text:
Agencywide Issues
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
February 1 994
Report # 94- 1
February 8, 1994
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Edward Z. Fox, Director
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Agencywide Issues. Ths report is in
response to a September 3, 1992, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee and is the final in a series of four audits.
The Department is still in the process of developing the basic foundations necessary
to effectively regulate environmental programs. Overall, we found the agency has
endured management problems throughout the years, problems which have crippled
its ability to adequately carry out many of its responsibilities. For example, high
turnover and frequent intra- agency transfers have weakened the quality of supervision
throughout the Department. Furthermore, employee shortages in some program areas
have impaired the Department's ability to meet critical regulatory mandates.
Department management has begun to address problems cited in our audits; however,
it is too early to judge the ultimate effects of many of their efforts.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
Ths report will be released to the public on February 9.
owa as R. Norton
Auditor General
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) - Agencywide Issues, pursuant to a
September 3, 1992, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. Tlus
performance audit was conducted pursuant to A. R. S. 9541- 2951 through 41- 2957, and
is the fourth and final audit of ADEQ being conducted by our Office.
Our four audits found significant problems agencywide in all aspects of the
Department's regulatory efforts. Monitoring and enforcement have been limited in all
program areas. ADEQ has not inspected all facilities, nor has it initiated enforcement
actions against noncompliers in many instances. The Department is also behind in
issuing permits to facilities that have the potential to contaminate Arizona's air, water,
and soil. We found significant backlogs in the Aquifer Protection Permit Program,
Hazardous Waste Programs, and Air Quality Program. ADEQ also has not been able
to develop rules packages in a timely manner.
The Department has begun to address problems agencywide by instituting a Total
Quality Involvement ( TQI) process, developing a strategic plan, and conducting an
environmental risk assessment to prioritize agency activities. However, because none
of these actions have been completed, the Department has not yet realized significant
benefits from them. In addition, in response to our audits, the Department has made
improvements in some program areas and developed initiatives for change in others.
Tlus final audit identifies several agencywide issues relating to management and
staffing resources, information management, public involvement and progress of the
TQI process which underlie many of the problems found in the previous audits.
I To Be Effective, ADEQ Must
I First Improve Management
Throughout The Department ( see pages 7 - 13)
I ADEQ needs to upgrade the quality of its management and supervision to improve
program effectiveness. Management turnover and instability has been high at all levels.
For example, the Department has had four directors since it was established in July of
I 1987. In addition, more than two- thirds of all section managers and unit supervisors
within ADEQ have been in their current assignments less than two years. In fact, 39
percent of all section managers and unit supervisors have held their current assignment I less than a year. Although managers and supervisors are frequently drawn from the
ranks of the techrucal staff, ADEQ has no formal management training program.
Not only are managers changing positions frequently, the staff they supervise also have
a high rate of turnover and movement. When staff turnover and transfers are included,
approximately one- third of all positions at ADEQ have changed in each of the past two
years. The combination of management and staff's frequent changes has significant
effects on operations throughout the Department. Limited staff training, and few policies
and procedures to guide them, further decreases productivity.
Staff Problems Impact ADEQ's
Regulatory Effectiveness ( see pages 15 - 19 )
Although management problems contribute to ineffective programs, the Department also
appears to lack sufficient staff to carry out its regulatory responsibilities. We found that
several critical ADEQ programs have an insufficient number of staff and, as a result, are
overextended. For instance, although more than 4,000 underground storage tanks
should be inspected annually, there are only four staff assigned to this function. It is not
surprising then that an estimated total of 816, or about 20 percent of the tanks, are
inspected per year. In addition, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program does
not have enough employees to address its backlog of over 2,000 sites. New cases are
coming in as fast as the program is resolving old cases. We also found that ADEQ
funding has not kept pace with added regulatory responsibilities.
Except for programs with clearly documented staffing needs, such as the Drinking Water
Program, the Department should first address problems that would allow it to make
better use of its current staff resources before it requests more funding. The Department
can improve program effectiveness, for example, by addressing management and staff
turnover, and by completing the TQI effort that management initiated to streamline the
ADEQ's business processes. The Department may also address some resource shortages
by prioritizing its activities through Arizona's Comparative Environmental Risk Project
( ACERP). Finally, it can seek increased funding through fees or appropriations.
ADEQ Needs To Improve
Information Management ( see pages 21 - 24 )
ADEQ regulatory efforts are hndered by poor information. For example, several critical
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Program cannot be monitored or enforced
because the Department lacks sufficient information. Our recent audits found problems
throughout the Department, including: lack of data, inaccurate, conflicting, and
duplicative data, and lack of adequate information to track regulatory activities. We also
found that ADEQ needs to strengthen security control over important documents. In
response to our audits, the Department has initiated agencywide efforts to begin
addressing information problems.
Statutory and Administrative Barriers
Impede Public Input In ADEQ's Permitting
And Rules Development Processes ( see pages 25 - 28)
Statutory and administrative changes are needed to facilitate public input. Our survey
of persons who participated in ADEQ permit hearings and rules development processes
felt their input made little difference. Their perceptions were that the Department had
already reached a decision by the time of the hearing, or their comments were not
considered in the final decision.
Several factors may cause the dissatisfaction of the individuals we surveyed, including
a misunderstanding by some of the purpose of many public hearings. However, there
are factors that impede the public's input. Public hearings for proposed permits are not
mandatory in most cases and are left to the Department's discretion. In addition,
procedures for permit hearings vary between programs, thus potentially confusing the
public further. Moreover, meaningful public input for rules development is also limited
by statutory barriers that impact all State agencies.
ADEQ Needs To Further Strengthen The
Management Of Its TQI Process
( see page 29 - 31)
Although ADEQ has initiated a Total Quality Involvement ( TQI) effort as its primary
strategy for strengthening operational performance, it is too early to evaluate its success
- oniy 8 of the agency's 33 TQi teams have completed their reports.
Although it is too early to evaluate the success of TQI, ADEQ top management needs
to become more involved to ensure that the Department receives a proper return on its
investment. ADEQ top management has not adequately tracked the status of
implementation efforts or assessed the effect of TQI recommendations on agency
operations. It has, however, recently initiated changes to address those shortcomings.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding I: To Be Effective, ADEQ Must
First lmprove Management
Throughout The Department.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Several Reasons For
Poor Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Management Problems Are
Compounded By Staff Turnover
And Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding II: Staff Problems Impact
ADEQ's Regulatory Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staff Shortages In Several
Critical Program Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actions Needed To
Address Staff Shortages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding Ill: ADEQ Needs To lmprove
Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Problems With
Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ADEQ Needs To Improve
Document Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( conclld)
Finding IV: Statutory and Administrative
Barriers Impede Public Input In
ADEQ's Permitting And Rules
Development Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Citizens Dissatisfied With
ADEQ's Public Input Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statutory And Administrative Barriers
Contribute To Public Input Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finding V: ADEQ Needs To Further Strengthen
The Management Of Its TQI Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TQI Selected To Address
ADEQ Organizational Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BPI Process Still
In Early Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TQI Needs Better
Top Management Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other Pertinent Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agency Response
Table 1
Table 2
ADEQ Managers' Length of Service
In Their Current Work Assignments . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Department Of Environmental Quality
Total Turnover And Staff Movement
For Filled Covered Positions
Fiscal Years 1991- 92 And 1992- 93 . . . . . . . . . . .
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) - Agencywide Issues, pursuant to a
September 3, 1992, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This audit
was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. S.) 9941- 2951 through 41- 2957. This is the fourth and final audit
conducted in response to the resolution. To date, the Auditor General has conducted
reviews of ADEQ's Office of Water Quality ( report 93- 5), Office of Waste Programs
( report 93- 8), and ADEQ Management Functions ( report 93- 4).
ADEQ's Mission Important
The legislative intent for creating ADEQ was to consolidate responsibility for
environmental management with the purpose of increasing effectiveness, efficiency,
and public acceptance of environmental regulation. ADEQ has primary responsibility
for administering and enforcing a wide variety of regulatory programs. These
regulatory programs involve a large number of facilities and affect many of the state's
businesses and private citizens. For example, ADEQ is responsible for regulating 1,792
drinking water systems, 648 facilities that emit air pollution, 4,096 facilities that
operate underground storage tanks ( UST), and approximately 900 facilities that
generate or handle hazardous waste, as well as other facilities that have the potential
to contaminate the state's air, water, and land.
ADEQ Has Not Effectively Met
Its Primary Responsibilities
The Department performs many regulatory activities inadequately. Work performed
in our other audits, as well as work performed in this audit, show that the
Department has not been able to adequately permit and inspect all facilities or take
enforcement actions against all noncompliers. For example:
Office of Water Oualitv - In the 6 years since the Aquifer Protection Plan Program
began, the Department has permitted only 91 facilities, while between 622 and 900
facilities remain to be permitted by the year 2001, as required by legislation. In
addition, we found that ADEQ has done little to ensure that the 3,178 facilities
that have potential to contaminate Arizona's water resources comply with water
quality laws. Few are regularly inspected or are required to submit monitoring
information. Inspections are important because most facilities that were monitored
and inspected were found to be out of compliance. Furthermore, we found that
although there were 251 drinking water enforcement cases in 1992, the Department
took formal enforcement action only 14 times.
Office of Waste Proprams - Although 52 percent of the facilities with underground
storage tanks inspected during 1993 were found to be out of compliance, only 985
( 24 percent) of the 4,096 facilities with underground storage tanks have been
inspected. Moreover, ADEQ has yet to address 838 sites that have been
contaminated as a result of leaking tanks and does not know the current status
of the other 1,487 sites.
