[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 144 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18327]
[Federal Register: July 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5021-5]
Restatement of Policies Related to Environmental Auditing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA Environmental Auditing Policy Statement (``1986
Policy'') was originally published in the Federal Register on July 9,
1986 (51 FR 25004). The 1986 Policy states that ``(c)larification of
EPA's position regarding auditing may help encourage regulated entities
to establish audit programs or upgrade systems already in place.'' The
goal of this notice is to clarify EPA's current policies on and
approach to auditing. This notice summarizes salient points from the
1986 Policy, which remains in effect. In addition, this notice updates
the Agency's activities with respect to auditing and auditing policy
and references pertinent language from other relevant policy documents,
in anticipation of the public meeting on auditing scheduled for July
27-28, 1994. This notice does not represent a new EPA policy or
position on environmental auditing; all existing policies remain in
effect.
I. Auditing Public Meeting: Change of Location
The response to EPA's announcement (59 FR 31914, June 20, 1994) to
hold a public meeting on auditing on July 27-28, 1994 has been
overwhelming. Due to the expected size of the audience, therefore, the
Agency has changed the location of this event. The new location is the
Stouffer Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, at 1127 Connecticut Avenue,
NW, Phone (202) 347-3000.
II. The Auditing Policy Reassessment
In response to a request by Administrator Carol M. Browner, the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is reassessing
the Agency's current policy regarding environmental auditing and self-
evaluation by the regulated community. EPA has committed to
investigating the perceived problems relating to auditing, self-
evaluation, and disclosure through an empirical, information-gathering
effort. The Agency must develop an adequate information base to give
serious consideration to any policy options and to ensure that any
decision to either reinforce, change, or supplement existing policy is
informed by fact.
EPA hopes to collect such relevant data through the implementation
of four actions this summer. First, the Agency will convene a public
meeting on July 27-28, 1994, as an opportunity to obtain a wide variety
of views and to sharpen the focus on these issues. The range of issues
appropriate for discussion at the public meeting include: the
implementation of the 1986 Policy; specific suggestions for auditing
policy options; State audit privilege legislation; auditing in the
context of criminal enforcement; and advances in the field of auditing
since 1986. Interested parties are encouraged to read the Federal
Register notice dated June 20, 1994 (59 FR 31914) for more details on
the public meeting.
Second, EPA published in the June 21, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR
32062) a notice requesting proposals for Environmental Leadership
Program (ELP) pilot projects. EPA expects that these pilot projects
will generate useful data on auditing methodology and measures, and may
also serve as vehicles for experimenting with policy-driven incentives.
Third, EPA will encourage the private sector to collect data and
survey auditing practices in order to gauge the effect of enforcement
policies on self-evaluation and disclosure in the regulated community.
The Agency will also seek input on auditing and related issues from
States, environmental and public interest groups, and trade and
professional associations.
Finally, in this Federal Register notice, EPA is restating salient
points from the 1986 Policy and reviewing its activities and other
policies relating to environmental auditing. The goal of this notice is
to clarify EPA's current policies on and approach to auditing, in order
to ensure a well-informed policy debate.
III. Review of General EPA Policy on Environmental Auditing
A. EPA Encourages the Use of Environmental Auditing
EPA has actively encouraged and participated in the development of
environmental auditing and improved environmental management practices
since the mid-1980s. In fact, the 1986 Policy has served as the basis
for defining the practice and profession of environmental auditing. The
1986 Policy clearly states EPA support for auditing:
Effective environmental auditing can lead to higher levels of
overall compliance and reduced risk to human health and the
environment. EPA endorses the practice of environmental auditing and
supports its accelerated use by regulated entities to help meet the
goals of Federal, state and local environmental requirements.
* * * * *
Auditing serves as a quality assurance check to help improve the
effectiveness of basic environmental management by verifying that
management practices are in place, functioning and adequate.
Environmental audits evaluate, and are not a substitute for, direct
compliance activities such as obtaining permits, installing
controls, monitoring compliance, reporting violations, and keeping
records. Environmental auditing may verify but does not include
activities required by law, regulation, or permit (e.g., continuous
emissions monitoring, composite correction plans at wastewater
treatment plants, etc.). Audits do not in any way replace regulatory
agency inspections. However, environmental audits can improve
compliance by complementing conventional Federal, state and local
oversight.
