 |
 |
 |
 |
United States Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on EJ |
|---|
This page discusses reviews of the EPA’s EJ actions by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). |
|---|
Environmental Protection Agency’s Definition of EJ
Currently, the EPA defines EJ as: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This inclusive definition of EJ is impressive, but does not address the specific focus on disproportionately impacted populations as required by EO12898.
Due to the discrepancy between EO12898 and the EPA’s definitions and activities, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has evaluated the EPA with regards to their EJ efforts twice, in 2004 and 2006.
To learn more about the EPA’s definition of EJ, view their website here: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Nonprofit group made up of local, state, and federal employees.
Requested the first OIG report due to concerns over the lack of consistent definitions and guidance provided by the EPA for EJ issues.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=834
2004 Office of the Inspector General Report
Two major areas of concern:
1. The EPA has not identified minority and low-income populations and has not defined criteria for determining disproportionately impacted populations as mandated in EO12898. Additionally, the EPA has restated its definition of EJ in a manner inconsistent with EO12898.
2. The EPA has not developed a clear vision or comprehensive strategic plan for implementing EO12898 and has not established relevant values, goals, expectations, or performance measures, leading to inconsistent approaches and a lack of clear direction for achieving EJ among EPA regional offices.
The OIG report lists recommendations and steps that should be taken by the EPA to improve its execution of EO12898 and to remove the inconsistencies within the agency.
The EPA response:
1. Declares EPA commitment to EJ for all populations and disagrees with the interpretation of EO12898 as requiring a focus on minority and low-income populations.
2. Believes that adopting the OIG recommendations would reduce EPA EJ efforts by taking an inflexible and single-dimensioned position on what constitutes EJ.
3. Maintains that identifying and addressing disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations has always been part of EPA’s mission, but that it is merely one piece of their larger mission of ensuring healthy and sustainable communities for all Americans.
See the full 2004 OIG report here.
2006 Office of the Inspector General Report
Two main areas of concern:
1. Determining whether EPA program and regional offices perform EJ reviews.
2. If these reviews concentrate on identifying the effects of EPA activities and programs on disproportionately impacted populations.
The report found the following:
1. The majority of respondents to the OIG’s report state that their EPA offices or programs have not performed adequate EJ reviews.
2. EPA regional offices lack necessary guidance, protocols, and directions for performing EJ reviews.
3. The EPA is unable to determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental health effects on minority and low-income populations, as instructed by EO12898.
Recommendations are of a primarily procedural nature, outlining ways in which the EPA regional offices can improve their EJ reviews and suggesting the creation of an office to monitor the process. The report fails to address the inconsistencies between the definitions of EJ in EO12898 as compared to within the EPA.
The EPA accepts the OIG’s recommendations, with some modifications, as useful ways of strengthening the EPA’s EJ efforts. The EPA agrees that EJ considerations should be integrated into decision-making and program review.
See the full 2006 OIG report here.
Recent EPA Actions
As of March 2007, the EPA is moving to significantly downsize the Office of Inspector General. Cutbacks will reduce the ability of the OIG to audit EPA contracting, investigate EPA enforcement actions, and review allegations of political manipulation of agency science. The EPA has begun these actions without waiting for congressional approval.
