Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

Report of EPA’s Oversight of

State Stack Testing Programs

Report Number 2000-P-00019

September 11, 2000
Inspector General Division

Conducting the Audit: Mid-Atlantic Audit Division

Philadelphia, PA

Program Offices Involved: Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

Washington, D.C.

Regions Covered: Regions II, III, V, and VII

State Covered: New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection
September 11, 2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Final Report of EPA’s Oversight of

State Stack Testing Programs

Report Number 2000-P-00019 

FROM: Carl A. Jannetti 

Divisional Inspector General for Audit 

 Mid-Atlantic Division (3AI00)

TO: Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator

 for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

Regional Administrators I - X

Attached is our final audit report on the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs. The purpose of the audit was

to determine whether states were either not requiring stack tests, or requiring

stack tests and not reporting the results to EPA. 

This audit report contains issues that describe conditions the Office of

Inspector General (OIG) has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. 

This audit report represents the opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on

matters in this audit report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with

established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the finding contained in

this audit report does not necessarily represent the final EPA position, and is not

binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the

Department of Justice. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

MID-ATLANTIC DIVISION

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

(215)814-5800
ACTION REQUIRED

This report makes recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and the EPA Regional

Administrators. The Assistant Administrator of OECA is designated as the

primary action official, and as such, should consolidate its response and the

Regional comments into one Agency response. In accordance with EPA Order 2750,

the action official is required to provide a written response to the audit report

within 90 days of the date of this report, however, because OECA is asked to

consolidate the regional responses we will provide them an additional 15 days. We

ask that the Regional Administrators submit their response to OECA within 90

days and provide us an informational copy of their response. Also, please submit an

electronic copy of the response.

We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. 

Should your staff have any questions about this report, please have them contact

Patrick Milligan or Lorraine Fleury at 215-814-5800.

Attachment
i

Report No. 2000-P-00019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose EPA headquarters officials requested we perform a review of

state stack test programs. They were concerned that states

were either not requiring stack tests or not reporting them to

EPA. A stack test measures the amount of a specific

pollutant or pollutants being emitted through stacks at a

facility. Stack testing is one of the primary methods for

determining compliance with emission limits.

Results-In-Brief EPA guidance does not clearly address important issues such

as how and what stack testing information should be

reported. As a result, EPA and the states are inconsistently

implementing the stack test portion of their air enforcement

programs. There is confusion and disagreement among the

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),

EPA regions and states regarding issues such as what stack

test information should be reported, what is a stack test, and

how tests should be performed and evaluated. For example,

some regions require states to report stack test data into the

Agency’s database, while other regions do not. 

Without sufficient stack testing information, regions do not

know which facilities are testing and how often. As a result,

facilities in some states may be subject to less stringent

testing requirements, or even no stack testing. In order for

EPA to fulfill its oversight function, more complete and

consistent stack test information is needed. The Agency

needs better assurance that states are requiring enough

quality stack tests to identify violators of the CAA. Once

EPA knows the condition of state programs, it can identify

those states whose stack testing programs need

improvement.

Recommendation We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for

OECA work with the EPA regions and states to issue

national guidance on stack testing. This guidance should

address stack test activities such as: the definition of a stack
ii

Report No. 2000-P-00019

test; proper procedures for conducting tests; how tests will be

counted; the type of stack test information needed; and how

it will be reported. We also recommended that the 10 EPA

Regional Administrators increase oversight of their states’

stack test programs as needed, adequately monitor the flow

of stack test data submitted by states, and perform sufficient

follow-up on stack tests.

EPA and New

Jersey Response

OECA, Regions I, II, III, V, VII, and IX, and New Jersey

responded to our draft report and generally agreed with our

finding and recommendations. OECA is currently working

with the regions and states to develop a Compliance

Monitoring Strategy (CMS) that addresses our

recommendations.

OIG Evaluation We concur with the Agency’s response and the proposed

corrective action. As OECA continues to work with the

regions and states developing the CMS, it can be revised to

address our recommendations. Also, EPA and New Jersey

offered some clarifying suggestions and we revised the report

accordingly. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... i

CHAPTER 1 ......................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

Purpose .................................................. 1

Background .............................................. 1

Description of a Stack Test ............................. 2

Why Facilities Stack Test .............................. 3

Scope and Methodology ..................................... 5

Prior Audit Coverage ....................................... 7

CHAPTER 2 ......................................................... 9

STACK TEST ACTIVITIES AND STATE REPORTING

NEED TO BE STANDARDIZED ............................. 9

Inaccurate EPA Database .................................. 10

Inaccuracies Confirmed .................................... 11

Regional Responses to OIG Questionnaire ..................... 13

Uniform Stack Test Procedures Needed ....................... 15

Conclusion .............................................. 20

Recommendations ........................................ 21

OECA’s Response ......................................... 22

OIG Evaluation .......................................... 22

Regional Responses ....................................... 23

OIG Evaluation .......................................... 24

NJDEP Response ......................................... 25

OIG Evaluation .......................................... 25

APPENDIX 1

OECA’S RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT ......................... 27

