Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States
Through intense studies of agency audits, EPA policies and documents, state environmental compliance data and state agency issued documents, I have evaluated the enforcement programs of Region Six state environmental agencies. The four elements utilized to perform this evaluation were listed in EPA...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | en |
Published: |
LSU
2003
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0407103-185546/ |
id |
ndltd-LSU-oai-etd.lsu.edu-etd-0407103-185546 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-LSU-oai-etd.lsu.edu-etd-0407103-1855462013-01-07T22:48:32Z Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States Marcus, Rebecca Environmental Studies Through intense studies of agency audits, EPA policies and documents, state environmental compliance data and state agency issued documents, I have evaluated the enforcement programs of Region Six state environmental agencies. The four elements utilized to perform this evaluation were listed in EPA compliance assurance program documents. The analysis was conducted by comparing state program performance in each element. Element 1 is the appropriate identification of violations. Element 2 is the timely issuance of enforcement actions. Element 3 is the escalation of enforcement actions when violations continue. Element 4 is the ability to assess and collect penalties. These elements are interdependent. Their success depends on the perception of their success by the regulated community. A lack of success in one element will prevent the effectiveness of all elements. The community must perceive a high likelihood of being inspected, and a high likelihood of receiving enforcement orders and penalties for existing violations. Without this perception, an enforcement program cannot effectively deter the regulated community from subsequent violations. Because each agency needed to improve in some area of enforcement, it was determined that none of the Region Six state agencies were completely efficient in all elements. Because a successful program relies upon all elements, there is no best or worst program. Each agency contains strengths and weaknesses among the elements, and each agency can improve their environmental enforcement procedures. Margaret Reams Paul Templet Michael Wascom LSU 2003-04-09 text application/pdf http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0407103-185546/ http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0407103-185546/ en unrestricted I hereby grant to LSU or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University Libraries in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
en |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
topic |
Environmental Studies |
spellingShingle |
Environmental Studies Marcus, Rebecca Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States |
description |
Through intense studies of agency audits, EPA policies and documents, state environmental compliance data and state agency issued documents, I have evaluated the enforcement programs of Region Six state environmental agencies. The four elements utilized to perform this evaluation were listed in EPA compliance assurance program documents. The analysis was conducted by comparing state program performance in each element. Element 1 is the appropriate identification of violations. Element 2 is the timely issuance of enforcement actions. Element 3 is the escalation of enforcement actions when violations continue. Element 4 is the ability to assess and collect penalties. These elements are interdependent. Their success depends on the perception of their success by the regulated community. A lack of success in one element will prevent the effectiveness of all elements. The community must perceive a high likelihood of being inspected, and a high likelihood of receiving enforcement orders and penalties for existing violations. Without this perception, an enforcement program cannot effectively deter the regulated community from subsequent violations. Because each agency needed to improve in some area of enforcement, it was determined that none of the Region Six state agencies were completely efficient in all elements. Because a successful program relies upon all elements, there is no best or worst program. Each agency contains strengths and weaknesses among the elements, and each agency can improve their environmental enforcement procedures. |
author2 |
Margaret Reams |
author_facet |
Margaret Reams Marcus, Rebecca |
author |
Marcus, Rebecca |
author_sort |
Marcus, Rebecca |
title |
Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States |
title_short |
Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States |
title_full |
Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States |
title_fullStr |
Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparative Analysis of State Environmental Enforcement in Region Six of the United States |
title_sort |
comparative analysis of state environmental enforcement in region six of the united states |
publisher |
LSU |
publishDate |
2003 |
url |
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0407103-185546/ |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT marcusrebecca comparativeanalysisofstateenvironmentalenforcementinregionsixoftheunitedstates |
_version_ |
1716476397536411648 |