US EXPERIENCE AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

AND USE OF CENTRAL ELITE FORCE TO SUPPLEMENT LOCAL INSPECTORS

 

 

 

WILLS, CARROLL G. 1 and GIPE, DONALD C.2

 

1  Deputy Director, National Enforcement Investigations Center, Office of Enforcement, United

   States Environmental Protection Agency, Building 53, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 (United States of America)

 

2 Chief, Technical and Training Support Branch, National Enforcement Investigations Center, Office of Enforcement, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Building 53, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 (United States of America)

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

The United States' environmental enforcement program relies on well trained technical field inspectors at the Federal, State, and local levels.  Field inspectors perform a variety of compliance inspections and investigations1* to identify civil and criminal violations of the environmental laws and to support resulting litigation.  At the Federal level, the decentralized inspection force is supplemented with a central elite inspector corps located at the National Enforcement Investigations Center in Denver, Colorado.  This paper briefly summarizes the U.S. experience in environmental inspections, discusses the unique features of providing technical support to civil vs. criminal investigations and the role of a central elite corps to supplement Regional inspectors and identifies inspector training activities within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 

1                  INTRODUCTION

 

                   The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in December 1970 and consists of ten Regional Offices located throughout the United States.  Each Regional Office has a broad range of responsibilities in carrying out Congressional mandates for environmental protection by the vigorous enforcement of Federal environmental laws and regulations.  These Regional Offices are supported by an EPA headquarters infrastructure consisting of program offices which provide policy guidance.  Figure 1 shows the EPA organizational structure including the relationship between EPA headquarters and the ten Regional Offices.

Since its beginning, EPA's enforcement authorities have increased steadily, both through strong enforcement provisions in newer environmental legislation and amendments that provide greater enforcement powers under the older laws.  EPA and the States, under programs delegated or approved by EPA, carry out comprehensive programs to promote high levels of compliance by conducting compliance monitoring activities (including inspections) to detect violations.  Firm, but fair, enforcement action may be taken against violators to correct violations and create a strong enforcement presence.

Personnel conducting compliance inspections and field investigations play an essential and key role in the success of the national enforcement programs.  The vast majority of compliance inspections and field investigations are conducted by a well trained and decentralized field inspector cadre from either the ten EPA Regional Offices or from State and local organizations.  Most inspections are conducted at the State level (1).

 

 


*The terms "inspections" and "investigations" are comparable except that investigations involve broader issues than inspections and typically require more in-depth evaluations of facility and operating procedures.

The decentralized field inspector capability is supplemented by a central elite inspector corps organizationally situated in the EPA Office of Enforcement and physically located at the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) in Denver, Colorado.  The organization of the Office of Enforcement is shown in Figure 2. The NEIC supports the Agency by conducting special investigations for both the civil and criminal programs.

 

2        COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

 

2.1     Field Inspection Program

 

          The field inspection program within the environmental program is conducted by environmental inspectors who are located throughout the governmental environmental community at the Federal, State, and local level.  Within the Environmental Protection Agency, there are approximately 1850 personnel performing compliance inspections.  Of these, about one sixth are new and about five sixths are experienced (2); however, even the experienced Federal inspectors have relatively limited experience with an average of only about two years on the job.  In contrast, NEIC technical inspectors average approximately 15 years experience.

Inspectors have a variety of backgrounds.  The majority of EPA inspectors are scientists or engineers (1)(3).  State inspectors have been observed to have approximately the same backgrounds as the EPA inspectors.

There are extensive demands on the environmental inspectors' time with a minimum number of mandatory inspections required each year as well as the need to inspect targeted facilities.  Approximately 250,000 inspections are conducted annually.  The States conduct approximately 85 percent of all inspections, EPA conducts about six percent, and contractors conduct the remainder (1)(4).  In addition to conducting the inspections, the inspector must also develop information and devote the time necessary to support any subsequent enforcement action.