* * * * *
Environmental auditing has developed for sound business reasons,
particularly as a means of helping regulated entities manage
pollution control affirmatively over time instead of reacting to
crises. Auditing can result in improved facility environmental
performance, help communicate effective solutions to common
environmental problems, focus facility managers' attention on
current and upcoming regulatory requirements, and generate protocols
and checklists which help facilities better manage themselves.
Auditing also can result in better-integrated management of
environmental hazards, since auditors frequently identify
environmental liabilities which go beyond regulatory compliance.
The Agency clearly supports auditing to help ensure the adequacy of
internal systems to achieve, maintain, and monitor compliance. By
voluntarily implementing environmental management and auditing
programs, regulated entities can identify, resolve, and avoid
environmental problems.
EPA does not intend to dictate or interfere with the
environmental management practices of private or public
organizations. Nor does EPA intend to mandate auditing (though in
certain instances EPA may seek to include provisions for
environmental auditing as part of settlement agreements, as noted
below). Because environmental auditing systems have been widely
adopted on a voluntary basis in the past, and because audit quality
depends to a large degree upon genuine management commitment to the
program and its objectives, auditing should remain a voluntary
activity.
Because senior managers of regulated entities are ultimately
responsible for taking all necessary steps to ensure compliance with
environmental requirements, EPA believes they have a strong incentive
to use reasonable means, such as environmental auditing, to secure
reliable information about facility compliance status.
B. Definition of Environmental Auditing, Elements of Effective
Environmental Auditing Programs
The 1986 Policy also defines environmental auditing, and outlines
what EPA considers to be the elements of an effective environmental
auditing program. The 1986 Policy presents the following definition:
Environmental auditing is a systematic, documented, periodic and
objective review by regulated entities of facility operations and
practices related to meeting environmental requirements. Audits can
be designed to accomplish any or all of the following: verify
compliance with environmental requirements; evaluate the
effectiveness of environmental management systems already in place;
or assess risks from regulated and unregulated materials and
practices.
An organization's auditing program will evolve according to its
unique structures and circumstances. The 1986 Policy acknowledges this
fact, and also states EPA's belief that effective environmental
auditing programs appear to have certain discernible elements in common
with other kinds of audit programs. EPA generally considers these
elements important to ensure program effectiveness. This general
description of effective, mature audit programs can help those starting
audit programs, especially Federal agencies and smaller businesses.
Regulatory agencies may also use these elements in negotiating
environmental auditing provisions for consent decrees. Finally, these
elements can help guide states and localities considering auditing
initiatives.
As stated in the 1986 Policy, an effective environmental auditing
system will likely include the following general elements:
I. Explicit top management support for environmental auditing
and commitment to follow-up on audit findings. Management support
may be demonstrated by a written policy articulating upper
management support for the auditing program, and for compliance with
all pertinent requirements, including corporate policies and permit
requirements as well as Federal, state and local statutes and
regulations.
Management support for the auditing program also should be
demonstrated by an explicit written commitment to follow-up on audit
findings to correct identified problems and prevent their
recurrence.
II. An environmental auditing function independent of audited
activities. The status or organizational locus of environmental
auditors should be sufficient to ensure objective and unobstructed
inquiry, observation and testing. Auditor objectivity should not be
impaired by personal relationships, financial or other conflicts of
interest, interference with free inquiry or judgment, or fear of
potential retribution.
III. Adequate team staffing and auditor training. Environmental
auditors should possess or have ready access to the knowledge,
skills, and disciplines needed to accomplish audit objectives. Each
individual auditor should comply with the company's professional
standards of conduct. Auditors, whether full-time or part-time,
should maintain their technical and analytical competence through
continuing education and training.
IV. Explicit audit program objectives, scope, resources and
frequency. At a minimum, audit objectives should include assessing
compliance with applicable environmental laws and evaluating the
adequacy of internal compliance policies, procedures, and personnel
training programs to ensure continued compliance.
Audits should be based on a process which provides auditors: all
corporate policies, permits, and Federal, state, and local
regulations pertinent to the facility; and checklists or protocols
addressing specific features that should be evaluated by auditors.
Explicit written audit procedures generally should be used for
planning audits, establishing audit scope, establishing audit scope,
examining and evaluating audit findings, communicating audit
results, and following-up.
V. A process that collects analyzes interprets and documents
information sufficient to achieve audit objectives. Information
should be collected before and during an on-site visit regarding
environmental compliance (1) environmental management effectiveness
(2) and other matters (3) related to audit objectives and scope.