APPENDIX 2

EPA REGIONAL RESPONSES TO DRAFT REPORT ................. 31
APPENDIX 3

NJDEP RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT .......................... 55

APPENDIX 4

DISTRIBUTION ............................................... 77
1

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Purpose Officials from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance (OECA) requested that we perform this review of

state stack test programs. OECA was concerned that states

were either not requiring stack tests or not reporting them to

EPA. The objectives of our audit were to:

Ç Determine whether states were either not requiring

stack tests, or requiring stack tests and not reporting

the results to EPA.

Ç Evaluate state stack test programs.

Ç Assess the adequacy of EPA’s oversight at the

Headquarters and regional levels.

Ç Identify ways to improve the effectiveness of state

stack test programs as well as EPA’s oversight of state

activities.

Background EPA guidance lists five levels of inspections that can be

performed at facilities. Level 0, commonly called a “drive

by,” is the most basic inspection. EPA does not consider this

level of inspection to be an acceptable compliance assurance

method. To adequately evaluate a facility’s compliance with

the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA’s Compliance Monitoring

Strategy (CMS) explains that states need to perform at least

a Level 2 inspection at major stationary sources. The CMS

defines the necessary tests and evaluations that must be

performed for an inspection to be considered a Level 2. This

type of inspection must include an assessment of the

compliance status of all air pollution sources within the

facility.

During a Level 4 inspection, which is the most thorough

type, the inspector is required to monitor the operating

parameters of all process and control devices during a stack
1Facilities can also be classified as a major if they emit as low as 10 tons per year of selected

pollutants such as lead.

2

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Phases of a Stack Test

test. This type of inspection prepares an actual emissions

baseline for the source through the use of a stack test. Once

established, these parameters should be used to help

determine compliance during future Level 2 inspections.

Description of a

Stack Test

A stack test, also referred to as a performance or source test,

measures the amount of a specific pollutant or pollutants

being emitted through stacks at a facility. These tests are

performed primarily at major facilities, or at other facilities

of concern. Generally, a major facility is any source which

emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year of the

more highly regulated pollutants subject to regulation under

the CAA1. Some of the more highly regulated pollutants

include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds. 

The number of stacks at a facility can vary considerably

depending on the type and size of a facility. For example,

some of the smaller major facilities may have a single stack,

while larger facilities can have more than one hundred

stacks. The stack test methods that must be followed are

provided in the Code of Federal Regulations, unless the state

has promulgated its own procedures that were approved by

EPA. Any deviations from the recommended test methods

must be approved by the state and/or EPA. Usually a stack

test can take from one to three days to complete and

generally includes three test runs. The cost to the facility for

completing a test can typically range from $10,000 to $50,000

per stack. 

A stack test usually consists of

three phases, the: (1) protocol

review; (2) test observation, and

(3) final report review. Each

phase is conducted to ensure that the test is appropriate,

accurate, and valid.

Generally, a facility hires a consultant to conduct the stack

test. The consultant prepares a protocol describing the

pollutants to be tested, the test methods they plan to use,

and the expected operating conditions at the facility. The
3

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Emission Factors

protocol should be made available to regulatory personnel

(EPA, state or local officials) for their review prior to the test. 

Once approved, a test date is scheduled.

Whenever possible, regulatory personnel should be present

during enough of the testing to ensure the test is valid. 

Depending on the type of test, samples may be sent to a

laboratory for analysis. After the test results have been

analyzed, the consultant issues a final report to the facility. 

Regulatory personnel should review the report to determine

whether the test was accurate, complete and valid. If the

facility fails the test, the regulatory agency should take

appropriate enforcement action to ensure the facility is

brought into compliance. If the test is determined to be

invalid, the regulatory agency should require retesting.

Enforcement actions typically begin with a notice of

violation. Depending on the severity of the violation, the

regulatory agency will take one of several enforcement

actions. For example, a state or EPA Order will require the

facility to take corrective action within a specified time

frame, and if appropriate, the regulatory agency assesses a

penalty.

Why Facilities

Stack Test

Some EPA and state officials view stack testing as the most

effective way to determine compliance because it

demonstrates whether a facility has the ability to comply

with the CAA. Officials further explained that if a facility

was ever going to be in compliance, it would be for a stack

test. This is because the facility is aware that a test is

scheduled and has ample time to adjust the equipment to

demonstrate compliance with emission limits. However,

despite this advance notice, some facilities fail the test. 

When this occurs, it is unlikely that the facility was in

compliance prior to the test. 

In addition to measuring the facility’s ability to comply, stack

testing is important for a variety of reasons, some of which

are discussed below.