Furthermore, since 1988 the Department has re- permitted only 8 hazardous waste
transportation, storage, and disposal facilities. Another 15 facilities, some of which
have been in the re- permitting process for over 10 years, still need to acquire a
new, more stringent permit required by EPA regulations. In addition, although
ADEQ had a total of 916 hazardous waste violation cases between October 1988
and April 1993 ( closing 684, with 232 open as of April 1993), it initiated formal
enforcement actions on only 55 ( 6 percent) cases. Of these 55 cases, the violations
continued for an average of nearly 2 years before ADEQ took formal action.
Office of Air Ouality - Due to resource limitations, ADEQ inspected only 24 ( 67
percent) of the 36 major air pollution sources requiring annual inspections during
Federal fiscal year 1993. Furthermore, when violations were found, the Department
often did not follow up with subsequent inspections. This was true even in cases
where severe violations were found.
Also, as a result of new State and Federal requirements, ADEQ will have to
reissue all air quality permits by the year 2000; however, unless the Department
is able to eliminate the current backlog, it may not be able to meet this deadline.
According to ADEQ's workplan, the Department intends to issue permits to 87
new facilities in Federal fiscal year 1994. However, the Department began the year
with a backlog of 109 new facilities and expects to receive additional new facility
permit applications as the year proceeds.
ADEQ Efforts To
Address Problems
While many problems exist withn the agency, ADEQ has begun a number of efforts
to address them. Some efforts were initiated prior to or in the early stages of our
audits, and other efforts have been in response to them.
Department initiatives to address woblems - The Department had begun to address
problems prior to our audits. However, it is still too early to determine the extent to
which these efforts will rectify the problems identified by our audits. According to
ADEQ's Director, the Department was suffering from impediments in many areas
when he assumed responsibility in 1991. Although the Department continues to lack
basic management systems in many of its programs, ADEQ has taken the following
steps to improve operations.
In 1992 ADEQ embarked on an agencywide Total Quality Involvement ( TQI) effort
that the Department hopes will resolve some of its management problems.
The . Department is attempting to determine whether its resources are utilized in
the most effective manner by sponsoring Arizona's Comparative Environmental
Risk Project ( ACERP), which is designed to identify the most serious
environmental needs.
The Department has also developed a draft strategic plan which has set goals for
establishing environmental indicators, improving external customer service,
developing employee training programs, and improving organizational integration.
The Department has also implemented an agencywide enforcement policy that
provides policy guidelines and time frames for enforcement activities.
According to the Director, a number of managers have been given new
assignments within the Department to effect improvements within the agency.
In most cases, however, the Department has yet to realize significant benefits from
these initiatives. The TQI project is still in its early stages ( see Finding V, page 29) and
the ACERP project is a year away from completion. Resource shortages impact the
Department's ability to meet the goals of its new enforcement policy. Other problems
identified in this review hinder management's ability to effectively manage ( see
Finding I, page 7 ).
ADEO has responded positivelzl to audit recommendations - In response to our audits,
the ~ e ~ a r t m ehnats instituted several initiatives to address problems we identified in
the various regulatory programs and other areas.
Office of Water Quality - ADEQ comprehensively reorganized this Office along
more functional or programmatic lines as discussed in our previous audit. In
addition, the Department is attempting to streamline the Aquifer Protection Permit
( APP) process and reduce the number of facilities requiring APP's. Since the prior
audit, the Department's productivity has doubled; it issued 28 permits in a 6
month period, as opposed to 28 for the entire previous year. In the drinking water
program, formal enforcement actions have increased from 13 in 1992 to 34 in 1993.
Office of Waste Programs - The Department reports closing 104 of the 232
backlogged hazardous waste cases we noted in our audit. However, new cases
have again brought the backlog up to 196 cases. " Boilerplate" consent and
compliance orders have been developed and implemented to reduce case
processing time and improve consistency.
Cost Recovery - The Department reports that it has significantly improved cost-recovery
efforts. Both our Management Functions ( report 93- 4) and Office of Waste
Programs ( 93- 8) reports criticized the Department for not recouping monies owed
to it for clean- up costs and fees. The Department estimates it will increase
collections by 36 percent in fiscal year 1994. Based on another audit recom-mendation,
the Department has hired an auditor to pursue other accounts
receivable and has, in just under three months, collected $ 50,000 and billed
another $ 106,000.
Legislative Proposals - In response to our recommendations, the Department is
approaching the Legislature this year with several budgetary and statutory issues.
For example, the Department is requesting additional staff to bolster the Drinking
Water Regulatory Program to address serious problems we found in that area.
In addition, the Department is requesting re- establishing general fund support for
the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund to help ensure sufficient monies for
cleaning up polluted sites. The Department is also suggesting several statutory
changes based on our audit recommendations. For example, it is proposing
uniform processes for obtaining public input to its different programs. It is also
seeking authority to establish dedicated funds for critical programs such as
drinking water.
ADEQ Still Needs To
Address Basic Problems
In addition to continuing to address problems we found in its regulatory programs,
the agency needs to address the more generic agencywide concerns we detailed in this
audit. The Department lacks sufficient management information systems, training, and
policies and procedures to assist relatively inexperienced management and staff in
maintaining program continuity, efficiency, and effectiveness. Resultant poor pro-ductivity,
along with resource shortages in its critical program areas and weak
information management, have further impeded the Department's effectiveness.
Audit Scope
Our agencywide audit report on the Department of Environmental Quality presents
findings and recommendations in five areas:
The need to strengthen management oversight and direction.
b The need to address staff shortages in critical program areas.
The need to develop and maintain important regulatory data and information.
The need to rectify statutory and administrative procedural problems that impede
public input into regulatory processes.
The need to strengthen management's oversight of the Total Quality Involvement
( TQI) Program.
We also developed other pertinent information regarding the events surrounding
ADEQ's involvement with the ENSCO permit and hazardous waste disposal facility.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and staff of ADEQ
for their cooperation and assistance throughout this audit.
We also express appreciation to the Arizona State University School of Public Affairs
and Dr. Heather Campbell and her students for their assistance in analyzing ADEQ's
permit hearing process.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality needs to improve the quality of
its management and supervision to ensure the efficient and effective operation of its
programs. Many ADEQ managers appear to be inexperienced and untrained, and the
Department has not put effective management systems in place to help them perform
their jobs well. Furthermore, Department management has not provided sufficient
guidance to its staff through training programs and written policies and procedures.
Sound management of staffing resources is essential to the efficient and effective
operation of prog, rams. Managers and supervisors must provide consistent leadershp,
direction, and feedback to staff. In addition, management is responsible for organizing,
planning, coordinating, measuring, and controlling work activities. Managers, like other
professional and techrucal employees, require sufficient experience and training to be
Several Reasons For
Poor Management
Several factors contribute to the Department's management problems. Over the past
few years, significant turnover has occurred at all management levels. ADEQ has not
developed a systematic program to train new managers. In addition, basic
management information systems, which could assist managers in performing their
jobs, have not been developed in many instances.
Numerous manu-~ ementc hanges - Frequent turnover and movement has occurred
among ADEQ managers. Primarily as a result of chanages in Governors, the
Department has had numerous changes in its top management team. During the seven
years ( 1987- 1993) since ADEQ was established, the Department has had for each of the
following five top management positions:
Four directors
Three deputy directors
Four assistant directors in the Office of Waste Programs
Three assistant directors in the Office of Air Quality
Three assistant directors in the Office of Water Quality
The Department has also experienced frequent turnover among its mid- level managers
and supervisors. Changes in management have repeatedly occurred within the
Department. As a result, many section managers and unit supervisors within ADEQ
have been in their current assignment for only a short time. For instance,
w At least four different individuals served as manager of the Office of Water
Quality's Field Services section between September 1991 and September 1993.
w One ADEQ manager was assigned to manage three different programs in the past
two years.
w All five unit supervisors in the Office of Water Quality's Plan Review and Permits
section have held their present position one year or less.
As Table 1 shows, many managers and supervisors within ADEQ have held their
current assignments for less than two years.
The Department's use of acting managers may further impact continuity. The State of
Arizona's personnel rules allow agencies to place employees on special detail for up
to four months for noncompetitive assignments, and up to a year for competitive
assignments. Currently, 8 of ADEQ's 47 unit supervisors ( 17 percent) are acting
managers on special detail assignments.
Table 1
ADEQ Managers' Length of Service
In Their Current Work Assignments
Total Number
of Managers( a)
( a) Three section manager and two unit supervisor positions were created within the last two
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff review of ADEQ organizational charts for
September 1991, 1992, and 1993.
One to
Two Years
Section managers
Unit supervisors
Less Than
One Year
According to ADEQ's Director, approximately two- thirds of the management changes
were made by hm to help improve operations. He felt that changes, particularly in
upper mid- level management, were necessary to effect needed improvements in
operations and to implement " new ways of doing business" within the Department.
However, the extensive amount of management movement over the past two years
( whether planned or not) and the continued use of acting managers has some
drawbacks. These include upsetting program continuity, inexperienced new managers,
hesitancy to take aggressive enforcement actions, and, in general, the delay in restoring
smooth operations after changes are made. These factors, combined with 1) managers
often lacking basic management skills, and 2) a lack of management information
systems to track and manage work, provide some of the explanation for why we
found numerous problems in the Department's regulatory programs. To ensure
continuity of operations, it is imperative that the Department have management
training programs in place and have effective management information systems to
assist new managers.
Manax- ers often lack basic rnana- a ement skills - Many managers and supervisors
within ADEQ appear to lack basic management training. Managers and supervisors
within the Department are often drawn from the ranks of the technical staff. For
instance, to meet the minimum qualifications for Environmental Program Supervisor
positions, the most common position classification for unit supervisors within ADEQ,
individuals must have professional level scientific, hydrologic, or engineering
experience in an environmental protection program. No previous management
experience or training is required to qualify for these positions. In total, 43 of the 47
currently filled unit supervisor positions ( 91 percent) require no previous management
experience or training. This is typical for such positions, but makes it incumbent on
agency management to ensure that proper training is provided for new managers. The
Department does not have a formal training program for them. The Department has
offered some management- related courses for its employees, but training for managers
is not coordinated or mandated. ADEQ top management also acknowledges that the
Department has too few personnel who are trained in utilizing management
information systems.