This information should be sufficient, reliable, relevant and useful
to provide a sound basis for audit finds and recommendations.
a. Sufficient information is factual, adequate and convincing so
that a prudent, informed person would be likely to reach the same
conclusions as the auditor.
b. Reliable information is the best attainable through use of
appropriate audit techniques.
c. Relevant information supports audit findings and
recommendations and is consistent with the objectives for the audit.
d. Useful information helps the organization meet its goals.
The audit process should include a periodic review of the
reliability and integrity of this information and the means used to
identify, measure, classify and report it. Audit procedures,
including the testing and sampling techniques employed, should be
selected in advance, to the extent practical, and expanded or
altered if circumstances warrant. The process of collecting,
analyzing, interpreting and documenting information should provide
reasonable assurance that audit objectivity is maintained and audit
goals are met.
VI. A process that includes specific procedures to promptly
prepare candid clear and appropriate written reports on audit finds
corrective actions and schedules for implementation. Procedures
should be in place to ensure that such information is communicated
to managers, including facility and corporate management, who can
evaluate the information and ensure correction of identified
problems. Procedures also should be in place for determining what
internal findings are reportable to state or Federal agencies.
VII. A process that includes quality assurance procedures to
assure the accuracy and thoroughness of environmental audits.
Quality assurance may be accomplished through supervision,
independent internal reviews, external reviews, or a combination of
these approaches.
C. EPA Activities Related to Auditing Standards
EPA is currently participating in two major non-regulatory efforts
to develop voluntary standards for auditing and environmental
management systems. First, the International Organization of Standards
(ISO), based in Geneva, Switzerland, established in 1993 a Technical
Committee for Environmental Management Standards (ISO-TC-207).
Subcommittee Two of TC-207 is in the process of developing
environmental auditing standards. The standards fall into three groups:
Auditing Principles, Auditing Procedures, and Auditor Qualifications.
Second, in the U.S., the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, is developing environmental auditing standards that
are intended to be compatible with and augment the ISO standards. Work
is proceeding rapidly within ISO and NSF, with draft standards expected
by the end of the year.
The proposed NSF and ISO auditing standards are being developed
within the framework of overall environmental management systems
standards. Neither ISO nor NSF intends to establish specific
environmental standards; instead both are seeking to provide management
tools that include auditing schemes and standards. The EPA 1986 Policy
has been a central reference document for both the ISO and NSF work. As
these new documents develop, issues of auditor qualifications and
explicit management commitment to audit follow-up will be of particular
interest to EPA.
IV. Review of EPA Policy on Specific Environmental Auditing Issues
A. Agency Requests for Audit Reports
EPA's 1986 Policy clearly states that:
. . . EPA believes routine Agency requests for audit reports
could inhibit auditing in the long run, decreasing both the quantity
and quality of audits conducted. Therefore, as a matter of policy
EPA will not routinely request environmental audit reports.
The 1986 policy also acknowledges regulated entities' need to self-
evaluate environmental performance with some measure of privacy.
However, audit reports may not shield monitoring, compliance or other
information that would otherwise be reportable and/or accessible to EPA
even if there is no explicit requirement to generate that data. Thus,
the 1986 Policy does not alter regulated entities' existing or future
obligations to monitor, record or report information required under
environmental statutes, regulations or permits, or to allow EPA access
to that information. Nor does the 1986 Policy alter EPA's authority to
request and receive any relevant information--including that contained
in audit reports--under various environmental statutes or in other
administrative or judicial proceedings.
EPA's authority to request an audit report, or relevant portions
thereof, will be exercised on a case-by-case basis where the Agency
determines it is needed to accomplish a statutory mission, or where
the Government deems it to be material to a criminal investigation.
EPA expects such requests to be limited, most likely focused on
particular information needs rather than the entire report, and
usually made where the information needed cannot be obtained from
monitoring, reporting, or other data otherwise available to the
Agency. Examples would likely include situations where: audits are
conducted under consent decrees or other settlement agreements; a
company has placed its management practices at issue by raising them
as a defense; or state of mind or intent are a relevant element of
inquiry, such as during a criminal investigation. This list is
illustrative rather than exhaustive, since there doubtless will be
other situations, not subject to prediction, in which audit reports
rather than information may be required . . .