Inspections and subsequent case preparation frequently require a team approach.  Analytical support from either a government or contract laboratory is often needed.  Each EPA Region"', most States, and NEIC have laboratories which support the field work.  In addition, many Regions and States rely on contract laboratories to handle analytical work loads in excess government laboratory capacity.  Legal staff, information specialists, financial analysts, etc., are necessary to support the field inspector during all phases of the inspection.  The support will provide legal guidance and information on processes, compliance status, products, ability to pay, etc.

The States shouldered a significant share of the nation's environmental enforcement workload; in FY 1991, over 10,000 civil judicial and administrative actions were taken by States.  At the Federal level, in FY 1991 there were over 1600 civil judicial and administrative cases reflecting action under twelve environmental programs (5).

Only a relatively small number of Federal inspectors, estimated at 25 percent, perform 80 percent of the inspections; the rest of the inspector's time is taken up by various program activities (1).  Furthermore, the vast majority of EPA inspectors specialize in only one program area (e.g., air, water, hazardous waste) and are not cross-trained in multiple programs.  The demands on the Regional inspector's time frequently prevent the inspector from spending the time necessary to learn and conduct the more thorough complex multi-media investigations.  As the trend continues towards multi-media investigation and the holistic approach it offers, however, the demand will increase for more inspectors with multiple program training and experience.  As of late 1990, nearly all of NEIC inspectors, but only approximately 15 percent of the Regional inspectors, had training with a multi-media perspective (6).  Information on the status of multi­media inspectors at the State level is not readily available.

 

 

 

 

 


Region 9 laboratory is currently under construction.

 

Environmental compliance inspections and the multi-media approach have evolved over the years.  Prior to the late seventies, each inspection was program specific and concentrated on determining compliance with only one environmental law or one aspect of an environmental law (e.g., an inspection to determine compliance with the waste discharge permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act).  By the end of the seventies, NEIC had determined that it was much more effective and efficient to combine inspection objectives to include more than one environmental law, and thus developed the procedures for "multi-media" inspections.  The multi­media approach, which has been strongly endorsed by EPA management (5), was determined to have several advantages over a program-specific inspection including:

 

 

 

2.2        Criminal Enforcement Program

           

            Concomitant with the development of the multi-media approach, the EPA recognized the need to be more vigorous in its pursuit of criminal sanctions for violations of environmental laws.  On January 5, 1981, the Deputy Administrator directed the creation of the Office of Criminal Investigations in Washington, D.C., and the hiring of a trained investigative staff.  Also in January, 1981, the Attorney General of the United States confirmed the authority of EPA to initiate, or assist in, investigations into potential violations of the criminal provisions of the environmental statutes that the Agency administers.  Among the program's responsibilities were supervision of all Regional criminal case development and referrals, development of Agency-wide training and policy, coordination of the Agency's joint investigative program with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and liaison with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and outside law enforcement agencies.

            The criminal enforcement program hired an in-house staff of 23 experienced criminal investigators which had expanded to over 70 by 1992.  Most of the agents were formerly with such law enforcement agencies as the FBI; Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; or the Internal Revenue Service.  The agents were deputized by DOJ as Special Deputy United States Marshals, giving them full law enforcement authority to execute search warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.

            The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 recognized the benefits of the criminal investigation program and the need to expand the number of criminal investigators up to 200 by Fiscal Year 1995.  The current number of investigators is inadequate for several reasons.  The Congress has placed an increased emphasis on criminal enforcement by upgrading many offenses from misdemeanors to felonies.  Additionally, as public awareness of environmental crimes has increased, the public has become more willing to provide "tips" concerning environmental crimes which have substantially increased the workload of the investigators.  States are now requesting help in developing their own criminal investigation programs which also puts a growing demand on the Agency's criminal investigators.  Finally, the current number of criminal investigators forces the Agency to use its prosecutorial discretion in many cases and develop a civil case rather than an enforcement case (7).

 

2.3        Civil Investigation Program

 

            Inspections/investigations are continuing to evolve with the addition of civil investigators to the inspection arsenal.  The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 authorized 50 civil investigators by recognizing that the Agency's technical inspector/investigator corps would benefit from the addition of a expertise presently not readily available to the media programs.  Civil investigators have received in-depth training and have specific skills and abilities in the areas of interviewing and records evaluation which enable them to assist technical and legal staff by locating corporate and personnel assets, determining corporate structures and ownership, locating witnesses, etc.

