($)
1974-2003
1974 - FY 2003 Enforcement Penalties, FY 1999 -
FY 2003 Administrative and Civil Judicial Penalties,
FY 1999- FY 2003 Penalties
Cases against facilities initiated as a
result of voluntary disclosure under
audit policy
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Voluntary Disclosure Policy
Cases against companies initiated as
a result of voluntary disclosure under
audit policy
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Voluntary Disclosure Policy
Cases with SEPs by statute
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs)
Citizen complaint responses by
program area
2003
FY 2003 Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints received by
program area
2003
FY 2003 Citizen Complaints
Civil investigations by national priority
and non-priority program area
2002-2003
FY 2002 - FY 2003 Civil Investigations
Civil judicial settlements by statute
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Case Conclusions
Civil judicial referrals
1973-2003
FY 1973 - FY 2003 Civil Judicial Referrals and
Penalties, FY 1999 - FY 2003 Case Initiations-Civil
Judicial Referrals
Civil judicial penalties ($)
1973-2003
FY 1973 - FY 2003 Civil Judicial Referrals and
Penalties, FY 1974 - FY 2003 Enforcement
Penalties, FY 1999 - FY 2003 Administrative and
Civil Judicial Penalties, FY 1999 - FY 2003
Penalties
Criminal referrals
1983-2003
FY 1983 - FY 2003 Criminal Referrals and
Penalties, FY 1998 - FY 2003 Criminal Enforcement
Program Activities
Criminal defendants charged
1998-2003
FY 1998 - FY 2003 Criminal Enforcement Program
Activities
Criminal cases initiated
1998-2003
FY 1998 - FY 2003 Criminal Enforcement Program
Activities
Criminal penalties ($)
1974-2003
1974 - FY 2003 Enforcement Penalties, FY 1983 -
FY 2003 Criminal Referrals and Penalties, FY 1999
- FY 2003 Penalties
46
-------
Data
FY(s)
Available
Reports in Which Measure Appears
Expedited penalty order complaints
by program area
2003
FY 2003 Expedited Administrative Penalty Orders
Expedited penalty order settlements
by program area
2003
FY 2003 Expedited Administrative Penalty Orders
Federal inspections and evaluations
by program
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Federal Inspections and
Evaluations
Federal inspections and evaluations
by statute
1994-2003
FY 1994 - FY 2003 Federal Inspections and
Evaluations
Final Administrative Penalty Orders
by statute
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Case Conclusions
Gallons of wastewater/ground water
treated
2002-2003
FY 2002 - FY 2003 National Estimates of
Environmental Benefits
Incarceration (years)
1998-2003
FY 1998 - FY 2003 Criminal Enforcement Program
Activities
Injunctive relief by case type ($)
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief by statute ($)
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Injunctive Relief
Notices of Determination as a result
of voluntary disclosure under audit
policy
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Voluntary Disclosure Policy
People protected by Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) enforcement
2002-2003
FY 2002 - FY 2003 National Estimates of
Environmental Benefits
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated,
or properly managed
2002-2003
FY 2002 - FY 2003 National Estimates of
Environmental Benefits
Pounds of contaminated
soil/sediment
2002-2003
FY 2002 - FY 2003 National Estimates of
Environmental Benefits
Resolved cases against companies
as a result of voluntary disclosure
under audit policy
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Voluntary Disclosure Policy
Resolved cases against facilities as a
result of voluntary disclosure under
audit policy
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Voluntary Disclosure Policy
Settlements with/without complying
actions by region
2003
FY 2003 Complying Actions
Statistically-valid noncompliance
rates for RCRA inspections of
foundries
2004-2005
Statistically-Valid Noncompliance Rates for RCRA
Inspections of Foundries
Supplemental Environmental Projects
by statute ($)
1999-2003
FY 1999 - FY 2003 Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs)
Total penalties by case type ($)
1999-2003
FY 1999-FY 2003 Penalties
These reports will be posted to EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/index.html
47
-------
Distribution
Appendix G
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Inspector General
48
------- |