^E0SX
# O \
I®.1
v PR0^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Compliance with the law
Partnering with states and other stakeholders
Operating efficiently and effectively
Resource Constraints,
Leadership Decisions,
and Workforce Culture
Led to a Decline in
Federal Enforcement
Report No. 21-P-0132 May 13, 2021
Primary purpose of the enforcement process is to ensure compliance with environmental laws
Compliance Regulated Compliance Enforcement Monetary Environmental
assistance entity monitoring actions outcomes benefit outcomes
Enforcement results
-------
Report Contributors: Kathlene Butler
Kathryn Hess
Lauretta Joseph
Peter Otness
Danielle Tesch
Charles Triebwasser
Abbreviations
C.F.R.
Code of Federal Regulations
CAA
Clean Air Act
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CWA
Clean Water Act
DOJ
U.S. Department of Justice
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FIFRA
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
FTE
Full-Time Equivalent
FY
Fiscal Year
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
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
SEP
Supplemental Environmental Project
TSCA
Toxic Substance Control Act
USD
U.S. Dollar
Cover Image: The EPA's enforcement process includes compliance assistance, compliance
monitoring, enforcement actions, and results and benefits from those enforcement
actions. (EPA OIG image)
Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
^tDsrx
• A v
U3£j
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
21-P-0132
May 13, 2021
Why We Did This Audit
The Office of Inspector General
conducted this audit of the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to identify the trends,
as well as the key factors that
contribute to these trends, in
EPA-led enforcement actions
and results from fiscal years
2006 through 2018.
The EPA works to ensure that
regulated entities, such as
wastewater treatment plants,
pesticide manufacturers, and oil
refineries, comply with
environmental statutes. The
EPA reports enforcement
outputs, such as compliance
monitoring activities and
enforcement actions, and
enforcement outcomes, such as
penalties, injunctive relief,
supplemental environmental
projects, and environmental
benefits, to the public each year.
This audit addresses the
following:
• Compliance with the law.
This audit addresses these top
EPA management challenges:
• Overseeing states
implementing EPA programs.
• Improving workforce/workload
analyses.
• Integrating and leading
environmental justice.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
Resource Constraints, Leadership Decisions,
and Workforce Culture Led to a Decline in Federal
Enforcement
What We Found
A decline in the EPA's
enforcement activities may
expose the public and the
environment to undetected
harmful pollutants.
EPA-led compliance monitoring activities,
enforcement actions, monetary enforcement
results, and environmental benefits generally
declined from FYs 2007 through 2018 nationwide.
This downward trend also occurred at the regional
level and on a statute-by-statute basis. While
annual enforcement measures, such as penalty dollars assessed or commitments
to clean up pollution, declined, the results varied year-to-year based on the
conclusion of large cases.
The decline in enforcement resources was a primary driver behind the observed
declining enforcement trends, resulting in fewer compliance monitoring activities
and concluded enforcement actions. EPA leadership also made strategic decisions
that affected enforcement trends, such as focusing limited resources on the most
serious cases and, in 2017, emphasizing deference to state enforcement programs
and compliance assistance. From 2006 through 2018, growth in the domestic
economy and new laws increased the size and level of activity in key sectors that
the EPA regulated, but the EPA's capacity to meet that need decreased.
The EPA's annual enforcement reports do not provide context for understanding
the EPA's enforcement accomplishments and the impact these enforcement
activities have on human health and the environment. For example, the EPA does
not measure or report data for compliance-assistance activities, informal
enforcement actions, and noncompliance rates. The EPA could also provide
additional information that would provide context about the scope of activities
captured by its enforcement measures, such as the type of inspections conducted
and the types and toxicity of pollutants removed from the environment.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA's assistant administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance complete a workforce analysis to assess the Agency's
capacity to maintain a strong enforcement field presence that protects human health
and the environment and to integrate the results of this analysis into the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's strategic and annual planning
processes. These two recommendations are unresolved. We made six
recommendations about how the EPA can improve the way it reports enforcement
achievements. The recommendation to measure the Agency's compliance
assistance and informal enforcement activities is unresolved.
List of OIG reports.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
May 13, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Resource Constraints, Leadership Decisions, and Workforce Culture Led to a
Decline in Federal Enforcement
Report No. 21-P-0132
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this audit was QA&E-FY19-0030.
This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective
actions the OIG recommends. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA
managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is the responsible office for the topics
discussed in this report.
We issued eight recommendations in this report. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office
provided acceptable planned corrective actions and estimated milestone dates for Recommendations 3,
4, 6, 7, and 8. These recommendations are resolved.
Action Required
Recommendations 1, 2, and 5 are unresolved. The resolution process, as described in the EPA's
Audit Management Procedures, begins immediately with the issuance of this report. Furthermore,
we request a written response to the final report within 60 days of this memorandum. Your
response will be posted on the OIG's website, along with our memorandum commenting on your
response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the
accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final
response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response
contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with corresponding
justification.
FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell
TO:
Lawrence Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Resource Constraints, Leadership Decisions,
and Workforce Culture Led to a Decline in
Federal Enforcement
21-P-0132
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Achievements 8
Responsible Office 8
Scope and Methodology 8
2 EPA's Key Annual Enforcement Results Declined Over Time Nationally,
Regionally, and by Environmental Statute 13
EPA's National Enforcement Results Declined from FYs 2007
Through 2018 13
EPA's Enforcement Results Declined for Most EPA Regions from
FYs 2007 Through 2018 14
EPA's Enforcement Results Generally Declined for Most Environmental
Statutes from FYs 2007 Through 2018 16
Many Enforcement Measures Continued to Decrease in FYs 2019
and 2020 18
Conclusion 19
3 EPA's Decline in Enforcement Results Was Influenced by Resources,
Leadership, and Culture 20
EPA's Declining Enforcement Funding Significantly Contributed to
Decreases in Enforcement Results 20
EPA Shifted Its Operational Strategy to Focus on Biggest Polluters
and Increased Emphasis on Compliance Assistance 25
Leadership Shapes Discretionary Policies That Directly and Indirectly
Affect Enforcement Trends 29
Recent Increases in Deference to State Enforcement Programs Affected
Federal Enforcement Trends 33
National Enforcement Priorities Affected EPA's Annual Enforcement
Results 37
Leadership Influenced EPA's Enforcement Culture, Which Indirectly
Affected Enforcement Trends 38
Conclusion 41
Recommendations 42
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 42
—continued—
-------
Resource Constraints, Leadership Decisions,
and Workforce Culture Led to a Decline in
Federal Enforcement
21-P-0132
4 EPA Can Develop and Track Additional Enforcement Measures and
Improve Its Reporting of Annual Enforcement Results 44
EPA Lacks Measures for Compliance Assistance Activities and
Noncompliance Rates 45
EPA's Annual Results for Compliance Monitoring Activities and
Environmental Benefits Do Not Capture Full Scope
of These Measures 48
EPA Tracks Its Enforcement Trends in Internal Dashboard and
Provides Public Dashboards for Five Media Programs 51
Conclusion 53
Recommendations 54
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 54
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 57
Appendices
A 2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel: Methodology
and Results 58
B Enforcement Trends by EPA Region and Headquarters 100
C Enforcement Trends by Environmental Statute 127
D Changes in Enforcement Measures in FYs 2019 and 2020 151
E Agency Response to Draft Report 155
F Revised Agency Corrective Actions for Recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 7... 169
G Distribution 171
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The Office of Inspector General
conducted this audit of the
This audit addresses the following
management challenges for the Agency, as
identified in 20-N-0231. EPA's FYs 2020-2021
Top Management Challenges, issued July 21,
2020:
Top Management Challenges
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to identify the trends in
enforcement results from fiscal
years 2006 through 2018 for
EPA-led enforcement actions. We
also sought to determine the key
factors explaining those trends and
• Overseeing states implementing EPA
programs.
• Improving workforce/workload analyses.
• Integrating and leading environmental
the differences in enforcement
results among regions and
justice.
headquarters, as well as among
environmental statutes.
This report is the second of two reports addressing these objectives. Our first
report, issued in March 2020, described the national trends in EPA-led
enforcement activities, actions, and results and contained no recommendations.1
This report revisits the national trends and identifies the regional, headquarters,
and statute trends in EPA-led enforcement activities, actions, and results and the
key factors that explain the trends identified in our reports.
The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment, ensuring that
everyone is protected from significant risks where they live, learn, work, and play.
As part of this mission, the EPA enforces environmental statutes and regulations
at approximately 40 million regulated public and private entities, such as
wastewater treatment plants, pesticide manufacturers, and oil refineries. The
environmental and health hazards posed by regulated entities not in compliance
with environmental statutes and regulations can disproportionately impact
low-income, minority, tribal, and indigenous communities.
The EPA implements enforcement programs for 12 federal environmental
statutes. The EPA has authorized most states and some territories and tribes to
implement many environmental programs and to directly enforce many
environmental laws.2 The EPA retains oversight responsibilities for
1 EPA OIG, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Activities, Enforcement Actions, and Enforcement Results Generally
Declined from Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2018, 20-P-0131. March 31, 2020.
2 In this report, we use "state" or "states" to collectively refer to "states, territories, and tribes."
Background
21-P-0132
1
-------
Federal Environmental Statutes
Administered by the EPA
• Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.
• Clean Air Act.
• Clean Water Act.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act.
• Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act.
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
• Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act.
• National Environmental Policy Act.
• Oil Pollution Act.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
• Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Toxic Substances Control Act.
environmental and enforcement programs that states
have the authority to implement. The EPA also retains
independent enforcement authority in authorized
states. If a state does not have enforcement authority
from the EPA, the Agency directly implements the
enforcement program for that state. The EPA's Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, or OECA,
is responsible for the Agency's enforcement program.
According to the FY2018-2022 U.S. EPA Strategic
Plan:
A robust enforcement program is critically
important for addressing violations and
promoting deterrence, and supports the
Agency's mission of protecting human
health and the environment. Ensuring
compliance with the law also ensures
consistency and certainty for the regulated
community so it has a complete
understanding of the impact of proposed
actions on human health, the environment,
and the economy, and a clear path and
timeline to achieve that compliance.3
Performance Measures Help EPA Track and Demonstrate Progress
Made in Its Enforcement Program
Ensuring compliance with environmental laws and regulations is critical to
accomplishing the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the
environment. The EPA uses performance measures to assess, track, and
demonstrate its progress toward ensuring consistency and certainty for the
regulated community.
Environmental enforcement involves a complicated process and numerous
players, with government agencies, regulated entities, and the public working
toward compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The process often
begins with providing compliance assistance and may involve enforcement
actions that result in human health and environmental benefits. We simplified this
process to the key steps in Figure 1.
3 EPA, FY 2018-2022 U.S. EPA Strategic Plan. EPA- 190-R-18-003. February 2018 (updated September 2019).
21-P-0132
-------
Figure 1: The enforcement process includes compliance assistance, compliance monitoring
activities, enforcement actions, monetary outcomes, and environmental benefit outcomes
Primary purpose of the enforcement process is to ensure compliance with environmental laws.
A
W® (a © m! © © $$ ©
Through guidance and A regulated entity
training, the EPA and
states provide
compliance assistance
to regulated entities.
Compliance assistance
can be provided
throughout the entire
enforcement process.
is required to
follow applicable
environmental
laws and
regulations.
EPA or states
monitor a
regulated entity's
compliance with
environmental laws
and regulations.
Enforcement results
When noncompliance is
found, the EPA or states
can offer compliance
assistance to or pursue
informal or formal
administrative
enforcement actions
against the regulated
entity. The EPA may also
refer cases of
noncompliance to the
U.S. Department of
Justice.
Enforcement actions
produce outcomes, such
as injunctive relief to
compel regulated entities'
return to compliance,
penalties to punish
noncompliance and deter
future noncompliance,
and supplemental
environmental projects to
mitigate the effects of
noncompliance. These
outcomes have monetary
values.
Enforcement actions
also result in the
regulated entity's
return to compliance
and improvements or
benefits to human
health and the
environment.
Source: OiG summary of EPA information. (EPA OIG image)
At the beginning of the enforcement process, the EPA or states may provide
compliance assistance to regulated entities to help them comply with
environmental laws and regulations. Examples of compliance assistance include
EPA-provided training to a regulated industry about regulatory requirements and
"ask-the-expert" or technical assistance provided over the phone or through online
compliance assistance centers geared toward specific regulated industry groups.
Enforcement Outputs
Compliance assistance provided by the EPA or states, such as training or
technical assistance, helps regulated entities comply with environmental laws
and regulations.
Compliance monitoring activities, such as inspections, assess a regulated
entity's compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
Enforcement actions refer to the informal or formal actions taken by the EPA,
the Department of Justice, or an authorized state to address instances of
noncompliance typically identified through inspection findings, tips, or
self-reported violations. Informal enforcement actions generally include warning
letters or notices of violation, while formal enforcement actions include
administrative orders or judicial actions. Enforcement actions include the
number of cases initiated and number of cases concluded.
21-P-0132
3
-------
The EPA and states conduct compliance monitoring activities, typically in the
form of inspections, to assess a regulated entity's compliance with environmental
laws and regulations. These activities may be planned as part of a routine activity
or national enforcement priority or may be undertaken based on a tip that the EPA
received.
When the EPA or a state discovers noncompliance at a facility through
compliance monitoring or a regulated entity's self-disclosure,4 it may initiate an
informal enforcement action, which would give the facility the opportunity to
return to compliance, or a formal enforcement action. Alternately, it may refer or
defer the enforcement case to another regulatory entity. For example, if a state
identifies noncompliance, it may refer the enforcement case to the EPA; this
referral usually occurs when the nature of the facility or noncompliance is
technically complex or when the state requests the Agency's assistance. However,
a state may request that it be the lead on an enforcement action in which the EPA
identified noncompliance. In such cases, the EPA may then defer action to the
state.
On the federal level, the Agency may refer cases to the DOJ for judicial
enforcement action.5 The DOJ decides whether it will accept the enforcement
case or send it back to the EPA. When the DOJ accepts a case, members of the
EPA staff work with the DOJ to develop and conclude the enforcement action.
EPA or state enforcement actions or cases can result in a combination of
injunctive relief; penalties; supplemental environmental projects, commonly
referred to as SEPs; and environmental benefits (Figure l).6 These measures of
enforcement outcomes are described in detail in the blue box on the next page. As
an example, in a 2018 settlement, MarkWest Energy Partners agreed to:7
• Invest an estimated $2.6 million to install and operate technologies to
reduce its emissions of regulated pollutants at its facilities in two states.
• Pay a civil penalty of $610,000.
4 The EPA's eDisclosure System, established in December 2015, encourages regulated entities to voluntarily
discover, promptly disclose, expeditiously correct, and act to prevent the recurrence of environmental violations. For
more information, see the EPA's eDisclosure website.
5 Many environmental statutes specify that certain enforcement actions must be addressed judicially, for example,
large penalty cases under the Clean Water Act.
6 On March 12, 2020, the DOJ directed its attorneys to not include SEPs in EPA judicial settlements. See DOJ,
Memorandum to Environment and Natural Resources Division deputy assistant attorney generals and section chiefs,
from Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Subject: Supplemental Environmental Projects ("SEPs ") in
Civil Settlements with Private Defendants, dated March 12, 2020. As of March 18, 2020, the EPA no longer used
SEPs in most of its civil administrative enforcement cases. On February 4, 2021, the DOJ withdrew this
memorandum.
7 Throughout this report, we provide weblinks to EPA enforcement case summaries for the convenience of readers
who would like to learn more about these cases. The enforcement results reported in some of these case summaries
vary from those that we calculated from the data we retrieved from OECA's internal Federal Enforcement and
Compliance Dashboard because we adjusted all monetary enforcement results to 2018 U.S. dollar.
21-P-0132
4
-------
• Complete SEPs valued at $2.4 million that included running a
community project for emissions monitoring among other projects.
The EPA also estimated that the corrective actions MarkWest Energy Partners
completed would reduce emissions by more than 1.4 million pounds of volatile
organic compounds per year.
Ultimately, the long-term outcomes of the enforcement action and results are to
return the facility to compliance, to deter future noncompliance, and to achieve
benefits to human health and the environment.
Enforcement Outcomes
Injunctive relief, which is measured in U.S. dollars, refers to the actions a regulated entity must
perform or refrain from performing as a result of the conclusion of an enforcement action.
Injunctive relief generally aims to bring the regulated entity into compliance with applicable
environmental laws and regulations, and to remedy any harm from the alleged violations.
Penalties, which are measured in U.S. dollars, represent the monetary assessments a violator
pays to the U.S. Treasury in connection with the violator's noncompliance with regulatory or
statutory requirements. Environmental laws, regulations, and EPA policies establish the criteria
for penalty amounts. Criteria affecting penalty amounts may include, among others, the severity
and duration of the noncompliance, the size of the regulated entity, the entity's history of
violations, the entity's level of culpability, and the degree to which the entity derived an
economic benefit from noncompliance.
Supplemental environmental projects, which are measured in U.S. dollars, are projects that a
regulated entity voluntarily agrees to complete as part of a concluded enforcement action or
settlement. SEPs are expected to produce environmental and public health benefits beyond
those required by law and regulation.
Environmental benefits, which are principally measured in pounds or cubic yards, refer to the
estimated environmental improvements to be achieved if all terms of the concluded
enforcement action are met. The EPA tracks and reports several types of environmental
benefits, including (1) reduction, treatment, or elimination of pollutants (in pounds); (2) cleanup
of contaminated soil and water (in cubic yards); and (3) treatment, minimization, or proper
disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste (in pounds).
Depending on the severity of the violation and whether the violation was willfully
or knowingly committed, the EPA, through the DOJ, may also pursue criminal
charges against an individual or corporate defendant in addition to civil
enforcement actions. This report does not analyze trends in the Agency's criminal
or state enforcement results.
21-P-0132
5
-------
EPA Sets National Priorities for Its Enforcement Activities
Every two to four years, the EPA sets national enforcement priorities to focus
civil and criminal enforcement resources and expertise on serious environmental
problems.8 After setting these national priorities, the EPA's OECA and the EPA
regions discuss region-specific enforcement commitments to support the goals
and measures of those priorities. Depending on the level of progress, the EPA
may either carry over a national priority to the next cycle or consider the issue
sufficiently addressed and return the issue to the "core" enforcement program.
The EPA's national enforcement priorities have previously focused on addressing
substantial pollution problems, such as those occurring in the mineral-processing
or petroleum-refining industries, or particular types of pollutants, such as air
toxics or stormwater pollutants (Figure 2). The Agency's national priorities for
FYs 2020 through 2023 focus on areas of noncompliance within the air,
hazardous chemicals, clean water, and safe drinking water programs.
Figure 2: Timeline of the EPA's national enforcement priorities, FYs 2000 through 2023
Fiscal Year Planning Cycles
2000-
2001
2002-
2003
2005-2007
2008-2010
2011-2013
2014-2016
2017-2019
2020-2023
Cutting hazardous and toxic air pollutants
New Source Review and
prevention of significant deterioration
Petroleum refining
Reducing air pollution from
the largest sources
Ensuring energy extraction activities
comply with environmental laws
Creating cleaner air for
communities by reducing
excess emissions of
harmful pollutants
Stopping aftermarket
defeat devices for
vehicles and engines
Permit evaders
Mineral processing
Financial assurance
Indian Country and tribal
environmental issues
Reducing risks of accidental releases at
industrial and chemical facilities
Reducing hazardous air emissions from
hazardous waste facilities
Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of the nation's waters
Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface water and groundwater
Environmental Area
•
Air O Water #
RCRA/CERCLA
•
Energy r, Hazardous
Tribal
Extraction Chemicals
Keeping
industrial
pollutants
out of the
nation's
waters
Reducing significant
noncompliance with
NPDES permits
Reducing
noncompliance with
drinking water
standards at
community water
systems
Source: OIG summary of the EPA's national enforcement priorities. (EPA OIG image)
8 In August 2018, the Agency renamed the priorities from national enforcement initiatives to national compliance
initiatives to emphasize the overall goal of increased compliance using the full range of compliance assurance tools.
This report uses national enforcement priorities to collectively refer to the Agency's national enforcement and
compliance initiatives over time.
21-P-0132
6
-------
EPA Enforcement Is Vital for Maintaining and Advancing
Environmental Justice
In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, requiring each
federal agency to:
[M]ake achieving environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations.
Across the country, many low-income and minority communities are
overburdened with high levels of environmental pollution and other adverse
societal and economic conditions. Therefore, detecting and deterring
environmental noncompliance is important to maintaining and advancing
environmental justice. EPA regions and OECA target facilities located in these
communities for compliance monitoring activities. In July 2020, the EPA OIG
identified integrating and leading environmental justice across the Agency and
government as a top management challenge for the EPA.
EPA Tracks and Publicly Reports Annual Enforcement Measures
and Results
Each fiscal year, the EPA tracks and publishes its annual enforcement measures
and results on its website. Prior to posting this information, the ten EPA regions
and EPA headquarters verify and submit data to OECA about their enforcement
activities, actions, and results. The website details the enforcement program
overall, annual monetary and environmental results, and year-to-year enforcement
trends for the previous ten years. The website also highlights specific
accomplishments, such as cases that resulted in large monetary enforcement
results or significant environmental benefits. For example, the EPA highlighted a
landmark Clean Air Act enforcement action against Volkswagen in the Agency's
FY 2016 annual enforcement measures. Adjusted for inflation to 2018 USD, the
case resulted in $17.8 billion in penalties and injunctive relief, among other
actions.
The sequential nature of many enforcement cases means that there is an inherent
lag in demonstrating results. A decline in compliance monitoring activities
subsequently leads to a decline in case initiations and conclusions. Thus, the
number of compliance monitoring activities is a leading indicator of the EPA's
enforcement efforts, whereas monetary and environmental outcomes are lagging
indicators.
21-P-0132
7
-------
Noteworthy Achievements
Since 2011, OECA has developed and improved an internal dashboard that allows
EPA managers and staff to track trends in compliance monitoring activities,
initiated and concluded enforcement actions, results from those enforcement
actions, and environmental benefits. In February 2018, OECA Assistant
Administrator Susan Bodine announced the availability of the newest version of
the dashboard to Agency staff. The internal dashboard displays real-time
information from OECA's Integrated Compliance Information System. The
dashboard has a user interface that allows personnel to customize their searches
and download the resulting data. Assistant Administrator Bodine indicated that
the dashboard could serve as a valuable management tool by providing
enforcement managers and staff with quick access to the latest enforcement data.
In addition, managers can use the dashboard to view the enforcement data by
region, program, or fiscal year to assist with program management.
In February 2013, the EPA released similar dashboards and comparative maps for
EPA and state enforcement activities within the air, drinking water, hazardous
waste, pesticide, and water programs. These dashboards and maps are available to
the public on the Enforcement Compliance History Online website. The state
dashboards allow the public to quickly look at key environmental compliance and
enforcement measures, such as compliance monitoring activities and enforcement
actions, by state.
Responsible Office
OECA works with the EPA's ten regional offices, states, and other federal
agencies to ensure that federal environmental laws and regulations are enforced
fairly and effectively. OECA is responsible for setting the Agency's enforcement
priorities, tracking enforcement results, and reporting those results to the public.
Scope and Methodology
We performed our work from November 2018 to February 2021. We conducted
this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
To identify national, regional, and statute-specific trends in federal enforcement
measures, we analyzed EPA annual enforcement data from FYs 2006 through
2018 from OECA's internal Federal Enforcement and Compliance Dashboard.
Data pulled on one date may differ from data pulled on a later date and may yield
different analytic results because the data in the dashboard are updated daily.
21-P-0132
8
-------
However, by comparing data pulled at different times during this audit, we
determined that these minimal differences did not impact the overall results of our
trend analyses. We obtained data related to FYs 2006 through 2018 from
December 20, 2018, through April 4, 2019. To ensure that the findings in this
report are accurate, we conducted a data-reliability assessment in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards; we determined that the EPA
enforcement data are sufficiently reliable. We did not examine informal, criminal,
or state-led enforcement actions.
To better understand the observed trends and to identify key factors that
contributed to those trends, we interviewed the three assistant administrators for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance who served from FYs 2006 through
2018 and managers of OECA divisions and of enforcement divisions in
Regions 1, 4, 7, and 9, which we selected based on the geographic location and
size of their programs. We also interviewed nongovernmental organization and
academic experts about their observations and insights into environmental
enforcement in general and EPA enforcement specifically. In addition, we
analyzed Agency funding and staffing data to evaluate the potential impact of
resources on enforcement trends; we did not independently verify the EPA's
internal funding and staffing data.
Throughout this report, we provide weblinks to EPA enforcement case summaries
for the convenience of readers who would like to learn more about these cases.
The enforcement results reported in some of these case summaries vary from
those that we calculated from the data we retrieved from OECA's internal Federal
Enforcement and Compliance Dashboard because we adjusted all monetary
enforcement results to 2018 USD.
We administered a survey to 2,462 members of the enforcement staff and
managers in September 2019 to gather input on the key factors that affected
enforcement trends overtime. The survey solicited staff perceptions on:
• Inspections.
• Case initiations and conclusions.
• Enforcement results.
• Data quality.
• Data systems.
• Integrity of the enforcement program.
We received responses from 37 percent of the enforcement staff and managers
that received the survey (911 responses). Appendix A includes additional
information about the survey instrument, as well as analyses of all survey
responses.
21-P-0132
9
-------
Exclusion of FY 2006 Enforcement Activities and Results
In our initial analysis, we determined that FY 2006 was a unique year because the
EPA concluded more enforcement actions that year than any other year in the
Agency's history, as shown in Figure 3. These actions primarily resulted from a
national priority to focus enforcement efforts on air emissions from concentrated
animal feeding operations. Concluded concentrated animal feeding operation
cases represented 42 percent of the total number of cases that the EPA concluded
in FY 2006, whereas these types of cases represented less than 1 percent of the
total number of concluded cases in the 12 other years included in our period of
analysis. We determined that including FY 2006 data in our trend analyses
exaggerated the overall decline in enforcement activities and results. As a result,
we excluded that year's enforcement activities and results from our trend
analyses.
Inclusion of FYs 2019 and 2020 Enforcement Activities and Results
We included limited analyses of the FYs 2019 and 2020 activities and results,
even though these were outside our audit objective.
We expanded our analyses to include FY 2019 after OECA released its annual
enforcement measures on February 13, 2020. We pulled activities and results
related to FY 2019 from the EPA's internal dashboard from February 24, 2020,
through March 10, 2020. While we considered these data and provide a summary
of how they fit into overall trends in Chapter 2 and Appendices B and C, we did
not include FY 2019 data in our tables and figures for this report.
During OIG internal review of this draft report, OECA released its annual
enforcement measures for FY 2020 on January 13, 2021. We pulled activities and
results related to FY 2020 from the EPA's internal dashboard from January 26, 2021,
through January 27, 2021. We compared these data to FY 2019 data in
Appendix D but did not include FY 2020 data in our tables and figures for this
report.
Prior Reports
In 2013, we reported on the EPA's enforcement trends from FYs 2006 through
2011.9 We found that, while the number of concluded enforcement actions for
FYs 2006 through 2011 remained relatively constant overall, the monetary results
that EPA regions achieved from enforcement actions varied. The variations were
explained by the timing and locations of a few large concluded cases. In any
given year, the conclusion of one or a few large cases can result in unusually large
monetary results. National enforcement priorities set by OECA drove most of
these large cases. We made no recommendations to the EPA in that report.
9 EPA OIG, Response to Congressional Request on EPA Enforcement, 13-P-0168. February 28, 2013.
21-P-0132
10
-------
In January 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that the
EPA collects a range of information about compliance and enforcement efforts.10
The GAO found that, while it collected data on formal enforcement activities, the
EPA did not consistently collect data about compliance assistance and informal
enforcement activities for its national databases. In addition, the GAO found that
several of the EPA's FY 2018 enforcement-related reports did not disclose known
limitations about the Agency's enforcement data. Without this information,
readers of the EPA's annual reports were at risk of drawing inaccurate
conclusions or information from the data. The GAO did not assess the reliability
of the data but rather critiqued the Agency's inconsistency in stating the known
limitations of the data in some FY 2018 enforcement-related reports. The GAO
recommended that the EPA clarify for regions how the definition of informal
enforcement actions should be used to collect data about these activities, to share
the known limitations of data in its annual reports, and to provide information on
the intended use of the EPA's data. The EPA agreed with all recommendations.
As of April 5, 2021, the GAO considered these recommendations open.
In March 2020, we reported on national trends in the EPA's annual enforcement
results.11 We found that the EPA's annual level of compliance monitoring
activities, enforcement actions, and enforcement results generally declined from
FYs 2006 through 2018. While conducting this audit, the EPA released its
FY 2019 annual enforcement measures and 11 of the 15 measures continued to
decrease when compared to FY 2018. We also found that both the funding for the
Agency's enforcement program and the number of enforcement staff decreased
18 and 21 percent, respectively, when comparing FYs 2006 and 2018; these
resources continued to decrease in FY 2019. We made no recommendations to the
EPA.
In December 2020, the GAO reported that the EPA had shifted the focus of its
national priorities from enforcing environmental laws to promoting compliance
with environmental laws.12 The report noted that, as of September 2020, the EPA
had not finalized its guidance to the regions and states for implementing the new
national priorities, which went into effect October 2019. Furthermore, the GAO
found that the EPA does not document the outcomes of its assessments of
regional performance. Based on that finding, the GAO concluded the EPA could
not demonstrate that its regional activities support its strategic objectives. The
GAO recommended that the EPA:
(1) Communicate final guidance to all states for future national priorities
before the effective date.
10 GAO, Environmental Protection: Additional Action Needed to Improve EPA Data on Informal Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance Activities, GAQ-20-95. January 31, 2020 (released March 2, 2020).
11 EPA OIG, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Activities, Enforcement Actions, and Enforcement Results Generally
Declined from Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2018, 20-P-0131. March 31, 2020.
12 GAO, Environmental Protection: Action Needed to Ensure EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Support Its Strategic Goals, GAO-21-82. December 9, 2020.
21-P-0132
11
-------
(2) Incorporate lessons learned from its initial efforts to engage with states
when outlining future procedures for drafting national priorities.
(3) Document the outcomes of the EPA's performance assessments at the
regional level, including progress toward performance goals that support
the EPA's strategic objectives.
The EPA agreed with all recommendations. As of April 5, 2021, the GAO
considered these recommendations open.
21-P-0132
12
-------
Chapter 2
EPA's Key Annual Enforcement
Results Declined Over Time Nationally,
Regionally, and by Environmental Statute
National-level, regional-level, and statute-specific
EPA compliance monitoring activities,
enforcement actions, and most enforcement
results, including output and some outcome
measures, generally declined from FYs 2007
through 2018. The decline in compliance
monitoring activities means that, over time, the
Agency and the public had less knowledge about
regulatory compliance and whether facilities were
emitting pollutants that could be harmful to those
living nearby. With the associated decline in
enforcement actions with penalties or injunctive relief, the EPA may not be
adequately addressing violators, who thereby gain an advantage over regulated
entities that comply with the environmental regulations.
EPA's National Enforcement Results Declined from FYs 2007
Through 2018
Key national enforcement results, such as the numbers of compliance monitoring
activities and concluded enforcement cases, the monetary value of SEPs, and the
pounds of pollution reduction committed, declined over the period examined
(Figure 3). In addition, the EPA concluded 58 percent fewer enforcement actions
with injunctive relief, 53 percent fewer enforcement actions with penalties, and
48 percent fewer enforcement actions with SEPs in FY 2018 than in FY 2007.
The conclusion of cases with large monetary or environmental commitments
dominated the trends in specific measures, such as the amounts of injunctive
relief, penalties, and waste and cleanup commitments. We reported the full details
about the national trends in March 2020.13
13 EPA OIG, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Activities, Enforcement Actions, and Enforcement Results Generally
Declined from Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2018, 20-P-0131. March 31, 2020.
21-P-0132
13
-------
Figure 3: EPA national enforcement measures overtime, FYs 2007 through 2018
Primary purpose of the enforcement process is to ensure compliance with environmental laws
© ©
Compliance
assistance
Regulated
entity
Approximately
40 million
regulated
public and
private entities
mg
Compliance
monitoring
Compliance Monitoring
Activities
21,269 (2010)
©
it? e $$ © £.2
10,687 (2018)
W Maximum value in the range
% Minimum value in the range
Note: We used sparklines to visually represent the EPA's annual
enforcement results. Because sparklines do not have labeled axes,
we included the maximum and minimum annual values from the
time series for each measure. The EPA changed the way it measures
environmental benefits In FY 2012; therefore, data about
environmental benefits are only available for FYs 2012 through 2018.
Enforcement
actions
Case Initiations
3,784 (2007)
Monetary
outcomes
Environmental
benefit outcomes
Enforcement results
1,829 (2018)
Concluded Cases
3,724 (2009)
1,819 (2018)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in billions)
$21.3 (2011)
$3.9 (2018)
Penalties
(2018 USD in millions)
$6,135 (2016)
$69 (2018)
Supplemental Environmental
Projects (2018 USD in millions)
$53 (2009)
Wv
$18(2017)
Pollution Commitments
(pounds in millions)
1,281 (2013)
215(2017)
Waste Commitments
(pounds in millions)
61.938 (2016)
148 (2013)
Cleanup Commitments
(cubic yards in millions)
871 (2014)
75 (2015)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
EPA's Enforcement Results Declined for Most EPA Regions from
FYs 2007 Through 2018
From FYs 2007 through 2018, the trends in enforcement results by region
generally followed the declining national trends for compliance monitoring
activities, enforcement actions concluded, and enforcement results (Figure 4). We
do not expect each region to produce comparable enforcement results, but nearly
all regions and EPA headquarters reported decreases in the numbers of
compliance monitoring activities and enforcement actions when comparing
FYs 2007 and 2018. The one exception was Region 3, which reported a large
one-year increase in the number of compliance monitoring activities followed by
ten years of general decline. A few regions influenced the national trends in
enforcement results more than other regions because of their large numbers of
regulated entities and enforcement staff.
Region 5 conducted the most compliance monitoring activities and reported the
largest amounts of injunctive relief and SEP dollars over the 12 years. Regions 4
and 6 concluded the most enforcement actions over the 12 years and accounted
for nearly three-quarters of the total penalty dollars. Similarly, Regions 4 and 5
together accounted for almost half of the total pounds of pollutant commitments,
and Region 4 alone accounted for three-quarters of the total pounds of waste
commitments. We examine the trends in enforcement measures for each region in
greater depth in Appendix B.
21-P-0132
14
-------
Figure 4: Key enforcement measures overtime for EPA regions, FYs 2007 through 2018
Region 7 Region 5 Region 1
Region 8
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
1,742 (2012)
995 (2018)
261 (2008)
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
1,104 (2007)
563(2018)
318(2010)
92 (2018)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$562(2008)
$18 (2017)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
3(2014)
29 (2017) Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
2(2018)
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
4,706 (2012)
355 (2009)
1,210 (2018)
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
1,919 (2008)
Concluded
Cases
193(2008)
789(2016)
141(2018)
$5,277 (2012)
$34 (2014)
116 (2012)
212 (2016)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$5,470 (2011)
$235 (2009)
408 (2013)
35(2016)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
87 (2018)
$1,022 (2017)
$60(2018)
149(2013)
0.1 (2018)
Region 10
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
1,209 (2008)
252 (2010)
664 (2018)
140 (2008)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$1,601 (2013)
$10 (2014)
140 (2012)
0.7 (2017)
©
Hi I
IflflanH
Trust Territories
American Samoa
Northern Mariana
Islands
©
SO
N£
Ems, al ,<
D£
[MO
ORB
Region 2
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
3,165 (2012)
534 (2008)
1,807 (2018)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$3,572 (2011)
274(2018)
$174 (2018)
110(2017)
18(2018)
Region 9
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
1.094 (2012)
643 (2013)
311 (2008)
Concluded
Cases
91 (2017)
Injunctive Relief $4'4J8 (2011)
(2018 USD in
millions) „
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$149 (2018)
74 (2016)
0.1 (2013)
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
584(2007)
Region 6
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
Region 4
2,656 (2010)
2,715(2009)
Compliance
Monitoring
1,001 (2017) Activities
1,145 (2018)
776 (2009)
291 (2014)
$6,308 (2016)
$96 (2012)
117(2013)
Concluded
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$6,062 (2011)
Region 3
2,920 (2008)
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities 1,294 (2007|
Concluded
Cases
204(2018)
385(2016)
150(2018)
$64 (2018)
270 (2012)
6 (2017)
Headquarters
4(2018)
. . .. _ .. , $4,011 (2008)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
$64(2017)
Pollution 417(2013)
Commitments
(pounds in
millions) 03(2014)
Concluded
Cases
295 (2007)
90 (2017)
17 (2018)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
$16,450 (2017)
$2(2009)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
3.4 (2018)
0.6 (2016)
Note: We used sparklines to visually represent the EPA's annual enforcement results. Because
sparklines do not have labeled axes, we included the maximum and minimum annual values
from the time series for each measure. The EPA changed the way it measures environmental
benefits in FY 2012; therefore, data about environmental benefits, such as pollution
commitments, are only available for FYs 2012 through 2018.