The NEIC is piloting the civil investigator program to develop and demonstrate the contributions that civil investigators can make to Agency enforcement programs and to define potential roles of civil investigators in multi-media investigations.  This information will be used as a basis for Office of Enforcement policy decisions concerning full implementation of the civil investigator provisions of the Pollution Prosecution Act.

 

2.4        Technical Support

 

            From a technical standpoint there is a high degree of similarity between civil and criminal cases although more stringent procedural aspects are followed in the development of criminal cases.  Substantially more interaction is also required between prosecutors, investigators, and technical personnel in the development of a criminal case.  The technical personnel supporting a criminal case must fully understand precisely what the criminal investigators and the prosecutors need to support the case.  Furthermore, and perhaps even more important, the technical personnel must fully understand all legal constraints surrounding the criminal investigation and must rely heavily on the prosecutor and criminal investigator for guidance.

            While the States conduct most of the civil investigations, most of the technical support for the criminal enforcement program comes from EPA inspectors and from the NEIC.3*** Generally, technical support for case development can be broken down into six different areas which are discussed below, with civil/criminal technical support contrasted:

 

2.4.1     Development of background information

 

            A civil investigation will include extensive background research and may often expand the background research to obtain detailed information about process operations.  The investigator on a civil investigation is interested in developing an in-depth technical understanding of facility operations to enable the investigator to better identify areas where a facility operator may have unknowingly failed to identify or properly handle waste streams.  The criminal investigator is looking for willful violations.

During this phase of a criminal investigation, NEIC assists by providing financial, regulatory, and historical information on the target industry or individual.  This is accomplished by accessing the extensive computer data systems available through NEIC Information Services.  Research may also be done on the target facility's manufacturing processes to determine the probable waste streams the industry is likely to generate and under which specific Federal statutes these wastes are regulated.  When necessary, covert samples are collected from the target facility to provide additional support for probable cause of a criminal search warrant.  The civil investigator rarely has a need for covert sampling, as entry is usually consensual.

 

 

 

 

 

 


*** NEIC piloted the criminal investigation program during the 1980's and, in cooperation with the criminal investigators, developed the procedures for providing technical support to the agents during the conduct of a criminal investigation.

2.4.2     Preparation of an investigative plan

 

No matter how large or small the investigation, up front planning is necessary to assure success and the accomplishment of objectives.  Generally, a written investigation plan is desirable.  For large scale investigations and for investigations involving more than one organizational element (e.g., criminal investigation), a formal written plan is almost essential.  A written plan serves two purposes: (a) it assures that all investigation team members know the needed investigation activities, required standard operating procedures and protocols, unique procedures, and team member responsibilities; and (b) it provides all interested parties with a clear understanding of the extent of the technical support to be provided.

 

2.4.3     On-site field investigations

 

The technical investigator is responsible for the collection, documentation, and maintaining chain-of-custody of physical evidence.  All aspects of these activities are done in a manner which at some future time are fully defensible and accountable in the Federal court system.  Although civil cases require documentation, it is usually not to the extent of a criminal case.  Additionally, entry under civil authorities is usually consensual while site entry under a criminal case is usually with a warrant.

The technical conduct of the investigation is also different between a criminal and a civil case.  During a criminal investigation, the investigators are limited in what can be sampled or evaluated to that which is precisely listed in the criminal search warrant.  Furthermore, on-site investigations under a criminal search warrant are usually limited to a specific number of days (typically ten days).  During a civil investigation, the investigator has substantially more latitude to sample or evaluate anything they desire within the very broad guidance of the environmental laws and the only limitation on time is the availability of the investigator.

Prior to 1990, most criminal cases were media specific (8); however, consistent with the Agency's emphasis on multi-media enforcement, by FY 1991 the criminal enforcement program also emphasized the multi-media approach (5).