A significant number of facilities

are regulated based on emission

factors, which are an estimate of the

amount of pollution being emitted 
4

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Continuous Emission

Monitoring System 

at a facility. The states and EPA use emission factors when

a facility does not have more reliable information. EPA

developed these factors by first grouping types of industries

and then specific manufacturing processes or equipment

within that industry. For example, burning oil in industrial

boilers results in carbon monoxide pollution. The amount of

oil burned multiplied by the appropriate emission factor

approximates the amount of carbon monoxide emitted into

the atmosphere for a given period of time. This estimate is

then used to help establish the emission limit in the facility’s

permit.

There are two reasons why stack tests should be conducted

at facilities regulated by limits based on emission factors. 

First, emission factors are rated for reliability based on the

quantity and quality of the test data used to calculate the

factor. A 1996 OIG audit report entitled Emission Factor

Development concluded that many of the emission factors

used in estimating pollution are unreliable and outdated. If

the emission factors are inaccurate, the facility may be

emitting more pollution than appropriate, resulting in harm

to the environment. The more stack test data used to

develop the emission factors, the more reliable the estimates.

Second, as one New Jersey air inspector explained, stack test

results at times differ significantly from the estimate used to

develop the emission factor. Because the estimates are

inaccurate, the facility is polluting more than the emission

limit set in the facility’s permit. This excess pollution may go

undetected unless the state requires the facility to perform a

stack test. When a stack test discloses that the facility is

exceeding its permit limit or polluting more than it is

allowed, the facility may need to lower production or install

pollution control equipment in order to comply with the CAA.

A Continuous Emission

Monitoring System (CEMS) is

an apparatus placed on a stack,

which continuously monitors

and records a specific pollutant

concentration. As a result, these monitors can provide

information which may be directly enforceable. A modified

stack test, called a performance specification test, is required

when a CEMS is installed. This test is used to calibrate the
5

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Pollution-Causing

Equipment

monitor and ensure it accurately measures emissions of the

target pollutant. 

EPA has not yet developed performance specification

methods for continuous monitoring of some types of

pollutants, such as particulate matter. For such pollutants,

the only way to measure compliance with emission limits is

to perform stack testing. Agency officials said that stack

testing should be specified at certain intervals in order to

ensure continuing compliance. 

The CAA of 1990 imposed more

stringent requirements on

regulated facilities, which

included increased stack

testing. For example, after

installing specific types of pollution equipment, facilities are

required to conduct a stack test. In some cases, periodic tests

are also required after the initial test.

When manufacturing equipment is first installed, it is

designed to operate at the optimal level for minimizing 

pollution. However, the efficiency of this equipment may 

deteriorate over time without proper maintenance. Because

the amount of pollution can increase as the equipment ages,

there is a need to periodically stack test.

Scope and

Methodology

We performed this audit according to the Government

Auditing Standards (1994 Revision) issued by the

Comptroller General of the United States as they apply to

performance audits. Our review included tests of program

records and other auditing procedures we considered

necessary for the purpose of expressing an opinion based on

our audit objectives. Our recommendations address the need

for EPA to clarify state reporting requirements of stack test

information. This will improve the Agency’s oversight of

state air enforcement programs. 

To accomplish our objectives, we conducted audit work at:

OECA’s Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data Division

and its Air Enforcement Division, both in EPA

Headquarters; four regional EPA offices, Regions II, III, V,

VII; and the State of New Jersey. We held numerous

interviews and meetings with officials from OECA, the Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), the
6

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

regions, and NJDEP to discuss their roles and

responsibilities in relation to the issues we identified. 

However, we did not conduct interviews or reviews at local

agencies. In addition, we reviewed applicable laws,

regulations, and records maintained by OECA, the regions

and states.

We also held discussions with the State and Territorial Air

Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of

Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO). 

These two national associations represent local and state air

pollution control agencies throughout the United States.

In order to evaluate EPA’s oversight of the stack testing

program, we analyzed stack test data from the AIRS Facility

Subsystem (AFS) database. Based on this analysis, we

selected Region II and the State of New Jersey for review. To

evaluate NJDEP’s program, we reviewed stack test files

maintained at the State office. The files contained items

such as the facility’s permit, the protocol, and a final report. 

In addition, the files contained correspondence prepared by

the State to consultants performing the tests, the State’s

review of the protocol, the observer’s checklist, and the

State’s evaluation of the final report. 

To obtain information on regional oversight of state stack

testing activities we sent a questionnaire to the 10 EPA

regions. Based on the responses to the questionnaires, we

visited three regions to further evaluate their programs.

Our survey began on December 7, 1998 and ended on

May 7, 1999. As a result of the survey, we initiated an indepth review on May 8, 1999. We completed the fieldwork on

November 30, 1999. We met with senior OECA officials on

December 14, 1999 to discuss the issues we planned to report

and our proposed recommendations.

We issued the draft report on April 25, 2000. Because this

audit was national in scope, we received comments from

OECA, six EPA Regions and the State of New Jersey. 