0 Maximum value in the range
• Minimum value in the range
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
-------
EPA's Enforcement Results Generally Declined for Most
Environmental Statutes from FYs 2007 Through 2018
From FYs 2007 through 2018, the trends in enforcement results by environmental
statute generally followed the declining national trends for compliance monitoring
activities, enforcement actions concluded, and enforcement results (Figure 5).
While we do not expect each statute to produce comparable enforcement results
because the numbers of regulated entities and enforcement staff differ among
statutes, a few statutes influenced the national trends in enforcement results and
environmental benefits.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, or SDWA, and Clean Air Act, or CAA, accounted
for the most compliance monitoring activities from FYs 2007 through 2018. The
Clean Water Act, or CWA, and CAA accounted for the largest portion of
enforcement actions concluded over time and together accounted for almost all
penalty dollars and total pounds of pollutant reduction commitments. The CWA
and CAA also represented 79 percent of the value from injunctive relief and
73 percent of the value from SEPs. Similarly, enforcement actions concluded
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or
CERCLA, accounted for nearly all of the total pounds of waste cleanup
commitments and the cubic yards from commitments to clean up contaminated
soil or water, respectively. The conclusion of large enforcement actions
influenced trends in penalties and injunctive relief within statutes. We examine
these trends by statute in greater depth in Appendix C.
21-P-0132
16
-------
Figure 5: Key enforcement measures over time for major environmental statutes,
FYs 2007 through 2018
Clean Air Act
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
4,365 (2012)
Concluded 838 (2007)
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
$556 2012)
605 (2013
2,299 (2018)
337(2018)
$16,588 (2017)
66 (2017)
Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
Compliance 1^053(2008)H
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Penalties
(2018 USD in
millions)
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Compliance No compliance
Monitoring monitoring activities
Activities reported
Concluded
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Cleanup
Commitments
(cubic yards in
millions)
493(2009)
139(2018)
$3,442 (2011)
$529(2018)
865(2014)
61 (2015)
Clean Water Act
Compliance 3.735U008)
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Pollution
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
2,213 (2018)
1,003 (2010)
483 2018
$11,148 (2016)
$1,390 (2009)
651(2013)
50 (2018)
Concluded 267J2008)
Cases
471(2017)
188(2012)
\
\
B
73(2018)
$6.3 (2011)
$0.2 (2018)
$6.9 (2011)
Po ution
Commitments
pounds in
millions)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
587(2012)
310 (2018)
39 (2016)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
$2.3 (2018)
$6.2 (2011)
19.6 2014)
$0.4 (2007)
2.4 (2015)
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Waste
Commitments
(pounds in
millions)
4,283 (2010)
500(2009
1,883 (2018)
248 (2018)
$917 (2016)
$29 (2018)
61,937 (2016)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
7,046 (2010)
2,061 (2007)
Concluded 608 (2008)
Cases
42 (2013)
Injunctive Relief
(2018 USD in
millions)
Penalties
(2018 USD in
millions)
162(2014)
$2,024 (2010)
vTWu
$16(2014)
$1.7 (2015|
Toxic Substance Control Act
Compliance 1,590(2007)
Monitoring
Activities
Concluded
Cases
902(2017)
210 (2008)
141(2015)
Injunctive Relief $21(2014)
(2018 USD in
millions)
$0.4 (2009)
Penalties
(2018 USD in
millions)
$2 (2015)
$20 (2014)
$2(2018)
• Maximum value in the range • Minimum value in the range
Note: We used sparklines to visually represent the EPA's annual enforcement results. Because sparklines do not have
labeled axes, we included the maximum and minimum annual values from the time series for each measure. The EPA
changed the way it measures environmental benefits in FY 2012; therefore, data about environmental benefits for
pollution commitments, waste commitments, and cleanup commitments are only available for FYs 2012 through 2018.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement results. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
17
-------
Many Enforcement Measures Continued to Decrease in FYs 2019
and 2020
We conducted limited analyses of the FYs 2019 and 2020 enforcement results,
even though these data were outside the scope of our objective (Appendix D).
Compared to FY 2018, 11 out of 15 national enforcement measures continued to
decline in FY 2019. Likewise, 11 of the 15 national enforcement measures
declined in FY 2020, compared to FY 2019, although two of those declining
measures were relatively stable and were less than a 3 percent decline.
Two enforcement measures that increased in FY 2019—penalties assessed and the
value of injunctive relief—represent monetary results largely determined by the
conclusion of particularly large enforcement actions:
• The EPA reported four times more value from penalties in FY 2019
compared to FY 2018; 73 percent of the FY 2019 total stemmed from
an enforcement action against Fiat Chrysler.
• Concluded enforcement actions resulted in 9 percent more injunctive
relief dollars in FY 2019 compared to FY 2018; 43 percent of the
FY 2019 total resulted from an enforcement action against the City of
New York.
In FY 2020, both penalties and injunctive relief reverted to the downward trend
previously described, although the coronavirus pandemic likely affected the
overall long-term downward trend of EPA enforcement activities in FY 2020.
Two measures associated with the environmental benefit to reduce, treat, and
eliminate pollutants—the number of enforcement actions with this type of
commitment and the total pounds of pollutant commitment—also increased in
FY 2019 compared to FY 2018. The EPA concluded 3 percent more enforcement
actions with a pollution commitment and the total pounds of pollution
commitments increased 19 percent from FY 2018 to FY 2019. In FY 2020, both
of these environmental benefit measures continued to increase.
All three environmental benefit outcome measures increased in FY 2020
compared to FY 2019. In FY 2020, the EPA reported:
• A 23-percent increase in the pounds of pollution commitments
compared to FY 2019; 65 percent of the FY 2020 total resulted from
an action against Detroit Edison.
• Three hundred times more pounds of waste commitments compared to
FY 2019; more than 99 percent of the FY 2020 total stemmed from an
action against Simplot Phosphates.
21-P-0132
18
-------
• Eight times more cubic yards of cleanup commitments compared to
FY 2019; 94 percent of the FY 2020 total resulted from an action
against Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation.
As of the date of this report, it was too soon to tell whether the changes in
FYs 2019 and 2020 measures represented changes in the overall trends we
observed for FYs 2007 through 2018. After reviewing the Agency's recently
released FY 2020 enforcement results, we found that two of the four measures
that increased in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018—total injunctive relief and penalty
dollars—decreased in FY 2020. OECA released its annual enforcement measures
during the OIG's internal review of this report. We show FY 2019 and FY 2020
changes in Appendix D.
Conclusion
From FYs 2007 through 2018, annual enforcement results tracked and reported by
the EPA generally declined. Some measures experienced intermittent, unsustained
increases with the conclusion of large enforcement actions. The declining trends
occurred nationally, as well as by region and by environmental statute, and
continued, for most national measures, into FYs 2019 and 2020. The decline in
compliance monitoring activities meant that, over time, the Agency and the public
had less knowledge about compliance by regulated entities and whether facilities
emitted pollutants that could be harmful to people. The associated decline in
enforcement actions that include penalties or injunctive relief could mean that the
EPA is not adequately addressing violators, who thereby gain an advantage over
other regulated entities that comply with environmental regulations. To better
understand the overall declining trends in enforcement results, outputs, and
outcomes, we also need to understand the key factors that contributed to these
trends. We explain these key factors in the next chapter.
21-P-0132
19
-------
Chapter 3
EPA's Decline in Enforcement Results Was
Influenced by Resources, Leadership, and Culture
A decline in funding for the EPA's enforcement program drove the observed
declining enforcement trends. Congress appropriated 18 percent less funding for
EPA enforcement in FY 2018 than in FY 2006 when comparing inflation-adjusted
dollars. The resulting decline in the number of EPA enforcement personnel led to
fewer compliance monitoring activities and concluded enforcement actions. In
addition, leadership decisions affected the EPA's annual enforcement results
through strategy, policy, and workforce culture changes. For example, leaders
shaped national enforcement priorities and altered strategies to pursue
enforcement cases related to what they perceived to be the most serious instances
of noncompliance. Such strategies reduced the total number of enforcement
outputs and targeted limited resources towards fewer high-value but
resource-intensive cases. In 2017, EPA leadership also placed an increased
emphasis on deference to state enforcement programs and on compliance
assistance, which contributed to the decline in enforcement outputs.
As a result of the overall decline in the EPA's enforcement efforts,
noncompliance with environmental laws and regulations may have gone
undetected or unaddressed. Moreover, enforcement experts have shown the
reduction in enforcement activity incentivizes industrial facilities to forego
essential pollution control measures. As a result, facilities not adhering to
requirements and not subject to enforcement actions might gain unfair advantages
over their competition and expose the public and the environment to harmful
pollutants.
EPA's Declining Enforcement Funding Significantly Contributed to
Decreases in Enforcement Results
Congress appropriated less funding for EPA enforcement in FY 2018 than in
FY 2006 when comparing inflation-adjusted dollars. Working with fewer
resources was a significant factor leading to the decline in EPA enforcement
results. Nonetheless, the EPA could identify and reduce gaps in its capacity to
meet its enforcement-related strategic goals by undertaking required workforce
planning.
EPA Congressionally Appropriated Resources Declined Over Time
Total inflation-adjusted funding for the EPA as an Agency declined by 7 percent
from FYs 2006 through 2018, from $9.48 billion to $8.82 billion, though there
was some annual variation (Table 1). Funding for the EPA's enforcement
program decreased 18 percent and the number of enforcement full-time
21-P-0132
20
-------
equivalents, or FTEs, decreased 21 percent from FYs 2006 through 2018
(Figure 6). Enforcement funding varied between 5.8 percent and 7.4 percent of
total EPA funding over that time.
Table 1: Total EPA and enforcement resources, FYs 2006 through 2018
Fiscal year
Total EPA funding
in billions (2018 USD)
Enforcement funding, in
millions (2018 USD)
Enforcement
allocation
2006
$9.48
$650
6.9%
2007
$9.39
$669
7.1%
2008
$8.70
$645
7.4%
2009
$8.93
$665
7.4%
2010
$11.83
$686
5.8%
2011
$9.72
$664
6.8%
2012
$9.24
$637
6.9%
2013
$8.49
$594
7.0%
2014
$8.68
$594
6.8%
2015
$8.59
$574
6.7%
2016
$8.51
$570
6.7%
2017
$8.25
$559
6.8%
2018
$8.82
$534
6.1%
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's financial data. (EPA OIG table)
Figure 6: Total EPA enforcement resources, FYs 2006 through 2018
$800 3,500 „
»/> £2
c
= 5700 3,000 «
lllllllilm.
c ¦ EPA s enforcement ¦ u-
S S I EPA's enforcement H I H 1.500 ~
| — S300 ¦ . .. . ¦ H ¦ full-time equivalents
funding decreased | ¦ d„r„se
-------
from farms and manufacturing also increased over that time. The increase of such
high-impact economic activities exacerbated the risks of reduced compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities. At a time when the need for EPA
oversight and enforcement increased, the data indicate that the EPA's capacity to
meet that need decreased.
Decline in Enforcement Resources Significantly Impacted EPA
Enforcement Trends
1
Compliance
monitoring
Data show that the decline in
enforcement funding and the
associated decrease in FTEs
impacted the enforcement
results from FYs 2007 through
2018. Enforcement personnel
also reported that the Agency's
capacity to conduct work has
declined. For example,
71 percent of survey
respondents disagreed or
strongly disagreed that there
were enough employees to
conduct facility inspections to identify noncompliance during FYs 2017 and 2018
(Figure 7).
Figure 7: EPA did not have enough employees to conduct inspections in 2017 and
2018 according to enforcement staff and managers
2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
Impact of Resources on Inspections
We received 186 survey comments about the
availability of inspection resources.. Respondents most
frequently described the following:
• A reduced number of inspection resources had a
negative impact on EPA compliance monitoring.
• EPA inspectors took on duties that were not
related to inspections, which negatively affected
their ability to conduct inspections.
We received 105 comments about the effectiveness of
inspections, which generally focused on the relative
ineffectiveness of the overall inspection scheme
because of inadequate EPA capacity or field presence.
Do Not Know, 1%
Agree or
Strongly
Agree, 19%
Neutral, 8%
2017-2018:
The EPA had enough
employees to conduct
facility inspections to
identify
noncompliance
Disagree or
Strongly
Disagree,
71%
Note: Percentages do
not equal 100 percent
because of rounding.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement staff and manager responses to the
2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
22
-------
We found that a declining workforce—the Agency lost 675 enforcement FTEs
from FYs 2007 through 2018—forced many inspectors to take on additional
duties, such as case development, which consumed time that they would have
otherwise used to conduct inspections and other compliance monitoring activities.
Moreover, EPA enforcement managers told us that many of the enforcement
employees who departed had substantial institutional expertise that could not be
replaced by the junior personnel who took on their roles, which resulted in a
less-experienced workforce overall.
¦ i ¦ With fewer and less-experienced staff to initiate, develop, and conclude
i! I i! enforcement cases, along with other factors, such as the decline in compliance
monitoring activities, the Agency has been unable to maintain consistent levels of
Enforcement enforcement actions. As the number of FTEs decreased from year to year, the
number of concluded enforcement actions tended to decrease in a proportional
manner. Because of the decline in resources and FTEs, the EPA cannot support as
many serious national or
regional cases at any given 2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
time. We were told in a Case Foilow-Up
actions
meeting with OECA We received 71 survey comments about the EPA following
managers that, with fewer UP on concluded enforcement cases to gauge whether a
regulated party came back into compliance. Common
resources, settling cases themes most frequently described by respondents
tends to be a more attractive included:
option than spending money • The Agency does not prioritize or reward
on costly litigation. With enforcement personnel for their case follow-up
J ° activities despite it being a required part of their job,
fewer resources for and
enforcement, enforcement • A lack of resources, time, and personnel prevented
leadership members told us case follow"uP activities from bein9 completed
, *1 appropriately.
that the EPA limited the
scope of some cases, which might preclude them from identifying and addressing
the root causes of noncompliance.
Decreased funding for the Agency and the enforcement program also impacted
enforcement outputs, such as the numbers of case initiations and concluded
enforcement actions, by constraining the funds available for enforcement support.
The Agency uses enforcement support funds to acquire new monitoring
technology, to fund travel for subject-matter experts, and to contract for services.
According to Cynthia Giles, the assistant administrator for OECA from May 2009
through January 2017, these support funds are crucial for developing the evidence
needed in significant cases because the funds help the EPA to build strong cases
supported by substantial evidence through sampling and other methods. Giles told
us that OECA aggressively reduced the number of enforcement FTEs in order to
retain flexibility with support funds. Based on our survey results, these efforts to
retain support-fund flexibility did not continue, as only 28 percent of survey
respondents felt there were sufficient inspection-support funds during FYs 2017
and 2018, down from 44 percent during FYs 2009 through 2016 and 56 percent
during FYs 2006 through 2008.
21-P-0132
23
-------
Undertaking Required Workforce Planning Would Help EPA Optimize
Its Enforcement Resources
Benefits of Workforce Planning
According to the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, workforce
planning helps federal agencies:
• Align workforce requirements to
agency plans.
• Conduct a gap analysis.
• Identify and implement gap-
reduction strategies.
• Optimize the structure and
deployment of the workforce.
• Identify and overcome barriers
to accomplishing goals.
Workforce plans help establish staffing and activity
priorities so that federal agencies can operate
efficiently toward meeting their goals. In
August 2020, we reported that the EPA had not met
the workforce planning requirements set forth by the
Office of Personnel Management in its Human
Capital Framework.14 This framework requires an
agency to:
(1) Plan for and manage current and
future workforce needs;
(2) Design, develop, and implement
proven strategies and techniques and
practices to attract, hire, develop, and
retain talent; and
(3) Make progress toward closing any
knowledge, skill, and competency gaps
throughout the agency.15
Further, each agency must plan and implement its human capital policies and
programs "based on comprehensive workforce planning and analysis" and
manage skill gaps in "mission-critical occupations" by using "comprehensive data
analytic methods and gap closure strategies."16 In our August 2020 report, we
found that the EPA's program offices had not conducted a systematic workload
analysis or identified workforce needs for budget justification purposes since
1987. Meeting the workforce planning requirement would allow OECA to
identify and reduce gaps in its capacity to implement its statutory enforcement
responsibilities. In doing so, workforce planning would help the Agency
overcome resource barriers and optimize its organizational structure and
personnel deployment to accomplish its goals.
14 EPA OIG, Lack of Planning Risks EPA's Ability to Meet Toxic Substances Control Act Deadlines, 20-P-0247.
August 17, 2020.
15 5 C.F.R. § 250.203(b).
16 5 C.F.R. §§ 250.204(a)(2)-(3).
21-P-0132
24
-------
EPA Shifted Its Operational Strategy to Focus on Biggest Polluters
and Increased Emphasis on Compliance Assistance
Compliance
assistance
Compliance
monitoring
$$
Enforcement
actions
Monetary
outcomes
Environmental
benefit outcomes
Given limited resources and a shrinking number of personnel after FY 2011
(Figure 6), EPA staff, managers, and officials made strategic choices
regarding the types of noncompliance to monitor and the types of
enforcement cases to pursue. For example, we found that a strategic shift,
which began during the mid-2000s and continued through 2018, refocused
Agency enforcement resources on bigger cases against the most serious
violators that significantly impacted human health and the environment.
In 2017, the Agency implemented another strategic shift that emphasized
returning violators to compliance, rather than bringing enforcement actions that
resulted in monetary penalties. Each of these strategies influenced enforcement
trends, with the emphases on bigger enforcement cases and compliance assistance
both leading to fewer formal enforcement actions initiated and concluded. The
focus on bigger cases and the move away from pursuing small cases resulted in
higher median enforcement outcomes, such as penalties and injunctive relief.
However, when facility operators recognize that the EPA is conducting fewer
compliance monitoring activities and enforcement actions in their geographic
areas or industry sectors, they may risk noncompliance under the assumption that
they are unlikely to become subject to EPA enforcement actions.
Trend in EPA's Typical Case Size Reflects Leadership Choices
EPA staff, managers, and officials told us that the Agency's strategy was to focus
its limited enforcement resources on the most significant cases that have high
impacts on human health and the environment. The result of this strategy shows in
data for the monetary results from enforcement actions. Because the Agency
calculates penalties for any given case partially based on those impacts, the
median case size is one way to gauge the impact of focusing on bigger cases.
Over time, the annual median inflation-adjusted injunctive relief, penalty, and
SEP values all increased (Table 2 and Figure 8).
Table 2: Change in median outcomes for EPA-concluded enforcement actions,
FYs 2007 and 2018
Median value,
FY 2007 (2018 USD)
Median value,
FY 2018 (2018 USD)
Percent
change
Injunctive relief
$3,040
$5,000
64%
Penalties
$2,556
$8,949
+ 250%
SEPs
$30,400
$93,443
207%
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG table)
21-P-0132
25
-------
Figure 8: Annual median U.S. dollar value of EPA-concluded enforcement actions
T3
C
03
>
*->
03
C
(V
CL
c
ro
QJ
Fiscal Years
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Our analysis of the annual enforcement data indicates that the Agency increased
the median case size primarily by decreasing resource investment in pursuing
small cases (Table 3). Proportionally, the number of small-dollar concluded
enforcement actions declined more dramatically than other cases. We did not
independently assess the tradeoffs of the Agency's strategy, and OECA managers
were unaware of any internal EPA assessments of that nature.
Table 3: Number of EPA-concluded enforcement actions by case size
Case size
(2018 USD)
Number of
cases in
FY 2007
Number of
cases in
FY 2018
Net change
from FYs 2007
through 2018
in number
of cases
Percent change
from FYs 2007
through 2018 in
number of cases
Injunctive
relief
$1,000 or less
1,078
325
-753
70%
More than $1,000
1,854
920
-934
50%
Penalties
$1,000 or less
780
198
-582
75%
More than $1,000
1,520
891
-629
41%
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG table)
The strategy of pursuing cases with higher anticipated outcomes affects the entire
enforcement process, including compliance monitoring activities. The reason for
this is that those cases are more likely to require more complex inspections, which
require more time and resources to complete and analyze. As a result, while
compliance monitoring activity numbers are valuable data points, they do not
accurately demonstrate the level of EPA effort because they do not include
information about the complexity of the activities. According to former Assistant
Administrator Giles, the EPA intends some inspections to demonstrate a field
$12,000
~ $10,000
Q
00
3
00
Median Penalty Value
o
CM
13
>
4—
-------
presence and to serve as deterrents to noncompliance. The impact of inspections
as deterrents is difficult to measure. Former Assistant Administrator Giles noted
that inspections intended to investigate suspected violations are resource-
intensive. Assuming equal resources, increasing the resource-intensive
inspections to investigate noncompliance decreases the EPA's ability to maintain
a general field presence and lowers the annual outputs of compliance monitoring
activities conducted and cases initiated and concluded. The EPA's annual
reporting does not capture this shift in inspections because the EPA reports all
inspections equally, regardless of the resource intensity needed to conduct the
inspection (Figure 9). For example, a complex inspection that takes several staff
members weeks to complete counts as one inspection, while a walk-through
inspection that takes less than half a day also counts as one inspection.
Figure 9: Spectrum of complexity at EPA compliance monitoring activities
Complex compliance
Very complex compliance
monitoring activity
One
compliance
monitoring
activity
monitoring activity I
Simple compliance ' ¦ ^ ^
monitoring activity ¦ H - - w w
= !I*°R W&OR Md t
Day ~ Days |§| Weeks gSj
~
Need for time and resources increases based on
complexity of compliance monitoring activity
Source: OIG summary of EPA information. (EPA OIG image)
The FY 2014—20J8 EPA Strategic Plan noted that a "commitment to the largest
most complex cases that have the biggest impact necessarily means that we will
be doing fewer cases overall." The decline in enforcement outputs—compliance
monitoring activities and enforcement actions initiated and concluded—from
FYs 2007 through 2018 is consistent with the strategy of pursuing cases with
higher outcomes because of tradeoffs between total outputs and total outcomes.
The annual outcome data, however, vary partly based on factors external to the
Agency. Some of the largest enforcement cases, which have an outsized impact
on annual enforcement outcomes, resulted from compliance monitoring activities
based on tips or environmental disasters. Bigger cases tend to take longer to
conclude and nearly always require referrals to the DOJ. The length of time to
conclude these large cases contributes to the annual variability in enforcement
outcomes like penalties and injunctive relief
Focus on Compliance Assistance Impacts Enforcement Outputs and
Outcomes
Beginning in 2017, Agency strategy and policy documents indicate that the
administration adjusted the enforcement strategy to prioritize compliance over
enforcement. For example, the Agency's FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan states that
21-P-0132
27
-------
"[t]he overall goal of EPA's civil enforcement program is to maximize
compliance with the nation's environmental laws and regulations to protect
human health and the environment." OECA officials affirmed this framing, noting
that the administration that began in 2017 recognized compliance assistance as an
important tool and that it was acceptable in some cases to return a facility back
into compliance without a formal enforcement action. Susan Bodine, the assistant
administrator for OECA from December 2017 through January 2021, told us that
the EPA's annual reporting on enforcement outputs and outcomes fails to tell the
whole story. While the EPA's use of compliance assistance may not result in
formal enforcement cases, in the former assistant administrator's opinion, it still
achieves the goal of environmental compliance. However, because the Agency
does not measure compliance, the EPA has no data to show whether this strategy
improves compliance. We discuss this further in Chapter 4.
The EPA's strategic change toward increased compliance assistance instead of
formal enforcement is unlikely to improve compliance with environmental laws
on its own. Three primary factors affect a facility's incentive to comply with the
law: the expected benefits from noncompliance, the probability that
noncompliance will be discovered, and the financial and reputational
repercussions if caught not complying. If the expected benefits of noncompliance
outweigh the expected costs, a facility has less incentive to comply with the law.
The EPA and outside enforcement experts have previously concluded that
environmental enforcement achieves deterrence of noncompliance through formal
actions that carry monetary sanctions. The EPA's 1984 Policy on Civil Penalties
affirmed that:17
Successful deterrence is important because it provides the best
protection for the environment.... If a penalty is to achieve
deterrence, both the violator and the general public must be
convinced that the penalty places the violator in a worse position
than those who have complied in a timely fashion .... [PJenalties
generally should, at a minimum, remove any significant economic
benefits resulting from failure to comply with the law.
As such, the EPA's choice of enforcement tool—compliance assistance or formal
enforcement—has important implications for meeting the EPA's strategic goal of
maximizing compliance. Absent the robust use of formal enforcement, which
leads to the financial costs that help to deter noncompliance, compliance
assistance is unlikely to incentivize facilities to comply with environmental laws.
Our analysis demonstrated that the national number of EPA enforcement actions
with monetary enforcement results declined from FYs 2007 through 2018
(Figure 3). Enforcement experts suggest that, as monetary enforcement results
decline, the cost of noncompliance decreases. In addition, the decline in the
17 EPA, General Enforcement Policy #GM-21. Policy on Civil Penalties, dated February 16, 1984.
21-P-0132
28
-------
number of EPA compliance monitoring activities decreased the probability of the
Agency identifying noncompliance. Therefore, a given facility's incentive to
comply with environmental laws also declined, which poses a risk for human
health and the environment.
Leadership Shapes Discretionary Policies That Directly and Indirectly
Affect Enforcement Trends
Leadership affected trends in enforcement outputs and outcomes by shaping
related policies and strategies. Policies and strategies implemented by leaders also
influenced how enforcement staff perceived leaders' support for the enforcement
program. In turn, the staffs perceived support from leadership influenced the
staffs interpretations of policies and strategies. As a result, strategy and policy
affected enforcement trends both directly and indirectly.
For example, in 2008, Granta Nakayama, the assistant administrator for OECA,
redirected the EPA's policy regarding New Source Review cases under the
CAA.18 That policy change allowed staff to directly initiate major cases and
signaled to EPA personnel
and the regulated
community that the Agency
would be aggressive toward
major air polluters.
Conversely, in a 2017
memorandum to EPA
regional administrators, the
EPA administrator
narrowed the scope of New
Source Review violations
for which the Agency
would pursue enforcement
actions.19 When asked
about how policies shape
enforcement trends, former
Assistant Administrator Giles specifically highlighted this 2017 memorandum,
saying she believed the 2017 memorandum undermined New Source Review
enforcement and reversed the EPA's prior position. The redirection of policy in
2008 and the subsequent change in 2017 are examples of how leadership direction
shapes the types of cases that the Agency brings. Giles also explained that
enforcement policies that constrain enforcement can seem benign to the public but
can nevertheless have profound impacts.
18 New Source Review requires stationary sources of air pollution, such as factories, industrial boilers, and power
plants, to obtain permits before construction starts.
19 EPA, Memorandum to EPA regional administrators, from EPA Administrator E. Scott Pruitt, Subject: New
Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Requirements: Enforceability and Use of the Actual-to-Projected-Actual
Applicability Test in Determining Major Modification Ability, dated December 7, 2017.
2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
Case Development
We received 177 survey comments about the development
of enforcement cases. Key themes described by
respondents included:
• Agency policies slowed or made case
development more difficult to accomplish.
• Enforcement against certain industries or sectors
was discouraged by regional or OECA senior
leadership.
• A lack of resources or trained personnel slowed
case development.
We received 214 survey comments about the 60-day
inspection report timeliness standard. The key theme from
these comments was that this requirement inhibits
inspectors' abilities to write in-depth reports, particularly for
complex inspections.
21-P-0132
29
-------
In addition to such direct impacts on enforcement programs, some policies
indirectly influenced trends in environmental enforcement. Since 2017, two new
enforcement policies required more approvals from EPA officials during the
enforcement process. One policy, which the EPA issued in 2018 and revoked in
2021, required case teams to alert their regional administrators before referring
matters to the DOJ.20 According to this procedure, the appropriate regional
enforcement manager was to brief the assistant administrator of OECA with the
case details and the regional administrator's personal position on the matter. Even
though referrals to the DOJ make up just 5 to 8 percent of the total EPA case
initiations in any given year, the referrals to the DOJ are an important indicator of
future enforcement results because they can result in enforcement actions with
high-penalty assessments, large amounts of injunctive relief, and significant
environmental benefits. The second policy, which the Agency superseded after
18 months, mandated review by OECA management before EPA staff issued
information requests under the CAA, the CWA, and RCRA.21 Some staff
interpreted these approval policies to mean that these actions were to be used less
frequently.
Another example of how policies affect enforcement trends is a 2018 OECA
memorandum that established a standard for inspection reports to be completed
within 60 days of the inspection.22 Respondents to our survey raised three primary
issues with the new requirement. They stated that:
• The allotted time does not always allow inspectors to gather all
information and fully document complex inspections.
• Some inspections are constrained geographically or seasonally, which
lends itself to clustered inspections over several months in the field,
followed by several months of inspection write-ups during the
off-season. The new 60-day requirement does not accommodate this
practice.
• Because of time constraints, the policy incentivizes inspectors to
choose routine inspections over complex, process-based inspections.
Sixty-one percent of survey respondents did not think the timeliness standard
allowed enough time for adequate documentation of inspection findings involving
complex facilities or complex legal requirements (see Figure A-13 in
20 EPA, Memorandum to EPA regional counsel and enforcement managers, from Assistant Administrator for OECA
Susan Parker Bodine, Subject: Interim Procedures for Providing Early Notice of Civil Judicial Referrals, dated
March 23, 2018.
21 EPA, Memorandum to EPA regional counsel and enforcement managers, from Director for Office of Civil
Enforcement Susan Shinkman, Subject: Interim Procedures for Issuing Information Requests Pursuant to Clean Air
Act § 114, Clean Water Act § 308, and RCRA § 3007, dated May 31, 2017.
22 EPA, Memorandum to EPA regional counsel, enforcement managers, and office directors, from Assistant
Administrator for OECA Susan Parker Bodine, Subject: Interim Policy on Inspection Report Timeliness and
Standardization, dated June 29, 2018.
21-P-0132
30
-------
Appendix A). Successfully concluding significant enforcement cases requires
legally defensible findings, often based on technically complex inspections.
Therefore, the expectations created by the inspection report timeliness standard
conflict with the Agency's goal of focusing resources on pursuing the biggest
cases because it constrains the evidence-gathering process and disincentivizes
complex inspections.
When we surveyed enforcement staff in 2019, just 38 percent of survey
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that inspection-related policies in FYs 2017
and 2018 assisted inspectors with conducting inspections to identify
noncompliance (Figure 10). In contrast, 62 percent of the respondents agreed with
that statement for FYs 2009 through 2016 (see Figure A-6(e) in Appendix A). In
addition, only 28 percent of the respondents agreed that enforcement-related
policies improved the development of enforcement cases during FYs 2017 and
2018 (Figure 11), down from 64 percent for FYs 2009 through 2016 (see
Figure A-15(a) in Appendix A).
Figure 10: EPA enforcement staff and managers split on whether inspection-
related policies assisted with conducting inspections in 2017 and 2018
Do Not Know, 5%
Agree or
Strongly
Agree, 38%
2017-2018:
inspection-rela ted
policies assisted
inspectors with
conducting inspections to
identify noncompliance
(n = 386)
Note: Percentages do not
equal 100 percent
because of rounding.
Disagree or
Strongly
Disagree,
35%
Neutral, 23%
Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement staff and manager responses to the
2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
31
-------
Figure 11: Enforcement-related policies did not improve the development of
enforcement cases in 2017 and 2018 according to EPA enforcement staff and
managers
Do Not Know, 5%
Agree or
Strongly
Agree, 28%
2017-2018:
Enforcemen t-related
policies improved the
development of
enforcement cases
(n = 489)
Disagree or
Strongly
Disagree,
42%
Neutral,
25%
•Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement staff and manager responses to the
2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
Recent changes to the use of SEPs in enforcement actions demonstrate the
potential impact on enforcement trends from policies. In March 2020, the
assistant attorney general of the DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources
Division issued a memorandum barring nearly all uses of SEPS in civil judicial
enforcement actions.2' The EPA originally concluded that, as a result of the
memorandum, it would no longer include SEPs in most EPA-led administrative
enforcement actions. In December 2020, the DOJ published a rule codifying the
memorandum's restrictions in DOJ regulations.24 As seen in Table D-l in
Appendix D, the number of SEPs within enforcement actions decreased by
49 percent in FY 2020, from 81 in FY 2019 to 41 in FY 2020. The DOJ withdrew
the March 2020 memorandum in February 2021,25 but the DOJ has not revoked
the rule.
23 DOJ, Memorandum to Environment and Natural Resources Division deputy assistant attorney generals and
section chiefs, from Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Subject: Supplemental Environmental
Projects ("SEPs") in Civil Settlements with Private Defendants, dated March 12, 2020.
241 See 85 Fed. Reg. 81409, December 16, 2020.
25 DOJ, Memorandum to Environment and Natural Resources Division section chiefs and deputy section chiefs,
from Deputy Assistant Attorney General JeanE. Williams, Subject: Withdrawal of Memoranda and Policy
Documents, dated Febraary 4, 2021.
21-P-0132 32
-------
Recent Increases in Deference to State Enforcement Programs
Affected Federal Enforcement Trends
Congress designed environmental statutes so that the states can play a lead role in
enforcement. According to the Environmental Council of the States, the EPA
delegated the implementation and enforcement of 96 percent of environmental
laws to states. These delegations make states coregulators with the EPA. This
regulatory design requires state programs to be at least as protective as federal
requirements compel and the EPA to serve an oversight role and to fill gaps in
protection left by the states.
In 2017, the EPA began increasing its emphasis on deference to state programs,
which had important effects on federal enforcement trends. Whether those effects
have consequences for human health and the environment depends on whether
states have the capacity and the political will to enforce environmental laws.
Many interviewees and survey respondents expressed skepticism that states have
the technical and operational capacity, along with the political will, to enforce
environmental laws consistently and equitably across the country.
Discretionary policies reflect leadership enforcement strategies. For example,
several policy documents released beginning in 2017 at the EPA and the DO J
highlighted the emphasis on cooperative federalism. In practice, this cooperative
federalism has ranged from mostly normal (no change to existing) coordination
with the states in some regions to completely deferring nearly all enforcement to
states. For example, based on interviews with EPA enforcement managers and
reviews of written communication between EPA Region 7 and the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, we found that the EPA ceased nearly all federal
enforcement activity in Missouri beginning in 2017. When interviewed by the
OIG in April 2019, Assistant Administrator Bodine said she did not know
whether state inspections increased as federal inspections decreased.
According to interviewees and survey respondents, the increased deference to
states has translated into reduced enforcement outputs by the EPA since 2017.
EPA enforcement managers explained in a May 2019 interview that states were
given opportunities to develop cases even after the EPA found the violations.