 

2.4.4       Analytical support

 

Ideally, a laboratory representative will assist in determining the analytical needs of the investigative activity.  On a civil investigation, samples may be analyzed at a Regional or State laboratory, the NEIC laboratory, or a non-government contract laboratory.  Most samples collected in support of criminal investigations are analyzed by EPA laboratories.  Approximately 40 percent of the samples collected for a criminal case are analyzed at the NEIC laboratory, which is the Agency's primary forensic laboratory.  The Regional laboratories analyze another 40 percent and State and local laboratories analyze the remaining 20 percent.

 

2.4.5       Preparation of a technical report

 

Perhaps the most obvious difference between technical support in civil and criminal cases is evidenced in the technical reports.  A technical report for a criminal case contains only the specific facts observed during the investigation and the specific results of the analytical work.  The report contains no conclusions or interpretations.  On the other hand, a civil report contains extensive information about the background of a facility, the process operations, discussions between the investigator and employees, and the conclusions and interpretations resulting from the investigation.  Neither the civil nor criminal report will not identify areas of noncompliance, however, such observations may be made in separate -correspondence,

 

2.4.6       Case preparation and litigation support

 

During this time period critical review is done of all data and known facts relating to the investigation.  Technical personnel work closely with the case agent and the assistant U.S. attorney aiding in the interpretation of sample data and determination of how the information supports witness and informant testimony.  Decisions are made at this time, supported by witness testimony and physical evidence, as to which specific Federal regulations have been violated.  This information is then used for the preparation of a Federal indictment.  Once the case is brought to trial, all personnel involved in the investigation must be prepared to testify in court as government factual or expert witnesses.  All documents, records, and evidence are preserved throughout the case preparation and litigation phases of the enforcement activity.  This procedure is very similar in both civil and criminal cases.

For a specific investigation, each time period is variable and the activity required to achieve each of the four segments of the investigation can vary from days to six months or more.  It should be recognized that, on the average, a successful environmental criminal investigation will take approximately 18 months; a successful civil case may take more time.

 

3          CENTRALIZED INVESTIGATIVE TEAM

 

            For the last twenty years, EPA and other Federal and State organizations have been aided in the enforcement of environmental laws by a centralized investigatory center known as the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) located in Denver, Colorado.  Founded in 1970, the NEIC was originally known as the National Field Investigations Center-Denver.  It was an operations unit of the enforcement program of the Federal Water Quality Administration in the U.S. Department of Interior.  The early responsibility of the Center was to perform water pollution studies for administrative enforcement actions and public hearings under the Clean Water Act.  In December 1970, the Center was transferred to the newly established EPA and began reporting to the Office of Enforcement and General Counsel (now Office of Enforcement) at EPA Headquarters.  In July 1975, the Center became the National Enforcement Investigations Center, with responsibility for conducting pollution investigations and preparing administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement cases under all Federal environmental laws.

NEIC serves as a principal source of expertise involving civil and criminal litigation support for complex investigations having national and/or significant Regional impact on EPA and State regulatory programs for air, water, toxics, pesticides, radiation, and solid waste pollution control.  The major function of the NEIC is to gather evidence and provide information for case preparations in support of EPA enforcement actions.  This includes litigation support for complex investigations in all environmental programs.  The Center's investigative teams normally become involved in situations where large scale investigations exceed the resources of the Regional Offices or where special technical expertise or investigative skills are required.  Whereas Regional and State level investigations are usually conducted with only a limited number of personnel over a one or two day period, investigations conducted by the NEIC typically include more people over an extended period of time.  Five to 30 or more technical staff may be involved in an NEIC level investigation, and time on-site usually takes one to two weeks with some investigations requiring several months.

The NEIC's case preparation activities are unique in that these investigations are performed full-time in contrast to Regional Offices who have other ancillary responsibilities.  As a result of this full-time commitment, probably more litigation experience exists at the Center than at the Regional Offices combined.  Emphasis is placed on NEIC's quick response, which often includes short notice field investigations of activity such as waste dumping or emissions that potentially endanger public health or welfare.