Regions I, II, III, V, VII, and IX were the six Regions that

commented on our draft report. We requested that the

Assistant Administrator for OECA consolidate the EPA

regional responses. OECA submitted the consolidated

response to us on June 26, 2000 and New Jersey provided its
7

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

response on May 26, 2000. Based on the comments we

received, we made minor modifications to our report. At the

end of Chapter 2, we included a summary of EPA’s and New

Jersey’s responses to our finding, as well as our evaluation of

their responses. The complete responses from OECA, the

EPA regions, and New Jersey are included in Appendices 1

through 3, respectively. Based on discussions with OECA

personnel, we agreed that an exit meeting was not necessary

because OECA concurred with the finding and

recommendations in the report. 

Prior Audit

Coverage

An EPA OIG audit report entitled Emission Factor

Development (#6100318) was issued on September 30, 1996. 

This report discussed the importance and impact of properly

developing emission factors. 

The OIG recommended that the limited progress made in

emission factor development be reported as a material

weakness under the Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity

Act. The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) did not agree

with the OIG recommendation, but did establish a five-year

plan to address the emission factor program. 

An EPA OIG audit report entitled Consolidated Review of the

Air Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Programs

(#7100306) was issued on September 30, 1997. This report

consolidates national issues identified during reviews of

Regions V, VI and IX’s air enforcement and compliance

assistance programs.

An EPA OIG audit report entitled Consolidated Report on

OECA’s Oversight of Regional and State Air Enforcement

Programs (#8100244) was issued on September 25, 1998. 

This report was a compilation of audits performed

nationwide on EPA’s oversight of the air enforcement data at

six states.
8

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
9

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

CHAPTER 2

STACK TEST ACTIVITIES AND STATE REPORTING

NEED TO BE STANDARDIZED

The primary vehicle for controlling air emissions from

stationary sources in the United States is through the state’s

permitting process. Substantial federal and state resources

have gone into establishing the standards for issuing

permits. Without a mechanism to effectively measure and

evaluate facilities’ performance, a permitting program is

meaningless. Stack testing is one of the primary methods for

determining compliance with emission limits. 

EPA and the states are inconsistently implementing the

stack test portion of their air enforcement programs. There

is confusion and disagreement among OECA, EPA regions

and states regarding issues such as what stack test

information should be reported, what is a stack test, and how

tests should be performed and evaluated. For example, some

regions require states to report stack test data into the

Agency’s database, while other regions do not. These

inconsistencies occurred because EPA guidance does not

clearly address important issues such as how and what stack

testing information should be reported.

Nonetheless, even without guidance requiring regions to

obtain stack testing information from their states, each

region should have obtained this information because it is

necessary to adequately monitor a state’s air enforcement

program. Without sufficient stack testing information,

regions do not know which facilities are testing and how

often. As a result, facilities in some states may be subject to

less stringent testing requirements, or even no stack testing. 

Moreover, if facilities are not required to stack test,

violations can go undetected. 

It is also important to consistently conduct stack testing

because these tests are expensive. One test can cost as much

as $50,000. As a result, facilities that do not stack test have

an unfair economic advantage over those that do test. EPA
10

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

needs to develop guidance to resolve these inconsistencies

and create uniformity among the regions and states, so that

needed stack tests are performed and monitored consistently. 

Inaccurate EPA

Database

According to EPA’s database, only 14 percent of the 40,000

major facilities in the nation had a stack test at one or more

emission units in a 10-year period. The regions are listed by

the percentage of facilities where testing occurred. 

STACK TESTS REPORTED IN AFS

 FROM 1989 TO 1998

Region

Number of Major

% Tested Facilities* Tested

II 3,463 21 1

VII 4,369 194 4

IX 3,164 149 5

IV 7,208 638 9

VIII 2,268 241 11

I 2,113 284 13

X 1,046 200 19

VI 4,071 779 19

III 4,218 899 21

V 7,833 2,032 26

Nationwide 39,753 5,437 14

*Includes synthetic minors

Our review determined that the stack testing information

was inaccurate, and insufficient for evaluating each states’

or regions’ stack testing efforts. Because of inaccuracies in

the stack testing information in EPA’s database, the

following conditions are possible. Namely, regions and

states could have over reported, under reported, or

accurately reported the number of stack tests performed. 

The stack testing information in the Agency’s database

indicates stack testing is occurring in some regions more

than in others. If this information were accurate, EPA could

require the regions to increase their efforts where not enough

stack testing took place. 
11

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

With very little accurate information available to determine

how many stack tests were performed in each state and in

each region, we were unable to fulfill one of the objectives of

this audit, namely: 

Determine whether states were either not requiring

stack tests, or requiring stack tests and not reporting

the results to EPA.

At the beginning of this audit we had general information

that EPA’s database was incomplete, but we believed that

regional offices would have the accurate information about

stack tests. However, we found that this was not true. 