While the environmental statutes allow this arrangement, this deference affects
EPA enforcement trends. Prior to 2017, the EPA generally assumed responsibility
to develop and conclude cases associated with violations identified during federal
inspections.
Deference to State Environmental Programs Raises Concerns for
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
A key goal of the EPA's enforcement program is to protect people and the
environment by ensuring compliance with environmental laws. Achieving that
goal relies on state-delegated programs being as protective as the federal program.
21-P-0132
33
-------
The success of the overall enforcement program depends on states having
sufficient resources and political will. Continued EPA involvement encourages
neighboring states to cooperate to address shared environmental problems.
However, OECA managers and former OECA leaders, in interviews, and
enforcement staff, in responding to the OIG survey, expressed concern that state
programs were inconsistent in enforcing environmental laws such that everyone
was equally protected from pollution across the country. These concerns suggest
that the EPA and states were not maintaining a combined enforcement level equal
to what it was prior to the EPA's increased deference to state programs.
Nakayama and Giles expressed
concerns over OECA's
emphasis on deference to state
enforcement programs since
2017. Giles said that many
states will not ask the EPA to
bring enforcement cases, much
to the detriment of people who
live in those states. Giles
explained that cooperative
federalism has always created
tensions, but that all parties had
to cooperate with each other.
The state could voice concerns,
but the EPA could also decide
that people in different locations
all deserved to live without
harm to their health that may
2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
Deference to States on Inspections
and Case Development
We received 96 survey comments about collaborating
with states on inspections. Respondents most
frequently stated that:
• State enforcement programs had insufficient
capacities to conduct inspections.
• State capacities to conduct inspections varied
from state to state.
• In some cases, EPA-state relationships in terms
of the Agency's oversight of, support of, or
collaboration with states functioned poorly.
We received 158 survey comments about
collaborating with states to pursue and develop
enforcement cases. Respondents commonly noted
that:
• States lacked the resources, expertise, or
political will to take appropriate enforcement
actions without the EPA.
• State capacity varied from state to state.
result from underenforcement of environmental laws. Giles believed the decrease
in the number of EPA cases and referrals to the DOJ was a result of the EPA's
decision to defer to states. Giles predicted that the deference will ultimately hurt
states because a regulated entity may become more inclined to push back against
state enforcement programs if they do not think the federal government will
become involved.
Nakayama highlighted the need for the EPA to take the lead in environmental
enforcement to avoid situations in which states accelerate deregulatory agendas to
attract industry to their areas. Nakayama told us that states have different
priorities and resources to enforce environmental laws, which creates a need for a
consistent federal enforcement role. Nakayama added that it should not depend on
which state a person lives in whether that person has clean air, land, and water.
Catherine McCabe, commissioner for the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection from January 2018 to January 2021 and a former EPA
21-P-0132
34
-------
official,26 told us in May 2019 that an emphasis on cooperative federalism causes
variable environmental enforcement levels across the country. Moreover, McCabe
stated that the administration that began in 2017 did not push regions to generate
enforcement cases. Thus, from this discussion, we concluded that states that have
little political will to aggressively pursue enforcement or that lack sufficient
resources to enforce environmental statutes can proceed with little-to-no federal
pressure from EPA regional offices or from headquarters to perform its critical
role in protecting human health.
Enforcement staff echoed the concerns shared by former leadership regarding
deference to state programs:
• For FYs 2017 and 2018, less than one-third (28 percent) of survey
respondents agreed that the EPA did not overly defer to state
inspection regimes, compared to 57 percent for both FYs 2006 through
2008 and FYs 2009 through 2016 (see Figure A-10(g) in Appendix A).
• Less than one-quarter (24 percent) of survey respondents agreed that
states generally had the resources to conduct inspection activities not
conducted by the EPA during FYs 2017 and 2018 (see Figures 12,
below, and A-10(a) in Appendix A).
Figure 12: States generally did not have the resources to fill inspection
voids left by the EPA in 2017 and 2018 according to EPA enforcement
staff and managers
Do Not Know, 11%
Agree or
Strongly
Agree, 24%
2017-2018:
States in my region
generally had the
resources to conduct
inspection activities not
conducted by the EPA
(n = 295)
Neutral,
19%
Disagree or
Strongly
Disagree,
47%
Note: Percentages do
not equal 100 percent
because of rounding.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement staff and manager responses to the
2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
26 McCabe served in several official capacities at the EPA. including as the principal deputy assistant administrator
for OECA from 2005 to 2011, a judge on the Agency's Environmental Appeals Board from 2011 to 2014, and the
acting administrator for the EPA from January to Febraarv 2017.
21-P-0132
35
-------
Less than half of survey respondents (46 percent) agreed that the EPA
monitored state inspection work to ensure that compliance monitoring
met criteria during FYs 2017 and 2018 (see Figure A-10(e) in
Appendix A).
About one in five survey respondents (18 percent) agreed that states
had the resources to pursue additional enforcement cases not pursued
by the EPA during FYs 2017 and 2018 (see Figure 13 below and
Figure A-16(b) in Appendix A).
Figure 13: States generally did not have the resources to fill
enforcement case voids left by the EPA in 2017 and 2018 according to
EPA enforcement staff and managers
Do Not Know, 20%
2017-2018:
Disagree or
f States had the resources c. ,
to pursue additional ¦
enforcement cases not M DlSag'e8'
pursued by the EPA
Neutral,
14%
Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement staff and managers responses to the
2019 OIG Enforcement Suivey. (EPA OIG image)
One-quarter of survey respondents agreed that states for FYs 2017 and
2018 had the technical expertise to pursue additional enforcement
cases not pursued by the EPA (see Figure A-16(c) in Appendix A).
Furthermore, 43 percent of survey respondents felt that states in their
region generally contacted the regional EPA office when they needed
technical expertise to conduct complex inspections during FYs 2017
and 2018 (see Figure A-10(c) in Appendix A).
For FYs 2017 and 2018, less than one-third (29 percent) of survey
respondents agreed that the EPA followed up on the status of
enforcement cases that were referred to states to determine whether
states took appropriate actions and facilities returned to compliance
(see Figure A-16(f) in Appendix A).
36
-------
For environmental requirements to be well-monitored and enforced, states must
have the capacity and leadership commitment to take on the work that the EPA
defers to them. Taken together, the OIG enforcement survey results and reports
from nonprofit groups and the media indicate that state enforcement programs do
not meet those requirements, but we did not independently verify that states lack
this capacity. Survey respondents described insufficient state enforcement
program capacities overall, but many respondents also noted that state capacity
varied from state to state.
The EPA's oversight and assistance to states could fill gaps created by weak state
programs, but EPA staff reported breakdowns on both the Agency's and states'
ends of that process. For example, survey respondents commonly described a
poorly functioning EPA-state relationship in terms of the Agency's oversight of,
support of, or collaboration with states. Despite the noted capacity limitations at
the state level, survey respondents indicated that states did not consistently
contact the regional EPA office when they needed technical expertise to conduct
complex inspections during FYs 2017 and 2018. Since FY 2008, the EPA OIG
has identified oversight of states and tribes as a top management challenge
because audits issued by our office and the GAO have shown that oversight
concerns persist across programs. We also concluded that the Agency is not likely
to fully meet this challenge in the near-term because of resource limitations and
the complexity of the issue.
National Enforcement Priorities Affected EPA's Annual Enforcement
Results
The EPA sets priorities for its national enforcement program every two to four
years to focus enforcement resources and expertise on serious environmental
problems. Our data analysis shows the priorities had varying effects on the EPA's
annual enforcement results. The proportion of compliance monitoring activities
linked to an enforcement priority generally increased from FYs 2009 through
2018. This trend shows that OECA and EPA regions prioritized targeting
inspections and other monitoring activities at priority facilities over other
programmatic areas. However, the proportion of priority-linked concluded
enforcement actions did not change substantially over time. Concluded
enforcement actions associated with large monetary enforcement results or
environmental outcomes were generally more likely to be part of a national
enforcement priority. For example, the total dollars of injunctive relief, which
comprises most of the total monetary enforcement results, tended to be part of a
national enforcement priority. From FYs 2007 through 2018, 54 percent of the
$139 billion of injunctive relief resulted from priority enforcement actions,
largely because most enforcement actions with greater than $100 million in
injunctive relief were linked to a national enforcement priority (Figure 14).
21-P-0132
37
-------
Figure 14: Proportion of injunctive relief dollars by case size (2018 USD) and
national enforcement priority status, FYs 2007 through 2018
Total (n = 26,696)
$1 billion or greater (n = 31)
($100 million-$l billion] (n = 126)
($10 million-$100 million] (n = 494)
($1 million-$10 million] (n = 1,384)
($100 thousand-$l million] (n = 2,535)
($10,000-$100,000] (n = 5,097)
($1,000-$10,000] (n = 8,795)
($100-$1,000] (n = 7,112)
($0-$100) (n = 1,122)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Programmatic Enforcement Action ¦ National Enforcement Priority Action
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
In addition, while enforcement actions with large monetary or environmental
outcomes were more likely to be part of a national priority than those with smaller
outcomes, the direction or nature of any causal relationship is complex. On one
hand, the EPA has selected those priorities because those types of cases address
serious environmental risks, which should be reflected in the enforcement
measures. On the other hand, the EPA also steers resources toward its identified
priorities, enabling staff to pursue large enforcement actions for relevant
violations.
46%
46%
33%
64%
Leadership Influenced EPA's Enforcement Culture, Which Indirectly
Affected Enforcement Trends
We found that leadership support for
enforcement influenced the EPA's
enforcement culture, which indirectly
affected enforcement trends. The culture
affects both regulated industries'
concerns about the possibility of
enforcement and EPA staff s morale and
commitment to Agency results. Although
the culture is an intangible organizational
trait based on enforcement staff and
Culture consists of an organization's
shared beliefs and values established
by leaders and then communicated and
reinforced through various methods,
ultimately shaping employee
perceptions, behaviors, and
understanding. Both the GAO and the
Office of Management and Budget
stress "creating results-oriented
organizational cultures."
manager perceptions, it translates into a
meaningful impact on the activities of EPA staff in the Agency's enforcement
program. We assessed these perceptions through interviews and responses to our
national enforcement survey. We found that the enforcement staffs perception of
support from leadership decreased beginning in 2017.
21-P-0132
38
-------
Joel Mintz in Enforcement at the EPA: High Stakes and Hard Choices (2013 edition):
Under [Granta] Nakayama's shrewd and strong leadership, certain aspects of EPA's
enforcement work enjoyed a partial revival. The agency continued to devote resources
in the pursuit of 'global settlements' in cases with the greatest potential for protecting
human health and the environment. It put greater emphasis on explaining enforcement
success in terms of pounds of pollutants reduced—and medical costs avoided—as a
result of enforcement actions. Moreover, beyond its long-delayed but nonetheless
striking success in its [New Source Review] cases against electric utilities, which yielded
meaningful public health benefits, EPA's enforcement program negotiated important
environmentally beneficial settlement agreements with oil refineries, acid plants,
cement plants, and large homebuilders.
Enforcement personnel generally had positive recollections of leadership support
for enforcement work during FYs 2006 through 2008 (Figure 15). Nakayama, the
OECA assistant administrator at that time, told us that, with support from the
Agency's administrator, he
was able to signal support
for enforcing environmental
laws to EPA enforcement
staff and to the regulated
community. He also
reported that he took
concrete steps to redirect
policies that constrained
enforcement activities, such
as those that precluded most
New Source Review cases
under the CAA.
2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
Leadership Support for
Developing Enforcement Cases
We received 111 survey comments about managers'
support for developing enforcement cases. The most
common opinion expressed was that direct manager
support for enforcement was adequate. Other
respondents attributed changing support for and the
slowdown of enforcement to political considerations,
senior leadership, and a lack of resources.
We received 109 comments about regional senior
leaders' support for developing appropriate enforcement
cases. The most common theme was that members of
senior leadership do not support enforcement against
certain sectors or entities, such as municipal
governments. Some respondents expressed that political
considerations or political appointee actions constrained
enforcement.
We received 95 comments about OECA senior leaders'
support for developing appropriate enforcement cases.
Common themes included that OECA:
• Senior leaders interfered with enforcement.
• Policies and requirements made enforcement
more difficult.
• Senior leaders did not support using the correct or
appropriate enforcement tools.
• Senior leaders did not support enforcement
against certain sectors or entities, such as
municipal governments.
Respondents to our 2019
survey reported that their
perception of management
support for their inspections
and case development
changed over the period we
examined. The perceived
support remained relatively
steady during FYs 2006
through 2016 (Figure 15),
despite declining resources,
starting in FY 2011 (Figure 6). Survey respondents indicated that the level of
perceived support decreased after FY 2016. The decrease was greater when
respondents were asked about support from their regional and national leaders
compared to their more immediate managers.
21-P-0132
39
-------
Figure 15: EPA staff perceptions of leadership support for compliance monitoring activities and case
development, as indicated by agreement or strong agreement with statements from the
2019 OIG Enforcement Survey (n = 990)
Perception of support decreases over timeframes
Support for inspectors
conducting
inspections at
facilities in all relevant
industry sectors
Support for
inspectors' findings
and conclusions
Support for using the
appropriate
enforcement tools for
instances of
noncompliance
Support for pursuing
enforcement actions
across all regulated
sectors
Support for using
enforcement tools to
protect human health
and the environment
78%
In = 224)
65%
(n -207)
58%
In = 203)
85%
In = 225)
71%
(n = 206)
59%
In =202)
91%
In=289)
77%
(n = 281)
70%
In = 276)
2006-2008
~~~~~~~i
~*~*~#
~~~~~i
~~~~~~~~i
~~~~~~~i
~~~~~i
~~~~~~~~~i
~~~~~~~i
~~~~~~~
,,'S, ~~~~~~~<
68%
(n = 280)
63%
(n = 273)
~~~mi
~~~~~~i
„s.™ mmm
,s, ~~~~~~~~!
„s, ~~~~~~~<
2009-2016
tttffiMM
2017-2018
78%
(n = 361)
,S ~~~~~~!
56%
In = 333)
86%
tftttl
tmmii
(n = 362)
S„ mini
59%
In = 332)
88%
fn =449)
76%
In = 437)
68%
In = 427)
80%
~~~~fi
~~~~~~~~(
~~~~~~~i
~~~~~~i
(n = 443)
,S, ~~~~~~!
,s, ~~~~~~<
~~~~~~~~~
„rz, ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~<
61%
In = 363)
38%
In = 338)
33%
In = 332)
75%
In =364)
43%
In =301)
37%
In = 334)
70%
In =457)
42%
In = 443)
40%
(n =434)
60%
~~~1
~~~i
~~~~~~~i
~~~~i
~~~i
~~~~~~~~i
• • • • 4
tttIM
iiii
,n=4S2) mm
~~~i
~~~i
35%
(n = 440)
31%
(n = 432)
73%
(n = 458) tmmi
iiiii
~~~~i
50%
In =442)
47%
In = 436)
A
-17%
-27%
-25%
-10%
-28%
-22%
-21%
-35%
-30%
-18%
-33%
-32%
-17%
-31%
-28%
I
\7
I
\7
\7
\7
Perception
of support
decreases in
higher levels
of EPA
enforcement
leadership
9 Managers 9 Regional senior leaders 0 OECA senior leaders
•Source: OIG analysis of EPA enforcement staff and manager responses to the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
40
-------
Our survey found that the decline in perceived support after FY 2016 impacted
the enforcement program in several ways. Staff reported that:
• Morale diminished, which likely led to reduced outputs and outcomes.
• They had lower confidence that some types of cases garner support at
higher levels and would be retained at the federal level, which
disincentivized compliance monitoring activities and case
development in those areas.
• Regulated entities became more willing to push back on EPA's
enforcement efforts, leading to longer, more resource-intensive
negotiations.
• Regulated entities pushed to reopen concluded enforcement cases to
seek an improved outcome, increasing the litigation costs for the
Agency.
During our April 2019 interview, the assistant administrator for OECA at that
time reported that senior leaders were taking steps, such as meeting in person and
virtually with regional enforcement personnel, to combat the perception that the
administration did not support a strong enforcement program. The 2019 OIG
Enforcement Survey, administered five months later, showed that enforcement
personnel still perceived a reduction in leadership support for enforcement.
EPA leadership can also directly affect enforcement case outcomes and impact
Agency employees' perception of leadership support for enforcement actions. For
example, in one instance, EPA enforcement staff and managers expressed
concerns about a high-level EPA official allegedly influencing negotiations
between the federal government and the defendant without the knowledge or
consent of the case team. The case team reported that this undermined its ability
to settle the enforcement case and cost the Agency time and resources.
Conclusion
Given the declining environmental enforcement resources and FTEs during a time
of economic expansion for multiple sectors, the EPA's changes in leadership,
enforcement policies, and enforcement strategies are important factors driving the
EPA's enforcement activities and results. These changes, in turn, can impact
human health and the environment and consistency across regulated industries.
A primary driver behind the declining trends in enforcement outputs from
FYs 2007 through 2018 was the decline in congressional appropriations, which
led to fewer enforcement resources and staff. Without a workforce analysis,
which is required by Office of Personnel Management regulations, the EPA was
unable to align its staffing levels to meet capacity requirements to achieve and
maintain a strong enforcement presence. Fulfilling the EPA's mandate to enforce
environmental laws relies on the EPA's staff to conduct compliance monitoring
activities and to turn detected noncompliance into meaningful cases that penalize
21-P-0132
41
-------
and deter noncompliance. Considering its limited resources, the EPA needs to
better assess its resources in order to determine how it will be able to detect
harmful noncompliance and develop enforcement cases that deter future
wrongdoing.
Through responses to our 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey (Appendix A), EPA
enforcement personnel introduced several areas of concern regarding other drivers
of the decline in enforcement activities and results, such as perceived:
• Overdeference to state enforcement programs.
• Hindrance of enforcement activities by policies in place at that time.
• Decreases in support from regional and national leadership during the
administration that began in 2017.
These perceptions, which are important indicators of the workforce culture in
EPA's enforcement program, deter enforcement personnel from using the most
effective strategies for improving compliance with the relevant laws and
regulations. Without addressing these concerns and others that the Agency
identifies, EPA enforcement personnel will continue to work in an environment
that constrains their work protecting human health and the environment and
promoting consistency for the regulated community.
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
1. Assess the needs of the Agency' s enforcement program by completing
a workforce analysis to determine the level of staffing necessary to
achieve and maintain a strong enforcement presence in the field that
protects human health and the environment.
2. Integrate the results of the workforce analysis into the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's annual and strategic
planning processes.
3. Use the results of the Office of Inspector General's 2019 Enforcement
Survey and other resources to identify and address areas of concern for
the enforcement program, including through issuing new or revised
policies, as appropriate.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency provided a response to the draft report on March 26, 2021
(Appendix E). The audit team met with OECA staff and managers on
April 7, 2021, to discuss the Agency's response to the recommendations and the
21-P-0132
42
-------
proposed high-level intended corrective actions. As a result of that meeting, the
Agency provided a revised high-level corrective actions for Recommendation 3 to
supplement its original response (Appendix F) on April 13, 2021.
While the EPA agreed with Recommendations 1 and 2, it objected to the
workforce planning solution. The Agency's proposed alternative corrective
actions do not meet the intent of our recommendations regarding workforce
planning. In the Agency's response, OECA noted that it has maintained a "solid
national enforcement presence" by conducting gap analyses and making targeted
workforce adjustments each year. In our assessment, these are short-term
strategies for mitigating the impact of resource declines on enforcement trends
discussed in this report. Our report demonstrates that a decline in funding for the
EPA's enforcement program drove the observed declining enforcement trends.
Conducting an Office of Personnel Management-required workforce planning
exercise will help the EPA optimize its enforcement resources over the long-term,
regardless of whether resources increase in FY 2022 in line with OECA's
expectations. According to a senior EPA enforcement manager, a workforce
analysis is needed to understand the inconsistent allocation of current enforcement
resources. That enforcement manager also noted that current models for
distributing resources to the regions date back to the 1980s and are outdated.
Conducting a high-level needs assessment to inform distribution of any additional
resources provided to OECA in the FY 2022 budget and beyond is insufficient.
Workforce planning would allow OECA to identify and reduce gaps in its
capacity to implement its statutory enforcement responsibilities, which would
help the Agency overcome resource barriers and optimize its organizational
structure and personnel deployment to accomplish its goals. The Office of
Mission Support provides training on short- and long-term planning for aligning
the workforce and related resource allocations with Agency workloads.
The Agency agreed with Recommendation 3 and provided corrective actions that
meet the intent of our recommendation in its April 13, 2021 response. The
Agency noted that the areas of concern identified by survey respondents may be
considered by leadership in future policy setting, as appropriate. The acting
assistant administrator for OECA has already used the survey results to inform
changes in the enforcement program.
The Agency also provided technical comments, and we updated the report where
appropriate.
21-P-0132
43
-------
Chapter 4
EPA Can Develop and Track Additional
Enforcement Measures and Improve Its Reporting
of Annual Enforcement Results
The EPA's annual enforcement reports only tell part of the story about the EPA's
enforcement accomplishments and the impact these enforcement activities have
on human health and the environment (Figure 16). For example, the EPA does not
track, measure, or report data for compliance assistance activities and informal
enforcement actions. The Agency also does not collect or estimate noncompliance
rates or use another method for establishing a baseline against which the Agency
can measure the effectiveness of the enforcement program. In addition, while the
EPA tracks and reports the number of its compliance monitoring activities and the
estimated environmental benefits from enforcement actions, the Agency does not
provide additional information that would add context about the scope of these
activities, such as the types of inspections conducted or the toxicity of pollutants
removed from the environment. All of the annual enforcement data tracked by the
EPA are available to the public on the Agency's website in a spreadsheet, but the
Agency could also provide this information publicly in a dashboard similar to the
state enforcement dashboards published on its website. The EPA's inclusion of
additional information in its annual enforcement results and preparation of a
public dashboard would increase transparency of the enforcement program and
provide the public and Congress more information about the full scope of its
enforcement program and the manner in which the program helps achieve human
health and environmental goals.
Figure 16: Status of EPA tracking and reporting efforts for enforcement results
Primary purpose of the enforcement process is to ensure compliance with environmental laws.
V ® bu © © © $$ ©
Compliance
assistance
Compliance
Assistance
(before
compliance
monitoring)
Ijjh
Regulated
entity
Approximately
40 million
regulated
public and
private entities
Key:
lik EPA results tracked and reported
EPA results tracked and reported,
but additional context available
[ili. No EPA results tracked or reported
Compliance
monitoring
Compliance
Monitoring
Activities
Compliance
Assistance
(during or
after
compliance
monitoring)
|jjh
Enforcement
actions
Informal
Enforcement
Actions
Case
Initiations
|fjh
Monetary
outcomes
Environmental
benefit outcomes
Enforcement results
Injunctive
Relief
Supplemental
Environmental
Projects
Pollution
Commitments
Waste
Commitments
Cleanup
Commitments
Return to
Compliance
[ih.
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement results. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
44
-------
EPA Lacks Measures for Compliance Assistance Activities and
Noncompliance Rates
While the EPA tracks and annually reports a wide variety of information about its
enforcement program, we found two areas in which the Agency does not measure
performance for its enforcement achievements. First, the EPA does not track,
measure, or report compliance assistance activities, such as training or technical
assistance, or informal enforcement actions that inform the regulated entity of
violations without a formal enforcement action. Second, the Agency does not
collect or estimate noncompliance rates or use another method for establishing a
baseline against which the Agency can measure the effectiveness of the
enforcement program. As such, the EPA cannot measure or demonstrate how the
Agency's enforcement
activities influence overall
compliance. Tracking and
reporting on these parameters
would provide a more
complete picture of the
Agency's work within the
enforcement process and
would demonstrate the
impact compliance assistance
and informal enforcement
actions have on improving
compliance over time.
EPA Does Not Include Measures About Compliance Assistance or
Informal Enforcement Actions in Its Annual Results
The EPA does not include measures about compliance assistance or informal
enforcement actions in its annual enforcement results report. In January 2020, the
GAO reported that the EPA does not require regional offices to collect and
maintain data about compliance assistance activities. The GAO also found that
EPA regional offices do not consistently collect or maintain data on informal
enforcement actions, such as warning letters or notices of violation.27 The GAO
recommended that the assistant administrator for OECA provide guidance to
regional offices, clarifying that the regional offices should collect data on
compliance assistance and informal enforcement activities. During the GAO's
audit, the EPA informed the audit team that it did not intend to require regional
offices to collect data about compliance assistance activities, but ultimately
agreed with the GAO's recommendations to collect this data.
2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
Enforcement Measures
We received 148 survey comments about EPA
enforcement measures. These comments focused
primarily on the accuracy or legitimacy of the EPA's
estimates for these measures. The comments also
included suggestions for improvement like the following:
• Modify measures to reflect trends in returning
regulated entities to compliance and decreases in
repeat violations.
• Create a uniform way of measuring environmental
benefits achieved.
• Provide people with context about what the reported
measures mean.
Compliance
assistance
27 GAO, Environmental Protection: Additional Action Needed to Improve EPA Data on Informal Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance Activities. GAQ-20-95. January 31, 2020. As of February 16, 2021, the three
recommendations included in the GAO's report remain open.
21-P-0132
45
-------
The EPA does not include informal enforcement actions in its annual enforcement
results reports, but the Agency collects data on these types of actions. From
FYs 2007 through 2018, the EPA issued 9,434 informal enforcement actions in
the form of:
• Letters of violations and warning letters (1,654 letters, or 18 percent of
the total informal actions)—77 percent of the letters of violation and
warning letters were issued under FIFRA authorities.
• Notices of noncompliance (2,281 notices of noncompliance, or
24 percent of the total informal actions)—86 percent of the notices of
noncompliance were issued under Toxic Substance Control Act
authorities.
• Notices of violation (5,499 notices of violation, or 58 percent of the
total informal actions)—83 percent of the notices of violation were
issued under SDWA authorities.
Because the EPA has incomplete data for informal enforcement actions, these
numbers are likely underreported in the Agency's enforcement database. In the
Agency's response to the GAO recommendations, the EPA indicated informal
enforcement actions would be tracked and that it anticipated that those actions
would be included in the annual enforcement results beginning in FY 2020. All of
the EPA's state enforcement dashboards, discussed later in this chapter, allow the
public to view informal enforcement actions taken by the EPA within a particular
program area, such as air or drinking water.
As the Agency moves forward with implementing the GAO's recommendations,
the EPA should consider including information about compliance assistance and
informal enforcement actions in future reports of annual enforcement results.
Sharing information about compliance assistance activities is important given the
Agency's emphasis on the use of compliance assistance as part of the enforcement
toolbox in the FY 2018-2022 EPA Strategic Plan. The EPA also renamed its
national enforcement priorities "national compliance initiatives" in August 2018
to focus on the overarching goal of increased compliance through formal
enforcement actions and other compliance tools, such as compliance assistance
and informal enforcement actions. When the EPA includes information about
compliance assistance and informal enforcement in reports, it could also provide
context about the types of activities completed and the different levels of
complexity those activities involved to provide an accurate picture of the work
these efforts required. This would increase transparency and provide the public
and Congress with a more complete picture of the Agency's enforcement
program.
21-P-0132
46
-------
EPA Does Not Track Noncompliance Rates and Cannot Associate
Enforcement Activities with Changes in Compliance Behavior
I ~ — I
I ~ — I
I ~ — I
Compliance
monitoring
Environmental
benefit outcomes
The EPA does not measure or track noncompliance rates and cannot associate its
enforcement activities with changes in regulated entities' compliance behavior.
The overall goal of the EPA's civil enforcement program is to maximize
compliance with environmental requirements to protect human health and the
environment. In response to our 2019 survey of EPA enforcement staff,
36 percent of respondents did not know or disagreed that the Agency tracked and
measured whether EPA-concluded cases contributed to improved compliance and
protection of human health and the environment (see Figure A-22(c) in Appendix
A).
Noncompliance rates serve as indicators of the enforcement program's
effectiveness at resolving and deterring noncompliance and identify emerging
compliance problems that impact human health and the environment. The
enforcement program's knowledge about the noncompliance status within a
regulated universe can vary. For example, in one sector with a known number of
regulated entities, the EPA might have reliable and recent information to form a
reasonable estimate of the noncompliance status of every regulated entity in the
sector and be able to demonstrate effectiveness of the enforcement program at
resolving existing and deterring future noncompliance. Developing compliance or
noncompliance rates on a sector or geographic basis suffices for identifying
sector-based or geographically focused compliance or noncompliance problems.
In a sector with a very large or unknown number of regulated entities, the EPA
does not know about noncompliance within significant parts of the regulated
universe. When the EPA does not possess information about the regulated
universe's noncompliance, it lacks the ability to measure the extent to which the
Agency's compliance and enforcement activities improve compliance.
Developing noncompliance rates is difficult for most environmental programs
because the programs do not have the information necessary to calculate such
rates. We documented this and other difficulties in prior reports, including the
limited knowledge of the regulatory universe,28 the lack of performance measures
focused on outcomes, such as noncompliance rates,29 and the manner in which
other federal agencies overcame these types of obstacles.30 In these prior reports,
we issued various recommendations to develop measures to assess how the EPA's
enforcement actions deter noncompliance in sectors and environmental programs
over time, but the Agency has not developed measures that would assist with
these types of assessments. We have also previously recommended that OECA
28 EPA OIG, Limited Knowledge of the Universe of Regulated Entities Impedes EPA's Ability to Demonstrate
Changes in Regulatory Compliance, Report No. 2005-P-00024. September 15, 2005.
29 EPA OIG, EPA Performance Measures Do Not Effectively Track Compliance Outcomes, Report
No. 2006-P-00006. December 15, 2005.
311 EPA OIG, Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in Selected Federal Agencies, Report
No. 2007-P-00027. June 20, 2007.
21-P-0132
47
-------
determine whether consent decrees signed as part of a national enforcement
priority lead to improved compliance.31
The EPA has established strategic goals to improve compliance within two
programs:
• One of the EPA's national enforcement priorities for FYs 2020-2023
aims to reduce the number of facilities in significant noncompliance
with their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits by
50 percent by the end of FY 2022, from a significant noncompliance
baseline of 20.3 percent. This priority supports the Agency's strategic
goal to improve environmental law compliance.
• Another of the EPA's national enforcement priorities for FYs 2020-
2023 aims to reduce the number of community water systems out of
compliance with health-based drinking water standards by 25 percent
by the end of FY 2022.
While tracking facilities in known noncompliance or significant noncompliance
and reducing such noncompliance represent important indicators of the
enforcement program's success, the EPA cannot provide an overall measure of
compliance for Agency's programs. As the EPA moves forward in pursuing its
long-term compliance improvement goals, the Agency should consider
developing and providing noncompliance rates or other baseline measures in
future reports of annual enforcement results to provide the public and Congress
with a more complete picture of the Agency's enforcement program and its
progress toward reaching enforcement goals.
EPA's Annual Results for Compliance Monitoring Activities
and Environmental Benefits Do Not Capture Full Scope
of These Measures
The EPA tracks and annually reports a wide variety of information about its
enforcement program, and each of the measures reported is useful to understand
parts of the enforcement program. For most of the measures, the Agency reports
aggregate numbers without providing additional context that describes the
complexity or seriousness of what is reported (Figure 16). While the Agency
could provide additional context about case initiations and conclusions, injunctive
relief, penalties, and supplemental environmental projects, we primarily focus our
discussion in this section on compliance monitoring activities and the three
environmental benefits. The EPA collects additional information about
compliance monitoring activities and environmental benefits that could provide
additional context about these measures in its annual reports (Table 4). Providing
31 EPA OIG, EPA Needs to Demonstrate Whether It Has Achieved the Goals It Set Under the National Petroleum
Refinery Initiative, 14-P-0184. April 15, 2014.
21-P-0132
48
-------
additional context would increase the Agency's transparency in the enforcement
program. Without this additional context, Congress and the public cannot
understand the full scope of the EPA's compliance monitoring activities or the
impact enforcement actions have on improving the environment.
Table 4: Additional information or context the EPA could provide for the
compliance monitoring and environmental benefits measures
Enforcement measure
Information EPA included
in its FY 2019 annual
enforcement report
Additional context
EPA could provide
in its annual reports
j Compliance
411 |pj monitoring activities
• Number of federal
inspections and
evaluations.
• EPA inspections represent
a fraction of the total
number of inspections
conducted in the CWA,
CAA, and hazardous waste
programs.
• Type and complexity of
inspections and
evaluations conducted.
• Statute under which the
inspection was
conducted.
• Region where the
inspection was
conducted.
j ^ Commitments to
reduce, treat, or
eliminate pollutants
• Estimated commitments to
reduce, treat, or eliminate
pollution (in pounds) from
concluded enforcement
cases.
• Increased focus on
reducing toxic pollutants.
• Categories of pollutants
(toxic versus nontoxic).
• Specific pollutants of
highest concern.
• Statute under which the
commitments are
claimed.
• Region where case
concluded.
• Large concluded cases
influencing the results.
j ^ Commitments to treat,
minimize, or properly
dispose of hazardous
waste and
nonhazardous waste
• Commitments to treat,
minimize, or properly
dispose of waste (in
pounds) from concluded
enforcement actions.
• Influence of one large case
on results in FY 2016.
• Categories of hazardous
waste (hazardous versus
nonhazardous or specific
categories of wastes).
• Specific pollutants of
highest concern.
• Statute under which the
commitments are
claimed.
• Region where the
commitments occur.
j ^ Commitments to clean
uP contaminated soil
and water
• Estimated commitments to
clean up contaminated soil
(in cubic yards) from
concluded enforcement
actions.
• Estimated commitments to
clean up contaminated
water (in cubic yards).
• Estimated volumes do not
capture the complexity of
cleanups.
• Categories of cleanup
complexity.
• Specific pollutants of
highest concern.
• Region where the
commitments occur.
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement results. (EPA OIG table)
21-P-0132
49
-------
EPA's Reporting on Compliance Monitoring Activities Does Not
Provide the Full Context of These Activities
£ The EPA tracks and reports the total number of compliance monitoring activities
it conducts each year but provides limited context for what the numbers for this
\$z\ measure mean (Table 4). Compliance monitoring activities (1) take different
Compliance levels of effort to complete and (2) assess compliance under different
monitoring environmental statutes within industry sectors and in different geographic areas.
The EPA internally tracks this information and could provide the public with this
additional context about the scope of its compliance monitoring activities.
Such additional details about the types of compliance monitoring activities
conducted by the Agency could indicate whether the EPA focused on simple or
more complex and resource-intensive compliance monitoring activities within the
year. More details about the environmental statute and EPA region the
compliance monitoring activities occurred under or in could also demonstrate
results or accomplishments within the Agency's focus areas, such as a national
enforcement priority, or identify areas where large decreases in efforts occurred.
EPA's Reporting of Environmental Benefits Does Not Provide
Context About the Magnitude of Commitments or Impact on Human
Health and the Environment
J
Environmental
benefit outcomes
The EPA tracks and reports estimated commitments towards environmental
benefits that result from enforcement actions with minimal explanation about the
toxicity of the pollutants being removed or treated over time or the complexity of
the cleanup commitments (Table 4). For example, in the FY 2019 annual
enforcement report, the EPA reported:
• An estimated 347 million pounds in commitments to reduce, treat,
or eliminate pollutants—Beginning in FY 2016, the EPA increased
focus on reducing toxic pollutants. However, it did not include
information about what types of pollutants were being reduced or
whether the pollutants were considered toxic in the annual results. The
EPA estimated that from FYs 2012 through 2019, the total
commitments to reduce, treat, or eliminate mercury from air and lead
from water equated to 42,000 pounds and over 185,000 pounds,
respectively. These numbers contrast with the 860 million pounds of
sediment the EPA estimated would be reduced, treated, or eliminated
from water from FYs 2012 through 2019. The EPA could explain that
mercury in air and lead in water represent smaller commitments in
pounds relative to sediment commitments, but also represent higher
environmental benefits because of their higher toxicity to human
health and impact on the environment.