Manaxement information svstems frequentlz! lacking - Our audit work found
numerous problems with management systems in ADEQ programs. In a response to
our ADEQ Office of Water Quality audit ( report 93- 5), ADEQ's Director acknowledged
that basic management information systems have yet to be developed within the
Department. Management systems can provide supervisors such basic information as
workload, productivity, and timeliness of operations; without such information,
management's ability to efficiently and effectively utilize resources is significantly
Management Problems Are Compounded
By Staff Turnover and Movement
Not only are ADEQ's managers inexperienced and untrained, the staff they supervise
change frequently. Approximately one- thrd of ADEQ employees change positions each
year. Such frequent turnover and staff movement within the Department heighten the
need for sound training and policy direction. However, training provided to
Department employees is limited and needs to be expanded. The Department also
needs adequate policies and procedures to guide staff.
Inexperienced staffm a- g ni- fies the need for guidance and direction - Because ADEQ staff
change positions frequently, proper guidance and direction are critical to maintaining
program productivity and effectiveness. As shown in Table 2, employees leaving and
employees changing jobs within ADEQ have led to changes in approximately one- third
of the agency's active positions in each of the past two years.
Frequent staffing changes impact program performance. When employees begin a new
job or assignment, it typically takes some time for them to perform at the expected
level because new skills and procedures must be learned. Our meetings with and
interviews of business, government, and other individuals that work with the
Department found that staff inexperience was a significant problem. For example, in
Table 2
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Total Turnover and Staff Movement
For Filled Covered Positions
Fiscal Years 1991- 92 and 1992- 93
1992- 93
Total Active Positions ( a)
Intra- agency Transfers
Special Detail Assignment
Percent Movement
( a) Number of permanent covered positions filled all or part of the fiscal year. Does not
include exempt positions, temporaries, or permanent covered positions left vacant all of
the year.
Source: Ofice of the Auditor General staff review of Arizona Department of Administration's
Action Code Summaries and Employee Turnover Reports for ADEQ in fiscal years
1991- 92 and 1992- 93 and validated by our review of ADEQ personnel files.
1991 - 92
a survey of Aquifer Protection Permit ( APP) holders and applicants, 39 percent had
worked with three or more permit writers on one permit. ADEQ employees also
recognize this problem - our survey of ADEQ staff found that 78 percent of all
respondents indicated that turnover within the Department has hurt organizational
The high percentage of staff movement can be attributed to several factors. According
to our survey, staff cited inadequate salary, lack of promotional opportunities,
excessive workload, personality conflicts, stress, and other factors as reasons for
turnover. According to ADEQ's personnel unit, turnover and staff transfers with the
Department can be attributed primarily to salary increases and promotional
ADEQ lacks Departmentwide training- - wo g- ram - Training provided to ADEQ
employees needs to be expanded and improved. Although the Department reported
to us that 425 employees averaged approximately 40 hours of training in fiscal year
1993, we identified a variety of deficiencies with the Department's training efforts. For
instance, we found ADEQ has no formal training plan, has not developed a catalog
of training available to employees, does little to orient new employees, and does not
track employee training. Our recent audits of ADEQ also identified problems with
training efforts in several program areas. For example:
There has been no formal training for hazardous waste compliance officers. New
staff have had to learn on the job about the complex regulations, informal ADEQ
procedures, and technical issues associated with the cases assigned to them.
Recently, however, a new training program for compliance officers was developed.
No training program has been developed for APP staff concerning how to process
or review permit applications.
Department staff do not receive sufficient training in cost recovery and contract
Our survey of ADEQ employees also indicated that staff feel training is deficient.
Forty- seven percent of those responding to the survey said they did not receive
sufficient training from ADEQ prior to beginning their current assignment. In addition,
39 percent of employees stated that in- service training has been inadequate.
The Department recently began taking some steps to improve employee training.
ADEQ management adopted a training policy in May 1993, and a Departmentwide
training coordinator was designated in August. Furthermore, at the request of ADEQ,
a training needs assessment was performed by Rio Salado Community College ( RSCC)
earlier this year that identified many areas in which training needs to be developed
or improved. Focus groups of ADEQ employees organized by RSCC indicated that
training is needed in a variety of subject areas, including: techrucal writing,
environmental rules and regulations, supervision, project management, sampling
methodology, conflict management, problem solving and decision- making, compliance
and enforcement policies, and public relations.
While these are positive developmental steps, much remains to be done to implement
an effective training program. The Department needs to 1) establish training as a
priority; 2) commit resources to training; 3) develop an overall plan for training; 4)
ensure that training courses are developed to satisfy Departmental training needs
identified in Rio Salado Community College's recent study and in individual employee
training plans required by ADEQ's new training policy; and 5) create mechanisms for
evaluating the effectiveness of the training program.
Policies and procedures need to be developed and consolidated - ADEQ does not have
a set of Departmentwide policies. In addition, policies and procedures are lacking in
most ADEQ program areas. During our recent audits of ADEQ, we found that policies
and procedures are insufficient in most of the program areas we reviewed. For
Policies and procedures are needed to guide APP project officers in the review of
permit applications, and determination of treatment technology requirements.
Written guidelines need to be developed for ADEQ's remediation programs. In the
absence of written policies and procedures, project managers often refer to Federal
remediation guidelines, which tend to be cumbersome and time consuming.
Policies and procedures need to be developed to guide cost- recovery efforts
throughout ADEQ. Specifically, there should be written guidelines that identify
cost- recovery roles and responsibilities; define methods for tracking, documenting,
and allocating costs; explain how to handle situations, such as dealing with
uncooperative responsible parties; and establish time frames for follow up action.
Department employees also indicated a need for written guidance. In our survey of
ADEQ staff, 45 percent of those responding said that their section does not have
adequate policies and procedures to guide their job performance. A 1992 review of
ADEQ performed by the Governor's State Long- term Improved Management ( SLIM)
team also found that ADEQ has been slow to develop policies, did not have a
Departmentwide policy manual, and had not developed written operating procedures
in most units.
Although ADEQ management established a policy coordinator position in October of
1991, only limited progress has been made toward developing needed policies and
procedures. To date, existing policies have been inventoried and ADEQ's management
team has recently approved a system for policy development and management. This
system establishes a process for ADEQ employees to follow in developing new policies
and procedures, sets time frames for the review of existing policies and procedures,
and calls for them to be placed on an automated system to which all employees have
access. Although the Department has established processes and systems to develop
policies and procedures, it has yet to perform a comprehensive assessment of what
policies and procedures are needed.
1. The Department should improve the quality of management and supervision
provided to employees by developing a formal training program for managers.
2. The Department needs to establish a comprehensive and well- coordinated training
program for employees. Specifically:
ADEQ's top management team needs to demonstrate a commitment to training
by making it a priority and committing resources to it.
W ADEQ needs to develop a Departmentwide training plan.
w ADEQ should develop training courses to meet the needs identified by Rio
Salado Community College's recent study and individual training plans called
for in the Department's new training policy.
w The Department should establish mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness
of training efforts.
3. The Department needs to track and analyze the causes for the high percentage of
staff turnover and movement and then work toward developing solutions to
stabilize the agency.
4. The Department should make a concerted effort to develop a comprehensive set
of policies and procedures to guide employees.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
In addition to management shortcomings discussed in Finding I, ADEQ also appears
to lack staff needed to meet critical regulatory mandates. Our review found staff
shortages in several program areas. In other program areas, problems impacting
regulatory effectiveness need to be addressed first, before the Department can
determine the extent of any staffing gaps. ADEQ should then address any residual
staff shortages by 1) analyzing whether staff from less critical programs can be
reassigned; 2) further improving cost- recovery and collections efforts to bolster
program budgets; and 3) pursuing additional funding through the legislative
appropriations process.
Staff Shortages In Several
Critical Program Areas
We found several ADEQ programs did not have sufficient staff to properly acheve
their statutory mandates. Increasing responsibilities without commensurate funding
have strained Department resources.
Re- g ulatonl wograrns overextended - During our review of ADEQ's regulatory activities
we found that several critical ADEQ programs have more regulatory responsibilities
than staff to address them. For example:
Under~ round Storage Tanks Propram WST) - Over 4,000 UST facilities should be
inspected annually. However, ADEQ has only 4 staff that can perform an estimated
total of 816 inspections per year. As a result, UST facilities are inspected for
compliance just once every 5 years. There is a significant need for more frequent
inspections since 52 percent of the facilities inspected in 1993 were found to be out
of compliance and over 3,000 had never been inspected as of mid- 1993.
leak in^ Underground Storape Tank Program ( LUST) - The LUST program has only
16 full- time hydrologists to manage 2,325 contaminated underground storage tank
sites. It is estimated that the Department can actively handle only about 508 cases,
and in the past 6 years, it has closed 513 cases. At current productivity levels, the
Department may not be able to address this backlog. The Department received 177
new cases or sites for the last quarter of calendar year 1993, but only closed out
an estimated 130. Department management is developing some initiatives to
streamline the process and improve productivity. However, even a 35 percent
increase in productivity would have only kept the number of cases closed even
with the number received during the last quarter of 1993.
Hazardous Waste Prog- ram - Five FTEs are responsible for issuing hazardous waste
permits. Based on current resources, ADEQ will not be able to clear its hazardous
waste permit backlog until 1998, six years after the EPA deadline. As a result,
hazardous waste facilities continue to operate under less stringent permit
drink in^ Water Prog- ram - The Department has only three staff members devoted
primarily to working on the 455 water compliance cases. Enforcement officers
stated that 50 cases at any given time would be a maximum case load that could
be worked effectively. Furthermore, increasing regulatory responsibilities arising
from new EPA- mandated rules will further strain the program. Because of the
critical impact on human health and the documented backlog of regulatory activity,
the drinking water program requires additional staff. The Department is requesting
eight additional employees in its fiscal year 1995 budget to bolster the program.