B. EPA Response to Environmental Auditing
1. General Policy
The 1986 Policy states that ``EPA will not promise to forgo
inspections, reduce enforcement responses, or offer other such
incentives in exchange for implementation of environmental auditing or
other sound environmental management practices.'' EPA is required by
law to independently assess compliance status of facilities, and cannot
eliminate inspections for particular firms or classes of firms. Certain
statutes (e.g. RCRA) and Agency policies establish minimum facility
inspection frequencies to which EPA will adhere. Environmental audits
are in no way a substitute for regulatory oversight.
As explained in the 1986 Policy, however, EPA will take into
account a facility's efforts to audit in setting inspection priorities
and in fashioning enforcement responses to violations:
. . . EPA will continue to address environmental problems on a
priority basis and will consequently inspect facilities with poor
environmental records and practices more frequently. Since effective
environmental auditing helps management identify and promptly
correct actual or potential problems, audited facilities'
environmental performance should improve. Thus, while EPA
inspections of self-audited facilities will continue, to the extent
that compliance performance is considered in setting inspection
priorities, facilities with a good compliance history may be subject
to fewer inspections.
In fashioning enforcement responses to violations, EPA policy is
to take into account, on a case-by-case basis, the honest and
genuine efforts of regulated entities to avoid and promptly correct
violations and underlying environmental problems. When regulated
entities take reasonable precautions to avoid noncompliance,
expeditiously correct underlying environmental problems discovered
through audits or other means, and implement measures to prevent
their recurrence, EPA may exercise its discretion to consider such
actions as honest and genuine efforts to assure compliance. Such
consideration applies particularly when a regulated entity promptly
reports violations or compliance data that otherwise were not
required to be recorded or reported to EPA.
These principles have been incorporated into the Agency's
enforcement response and civil penalty policies.
2. Audit Provisions as Remedies in Enforcement Settlements
The 1986 Policy includes the following language on audit provisions
as remedies in enforcement settlements:
EPA may propose environmental auditing provisions in consent
decrees and in other settlement negotiations where auditing could
provide a remedy for identified problems and reduce the likelihood
of similar problems recurring in the future. Environmental auditing
provisions are most likely to be proposed in settlement negotiations
when:
A pattern of violations can be attributed, at least in
part, to the absence or poor functioning of an environmental
management system; or
The type of nature of violations indicates a likelihood
that similar noncompliance problems may exist or occur elsewhere in
the facility or at other facilities operated by the regulated
entity.
EPA's enforcement office issued further guidance on this issue in
1986 in a document entitled ``EPA Policy on the Inclusion of
Environmental Auditing Provisions in Enforcement Settlements.'' This
guidance has been consistently applied in enforcement actions as
appropriate, and has formed the basis for the inclusion of audit
agreements or provisions in numerous consent decrees. Selected text
from this document, also still in effect, is included here:
In recent years, Agency negotiators have achieved numerous
settlements that require regulated entities to audit their
operations. These innovative settlements have been highly successful
in enabling the Agency to accomplish more effectively its primary
mission, namely, to secure environmental compliance. Indeed,
auditing provisions in enforcement settlements have provided several
important benefits to the Agency by enhancing its ability to:
Address compliance at an entire facility or at all
facilities owned or operated by a party, rather than just the
violations discovered during inspections; and identify and correct
violations that may have gone undetected (and uncorrected)
otherwise;
Focus the attention of a regulated party's top-level
management on environmental compliance; produce corporate policies
and procedures that enable a party to achieve and maintain
compliance; and help a party to manage pollution control
affirmatively over time instead of reacting to crises;
Provide a quality assurance check by verifying that
existing environmental management practices are in place,
functioning and adequate.
* * * * *
It is the policy of EPA to settle its judicial and
administrative enforcement cases only where violators can assure the
Agency that their noncompliance will be (or has been) corrected. EPA
. . . considers auditing an appropriate part of a settlement where
heightened management attention could lower the potential for
noncompliance to recur.
* * * * *
In most cases, either (or both) of the following two types of
environmental audits should be considered [in enforcement
settlements]:
1. Compliance Audit: An independent assessment of the current
status of a party's compliance with applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements. This approach always entails a requirement
that effective measures be taken to remedy uncovered compliance
problems, and is most effective when coupled with a requirement that
the root causes of noncompliance also be remedied.