The Center has about 120 employees, of which approximately 35 are highly skilled, senior level, investigators with extensive experience in conducting field investigations.  In addition, about 90 contractor employees perform a variety of services related to the Center's function.  The professional disciplines of the Center's employees include civil, sanitary, environmental, chemical and industrial engineers; civil investigators; biologists; microbiologists; geologists; hydrologists; information management specialists; physicists; and chemists.  An attorney staff provides litigation support to EPA and/or the United States Department of Justice in prosecuting environmental offenders in formal regulatory or judicial proceedings resulting from NEIC investigations.

NEIC is a nationally-managed source for investigative, technical, scientific, administrative, and information management support that is necessary to the preparation of almost every significant environmental case.  The Center is frequently called upon by other Federal and State agencies to provide expert advice, consultation, and assistance for pollution control and remedial actions and may also support other Federal or State actions by conducting overflow chemical analyses.  The Center has had extensive experience in the development of environmental investigatory techniques and has gained national and international recognition through participation in many of the Agency's most important civil and criminal enforcement cases.  As noted earlier, NEIC has been the lead in developing new compliance monitoring approaches and has developed the multi-media investigation techniques and strategies.  One of the Center's most recent initiatives is the development and piloting of the new Civil Investigator program.

More specifically, the Center's primary responsibilities include:

 

 

Cases are referred to NEIC by the Office of Enforcement at EPA Headquarters, Regions, or the DOJ (including the FBI).  Cases are usually referred to NEIC in writing after preliminary discussions between NEIC and the requester; however, in emergency situations requiring quick response, a telephone call may be all that is required.  By the time a case is referred to NEIC for investigation, it has already been through a number of preliminary steps.  Regional Office case screening procedures assist in identifying potential enforcement cases for NEIC support.  If a State or EPA Region is aware that a serious environmental problem exists and has concluded that there is no likely resolution short of enforcement action, the situation is already fairly complex.  An investigation is usually required, questions of motivation arise, and identification of other potentially responsible parties and environmental impacts must be considered.

The NEIC works very closely with the referring organization in responding to a case Preparation request.  To accomplish efficient case development and management, core teams are established for the purpose of close and continuous communications among the investigative participants throughout the entire case development process.

The core team normally consists of representatives within the investigative, technical, and legal fields, including appropriate representation from the United States Attorneys' Office or the Department of Justice.  The initial functions of the core team are to discuss the statutory and regulatory provisions suspected to have been violated and to determine what evidence must be obtained to ascertain whether the violations have occurred.  If criminal activity is suspected, the core team will include NEIC staff who have received special training in the conduct of criminal investigations as well as appropriate representatives from EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement and/or the FBI.  Given the areas of expertise represented, the core team has the ability to minimize potential problems before they arise during an investigation.  For example, decisions can be made and modified as necessary regarding sampling and testing, including what should be sampled, how many samples should be taken, and what analyses should be performed.  NEIC case investigations include activities identified in the section Technical Support.  To assist in understanding the general scenario in the use of a centralized team to supplement decentralized inspection capabilities, several case studies are presented:

One example where the resources and expertise of the centralized NEIC were required was the National Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force initiative.  This national Task Force was formed as a result of concerns over whether hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities were complying with the ground-water monitoring requirements issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Prior to the mid 1980's, the purity and safety of ground-water was taken for granted.  That assumption was shaken when preliminary EPA studies found that many facilities had not complied with the ground-water monitoring requirements of RCRA and thus did not know if contaminants were entering and contaminating the ground-water.  The massive goal of the Task Force was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of all commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities nationwide to determine (a) whether or not the facilities were in compliance with the regulations and (b) whether or not Contaminants were entering the ground-water.

The Task Force, national in scope and transcending Regional boundaries,required expertise in conducting large scale technical investigations and an extensive resource commitment.  The centralized elite force already in existence immediately filled the need.  NEIC's role in the Task Force was to develop and implement field protocols and procedures to assure a nationally consistent approach to identifying ground-water monitoring compliance problems.  This role could not have been assumed by any single region.