21-P-0132
50
-------
• Over 12 million cubic yards in commitments to clean up
contaminated soil and water—The EPA acknowledged that the vast
majority of commitments occur as a result of concluded enforcement
actions under CERCLA and that this measure, taken alone, did not
capture the magnitude or complexity of the cleanup effort. The EPA
could include information about what a complex cleanup means or
what types of pollutants were being cleaned up as part of these
concluded enforcement actions, although that information is available
in enforcement data. For example, enforcement data show that an
estimated 11.3 million cubic yards of soil or debris and 400 million
cubic yards of water or aquifers contaminated with perchlorate—a
chemical commonly used in rocket fuels, munitions, and fireworks—
would be cleaned up as a result of concluded enforcement actions from
FYs 2012 through 2019.
• Over 4.7 million pounds in commitments to treat, minimize, or
properly dispose of hazardous waste and nonhazardous waste—
The Agency stopped publicly tracking hazardous and nonhazardous
waste separately in FY 2016. It now reports these commitments as one
measure in the annual reports. While hazardous waste is the primary
category of waste being treated as a result of EPA enforcement
actions, there are more-specific categories of hazardous waste, such as
chromium, tracked by the Agency that could be included in the annual
enforcement reports to provide additional context.
Reporting transparency is vital so that stakeholders can determine whether
OECA's strategies, policies, and programs are effective and have led to a
successful enforcement program. Providing additional contextual information in
annual enforcement reports would help the public understand the type and
magnitude of environmental benefits being achieved by the Agency from its
concluded enforcement actions and the impact on protecting human health and the
environment.
EPA Tracks Its Enforcement Trends in Internal Dashboard and
Provides Public Dashboards for Five Media Programs
The EPA tracks the Agency-specific enforcement data and information discussed
in this report in an internal dashboard with a user-friendly interface and provides
public dashboards for state and EPA enforcement activities in five programs.
While the internal dashboard is only available to EPA personnel, the underlying
data is publicly available on the Agency's website as a downloadable
spreadsheet.32 These efforts are good examples of increasing the transparency of
the Agency's enforcement program. Sharing additional context about federal
enforcement activities and actions in a publicly available dashboard would
32 The EPA posts data files that contain enforcement data on its public website.
21-P-0132
51
-------
provide the public with easier access to EPA-led enforcement data and results and
allow the public to understand how different activities in the enforcement process
contribute to enforcement results and environmental benefits.
The EPA's public dashboards show EPA and state enforcement trends for the air,
drinking water, hazardous waste, pesticides, and water programs.33 While the
Agency includes EPA-led activities in the state dashboards, it does not have a
separate dashboard to view only EPA-led activities. The public dashboards
contain similar information to the EPA's internal dashboard in addition to
information about the number of facilities in a particular program, significant or
high-priority violations or noncompliance, and returns to compliance. Figure 17 is
an example of what is seen on a state dashboard. With the state dashboards, the
public can quickly look at key environmental compliance and enforcement
measures and change how they view the data to include data from a particular
state or from a specific category of inspections or violations. The EPA provides
these public dashboards to increase transparency of programmatic enforcement
activities.
Figure 17: Screenshot of the EPA's public national water activity dashboard
ECHO Dashboard - Water
Pomiittmg 5t«o
Permitting Ajenty
Compliance Monitoring Activities
Dassincatton
2012 leiJ 26 14 2915 201C- 201' 23 IS 2619
Classification ¦ Hco-Msjor (Ml'nOual) • M&ot (mdlviswy)
¦ Non-Major (General) ' v|$or(GsnrsrJ
2812 2913 2814 2616 2616
Classification ¦ Nan-Major ftnfllwdui
¦ Non-Major (General)
Significant (SNC) or Category I Noncompliance
Enforcement Actions
FacllHJei In Significant (SNC) or Category I Noncompliance by Classl « j ^ X Facilities with Enforcement Action* by Action Type
A, X Formal Enforcement Action* with Penalties Assessed
2913 2814 2310 2515 2817 201B 2019 2026 2021
Liafl Ayci icy ¦ EPA
Source: EPA's Enforcement Compliance History Oniine website (as of April 26, 2021). (EPA OIG image)
33 The EPA's state dashboards for air, drinking water, hazardous waste, pesticides, and water programs are available
on the Enforcement Compliance Histoiy Online website.
21-P-0132
52
-------
The EPA provides caveats on the
public dashboards that explain the
known data limitations for the
programs. For example, users may not
see a complete data set because the
EPA verifies data annually and the
year may not be completed. A public
dashboard showing the results and
anticipated outcomes from EPA-led
enforcement activities and actions
could provide the additional context
for the steps in the enforcement
process that we discuss in this
chapter.
Conclusion
Example of a Data-Related Caveat
from the Drinking Water Dashboard
Data shown in the state dashboards are
based on data reported to the EPA and
may not reflect all compliance
monitoring/inspections, enforcement, or
the full extent of noncompliance within a
state. State environmental agencies may
have more information on activities and
noncompliance within their area on their
websites.
The annual enforcement results that the EPA tracked and reported at the time of
this report did not provide the most comprehensive picture available to the EPA
of its enforcement program and the impact and outcomes of the program. Some
Agency enforcement program efforts, such as compliance assistance and
noncompliance rates, were not tracked during the time frame of this audit;
without this type of information, the Agency cannot assess progress with these
enforcement activities and results. Without performance measures that assist the
Agency in assessing the full scope of the enforcement program and information
about the changes in compliance behavior within a regulated community, the
EPA cannot discern nor demonstrate the overall effectiveness of its compliance
and enforcement efforts at improving compliance and protecting human health
and the environment.
When the EPA issues its annual enforcement reports, the Agency generally does
not provide enough context about the reported measures, such as the impact of
enforcement activities. Providing such context in the annual reports would
increase transparency of EPA-led enforcement activities and actions. In addition,
a public dashboard showing EPA-led enforcement activities and actions would
be a valuable tool and would provide a platform to deliver additional context for
steps in the enforcement process. These efforts together would further
transparency and allow the public to review additional data on how the EPA is
working to achieve its human health and environmental goals.
21-P-0132
53
-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
4. Incorporate additional enforcement information and data into future
annual enforcement results reports to provide context for
(a) compliance monitoring activities conducted by the Agency and
(b) the estimated environmental benefits achieved through Agency
enforcement actions.
5. Establish additional measures for Agency-led compliance assistance
activities and informal enforcement actions and include these new
measures in future annual enforcement results reports with the
appropriate context.
6. Evaluate the annual enforcement performance measures to assess
whether additional context should be provided for other reported
measures or whether additional measures should be included in future
reports to fully capture the scope of the Agency's enforcement
program.
7. Develop and track noncompliance rates within environmental
programs or use other innovative approaches that would indicate the
success of enforcement activities at returning entities to compliance.
8. Develop and publish a dashboard on the Enforcement Compliance
History Online website that shows trends in Agency-led enforcement
activities and actions and is similar to the dashboards that the Agency
has already prepared for state enforcement programs.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency provided an official response to the draft report and technical
comments on March 26, 2021 (Appendix E). The Agency agreed with
Recommendations 6 and 8 and provided corrective actions that meet the intent of
our recommendations. For Recommendation 6, the Agency proposed conducting
an evaluation of OECA performance measures, including those for compliance
assistance and informal enforcement actions, upon issuance of the Agency's new
strategic plan. For Recommendation 8, the Agency proposed changing the name
of the state dashboards to EPA/state dashboards to clarify that these media-
specific dashboards also include data about EPA enforcement activities.
The audit team met with OECA staff and managers on April 7, 2021, to discuss
the Agency's response to Recommendations 4, 5, and 7 and the proposed high-
level intended corrective actions for these recommendations. As a result of that
21-P-0132
54
-------
meeting, we made a minor revision to Recommendation 7 and the Agency
provided revised high-level corrective actions to supplement its original response
for Recommendations 4, 5, and 7 (Appendix F) on April 13, 2021.
The Agency agreed with Recommendation 4 and provided in its April 13, 2021
response corrective actions that meet the intent of our recommendation. OECA
generally agreed that providing additional contextual information regarding its
enforcement results could be beneficial for public understanding of the Agency's
activities and their impact but raised concerns about the level of effort needed to
fulfill this recommendation. OECA specifically noted that information on the
complexity of compliance monitoring activities or cleanups is subjective. OECA
also wrote that categorizing pollutants by their severity or risk is challenging and
may ultimately confuse or mislead the public.
While the Agency agreed with Recommendation 5, the corrective actions
proposed in its April 13, 2021 response do not meet the intent of this
recommendation. OECA noted in its March 26, 2021 response that compliance
assistance and informal enforcement were both compliance assurance tools of
interest to the prior administration. OECA further stated that, while it had tracked
compliance assistance for many years, it was unable to measure the impact on
compliance or to gauge the benefit of the effort and ultimately eliminated the
requirement to track these activities. The Agency proposed defining informal
enforcement actions and developing reporting instructions based on those
definitions, which are important steps to establishing measures for these activities.
However, regardless of whether compliance assistance and informal enforcement
are priorities of the prior administration, for the current administration, or future
administrations, this work is part of the Agency's enforcement program, and the
Agency should track and report on these activities. In addition, the GAO
recommended that the Agency collect data on these types of activities in January
2020.
The Agency agreed with Recommendation 7 and provided a corrective action that
meets the intent of this recommendation in its April 13, 2021 response. In its
March 26, 2021 response, OECA agreed with the value of tracking
noncompliance rates within environmental programs and stated that
demonstrating positive change in the rate of compliance would be the ideal
measure of program effectiveness. OECA added that deriving compliance rates
and determining whether Agency actions produce compliance are expensive,
divert limited resources, and ultimately are not achievable with data available at
this time. OECA stated that the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, or NPDES, program is one area in which the Agency can calculate
compliance rates based on self-reported effluent data. The Agency emphasized
that it is committed to using compliance rates to measure and improve compliance
and program performance when possible. The Agency should continue its work
planned for improving noncompliance in the NPDES program and extending
those lessons learned to the SDWA program. We recognize the structural and
21-P-0132
55
-------
resource barriers that exist to developing noncompliance rates, which have also
been findings in prior OIG reports. Using evidence-based compliance research to
study the impacts of compliance assurance tools on the regulated community will
provide the Agency with information about the effectiveness of enforcement tools
and a foundation for enforcement policies and procedures.
Based on the technical comments, we changed the report where appropriate.
21-P-0132
56
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
42 Assess the needs of the Agency's enforcement program by
completing a workforce analysis to determine the level of staffing
necessary to achieve and maintain a strong enforcement
presence in the field that protects human health and the
environment.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Planned
Completion
Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
42 Integrate the results of the workforce analysis into the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's annual and strategic
planning processes.
42 Use the results of the Office of Inspector General's
2019 Enforcement Survey and other resources to identify and
address areas of concern for the enforcement program, including
through issuing new or revised policies, as appropriate.
54 Incorporate additional enforcement information and data into
future annual enforcement results reports to provide context for
(a) compliance monitoring activities conducted by the Agency
and (b) the estimated environmental benefits achieved through
Agency enforcement actions.
54 Establish additional measures for Agency-led compliance
assistance activities and informal enforcement actions and
include these new measures in future annual enforcement
results reports with the appropriate context.
54 Evaluate the annual enforcement performance measures to
assess whether additional context should be provided for other
reported measures or whether additional measures should be
included in future reports to fully capture the scope of the
Agency's enforcement program.
54 Develop and track noncompliance rates within environmental
programs or use other innovative approaches that would indicate
the success of enforcement activities at returning entities to
compliance.
54 Develop and publish a dashboard on the Enforcement
Compliance History Online website that shows trends in
Agency-led enforcement activities and actions and is similar to
the dashboards that the Agency has already prepared for state
enforcement programs.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 9/30/21
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 3/31/22
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 2/28/22
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 6/30/22
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator for 5/31/21
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
21-P-0132 57
-------
Appendix A
2019 OIG Survey of EPA Enforcement Personnel:
Methodology and Results
We administered a survey to all enforcement personnel who were employed in September 2019
to gather input on the key factors that affected enforcement trends over time. We received
911 responses from EPA employees working in enforcement, an approximate 37-percent
response rate. In this appendix, we present the results of our analysis for all close-ended
questions and key themes from our analysis of open-ended questions. Generally, we saw that
enforcement personnel had similar levels of agreement and disagreement about survey
statements for the first two time periods (2006-2008 and 2009-2016). However, they had
noticeably different levels of agreement for the same survey statements in the last time period
(2017-2018). Based on survey results, we identified three areas of concern that the Agency may
need to address in response to Recommendation 3, which were perceived:
• Overdeference to state enforcement programs.
• Hindrance of enforcement activities by policies in place at that time.
• Decreases in support from regional and national leadership during the administration
at that time.
Survey Methodology
In September 2019, we administered an online survey to all (2,462) EPA enforcement
personnel—staff, managers, and officials—to gather input on the key factors that affected
enforcement trends. The survey solicited personnel perceptions on inspections, case initiations
and conclusions, enforcement results, data quality and data systems, and integrity of the
enforcement program for three time periods: 2006-2008, 2009-2016, and 2017-2018.
Prior to sending the survey instrument to enforcement personnel, we sought feedback from EPA
enforcement managers on the scope and phrasing of the survey questions and incorporated that
feedback where appropriate. We developed the list of survey recipients in conjunction with the
Agency from names included in existing email groups for OECA, regional enforcement
divisions, and inspectors. We deployed the online survey on September 9, 2019, and allowed
respondents two weeks to complete their survey—through September 23, 2019. On an individual
basis, we subsequently provided access to the survey for enforcement personnel that were
mistakenly not on our recipient list or for those that had left enforcement programs for other
Agency offices.
We also sought input from former enforcement personnel. As part of that effort, we sent the
survey to two nongovernmental organizations known to have members that are former EPA
employees. We received and analyzed approximately 100 responses from self-identified former
enforcement personnel, but we did not include these in our analysis of close-ended questions.
21-P-0132
58
-------
We received 911 responses from employees working in enforcement, an approximate 37-percent
response rate. We did not collect names of respondents nor did we attempt to identify
respondents. Some respondents provided their contact information and asked us to follow up
with them to discuss their survey responses, which we accomplished through interviews. We
collated, cleaned, and analyzed the responses. Our team analyzed responses to free-response, or
open-ended, questions by coding each comment into bins that represented key themes we
identified in the responses to the questions. We coded some comments into multiple bins. We
describe the key themes for each question in this appendix and highlight specific comments that
represented the most common themes in green boxes throughout this report. We included former
EPA enforcement staff in the data set in which we coded comments.
Survey Results
We present the results of our analysis of survey responses in the same sequence as questions
appeared in the survey under the following five sections:
• Demographics (see Figures A-l through A-5 and Tables A-l and A-2).
• Inspections (see Figures A-6 through A-13).
• Case development (see Figures A-14 through A-21).
• Case follow-up (see Figures A-22 through A-24).
• Program results and integrity (see Figures A-24 through A-27).
The online survey skipped the inspections, case development, and case follow-up sections if the
respondents answered that they had not completed or managed those activities. Respondents
were only asked for their perspectives on the time frames in which they began working in
enforcement at the EPA and any time frames afterward. On each figure, we indicated the number
of respondents to each question using a lowercase "n." Most survey questions asked respondents
to indicate their level of agreement with a particular statement. We color-coded figures in which
expressing strong agreement or strong disagreement had clear positive or negative connotations
using a red-yellow-green scale. We represented answers to other statements that did not have
clear associations with particular answers with a monochromatic blue scale.
We labeled the following figures with the text from the associated survey question.
21-P-0132
59
-------
Demographics
Figure A-1: How long have you worked at the EPA? (n = 883)
I
Less than 2 years I I?
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
117
102
113
More than 15 years
534
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Suivey. (EPA OIG image)
Figure A-2: What is your current enforcement role? (n = 883)
Senior Leader
14
Nonsupervisory Inspector
200
Nonsupervisory Case Developer
| 129
Nonsupervisory Attorney
201
Enforcement Manager
Administrative and Business Support
121
Other
191
~ 50 100 150 200 250
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
Based on comments provided by survey respondents, the most common role for those
that selected "other" was inspector and case developer (28 percent), followed by
specialty experts (12 percent) and nonsupervisory inspectors (9 percent).
21-P-0132
-------
Figure A-3: During which time frame did you begin working on environmental enforcement at
the EPA? (n = 883)
Prior to 2006
2006-2008
2009-2016
2017-2018
2019
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA QiG image)
Table A-1: Under which statute did your environmental enforcement work primarily fall?
Prior to
2006
(n = 539)
2006-2008
(n = 539)
2009-2016
(n = 771)
2017-2018
(n =733)
2019
(n = 733)
CAA
85
92
159
150
147
CWA
92
122
197
163
162
CERCLA
119
116
130
127
123
EPCRA
6
5
6
7
9
FIFRA
24
24
31
33
30
RCRA
76
80
106
89
86
SDWA
21
21
29
36
36
TSCA
16
17
31
34
34
None
70
17
23
34
43
Other
30
45
59
60
63
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG table)
21-P-0132
61
-------
Figure A-4: Number of respondents that selected given statutes for any time period
TSCA.55
SDWA, 57
CAA, 227
RCRA, 157
FIFRA, 50
EPCRA, 16
CWA, 260
CERCLA, 186
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA QiG image)
Note: This figure does not reflect the sum of the subtotals presented in Table A-1 because we counted an
employee that worked in the same statute for multiple time periods only once.
Table A-2: In which office or EPA region did you primarily work?
Prior to 2006
(n = 482)
2006-2008
(n = 531)
2009-2016
(n = 762)
2017-2018
(n = 810)
2019
(n = 829)
Region 1
28
29
37
42
46
Region 2
70
77
99
108
110
Region 3
58
64
82
86
88
Region 4
47
53
68
79
82
Region 5
69
71
100
96
94
Region 6
42
45
74
74
74
Region 7
25
30
47
56
57
Region 8
19
21
40
47
50
Region 9
25
25
43
43
44
Region 10
29
31
54
60
62
OECA
65
78
109
113
116
Other
5
7
9
6
6
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG table)
21-P-0132
62
-------
Figure A-5: Number of respondents that selected given office or region for any time period
EPA Region 1, 46
OECA Offices, 132
EPA Region 10, 65
EPA Region 9, 49
EPA Region 8, 53
EPA Region 7, 59
EPA Region 6, 79
EPA Region 2, 113
EPA Region 3, 165
EPA Region 4, 85
¦ EPA Region 5,108
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA QiG image)
Note: This figure does not reflect the sum of the subtotals presented in Table A-2 because we count an
employee that worked in the same office or region for multiple time periods only once.
Inspections
Figure A-6: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements
about inspection resources related to your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) The EPA had enough
employees to conduct
facility inspections to
identify noncompliance
2006-2008 (n = 240)
2009-2016 (n = 382)
2017-2018(n = 387)
I
18% 14%
29% 12%
2%
32% 8% 16%
-
_ i%;
i
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
l Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree Neutral a Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
63
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) EPA inspectors had the
technical expertise to
identify noncompliance
1%
2%
15%
7%
56%
|l%
|
[m
5%
8%
56%
i%
10%
11%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) Sufficient funds were
available to assist with
conducting high-quality
EPA-led inspections (for
example, renting
equipment and contracting
inspection services)
2006-2008 (n = 236) 11% 19%
I
44%
2009-2016(n = 379)
20X7-2018 (n = 386)
20% 19%
25% 18% 25% M 9%
U
¦|
n
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
l Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral o Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) Availability of resources
(staff, budget, and so on)
impacted the EPA's ability
to conduct inspections
3M
2006-2008 (n 239) ^
21%
18%
36%
18%
4%
1 3%'
2009-2016{n * 381) 1
42%
21%
3%
4%
2017-2018(n = 387) 1
34%
39%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree o Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
64
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(e) Inspection-related policies
assisted inspectors with
conducting inspections to
identify noncompliance
3%
296
25%
49%
-
5%
2009—2016 (n = 381) ¦ 10% 2296
2017-2018(n = 386)
50%
5%
22% 23%
4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree I Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About Inspection Resources
Survey respondents provided 186 comments about the availability of inspection resources in their focus
areas. Respondents most frequently described negative impacts:
• On the EPA's capacity to conduct adequate compliance monitoring.
• From the Agency assigning additional noninspection duties to inspectors.
• From political influence or national OECA policies.
Figure A-7: How much do you agree or disagree
with the following statements about your manager's
(or managers') support of inspection work related to
your focus area?
Survey statement
A manager is a first-line supervisor or
someone in a management position; it
does not include senior leadership.
Survey results
(a) Manager(s) supported
inspectors conducting
inspections of facilities
consistent with the EPA's
mission
1%
2006-2008(n = 226)
2009-2016 (n = 363) B% 5%
i% 6^
S3*
1%\
0%
p 5*
S2H
2017-2018 (n = 367)
0% 10% 20% 3094 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
65
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) Manager(s) supported
inspectors conducting
inspections at facilities in al!
relevant industry sectors
2009-2016(n = 361)
2017-2018(n = 363)
4% 12%
52% im v..
1%
1 8% 8%
47% 31* .1%
14%
12%
37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree -^Disagree Neutral "Agree ¦Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) Manager(s) prioritized
conducting routine
inspections
2006-2008 (n = 221)
2009-2016 (n = 359)
2017-2018(n = 364)
45%
3%
36%
17% 5%
18% 4%
14% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) Manager(s) prioritized
conducting more complex
inspections
2006-2008 (n = 220)
2009-2016 (n = 358)
2017-2018(n = 361)
40%
42%
10%
22%
7%
17% 9%
18% 6%
14% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
66
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(e) Manager(s) supported
conducting random
inspections to identify
facilities and/or industries
with high noncompliance
2005-2008(n = 216)
2009-2016(n = 351)
2017-2018(n = 355)
34%
20% 4%
13% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(f) Manager(s) targeted (or
supported staff who
targeted) facilities and/or
industries for inspections
2006-2008(n = 220)
2009-2016(n = 357)
2017-2018(n =360)
S% 5%
11%
50%
23%
6%
3% 6%
10%
50%
27%
5%
8% 8% 10%
46%
24% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree ) Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(g) Manager(s) expected
inspectors to strictly adhere
to the 60-day inspection
report turnaround time
frame
2006-2008 (n = 201)
2009-2016 (n =337)
2017-2018(n = 360)
21% 10% 6%
28% 14% 4%
3% 5% 12%
41%
36%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
67
-------
Survey statement Survey results
(h) Manager(s) supported
inspectors' findings and
conclusions
2006-2008(n=225)
2009-2016(n = 362)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About Managerial Support for Inspections
Survey respondents provided 139 comments about their manager's or managers' support for their
enforcement work. Some commenters expressed negative feelings about that support. However, many
other commenters highlighted other issues that have impacted inspections, such as OECA policies, political
influence, the 60-day inspection report requirement, or the support of senior personnel. Specific issues
raised included the EPA's inspection capacity, a iack of support for inspecting specific sectors or under
specific environmental statutes, and the prioritization of the quantity of inspections over their quality.
Figure A-8: How much do you agree
or disagree with the following
statements about regional senior
leadership support of inspection
work related to your focus area?
Senior leader is someone who is the head of a department or
agency or a member of the immediate leadership team
responsible for directing the policies and priorities of the
department or agency. A senior leader may hold either a
political or career appointment and typically is a member of
the Senior Executive Service or equivalent.
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) Regional senior leadership
supported inspectors
conducting inspections of
facilities across all
regulated sectors
i«
2006-2008 (n = 207)
6%
13%
53%
12%
2961
2009-2016 (n = 337)
7%
11%
50%
13%
2017-2018(n = 338)
1
| 18%
17%
29%
-
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree i Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Da Not Know
21-P-0132
68
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) Regional senior leadership
supported inspectors
conducting inspections at
facilities in all relevant
industry sectors
0%
2006-2008 (n = 207)
2017-2018(n * 338)
7%
17%
49%
11%
2%
7%
13%
50%
12%
19%
18%
30%
-
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) Regional senior leadership
prioritized conducting
routine inspections
1%
2006-2008(n = 204)
2009-2016(n = 333)
11% 19%
11% 20%
2017-2018(n = 335)
2S% 8% 22%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Dc Not Know
(d) Regional senior leadership
prioritized conducting more
complex inspections
2006-2008 (n = 203)
2009-2016(n = 333)
35%
10% 20%
12% 20%
2017-2018(n = 333)
10% 14%
18% 7% 23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
69
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(e) Regional senior leadership
supported conducting
random inspections to
identify facilities and/or
industries with high
noncompliance
4%
2006-2008 (n = 202)
2009-2016 (n = 329)
33%
35%
12% 18%
11% 20%
2017-2018 (n = 331)
11% 14%
21% 5% 23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(f) Regional senior leadership
supported targeting
facilities and/or industries
with high noncompliance
for inspections
3%
2006-2008 (n = 204)
4% 18%
45%
15%
15%
2009-2016(n = 332)
2%\
4%
14%
45%
18%
17%
2017-2018 (n = 334)
9% 10% 1894
35%
10% 19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(g) Regional senior leadership
supported inspectors'
findings and conclusions
Ii«J JimI
2006—200S (n = 206) | 17%
llM
¦
2009-2016 (n = 319) UK 16«
I
2017-2018 (n = 301)
1
9%
23%
34%
1
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
21-P-0132
70
-------
Key Themes from Comments About Regional Senior Leadership Support for Inspections
Survey respondents provided 114 comments about regional senior leaders' support for inspection work in
their focus area. The key theme from these comments was the negative impact of inadequate support for
inspections from regional senior leaders, particularly for inspections in certain sectors or under certain
environmental statutes. Many respondents also highlighted negative impacts from OECA policies or
political influence on inspections.
Figure A-9: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's senior leadership support of inspection work
related to your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) OECA senior leadership
supported inspectors
conducting inspections of
facilities across all
regulated sectors
2006-2008 (n = 203)
2009-2016 (n = 335)
2017-2018 (n = 333)
4%
15%
43%
23%
0%
7%
14%
40%
23%
1
16%
17%
30%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(b) OECA senior leadership
supported inspectors
conducting inspections at
facilities in all relevant
industry sectors
2006-2008 (n = 203)
5%
12%
44%
24%
0%
2009-2016 (n = 333)
8%
11%
41%
24%
2017-2018(n = 332)
1
17%
14%
28%
26%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral « Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
71
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(c) OECA senior leadership
prioritized conducting
routine inspections
3%
2006-2008 (n = 201)
2009-2016 (n = 331)
1
7%
24%
29%
8%
29%
2%
7%
21%
33%
9%
29%
2017-2018(n = 330)
7% 15%
25% 5% 28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) OECA senior leadership
prioritized conducting more
complex inspections
2%
2006-2008 (n = 202)
2009-2016(n = 331)
2017-2018 (n = 331)
33% 11% 30%
31% 14% 31%
21% 6% 31%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(e) OECA senior leadership
supported conducting
random inspections to
identify facilities and/or
industries with high
noncompliance
2006-2008 (n = 201)
9%
18%
34%
10%
26%
1%
2009-2016 (n = 329)
8% 17%
36%
10% 28%
2017-2018 (n = 329)
9% 18%
22% 4% 29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree _ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
72
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(f) OECA senior leadership
supported targeting
facilities and/or industries
with high noncompliance
for inspections
IK
2006-2008(n = 204|
2009-2016(n = 331)
40% 14% 24%
1*|
41%
18% 25%
2017-2018(n = 331)
6% 11% 17%
32% 9% 25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ¦ Disagree ¦ Neutral ¦ Agree Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(g) OECA senior leadership
supported inspectors'
findings and conclusions
o% di%
2006-2008 |n = 202) M 12%
1%
2017-2018 (fl = 334)
¦ 2%
2009-2016(n = 332) 12%
47%
45%
I
10%
20%
29%
25%
26%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree ' Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Suivey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About OECA Senior Leadership Support of Inspection Work
Survey respondents provided 112 comments about support of inspection work from senior leaders within
OECA. Many respondents expressed negative feelings about that support. Specific issues raised included a
lack of support for inspecting specific sectors or under specific environmental statutes and negative
impacts from OECA policy or political influence. Some comments did express support for OECA leadership,
while others felt they did not know enough to gauge OECA's support for inspections.
21-P-0132
73
-------
Figure A-10: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
collaborating with states on inspections related to your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) States in my region
generally had the
resources to conduct
inspection activities not
conducted by the EPA
2006-2008 (n = 182)
2009-2016(n = 302)
2017-2018(n = 295)
24%
18%
36% J
-
10%
1
28%
19%
30%
•
| 10%
28%
19%
22%
•
> 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral « Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(b) States in my region
generally had the technical
expertise to conduct
inspections under
delegated programs
3%
2006-2008 = 183)
13%
20%
49% |
-
9%
3%
2009-2016 (n = 302)
| 19%
19%
46%
-
| 8%
2017-2018 (n = 296)
I
21% 19%
39%
i
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) States in my region
generally contacted the
regional EPA office when
they needed technical
expertise to conduct
complex inspections
2%
2017-2018 (n = 296)
| 13%
16%
48%
13%
1 3% |
I 17%
1S%
46%
1 12%
1
20%
17%
36%
-
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
74
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(d) When the EPA and states
collaborated on
inspections, a lead
inspector was agreed upon
in advance
i«i 11%
2005—2008 (n = 181)
1«
1%
2009-2016 (n = 299) | 7%
12% 3%
62%
10%
10%
53%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(e) The EPA monitored state
inspection work to ensure
that compliance monitoring
met criteria
3%
9%
12%
49% j
.
| 15%
2%
9%
13%
50%
16%
2017-2018(n = 288) 1196 18%
I
37%
-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(f) The EPA held states
accountable to their
committed number of
inspections and/or
committed number of
facility specific inspections
2%
2006-2008(n = 179)
3%
13%
46%
-
26%
3%
2009-2016(n = 294)
5%
15%
40% I
¦
26%
2017-2018(n = 288)
1
9%
ia%
32%
1
j 29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral a Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
75
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(g) The EPA did not overly
defer to state inspection
regimes
2006-2008 (n = 183) ftt% 16%
2%
2%
ji
2009-2016 (n = 299) l4K 16%
2017-2018(n = 294)
16% 21%
24%
I
21%
20%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About EPA-State Collaboration on Inspections
Survey respondents provided 96 comments about collaborating with states on inspections in their focus
area. Commenters most commonly described insufficient state enforcement program capacities overall,
but many respondents also noted that state capacity varied from state to state. In addition, respondents
commonly described a poorly functioning EPA-state relationship in terms of the Agency's oversight of,
support of, or collaboration with states. Those three classes of comments, when taken together, bolster
the argument for strong federal oversight to ensure equitable protection for human health and the
environment across the nation.
Figure A-11: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
effectiveness of inspections related to your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) The number of inspections
conducted by regions
deterred noncompliance
I
2006-2008(n=191) ¦ 9% 23%
3%
2009-2016 (n = 314) ¦ 13% 23%
2017-2018 (n = 312)
22% 23%
24% ¦ 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree "Disagree Neutral 3 Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
76
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) The EPA's overall field
presence encouraged
compliance
2%
2006-2008 (n = 193) I 6% 15%
3%
2009-2016 (n = 318) ¦ 11% 14%
52%
49%
2017-2018(n = 315)
El
21%
17% 32%
...
0% 10%
20% 30%
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
7%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) The EPA conducted
adequate compliance
monitoring
3%
I
2006-2008 (n = 192) ¦ 18% 21%
-
2009-2016(n = 315)
22%
22%
36%
-
7%
2017-2018(n = 313)
29%
22%
22%
-
, 7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree f Disagree Neutral i Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) Inspections conducted as
part of a national
enforcement initiative
helped the Agency improve
compliance in industry
sectors with high rates of
noncompliance that had
significant impacts on
human health or the
environment
2%
2006-2008 (n = 184) I 7% 11%
2009-2016(n = 308)
2017-2018(n = 301)
9% 13%
I
37%
17% 25%
24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
i Strongly Disagree "Disagree Neutral i Agree "Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
21-P-0132
77
-------
Key Theme from Comments About the Effectiveness of Inspections
Survey respondents provided 105 comments about the effectiveness of inspections and most commonly
noted a relative ineffectiveness of the overall inspection scheme because of inadequate EPA capacity or
field presence.
Figure A-12: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about national
compliance initiatives?
Survey statement Survey results
(a) Inspections conducted
as part of the new
national compliance
initiatives will help the
EPA improve
compliance in
industries with high
rates of noncompliance Aeree-29%
(n = 327)
Strongly Agree, 11%
Strongly Disagree,
6%
Disagree, 11%
Neutral, 21%
(b) Inspections conducted
as part of the new
national compliance
initiatives will help the
EPA improve
compliance in industries
where noncompliance
has significant impacts
on human health or the
environment (n = 327)
Strongly Agree, 10%
Agree, 31%
Do Not Know, 21%
m Strongly Disagree,
7%
Disagree, 10%
Neutral, 20%
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA QiG images)
21-P-0132
78
-------
Figure A-13: Does the current standard for completing inspection reports within 60 days allow
for adequate documentation of inspections findings at complex facilities or involving complex
legal requirements? (n = 332)
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
Key Theme from Comments About the Inspection Timeliness Standard
Survey respondents provided 214 comments about the inspection timeliness standard. The key theme was
that this requirement inhibits inspectors' ability to write in-depth reports, particularly for complex
inspections.
Case Development
Figure A-14: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the use
of inspection findings to develop enforcement cases in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) inspection findings were
consistently and
appropriately used to
develop enforcement
cases and actions
¦096 :
296
2006-2008 (n = 323) f
8%
50%
15
1%
3%
2009-2016 (n = 492) l
6%
50%
2017-2018(n = 499)
I
1J%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
79
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) There were appropriate
reasons when inspection
findings were not used to
develop EPA enforcement
cases and actions
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree t Disagree Neutral m Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Wot Know
(c) The appropriate
enforcement tools (e.g.,
formal enforcement,
compliance assistance,
etc.) were used to return
facilities back to
compliance
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
1%
2006-2008(n = 312)
8% 13%
46%
11%
1%
2009-2016(n = 472)
8% 11%
48%
11%
2017-2018 (n = 481)
18%
18%
3i%
1
12%
1%
2006-2008 (n = 326) 1% 9%
Key Themes from Comments About the Use of Inspection Findings to Develop Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 152 comments about the use of inspection findings to develop enforcement
cases. The key themes included that political considerations affected which cases are initiated following an
inspection, that deference to states affected enforcement, and that inspection findings generally
appropriately informed case development.
21-P-0132
80
-------
Figure A-15: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the
development of enforcement cases in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) Enforcement-related
policies improved the
development of
enforcement cases
2006-2008 (n = 316) 15% 28%
2%
2009-2016 (n = 480) |5% 25%
44%
46%
5%
2017-2018(n = 489)
25%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree «Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(b) in my office or division,
enforcement cases were
consistently developed in a
timely manner
i%
I l7%
24%
45%
-
I
2009-2016 {n = 478) ¦ 19% 23%
2017-2018(n = 485)
42%
a
1
23%
24%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 'Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) in my office or division,
enforcement cases were
consistently concluded in a
timely manner
2%
2006-2008 (n = 313) ¦ 19%
2009-2016(n = 478) ft 23%
41%
2017-2018(n = 482)
ll
I
i%
12%
38%
27%
-
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
81
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(d) I was not inappropriately
instructed to avoid pursuit
of an enforcement case
because the facility is in a
certain industry sector
2%
3%
|>
2006-2008 (n - 299) |4% ?«
7%
2009-2016 (n = 461) I 7% 8%
2017-2018 (n = 467)
50%
50%
1
16%
16% 38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About the Development of Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 177 comments about the development of enforcement cases. The key
themes included that Agency policies and requirements slowed or made case development more difficult
to accomplish, that enforcement against certain industries or sectors was discouraged, and that a lack of
resources or trained personnel slowed case development.