Without information showing which states and regions were

requiring tests as well as those not requiring them, we could

not select states to show best practices or those requiring

improvement. While we could not fulfill OECA’s request in

this area, we were able to satisfy the three other objectives of

our audit. By doing so, we provided OECA and the regions

with information and recommendations needed to improve

EPA’s stack testing program. Once these recommendations

are implemented, it will be possible to fulfill the uncompleted

objective. We would undertake that effort if desired by EPA.

Inaccuracies

Confirmed 

To begin our review we selected the State of New Jersey

which has 1,187 major facilities and reported in AFS only 12

stack tests to EPA during a 10-year period. However, our

review of NJDEP indicated that the State had monitored

more than 900 stack tests in a 5-year period and had a

quality stack test program. It is noteworthy that both

Regional and State officials agreed that NJDEP was not

required to report stack tests into AFS. Region officials also

assured us that NJDEP had a quality stack test program,

but EPA personnel had no evidence to support this assertion. 

For example, the Region did not have information such as,

the number of stack tests performed, those tests monitored

by the State, pass or fail rates, and the number of retests.

To ensure that stack tests are performed when necessary the

state can:

Ç Require a stack test as a condition of the permit. 

These tests can be required either initially after the

permit is issued, or periodically while the permit is in

effect;
2The protocol is a technical document which describes the methods that will be used for testing the

stack and the required operating conditions at the facility. 

12

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Ç Require a stack test every five years when the permit

is renewed, if the inspector believes a facility may be 

exceeding its emission limits; and 

Ç Perform a stack test any time it believes necessary. 

However, State officials said this rarely happens. 

We then performed a review of the State’s involvement in the

three phases of a stack test: the protocol2, the observation of 

the test, and the final report. Our review included 147 stack

test summaries for calendar year 1998 and found that 42

facilities, or 29 percent, failed to demonstrate compliance. 

From these 42 facilities, 33 exceeded their emission limits

and 9 were required to be retested because the procedures

used were invalid. These results confirm the importance of

conducting stack tests to determine compliance. Also, such

information would be useful to EPA to evaluate the

effectiveness of New Jersey’s program.

For the 42 files we reviewed, NJDEP found problems with 36

of the protocols submitted by the facility’s test consultant. If

deficiencies in the protocol are not identified and corrected,

the results would be invalid. Consequently, because of the

State’s review of the protocols prior to the test, costly retests

were avoided. 

NJDEP officials believed that the most critical of stack

testing oversight is the observation of the test. By attending

the test, state inspectors can:

T Ensure the test equipment meets requirements;

T Evaluate the competency of the consultant performing

the test; 

T Assess whether facility operating conditions are

appropriate; and 

T Determine whether the test methods meet standards

prescribed in the protocol.
13

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

The observer’s checklists we reviewed disclosed that State

officials required modifications to 57 percent of the tests. 

Without these modifications, the tests would have been

invalid and retests needed. 

Because NJDEP was very active in the protocol review and

test observation phases, their review of the final report often

required fewer resources. Moreover, disagreements and

controversies regarding the validity and enforceability of

stack test results are minimized because the State was

involved throughout the testing process.

Subsequently, we visited one of New Jersey’s field offices to

review 14 enforcement files for facilities that had failed stack

tests. The State closed one facility after it failed five

consecutive stack tests. Most of the remaining facilities

applied for permit modifications to increase their emission

limits. Increases are sometimes appropriate if the initial

permit was based on inaccurate emission factors. In these

cases, a higher limit would still meet all applicable

requirements. 

In conclusion, we found NJDEP had an effective and efficient

stack testing program. To the contrary, the EPA Regional

office and EPA’s database had little information about the

details and activities of the State’s stack testing program.

Regional

Responses to OIG

Questionnaire

We developed a questionnaire to obtain a nationwide

perspective of stack testing because, through EPA’s

inaccurate database, we were unable to identify which states

were requiring tests. We sent the questionnaire to the

Division Directors of the Air Management Divisions in each

of the 10 EPA Regions. The purpose of the questionnaire

was to obtain information about the effectiveness of each

region’s oversight of state stack testing programs. It was

also intended to gain an understanding of how state stack

test programs operated. It is worth noting that most regions

solicited input from their states before responding to the

questionnaire. The following chart summarizes the

responses we received from the regions.
14

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Summary of Regional Responses

Survey Questions Yes No Did Not

Respond

Do states have a stack

test program? 10 0 0

Are results entered

into AFS? 

T

5 4 1

Do regions receive

stack test data other

than through AFS?

10 0 0

Do regions evaluate

effectiveness of state

stack test programs?

7 3 0

Does Section 105

Grant require

reporting of stack test

activities? T

6 4 0

Are there reporting

requirements other

than AFS? 