NEIC initially provided training for the Regions and States (and contractors who assisted in the sample collection) involved on the Task Force on proper procedures for evidence collection and handling, including the handling of confidential business information.  To establish consistency nationwide, and to provide "on the job" training to each Region and involved State, NEIC led the investigation at the first facility investigated by the Task Force in each of the ten Regions.

Although contract laboratories were used extensively during the Task Force activities, the NEIC laboratory personnel provided expertise to the Task Force in evaluating facility laboratories.  The purpose of the laboratory evaluation was to determine if the laboratory had the appropriate personnel and equipment to perform the required analysis and to determine if the facility laboratory was following the correct procedures.  This expertise is not normally found in the Regions.  Additionally, the NEIC laboratory provided a duplicate analysis of select samples from each NEIC lead investigation to confirm that data from the contract laboratories met EPA quality requirements.

In keeping with the Center's mission of gathering evidence and providing information for case preparation, NEIC approached each Task Force investigation as an enforcement case.  As a result, most NEIC Task Force investigations resulted in follow-up enforcement action.  One investigation ultimately developed into a criminal case which culminated in an 18.5 million dollar criminal penalty, the second largest to date.

Another example where the centralized team approach was necessary involved an on-going investigation of the Department of Defense (DOD) and their contractors charged with the disposal of DOD generated hazardous wastes nationwide.  NEIC was initially requested to evaluate contractor performance and compliance in the disposal of the wastes.  NEIC expanded the evaluation to include multi-media issues involving DOD generation and handling of wastes through contractor transportation and ultimate disposal (i.e., cradle-to-grave).  Wastes were tracked from generation in one Region to disposal in another Region, frequently passing through multiple Regions.  This national effort, like the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, could not have been assumed by a single Region.  The centralized approach identified patterns of conduct and the need for substantial changes to the way DOD disposed of hazardous wastes.  As a result of this national effort, approximately 40 DOD installations and over 100 contractors were evaluated; almost 400 environmental violations were found.  Both civil and criminal actions were taken in response to almost all violations, and approximately ten percent of the contractors were ultimately determined to be ineligible to receive further contracts.

NEIC resources have also been used for protocol development and piloting of new Agency initiatives or regulations, implementation of Agency strategies such as company­wide investigations of multi-regional companies, and training.  Some specific recent examples of NEIC's projects include investigations of the United States' two largest multi­regional hazardous waste disposal companies, implementation of the toxics in air initiative (in response to the new Clean Air Act Amendments), development and implementation of protocols for enforcing the RCRA Land Ban restrictions, and implementation of multi-media investigations at Federal Facilities.  All of these examples demonstrate the efficiency and cost effectiveness of utilizing a centralized elite force with broad ranges of expertise and experience to implement large scale inspections and investigations to determine environmental compliance.

 

4          TRAINING

 

            Achieving and maintaining a high level of compliance with environmental laws and regulations is one of the most important goals of the EPA.  Personnel conducting compliance inspections and field investigations play a key role in the success of the national enforcement programs.  Given the relative inexperience of inspectors, the increasingly complex laws and regulations being enforced, and the need for national consistency in the way the laws and regulations were being enforced, a need for a systematic, agency-wide, compliance inspector training program was identified.  In June 1988, the Administrator of the EPA issued a policy entitled "Agency-wide Program to Train, Develop and Recognize Compliance Inspectors and Field Investigators".  EPA Order 3500.1 was adopted.  This order required basic and program-minimum inspector training. -PA's compliance programs developed program-specific curricula, combining self-study, classes, and on-the-job training; total training hours vary for each program and range upward from approximately 150 hours (including on-the-job training), depending upon the complexity of the program (9).  The Office of Enforcement designed the basic inspector course, "The Fundamentals of Environmental Compliance Inspections".  This basic course is required of all inspectors regardless of program assignment.  The Inspector Training Advisory Board, composed of Regional and Headquarters compliance program managers and led by the Office of Enforcement, oversees implementation of the program.  The primary goal of this program is to foster quality compliance inspections and field investigations as critical components of the EPA's compliance monitoring and enforcement functions.  The training identified under this program is required of all EPA inspectors and investigators.