Water Pollution Control Program - Over 3,000 facilities must be regulated to some
extent to prevent water pollution, and it is clear that some regulatory activities are
limited or not being performed at all because of too few staff. However, since
ADEQ has not yet defined program goals and activities, it is difficult to determine
the extent to which staffing is a problem. The Department has recently reorganized
this program. Once activity tracking systems and workload priorities are
established, the Department should have a better idea of this program's staffing
11- iddition to backlogs in the Department's regulatory programs, the rules
d~ lopment section is also significantly behind. With the current level of staffing, it
will take the Department until 1999 just to complete current rules packages, some of
which were legislated in 1986. Further, legislative changes continue to increase the
workload. According to the Department, 24 of the 44 rules packages now in process
have been mandated since 1991. Any additional rules will have to be postponed past
1999 or bump the current backlog. Although additional staff would help ADEQ catch
up, streamlining the State's rules development process could also help ADEQ.
Increasing- responsibilities without commensurate funding - In general, it appears that
program funding has not kept pace with increasing Department responsibilities. The
Department has received additional duties from both the State and Federal levels. For
example, the Aquifer Protection Permit Program, the State Superfund, and the On- site
Wastewater System Program were all added by State law. At the Federal level,
regulatory efforts were expanded for the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Air
Program funding, however, has not kept pace. Although we did not review every
program area's staffing and funding levels, we did find staffing shortages in several
program areas.- We reported in a recent audit ( report 93- 5) that the Drinking Water
Program was short an estimated $ 2.6 million to properly carry out regulatory
activities. Nationwide, most states and the Federal government have not sufficiently
funded environmental programs because of budgetary problems. In fact, in Arizona
last year, the Governor's Project SLIM review of ADEQ claimed almost $ 1,000,000 in
position cuts at ADEQ. Nearly 38 funded but unfilled positions were lost. Several of
the positions lost came from programs we identified as having staffing shortages,
including the Aquifer Protection Permit ( APP), Water Pollution Compliance, and
Hazardous Waste Compliance Programs.
Actions Needed To
Address Staff Shortages
ADEQ should take several steps to address staff shortages. First, except for programs
with clearly documented shortages, ADEQ needs to address problems impacting
performance found in our audits so that current resources are utilized efficiently and
effectively. ADEQ should also, when possible, prioritize regulatory resources so that
the most critical programs are funded commensurate with health and environmental
impacts. ADEQ also needs to further step up cost recovery and collections efforts to
maximize resources already available to the agency. Finally, ADEQ should seek
additional funding to close any remaining staffing gaps.
Address problems impacting performance - Except for programs with clearly
documented needs, ADEQ needs to address problems negatively impacting the
performance of its 580 current employees before seeking more staff. While some areas
appear clearly understaffed, the Department cannot determine the extent of additional
staff needs until it rectifies problems found by our recent audits and this audit. For
example, focus group participants from both industry and environmental groups told
us the key to addressing staffing problems in the APP program was to obtain better
qualified staff. They believe fewer, more qualified staff could process permits in a
more timely manner than at present. Similarly, we cannot estimate the productivity
losses occurring in other programs due to the significant turnover of management and
staff as described previously in ths report.
In addition, the Department is undergoing an extensive self- improvement effort that
management hopes will improve its business processes. Although we found workload
backlogs in several program areas, the additional staff needed may be less after ADEQ
benchmarks performance in each program area to determine reasonable productivity
levels and determines the overall regulatory workload for each program. Using
performance levels and total workload figures, ADEQ can determine if each program
area has sufficient staffing resources to carry out its regulatory mandates.
ADEQ has instituted several changes and initiatives to improve performance in several
program areas. For example, it retained consultants to analyze workloads and fees in
the APP, Solid Waste, Special Waste, and Plan Review programs. Recently developed
boilerplate enforcement documents will streamline some aspects of the enforcement
process. Some documented productivity improvements have occurred in the APP and
Drinking Water Programs. Again, however, additional staff requirements cannot be
accurately determined until workloads are identified and processes are streamlined
in each program area.
Prioritize activities - In addition to improving the productivity of current employees,
ADEQ may also address staff shortages by prioritizing activities to ensure that the
more important ones are performed well. The Department has initiated efforts to
determine which program areas are most critical and is currently in the middle of its
Arizona Comparative Environmental Risk Project ( ACERP), which is a two- year study
to assess and prioritize the environmental risks faced by Arizonans. The Department
hopes to use this information to direct its resources toward its most significant
environmental programs. Since many of the Department's programs are both Federally
and State mandated, there is concern about compliance with legal mandates. The
Federal government currently provides separate grants for several program areas. The
EPA, however, is considering a proposal to allow states greater flexibility in using
Federal funds through combined or block grants.
Improve cost- recovm- and collection efforts - ADEQ's available resources could, in
part, be augmented through improved financial operations. In a recent audit ( report
93- 4), we reported that the Department's poor cost- recovery and fee collections efforts
have cost them potentially millions of dollars. In some cases, these monies go directly
back to ADEQ programs to supplement their operating budgets. For example,
businesses and other parties that have caused pollution are required to repay the cost
of site investigation and cleanup to offset government costs. If these costs are not fully
identified and collected, existing government resources are strained even further.
Our previous audit work found that millions of dollars had not been recovered. Since
that report was released, the Department has increased its efforts. ADEQ now reports
a 36 percent increase in collections from fiscal year 1992 to 1993, with collections to
date for fiscal year 1994 exceeding fiscal year 1993' s amounts. Continued efforts should
yield even greater amounts in the future.
Seek additional resources - After ADEQ has reprioritized resources and improved cost
recovery and collections efforts, it can then seek additional general fund and other
resources to close any remaining resource gaps. The Department has developed a
proposal that would augment its current budget by using additional general fund and
program- specific special funds to keep some revenues in program areas, rather than
transferring them to the general fund. Currently, program- generated revenues such as
inspection fees, certification fees, application fees, and penalties return to the general
fund in some cases. Examples of some program areas where special funds are
proposed include drinking water, water quality, and a consolidation of certain existing
special funds into a new solid waste fund. We did not evaluate or comment on the
efficacy of the proposal due to time constraints.
1. ADEQ needs to determine staffing needs in all program areas. To do this, ADEQ
a. Address various management and other problems impacting ADEQ's regulatory
b. Determine reasonable productivity standards for each program.
c. Determine workloads for each program.
d. Calculate staffing needs based on current resources, productivity standards, and
regulatory workload for each program.
2. ADEQ needs to determine if staffing resources can be better utilized to address the
agency's most important regulatory duties.
a. Utilize ACERP results to identify the Department's most important regulatory
b. Utilize results of staffing needs analyses in recommendation No. 1 to identify
any additional staff that could be transferred from lower priority programs.
3. ADEQ needs to seek additional resources for those program areas that cannot be
sufficiently addressed through reprioritization of current resources by:
a. Further improving cost- recovery and collections efforts.
b. Seeking additional general fund resources.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING Ill
Poor information management hampers ADEQ's regulatory efforts. Accurate and
accessible information is vital to meeting statutory mandates and achieving agency
goals. Our audits found that ADEQ has not managed information effectively. In
addition, the Department should take steps to improve security of agency documents.
Accurate and well- managed information is an important component of effective
environmental regulation. Data submitted by various regulated facilities allow ADEQ
to determine, for example, if drinking water is safe, or if discharges into rivers exceed
pollution limits. ADEQ inspection data allows the Department to determine whether
regulated facilities are operating within guidelines. Information relating to enforcement
cases helps ADEQ to take action against facilities that will not comply with health and
environmental standards. Summary and analytical information assists ADEQ managers
in overseeing agency operations.
Problems With
Information Management
We found information problems in each of the four offices within the Department.
Problems include lack of data; inaccurate, conflicting, and duplicative data; and lack
of information to track and oversee the various regulatory programs.
Our audit of the Office of Water Quality ( report 93- 5) found that:
The drinking water data base did not allow the Department to monitor and enforce
several important health and regulatory requirements.
r The water pollution compliance data base lacked important information on the
number and types of facilities in the state, system operating parameters, and field
The Aquifer Protection Permit Program lacked an effective management tracking
system to monitor staff workload and output.
Our Management Functions audit ( report 93- 4) showed that:
ADEQ was _ not tracking all remediation costs that the State could recover from
parties responsible for polluted sites. As a result, some of the millions of dollars
spent by the State on remediating polluted sites was not recovered.
The Office of Air Quality ( OAQ) failed to adequately track program costs during
fiscal year 1992- 93, preventing the State from recovering nearly $ 585,000.
The Office of Administration lacked readily available information on ADEQ
expenditures for contracted services and the number of contracts in effect.
r Three units within the Office of Waste Programs maintained separate data bases
on personal computers due to their failure to coordinate data acquisition and
information sharing.
ADEQ does not maintain records of the total costs for plan reviews, inspections,
and wastewater reuse permits. As a result, the Department cannot recover as much
as $ 360,000 annually for these services.
We reported that the Office of Waste Programs' landfill tracking system was
incomplete and therefore not usable ( report 93- 8).
During ths audit we found additional problems similar to those we encountered in
the previous audits, including:
t The Underground Storage Tank ( UST) program data base does not have updated
information on enforcement actions initiated, or the status of facility cleanup
The OAQ's previous data systems were fraught with many problems. OAQ is
currently implementing a new data base wluch the Department believes will be
able to provide improved features and better management information. Some
historical information may not be captured, however, because of problems with
previous systems. Further, we found continuing problems with both accuracy and
completeness during recent access to the new system.