T

5 5 0

Are stack tests

required to be entered

into AFS?*

3 2 5

*This question was not specifically asked in the questionnaire, 

 however, it was answered by half the regions. 

Our survey found an overall inconsistency in regional

oversight of state stack testing programs. For three

questions, marked with a ‘T’, approximately half of the

regions responded yes, while the other half replied no. The

even divide in answers illustrates the need for EPA to clarify

what is expected of the states by developing standardized

reporting requirements. 

Some regions receive more stack test information than

others, and as a result, provided a more complete response to

the questionnaire. For the most part, regional involvement

with stack testing is on a case-by-case basis. For example, a

region may be involved when the stack test is part of testing

being performed to comply with a federal requirement or

when the test is controversial.
15

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Stack Tests Reported

Inconsistently

The survey responses disclosed numerous discrepancies and

contradictions in how regions and states operate their stack

test programs. OECA, region, and state officials have

differing opinions about: the definition of a stack test, which

tests must be reported to EPA, the type of information

reported, stack test procedures, and which facilities should

be tested.

We visited three regions to develop some of these issues

further. The remainder of this report describes these issues

in detail and demonstrates the need for EPA’s attention.

Uniform Stack

Test Procedures

Needed 

The question of which stack

tests must be reported was

answered by the regional

offices several different ways. 

Generally, the situations

described to us resulted in most stack tests not being

reported. The most common response was that only a stack

test performed as part of a Level 2 inspection must be

reported. However, performing a Level 2 inspection in

conjunction with a stack test is a rare occurrence. Among

other activities, a Level 2 inspection requires the inspector to

tour the plant, observe facility operations, inspect equipment

and review records. Most times, if a state inspector is at the

facility during a stack test, the reason is to observe the test,

not to conduct a Level 2 inspection. Because both are

usually not conducted simultaneously, several states do not

report any stack tests, while several other states report

minimal data. 

To further complicate matters, EPA’s guidance manual for

inspections refers to stack testing under its definition of a

Level 4 inspection. It describes Level 4 as a more detailed

inspection than a Level 2. We believe that any stack test

conducted would be considered a Level 4 inspection and

should be reported. However, EPA personnel offered a

different interpretation regarding what constitutes a Level 4

inspection. They defined a reportable stack test as a Level 4

inspection or greater only when every stack at the facility

was tested. Their rationale is that to assess a facility’s

compliance, all stacks must be tested for all pollutants

regulated at that facility. However, when facilities have

multiple stacks, testing all stacks is a rare occurrence. 
16

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

States Counting

Tests Differently

Variety of Stack Test

Information Reported

OECA officials stated that at a minimum, states should enter

stack test failures in the Agency’s database. Regions also

agreed that if a facility fails the stack test, the state should

place the facility on EPA’s High Priority Violator List and

notify the Agency of the failure. Similar to the Level 2

scenario, this would encompass only a small number of tests. 

EPA guidance does not specifically

address how to count a stack test. 

One state in a Region considers

each pollutant tested as an

individual stack test recognizing

there may be more than one pollutant tested at the stack. 

Another Region counts stack tests quite differently, resulting

in a lower number of tests. At this Region, if there were five

stacks at a facility and they were tested over a three-day

period, it would be recorded as one stack test. These two

Regions could perform the same amount of tests, but EPA

data would not reflect that. For EPA to know the number of

stack tests conducted, the Agency needs to ensure all

Regions and states count tests in the same manner.

Regions offered a number of

situations where states

provide different stack test

information, ranging from

only a notification that a test

occurred to a detailed report on both the proposed test

method and the results of the test. In response to our

questionnaire, region officials also stated that they receive

the information from the states in many different formats. 

These formats include:

• Quarterly printouts of all stack tests, when they

were performed, and what the results were;

• Stack test summaries which are typically a

short memorandum describing the test

performed and the results of the test;

• Pretest summaries describing the specific test

method(s) that will be employed and the final

report depicting the results;
17

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Different Test Conditions

• Observation checklists completed by the state

inspector during the stack test; and

• Data entry into AFS, either in the fields

designated for stack tests or in the Remarks

section.

It is noteworthy that several states within the same region

submit stack test information differently. While there may

be more than one way to adequately report this information,

more consistency is needed. When data is reported in many

formats, EPA can not compare state and regional stack

testing programs.

For those states that do not routinely report any stack test

data, states and regions must mutually decide on the type of

information needed and how it will be reported.

Although EPA policies for stack testing define precise test

procedures for specific pollutants, they do not address more

general procedures such as what operating conditions should

be used during the test. Consequently, some facilities are

subject to more lenient operating requirements that can

result in the stack test not accurately measuring compliance.

When conducting a stack

test, the facility’s operating

capacity is regulated

because of the correlation

between production and pollution. The allowable amount of

production stated in the facility’s permit should reflect worst

case operating conditions at the facility. Worst case

conditions are often attained when a facility is operating at

its maximum capacity. 