2. Management Audit: An independent evaluation of a party's
environmental compliance policies, practices, and controls. Such
evaluation may encompass the need for: (1) A formal corporate
environmental compliance policy, and procedures for implementation
of that policy; (2) educational and training programs for employees;
(3) equipment purchase, operation and maintenance programs; (4)
environmental compliance officer programs (or other organizational
structures relevant to compliance); (5) budgeting and planning
systems for environmental compliance; (6) monitoring, record keeping
and reporting systems; (7) in-plant and community emergency plans;
(8) internal communications and control systems; and (9) hazard
identification and risk assessment.
Whether to seek a compliance audit, a management audit, or both
will depend upon the unique circumstances of each case. A compliance
audit usually will be appropriate where the violations uncovered by
Agency inspections raise the likelihood that environmental
noncompliance exists elsewhere within a party's operations. A
management audit should be sought where it appears that a major
contributing factor to noncompliance is inadequate (or nonexistent)
managerial attention to environmental policies, procedures or
staffing. Both types of audits should be sought where both current
noncompliance and shortcomings in a party's environmental management
practices need to be addressed.
C. Environmental Auditing and Criminal Enforcement Policy
Following EPA's 1986 Policy, three significant developments mark
the evolution and implementation of criminal enforcement policy
governing the use of self-audits and the voluntary disclosure of
environmental violations.
First, on July 1, 1991, the Department of Justice issued a guidance
entitled: ``Factors In Decisions On Criminal Prosecutions For
Environmental Violations In The Context Of Significant Voluntary
Compliance Or Disclosure Efforts By The Violator.'' The guidance sets
the general DOJ policy on auditing:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice to encourage self-
auditing, self-policing, and voluntary disclosure of environmental
violations by the regulated community by indicating that these
activities are viewed as mitigating factors in the Department's
exercise of criminal enforcement discretion.
The guidance and the examples contained therein provide a framework for
the determination of whether a particular case presents the type of
circumstances in which lenience would be appropriate. The factors to be
considered in exercising the Department's prosecutorial discretion, in
cases where the law and evidence are otherwise sufficient for
prosecution, include: voluntary disclosure; cooperation; preventive
measures and compliance programs; pervasiveness of noncompliance;
internal disciplinary action; and subsequent compliance efforts.
Second, on November 11, 1993, the Final Draft Environmental
Sentencing Guidelines provided for the mitigation of sentences where a
court finds that the following factors for environmental compliance are
satisfied: line management attention to compliance; integration of
environmental policies, standards, and procedures; auditing,
monitoring, reporting and tracking systems; regulatory expertise,
training and evaluation; incentives for compliance; disciplinary
procedures; continuing evaluation and improvement.
Finally, on January 12, 1994, EPA's Director of Criminal
Enforcement issued a guidance entitled: ``The Exercise of Investigative
Discretion,'' that sets forth specific factors that distinguish cases
meriting criminal investigation. With respect to corporations
conducting environmental audits, the guidance states:
Corporate culpability may be indicated when a company performs
an environmental compliance or management audit, and then knowingly
fails to promptly remedy the non-compliance and correct any harm
done. On the other hand, EPA policy strongly encourages self-
monitoring, self-disclosure, and self-correction. When self-auditing
has been conducted (followed up by prompt remediation of the non-
compliance and any resulting harm) and full, complete disclosure has
occurred, the company's constructive activities should be considered
as mitigating factors in EPA's exercise of investigative discretion.
Therefore, a violation that is voluntarily revealed and fully and
promptly remediated as part of a corporation's systematic and
comprehensive self-evaluation program generally will not be a
candidate for the expenditure of scarce criminal resources.
D. Audit Privilege Legislation
Four States (Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, and Oregon) have recently
enacted legislation which, with some variations, creates a ``self-
evaluative'' privilege for audit reports. EPA has consistently opposed
this approach, principally because of the risk of weakening State
enforcement programs, the imposition of unnecessary transaction costs
and delays in enforcement actions, and the potential increase in the
number of situations requiring the expenditure of scarce Agency
resources, including the ``overfiling'' of State enforcement actions.
EPA urges States that are considering a privilege-oriented approach to
actively participate in the comprehensive process described in the June
20, 1994 Federal Register notice (59 FR 31914) before pursuing any
legislative action. The Agency also encourages States that have passed
such legislation to present documentary justification for this approach
either at the public meeting on July 27-28, 1994, or in written
comments.
E. Environmental Auditing at Federal Facilities
The 1986 Policy also encourages all Federal agencies subject to
environmental laws and regulations to institute environmental auditing,
to help ensure the adequacy of internal systems to achieve, maintain
and monitor compliance. Such Federal facility environmental audit
programs should be structured to promptly identify environmental
problems and expeditiously develop schedules for remedial action.