Figure A-16: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
collaborating with states to develop and pursue enforcement cases in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) When the EPA and states
collaborated on
enforcement cases, a lead
agency was agreed upon
in advance
o%
2006-2008 (n = 280) 3% 10%
2009-2016 (n = 414) )% 7%
7%\
2017-2018 (n = 416) I 8%
52%
45%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
82
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) States had the resources to
pursue additional
enforcement cases not
pursued by the EPA
2006-2008(n = 290)
2009-2016 (n = 432)
2017-2018(n = 448)
I
29%
18% 20%
I
21%
1
32% 17%
19% 9
| 20%
33%
14%
16% j
^ 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) States had the technical
expertise to pursue
additional enforcement
cases not pursued by the
EPA
2006-2008(n = 288)
2009-2016(n = 431)
2017-2018 (n = 448)
25%
| 25%
1
25%
21% 22%
I
I
I
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree i Disagree Neutral J Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) States reached out to the
regional EPA office when
they needed assistance in
pursuing enforcement
cases
i%
2006-2008 (n = 288) I 8% 14%
i 2%
2009-2016 (n = 439) I 8% 12%
56%
2017-2018(n = 447) 14% 17%
I
39%
I
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
83
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(e) Decisions to refer
enforcement cases to
states were documented in
writing
2%
2006-2008 (n = 265) ls% 16% 27%
1%
2009-2016(n=407) 15% 14% 28%
3%
I
2017-2018 (fl = 417) ¦ 7% 15% 25%
"
42%
43%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(f) The EPA followed up on
the status of enforcement
cases that were referred to
states to determine
whether states took
appropriate actions and the
facility returned to
compliance
3%
12%
14%
30%
37%
2%
11%
11%
-
41%
6%
1
13%
13%
u
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(g) If a state did not act on a
referred enforcement case,
the EPA took enforcement
actions when appropriate
3%
2017-2018 (n =409)
9%
17%
30%
-
35%
3%
11%
14%
27%
-
I 38%
¦
18%
16%
13% ;
-
» 39%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
84
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(h) The EPA had the resources
to pursue enforcement
cases not pursued by
states
3%
2006-2008 (n 289) ^ 14% 13% 52% 9%
2009-2016 (n = 436) 16% 16%
116% 16% 46%
¦
2017-2018 (n = 448) 21% 19% 29% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About Collaborating with States to Pursue and Develop Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 158 comments about collaborating with states to pursue and develop
enforcement cases. The most common sentiment expressed was that states lacked a combination of
resources, expertise, or political will to take appropriate enforcement actions without the EPA. Many
respondents also noted that it varied from state to state.
Figure A-17: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
manager support of appropriate enforcement actions in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) Manager(s) supported
using the appropriate
enforcement tools for
instances of
noncompliance (e.g.,
compliance assistance,
informal enforcement
actions and formal
enforcement actions)
3K
2006-2008 (n = 289)
1%
2009-2016 (n = 449) U% 6%
2017-2018 (n = 457) 11% 11%
I
58%
48%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral 9 Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
85
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) Manager(s) supported
pursuing enforcement
actions across all regulated
sectors
1%
2006-2008(n = 286)
5% 8%
54%
54%
11%
2009-2016 (n = 443) I 7% 7%
2017-2018 (n = 452)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree > Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
1 12%
15%
40%
7%
(c) Manager(s) supported
using enforcement tools to
protect human health and
the environment
T%1 1
2006-2008 (n = 291)
| WSj 12%
2009-2016 (n = 450) | 5%
2017-2018 (n = 453) H 7K 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree 11 Disagree Neutral J Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) Managers did not instruct
me to avoid pursuing
enforcement actions
because the facility was in
a certain industry sector
OM
[l%
2006-2008(n = 282)
J% 7%
52%
1»
i|
1%
2009-2016 (ri s 441)
6% 5%
51%
3%
2017-2018 (n = 448)
| 8%
45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
21-P-0132
86
-------
Key Themes from Comments About Managers' Support for Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 111 comments about managers' support for developing appropriate
enforcement cases. The most common opinion expressed was that manager support for enforcement was
adequate. Other respondents attributed changing support for and the slowdown of enforcement to
political considerations, senior leadership, and a lack of resources.
Figure A-18: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about regional
senior leadership support of appropriate enforcement action in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) Regional senior leaders
supported using the most
appropriate enforcement
tool for instances of
noncompliance (e.g.,
compliance assistance,
informal enforcement
actions and formal
enforcement actions)
1%
2006-2008(n = 281)
4% 9%
,296
2017-2018(n = 443)
59%
l 6%
8%
55%
9%
19%
18%
33%
-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree i Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(b) Regional senior leaders
supported pursuing
enforcement actions across
all regulated sectors
2006-2008 (n = 280)
7% 10%
51%
-
14%
1%!
2009-2016 (n = 435)
8% 9%
50%
14%
2017-2018 (n = 440)
I
19%
17%
-
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree
80% 90% 100%
1 Do Not Know
21-P-0132
87
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(c) Regional senior leaders
supported using
enforcement tools to
protect human health and
the environment
0% 354
2006-2008(n = 282)
11
2009-2016(n = 437) | 8»
2017-2018(n = 442)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
8%
58%
1 8%
3%
8%
56%
8%
1
13%
17%
38%
.
11%
(d) Regional senior leaders did
not instruct me to avoid
pursuing enforcement
actions because the facility
was in a certain industry
sector
i«
2006-2008(n = 270)
S6%
2% 3%
2009—2016(n = 423)
2017-2018 (n =421)
I
9% 18%
39%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree i Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Suivey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About Regional Senior Leaders' Support for Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 109 comments about regional senior leaders' support for developing
appropriate enforcement cases. The most common theme was that senior leadership does not support
enforcement against certain sectors or entities, such as municipal governments. Some respondents
indicated that they felt political considerations or political appointee actions constrained enforcement.
21-P-0132
88
-------
Figure A-19: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about OECA
senior leadership support of appropriate enforcement action in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) OECA senior leaders
supported using the most
appropriate enforcement
tool for instances of
noncompliance (e.g.,
compliance assistance,
informal enforcement
actions and formal
enforcement actions)
0%l ,:'3» I
2006-2008(n = 276)
1% ¦- 3%
2009-2016(n - 427) I 8%
2017-2018 (n = 434)
I
48%
15% 15%
17%
19%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree -Disagree Neutral "Agree ¦Strongly Agree Oo Not Know
(b) OECA senior leaders
supported pursuing
enforcement actions across
all regulated sectors
i%
2006-2008 (n = 271) 6% 10%
2009-2016(n=420) IsK 11%
2017-2018 (n= 432)
I
47%
44%
20%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 'Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) OECA senior leaders
supported using
enforcement tools to
protect human health and
the environment
2009-2016(n=425) |
8%
Mr i
16%
(n 436)
10% 16%
37% j
.
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
0% 3%
2006-2008 (n = 276)
8%
55%
14%
1 2%|
21-P-0132
89
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
OECA senior leaders did
not instruct me to avoid
pursuing enforcement
actions because the facility
was in a certain industry
6%
53%
14%
3%
sector
2009-2016(n = 410)
5%
48%
16%
2017-2018(n = 416)
1
7%
14%
37%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
Key Themes from Comments About OECA Senior Leaders' Support for Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 95 comments about OECA senior leaders' support for developing
appropriate enforcement cases. Common themes included that:
• OECA senior leaders interfered with enforcement,
• OECA policies and requirements made enforcement more difficult,
• OECA senior leaders did not support using the correct or appropriate enforcement tools,
• OECA senior leaders did not support enforcement against certain sectors or entities, such as
municipal governments.
Figure A-20: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
coordinating with counsel during case development in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) EPA regional program staff
effectively coordinated with
EPA regional attorneys to
develop and conclude
enforcement cases
2006-2008(n = 264)
2009-2016 (n = 420) 15% 6%
3K
51%
2017-2018 (n = 42S) ¦ 8% 8«
I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree » Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
90
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) The EPA effectively
coordinated with the U.S.
Department of Justice
(DOJ) to develop and
conclude civil judicial cases
2%
2005-2008 (n = 253) |s% 9%
2009-2016 (n = 397) I 6% 11%
46%
2017-2018 (n = 399) 13% 17%
I
37%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) Active/applicable policies
improved the development
and conclusion of civil
judicial cases
1%
2006-2008 (n = 257)
2009-2016(n = 403)
2017-2018(n = 408)
8% 21%
8% 20%
43%
40%
22%
22%
18%
I
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 'Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) Active/applicable policies
improved the development
and conclusion of civil
administrative cases
2%'
2006-2008(n = 263)
L
21%
49%
-
| 11%
2% |
2009-2016 {n = 391) |
I 6%
20%
46%
12%
2017-2018(n = 370) l
19%
25%
25%
1
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
21-P-0132
91
-------
Key Theme from Comments About Coordinating with Counsel During the Development of
Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 104 comments about coordinating with counsel while developing
enforcement cases. The most common theme was that new interpretations of the law or new
agency policies make enforcement difficult and confusing, with some specifically citing the 2019
DOJ supplemental environmental projects policy that constrained SEPs in enforcement actions
against state and local governments.
Figure A-21: How much do you agree or disagree that the November 10, 2015, EPA/DOJ
memorandum, Improving the Pace of Cases from Referral to Resolution, improved the
environmental enforcement process? (n = 386)
Strongly Agree, 3%
Agree, 12%
1
Do Not Know, 42%
Neutral, 25%
Disagree, 13%
4
Strongly Disagree, 4%
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
Case Follow-Up
Figure A-22: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about work
related to following up on concluded enforcement cases in your focus area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) The EPA tracked and
measured follow up work
on concluded enforcement
cases
3%
I
2006-2008 (n = 227) ¦ 11% 12%
2009-2016 (n = 331) ¦ 1094 10%
3%
2017-2018(n=334) ¦ 10% 11%
I
56%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
92
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
(b) The EPA followed up on
concluded cases to make
sure agreed upon terms
and activities were being
completed
2%
2006-2008(n = 227) I
1 8%
13%
56%
5%
12%
2009-2016 (n 333) l
7%
10%
60%
5%
2017-2018 (n = 333) ¦ 8% 10%
396
I
57%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 1 Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(c) The EPA tracked and
measured whether
concluded cases
contributed to improved
compliance and protection
of human health and the
environment
2006-2008(n = 223)
1
9%
22%
39%
-
17%
3%
2009-2016(n = 329)
10%
18%
40%
-
16%
2017-2018(n = 330)
1
| 12%
19%
35% |
1
| 19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree 'Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
(d) Post case conclusion
activities by the EPA
prevented staff from
developing new cases
2006-2008 (n = 225)
I
33%
24%
16%
-
16%
2009-2016(n = 309)
2017-2018 (n = 291)
I
I
34%
19% 18%
22%
¦
-
16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree I Disagree Neutral ¦ Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG images)
21-P-0132
93
-------
Key Themes from Comments About Work Related to Following Up on Concluded Enforcement Cases
Survey respondents provided 71 comments about following up on concluded enforcement cases. Common
themes included that the Agency does not prioritize or reward case follow-up activities despite being a
required part of their job and that a lack of resources, time, and personnel prevented case follow-up
activities from being completed appropriately.
Figure A-23: How much to do you agree or disagree with the following statements about
collaborating with states on following up on state-concluded enforcement cases in your focus
area?
Survey statement
Survey results
(a) When collaborating with
states on following up on
state concluded
enforcement cases, the
EPA tracked and
measured follow up work
on concluded enforcement
cases
15%
14%
28%
-
32%
2009-2016(n=297) 19% 11%
I
2017-2018(n = 300)
I
I
II
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree i Disagree Neutral 1 Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Da Not Know
(b) The EPA followed up on
concluded cases to make
sure agreed upon terms
and activities were being
completed
2006-2008(n = 204)
1
13%
15%
32%
-
29%
2009-2016(n = 296)
16%
12%
35%
-
26%
2017-2018(n = 301)
1
13%
13%
31%
3
| 29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I Strongly Disagree i Disagree Neutral • Agree ¦ Strongly Agree Do Not Know
21-P-0132
94
-------
Survey statement
Survey results
The EPA tracked and
measured whether
concluded cases 2006-2008
-------
Key Themes from Comments About the Accuracy and Timeliness of ICIS Data
Survey respondents provided 81 comments about the accuracy and timeliness of ICIS data. The most
common theme was that ICIS is difficult and time-consuming to use and has accuracy issues. Many
respondents attributed some of the potential inaccuracies and double entries to the use of other program-
specific databases.
Key Themes from Comments About Improving the Accuracy of ICIS Data
Survey respondents provided 318 comments about improving the accuracy of ICIS data. The most common
themes included suggesting:
• Additional features to improve the functionality and user-friendliness of ICIS.
• New policies, best practices, or training to ensure timely and accurate data entry,
• Data entry requirements are unclear or that the data in ICIS are inaccurate because of poorly
formulated metrics.
Figure A-25: How would you rate the importance of the given enforcement measures for
evaluating the success of the EPA's enforcement program?
|[5t] j 3%
Annual environmental
benefits achieved (n = 618)
Annual total value of SEPs ($)
(n = 616)
Annualtotal number of EPA
cases with SEPs (n = 617)
Annualtotal penalty amount
{$) (n = 615)
Annual number of EPA cases
with penalties (n = 619)
Annualtotal value of
injunctive relief ($) (n = 617)
Annual number of EPA cases
with injunctive relief
(n = 619)
Annual number of cases
initiated (n = 619)
¦ Not Important i Less Important Neutral »Important ¦ Very Important
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Suivey. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
96
-------
Key Themes from Comments About Enforcement Measures
Survey respondents provided 148 comments about enforcement measures. The most common themes
were that the estimates of these measures are inaccurate and flawed, and 20 respondents believed that
the outcome-based measures related to concluded cases provided the wrong incentives and distracted
from the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment.
Figure A-26: Are you aware of any EPA personnel who, in response to Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests regarding enforcement, provided false or incomplete, misleading, or
inappropriately redacted information or withheld information inappropriately? (n = 618)
Yes, 2%
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
Key Themes from Comments About Responses to FOIA Requests
Survey respondents provided 18 comments about responding to FOIA requests. The common themes in
these limited comments were that:
• Management intervened to withhold information in Agency responses to FOIA requests.
• Poor FOIA training led to errors in FOIA responses.
• The interpretation of FOIA provisions were sometimes stretched to provide a limited response or
no response to a FOIA request.
21-P-0132
97
-------
Figure A-27: Are you aware of any EPA managers downplaying or ignoring the significance of
violations when relaying inspection findings to OECA and senior leadership? (n = 618)
Yes, 6%
Source: OIG analysis of the 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey. (EPA OIG image)
Key Theme from Comments About EPA Managers Downplaying or Ignoring Violations When Reporting
Inspection Findings
Survey respondents provided 44 comments about EPA managers downplaying or ignoring violations when
reporting inspection findings. The most common theme was that respondents were aware of cases in
which EPA managers or OECA senior leaders downplayed or ignored the significance of violations or did
not report them.
Areas of Concern From 2019 OIG Enforcement Survey
We identified the following areas of concern during our analysis of the results of the 2019 OIG
Enforcement Survey:
• Survey results show some concern by EPA personnel about deference to states,
specifically that the:
o EPA is deferring serious cases to states.
o States do not have the capacity to handle the cases being deferred to them,
o EPA does not sufficiently oversee state inspection work or referred cases
o Political motivations often impact enforcement cases.
• Through their survey responses, enforcement personnel indicated concern that
recently instituted policies hinder the enforcement program. For example, the:
o Sixty-day inspection report requirement from a June 2018 memorandum does not
allow for the documentation of complex cases and signals that the Agency does not
care about the quality of the inspection report.
21-P-0132
98
-------
o New policies related to supplemental environmental projects hinder enforcement.
o Metrics for measuring benefits do not incentivize enforcement that protects human
health and the environment.
• Survey results indicated that enforcement personnel perceived a decline in leadership
support for compliance monitoring and enforcement case development at the regional
and OECA senior leadership levels. Personnel perceive that:
o Leaders screen enforcement cases for political considerations,
o Political considerations play a role in which cases are further developed,
o There is an overuse of compliance assistance over traditional enforcement activities.
21-P-0132
99
-------
Appendix B
Enforcement Trends by EPA Region and Headquarters
This appendix presents the trends in the EPA's annual enforcement results from FYs 2007
through 2018 by EPA region and headquarters to a greater degree than in Chapter 2. Trends in
regional and headquarters enforcement results generally followed the declining national trends
we reported earlier. The regions are responsible for most of the EPA's enforcement activities.
The regions concluded 97 percent of enforcement actions from FYs 2007 through 2018, and
headquarters concluded the remaining 3 percent of enforcement actions. As with the national
analyses, we removed FY 2006 results from our regional and headquarters analyses after
determining that the anomalously high number of concluded enforcement actions in FY 2006
masked the overall trends. We also provide a postscript to our analyses of FYs 2007 through
2018 trends by comparing the FY 2019 results to FY 2018. We include one-page summaries of
the enforcement trends for actions concluded by each of the ten EPA regions and headquarters at
the end of this appendix.
Throughout this appendix, we provide weblinks to EPA enforcement case summaries for the
convenience of the reader who wishes to learn more about these cases. The enforcement results
reported in some of these case summaries vary from those that we calculated from the data we
retrieved from OECA's internal Federal Enforcement and Compliance Dashboard because we
adjusted all monetary enforcement results to 2018 USD.
EPA's Compliance Monitoring, Enforcement Actions, and
Enforcement Results for Most Regions Generally Declined
From FYs 2007 through 2018, enforcement trends within regions generally followed the
declining national trends for:
• Compliance monitoring activities.
• Enforcement actions initiated and concluded.
• Enforcement results.
• Environmental benefits.
Regions 2 and 5 completed the most compliance monitoring activities and Regions 4 and 6
initiated and concluded the most cases. As a result, these regions greatly influenced the national
trends in concluded enforcement actions. From FYs 2012 through 2018, the national total
number of commitments toward environmental benefits as part of concluded enforcement cases
declined or remained steady over time. Three regions, Regions 4, 5 and 9, accounted for the
largest totals of the commitments towards environmental benefits.
EPA's Regional Compliance Monitoring Activities Decreased
The EPA's compliance monitoring activities decreased by 33 percent, when comparing
FYs 2007 and 2018 (Figure B-l). All of the ten regions and EPA headquarters completed their
21-P-0132
100
-------
highest total annual number of compliance monitoring activities prior to FY 2013. Following
FY 2012, the number of activities nationwide decreased steadily, though regions and
headquarters experienced temporary increases. Region 5, which completed 4,706 compliance
monitoring activities in FY 2012, had the highest total of any region from FYs 2007 through
2018. Region 5 accounted for 23 percent of all EPA compliance monitoring activities in
FY 2012.
Figure B-1: Total compliance monitoring activities by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007
through 2018
„ 25,000
(D
+-»
< 20,000
I I I I I I
)»5 = = s-_
O 5,000
0J
XI
E
D
0 ™ ™ M
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 ¦ 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data (EPA OIG image)
Overall, Regions 2 and 5 completed the highest number of compliance monitoring activities from
FYs 2007 through 2018, accounting for 15 and 18 percent of the total, respectively. Region 5 is
notable for its fluctuations in compliance monitoring activities increasing in four out of five
years from FYs 2007 through 2012 and declining in five out of six years from FYs 2012 through
2018. Region 5 accounted for the second-largest single-year increase in compliance monitoring
activities, increasing by 1,386 activities in FY 2008. In addition, it accounted for the largest and
second-largest annual declines in compliance monitoring activities recorded during this time
period in which the number of activities declined by 1,440 in FY 2016 and 1,266 in FY 2014.
Compliance Monitoring Activities in FY 2019
Total annual compliance monitoring activities continued to decline in FY 2019, dropping
by 4 percent, a net decrease of 406 activities relative to FY 2018. The number declined in
six regions (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10), and at EPA headquarters. The number of
compliance monitoring activities undertaken by Region 1 declined by 38 percent or
319 activities relative to FY 2018, which is the largest decrease recorded that fiscal year.
Compliance monitoring activities in the other regions (EPA Regions 5, 6, 7, 9) increased
21-P-0132
101
-------
in FY 2019 between 7 and 17 percent. The largest increase in the number of compliance
monitoring activities occurred in Region 6, where the number increased by 134 activities
13 percent, relative to FY 2018.
EPA Regions Initiated Fewer Enforcement Actions
The EPA initiated 51 percent fewer enforcement actions in FY 2018 compared to FY 2007
(Figure B-2). All regions completed their highest total annual number of ini tiated actions prior to
FY 2010—for most regions this occurred in FYs 2007 or 2008. From FYs 2010 through 2018,
the number of initiated enforcement actions declined yearly in most EPA regions, except in
FYs 2014 and 2015.
Figure B-2: Civil enforcement cases initiated by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007
through 2018
4,000
3,500
¦¦¦¦3a
' iliiiiE
1,000
500
0 ^.¦¦¦_
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Overall, Regions 4 and 6 initiated the most enforcement actions, accounting for 16 and
18 percent of the total 33,783 initiations for FYs 2007 through 2018, respectively. The largest
annual decrease occurred in Region 3 in FY 2017. That year the number of initiations fell by
201, a 54-percent decrease. This decrease accounted for 44 percent of the total national decline
in initiated enforcement actions in FY 2017, which was 454 actions. The largest single increase
occurred in Region 4 in FY 2009 in which the number of initiated enforcement actions rose by
234, a 43-percent increase relative to 2008. In FY 2010, the following year, the number of
initiations in Region 4 decreased by 198, a 25-percent decrease relative to FY 2009.
21-P-0132
102
-------
Initiated Enforcement Actions in FY 2019
Total annual initiated enforcement actions continued to decline nationally and across
most of the EPA regions and headquarters in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018. In total, the
number of initiations decreased by 154 cases, an 8-percent drop. The largest decrease
occurred in Region 6, where initiations declined by 47, a 13-percent decline. Only
Regions 8 and 9 initiated more enforcement actions, with increases of 6 and 15 percent,
or five and 18 actions, respectively.
EPA Regions Concluded Fewer Enforcement Actions
The annual total number of concluded enforcement actions declined in all of the regions and
headquarters when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018 and decreased nationally from 3,714 in
FY 2007 to 1,819 in FY 2018 (Figure B-3). All but one region completed their highest total
annual number of concluded enforcement actions in a fiscal year prior to FY 2011. For many
regions, this high occurred in FYs 2008 or 2009.
Figure B-3: Civil enforcement cases concluded by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007
through 2018
Hlllijjiij
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 ¦ 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
As with the initiations, Regions 4 and 6 concluded the most enforcement actions, accounting for
16 and 17 percent of the 33,783 total conclusions from FYs 2007 through 2018, respectively.
The single largest annual decline occurred in Region 3 in FY 2017 in which the annual number
of concluded enforcement actions decreased by 205, a 53-percent decrease relative to FY 2016,
which was the single anomalously high total that occurred after FY 2010. Otherwise, large
increases in the number of concluded enforcement actions by each of the regions generally
occurred prior to FY 2010. The largest single increase occurred in Region 4 in FY 2009 in which
4,000
3,500
3,000
«/)
.2 2,500
_D
g 2,000
o
is 1,500
£
1,000
500
0
21-P-0132
103
-------
the number of concluded enforcement actions rose by 228, a 42-percent increase relative to
FY 2008. However, in FY 2010, the following year, the number of conclusions in Region 4
decreased by 193, a 25-percent decrease from the previous year.
Concluded Enforcement Actions in FY 2019
The total annual number of concluded enforcement actions continued to decline
nationally in FY 2019, decreasing by an additional 7.5 percent, or 136 conclusions,
relative to FY 2018. The total number of concluded enforcement actions declined in most
regions and headquarters. Only Regions 1, 8, and 9 saw increases of 24, 12, and
nine conclusions respectively in FY 2019. The largest decrease occurred in Region 6 in
which the region concluded 43 fewer enforcement actions, or 13 percent, relative to
FY 2018.
Large Enforcement Actions in Regions 4 and 6 and Headquarters Accounted for
Most of the Total Penalty Value
The total dollar value of EPA-assessed penalties varied dramatically from FYs 2007 through
2018 as a result of the conclusions of large enforcement actions (Figure B-4). Together,
Regions 4 and 6 accounted for 73 percent of the total $10.25 billion penalty dollars. For the two
regions, most of those penalties were in FY 2016. Headquarters accounted for another
18 percent, mostly from its total in FY 2017. In contrast, penalties by the other eight regions
combined for just 9 percent of the total
Figure B-4: Penalties assessed in millions by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007 through
2018
$7,000
$6,000
Q
OO
Z)
oo $5,000
o
(N
£ $4,000
o
^ $3,000
c
CO
£ $2,000
-------
Regions 1 and 8 consistently issued the fewest penalties each year and together accounted for
just 9 percent of the total enforcement actions with a penalty from FYs 2007 through 2018
(Figure B-5).
Figure B-5: Number of penalties assessed by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007 through
2018
_ 2,500
CO
c
a>
Q_
cu 2,000
o 1,500
1,000
500
•iiiii
=^nii
^ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 15 16 17 18 9 10 I HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
The number of enforcement actions with a penalty assessed declined across the regions and
headquarters in most years from FYs 2007 through 2018 with some year-to-year variability.
Regions 4 and 6 and headquarters, which together accounted for 91 percent of the total penalty
dollars, accounted for only 36 percent of the total 20,115 enforcement actions with a penalty
assessed.
Penalties in FY 2019
The number of enforcement actions with penalties decreased by 12 percent in FY 2019,
from 1,088 in FY 2018 to 960 in FY 2019. Much of this 128-action decrease resulted
from decreases in the number of Region 4 and 6 actions, which dropped by 25 and
55 actions with penalties, respectively. Meanwhile, the total monetary value increased by
$284 million, a 408-percent increase from FY 2018. The increase resulted from the
$282 million reported penalties from EPA headquarters in FY 2019. However, the
FY 2018 total represents the lowest penalty value from FYs 2007 through FY 2019, and
the FY 2019 total was a 79-percent decrease from the FY 2017 value of $1.67 billion to
the FY 2019 value of $354 million.
21-P-0132
105
-------
EPA Regions Concluded Fewer Actions with Injunctive Relief
The regional and headquarters total injunctive relief values did not follow a predictable pattern
from FYs 2007 through 2018 (Figure B-6). For example, Region 4's annual value ranged from
$2.5 billion in FY 2007 to $0.72 billion in FY 2008 to $2.0 billion in FY 2009. Region 5
reported the largest total value, with 20 percent of the total $139 billion dollars, followed by
Region 4 with 15 percent. In general, the regional and headquarters injunctive relief values were
determined by which region concluded large enforcement actions, such as the enforcement
action against B.P. Production & Exploration Inc., concluded by Region 6 in FY 2016, which
accounted for 97 percent of Region 6's injunctive relief value for FY 2016, and 57 percent of the
region's total injunctive relief value from FYs 2007 through 2018.
Figure B-6: Injunctive relief in billions by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007 through
2018
$25
o
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 213 4 15 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 IS 9 10 I HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Overall, the number of concluded enforcement actions with injunctive relief declined across
most regions and headquarters most years from FYs 2007 through 2018 (Figure B-7). Notably,
some regions accounted for a significant portion of the reduction in the total number of
enforcement actions with injunctive relief concluded annually. For example, significant
reductions in FY 2013 concluded actions occurred primarily in Regions 1, 2 and 3, which
cumulatively accounted for 68 percent of the decrease from the previous fiscal year.
21-P-0132
106
-------
Figure B-7: Number of enforcement actions with injunctive relief by EPA region and
headquarters, FYs 2007 through 2018
3,500
to
C
o
t> 3,000
5
E | 2,500 ¦ ¦ _
jl||||
u 3 1,000
°
500
E
o '.I ¦ ¦ m m m
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 ¦ 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Injunctive Relief in FY 2019
The number of enforcement actions with injunctive relief continued to decline in
FY 2019, from 1,233 enforcement actions in FY 2018 to 1,028 in FY 2019, a 17-percent
decrease. Meanwhile, the total injunctive relief value increased by 9 percent ($3.99 to
$4.35 billion). Overall, seven out of the ten regions concluded fewer enforcement actions
with injunctive relief in FY 2019 than in FY 2018, and the reported value from injunctive
relief decreased in five out of ten regions in FY 2019. The largest decrease in value
occurred in Region 3, which reported $40 million of injunctive relief in FY 2019, down
from $1.9 billion in FY 2018. The largest increase in value occurred in Region 2, which
reported $1.97 billion in injuncti ve relief value in FY 2019, up from $0.17 billion in
FY 2018.
Supplemental Environmental Projects Decreased Across Most Regions
As with other monetary results, concluded enforcement actions with large values (in this case
SEPs valued at $1 million or more) affected the annual value, comprising 59 percent of the value
but only 5 percent of the number of actions concluded with SEPs. The annual value for SEPs
fluctuates year-to-year because conclusion of actions with these large SEPs occurs sporadically.
This variability over time is particularly pronounced when the value of SEPs is broken down by
region and headquarters (Figure B-8). Overall, Region 5 generated the highest dollar value of
SEPs, with 23 percent of the total $393 million reported for FYs 2007 through 2018. However,
Region 5's proportion of the annual total value fluctuated between 6 and 49 percent. Regions 8
and 10 had the lowest total SEPs value, accounting for just 2 percent of the overall value each.
21-P-0132
107
-------
Figure B-8: Total cost of SEPs in millions by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007 through
2018
$60
5"
% $50
laHjp.
in ¦¦ ¦¦¦¦=¦
£
$0 ¦
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 ¦ 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
A few regions contributed a large porti on of the annual total number of SEPs (Figure B-9). For
example, Region 5 had amongst the most SEPs each year and accounted for 23 percent of the
total 1,612 SEPs from FYs 2007 through 2018. On the other hand, four regions (Regions 3, 8, 9,
and 10) together led conclusions with only 17 percent of the total SEPs. Overall, from FYs 2007
through 2018, the annual number of SEPs declined in all regions, except Region 8, with some
year-to-year variation, and dropped nationally from 194 to 100 SEPs.
21-P-0132
108
-------
Figure B-9: Total number of SEPs by EPA region and headquarters, FYs 2007 through 2018
250
!!l||l||l||;
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 63 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 ¦ 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Supplemental Environmental Projects In FY 2019
Five regions and headquarters decreased the total number of SEPs by 26 in FY 2019
relative to FY 2018; the other four regions (except Region 3, which did not change)
increased the number of SEPs by eight, resulting in a net decrease of 18 SEPs, or
18 percent. Likewise, the total value decreased by a net total of $3.5 million, or
12 percent, with five regions and headquarters decreasing the value from SEPs by
$12.2 million and five regions increasing the value by $8.7 million.
A Few Regions Accounted for Most of the Commitments Toward
Environmental Benefits
In FY 2012, the EPA began tracking and reporting three types of environmental benefits from its
concluded enforcement actions in terms of commitments to:
• Reduce, treat, or eliminate pollutants (measured in pounds).
• Treat, minimize, or properly dispose of hazardous and nonhazardous contaminants
(measured in pounds).
• Clean up contaminated soil or water (measured in cubic yards).
A few regions accounted for most of the commitments toward these environmental benefits. For
example, Region 4 accounted for 75 percent of the pounds from commitments to treat, minimize,
or properly dispose contaminants and 29 percent of the cubic yards of contaminated soil or water
to be cleaned up.
200
Q_
LU
ln
*—
o
OJ
XI
E
u
150
100
£
50
21-P-0132
109
-------
Region 5 Accounted for Most Pollutant Commitment Pounds
Overall, the total pounds of pollution commitments decreased from a maximum of 1.2 billion
pounds in FY 2013 to a minimum of 215 million pounds in FY 2017 (Figure B-10). Region 5's
concluded enforcement actions to reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution accounted for 30 percent
of the total 3.9 billion pounds of pollution commitments. The Region 5 total of 1.2 billion
pounds was double the second-largest total from Region 4, which reported 563 million pounds.
Region 8 and headquarters reported the lowest total pollution commitments, 78.3 and
14.4 million pounds, respectively, together comprising just 2.4 percent of the total. However.
Region 1 had the lowest total pounds in five of the seven years. In FY 2013, Region 1 reported
149 million pounds; its seven-year total was only 6 million pounds more at 155 million pounds.
Figure B-10: Estimated pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated by EPA region and
headquarters, FYs 2012 through 2018
i/>
C
o
to
+-»
c
CD
•+-J
J3
"o
Q.
4—
o
l/>
"O
c
3
o
o_
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 ¦ 10 H HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Region 2 reported the most total conclusions with a pollution commitment from FYs 2012
through 2018, accounting for 20 percent of the 6,861 total conclusions (Figure B-l 1). The
Region 2 total of 1,347 conclusions was 21 percent higher than that of Region 5, which reported
1,111 conclusions, the second-most number of conclusions. Region 8's total of 218 conclusions
was the fewest over this time period.
21-P-0132
110
-------
Figure B-11: Enforcement actions with pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated by EPA
region and headquarters, FYs 2012 through 2018
1,400
£ 1,200
E
^ 200
0 —^^^^^
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 ¦ 8 9 10 ¦ HQ
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Pollutant Commitments in FY 2019
In FY 2019, the total number of enforcement actions with pollution commitments
increased by 3 percent, or 26 actions. In addition, the total pounds from pollution
commitments increased by 19 percent, or by 56.5 million pounds, in FY 2019 relative to
FY 2018. Overall, seven regions contributed to the rise in total enforcement actions with
pollution commitments cumulatively increasing by 96 commitments. At the same time,
three regions and headquarters cumulatively decreased by 70 commitments. Regions 1, 2,
7, 8, and 10 accounted for the rise in total pounds committed, together reporting in an
increase of 187.2 million pounds in FY 2019 from FY 2018. The remaining regions—
except Region 4, which did not change—and headquarters cumulatively decreased by
130.7 million pounds in FY 2019.
A Single Enforcement Action in Regions 4 and 6 Accounted for Most Waste
Commitment Pounds
Region 4's concluded actions comprised 75 percent of the total 68.5 billion pounds of waste
properly treated, minimized, or disposed while Region 6's concluded actions made up an
additional 22 percent of the total (Figure B-12). However, these commitments were not
distributed over the seven years. Rather, large conclusions credited to Region 4 and 6 affected
the year-to-year variability in the results. The enforcement action against Mosaic Phosphate,
which the EPA concluded in FY 2016 and was credited to Region 4 and Region 6. made up
99 percent of Region 4's and 70 percent of Region 6's seven-year total.
21-P-0132
111
-------
Figure B-12: Estimated hazardous and nonhazardous waste treated, minimized, or
properly disposed by EPA region, FYs 2012 through 2018
70
c 60
o
CO
c 50
to 40
-3 30
c
¦D
O
20
10
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fiscal Years
2016
2017
2018
18
10
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Note: The EPA headquarters reported no waste commitments.
The number of regional concluded actions showed a more consistent trend over time than the
total pounds of waste commitments (Figures B-12, above, and B-13, below). Overall, Region 4
concluded the most total concluded actions with a waste commitment from FYs 2012 through
2018 accounting for 122 of the total 317 conclusions. The Region 4 total number of waste
commitments was 235 percent higher than Region 2, which recorded 52 conclusions, the
second-greatest number of waste commitments. Region 1 concluded just one enforcement action
with a waste commitment and the EPA headquarters concluded no enforcement actions with a
waste commitment.
21-P-0132
112
-------
Figure B-13: Enforcement actions with hazardous and nonhazardous waste treated,
minimized, or properly disposed by EPA region, FYs 2012 through 2018
LO
c
-------
Figure B-14: Estimated contaminated soil and water to be cleaned up by EPA region,
FYs 2012 through 2018
1,000
900
800
to
I 700
5 600
c
500
(/>
-o
ro 400 ^—
u
¦q 300
U I
200
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 13 4 15 H 6 ¦ 7 18 9 10
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Note: The EPA headquarters reported no cleanup commitments.