New Jersey stack test officials said they routinely require a

facility to be running at least 95 percent of maximum

operating capacity. The facility has to submit process data

at the time of the test to substantiate this production level. 

If the company cannot meet the 95 percent production rate,

the State may modify the permit to limit production. In rare

instances, NJDEP may allow the company to run the stack

test at less than 95 percent. The State would then evaluate

the results to assess what the emissions level would be at

100 percent production. Through this analysis, the State
18

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Test Stoppages Are

Not Recorded

makes a determination if the facility has the ability to pass

the test at a maximum permitted production level. If

NJDEP determines the facility cannot pass the test, the

State will either limit the facility’s production or require the

facility to retest at maximum production. 

Personnel from two of the four EPA regions we visited said

their states at times allow the stack test to be conducted at

less than maximum operating capacity. In one region, they

said some facilities could damage equipment or create unsafe

conditions when operating at maximum capacity. The other

region acknowledged accepting test results at less than

maximum capacity without requiring the facility to modify

its permit. If the facility typically operates at a capacity

greater than what it was stack tested, the facility could pass

the test, but be out of compliance under normal operating

conditions. Moreover, allowing facilities to test at less than

maximum capacity creates an unfair advantage over those

states that rigidly enforce the requirement of stack testing at

full capacity.

There are times when tests may

need to be discontinued because

either the facility’s equipment or,

more often, the test equipment

malfunctions. Region and state

officials said that in some instances they question the

validity of these stoppages. For example, a facility may

suspect it is going to fail, but will cite a legitimate reason to

avoid continuing the test. The Agency does not have a policy

to address these stoppages. Moreover, both regional and

state officials said it is almost impossible to prove that a

facility stopped a test for invalid reasons. 

These stoppages are not required to be recorded, and as such,

EPA does not know how many times tests are stopped. It is

necessary for the Agency to have this information. An

excessive amount of test stoppages at a facility may indicate

the facility is operating out of compliance. Likewise, many

stoppages in one state could indicate that an individual

consultant or facility is stopping tests when failure is

imminent. 

Another way that facilities avoid failing a stack test is by

postponing it. A facility may conduct its own stack test
19

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Facility Coverage

before the scheduled test date. If a company believes it will

not pass, it will postpone the test until it can repair the

problem. Although not in favor of this practice, state and

EPA officials agree they have little recourse to prevent the

postponement. 

Another reason EPA should more closely regulate stack test

procedures is the lack of controls regulating test consultants

and laboratories. EPA does not require these companies to

be accredited or meet quality standards to conduct or analyze

stack test samples. There is an ongoing effort by the

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation

Conference to develop nationally accepted standards for

pollutants regulated under other EPA programs, including

air. EPA and some state personnel expressed concern that

without a laboratory certification program, there is less

assurance samples are properly analyzed and results are

accurate.

Before EPA can know whether

facilities are conducting a sufficient

amount of stack tests, it must first

know which industries should

stack test. According to Agency personnel, there are many

factors which would indicate the need for a stack test. For

example, there would be a greater need for stack testing if a

facility:

T Emits pollutants that are commonly measured by a

stack test, or where the only method of determining

compliance is by conducting a stack test;

T Does not have a Continuous Emission Monitoring

System (CEMS) or other monitors which indicate

compliance;

T Is not subject to some of the recent federal regulations

which require stack tests;

T Has never stack tested or has not tested for a long

time; or

T Has other indications of noncompliance, such as

visible emissions, odor, or poor maintenance.
20

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Frequency of Tests

Currently, EPA has no procedures to readily identify those

facilities which have a greater need for stack testing. We

realize it would not be feasible to develop a comprehensive

list of facilities currently in need of a test. However, by

collecting more consistent, complete, and accurate stack test

data, EPA would make progress toward identifying and

tracking those facilities needing tests.

One EPA region has undertaken an initiative to target

facilities as candidates for stack testing. From some of the

larger facilities within that region, they chose facilities that

are regulated for two specific pollutants. From this subset,

the region selected three industries that they believe can

only determine compliance with a stack test. To further

reduce the number of candidates for stack testing, the region

focused on those facilities that do not have CEMs and for

which the regional file shows no evidence of any stack

testing. To date, the region has identified this group of

facilities likely to need a test, but due to budgetary

constraints has suspended the effort pending additional

funding.

Similar to identifying which

facilities need to be stack tested,

the frequency of testing is a

controversial issue. We received

numerous responses from EPA officials regarding how often

facilities should stack test. Frequency is influenced by many

factors such as the facility’s compliance history, the type of

pollutants emitted, and the last time it was stack tested. We

believe there is no single answer to how often facilities

should test. NJDEP relies primarily on the initial permit

approval, or the permit renewal process that occurs every

five years to require facilities to stack test. If EPA more

closely tracks stack test activities, the Agency would know

which facilities have tested and which have not. Once a

reliable tracking system is established, EPA and the states

can begin to address appropriate testing frequencies for

various types of facilities.
21

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

Conclusion EPA is not obtaining critical information such as how many

tests are being conducted and whether the tests are

adequate. In order for EPA to fulfill its oversight function,

more complete and consistent stack test information is

needed. The Agency needs better assurance that states are

requiring enough quality stack tests to identify violators of

the CAA. Once EPA knows the condition of state programs,

it can identify those states whose stack testing programs

need improvement.