ADEQ's information management problems result from a variety of causes. As noted
in our recent audit of the Department's Management Functions ( report 93- 4), ADEQ
has not provided strong, consistent direction for its agencywide EDP applications. At
the program level, we found that systems are limited by too few staff to update and
maintain data; failure to include all relevant program information; lack of emphasis
for complete, usable data; and cumbersome, difficult- to- use systems that discourage
agency employees from updating important information.
Addressing the Department's information problems will require action at the program
and Department management levels. Two root causes for information problems at the
program level appear to be 1) insufficient staff available for data management, and 2)
questionable planning, systems development, and systems maintenance by program
staff. ADEQ program managers need to review their information needs and the ability
of their data bases to meet them, and then determine what barriers exist. At the
Department level, top management needs to emphasize and ensure that information
problems are addressed by program managers.
ADEQ has begun to determine some of their agencywide data management problems.
Information technology teams are benchmarking current practices and determining
both internal and external customer information needs. All of this information will be
assimilated into a package with recommendations to a committee comprised of the
director, deputy director, assistant directors, and an expert from the business
community. Their task is then to set goals and objectives, and priorities, and give
direction for Department action over the next several years.
ADEQ Needs To
Improve Document Security
ADEQ should improve security over documents available for public review. Currently,
weak document control enables people to remove documents that may be essential to
the Department's regulatory effectiveness.
ADEQ maintains a large volume of documents for most aspects of its regulatory
operations. Particularly in the areas of compliance and enforcement, ADEQ files
provide the legal evidence needed to determine compliance with State law and
develop enforcement cases. Most of ADEQ's information files are defined as part of
the public record and can therefore be viewed or copied by the public.
Weak controls over files - Department control over its files is weak in several ways.
First, the public is allowed to access the agency's original documentation. If ths
information is damaged or lost, it is irretrievable. In fact, in one instance we had to
provide ADEQ officials with copies of pertinent documentation that we had obtained
from their files at an earlier date because they could not locate the original file
documentation. Second, Department staff typically do not monitor individuals
reviewing files, even though ADEQ has reported instances of missing files or instances
of individuals attempting to remove documents. Third, confidential information is
sometimes mixed in with public documents in files. Fourth, the files are disorganized,
making it difficult for staff to determine if they are complete.
ADEQ needs to stren- g then document control - ADEQ needs to address its weak file
security control. One very simple solution would be to place a cover sheet at the front
of each file listing its contents. ADEQ has recently developed a policy for better
organizing its various enforcement files; other files, however, still need to be
addressed. For guidance in organizing other files, ADEQ can also seek assistance from
the State's Department of Library, Archives and Public Records ( DLAPR). DLAPR's
staff are trained to assist agencies in designing comprehensive file organization and
storage systems.
1. ADEQ program managers should assess their information systems' ability to
provide data needed to effectively perform program activities. Where ths review
identifies shortcomings, further analysis should focus on potential causes, including
lack of staff, poor system design, and difficulties in using the system. ADEQ top
management needs to ensure that problems are addressed.
2. ADEQ needs to improve document security. Specifically, the agency needs to
ensure that:
a. Information cannot be surreptitiously removed by people who are reviewing
b. Confidential information is not mistakenly included in the public information
portions of the files;
c. Information in the files is organized, complete, and not duplicative. An " Index
to File Contents" sheet at the front of the file would assist both ADEQ and the
3. ADEQ should seek assistance from the Department of Library, Archves and Public
Records for designing a comprehensive file organization and storage system.
Statutory and administrative changes are needed to facilitate public input.
Representatives from business, public interest groups, and concerned citizens told us
they felt their input was seldom utilized by the Department. Statutes, rules, and
procedures governing the Department's decision- making processes limit the public's
ability to provide input.
Citizens Dissatisfied With
ADEQ's Public Input Process
Although public participation in ADEQ decisions is sometimes required by law or
rule, members of the public are at times dissatisfied with their inability to provide
input to Department decisions. The public input process is an important component
of regulatory decision- making because it affords citizens, businesses, and government
entities that might be affected by a permit decision or new agency rules an
opportunity to express their opinions or concerns to the Department.
Our review found dissatisfaction with the public input process at ADEQ. Forty- one
participants were surveyed, including business representatives, public interest group
representatives, and concerned citizens.'') Nearly two- thirds of those responding were
dissatisfied with how ADEQ responded to their comments, and more than
three- fourths perceived that their comments were not taken into consideration by
ADEQ. Many felt the decisions were already made prior to the hearing. Respondents
also identified other problems with the process including inadequate public notice of
meetings, inappropriate ADEQ staff behavior at meetings, and difficulty obtaining
related information.
Not surprisingly, some environmental groups and citizen activists stated that the
Department typically favors the regulated community over the interests of the
environment or the general public. Our survey of Department staff found that many
ADEQ employees also perceive that business and industry are the agency's primary
( 1). We surveyed participants in the rules development process. Arizona State University School of Public
Affairs graduate students performed surveys and other analyses for us on the permit hearing process
and presented conclusions in their report, " Public Participation in the ADEQ Permit Hearing Process,"
May 1993.
customers, although they feel the general public should be. However, our surveys,
interviews, and focus group meetings with business and industry representatives
found that they were also unhappy with the Department.
Although many of those we surveyed were dissatisfied with the Department's public
input processes, some of their concerns may be attributed to an uncertainty about
ADEQ's regulatory role. Some survey respondents were unclear about why public
hearings are held. For example, ADEQ's Director told us that some members of the
public may perceive ADEQ's role as determining whether a facility should be allowed
to operate in a certain area. In reality, ADEQ's role is to determine whether the facility
can operate a business that emits a controlled amount of pollution in accordance with
law and regulations. According to ADEQ's Director, facility location decisions are the
responsibility of the local government zoning authority.
Statutory And Administrative Barriers
Contribute To Public Input Problems
Some statutory and ADEQ administrative procedures create problems for persons
providing input to agency decisions. Requirements for public hearings on permits vary
from program to program. In addition, statutes established for rule development for
all State agencies allow for formal public input only late in the process when major
changes require the process to begin anew.
Pemzit hearing requirements vaw - The Department is not required to hold hearings
for most permits. Permit hearings are specifically mandated only in ADEQ's
Hazardous Waste Disposal and Solid Waste Programs. A. R. S. 549- 943( 2) requires " any
agency" granting a final permit for a hazardous waste facility to hold a public hearing
30 days before a final decision is made. Hearings are not specifically required in air
quality, water quality, or other waste programs. However, hearings may be held if
requested by a member of the public or at the Director's discretion.
Even when hearings are held, procedures and time frames vary among programs. This
makes it difficult for the public to determine when and how it should respond.
Although ADEQ has a rule ( R18- 1- 402) which establishes some general requirements
for conducting hearings, other requirements vary among the individual programs. For
example, witlun the Office of Waste Programs' Solid and Hazardous Waste Program,
permit hearings must be held 30 days before a decision is made to grant the permit.
However, all other Office of Waste Programs' permit hearings, if held, must be held
withn 45 days after a hearing is requested.
Variation also exists in ADEQ's procedures concerning public notice to property
owners within the outer boundaries of the proposed waste site. Solid and hazardous
waste statutes require public notice to adjacent property owners. In contrast, air
quality and water quality permit processes have no such requirement. According to
the ADEQ Director, the Department has proposed legislation that will make public
notice requirements uniform for all programs.
Meaninnful public input for rules development also limited - Statutory and
administrative barriers also impede the public's ability to comment on proposed rules
and regulations. State law governing the rules development process provides for
formal public input very late in the process. A public hearing is not held until after
an agency develops the rule and it is approved by the Governor's Regulatory Review
Council ( GRRC). The public hearing is the last step in the process prior to the final
Attorney General review and certification. However, public input may have little
impact after GRRC's approval because of the legal requirement that any significant
change to the rule mandates that the rules development process begin again.
According to ADEQ, since the total rule adoption process takes approximately 18
months, an agency may be hesitant to make changes requested by the public,
particularly if it had to start the process over.'')
To compensate for restrictions in the State's rules development process, ADEQ has
established an informal consultation process in the early stages of rule development
in order to avoid substantial changes later in the formal process. Although this
approach is a valuable effort, it is indeed informal and discretionary without any
guidelines. For new rules, the Department has been fairly consistent in utilizing the
informal process. However, the Department does not generally use the informal
process when rules are revised. In addition, they do not have procedures to ensure
that the informal consultation process is conducted consistently, and that all interested
parties are given the opportunity to comment.
The Department does, in some cases, conduct extensive efforts to ensure adequate
public input, as in its recent development of air quality rules. However, the
Department's recent efforts to develop rules for water plant operators illustrate some
of the problems resulting from lack of guidelines in the informal public input process.
The Department established an advisory committee of plant operators to provide
technical advice and assistance. However, at one committee meeting attended by audit
staff, one of the certified operators informed the committee that ADEQ had not
provided committee members with the most current draft of the proposed rules.
ADEQ staff had revised the original draft twice without the committee's knowledge
or input. As a result, the committee could not adequately comment on the most
current version of the proposed rules.
( 1). In response to these concerns, ADEQ has been actively participating in a legislative study of problems
with the rules development process. The Legislature's Joint Study Committee on Regulatory Reform
and Enforcement has identified problems with the rules development process and has drafted a
number of recommendations to streamline it.
1. ADEQ shoukl eliminate barriers to public input for environmental permit decisions
a. Instituting Departmentwide guidelines on when to hold public hearings for
permits, including information hearings early in the process; and
b. Revising the various programs' permit hearing procedures to conform to the
Departmentwide procedures.
2. ADEQ should establish procedures to ensure that all interested parties have an
opportunity to participate in the informal public input process for rule
3. ADEQ should also continue working with the Legislature to revise the State's rules
development statutes to include provisions for public input earlier in the process.