Where appropriate, EPA will enter into agreements with other
agencies to clarify the respective roles, responsibilities and
commitments of each agency in conducting and responding to Federal
facility environmental audits. Also, to the extent feasible, EPA will
provide technical assistance to help Federal agencies design and
initiate audit programs. Currently, the EPA Federal Facility
Enforcement Office (FFEO) is co-chairing an inter-Agency work group to
revise auditing guidelines and protocols for Federal agencies. In
addition, FFEO is developing the Federal Government Environmental
Challenge Program required by Executive Order 12856, which calls for
the establishment of a Code of Environmental Principles and a Model
Installation Program for Federal facilities. This program is likely to
include environmental auditing components.
The 1986 Policy states that:
With respect to inspections of self-audited facilities and
requests for audit reports, EPA generally will respond to
environmental audits by Federal facilities in the same manner as it
does for other regulated entities.
* * * * *
Federal agencies should, however, be aware that the Freedom of
Information Act will govern any disclosure of audit reports or
audit-generated information requested from Federal agencies by the
public.
When Federal agencies discover significant violations through an
audit, EPA encourages them to voluntarily submit the related findings
and corrective action plans to the appropriate EPA Regional office and
State agencies, even when not specifically required to do so. EPA will
review the audit findings and action plans, and negotiate either a
consent agreement or a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement,
pursuant to its enforcement authorities under the various environmental
statutes. In any event, Federal agencies are expected to report to EPA
pollution abatement and prevention projects involving costs necessary
to correct compliance problems discovered through the audit, in
accordance with OMB Circular A-106. Upon request, and in appropriate
circumstances, EPA may assist affected Federal agencies through
coordination of any public release of voluntarily submitted audit
findings with approved action plans once agreement has been reached
and/or appropriate enforcement actions have been taken.
V. Review of Relationship to State or Local Regulatory Agencies
Effective Federal/state partnerships are critical to accomplishing
the mutual goal of achieving and maintaining high levels of compliance
with environmental laws and regulations. The greater the consistency
between state and local policies and the Federal response to
environmental auditing, the greater the degree to which sound auditing
practices might be adopted and compliance levels improved. State and
local regulatory agencies, of course, have independent jurisdiction
over regulated entities. EPA encourages them to adopt these or similar
policies on environmental auditing, in order to advance the use of
effective environmental auditing in a consistent manner.
The 1986 Policy emphasizes this point further:
EPA recognizes that some states have already undertaken
environmental auditing initiatives that differ somewhat from this
policy. Other states also may want to develop auditing policies that
accommodate their particular needs or circumstances. Nothing in this
policy statement is intended to preempt or preclude states from
developing other approaches to environmental auditing. EPA
encourages state and local authorities to consider the basic
principles that guided the Agency in developing this policy:
Regulated entities must continue to report or record
compliance information required under existing statutes or
regulations, regardless of whether such information is generated by
an environmental audit or contained in an audit report. Required
information cannot be withheld merely because it is generated by an
audit rather than by some other means.
Regulatory agencies cannot make promises to forgo or
limit enforcement action against a particular facility or class of
facilities in exchange for the use of environmental auditing
systems. However, such agencies may use their discretion to adjust
enforcement actions on a case-by-case basis in response to honest
and genuine efforts by regulated entities to assure environmental
compliance.
When setting inspection priorities, regulatory agencies
should focus to the extent possible on compliance performance and
environmental results.
Regulatory agencies must continue to meet minimum
program requirements (e.g., minimum inspection requirements, etc).
Regulatory agencies should not attempt to prescribe the
precise form and structure of regulated entities' environmental
management or auditing programs.
VI. Conclusion
All of the policies referenced in this notice remain in effect. The
Agency intends, however, to re-examine these policies comprehensively
and remains open to suggestions for changes and improvements regarding
all aspects of existing auditing policy. The information presented here
is intended for the convenience of interested parties, in preparation
for the July 27-28, 1994 public meeting. The Agency hopes that this
information will clarify EPA's current activities and policies related
to environmental auditing.
The Office of Compliance will respond to written requests for
copies of the documents referenced in this notice. Send all requests
to: U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance, Attn: Ira R. Feldman, Special
Counsel, 401 M Street, NW (5503), Washington, DC 20460.
Steven A. Herman,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
[FR Doc. 94-18327 Filed 7-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