As noted earlier, State and local personnel conduct the majority of environmental compliance inspections and investigations under delegated or approved programs.  While the EPA cannot require that State and local personnel take part in this training program, EPA is working with these agencies to encourage State and local training programs to identify and meet training needs for their compliance inspectors/field investigators.  These agencies are welcome and encouraged to use all relevant Agency training materials and to participate wherever possible in the training opportunities offered by EPA.

One of the most fruitful EPA initiatives to build stronger environmental enforcement programs at the State and local level has been the establishment of four regional environmental projects, that is, the Northeast Environmental Enforcement Project, the Midwest Environmental Enforcement Association, the Southern Environmental Enforcement Network, and the Western States Hazardous Waste Project, funded by the Office of Enforcement.  The training programs provided by these State organizations provide training to the regulatory, investigative, and prosecutorial components of State and local governments.  In FY 1990, these organizations offered a dozen courses and trained over 500 State, local, and Federal members of the enforcement team.

On November 16, 1990, the President signed the "Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990" which mandated the establishment of the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) within EPA's Office of Enforcement.  EPA Administrator Reilly formally established NETI on November 8, 1991.  The primary function of NETI is to train Federal, State, and local lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts in the enforcement of the Nation's environmental laws.  To carry out this function, NETI personnel, with the assistance of other EPA, Federal, State and local personnel, are developing core curricula for all categories of enforcement personnel; providing basic enforcement training with a multi-disciplinary, multi-media perspective; developing and delivering generic enforcement skills training; and coordinating with all EPA program offices in the development and delivery of enforcement specific training.

To assist in the delivery of courses, two NET[ training facilities will be established: NETI-West in Denver, Colorado, and NETI-East in the Washington, DC, area.  NETI-West began operations in July 1992, with a small management staff provided by NEIC and faculty provided by NEIC, other EPA Offices, and various other agencies.  The training facilities will reach far into providing the needed knowledge, skills, and abilities to promote team approaches to environmental enforcement.

 

5          CONCLUSIONS

 

            A centralized investigative center has proven, through over twenty years of experience, to be an invaluable supplement to Regional inspectors in enforcement case preparations.  In cases where large scale, complex investigations may exceed Regional resources or require specific expertise not normally available in Regional Offices, a centralized team can provide the personnel and resources for quick responses and detailed case preparation activities.  This is particularly true in the conduct of multi-media compliance investigations for enforcement purposes.  When an enforcement team is available to conduct case preparation on a routine basis, the necessary procedures and legal safeguards are in place to effectively and efficiently carry out Agency regulatory responsibilities.  This type of centralized team would be useful at all levels of environmental enforcement, including State and local governments,

The centralized team has proven to be particularly useful with the increased emphasis on the use of criminal enforcement authority contained in the environmental statutes; many of the criminal cases investigated involve multiple environmental laws.  The cross-training of team members has provided an excellent mechanism to achieve the Agency's multi-media objectives.

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

1.       Wasserman, C.E., "Overview of Compliance and Enforcement in the United States: Philosophy, Strategy and Management Tools", prepared for the International Enforcement Workshop, May 8-10, 1990, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

 

2.       United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Building the Enforcement Infrastructure: Compliance Inspector Training", Compliance Policy and Planning Branch, Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations, Office of Enforcement, October, 1990.

 

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Human Resources Management, "EPA Workforce Snapshots", October 1991.

 

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Resources Management, Facility Index System (FINDS).

 

5.       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement, "Enforcement Accomplishments Report FY 1991", 300-R92-008, April 1992.

 

6.       United States Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum from James N. Strock, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Subject: Training Status of Multi-Media Compliance Inspectors, January 10, 1991.

 

7.       Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990, 101st Congress, 2d Session, Senate, Report 101­366.

 

8.       United States Environmental Protection Agency, Letter from James N. Strock, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement, May 28, 1990, to the Honorable Joseph 1. Lieberman, United States Senator.

 

9.       United States Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide Program to Train, Develop and Recognize Compliance Inspectors/Field Investigators: A Program Description", June 1988.