ADEQ management needs to provide stronger oversight for its Total Quality
Involvement ( TQI) Program to ensure that expected benefits are realized by the
Department. ADEQ management selected the TQI Program as its primary method to
address problems identified by the Governor's Project SLIM. To date, few ADEQ
programs have completed the TQI process. Although it is too early in the process to
determine whether TQI will be successful, ADEQ top management needs to more
closely monitor and direct the process to ensure that the Department receives full
benefit from this investment.
TQI Selected To Address
ADEQ Organizational Problems
TQI was initiated by ADEQ management as its primary instrument for improving
Department programs and addressing concerns raised by the Project SLIM review.")
The first component of ADEQ's TQI Program is its Business Process Improvement
( BPI) effort, which focuses on documenting existing work processes, identifying
operational problems, and developing recommendations. Program Advisory Teams
( PAT'S), consisting of ADEQ staff and outsiders that deal with the agency, are
responsible for the BPI effort.
ADEQ has made a considerable investment in its program. Approximately $ 23,000 has
been invested in outside TQI training for ADEQ staff. Additionally, ADEQ reports that
approximately 32,000 employee hours have been devoted to TQI activities in fiscal
year 1992- 1993. Many more hours are expected to be invested during 1993- 1994 as
more teams progress with the BPI process.
( 1). In fiscal year 1991- 1992 the Governor's Project SLIM identified a variety of issues needing to be
addressed within ADEQ. Recommendations for improvement to ADEQ were in the areas of
organizational and process restructuring, income enhancement. management controls, public benefits,
and staffing requirements.
BPI Process Still
In Early Stages
To date, the TQI BPI process is still in its early stages. Since its July 1992 inception,
only 8 of the 33 PAT teams have developed recommendations. The remaining teams
are not expected to complete their reports until as late as December 1994. The 8
completed team reports contained 261 recommendations for improving operations
witlun the Office of Waste Programs, Office of Air Quality, and Office of
Administration. According to the Department, 32 percent of these recommendations
have been implemented and 21 percent are in the process of implementation. The
remaining 47 percent are not completed because 1) they require legislative action; 2)
resources are not available to implement ( the recommendation was referred to another
office for implementation); or 3) recommendations were rejected by the Quality
Council. Recommendations range from narrowly focused procedural improvements
(" eliminate the practice of putting employee paychecks in envelopes") to broad structural
changes within some programs ( Solid and Special Waste Program: " Organize the section
TQI Needs Better
Top Management Oversight
Although it is too early to evaluate the impact of TQI, our audit work indicates that
for the Program to be most effective, greater management oversight is needed. Two
problems were particularly evident. First, although improvements have been made, the
Department has not fully documented TQI's progress and impact. Second, many
ADEQ staff do not see TQI as addressing key issues witlun their programs. These
concerns are particularly critical given ADEQ management's reliance on TQI as its
primary method for addressing Department performance problems.
TQI impact unknown - Although the Department has invested considerable resources
in TQI, it has done little to monitor the implementation and effect of
recommendations. Although the Department has recently developed a system to
monitor the status of recommendation development and implementation, very few
recommendations progressed between July and December 1993. In addition, when
programs do report progress on recommendations, the Department has yet to verify
or track any cost savings or other benefits. As a result, top management does not
know whether the TQI process is indeed effective. Another problem is that some PAT
teams were formed and operating without the knowledge of the TQI coordinators
within the Director's Office. Further, the Department has only recently drafted an
action plan for what to do after the PAT teams complete their reports. Without better
top management oversight, the Department cannot be sure that the TQI process is
meeting expectations, or that the Department is receiving an appropriate return on its
The Department acknowledged to us that top management review for TQI was
lacking. In July 1993, they initiated several actions to solve this situation. They lured
a TQI specialist to oversee the program, instituted a Quality Council comprised of the
Director, Deputy Director, and a representative from the Governor's Office of
Excellence to view and judge BPI team progress, and developed various tracking
methodologies to monitor the BPI progress. Since then, the TQI process has been
redefined and teams are now more accountable. Most tracking and guidance
documents are still fairly new, however, and management needs to ensure that they
are fully implemented and utilized.
Critical issues mav not be identified - Many ADEQ employees are not convinced of TQI's
value and feel that it may not have an effect on improving agency operations. In our
survey of ADEQ employees, 54 percent of those expressing an opinion ( 186 of 341
employees) did not believe that TQI will resolve key problems within their programs.
Additionally, 45 percent of those expressing an opinion ( 139 of 307) do not believe
that recommendations were being implemented in a timely fashion, and 48 percent of
ADEQ staff ( 170 of 354 employees that expressed an opinion) did not see TQI as
having a positive impact on organizational effectiveness and efficiency.
Our survey was administered soon after ADEQ management began addressing
problems with the TQI program. Therefore, employee perceptions could be based on
experiences prior to renewed efforts by top management. Top management, however,
should review and analyze whether critical issues are indeed being addressed and
recommendations being implemented, particularly in the eight program areas
completed before changes were made in the TQI program.
Top management should strengthen the TQI process by:
1. Implementing recently developed reporting methodology to document all TQI
2. Verifying whether recommendations are being implemented.
3. Analyzing whether key issues are being identified and addressed.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
As part ' of our audit work we developed information on events relating to the
development of the Arizona hazardous waste management facility ( HWMF) by ADEQ
and ENSCO, Inc.
In August 1992 it was disclosed that ADEQ had accepted a $ 16,000 payment in 1987
from ENSCO, the contractor for the facility. The payment was intended to assist the
Department in meeting the administrative costs needed to manage the project. This
disclosure raised concerns about ADEQ's relationships with regulated entities and
contributed to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee's request that the Auditor
General conduct a performance audit of the Department ahead of its scheduled sunset
audit. Because of these concerns, we reviewed some of the key aspects of the HWMF
Although ADEQ subsequently determined that advance funding by the contractor was
not in accord with the contract and returned the money to ENSCO in February 1991,
acceptance of the advance funding characterized the sometimes unusual efforts made
by ADEQ and its predecessor agency, the Arizona Department of Health Services, to
facilitate the project.
HWMF selection and develoment - Development of the HWMF on a site near Mobile,
Arizona, was Arizona's strategy for managing hazardous wastes to comply with
Federal law. The 1981 Legislature selected the Mobile site and directed that the facility
be constructed and operated by a private contractor. The Arizona Department of
Health Services ( ADHS) was the lead State agency for the project at the time and,
upon recommendation of a technical advisory committee, selected ENSCO as the
contractor in 1983 based on its proposal to construct and operate a high- technology
facility. After several years of environmental impact statement development and
negotiations about site access improvements, the State signed a contract with ENSCO
in 1986 to build and operate the facility.
ADEQ became an independent State agency on July 1, 1987, and assumed
responsibility for the HWMF. The Department granted ENSCO permits needed to
begin facility construction in 1988 and continued work on permits needed for
operation. Between 1986 and 1987, ENSCO's plan for the facility grew from one to
three incinerators and expanded landfill capacity. The changes were justified as
necessary to ensure that the facility would be economically feasible.
The Mobile hearin- n and its aftermath - Draft permits for HWMF operation were
issued in 1990 with the public comment period occurring between April 5 and May
21, 1990, and a public hearing held on May 7, 1990. Concern about the size of the
HWMF facility, proposed incineration, and the need to import out- of- state wastes led
to public opposition. The public hearing was disrupted when many attendees could
not enter the hearing room. Sheriff's officers forcibly removed 18 individuals after
hearing officials had requested that people leave the overcrowded hearing room and
move to an- outdoor area where they could follow proceedings via loudspeaker.
The disturbance at the hearing and the use of force to remove protesters created
additional opposition to the HWMF. Two lawsuits were filed by individuals injured
at the hearing. However, complaints against the State were dismissed by the trial
judge. In 1991, the State canceled the contract with ENSCO and subsequently paid the
company over $ 44 million for work conducted to date. The Mobile site remains
inactive. The Department of Administration provides security and maintenance for the
site at an estimated cost of $ 116,000 per year.
ENSCO and ADEQ's imaxe - The events involving the development of the HWMF
raised questions about the State's objectivity in dealing with regulated industries.
Because HWMF development was a priority throughout the 19801s, ADHS and ADEQ
staff occasionally went to unusual lengths to facilitate the project's development. For
example, one ADHS staff member traveled to Dallas, Texas, in 1983 to ensure that
ENSCO's facility proposal would be received by the State on time. Although staff
actions were intended to ensure that the State would have at least two choices of
contractors for the HWMF, the actions also appear to be a special effort to assist
potential contractors. ADEQ's willingness to accept funding from ENSCO to support
administrative staff needed for the HWMF created a similar impression.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
As part of our agencywide audit of ADEQ, we conducted an organizational climate
survey of Department staff. The survey covered a wide range of topics, including
management, training, organizational effectiveness, and job satisfaction.
Written questionnaires were distributed to a total of 583 ADEQ employees in August
1993. Completed questionnaires were received from 445 individuals, for a response
rate of 76 percent.
Data from the questionnaires were entered into a data base file by the Auditor
General's staff. After reviewing the data to ensure that it was entered accurately,
various statistical analyses were performed. Tkus attachment presents an overview of
responses received from ADEQ employees. For most items, the percentage of
employees selecting each response category is provided. However, for items 48
through 50, which required ranking of multiple response categories, the raw number
of responses is presented.