The number of regional conclusions with contaminated soil or water to be cleaned up were more
consistent than the volumetric totals (Figure B-15). Region 4 reported 22 percent of the
1,126 conclusions with a cleanup commitment between FYs 2012 and 2018 and the largest total.
Region 9, despite reporting the largest volume of commitments, accounted for only 9 percent of
the number of commitments. Besides headquarters, which had no concluded enforcement actions
with cleanup commitments, Region 7 reported the lowest number of cleanup commitments,
which was 4 percent of the total.
21-P-0132
114
-------
Figure B-15: Enforcement actions with contaminated soil and water to be cleaned up by EPA
region, FYs 2012 through 2018
250
CO
4-J
| 200
E
E
S 150
Q.
C
OJ
O)
U 100
H—
o
u
-Q
E 50
Z5
Z
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
1 2 ¦ 3 4 ¦ 5 ¦ 6 ¦ 7 18 9 10
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Note: The EPA headquarters reported no cleanup commitments.
Cleanup Commitments in FY 2019
In FY 2019, the total volume of cleanup commitments decreased by 95 percent, or
232 million cubic yards, and the number of enforcement actions with cleanup
commitments decreased by 22 percent, or 22 actions, relative to FY 2018. The largest
decrease by volume occurred in Region 9, where the total volume decreased by
215 million cubic yards accounting for a nearly 100-percent decrease from the previous
year. In addition, the total number of concluded actions with cleanup commitments in
Region 9 decreased by 14 actions, or 82 percent.
Region-Specific Summaries of Enforcement Trends Over Time
We prepared specific summaries for each of the EPA's ten regional offices and for the EPA
headquarters.
21-P-0132
115
-------
Region 1 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
£
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Region iEnfarne
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPAOIG image)
• The number of Region 1 compliance monitoring
activities decreased by 930 activities (53 percent),
when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
• Region 1 conclusions decreased by 95 actions
(52 percent), when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Source: 016 analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 1 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments decreased from FYs 2012 (61)
through 2018 (41). Region 1 reported 96 percent of
its total pounds from pollutant commitments in
FY 2013, in enforcement actions against Toll Brothers
Inc., and Dominion Energy, Inc.
• Region 1 reported only one enforcement action with
a waste commitment (7 pounds) from FYs 2012
through 2018.
• The number of Region 1 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments ranged from two in FY 2018 to
23 in FY 2014. The total cubic yards ranged from
0.002 million to 32.6 million.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
2011 201;
.' '!' i
200 / 2008 2009
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 1 had its lowest total penalty amounts in
FYs 2015 ($2.08 million) and 2018 ($2.30 million).
• Region 1 levied the highest total penalties in FY 2013,
with a value of $9.61 million.
Injunctive relief
• In FY 2018, Region 1 reported its lowest total amount
of injunctive relief ($60 million), which was
53 percent lower than the next lowest amount
($129 million) in FY 2015.
• Enforcement actions with large injunctive relief
values occurred in FY 2017 against General Electric
($627 million) and in FY 2008 against Brayton Point
($582 million).
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 1 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2018 with $0.2 million
• Region 1 reported high total dollar amounts from
SEPs in FYs 2009, 2012, and 2015 ranging from
$2.74 million to $3.63 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 1 conducted fewer compliance monitoring
activities (-319) and concluded more enforcement
actions (+24) in FY 2019, relative to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 1 penalties increased
(+$1.95 million), injunctive relief and SEPs remained
substantially unchanged, relative to FY 2018.
• Region 1 reported more pounds from pollutant
commitments (+1 million), no waste commitments, and
cubic yards from cleanup commitments that were
substantially unchanged.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
116
-------
Region 2 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 2 compliance monitoring
activities decreased by 1,046 activities
(36 percent), when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
• Region 2 conclusions decreased by 189 actions (41
percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
ir
s 11
Pollutant C o m rn itin ent
A".' =
150 5
Waste Co mm it ment
2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Years
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 2 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments decreased every year from
259 in FY 2012 to 119 in FY 2018. The total pounds
ranged from 18.1 million in FY 2018 to 110 million in
FY 2017.
• The number of Region 2 enforcement actions with
waste commitments ranged from four to 11. The total
pounds ranged from 4,454 in FY 2018 to 0.6 million in
FY 2014.
• The number of Region 2 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments decreased from 35 actions in
FY 2012 to five actions in FY 2018. Region 2 reported
77 percent of its total cubic yards of cleanup
commitments in FYs 2016 and 2017.
A _
& PR W
usvi iT
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
i 2009 201U 2011 2012 2013 20:
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 2 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2018,
with $2.51 million.
• Region 2 levied its highest total penalties in FY 2011,
with a value of $14.6 million.
Injunctive relief
• Region 2 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $174 million in FY 2018.
• Region 2 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $3.57 billion in FY 2011.
• Region 2 actions with large injunctive relief values
occurred in 2011 against General Electric
($2.53 billion) and in FY 2010 against the New York
DEP ($1.83 billion).
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 2 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2018 with $0.31 million.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2011 with $6.41 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 2 conducted fewer compliance monitoring
activities (-198) and concluded fewer enforcement
actions (-33) in FY 2019, compared to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 2 penalties increased
(+$2.08 million), injunctive relief increased
(+$1.80 billion), and SEPs remained substantially
unchanged, relative to FY 2018,
• Region 2 reported more pounds from pollutant
commitments (+72 million), fewer pounds from waste
commitments (-4.2 million), and more cubic yards
from cleanup commitments (+2 million).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
117
-------
Region 3 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Sea ion 3 Enlurt
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPAOIG image)
• The number of Region 3 compliance monitoring
activities increased by 1,626 from FYs 2007 to 2008
and decreased by 1,288 activities from FYs 2008 to
2018.
• Region 3 conclusions decreased by 189 actions (41
percent) when comparing FY 2007 and FY 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 3 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments decreased sharply from 77 in
FY 2012 to seven in FY 2014 and remained steady
around 30 from FYs 2016 through 2018. Region 3
reported 80 percent of its total pounds from pollutant
commitments in FY 2013.
• The number of Region 3 enforcement actions with
waste commitments remained steady, ranging from
one to five commitments. Region 3 accounted for less
than 1 percent of the total pounds committed by all
the regions from FYs 2012 through 2018.
• The number of Region 3 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments decreased every year, except
from FYs 2014 to 201S. Region 3 cleanup
commitments ranged from 147,000 cubic yards in
k. FY 2014 to 87 million in FY 2017.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
S4.500
>4.000
5 >3500
53.000
> L M
52.000
S1.S00
• 1 i i.i
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 3 reported its lowest total penalty amounts in
FYs 2007 ($5.17 million) and 2018 ($5.78 million).
• Region 3 levied the highest total penalties in FYs 2008
($34.5 million) and 2015 ($29.5 million).
Injunctive relief
• Region 3 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $64 million in FY 2017.
• Region 3 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $4.01 billion in FY 2008.
• Region 3 concluded two actions with large injunctive
relief values in FY 2008: American Electric Power
($2.23 billion) and ALCOSAN ($1.62 billion).
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 3 reported SEP values below $0.2 million in
FYs 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2008 with $11.3 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 3 conducted fewer compliance monitoring
activities (-12) and concluded fewer enforcement
activities (-24) in FY 2019, compared to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 3 penalties increased
(+$4.45 million), injunctive relief decreased
(-$1.86 billion), and SEPs decreased (-$5.99 million),
relative to FY 2018.
• Region 3 reported fewer pounds from pollutant
commitments (-10 million), pounds of waste
commitments that were substantially unchanged, and
fewer cubic yards from cleanup commitments
(-26 million).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
118
ste Commitment
-------
Region 4 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
Ms.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Region 4 Compliance Monitoring Activities
R egion 4 tnto
Initiations
2CCT 2COS 330? 2010 Dll 3312 2)13 3514 D15 3316 331? 3313
Fiscal Years
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 4 compliance monitoring
activities increased by 1,374 from FYs 2007 through
2009 and decreased by 1,570 from FYs 2009 through
2018.
• Region 4 conclusions decreased by 371 actions
(65 percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Waste Commitment
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 4 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments varied, ranging from 79 to
368. The total pounds from pollutant commitments
ranged from 4.3 million in FY 2018 to 270 million in
FY 2012.
• The number of Region 4 enforcement actions with
waste commitments varied, ranging from 11 to 28.
Region 4 reported 99 percent of its total 51.5 million
pounds of waste commitments in FY 2016.
• The number of Region 4 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments ranged between 21 and 47.
Region 4 reported 93 percent of its total 859 million
cubic yards of cleanup commitments from an
enforcement action against Milan Army Ammunition
Plant in FY 2014.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
; sa.oa>
¦Uooo
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 4 reported its lowest total penalties in
FY 2018, with $3.98 million.
• Enforcement actions against BP Exploration
accounted for $538 million and $2.9 billion in
penalties in FYs 2013 and 2016, respectively.
Injunctive relief
• Region 4 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $64 million in FY 2018.
• Region 4 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $6.06 billion in FY 2011.
• A concluded action against the Tennessee Valley
Authority recorded $5.59 billion in injunctive relief in
FY 2011.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 4 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2017 with $640,000.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FYs 2009 with $16.4 million and 2012 with
$11.9 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 4 conducted fewer compliance monitoring
activities (-69) and concluded fewer enforcement
actions (-31) in FY 2019, compared to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 4 penalties increased
(+$1.65 million), injunctive relief remained
substantially unchanged, and SEPs decreased
(-$1.25 million) relative to FY 2018.
• Region 4 reported pounds of pollutant commitments
that were substantially unchanged, fewer pounds from
waste commitments (-245 million), and more cubic
yards from cleanup commitments (+6 million).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
119
-------
Region 5 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 5 compliance monitoring
activities increased from 1,518 in FY 2007 to 4,706 in
FY 2012, then decreased to 1,210 in FY 2018.
• Region 5 conclusions decreased by 107 actions
(33 percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Po Mutant ujmrr tr
W3ste Lorornitrr en
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 5 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments decreased most years from
FYs 2012 (201) through 2018 (134). The total pounds
from pollutant commitments ranged from
35.4 million in FY 2016 to 408 million in FY 2013.
• The number of Region 5 enforcement actions with
waste commitments ranged from zero to four.
Region 5 accounted for less than 1 percent of the
total pounds reported by all the regions from
FYs 2012 through 2018.
• The number of Region 5 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments ranged from eight to 37.
Region 5 cleanup commitments ranged from 890,000
cubic yards in FY 2007 to 5.6 million cubic yards in
FY 2017.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
R Tota
2011 2012 2013 2014 2J15 2016 2017 2018
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 5 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2016,
with $8.95 million.
• Region 5 levied its highest total penalties in FY 2017,
with a value of $74.5 million that largely stemmed from
an action against Enbridge Energy.
Injunctive relief
• Region 5 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $235 million in FY 2009.
• Region 5 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $5.47 billion in FY 2011.
• Region 5 concluded actions with large injunctive relief
values against NEORDS Cleveland ($3.35 billion) in
FY 2011 and Muskingum River Station ($2.88 billion)
in FY 2008.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 5 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2009 with $3.05 million.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FYs 2013 with $11.8 and 2016 with $12.4 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 5 conducted more compliance monitoring
activities (+86) and concluded fewer enforcement
actions (-17) in FY 2019, compared to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 5 penalties decreased
(-$1.15 million), injunctive relief remained
substantially unchanged, and SEPs decreased
(-$3.32 million), relative to FY 2018.
• Region 5 reported fewer pounds from pollutant
commitments (-41 million), pounds of waste
commitments that were substantially unchanged, and
more cubic yards from cleanup commitments
(+2 million).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
120
-------
Region 6 Enforcement Results E
(FYs 2007-2018) T"*
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2C07 2038 3C*» 2010 2011 3312 2013 2014 3515 2016 201" 3313
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
¦ The number of Region 6 compliance monitoring
activities increased by 789 from FYs 2007 through
2010, then decreased 1,636 from FYs 2010 through
2018.
• Region 6 conclusions decreased by 330 actions
(48 percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Pollutant Commitment
Waste commitment
160 £
140 E
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 6 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments ranged between 118 and 188.
The total pounds ranged from 5.6 million in FY 2017 to
117 million in FY 2013.
• The number of Region 6 enforcement actions with
waste commitments ranged from zero to three. In
FY 2016, Region 6 reported 10.5 billion pounds out of
its seven-year total of 15 billion pounds from an
enforcement action against Mosaic Phosphates, Inc.
• The number of Region 6 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments decreased from 18 in FY 2012
to three in FY 2018. In FY 2012, Region 6 reported
97 percent of its seven-year total cubic yards from an
enforcement action against Johnny M Mine.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
53.50C
IR rota
SlPs Total
51, OX'
200? 2008 2039 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 6 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2007,
with $8.28 million,
• An enforcement action against BP Exploration
accounted for $538 million and $2.9 billion in
penalties in FYs 2013 and 2016, respectively.
Injunctive relief
• Region 6 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $95.5 million in FY 2012.
• Region 6 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $6.3 billion in FY 2016.
• Region 6 concluded an action with a large injunctive
relief value against BP Exploration ($6.09 billion) in
FY 2016.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 6 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2013 with $190,000.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2009 with $13.7 million, followed by
$11.6 million in FY 2012.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 6 conducted more compliance monitoring
activities (+134) and concluded fewer enforcement
actions (-43) in FY 2019, relative to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 6 penalties decreased
(-$0.67 million), injunctive relief decreased
(-$0.55 billion) and SEPs increased (+$0.85 million),
relative to FY 2018.
• Region 6 reported fewer pounds from pollutant
commitments (-73 million), fewer pounds from waste
commitments (-287 million), and cubic yards of cleanup
commitments that were substantially unchanged. J
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
121
-------
Region 7 Enforcement Results l
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Source: 016 analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 7 compliance monitoring
activities decreased by 541 (49 percent) when
comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
• Region 7 conclusions decreased by 130 actions
(48 percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 7 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments ranged between 73 and 111.
The total pounds ranged from 2.2 million in FY 2018
and 116 million in FY 2012.
• The number of Region 7 enforcement actions with
waste commitments ranged between one and 14.
Region 7 accounted for less than 1 percent of the
total 68.5 billion pounds of waste commitments
reported by the regions.
• The number of Region 7 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments ranged between two and 13.
In FY 2012, Region 7 reported 88 percent of its total
cubic yards, from an enforcement action against
Eaton Corporation.
KS MO
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
54.IWU
\ SEPsTotal
2012 2013
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 7 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2011
with $3.66 million.
• Region 7 levied its highest penalty total in FY 2013
with $14.8 million.
Injunctive relief
• Region 7 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $34 million in FY 2014.
• Region 7 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $5.3 billion in FY 2012.
• Region 7 concluded actions with large injunctive relief
values against Metropolitan Sewer District St. Louis
($5.13 billion) in FY 2012 and against the City of
Kansas ($2.73 billion) in FY 2010.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 7 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2014 with $710,000.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2012 with $5.88 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 7 conducted more compliance monitoring
activities (+95) and concluded fewer enforcement
actions (-13) in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 7 penalties decreased
(-$1.32 million), injunctive relief increased
(+$0.82 billion), and SEPs decreased (-$1.26 million)
relative to FY 2018.
• Region 7 reported more pounds from pollutant
commitments (+73 million), pounds of waste
commitments that were substantially unchanged,
and fewer cubic yards of cleanup commitments
(-1 million).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
122
lommltment
Waste
Commitrr
-------
Region 8 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 8 compliance monitoring
activities decreased by 721 (42 percent) when
comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
• Region 8 conclusions decreased by 69 actions
(43 percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Waste ComiTHtm
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 8 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments decreased most years from
FYs 2012 (64) through 2018 (15). The total pounds
ranged from 2.8 million in FY 2014 to 29.5 million in
FY 2017.
• From FYs 2012 through 2018, Region 8 completed
only four enforcement actions with waste
commitments and accounted for less than 1 percent
of pounds committed nationally.
• The number of Region 8 enforcement actions with
cleanup commitments ranged between three and 17.
Region 8 reported 55 and 33 percent of its total cubic
yards in FYs 2013 and 2017, respectively.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
IR Total
2011 2012 21) 13 2014 2015 201b 2017
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 8 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2007,
with $910,000.
• Region 8 levied its highest penalty total in FY 2012
with $7.71 million.
• Region 8 accounted for the smallest percentage
(0.5 percent) of penalties across all the regions from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
Injunctive relief
• Region 8 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $18 million in FY 2017.
• Region 8 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $562 million in FY 2008.
• Region 8 accounted for the smallest percentage
(1.1 percent) of injunctive relief across ail the regions
from FYs 2007 through 2018.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 8 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2007 with $30,000, followed by $51,000 in
FY 2017.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2015 with $2.16 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 8 conducted fewer compliance monitoring
activities (-140) and concluded more enforcement
actions (+12) in FY 2019, relative to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 8 penalties, injunctive relief and
SEPs remained substantially unchanged, relative to
FY 2018.
• Region 8 reported more pounds from pollutant
commitments (+29 million) and pounds of waste
commitments and cubic yards of cleanup
commitments that were substantially unchanged.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
123
-------
Region 9 Enforcement Results ST
(FYs 2007-2018)
American Samoa
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Guam
Marshall Islands
Republic of Palau
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Region 9 Compliance Monitoring A
Region 9 Etvforcem•
Art ion Initiations
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPAOIG image)
• The number of Region 9 compliance monitoring
activities decreased by 313 (30 percent) when
comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
• Region 9 conclusions decreased by 141 actions
(52 percent) when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
waste- Coititii
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 9 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments increased most years from 21
in FY 2012 to 58 in FY 2018. The total pounds ranged
from 0.1 million in FY 2013 to 74 million in FY 2014.
• The number of Region 9 enforcement actions with
waste commitments ranged between one and 12.
Region 9 accounted for less than 1 percent of the
total 68.5 billion pounds of waste commitments
reported nationally.
• Region 9 enforcement actions with cleanup
commitments ranged between six and 19. The total
cubic yards reported by Region 9 ranged from
3.7 million in FY 2016 to 652 million in FY 2013.
Region 9 accounted for 40 percent of the total cubic
yards committed nationally.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
55.000
54.500
5EPs Totn
54.dk;
R Total
S3.500
52.001
! 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 9 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2017
with $3.81 million.
• Region 9 levied its highest penalty total in FY 2014
with $18.7 million.
Injunctive relief
• Region 9 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $149 million in FY 2018.
• Region 9 reported its highest total of injunctive relief
of $4.4 billion in FY 2011.
• Region 9 concluded an action with a large injunctive
relief value against the city and county of Ftonolulu
($4.1 billion) in FY 2011.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 9 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2012 with $40 thousand.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2015 with $18.1 million, followed by
$13.2 million in FY 2007.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• Region 9 conducted more compliance monitoring
activities (+110) and concluded more enforcement
actions (+9) in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018.
• The value of Region 9 penalties decreased
(-$3.77 million), injunctive relief remained
substantially unchanged, and SEPs increased
(+$5.59 million) relative to FY 2018.
• Region 9 reported fewer pounds from pollutant
commitments (-3.8 million), pounds of cleanup
commitments that were substantially unchanged,
and fewer cubic yards of cleanup commitments
(-215 million).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
124
-------
Region 10 Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Region 10 Compliance Monitoring Activities
Region 10 Enfor
2)10 3511 2012 2D13 2014 2015
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 10 compliance monitoring
activities increased by 221 from FYs 2007 to 2008 and
decreased by 545 from FYs 2008 through 2018.
• Region 10 conclusions decreased by 60 (29 percent)
when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results,
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of Region 10 enforcement actions with
pollutant commitments decreased from FYs 2012 (94)
through 2018 (66). The total pounds also decreased
from 140 million in FY 2012 to 3.1 million in FY 2018.
• The number of Region 10 enforcement actions with
waste commitment ranged from zero to five.
Region 10 accounted for less than 1 percent of the
total 68.5 billion pounds of waste commitments
reported nationally.
• Region 10 enforcement actions with cleanup
commitments ranged between 4 and 20. Region 10
total cubic yards from cleanup commitments
decreased from 129 million in FY 2012 to 20,000 in FY
2018.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
07 250J? 2009 2015 2011 2312 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201H
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• Region 10 reported its lowest penalty total in FY 2017
with $2.05 million.
• Region 10 levied its highest penalty totai in FY 2011
with $28.5 million.
• A consent decree with BP Exploration (Alaska) in
FY 2011 resulted in $22.9 million in penalties.
Injunctive relief
• Region 10 reported its lowest total of injunctive relief
of $30 million in FY 2017.
• Region 10 reported its highest total of injunctive
relief of $1.6 billion in FY 2013.
• Region 10 concluded actions with large injunctive
relief values against King County Washington
($764 million) and against the city of Seattle
($646 million) in FY 2013.
Supplemental environmental projects
• Region 10 reported its lowest total value of SEPs in
FY 2012 with $100,000.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2008 with $2 million, followed by $1.7 million in
FY 2018.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
* Region 10 conducted fewer compliance monitoring
activities (-82) and concluded fewer enforcement
actions (-17) in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018.
* The value of Region 10 penalties decreased
(-$1.11 million), injunctive relief remained substantially
unchanged, and SEPs increased (+$2.09 million) relative
to FY 2018.
* Region 10 reported more pounds from pollutant
commitments (+8.4 million) and pounds of waste
commitments and cubic yards of cleanup commitments
that were substantially unchanged.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
125
Waste Commitment
-------
EPA Headquarters Enforcement Results
(FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
HO. Compliance Monitoring Activitie
EPA HO Enforce
2037 3X6 20CB 20 JO 3311 2J12 33B 3314 3315 3316 3317 2013
Fiscal dears
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of EPA headquarters compliance
monitoring activities decreased by 471 (81 percent)
when comparing FYs 2007 and 2018.
• EPA headquarters conclusions decreased by
259 actions comparing FYs 2007 and 2009 and overall
decreased by 278 (94 percent) when comparing
FYs 2007 and 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Pollutant Commitment
Waste Commitment
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• The number of EPA headquarters enforcement
actions with pollutant commitments decreased most
years from FYs 2012 (40) through 2018 (six). The total
pounds varied from 0.6 million in FY 2016 to
3.4 million in FY 2018.
• EPA headquarters reported no enforcement actions
with waste commitments from FYs 2012 through
2018.
• EPA headquarters reported no enforcement actions
with cleanup commitments from FYs 2012 through
2018.
CONCLUDED ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
WITH MONETARY VALUES
IRiotal
Total
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• EPA headquarters reported its lowest penalty total in
FY 2009 with $3.25 million.
• EPA headquarters levied its highest penalty total in
FY 2017 with $1.55 billion.
• An enforcement action against Volkswagen in
FY 2017 resulted in $1.48 billion in penalties.
Injunctive relief
• EPA headquarters reported its lowest total of
injunctive relief of $2 million in FY 2009.
• EPA headquarters reported its highest total of
injunctive relief of $16.4 billion in FY 2017.
• EPA headquarters concluded an action with a large
injunctive relief value against Volkswagen
($16.3 billion) in FY 2017.
Supplemental environmental projects
• EPA headquarters reported no dollars from SEPs in
six of the 12 fiscal years.
• The highest total dollar amounts from SEPs occurred
in FY 2017 with $2.8 million.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• EPA headquarters conducted fewer compliance
monitoring activities (-11) and concluded fewer
enforcement actions (-3) in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018.
• The value of EPA headquarters penalties increased
(+$282 million) and injunctive relief remained
substantially unchanged relative to FY 2018.
• EPA headquarters reported no value from SEPs in
FY 2019.
• EPA headquarters reported fewer pounds from
pollutant commitments (-2.7 million) and no waste or
cleanup commitments in FY 2019.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
126
-------
Appendix C
Enforcement Trends by Environmental Statute
This appendix presents the trends in the EPA's annual enforcement results for FYs 2007 through
2018 by environmental statute to a greater degree than in Chapter 2. As with the national
analyses, we removed FY 2006 results from our analyses of environmental statutes after
determining that the anomalously high number of concluded enforcement actions in FY 2006
masked the overall trends. We also provide a postscript in each section by comparing the
FY 2019 results to those of FY 2018. The eight environmental statutes analyzed included the
CAA, CERCLA, CWA (including the Oil Pollution Act), EPCRA, FIFRA, RCRA, SDWA, and
TSCA. Enforcement actions concluded under these eight environmental statutes represent
99.9 percent of the total enforcement cases that the EPA concluded during the 12-year time
frame. Our analysis of three types of environmental benefits only extends back to FY 2012, the
year that the EPA started reporting these benefits in a consistent manner. This appendix also
includes one-page summaries of the enforcement trends for each of the eight statutes included in
our analyses.
Throughout this appendix, we provide weblinks to EPA enforcement case summaries for the
convenience of the reader who wishes to learn more about these cases. The enforcement results
reported in some of these case summaries vary from those that we calculated from the data we
retrieved from OECA's internal Federal Enforcement and Compliance Dashboard because we
adjusted all monetary enforcement results to 2018 USD.
EPA's Compliance Monitoring, Enforcement Actions, and
Enforcement Results for Most Environmental Statutes Generally
Declined
Enforcement trends within statutes generally followed the declining national trends for:
• Compliance monitoring activities.
• Enforcement actions initiated and concluded.
• Enforcement results.
• Environmental benefits.
The CAA and CWA represented the majority of compliance monitoring activities and
enforcement actions initiated and concluded over time and, as a result, greatly influenced the
trends in enforcement results, such as injunctive relief, penalties, and supplemental
environmental projects. For environmental benefits, the CAA and CWA enforcement actions
greatly influenced commitments to reduce, treat, or eliminate pollutants, while RCRA and
CERCLA-concluded enforcement actions influenced commitments to treat, minimize, or
properly dispose of hazardous and nonhazardous waste and commitments to clean up
contaminated soil and water, respectively. Large enforcement actions influenced trends in
enforcement results and environmental benefits within statutes and over time.
21-P-0132
127
-------
EPA's Compliance Monitoring Activities Within Statutes Decreased
The EPA reported the number of compliance monitoring activities conducted under seven
statutes: CAA, CWA, EPCRA, FIFRA, RCRA, SDWA, and TSCA. SDWA compliance
monitoring activities accounted for 30 percent of the total activities conducted under the seven
statutes (60,470 of 203,389) from FYs 2007 through 2018. Other significant statutes for
compliance monitoring activities included the CAA with 20 percent (41,104), the CWA with
19 percent (37,642), and RCRA with 18 percent (35,790). Compliance monitoring activities
conducted under the other three statutes—EPCRA, FIFRA and TSCA—accounted for 14 percent
of the Agency total from FYs 2007 through 2018. As illustrated in Figure C-l, SDWA results
also exhibit the most annual variability in the number of compliance monitoring activities
reported.
Figure C-1: Total compliance monitoring activities by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
25,000
20,000
c
o
aj 15,000
-------
statutes, EPCRA, FIFRA and TSCA, varied but declined in most years from FYs 2007 through
2018.
Compliance Monitoring Activities in FY 2019
In FY 2019, the number of compliance monitoring activities continued to decrease for
five of the seven statutes, but the net rate of decline slowed. The largest decreases
between FYs 2018 and 2019 occurred under the CAA and SDWA authorities. CAA
compliance monitoring activities decreased by 329, or 14 percent, compared to a
5-percent average decline from FYs 2010 through 2018. SDWA compliance monitoring
activities decreased by 117, or 5 percent, compared to an 11-percent average decline from
FYs 2010 through 2018. The CWA was the only statute that experienced a substantial
increase in the number of compliance monitoring activities between FYs 2018 and 2019.
CWA compliance monitoring activities increased by 194, a 9-percent increase, compared
to a 5 percent average decline from FYs 2010 through 2018. The number of compliance
monitoring activities conducted under RCRA remained steady from FYs 2018 through
2019.
EPA Initiated Fewer Enforcement Actions Within Statutes
From FYs 2007 through 2018, the EPA initiated nearly half (48 percent) of the total enforcement
actions under two statutes: the CAA and the CWA (Figure C-2). Similarly, one or two statutes
accounted for much of the large decreases in total initiations, which occurred in FYs 2013 and
2017. In FY 2013, 40 percent of the total reduction of initiations were in RCRA or SDWA. In
FY 2017, 43 percent of the net decrease in total initiations occurred in the SDWA alone
Figure C-2: Civil enforcement cases initiated by the EPA by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
4,000
3,500
3,000
tS 2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
llllllllllll
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
129
-------
The number of enforcement actions initiated under all statutes decreased when comparing
FYs 2007 and 2018. The number of enforcement actions initiated under the CAA declined every
year from FYs 2007 (with 887 initiations) through 2018 (with 329 initiations), except FYs 2011,
2014, and 2015. Aside from a slight increase in FY 2010, the number of CWA initiations
decreased each year from FYs 2007 through 2018, from 1,031 to 492.
Initiated Enforcement Actions in FY 2019
Overall, the number of initiated enforcement actions decreased by 8 percent in FY 2019
in comparison to FY 2018. The largest decreases in initiations occurred under the CWA
and SDWA, which decreased by 48 and 36, respectively. Together, the CWA and SDWA
accounted for more than half (55 percent) of the decline from FY 2018. The number of
enforcement actions initiated under the CAA increased by 14, a slight increase of
4 percent from FY 2018.
EPA Concluded Fewer Enforcement Actions Within Statutes
The EPA concluded 51 percent fewer enforcement actions in FY 2018 than in FY 2007. In
addition, the CAA and the CWA accounted for the largest portion of concluded enforcement
actions with 19 percent and 28 percent of the total respectively from FYs 2007 through 2018
(Figure C-3). Overall, the number of enforcement actions concluded under the CAA declined
every year from FYs 2007 (with 838 conclusions) through 2018 (with 337 conclusions), except
in FYs 2010, 2011, and 2015. The number of enforcement actions concluded under the CWA
decreased every year from FYs 2007 through 2018, except in FYs 2009 and 2010, declining
from 994 conclusions to 483.
Figure C-3: Civil enforcement cases concluded by the EPA by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
o 2,000
u
o 1,500
1,000
500
:"illllll
llilll
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA ¦EPCRA 1FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
130
-------
Concluded Enforcement Actions In FY 2019
Overall, the number of concluded enforcement actions decreased by 7 percent (a decrease
of 136 conclusions) in FY 2019 from FY 2018. The number of concluded enforcement
actions decreased across all statutes in FY 2019, except under the CAA, which increased
by 22 conclusions (7 percent). The largest decreases occurred under SDWA and the
CWA, which dropped by 37 and 34 conclusions in FY 2019, respectively.
The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act Accounted for Most of the Total Value
from Injunctive Relief
Two statutes (the CAA and CWA) accounted for nearly 80 percent of the total dollar value of
injunctive relief from FYs 2007 through 2018. Injunctive relief from enforcement actions
concluded under the CAA and the CWA together accounted for $110 billion of the $139 billion
total injunctive relief. CERCLA was the only other statute with significant contributions to total
injunctive relief dollars over this time, accounting for 14 percent overall ($20 billion). Large
cases, such as the FY 2016 case against BP Exploration and Production, which resulted in an
enforcement action with $6 billion of injunctive relief under the CWA, determined the
proportion of each statute's contribution to total injunctive relief each year (Figure C-4).
Figure C-4: Injunctive relief in billions by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
$25
o
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA ¦ EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA BTSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
The CAA and CWA accounted for 46 percent of all concluded enforcement actions that included
injunctive relief from FYs 2007 through 2018, or 12,181 of 26,696 actions (Figure C-5). The
CWA accounted for the most enforcement actions with injunctive relief in each year from
FYs 2007 through 2018, ranging from 215 to 563.
21-P-0132
131
-------
Figure C-5: Number of enforcement actions with injunctive relief by statute,
FYs 2007 through 2018
3,500
§ 3,000
¦P
<4. QJ
£ % 2,500
(V en
E £
y « 2,000
•i .1
uj c
M_ - 1,500
o -1=
i_ ±L
a> g
p 1,000
500
!!! lis!1
¦i1
he
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CM ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
The number of concluded enforcement actions with injunctive relief declined from FYs 2007
through 2018 across all statutes, with a substantial decrease in FY 2013 (Figure C-5). Four
statutes (RCRA, EPCRA, SDWA, and the CWA) accounted for a combined 446 of the
541 decrease in the number of enforcement actions with injunctive relief from FYs 2012 through
2013, or 82 percent of the net reduction. Of the statutes that contributed to this decrease, RCRA
had the largest decrease—174 cases.
Injunctive Relief in FY 2019
The total injunctive relief value increased in FY 2019 by a net 9 percent relative to
FY 2018 (from $3.99 billion to $4.35 billion), while the number of enforcement actions
with injunctive relief decreased from 1,233 enforcement actions in FY 2018 to 1,028 in
FY 2019. The largest increase in total value occurred under the SDWA with an increase
of $1.84 billion (a 4,600-percent increase from the previous year), which was the result of
a large enforcement action against the City of New York. The number of SDWA actions
decreased by 37 from 211 actions in FY 2018. The total value of CAA injunctive relief
increased by $460 million in FY 2019 to a total of $1.62 billion. This increase was, in
large part, due to an enforcement action against AMEREN. which resulted in
$981 million in injunctive relief. The number of CAA enforcement actions with
injunctive relief decreased in FY 2019 by 21 percent compared to FY 2018 (from 214 to
168). The total value of CWA injunctive relief decreased by $1.84 billion, an 82-percent
decrease from FY 2018. The number of CWA enforcement actions with injunctive relief
decreased in FY 2019 by 12 percent (from 357 to 315).
21-P-0132
132
-------
Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions Accounted for Nearly
Three-Quarters of Assessed Penalties
From FYs 2007 through 2018, nearly all penalty dollars fell under either the CWA, which had
74 percent of the total, or $7.57 billion of $10.26 billion, or the CAA, which had 22 percent of
the total, or $2.27 billion of $10.26 billion (Figure C-6). While the CWA accounted for the
greatest penalty amount overall, CAA penalties were highest in total dollar value in ten of the 12
years. The BP Exploration and Production oil spill enforcement actions greatly increased the
total CWA penalty dollars in FYs 2013 and 2016 (see Final Orders 2 and 3 for Region 4 and
Region 6) compared to the other years. The EPA recorded $7 billion in penalties through eight
enforcement actions that represented nearly 70 percent of total penalty dollars for the entire 12-
year period of our analysis. Two of the eight actions, valued at $538 million each, were recorded
for FY 2013, which accounts for the high penalty total for that year. Similarly, CAA penalties
were large in FY 2017 as a result of an enforcement action against Volkswagen through which
the EPA recorded $1.48 billion in penalties, which represented nearly 90 percent of total
FY 2017 penalties.
Figure C-6: Penalties assessed in millions by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
$7,000
„ $6,000
Q
LTi
3
oo $5,000
o
(N
c
o
c
I/)
-------
Figure C-7: Number of penalties assessed by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
2,500
4-i
2,000 ¦ ¦
iliiiiiiiiii:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Penalties in FY 2019
The total monetary value of EPA-assessed penalties increased by a net $284 million in
FY 2019, a 408-percent increase from FY 2018. Most of this increase derived from a
$283 million increase in CAA enforcement actions. In addition, the FY 2018 value was
the lowest amount recorded in FYs 2007 through 2018. The monetary value of CWA
enforcement actions also increased by $5.42 million, in FY 2019. The penalty values
from other statutes decreased by a net total of $4.59 million, with increases in total value
under CERCLA, EPCRA, and TSCA and decreases under FIFRA, RCRA, and SDWA.
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act Enforcement Actions Accounted
for Nearly Three-Quarters of the Total Value of Supplemental Environmental
Projects
Nearly three-quarters of all SEP dollars were in either the CAA or the CWA from FYs 2007
through 2018 (Figure C-8). Overall, 46 percent, or $181 milli on of $393 million total, of the SEP
dollars were under the CAA with an additional 27 percent, or $106 million, from the CWA
SEPs. The total dollar value of each year's SEPs was affected by the conclusions of large
enforcement actions. For example, a CAA enforcement action against Kapaa Landfill and the
City and County of Honolulu. Hawaii, included a SEP valued at $16.9 million, which accounted
for 41 percent of the total SEP dollars in FY 2015. Two CWA enforcement actions against BP
Exploration and Production concluded in Region 4 and Region 6 included a combined SEP total
of $21.8 million, which accounted for 47 percent of the total value in FY 2012. The TSCA
enforcement action against Memphis Gas and Water Division included a SEP of $11.8 million
21-P-0132
134
-------
dollars, which accounted for 22 percent of the total FY 2009 SEP value. This same enforcement
action accounted for 47 percent of the total value of TSCA SEPs from FYs 2007 through 2018.
Figure C-8: Total value of SEPs by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
$60
Q
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
The CAA, CWA, and EPCRA had the most total SEPs from FYs 2007 through 2018, with
27 percent, 19 percent, and 18 percent of the total 1,612 SEPs reported for this period,
respectively (Figure C-9). Overall, the number of CAA SEPs varied year to year but decreased in
FYs 2016, 2017, and 2018. In fact, CAA SEPs declined from 53 SEPs in FY 2015 to 37 in
FY 2018. The number of CWA SEPs decreased or did not change in six out of 12 years from
FYs 2007 through FY 2018. Overall, the number of CWA SEPs decreased from 38 in FY 2007
to just 14 in FY 2018. The number of EPCRA SEPs varied from FYs 2007 through 2018,
declining in six years and increasing in five years.
21-P-0132
135
-------
Figure C-9: Total number of SEPs by statute, FYs 2007 through 2018
250
~
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Supplemental Environmental Projects In FY 2019
The total dollar value of SEPs decreased by a net $3.5 million from FY 2018 to FY 2019,
to $25.6 million, and the number of SEPs decreased by 18 SEPs from 99 in FY 2018 to
81 in FY 2019. Most of this decrease in total value can be attributed to the values of
FIFRA, RCRA, CWA, and EPCRA SEPs, which together decreased by $5.5 million. The
largest decreases occurred in RCRA and FIFRA SEPs, which decreased in value by
$2 million and $1.9 million, respectively. The total value of CAA SEPs increased by
$1.9 million, an 11-percent increase from FY 2018.
A Few Statutes Accounted for the Most Commitments Toward
Environmental Benefits
In FY 2012, the EPA changed the way it tracks the three types of environmental benefits from its
concluded enforcement actions in terms of commitments to:
• Reduce, treat, or eliminate pollutants (measured in pounds).
• Treat, minimize, or properly dispose of hazardous and nonhazardous contaminants
(measured in pounds).
• Remove contaminates from soil or water (measured in cubic yards).
A few statutes accounted for most of the commitments toward these environmental benefits, such
as commitments to reduce pollutants under the CWA and CAA or commitments to treat waste
200
Q_
LU
l/")
O
E
z:
150
100
£
50
21-P-0132
136
-------
under the RCRA. The number of commitments toward environmental benefits as part of
concluded enforcement actions declined or remained steady over time under most statutes.
Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions Accounted for Most
Pollutant Commitments and the Number of Actions Declined Over Time
By weight, 93 percent of the total 3.9 billion pounds of commitments to reduce, treat, or
eliminate pollution from FYs 2012 through 2018 were in either CAA or CWA enforcement
actions (Figure C-10). RCRA actions contributed an additional 182 million pounds, or
approximately 5 percent, of the total pounds of commitments toward pollutant reductions, but
53 percent of the RCRA total came in a single enforcement action against Doe Run Resources in
FY 2012. The amount of CWA pounds of pollutant commitments decreased from 495 million
pounds in FY 2012 to 49.9 million pounds in FY 2018, a 90-percent decrease. The total amount
of CAA pounds of pollutant commitments varied year to year, ranging from 66 million to
605 million pounds.
Figure C-10: Estimated pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated by statute,
FYs 2012 through 2018
i/)
C
o
c
LO
c
03
+-»
"o
o_
4—
o
I/)
"O
c
3
o
Q_
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
With the exception of FY 2015, the number of CWA enforcement actions with a pollution
commitment decreased each year, from 723 in FY 2012 to 415 in FY 2018 (Figure C-l 1). The
number of enforcement actions under the CAA, EPCRA, and RCRA also decreased when
comparing FY 2018 and FY 2012; TSCA enforcement actions stayed steady when comparing
those two years. The number of FIFRA enforcement actions with a pollution commitment
increased by 347 percent in FY 2016. The numbers declined in FYs 2017 and 2018 but were 195
and 72 percent greater than the number in FY 2012, respectively.
1,400
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA BCWA IJ EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA 1TSCA
21-P-0132
137
-------
Figure C-11: Enforcement actions with pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated by statute,
FYs 2012 through 2018
I/)
•*-»
C
QJ
E
E
E
o
u
4-J
c
ro
O
a.
0)
X!
E
3
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG Image)
While FIFRA only accounted for I percent of the total pounds of pollution commitments
(Figure C-10), the statute made up 17 percent of the total number of enforcement actions with
pollution commitments. The number of FIFRA pollutant commitments comprised the third
largest total, following CWA and CAA, which together accounted for 78 percent of the total
enforcement actions with pollution commitments (Figure C-11). The average FIFRA case size
was 44,506 pounds, compared to the CWA and CAA averages of 464,104 pounds and
1.3 million pounds, respectively.
Pollutant Commitments in FY 2019
The total pounds from pollution commitments increased by 19 percent, or 56 million
pounds, in FY 2019 compared to FY 2018. CWA enforcement actions, which included
62 million pounds, were responsible for this increase, and mostly arose from a large
enforcement action against MR Developers LLC-Montecielo. FIFRA enforcement
actions included an additional 1.6 million pounds. The amounts reported under the other
statutes decreased or remained steady, with CAA enforcement actions accounting for the
largest decrease of 6 million pounds. The total number of enforcement actions with a
pollutant commitment increased under the CAA, CERCLA, CWA, EPCRA, and FIFRA
and decreased or remained steady under the other statutes.
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fiscal Years
2017
2018
I CM ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ FIFRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
21-P-0132
138
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Enforcement Actions Accounted for
Most Waste Commitments and the Number of Actions Remained Steady Over
Time
RCRA enforcement actions accounted for 99 percent of the total 68 .5 billion pounds of the
commitments for waste to be treated, minimized, or properly disposed of from FYs 2012 through
2018 (Figure C-12). Large cases, such as the enforcement actions in Region 4 and Region 6
against Mosaic Fertilizer in FY 2016, affected the total pounds of waste commitments from
RCRA enforcement reported each year. The Mosaic Fertilizer enforcement action resulted in
61.7 billion pounds of waste commitments and accounted for 90 percent of total pound s of waste
commitments from FYs 2012 through 2018.
Figure C-12: Estimated pounds of hazardous and nonhazardous waste treated, minimized, or
properly disposed of by statute, FYs 2012 through 2018
C
o
CO
c
0J
4—'
U)
rt3
5
4—
o
to
"O
c
3
o
CL
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ RCRA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
The number of enforcement actions with waste commitments remained fairly constant from
FYs 2012 through 2018 (Figure C-13). RCRA actions made up 85 percent of the total
317 enforcement actions. There were proportionally more CAA, CERCLA, and CWA actions—
4 to 5 percent of the total actions each—than the total pounds by statute suggests (Figure C-12).
Fiscal Years
21-P-0132
139
-------
Figure C-13: Enforcement actions with hazardous and nonhazardous waste treated,
minimized, or properly disposed by statute, FYs 2012 through 2018
to
4—»
c
E
E
E
o
cj
a>
¦*->
l/>
ro
5
«4—
O
i—
cu
_D
E
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ RCRA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Waste Commitments in FY 2019
The total pounds recorded from waste commitments dropped in FY 2019 by 99 percent to
5 million pounds, compared to the 542 million pounds reported in FY 2018. Most of that
decrease in commitments was attributed to RCRA. In addition, the number of annual
RCRA waste commitments decreased by 12, a 33-percent decrease from the previous
year.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Enforcement Actions Accounted for Most Cleanup Commitments and Decreased
Most Years
CERCLA enforcement actions accounted for 97 percent of the total 2.97 billion cubic yards of
commitments to clean up contaminated soil or water from FYs 2012 through 2018 (Figure C-14).
The annual total cubic yards resulting from CERCLA enforcement actions varied based on when
large enforcement actions concluded. For example, the enforcement action against Milan Army
Ammunition Plant resulted in a commitment to clean up 798 million cubic yards of groundwater
and contributed 92 percent of the total volume of cleanup commitments from CERCLA that
year.
21-P-0132
140
-------
Figure C-14: Estimated cubic yards of contaminated soil and water to be cleaned up by
statute, FYs 2012 through 2018
1,000
900
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA ¦ CWA EPCRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA ¦ TSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
CERCLA actions, however, made up only 57 percent of the 1,126 total number of enforcement
actions with such cleanup commitments from FYs 2012 through 2018 (Figure C-15). The
number of CERCLA actions decreased each year from 134 in FY 2012 to 60 in FY 2018, except
for a slight increase in FY 2017. There were proportionally more CWA enforcement actions than
the volumetric data suggests, but they were generally smaller commitments than those under
CERCLA. CWA enforcement actions comprised less than 1 percent of the volumetric
commitments but made up 26 percent, or 293, of the 1,126 total enforcement actions.
21-P-0132
141
-------
Figure C-15: Enforcement actions with contaminated soil and water to be cleaned up by
statute, FYs 2012 through 2018
250
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Years
¦ CAA ¦ CERCLA BCWA EPCRA ¦ RCRA ¦ SDWA BTSCA
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
Cleanup Commitments in FY 2019
From FYs 2018 to 2019, the number of enforcement actions with cleanup commitments
decreased by 22 percent, or 22 actions, and the total volume of cleanup commitments
decreased by 95 percent, or 232 million cubic yards. The number of CERCLA
enforcement actions with cleanup commitments decreased by ten from 60 actions in
FY 2018 to 50 in FY 2019. In addition, the total volume reported for cleanup
commitments decreased by 232 million cubic yards, which accounted for over 99 percent
of the total decrease in cleanup commitments in FY 2019.
Statute-Specific Summaries of Enforcement Trends Over Time
We prepared statute-specific summaries for the following eight environmental statutes: CAA,
CERCLA, CWA, EPCRA, FIFRA, RCRA, SDWA, and TSCA.
21-P-0132
142
-------
Clean Air Act
ILm
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018) * *
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
CAA Compliance Monitoring Activities
CAA Case Initiations
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• CAA compliance monitoring activities accounted for
20 percent of the total activities (41,104 of 203,389)
conducted from FYs 2007 through 2018 but decreased from
3,658 activities in FY 2007 to 2,299 activities in FY 2018
(-37 percent).
• CAA case initiations accounted for 19 percent of the total
initiations (6,535 of 33,783) but decreased 63 percent (from
887 to 329 initiations) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CAA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
19 percent of the total concluded actions (6,399 of 33,783)
but decreased 60 percent (from 838 to 337 actions) from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
250 Pounds of Pollutant
Commitments
Pounds of Waste
Commitments
Cubic Yards
of Clean Up
Commitments
70C
600
500
400
300
200
100
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• CAA-concluded actions with pollutant commitments
accounted for 20 percent of the total actions with such
commitments across all statutes (1,406 of 6,861) from
FYs 2012 through 2018.
• CAA concluded actions accounted for 46 percent of the
total pounds of pollutant commitments (1.8 billion of
3.9 billion pounds), less than 1 percent (334 million of
68.5 billion) of the total pounds of waste commitments, and
less than 1 percent (18.6 million of 3.0 billion) of the total
cubic yards of cleanup commitments from FYs 2012 through
2018 across all statutes.
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
510,000
CAA Imunctl
;i:i:i
" ciict
/V
$6ua
$¦400
CAA
SEPs
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• CAA concluded enforcement actions contributed 22 percent
of the total federally assessed penalty dollars ($2.27 billion
of $10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CAA § 112(r)(7) and CAA § 173 cases accounted for
66 percent ($1.5 billion) of the total CAA penalties from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
• A large CAA-conciuded enforcement case in FY 2017 against
Volkswagen included $1.48 billion in penalties, which was
90 percent of the total penalties for that year.
Injunctive relief
• CAA-concluded cases accounted for 17 percent of total
cases with injunctive relief (4,594 of 26,696) and
contributed 34 percent of total injunctive relief ($47 billion
of $139 billion) from FYs 2007 through FY 2018.
• CAA § 112(r)(7) and CAA § 173 cases accounted for
55 percent ($26 billion of $47 billion) of the total CAA
injunctive relief from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• A large CAA-concluded enforcement case in FY 2017 against
Volkswagen included $16.3 billion in injunctive relief, which
was 80 percent of the total injunctive relief for that year.
Supplemental environmental projects
• CAA SEPs represented 27 percent of all SEPs (435 of
1,612 cases with SEPs) and 46 percent of all SEP dollars
($181 million of $393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CAA § 112(r)(7) and CAA § 110 cases accounted for
58 percent of the total CAA SEPs.
• A large CAA-concluded enforcement case in FY 2015 (Kapaa
Landfill and the City and County of Flonolulu) contributed
55 percent ($16.9 million) of the CAA SEP dollars that year.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• CAA compliance monitoring activities decreased by
14 percent (-329 activities) and concluded actions increased
by 7 percent (+22 actions) from FY 2018.
• CAA penalties, injunctive relief, and SEPs increased by
$283 million (+855 percent), $450 million (+22 percent), and
$1.9 million (+11 percent) from FY 2018, respectively.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
143
-------
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
:33
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPAOIG image)
• The EPA does not record compliance monitoring activities
under its CERCLA authorities.
• CERCLA case initiations accounted for 8 percent of all case
initiations (2,785 of 33,783) from FYs 2007 through 2018 but
decreased 69 percent since FY 2009 (from 466 to 143).
• CERCLA-concluded actions accounted for 9 percent of the
total actions (3,005 of 33,783) from FYs 2007 through 2018
but decreased 72 percent since FY 2009 (from 493 to
139 actions).
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
900
800
=. '100
400
No pollutant commitments reported
Cubit Yartli
of CltMH Up
Eommltinvints
Pounds of
100 Waste Commitments
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• CERCLA enforcement actions accounted for 57 percent of
the total number of EPA actions with cleanup
commitments (640 of 1,126) and contributed 97 percent
of the total cubic yards of clean up commitments
(2.9 billion of nearly 3 billion cubic yards) from FYs 2012
through 2018.
• CERCLA enforcement actions contributed less than
1 percent towards the total pounds of pollutant
commitments and the total pounds of waste commitments
across all statutes.
Fiscal Year
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• CERCLA-concluded enforcement actions contributed less
than 1 percent of the total penalty dollars ($49 million of
$10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large concluded CERCLA cases occurred in FY 2010
(Chemtura Corp, $9.3 million) and FY 2014 (Titan Tire Corp
and Dico, Inc., $9 million).
Injunctive relief
• CERCLA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
6 percent of the total actions with injunctive relief (1,637
of 26,696) and contributed 14 percent of total injunctive
relief ($20 billion of $139 billion) from FYs 2007 through
2018.
• Large concluded CERCLA cases occurred in FYs 2009
(Tennessee Valley Authority, $1.14 billion) and 2011
(Lyondell Chemical Company, $1.13 billion).
Supplemental environmental projects
• CERCLA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
7 percent of the total SEPs (109 of 1,612) and contributed
1.5 percent of the total SEP dollars ($6 million of
$393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large concluded CERCLA cases occurred in FYs 2008
(U.S. Department of Energy Flanford Facility, $974,000) and
2015 (Pechiney Plastics Packaging, Inc., $1.2 million).
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• CERCLA cleanup commitments decreased from 60 actions
in FY 2018 to 50 actions in FY 2019.
• CERCLA cleanup commitments decreased by 232 million
cubic yards from FY 2018, accounting for over 99 percent
of the total decrease in cleanup commitments across all
statutes.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
144
Injunctive |
CERCLA SEPs
-------
Clean Water Act
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING & ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES
Monitoring Activities
cwa Lompi
CWA Case Initiations
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• CWA compliance monitoring activities accounted for 19 percent of
total monitoring activities (37,642 of 203,389) but decreased
36 percent (from 3,469 to 2,213) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CWA case initiations accounted for 28 percent of the EPA's total
case initiations (9,555 of 33,783) but decreased 52 percent (from
1,031 to 492 initiations) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CWA-concluded enforcement actions represented 28 percent of
the total enforcement actions (9,509 of 33,783) but decreased
51 percent (from 994 to 483 actions) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS COMMITMENTS
(FYs 2012-2018)
Minimul tleunup o
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• CWA-concluded actions with pollutant commitments accounted
for 57 percent of the EPA's total actions with such commitments
(3,928 of 6,861) and 46 percent of the total commitments in
pounds (1.8 billion of 3.9 billion pounds) from FYs 2012 through
2018.
• Pollutant commitments decreased from 495 million pounds in
FY 2012 to 50 million pounds in FY 2018 (-90 percent)
• Ninety-seven percent of CWA actions with pollutant
commitments fell under CWA § 301/402 or CWA § 301.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• CWA compliance monitoring activities increased by 9 percent
(+194 activities), concluded enforcement actions decreased by
7 percent, from 487 in FY 2018 to 453 in FY 2019.
• CWA penalties, injunctive relief, and SEPs increased by
$5.4 million (+49 percent), decreased by $1.84 billion
(-82 percent) and decreased by $0.7 million (-21 percent) from
FY 2018, respectively.
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY VALUES
CWA Injur ft livo
Relief
V
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• CWA penalties represented 74 percent of the total federally
assessed penalty dollars ($7.6 billion of $10.3 billion) from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CWA § 301/402 and CWA § 311J cases accounted for 63 percent
of total concluded enforcement actions with penalties from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Number of CWA § 311B cases with penalties declined 86 percent
from FYs 2007 through 2018 (156 to 16 cases).
• Two large CWA-concluded enforcement cases in FY 2016
(BP Exploration & Production and BP Exploration MOEX)
contributed over $7 billion in penalties, 93 percent of all CWA
penalty dollars from FYs through 2018.
Injunctive relief
• CWA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for 28 percent
of concluded cases with injunctive relief (7,587 of 26,696) and
contributed 45 percent of total injunctive relief dollars
($63 billion of $139 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• CWA § 301/402 and CWA § 311J enforcement actions accounted
for 64 percent of CWA-concluded enforcement cases with
injunctive relief (5,485 of 8,511 total CWA cases).
• CWA § 311B-concluded cases with injunctive relief decreased by
93 percent, when comparing the peak in FY 2008 (143 cases) to
FY 2018 (ten cases).
• Three CWA cases with large injunctive relief values occurred in
FY 2016 (BP Exploration & Production Inc., $6.09 billion), FY 2012
(Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, $5.14 billion), and FY 2011
(Honolulu, City and County, $4.14 billion).
Supplemental environmental projects
• CWA SEPs represented 19 percent of the total SEPs (310 of 1,612)
and contributed 27 percent of the total SEP dollars ($106 million
of $393 million) but decreased 86 percent from FYs 2012 to 2013.
• CWA § 301/402 and CWA § 301 cases accounted for 72 percent
(262 out of 362) of total CWA-concluded cases that included SEPs.
• A large CWA concluded enforcement case in FY 2012
(BP Exploration and Production) contributed $10.9 million in SEPs.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data, (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
145
-------
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
EPCRA Concluded
Enforcement Actions
EPCRA Case Initiations
EPCRA Compliance
Monitoring Activities
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fiscal Year
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• EPCRA compliance monitoring activities accounted for
4 percent of the EPA's total monitoring activities (9,075 of
203,389) but decreased 46 percent (from 914 to 498)
from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• EPCRA case initiations accounted for 5 percent of the
total cases initiated (1,587 of 33,783) from FYs 2007
through 2018 but decreased by 60 percent from FYs 2012
through 2018 (from 185 to 74 initiations).
• EPCRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
5 percent of the total concluded actions (1,612 of 33,783)
but decreased 56 percent (from 166 to 73 actions) from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• EPCFiA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for less
than 1 percent of total actions with pollutant
commitments (29 of 6861) and less than 1 percent of the
total pounds of pollutant commitments (286,800 pounds
of 3.9 billion pounds) from FYs 2012 through 2018.
• A large EPCRA concluded action in FY 2017 (Lamart
Corporation, 130,000 pounds) contributed 45 percent of
the total EPCRA pollutant commitments from FYs 2012
through 2018.
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
tPCHA
injunctive
Kcllef
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• EPCRA-concluded enforcement actions contributed less
than 1 percent of the total federally-assessed penalties
($51 million of $10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• A large EPCRA-concluded case occurred in FY 2011
(Unisea Incorporated, $1.6 million), contributed 23 percent
to the total EPCRA penalties that year.
Injunctive relief
• EPCRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
9 percent of all concluded cases with injunctive relief
(2,368 of 26,696) and contributed less than 1 percent of
the total injunctive relief dollars ($22 million of
$139 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large EPCRA-concluded cases occurred in FY 2010
(McWane, Inc., $4.2 million), FY 2011 (FFCA with U.S.
Department of Interior, $3.1 million; Unisea Incorporated,
$1.6 million), and FY 2013 (New Cingular, $3.3 million).
Supplemental environmental projects
• EPCRA SEPs represented 18 percent of the total concluded
cases with SEPs (287 of 1,612 total cases with SEPs) and
contributed 4 percent of the total SEP dollars ($17 million
of $393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Three large EPCRA-concluded cases occurred in FY 2009
(Linde Inc., $485,362; BP Products North America. Texas
City, TX, $425,320; and Simoniz USA, $318,379),
contributing 41 percent to the total EPCRA SEP dollars that
year.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• EPCRA compliance monitoring activities decreased by
15 percent (-74 activities) and concluded actions
decreased by 7 percent (-5 actions) from FY 2018.
• EPCRA penalties increased by $95,000 (+4 percent),
injunctive relief did not significantly change, and EPCRA
SEPs decreased $856,000 (-54 percent) from FY 2018.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
146
Hounds or Pollutant
Commitments .
No waste commitments reported
No CteaiiUtt commitments reported
-------
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act it
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018) U
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
FIFRA Com pi
Activities
fifra Case
Initiations
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• FIFRA compliance monitoring activities accounted for
2 percent of the EPA's total monitoring activities conducted
(4,535 of 203,389) and remained relatively steady in
number (except for an increase in FY 2012) from FYs 2007
through 2018.
• FIFRA case initiations accounted for 7 percent of the total
case initiations (2,407 of 33,783) from FYs 2007 through
2018 but decreased 40 percent from FYs 2012 through
2018 (from 248 to 150 initiations).
• FIFRA concluded enforcement actions accounted for
7 percent of the total actions across all statutes (2,433 of
33,783) and have decreased 40 percent (from 256 to
154 actions) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS {FYs 2012-2018)
No cleanup commitment reported
No waste commitments reported
Pounds of Pollutant Commitments
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
¦ FIFRA-concluded enforcement actions with pollutant
commitments accounted for 17 percent of the total actions
with such commitments (1,194 of 6,861) and contributed
1 percent of the total pounds of pollutant commitments
(5 million of 3.9 billion pounds) from FYs 2012 through
2018.
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• FIFRA-concluded enforcement actions represented less than
1 percent of the federally assessed total penalty dollars
($72 million of $10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large concluded FIFRA cases occurred in FYs 2010
(Monsanto, $2.9 million), 2012 (Scotts Miracle Gro
Company, $6.6 million), 2013 (EMD Millipore Corp,
$2.9 million), 2014 (El DuPont de Nemours and Company,
nearly $2.0 million; Harrell's LLC, $1.8 million), and 2018
(Medline Industries, $4.9 million).
Injunctive relief
• FIFRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
nearly 5 percent of the total concluded cases with
injunctive relief (1,276 of 26,696) and contributed less
than 1 percent to the total injunctive relief dollars
($19 million of $139 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large FIFRA concluded actions occurred in FY 2011
(LESCO, Inc., $3.3 million) and in FY 2009 (A-Dec Inc.,
$1.4 million).
Supplemental environmental projects
• FIFRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
nearly 2 percent of the total SEPs (32 of 1,612) and
contributed 1.5 percent to the total SEP dollars ($6 million
of $393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large concluded cases occurred in FYs 2012 (Scotts
Miracle Gro Company, $2.2 million) and 2018 (Amazon
Services LLC, $1.5 million), contributing 62 percent to the
total FIFRA SEP dollars from FYs 2007 through 2018.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• The EPA conducted 15 fewer FIFRA compliance monitoring
activities, down 5 percent from 310 activities in FY 2018.
• There were no FIFRA SEPs in FY 2019 and FIFRA injunctive
relief decreased 30 percent (-$200,000) from FY 2018.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data, (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
147
FIFRA SEPs
FIFRA
Injunctive Relief
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act *
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018) ^
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
RCRA Compliance
k Monitoring Activities
RCRA Case
Initiations
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPAOIG image)
• RCRA compliance monitoring activities accounted for
18 percent of the EPA's total monitoring activities
conducted (35,790 of 203,389) but decreased 53 percent
(from 3,994 to 1,883) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• RCRA-initiated cases accounted for 13 percent of the total
initiated cases (4,437 of 33,783) from Pi's 2007 through
2018 but decreased 52 percent from FYs 2009 through
2018 (from 515 to 247 initiations).
• RCRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
1 percent of the total actions (4,443 of 33,783) from FYs
2007 through 2018 but decreased 50 percent from FYs
2009 through 2018 (from 500 to 248 actions).
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• RCRA-concluded enforcement actions with waste
commitments accounted for 85 percent of the total actions
with such commitments (268 of 317) and 99 percent of the
total pounds of waste commitments (68 billion of
68.4 billion) from FYs 2012 through 2018.
• A large case in FY 2016 against Mosaic Fertilizer accounted
for 90 percent of total pounds of waste commitments
across all statutes from FYs 2012 through 2018.
a
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
Injunctive
Relict
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• RCRA-concluded enforcement actions represented nearly
2 percent of the total federally assessed penalty dollars
($165 million of $10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Three large concluded RCRA cases occurred in FY 2016
(Mosaic Phosphates, Inc., $2.5 million; IMC Phosphates Co.,
$2.8 million; Whole Foods Market Rocky Mountain/
Southwest LP, $2.3 million) and contributed 40 percent of
the total RCRA penalties assessed that year.
Injunctive relief
• RCRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
15 percent of total concluded cases with injunctive relief
(4,081 of 26,696) and contributed nearly 3 percent of the
total injunctive relief dollars ($3,8 billion of $139 billion)
from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large RCRA cases occurred in FYs 2010 (Exxon Mobil Oil
Corporation, $402 million) and 2016 (Mosaic Fertilizer,
$664 million), contributing over 25 percent of the total
RCRA injunctive relief from FYs 2007 through 2018.
Supplemental environmental projects
• RCRA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
12 percent of total SEPs (198 of 1,612) and contributed
11 percent to the total SEP dollars ($45 million of
$393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large RCRA cases occurred in FYs 2009 (Shintech, Inc.,
$5.5 million), 2011 (Chevron Puerto Rico LLC, $3.9 million),
2012 (Nassau County, NY, $1.8 million, and Clean Harbors of
Braintree, $1.2 million), and 2017 (Whole Foods Market
Group Inc., $2.8 million), contributing 34 percent of the total
RCRA SEP dollars from FYs 2007 through 2018.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• RCRA compliance monitoring activities remained steady with
1,888 activities, up slightly from 1,884 in FY 2018.
• RCRA-concluded enforcement actions with waste
commitments decreased by 32 percent (-12) and the pounds
of waste commitments decreased by 99 percent
(-537 million pounds) from FY 2018. A
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG image)
21-P-0132
148
-------
Safe Drinking Water Act . ft A
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018) ^ ®
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
5DWA Compliance
Monitoring
sdwa case
Initiations
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
{EPA OIG image)
• SDWA compliance monitoring activities accounted for
30 percent of the EPA's total monitoring activities conducted
(60,470 of 203,389) between FYs 2007 and 2018. After a
large increase between FYs 2007 through 2009, these
activities decreased 65 percent from FYs 2010 through 2018.
• SDWA case initiations accounted for 13 percent of the total
case initiations (4,370 of 33,783) from FYs 2007 through
2018 but decreased 62 percent after FY 2008 (from 609 to
229 initiations).
• SDWA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
13 percent of the total concluded actions (4,295 of 33,783)
from FYs 2007 through 2018 but decreased 62 percent from
FYs 2008 through 2018 (from 608 to 230 actions).
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
No pollutant commitment!! re purled
0.12 No waste commitment!! reported
Cubit Yards of tie.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• SDWA-concluded enforcement actions with cleanup
commitments accounted for 4 percent of the EPA's total
actions with such commitments (48 of 1,126) and less than
1 percent of the total cubic yards from cleanup commitments
(159,000 of nearly 3 billion cubic yards) from FYs 2012
through 2018.
• In a large SDWA concluded action in FY 2017, the county of
Hawaii communities of Pahala and Naahelu were ordered to
clean up 118,000 cubic yards of ground water contaminated
by sanitary sewage. This case accounted for 74 percent of the
total SDWA cleanup commitments from FYs 2012 through
2018.
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
SDWA
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• SDWA-concluded enforcement actions represent less than
1 percent of the total federally assessed penalty dollars
($11 million of $10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Large concluded SDWA cases occurred in FY 2015 (County of
Westchester [Water District No. 1], $1.2 million), in FY 2014
(Newfield Production Company, $634,800) and FY 2018
(Estell/SD, Lot 2, $588,700).
Injunctive relief
• SDWA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
13 percent of all concluded cases with injunctive relief (3,589
of 26,696) and contributed 4 percent of the total injunctive
relief dollars ($5.3 billion of $139 billion) from FYs 2007
through 2018.
• SDWA-concluded cases with large injunctive relief values
occurred in FYs 2010 (New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, $1.84 billion) and 2015 (City of
Croton, NY, $1.48 billion).
Supplemental environmental projects
• SDWA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for nearly
2 percent of all SEPs (30 of 1,612) and contributed
1.5 percent to the total value of SEP dollars ($6 million of
$393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• SDWA-concluded cases with large SEP values occurred in
FYs 2008 (Town of Newburgh, $1.1 million), 2011
(Department of Interior, $1.4 million), 2015 (County of
Westchester [Water District No. 1], $729,200), and 2017
(New York State Office of Parks, $1 million), cumulatively
representing 70 percent of the total SDWA SEP dollars.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• SDWA compliance monitoring activities decreased by
5 percent (-117 activities) and concluded cases decreased
by 16 percent (-37 conclusions) from FY 2018.
• SDWA injunctive relief increased $1.84 billion in FY 2019,
but one large case accounted for 98 percent of the year's
SDWA injunctive relief (City of New York et al, $1.85 billion).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data.
21-P-0132
(EPA OIG image)
149
-------
Toxic Substances Control Act JL
Enforcement Results (FYs 2007-2018)
COMPLIANCE MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
CONCLUDED CASES WITH MONETARY
VALUES
rsCA Injunctive Relief
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• TSCA compliance monitoring activities accounted for
7 percent of the total monitoring activities conducted
(14,773 of 203,389) but decreased by 38 percent (from
1,590 to 993) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• TSCA case initiations accounted for 6 percent of the total
case initiations (2,090 of 33,783) but decreased by
24 percent (from 218 to 165 initiations) from FYs 2007
through 2018.
• TSCA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
6 percent of the total concluded actions (2,069 of 33,783)
and decreased 24 percent (from 205 to 155 actions) from
FYs 2007 through 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
COMMITMENTS (FYs 2012-2018)
No cleanup comrriiUrienls reported
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
• TSCA-concluded actions with waste commitments accounted
for less than 1 percent of total actions with such
commitments (2 of 317) and contributed less than 1 percent
of total pounds of waste commitments (56 million of
68.5 billion pounds) from FYs 2012 through 2018.
• The largest TSCA case concluded in FY 2014 and included
nearly all the TSCA included waste commitments for that
year and for FYs 2012 through 2018 (Titanium Metals
Corporation, 56 million pounds).
Source: OIG analysis of EPA's annual enforcement data.
21-P-0132
Source: OIG analysis of EPA annual enforcement results.
(EPA OIG image)
Penalties
• TSCA-concluded enforcement actions represented less than
1 percent of the total federally assessed penalty dollars
($67 million of $10.3 billion) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Two large concluded TSCA cases occurred in FY 2014
(Elementis Cromium, LP, $2.7 million; Titanium Metals
Corporation, $14.8 million), contributing 89 percent of the
total TSCA penalties for that year.
Injunctive relief
• TSCA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
6 percent of all concluded cases that included injunctive
relief (1,564 of 26,696) and contributed less than 1 percent
of the total injunctive relief dollars ($70 million of $13 billion)
from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• Two TSCA-concluded cases with large injunctive relief values
occurred in FY 2014 (Titanium Metals Corporation
$7.4 million; Prince Georges County School District,
$4.99 million).
Supplemental Environmental Projects
• TSCA-concluded enforcement actions accounted for
13 percent of all SEPs (205 of 1,612) and contributed
6 percent to the total value of SEP dollars ($25 million of
$393 million) from FYs 2007 through 2018.
• A large concluded case in FY 2009 (Memphis Gas and Water
Division, $11.8 million) accounted for 47 percent of the total
value of TSCA SEP dollars for FYs 2007 through 2018.
FY 2019 ENFORCEMENT RESULTS
• TSCA compliance monitoring activities decreased by
7 percent (-69), from 995 in FY 2018 to 926 in FY 2019 and
conclusions decreased by 16 percent (-37 conclusions).
• The EPA recorded one fewer TSCA SEP in FY 2019 and the
total value of TSCA SEPs decreased by about $160,000 from
FY 2018 (-32 percent). a
(EPA OIG image)
150
Case Initiations
TSCA Compliance
Monitoring Activities
-------
Appendix D
Changes in Enforcement Measures
in FYs 2019 and 2020
Compared to FY 2019, 11 of the 15 enforcement measures declined in FY 2020 (Table D-l),
although two of those declining measures were relatively stable (less than a 3 percent decline).
The coronavirus pandemic likely impacted the long-term downward trend of EPA enforcement
activities in FY 2020. Four enforcement measures increased in FY 2020 from FY 2019. The
three environmental benefit measures increased in FY 2020 because of the large commitments
resulting from enforcement actions against Detroit Edison (pollution commitments), Simplot
Phosphates (waste commitments), and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (cleanup
commitments). Two of the four measures that increased in FY 2019 relative to FY 2018—total
injunctive relief and penalty dollars—decreased in FY 2020.
Table D-1: Changes in enforcement activities, actions, and results in FYs 2019 and 2020
FY 2019 enforcement results3
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
FY 2020 enforcement results
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
Inspections
(compliance
monitoring
activities)
• EPA inspections decreased by
approximately 4 percent in FY 2019
compared to FY 2018, from 10,734
to 10,328.
• While the downward trend
continued into FY 2019, the rate of
decrease slowed.
1
• EPA inspections decreased by
approximately 17 percent in
FY 2020 compared to FY 2019, to
8,584.
• The number of inspections
conducted as part of a national
enforcement priority increased by
5 percent, from 1,464 in FY 2019 to
1,535 in FY 2020, while
programmatic inspections
decreased by 21 percent, from
8,878 in FY 2019 to 7,048 in
FY 2020.
• The EPA conducted 60 percent
fewer inspections under SDWA in
FY 2020 compared to FY 2019 (944
as compared to 2,384), which was
the most dramatic decrease of any
statute's inspections.