Note: Except where indicated, the frequency distribution of survey 1: eZs
is presented below. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to
1 - agree strongly
2 = agree somewhat
3 = neutral
4 = disagree somewhat
5 - disagree strongly
DK = don't know
NR - no rosponse
1. I have confidenca in the
followinq man& qerrl trchnical
knowledge and abilities to
pera. f ortmh et dhierierc tjoobrs :. . . . . . . . 3 88 268 138 68 28 13% 2%
b. the deputy director. . . . . 41 20 13 5 1 17 2
c. my assistant director( s) . . 24 22 19 12 9 11 4
d. my section manaqer( s). . . . 37 23 13 9 8 6 5
e. my unit m& nager( s) . . . . . 41 19 9 7 8 4 12
2. I have contidonca in the
f ollovinq unaqers '
skills and abilities to porform
their jobs:
a. thodiroctor. . . . . . . 4 4 25 11 5 3 11 2
b. the deputy director. . . . . 34 26 14 5 3 18 2
c. my asmistant director( s) . . 20 25 15 13 14 10 3
d. my section manaqer( s). . . . 23 26 16 10 11 5 4
0. my unit unaqor( 8) . . . . . 27 22 12 11 12 5 12
3. H8nagmment ham initiated
efforts that will resolve the
moat important problems in my
progruaraa.. . . . . . . . . . 6 22 20 25 22 4 1
4. Thero ia sufficient coordination
and cormmic8tion botween my
soction and other sections
within ADDq . . . . . . . . . . . 2 15 20 33 27 2 1
5. I u t u i l i u with the
org8niz8tio~ l rtructure at ADEQ
and the taak. performed by the
v u i w Offices within the
Dopu+ wnt. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 43 16 19 6 2 0
6. ADIQom - aka are logically
org. niz. 4 uong the various
swtions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 25 26 24 12 8 0
1 = aqree scrong: y
2 = agree somewhat
3 = _ neutral
4 = disagree somewhat
5 = disagree strongly
OK = don't knov
NR = No Response
7. There is no overlap or
duplication of functions between
AmDyE Qs. e ct. io. n . an. d . ot. he. r . se. ct. io. ns. i. n . 1 18 188 138 348 1 5 9% 3%
8, Staff roles and responsibilities
vithin my section are clearly
defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 7 28 12 25 16 2 ( 3
9. I rac8iv. d sufficient training
from ADEQ prior to beginning my
current assignment. 7 22 21 24 24 1 1 . . . . . . .
10. I receive adequate in- service
training for my current
assignment.. 12 27 21 23 16 0 0 . . . . . . . . .
If. My section has adequate
policies and procedures to
guide mo in doing my job 9 25 19 25 20 1 1 . . . .
12. My suporvisor lets me knov
exactly what is expected of me . 25 31 15 16 13 1 0
13. I have enough authority and
support from superiors to make
the necessary decisions and
porforn my job . . . . . . . . . 22 32 15 16 14 0 I
14. The foll~ ing ADtQ managers are
committed to staff training:
a. thodir8ctor. . . . . . . . 2 4 20 18 6 4 27 2
b. tho deputy diractor. . . . . 2 3 17 17 5 4 ? 2 2
c. my arriatant director ( s) . . 18 16 10 9 11 23 4
d. mysocfion~ naqer( r). . . . 26 24 15 9 11 11 4
0. my unit .. nager( s) . . . . . 3 4 21 12 7 8 8 12
15. ADtQ provid8r quality services
to its cwto8ors . . . . . . . . 1 4 41 22 13 4 5 1
16. My section gats its job done
effectiv8ly and off iciently. . . 1 7 39 15 18 9 2 1
17. 0 ~ ~ 8 1 1AD, tQ contributes
signific8ntly to improved
enviro~. ntalquality. . . . . . 2 7 34 20 0 5 5 0
1 = agree s: r3nq! y
2 = aqree somewhat
3 = neutral
4 = dlsaqree somevhat
5 = dlsagreo strongly
OK = don't know
NR = no response
18. Program bureaucracy (" red
tapen) impodes ADEQ ' s
efficiency and effectiveness . . 451
19. Turnover within ADEQ impedes
organizational effectivoness . . Sf
20. Use of " actingn managers to
fill vacancies within ADEQ
eifmfpeecdteisv eorngeasnsi. z a. ti. on. al. . . . . . 2 6
21. Unfilled and frozen positions
impede ADEQ8s ability to fulfill its mandate. . . . . . . 5 2
22. ADEQ has sufficiently qualified
staff to fulfill its mission . . 9
23. ADtQ has a sufficient number of
staff to fulfill its mission . . 5
24. ADEQ actions ensure compliance
vrietghul aatnivoinrs. o ~. en. ta. ll. aw. s . an. d . . . b
25. Tthoe A DptuQb'lsi c dhataa8 aanddo qufailtoas a c. ce. ss. . 2 2
26. The public has sufficient
opportunities to provide input
rinu lteh- eW ? ienmgi tptrioncegs saonrd. . . . . . 1 8
27. ADEQ ancoura9es public input
rinu lteh- eW ? ienmgi tptrioncogs samnsd . . . . . . 2 0
28. The following ADEQ managers
are committed to implemontation
of TO1 techniquas: . . . . . . . . 8b. . tthhee ddeipruteyo rdi rector. . . . . 45 63
dc.. mryy a.- imons istanmta dniargaecrt( os. r)(.. 8 ).. ... ... 33 23 0. ryunitunager( s) 26
29. Ray problru in my proqram
area have ken ido. nt. if. io. d . in. . . the TQI process. 12
1- aqree s t r o n q l y
2 = aqrea somevhat
3 = neutral
4 = disagree somevhat
5 = drsagree strongly
OK = don't know
NR = no rosponso
30. Recommendations made by TO1
teams are baing implemented
inatimely fashion. . . . . . . 5% 12% 218 18% 138 3 0 1%
31. TQI will resolve the most
important problems in my
program area . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 20 16 25 22 1
32. To date, TQI has had a positive
impact on organizational
effectivene88 and efficiency . . 6 16 19 18 20 19 1
33. In general, I am satisfied with
my job at ADtQ . . . . . . . . . 20 35 18 16 10 0 1
34. My salary is adaquato
compensation for the position
I hold. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 6 24 56 0 0
35. My workload is excos8ive . . . . 27 27 26 14 6 0 0
36. Tne value of my work is
rocoqnitd and appreciated
bymysupervisor . . . . . . . . 28 29 15 12 15 1 0
37. Thero are opportunities for
advancamant at ADtQ. . . . . . . 8 19 16 19 36 3 o
38. I feel stre88 in my job. . . . . 30 32 20 11 7 0 0
39. How would you deacriba the managomant stylo vithin ADtQ?
88 Very Participative
188 Sonwhat Participative
238 Neutral
228 Sorrnriut Autocratic
228 Very Autocratic
8 Don't Itnw
38 No ihmpon8a
40. Hov would you descrik the supervisory stylo within ADEQ?
68 Vary Mantorinq
198 Sormrh. t nantorrnq
308 Neutral
6 8 Sonwhat Punitive
178 Very Punitive
88 Don't Know
38 No R. 8pon8a
4 1 . How Lmportant ts you are the nanaqerial and tec3n:; a; ac:: i- Les = f
managers wlthln AOEQ7
12% Technical Abilities Most Important
14% Technical Abilities Somewhat More Important
34% Technical/ Manaqrrial Abilities Equally Important
188 ~ anagarial Abilities Somewhat More Important
16% nanagarial Abilities Most Important
2% Don't Know
5 NO Rasponre
42. How would you rate top management's ( director, deputy director,
and assistant directors) level of accountabrlity tor Department
actions/ dacisions?
2 Highly Accountable
268 Somawhat Accountable
198 Neutral
108 Somewhat Unaccountable
68 Not Accountabla At A11
1 2 Don't Know
28 No Raaponsa
43. How would you rate mid- managemant's ( saction and unit managers)
lava1 of accountability for Departmant actions/ decisions?
4 Highly Accountable
278 Sor. what Accountabla
218 Neutral
158 Sonvhat Unaccountable
148 Not Accountable At A11
78 Don't Xnov
28 No R@ ap~ nS@
44. How would you rat. the organization81 cliuta within ADEQ?
28 High Morala
1 3 Sonwhat High Horrla
208 NauUal
26% sonwhat LOW norale
348 Low Morals
38 Don't Know
38 No Raaponsa
45. Whom intaroats doas ADEQ primrily sarva?
78 Strongly Favors Environment
108 SomowUt Favors Enviromnt
428 Balmcaa Environmant and Ragulatad Conunity
208 Sonvh8t Favors Ragulatad Conunity
98 Strongly Favors Ragulatad Conunity
98 Don't Knw
38 No Raaponsa
4 6 . Base4 on your experlenca Ln recect y e a r s , o v e r a l ? nanaqe3e-: : f
the Departxent has:
19% Greatly Improved
31% Somewhat Improved
14% Stayed About The Same
12% Somewhat worsened
8% Greatly worsened
5 Don't Know
2% NO ~ esponse
47. Based on your experience in recent years, the ADEQ'S
organizational climate has:
101 Greatly Improved
4 Somowhat Improved
251 Stayod About Tho Same
161 Somewhat Worsened
7i Greatly Worsened
161 Don't Know
1% NO RISpOnS8
Note: For item8 48 through SO bolow, raw nunkrs are usod rather than
porcontagos to improvo clarity in presenting rank order responses.
48. In your opinion, What is the major cause of turnover within your
unit or division? ( Seo note above)
2 3 A R a n k . d
Inad- ate Salary 294 6 9 18 22 4 2
Lack of Pro8otional
Opportuni 8. ti 6S 155 66 7 2 87
Exce88ivo Workload 3 0 7 0 9 9 106 14 0
Personality Conflicts 3 2 29 6 7 153 164
~ troaa 2 3 27 7 4 164 157
otnor 3 2 2 o 16 2 7 3 so
Don t Xnw 11 0 1 2 431
49. In practice, ADtQ's primary customers are: ( See note above)
1 7 3 4+ Rank. d
Public 151 12 3 9 3 12 66
Enviro~ ont 4 0 108 172 3 1 9 4
R. gu1at. d Co~ unity 192 119 6 1 2 7 1
other 54 19 10 17 345
Don't Xnw 0 0 0 0 0
50. In your opinion, ADEQ'r primary customors should k: ( Soe note
abovo )
R. qu1at. d Community
Don't mw
51. 1 have been employed a t ADEQ tor:
88 Less Than 6 Months
2 4 t 6 Months but Less Than 2 Years
3 9 t 2 to 5 Years
2 8 t More Than 5 Years
1 NO Response
52. I would classify my current position as:
8 TOP Management ( Director, Deputy Director, or Assistant
5 Mid Management ( Section or Unit Managers)
538 Technical Staff ( EHSs, EPSS, Hydroloqists, Enqineers,
Planners, etc.)
4 Support Staff ( EDP staff, Accountants, Personnel Analysts,
Contract Spocialists, etc.
1 % Clorical Staff
3% Other
2% No Response
53. I work in tho Office of:
12% Administration
178 Air Quality
30% waste Programs
34% water Quality
5% Director
3 NO Response
cAgency Response
Fife Symington, Governor Edward Z. Fox, Director
February 2, 1994
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
2910 North 44th Street
Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Agency- wide Issues
audit ( the Report) on the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
( ADEQ). Before addressing the specifics of this audit I would like to
express my appreciation for your acknowledgment of the positive
changes which have occurred under this administration.
While I acknowledge most of the analysis in the Report, it still fails
to make clear that many of the issues you raise are historic and exist
as a result of years of neglected management and rapid legislative
changes. To this point, I believe that years of management neglect
cannot be fixed in the short term. It will take several years,
additional resources and in some cases legislative changes to make all
the needed changes for ADEQ to be a quality organization capable of
fulfilling its mission.
I took this job in July 1991 for the express purpose of changing the
Department. As an attorney, I had worked with this Department since
its inception in 1987 and, like other stakeholders, had a strong
belief that the Department was dysfunctional. Indeed, based upon my
experience with both the environmental community and the business
community, I would say that everyone involved in working with the
Department had a common opinion. When asked to take the directorship
by Governor ~ ymington I agreed to be " a change agentw. The purpose
was to come in and find new paradigms and new ways of doing business
and, if necessary, to replace people in positions of authority in
order to make those changes occur.
When I came to the Department one of the first lessons I learned was
that many of the upper management positions were held by long- term
bureaucrats who, in many cases, had retired on the job and were
unwilling to take on new paradigms and new ways of doing business.
It, therefore, became essential to remove some personnel and provide
opportunities for these old- time managers to find new challenges.
3033 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, ( 602) 207- 2300
Douglas R. Norton
February 2, 1994
Page 2
Further, I looked for new management opportunities for staff who were
motivated. Therefore, in the past two years, the movement of
management personnel to create opportunities for success has been a
primary component of my administration.
In this audit you criticize the management changes that I have made
and argue for continuity. I would suggest to you that continuity at
ADEQ in July 1991 would have resulted in continued dysfunctionality.
Indeed, the past management audits which identify 1vhistoric1p8r oblems ) with the agency in terms of permitting and enforcement were, in my
opinion, the result of the old management. In the past year and a
half ( after I had an opportunity to implement some new programs and
policies) this Department has begun to reduce the backlog of permits
and has significantly increased its enforcement presence in the state.
Testimony to this success are the following facts: I
Awarded civil and criminal penalties in excess of$ 4,000,000
from July, 1991 to present from companies in violation of
the state's environmental laws - more than in all prior
years combined. ( See attached list)
Increased the number of Drinking Water Systems in full or
substantial compliance from 61% FY 1991 to 80% FY 1993
Increased cost recovery received from responsible parties: )
Developed a compliance/ enforcement policy and boiler plate
orders resulting in an increase from 13 to 41 orders in the
Drinking Water program and 3 to 26 orders in the water
pollution program from 1992 to 1993. I -
Signed four judicial consent decrees and filed 2 civil
complaints on WQARF sites in 1992 and 1993 where none were
filed previously.
73% of agency walk- in customers from May 1993 - December
1993 state that ADEQ staff were more knowledgeable about
their job then expected, ( Survey)
Recognition of three agency teams and ADEQ by the 1993
Governor's, " A Spirit of Excellencew program. I
Over 140 agency customers volunteered to help in our total
quality/ business process improvement effort. I
Douglas R. Norton
February 2, 1994
Page 3
Inspections of Air Quality industrial discharges rose 36%
from 1992 to 1993.
Is everything perfect? Absolutely not. However, we have made
significant changes. Those changes have resulted in a better ADEQ
both, subjectively and quantitatively. Again we appreciate your
acknowledgement of these efforts.
I believe that our accomplishments are substantial, but I think it is
important to note that ADEQ is a young agency, having been created in
1987 with 120 employees. Within five years the agency has expanded to
over 600 full- time employees, 60 separate programs and has been
subject to considerable political and organizational turmoil as
evidenced by the turnover in the agency's leadership ( five directors
in six years). Unfortunately, during this turmoil the agency was
faced with balancing the need to focus its resources on the
environmental crisis de jure or implementing sound managerial systems.
While we know that the political fires must be fought, it is
unfortunate that the past senior management did not also spend the
necessary resources to establish the fundamental infrastructure to run
the agency on a day- to- day basis. It will take time to remediate all
the problems.
Let me state that most of your suggestions are helpful, and I am
committed to pursuing their implementation. However, most will
require either legislation or a short- term diversion of resources from
already cash strapped programs. For example:
Additional employee and manager training would have to be
funded from programs already short in resources.
Legislative changes are needed to fix the public
hearing process for new rules. ( Currently purposed)
Lack of experienced agency staff is compounded by the fact
that they are nearly 30% below parity with other local
governments and the fix would require both resources and
changes in DOA personnel classifications. ( Proposed)
Information management and improved file controls would
require additional staff, reassigned staff from other
programs or new resources. For example, over $ 700,000 would
be needed to convert current underground storage tank files
to an accessible optical image file.
Douglas R. Norton
February 2, 1994
Page 4
Increasing our current effort to develop policies will
require additional program staff, thereby at least
temporarily diverting resources from our program
implementation ( i. e., inspections) which, as you note, also
need increased attention.
Finally, I wish to compliment your staff for their professionalism.
My only real complaint with the performance audit system is that these
same representatives from your office will not be here to help in the
difficult work of implementing the recommendations you have proposed.
Very truly_ yours,
Edward Z. ,$ ox
cc: Bill Wiley, Deputy Director, ADEQ
Joe Smith, Director, Administration Division, ADEQ
Nancy Wrona, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ
Ethel DeMarr, Director, Waste Programs Division, ADEQ
Brian Munson, Director, Water Quality Division, ADEQ
Bill Thomson, Director, Performance Audit ~ ivision, Auditor
General's Office
1. Tally Defense System - $ 500,000 - hazardous waste ( Hazardous Waste Fund)
2. Lake Powell case - $ 1.325 million - water quality violations - civil and criminal with Attorney
General's Office. $ 225,000 came to ADEQ ( WQARF)
3. Arizona Portland Cement - $ 367,840 - air and hazardous waste ($ 40,170 - Air Permits
Administration Fund; $ 327,670 - Hazardous Waste Fund)
4. Sunbelt Refining - $ 700,000 air, water waste - civil and criminal ( multi- year payment plan,
$ 150,000 to AG, $ 550,000 to ADEQ - 30% - Air Permits Administration Fund; 30% -
WQARF; 30% - Hazardous Waste Fund; 10% - Small Water Systems Fund)
5. Mobil - $ 63 1,000 and costs - Underground Storage Tank ( General Fund)
6. TRW - $ 35,000 - hazardous waste storage ( Hazardous Waste Fund)
7. Allied Aircraft - $ 120,000 - hazardous waste ( aluminum dross) ( Hazardous Waste Fund)
8. Los Abrigados - $ 180,000 - water quality ( WQARF)
9. Scottsdale Nisson - $ 17,000 - vehicle emissions testing ( General Fund)
10. Culiver Autos - $ 22,000 - vehicle emissions testing ( General Fund)
11. Tyson Wells RV Park - $ 5,000 - wastewaterldrinking water ( WQARF)
12. Page Steele - $ 2,500 unlawful burning for metal recovery ( Air Permits Administration Fund)
13. Pinewood Sewer Company - $ 50,000 wastewater violations ( WQARF)
14. Town of Clifton - $ 5,000 - wastewater violations ( WQARF)
15. Sedona Parcel - $ 2,300 - wastewater violations (( WQARF)
16. Town of Fredonia - $ 10,000 - drinking water ( Small Water Systems Fund)
17. Rinchem - $ 40,000 - hazardous waste storage ( Hazardous Waste Management Fund)
18. Shelby Wastewater - $ 41,232 - wastewater ( WQARF)
19. Sierra Entrada - $ 5,000 - wastewater ( WQARF)
20. Katherine's Landing - $ 7,800 - drinking water ( Small Water Systems Fund)
NOTE: This list does not include criminal acti011w~ here ADEQ assisted the Attorney General's Office or local prosecutors
and does not include restitution for cleanup work performed by ADEQ received through the criminal process.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
photo 1 of 169
Fabricio Werdum
TRAINING: Mon-Wed-Fri I train MMA and Muay Thai at Kings MMA. Tuesday I train wrestling at my gym Werdum Combat Team with Kenny Johnson. Wed-Sat boxing with Justin Fortune. My conditioning training I do with Jarrod Bunch and my BJJ training on Tuesday and Thursday with Rubens Charles "Cobrinha"
Getty Images reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this image or clip. If you violate our intellectual property you may be liable for: actual damages, loss of income, and profits you derive from the use of this image or clip, and, where appropriate, the costs of collection and/or statutory damages up to $150,000 (USD).

subset: commoncrawl