• The two statutes under which the
EPA increased inspection activities
were CWA, where inspections
increased from 2,428 to 2,593
(7 percent), and FIFRA, where
inspections increased from 301 to
1,086 (261 percent).
4
21-P-0132
151
-------
FY 2019 enforcement results3
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
FY 2020 enforcement results
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
Case • EPA case initiations—in the form of
initiations compliance orders, penalty orders,
and referrals to the DOJ—
decreased in FY 2019 compared to
FY 2018.
There were 87 cases referred to the
DOJ in FY 2019,13 percent fewer
than the prior low of 100 case
referrals in FY 2018.
EPA case initiations—in the form of
compliance orders, penalty orders,
and referrals to the DOJ —
decreased in FY 2020 compared to
FY 2019.
There were 63 cases referred to the
DOJ in FY 2020, 28 percent fewer
than the prior low of 87 case
referrals in FY 2019.
The number of EPA case initiations
declined in FY 2020 for all major
statutes.
Case • The EPA concluded 1,680 cases in
conclusions FY 2019, 7 percent fewer than in
FY 2018.
The EPA concluded 1,595 cases in
FY 2020, 5 percent fewer than in
FY 2019.
The percentage of enforcement
actions concluded under a national
enforcement priority increased
from 17 percent in FY 2019 to
27 percent in FY 2020.
Injunctive
relief
The number of concluded
enforcement actions with injunctive
relief decreased by 17 percent,
from 1,233 in FY 2018 to 1,028 in
FY 2019.
The number of concluded
enforcement actions with injunctive
relief decreased by 12 percent,
from 1,028 in FY 2019 to 905 in
FY 2020.
Concluded enforcement actions
resulted in $4.35 billion in injunctive
relief in FY 2019, up 9 percent from
FY 2018.
43 percent of the FY 2019 injunctive
relief resulted from an enforcement
action against the City of New York.
Concluded enforcement actions
resulted in $2.43 billion in injunctive
relief in FY 2020, down 44 percent
from FY 2019.
45 percent of the FY 2020 injunctive
relief resulted from an enforcement
action against the Guam Power
Authority and Marianas Energy
Company.
Penalties • The number of concluded
enforcement actions with a penalty
decreased by 12 percent, from
1,088 to 960.
• The number of concluded
enforcement actions with a penalty
decreased by 2 percent, to 943.
The EPA assessed $354 million in
penalties in FY 2019, which was
more than 400 percent higher than
in FY 2018.
73 percent of the FY 2019 penalty
dollars resulted from a single
enforcement action against Fiat
Chrysler.
The EPA assessed $154 million in
penalties in FY 2020, 56 percent
lower than in FY 2019.
30 percent of the FY 2020 penalty
dollars resulted from an
enforcement action against
Hyundai, and an additional 10 and
8 percent stemmed from
enforcement actions against Kohler
and Harley-Davidson, respectively.
21-P-0132
152
-------
FY 2019 enforcement results3
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
FY 2020 enforcement results
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
SEPs
• The number of SEPs decreased by
18 percent, from 99 in FY 2018 to
81 in FY 2019.
i
• The number of SEPs decreased by
49 percent, from 81 in FY 2019 to
41 in FY 2020.
The total SEP value decreased 12
percent from FY 2018 to FY 2019,
from $29 million to $26 million.
i
The total SEP value decreased 69
percent from FY 2019 to FY 2020,
from $26 million to $8 million.
Pollution
commitments
• The EPA concluded 3 percent more
enforcement actions that included
pollution commitments in FY 2019
than in FY 2018.
t
The EPA concluded 16 percent more
enforcement actions that included
pollution commitments in FY 2020
than in FY 2019.
The EPA concluded 49 percent of
those cases under FIFRA. The EPA
concluded 161 fewer enforcement
actions with pollution commitments
under all other statutes.
• Concluded enforcement actions in
FY 2019 resulted in 347 million
pounds of pollution commitments,
19 percent more than in FY 2018.
t
Concluded enforcement actions in
FY 2020 resulted in 427 million
pounds of pollution commitments,
23 percent more than in FY 2019.
65 percent of the FY 2020 pounds of
pollution commitment resulted
from a single enforcement action
against Detroit Edison.
Waste
commitments
• The number of concluded
enforcement actions with waste
commitments decreased from 42 in
FY 2018 to 31 in FY 2019, a
26 percent decrease.
4
• The number of concluded
enforcement actions with waste
commitments decreased from 31 in
FY 2019 to 28 in FY 2020.
Concluded enforcement actions
resulted in 99 percent fewer
pounds of waste commitments,
from 541 million in FY 2018 to
5 million in FY 2019.
I
Concluded enforcement actions
resulted in over 300 times more
pounds of waste commitments,
from 5 million in FY 2019 to
1.6 billion in FY 2020.
More than 99 percent of the
FY 2020 pounds of waste
commitments resulted from a single
enforcement action against Simplot
Phosphates.
21-P-0132
153
-------
FY 2019 enforcement results3
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
FY 2020 enforcement results
(all monetary values in 2018 USD
Cleanup
commitments
• Compared to FY 2018, the number
of concluded enforcement actions
with cleanup commitments
decreased by 22 percent in FY 2019,
from 102 to 80.
1
r
• Compared to FY 2019, the number
of concluded enforcement actions
with cleanup commitments was
nearly the same, decreasing from
80 to 79.
• Those 79 commitments were
68 percent fewer than the peak of
244 in FY 2012.
-
• Concluded enforcement actions
produced 95 percent fewer cubic
yards of cleanup commitments,
from 245 million cubic yards in
FY 2018 to 13 million cubic yards in
FY 2019.
1
1
r
• Concluded enforcement actions
produced eight times more cubic
yards of cleanup commitments,
from 13 million cubic yards in
FY 2019 to 104 million cubic yards
in FY 2020.
• 94 percent of the FY 2020 cubic
yards of cleanup commitments
resulted from a single enforcement
action against Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation.
t
Source: OIG analysis of the EPA's annual enforcement data. (EPA OIG table)
a EPA OIG, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Activities, Enforcement Actions, and Enforcement Results Generally
Declined from Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2018, 20-P-0131. March 31, 2020.
21-P-0132
154
-------
Appendix E
Agency Response to Draft Report
/®s\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
March 26, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Project No. OA&E-FY 19-0030,
"Resource Constraints, Leadership Decisions, and Workforce Culture Led to a
Decline in Federal Enforcement," dated February 17, 2021
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject draft
audit report (report). The following is a general response to the report, along with responses to
each of the report recommendations. For the report recommendations, we have provided high-
level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates. For your consideration, we
have included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response in the form of a
redline/strikeout version of the draft report.
OVERALL POSITION
We appreciate the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) attention to EPA's enforcement program.
We wish to raise the following points of emphasis.
I. Chapter 2/Recommendations 1 and 2
1. Assess the needs of the agency's enforcement program by completing a workforce analysis to
determine the level of staffing necessary to achieve and maintain a strong enforcement presence
in the field that protects human health and the environment.
21-P-0132 155
FROM: Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator
I A\A/REM CV- Digitally signed by
LMVVnCIN^-C LAWRENCE STARFII
STARFIELD ""i™6
LAWRENCE STARFIELD
TO:
Kathlene Butler, Director for Water Issues
Office of Evaluation
-------
2. Integrate the results of the workforce analysis into the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance's annual and strategic planning processes.
EPA implements a robust national enforcement program. Along with our state, tribal, territorial,
and local partners, we have demonstrated that enforcement is essential to reducing pollution,
leveling the playing field for regulated companies, and protecting public health in communities
across the country, including those disproportionately affected by pollution. Our committed
workforce has demonstrated resilience and creativity in confronting new and existing public
health and environmental challenges and has embraced innovative approaches and advances in
technology to best protect the people we serve. We value transparency and provide more than a
terabyte of readily accessible information on our enforcement activities - second to none in the
federal government.
Between FY 2007 and FY2019, our formal enforcement actions alone have garnered enforceable
commitments for:1
> 4.71 billion pounds of pollution reduced (Air, Toxics & Water) (FY 2012-FY 2020 only
- Starting in FY 2012 the methodology for calculating environmental benefit information
changed. Therefore, data are not available for years prior to then.);
> 6.41 billion cubic yards of soil and water to be cleaned up;
> Over $137 billion in environmental compliance actions and injunctive relief; and
> $10.3 billion in civil penalties assessed.
Our criminal enforcement program has obtained sentences in cases totaling:
> $5.57 billion in fines and restitution;
> $7.23 billion in court ordered projects; and
> 1,364 years of incarcerations.
Our public-facing database averages three million views every year.
We acknowledge the OIG's finding that many enforcement metrics have declined from FY 2007
to FY 2019, and that enforcement resources have also significantly declined over the same time
period. The report also correctly notes that since FY 2006, the size and level of activity of key
sectors that EPA regulates has increased, and EPA is addressing the potential concerns from
several "emerging contaminants."
We disagree, however, with the report's recommendations to overcome these obstacles by
conducting a workforce analysis. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) has made a number of adjustments to our enforcement program throughout this time
period to ensure we are maintaining a solid national enforcement presence and addressing the
most serious noncompliance. In essence, we have been conducting gap analyses and making
targeted workforce adjustments from year to year. We believe these are more appropriate
1 Monetary values are in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
21-P-0132
156
-------
methods for achieving the goal of aligning our resources to our work. We address the workforce
analysis recommendation more fully below.
Managing Resources:
As the report indicates, enforcement funding has declined since FY 2006. The agency is aware of
this history, and OECA and senior managers in the regions are fully engaged in the ongoing
budget formulation process for FY 2022 and beyond. As part of that process, we are analyzing
the needs and planned activities for the enforcement program. This year, the analysis includes
consideration of the enforcement program's contributions to the Biden/Harris Administration
priorities, including environmental justice and climate change.
During past years, which saw a decline in resources, we made a number of
adjustments to our enforcement program to ensure we are maintaining a solid national
enforcement presence and addressing the most serious non-compliance issues. For
example, we have:
> Prioritized cases that may have a higher impact on public health protection but
are more resource intensive.
> Prioritized work on national initiatives that focus on areas where we believe
enforcement can significantly contribute to public health and environmental
protection. The current six initiatives were selected after extensive outreach to
the states and the public in order to identify a handful of programs for which
enforcement could be most impactful in protecting human health and the
environment.
o Creating Cleaner Air for Communities by Reducing Excess Emissions
of Harmful Pollutants
o Stopping Aftermarket Defeat Devices for Vehicles and Engines
o Reducing Hazardous Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Facilities
o Reducing Risks of Accidental Releases at Industrial and Chemical
Facilities
o Reducing Significant Non-Compliance with National Pollution
Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
o Reducing Non-Compliance with Drinking Water Standards at
Community Water Systems
> Established national Centers of Excellence to provide centralized expertise
and national enforcement coverage for certain programs. Creating these
Centers alleviates the burden of maintaining expertise for every program in
every region.2
2 We have created a Center of Excellence for Asbestos, Hazard and Emergency Response Act (AHERA),
Clean Water Act (CWA) biosolids, and Clean Air Act (CAA) ozone-depleting substances. We have also
established a pairing approach for portions of the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA): an "investing
region" has the authority to pursue enforcement within its own region as well as its paired, non-investing,
region.
21-P-0132
157
-------
> Regions have cross-trained many of their inspectors to have expertise across
multiple programs, so that they can spot multiple types of violations in the
course of a single inspection.
> For the past 10 years, each region has prepared a confidential Regional
Strategic Plan. The plans identify priorities as well as staffing gaps or
potential disinvestments. These plans are discussed with OECA Headquarters
and have led to resource decisions needed to maintain strong programs.
> OECA Headquarters holds regular in-person or video teleconference meetings
with each region at least twice each year. We discuss priorities, challenges,
and staffing needs. We have established a Regional Budget Action Committee
comprised of regional Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division
(ECAD) deputy directors and budget staff from OECA to manage budget
priorities and develop options to address concerns.
Workforce Analysis:
A workforce analysis would not, by itself, address any resource imbalance, and as a
tool to redistribute existing full-time equivalents (FTE), we do not believe that a
workforce analysis is warranted. In our experience, workforce analyses are expensive,
time-consuming, and a cause of discord, and they also can create a false sense of
analytical precision. Rather, as articulated above, we believe that we have
consistently made - and can continue to make - targeted workforce adjustments to
align our resources to agency priorities. As new policy directions are articulated by
the Biden/Harris Administration, we will continue to make adjustments to ensure
alignment with those policies.
However, if we do receive additional resources in the future, we do support a
streamlined needs assessment to identify any FTE imbalances between current FTE
and the enforcement workload expected in the future. Informed by that assessment,
we would then convene high-level meetings among senior managers in the regions
and headquarters to discuss the best way to allocate new resources.
Corrective Actions: OECA will conduct a high-level needs assessment to inform
distribution of any additional resources provided to OECA in the FY 2022 budget and
beyond. This assessment will be considered during future planning discussions.
II. Chapter 3/Recommendation 3
3. Use the results of the Office of Inspector General's 2019 Enforcement Survey and other
resources to identify and address areas of concern for the enforcement program, including
through issuing new or revised policies, as appropriate.
We also agree that policy choices have a significant impact on enforcement trend data. For
example, as the report notes:
21-P-0132
158
-------
[T]he agency made strategic choices regarding the types of non-compliance to
monitor and the types of enforcement cases to pursue. For example, we found that a
strategic shift, which began during the mid-2000s and continued through 2018,
refocused agency enforcement resources on bigger cases against the most serious
violators that significantly impacted human health and the environment, (pp 24-25)
We believe that those were sound decisions that maximized the enforcement program's ability to
deliver environmental protection results to the American people. Indeed, the report also
accurately indicates that the focus on bigger cases and the move away from pursuing small cases
resulted in higher median enforcement outcomes, such as penalties and injunctive relief. Big
cases can provide a significant health and environmental benefit to communities as well as
provide a deterrence to non-compliance.
This specific policy choice also reflects the appropriate role of the federal enforcement program.
Most states are authorized for the major regulatory programs and conduct far more inspections as
the direct program implementers than the federal government. Many states lack the resources and
expertise to pursue complex, deep-dive investigations and inspections which are generally
necessary to produce enforcement actions with high injunctive relief values or penalties. EPA
also has the benefit of referring complex cases to the Department of Justice, so that the combined
expertise of both agencies can be brought to bear on the most serious cases. We agree that
"coverage inspections" are an important element in deterrence, but the states are better equipped
to conduct these activities. Even so, as asserted by a former OECA Assistant Administrator, EPA
does conduct some routine inspections to demonstrate a field presence and to serve as a deterrent
to non-compliance.
The OIG report states that certain policies issued in the prior administration negatively impacted
enforcement activity. President Biden revoked Executive Orders 13892 and 13924 which set out
additional requirements for the administrative enforcement process, and he directed agencies to
revoke all implementing guidance. We have done so. We have also reconsidered, and revised as
appropriate, policies that were found to hamper the enforcement process. Additionally, the
Department of Justice has rescinded a number of policies impacting enforcement, including
several that limited the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects. We plan to discuss all
enforcement policies with our new Assistant Administrator for OECA when she/he is named and
will make policy adjustments as appropriate.
Survey and Identified Areas of Concern
We appreciate the information gleaned from the survey that OIG conducted. Of course, it is
not surprising that policy choices are met with varying degrees of enthusiasm by individual
employees. Agency policy is primarily formulated by political leadership based on issue
analyses, discussions with partner agencies, and other factors. Of course, input from staff is
also valued, and in that context, the areas of concern identified by survey respondents may be
considered by leadership in future policy setting, as appropriate.
21-P-0132
159
-------
Corrective Actions: We will brief the new Assistant Administrator for OECA on the results
of the survey and identify to him/her existing policies which may impact the effectiveness of
our enforcement program.
III. Chapter 4/Recommendations 4-8
OECA generally agrees that providing additional contextual information regarding its
enforcement results, including more information about compliance monitoring activities and
environmental benefits, could be beneficial for public understanding of our activities and their
impact. However, addressing recommendations 4-8 would require a significant level of effort
and would divert OECA's limited resources away from work to increase our compliance
monitoring and enforcement presence. In addition, we do not believe that some of these
recommendations would actually result in an increased public understanding of our enforcement
activities and the public health and environmental impact they may have on communities.
4. Incorporate additional enforcement information and data into future annual enforcement
results reports to provide context for (a) compliance monitoring activities conducted by the
agency and (b) the estimated environmental benefits achieved through agency enforcement
actions.
OECA's Annual Results is not simply a report, but a series of information sources providing:
• A general overall description of the year's results in narrative form;
• Narratives to describe particular accomplishments in priority areas (such as
national initiatives);
• Descriptions of specific case results;
• Charts and tables showing key numerical activities and outcomes and their trends
over a 10-year period; and
• Additional numerical results for additional measures and regional breakdowns.
We provide these different products as our audience for the Annual Results is composed of many
different stakeholders: Congress, the media, state/tribal/local governments, public interest
groups, the regulated community, and the public at large. As a significant public release each
year, OECA focuses its top-line messages on issues of broad public interest and provides more
specific results on key measures and trends.
Page 50 of the report includes a table of specific possible additional contextual elements for this
recommendation. These elements appear to fall into three categories: 1) providing additional
context on type and complexity of activities (compliance monitoring, hazardous substance
cleanups); 2) grouping pollutant reduction results by categories of pollutants or more detailed
results on specific pollutants of concern; and 3) including breakdowns of activities/actions by
statute and EPA region. Our response to this recommendation takes each in turn.
First, OECA does not believe that it can provide sufficient contextual information on
"complexity" of inspections or cleanups in a concise manner for use by the public at large in its
Annual Results. Decisions about "complexity" are inherently subjective. We have not found a
good solution to categorize all inspections or cleanups in this fashion with precision, which is
21-P-0132
160
-------
why we report the total number of inspections and the total number of cleanup enforcement
actions. We would agree, however, to add language recognizing the variability in these areas to
our existing caveats. For the FY 2020 Annual Results, OECA created a page titled "Known Data
Problems" which provides important information on how to interpret the results. We will retitle
this page to read "Known Data Problems and Aids to Data Interpretation" and then add to this
page a description of the variability in inspections and cleanup activities to provide aid in
interpreting the data for these measures.
Second, for the same reason, trying to categorize classes of pollutants by their severity or risk is
inherently challenging, and so to group pollutant reductions in this fashion is likely to be
confusing or misleading to the public. This is why we report the total mass of pollutants
reductions from air, water, and toxics emissions/releases. We would agree, however, to include
additional explanation on the "Known Data Problems..page to provide aid in interpreting
these data.
With respect to the first and second categories of additional contextual elements, we would
further note that the Annual Results webpage contains detailed descriptions of specific notable
cases which discuss specific pollutant reductions achieved, information about cleanup activities,
and other similar information. These give additional context to the summary tables. And we also
include the "Numbers at a Glance" table, which include additional measures of environmental
benefits achieved.
For the third category of suggested changes, breakdowns by statute and region, OECA already
provides access to this information. All of the data provided in the Annual Results that comes
from the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) is also available on Enforcement and
Compliance History Online (ECHO) for download. A user can download the data into an Excel
spreadsheet and sort by these categories as well as many others. In addition, as discussed further
in the response to Recommendation 8, the new ECHO EPA/State Dashboards for CAA
stationary sources, CWA NPDES, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), provide, or soon will provide, the capability to sort data across several years by
region, state, tribe, and other criteria. ECHO provides detailed information at a facility level,
including information on inspections and enforcement actions. We believe that continuing to
invest in transparency through our ECHO database is a better method of providing critical data to
the public, rather than focusing on aggregated data in the Annual Results.
Corrective Actions:
a) OECA will add to its "Known Data Problems and Aids to Data Interpretation"
webpage descriptions of the variability in complexity of inspections and
cleanups;
b) OECA will add to the "Known Data Problems..." webpage descriptions of the
different types and risks associated with key pollutants;
c) OECA will retitle the ECHO "State Dashboards" as the "EPA/State
Dashboards" on relevant webpages; and
d) OECA will note on the "Known Data Problems..." webpage the availability
of data broken out by statute, region, or state via the ECHO "EPA/State
Dashboards."
21-P-0132
161
-------
5. Establish additional measures for agency-led compliance assistance activities and informal
enforcement actions and include these new measures in future annual enforcement results
reports with the appropriate context.
6. Evaluate the annual enforcement performance measures to assess whether additional context
should be providedfor other reported measures or whether additional measures should be
included in future reports to fully capture the scope of the agency's enforcement program.
OECA proposes combining Recommendation 5 with Recommendation 6. Both recommendations
pertain to measures and context for the measures in future Annual Results or other results
reports.
OECA agrees with the recommendation to evaluate annual enforcement performance measures
to assess whether additional context should be provided for other reported measures or whether
additional measures should be included in future reports to fully capture the scope of the
agency's enforcement program. In FY 2021, EPA will begin developing a new strategic plan that
would set the agency's direction for the next five years. Once the new administration is in place,
OECA will review its current measures and consider new ones to capture the scope of the
enforcement program that would support both OECA's and the agency's goals. We acknowledge
the importance of providing information to facilitate proper interpretation of data and measures
and will evaluate additional sources of information that would provide context for our measures
supporting the agency strategic plan.
We note that compliance assistance and informal enforcement were both compliance assurance
tools of interest to the prior administration. Additionally, OECA tracked compliance assistance
(CA) for many years. The data did not, however, enable us to measure the impact on compliance
or gauge the benefit of the effort. Given the resource drain and lack of benefit for tracking these
activities, we eliminated the requirement to track them. Research shows CA to be most effective
when the regulated entity is motivated to seek assistance. For these reasons OECA invests in 17
Compliance Assistance Centers that support a variety of regulated sectors. The enforcement
program continues to provide compliance assistance through other efforts including issuing
compliance alerts.
On data limitations, the GAO enforcement audit (GAO 21-82) recommended that "OECA should
include the known limitations of data in its annual reports and provide information on the
intended use of EPA's data," as referenced in this OIG draft report. OECA has completed that
recommendation and will update the webpage as necessary for any new context for existing or
new measures. These links support the completion of the GAO recommendation. Known data
issues related to Annual Results can be found at Identified Limitations with Analyzing Annual
Result Data and Charts. In addition, see Known Data Problems for known problems in
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO).
Corrective Action: Conduct an evaluation of OECA performance measures, including
compliance assistance and informal enforcement actions, upon issuance of the agency's new
strategic plan later this year.
21-P-0132
162
-------
7. Develop and track non-compliance rates within environmental programs, or other measures
that would indicate success of enforcement activities at returning entities back to compliance.
OECA agrees with the value and utility of tracking non-compliance rates within environmental
programs and implementing creative measures that would indicate success of a compliance
assurance activity returning a facility to compliance. Being able to demonstrate positive change
in the rate of compliance would be the ideal measure of program effectiveness.
Unfortunately, deriving compliance rates and determining whether our actions produce
compliance is expensive, diverts limited resources, and ultimately is not currently achievable
with available data. Specifically:
1. Most environmental laws and regulations do not require reporting of information that
allows for determination of a compliance rate. As discussed in the OIG 2007 report and
the current report, most states are either authorized or delegated to implement the major
enforcement and monitoring programs. EPA does only a fraction of the national
enforcement and compliance assurance work. EPA data alone is not sufficient to
determine overall compliance rates and the states are not required to provide all their
environmental data to EPA.
2. Measuring compliance rates is very difficult and expensive to do. As the OIG noted in its
2007 report, developing a statistically-valid compliance rate as a baseline, or to measure
the effect of enforcement activities on the compliance rate, requires either data on the
compliance status of a random sample of regulated facilities or data reported on the entire
universe. For a program where compliance is monitored mostly through inspections,
facilities selected for inspection must be chosen randomly. Yet, due to resource
constraints, neither EPA nor authorized state/local programs typically conduct random
inspections. Instead, facilities generally are targeted based on data indicating they have a
proportionally higher probability of violation, in response to public tips and complaints,
and in discussions with state and local authorities. While this approach ensures
significant problems are more likely addressed and uses compliance and enforcement
resources most efficiently, use of these inspections to determine a compliance rate would
bias the rate upwards and would not be sound.
Consistent with OECA's response to the 2007 report, "OECA has in fact made conscious
management choices on how best to use enforcement resources.... Because inspection
resources are finite, every random inspection conducted means sacrificing a targeted
inspection likely to identify violations. Thus, OECA's challenge has been and will
continue to be to carefully and effectively balance its measurement approaches with its
mission of protecting public health and the environment."3
3. A transition to measuring compliance rates for all the environmental programs would
require changes to policies, and, in some cases, statutory or regulatory modifications.
3 EPA OIG. Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in Selected Federal Agencies. 2007-P-
00027. June 20. 2007.
21-P-0132
163
-------
For these reasons, OECA has measured instead the quantifiable outcomes of our enforcement
activities discussed in the report: value of injunctive relief, penalties, pollutant reductions, etc., to
ensure we are allocating resources to the most significant environmental and compliance
concerns and generating deterrence against noncompliance.
One program for which the problem of measuring the compliance rate has been overcome is in
the NPDES Program under the CWA. The NPDES program relies primarily on self-reporting of
effluent data for compliance monitoring rather than inspections. Permittees are statutorily
required to submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). The DMR data, when compared to
permit effluent limits, allow for automated compliance determinations. EPA promulgated a rule
requiring DMRs to be electronically submitted to support our ability to gauge compliance across
this sector. It has taken significant effort by both EPA and authorized states to shift from paper-
based reporting to electronic-based reporting in the program. Based on the unique availability of
compliance rate data in this program, OECA included reducing the rate of significant non-
compliance in the NPDES program as one of its six national initiatives for FY 2020-FY 2023.
Where we can calculate the compliance rate, we are committed to using that metric to measure
and improve compliance and program performance.
Another area with movement to assessing compliance is the agency's Drinking Water Learning
Agenda. OECA is working with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water to evaluate
ways to effectively improve community water system compliance. In FY 2021, we will begin
assessing whether the agency has access to the data necessary to determine a compliance rate for
this program.
Corrective Actions: Conduct a study of the NPDES SNC national initiative at its conclusion to
determine the impact, including overall costs and benefits, of using compliance rates to establish
performance expectations on overall NPDES compliance. Develop possible lessons learned for
application to other similar programs (e.g., the SDWA Public Water System program), where
self-monitoring is also a key method for determining compliance.
8. Develop and publish a dashboard on the Enforcement Compliance History Online website that
shows trends in agency-led enforcement activities and actions, similar to the dashboards the
agency has already prepared for state enforcement programs.
OECA agrees that providing information on EPA enforcement actions in an easy-to-use
dashboard format is important for public transparency. We have nearly completed work that we
believe meets the intent of this recommendation. The existing State Dashboards already provide
information on EPA as well as state activities, as the report notes on page 50. And, in particular,
OECA has updated the air, water, and hazardous waste dashboards in the past year to move them
to a new software platform that provides additional functionality - the same platform that powers
the internal dashboard discussed on pages 7-8 of the report. [The new water dashboard was
posted to the public ECHO website on March 1, 2021; the illustration on page 50 of the report
shows the now-retired version.] The new dashboards allow the user to select for EPA or state
activities to be displayed alone and also allow for selecting particular EPA regions or states. The
drinking water State Dashboard is in the process of being updated in a similar manner and should
be available to the public by June 30, 2021.
21-P-0132
164
-------
OECA proposes completion of the updated drinking water State Dashboard as the remaining
corrective action for this recommendation. We would be happy to provide a demonstration
and/or training to the OIG on the new dashboards' capabilities. Finally, we note that the term
"State Dashboards" may be somewhat confusing in that they contain EPA compliance and
enforcement data as well, so, as mentioned in our response to Recommendation 4, we will
change the name on relevant webpages to refer to the products as the "EPA/State Dashboards."
Corrective Action: Change the name of the State Dashboards to be the "EPA/State Dashboards."
Complete the updated drinking water EPA/State Dashboard.
IV. Appendices
As the report indicates, even as there has been a national downward trend in many metrics, there
is a lot of variability year to year, program to program, and region to region. Appendix B of the
report goes into great detail regarding various regional increases or decreases between various
years for compliance monitoring activities, initiations, conclusions, or environmental benefits.
This is to be expected. Regions vary significantly in terms of resources and in terms of the
numbers and types of facilities present within their regional footprint. Each region balances the
need to address national priorities and regional priorities within the resources they have. Further,
as the report points out, the conclusion of a single large case can significantly skew the data for
injunctive relief, penalties, or environmental benefits. We would expect for there to be
significant differences between regions and between regions and headquarters, with respect to
the various metrics discussed in the report.
Similarly, as reflected in Appendix C, there are differences in outcomes from the various
statutory programs. This is also not surprising. For example, every city in America that operates
a wastewater treatment system is subject to the CWA. Many of these systems support large
populations and manage tons of sewage. It is not surprising, therefore, that the CWA accounts
for a significant number of inspections and other enforcement outputs.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for your detailed evaluation of these enforcement trends and the opportunity to
provide feedback on the draft report. We look forward to further discussions with you on these
important issues.
RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Our office indicates acceptance of the OIG recommendations, as qualified, in the table below.
Agreements
No
OIG Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Estimated
Action(s)
Completion by
Quarter and FY
21-P-0132
165
-------
1
Assess the needs of the
agency's enforcement
program by completing
a workforce analysis to
determine the level of
staffing necessary to
achieve and maintain a
strong enforcement
presence in the field that
protects human health
and the environment.
OECA will conduct a high-level
needs assessment to inform
distribution of any additional
resources provided to OECA in the
2022 budget and beyond. This
assessment will be considered during
future planning discussions.
4th Q FY 21
2
Integrate the results of
the workforce analysis
into the Office of
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance's
annual and strategic
planning processes.
OECA will conduct a high-level
needs assessment to inform
distribution of any additional
resources provided to OECA in the
2022 budget and beyond. This
assessment will be considered during
future planning discussions.
4th Q FY 21
3
Use the results of the
Office of Inspector
General's 2019
Enforcement Survey and
other resources to
identify and address
areas of concern for the
enforcement program,
including through
issuing new or revised
policies, as appropriate.
We will brief the new Assistant
Administrator for OECA on the
results of the survey and identify to
him/her existing policies which may
impact the effectiveness of our
enforcement program.
4th Q FY 21
4
Incorporate additional
enforcement information
and data into future
annual enforcement
results reports to provide
context for (a)
compliance monitoring
activities conducted by
the agency and
(b) the estimated
environmental benefits
achieved through
agency enforcement
actions.
OECA will add to its "Known Data
Problems and Aids to Data
Interpretation" webpage
accompanying its Annual Results
descriptions of the variability in
complexity of inspections and
cleanups.
OECA will add to the "Known Data
Problems..." webpage descriptions of
the different types and risks
associated with key pollutants.
OECA will retitle the ECHO "State
Dashboards" as the "EPA/State
Dashboards" on relevant webpages.
2/28/22
2/28/22
5/1/21
21-P-0132
166
-------
OEC A will note on the "Known Data
Problems..webpage the
availability of data broken out by
statute, Region, or State via the
ECHO "EPA/State Dashboards.
2/28/22
5
Establish additional
measures for agency-led
compliance assistance
activities and informal
enforcement actions and
include these new
measures in future
annual enforcement
results reports with the
appropriate context.
Conduct an evaluation of OECA
performance measures, including
compliance assistance and informal
enforcement actions.
12/31/21
6
Evaluate the annual
enforcement
performance measures
to assess whether
additional context
should be provided for
other reported measures
or whether additional
measures should be
included in future
reports to fully capture
the scope of the
agency's enforcement
program.
Conduct an evaluation of OECA
performance measures, including
compliance assistance and informal
enforcement actions.
—Assess need for additional context
for the measures in the Annual
Results.
12/31/21
2/28/22
7
Develop and track non-
compliance rates within
environmental
programs, or other
measures that would
indicate the success of
enforcement activities at
returning entities back to
compliance.
Conduct a study of the NPDES SNC
NCI at its conclusion to determine the
impact, including overall costs and
benefits, of using compliance rates to
establish performance expectations
on overall NPDES compliance.
Develop possible lessons learned for
application to other similar programs
(e.g., the SDWA Public Water
System program), where self-
monitoring is also a key method for
determining compliance.
4th Q FY 23
21-P-0132
167
-------
8
Develop and publish a
Change the name of the State
5/1/21
dashboard on the
Dashboards to be the "EPA/State
Enforcement
Dashboards."
Compliance History
Online website that
shows trends in agency-
led enforcement
Complete the updated drinking water
5/31/21
activities and actions,
EPA/State Dashboard.
similar to the
dashboards the agency
has already prepared for
state enforcement
programs.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Gwendolyn Spriggs (OECA) at
spriggs.gwendolyn@epa.gov or 202-564-2439.
Attachment:
Technical Comments
21-P-0132
168
-------
Appendix F
Revised Agency Corrective Actions for
Recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 7
On April 7, 2021, the audit team met with OECA staff and managers to discuss the Agency's
response to recommendations and the proposed high-level intended corrective actions. Based on
this meeting, the audit team made a minor revision to Recommendation 7. The Agency provided
revised high-level corrective actions and milestones for Recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 7 to
supplement its original response on April 13, 2021.
No
OIG recommendation
High-level intended
corrective action(s)
Estimated
completion by
quarter and
fiscal year
3
Use the results of the
OIG's 2019 Enforcement
Survey and other
resources to identify and
address areas of concern
for the enforcement
program, including
through issuing new or
revised policies, as
appropriate.
We will review the results of the survey
and brief the Assistant Administrator
for OECA on the results of the survey,
identifying existing policies and other
areas of concern which may impact the
effectiveness of our enforcement
program, and recommending changes
as appropriate.
FY 21 Q4
4
Incorporate additional
enforcement information
and data into future
annual enforcement
results reports to provide
context for (a) compliance
monitoring activities
conducted by the Agency
and (b) the estimated
environmental benefits
achieved through Agency
enforcement actions.
1. OECA will add to its "Known Data
Problems and Aids to Data
Interpretation" webpage
accompanying its Annual Results
descriptions of the variability in the
complexity of compliance
monitoring activities, such as
inspections, and cleanups.
2. OECA will add to the "Known Data
Problems..." webpage descriptions
ofthe different types and risks
associated with key pollutants
associated with environmental
benefits achieved through agency
enforcement actions.
1. FY22 Q2
2. FY22 Q2
21-P-0132
169
-------
No
OIG recommendation
High-level intended
corrective action(s)
Estimated
completion by
quarter and
fiscal year
3. OECA will retitle the ECHO
"State Dashboards" as the
"EPA/State Dashboards" on
relevant webpages.
3. FY 21 Q3
4. OECA will note on the "Known
DataProblems..." webpage the
availability of data broken out by
statute, Region, or State via the
ECHO "EPA/State Dashboards."
4. FY 22 02
5
Establish additional
measures for Agency-led
compliance assistance
activities and informal
enforcement actions and
include these new
measures in future annual
enforcement results
reports with the
appropriate context.
1. Define EPA-issued informal and
formal enforcement actions.
2. Develop reporting instructions for
reporting newly defined EPA-issued
informal enforcement actions.
3. If the evaluation of OECA
performance measures pursuant to
Recommendation 6 identifies EPA-led
compliance assistance activities and
EPA-led informal enforcement actions
as Agency priorities, decide whether
and how to track and measure these
activities/actions.
1. FY 22 Q2
2. FY 22 Q3
3. FY 22 Q4
7
Develop and track
noncompliance rates within
environmental programs or
use other innovative
approaches that would
indicate the success of
enforcement activities at
returning entities to
compliance.
Continue to study the impacts of our
compliance assurance tools on the
regulated community, using evidence-
based compliance research. As part of
the E-enterprise Leadership Council,
working with our state, tribal and
academic partners we will develop a
compliance learning agenda. The
learning agenda will identify the most
pressing compliance programmatic
questions and identify a series of
evidence-building research projects
intended to answer those questions.
FY22 Q3
21-P-0132
170
-------
Appendix G
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Administration and Policy, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
21-P-0132
171
------- |