We recognize that an effective stack testing program is

primarily the responsibility of the states and that EPA has

oversight responsibilities for state programs. However,

ambiguous criteria and an overall lack of attention to stack

testing has caused regions and states to carry out their

programs inconsistently. By achieving more uniformity in

state stack test programs, EPA will create a more level

playing field and will help improve air quality. 

Recommendations We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:

1-1 Decide on the definition of a stack test; proper

procedures for conducting tests; how tests will be

counted; the type of stack test information needed; and

how it will be reported.

At a minimum, stack test information received from

states should include when a test is completed, the

results of the test, and the type of enforcement action

taken for those facilities found in violation.

1-2 Issue a policy addressing test stoppages. This policy

should include identifying those situations when it is

appropriate to stop a test. 

1-3 Identify those facilities where stack testing is the only

way to determine compliance and then require stack

testing at a specified frequency. 

We recommend that the 10 EPA Regional Administrators

increase oversight of their states’ stack test programs as

needed. Each Region can accomplish this by:
22

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

2-1 Adequately monitoring the flow of stack test data

submitted by states. At a minimum, each Region

should receive information from states which includes

when a test is completed, the number of test

stoppages, the results of the test, and the types of

enforcement action taken for those facilities found in

violation.

2-2 Performing sufficient follow-up on stack tests,

particularly for those facilities that failed the test.

OECA’s Response OECA concurred with our recommendations and agreed that

stack testing is one of the primary methods for determining

compliance with emission limits and that it is critical to its

oversight function. Achieving increased uniformity in state

stack test programs will help create a more level playing

field and help improve air quality. These activities are

integral to OECA’s mission and the recommendations

provided by the OIG can be implemented within current

resources.

OECA plans to address our recommendations through the

implementation of the revised Compliance Monitoring

Strategy (CMS). OECA began the effort to revise the CMS in

response to our 1998 report, Consolidated Review of the Air

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program. In

revising the CMS, OECA is planning to address the issues

and recommendations we provided from both the 1998 report

and this report. OECA is working with the regions and

states to develop a CMS strategy that is responsive to our

recommendations and will make stack testing a principal

component of the CMS. Preliminary comments from the

states indicate that a satisfactory resolution can be achieved. 

However, the final CMS is largely dependent on agreement

with the states on the issues discussed in our report.

OECA also attached the EPA regional comments it received

and stated that the regions generally concurred with our

recommendations. OECA did not agree with Region II’s

comment that there must be significant regulatory changes

in order to implement our recommendations.

OIG Evaluation We reviewed the draft CMS strategy dated March 29, 2000

developed by OECA’s workgroup. One of the primary goals

of this strategy is to provide a national policy for developing
23

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

CAA compliance monitoring programs, and delineate the

roles and responsibilities of EPA and state/local agencies. 

We agree with OECA’s comment that our recommendations

can be implemented without the need for significant

regulatory changes. We also agree with OECA that the CMS

is an appropriate policy to incorporate our recommendations

because stack testing is already referenced several places in

the draft. As OECA continues to work with the regions and

states developing the CMS, it can be revised to address our

detailed recommendations such as, defining a stack test,

what is a countable stack test, and how the states will

submit stack test information to EPA.

Regional

Responses

Regions I, III, V, VII, and IX generally agreed with our

finding and recommendations. However, Region II officials

neither agreed nor disagreed with the report because they

were not sure what level of disagreement would constitute

nonconcurrence. The regional responses are summarized

below, followed by our evaluation of their comments.

Regions I, III, and IX agreed with our finding and

recommendations, while Region VII generally concurred with

the reported finding, but did not comment on the

recommendations. Region V agreed with the report’s

conclusion that stack testing is a primary method for

determining compliance with emission limits. However,

Region V did not believe stack test procedures or reporting

requirements needed to be included in the CMS policy. 

Overall, the regions agreed that there needs to be a national

policy addressing stack test activities. However, the regions

varied as to the specific stack test activities which need

clarification. Regions V and VII believed the national policy

should address test stoppages and test frequency. Region I

thought national guidance needed to better define stack test

procedures and quality assurance controls. Region IX

responded that all of the stack test activities discussed in

this report should be clarified. 

Regions III and IX emphasized that in order to effectively

implement a national enforcement policy such as the CMS,

air enforcement activities need to be included in the Section

105 grant process. 
24

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

According to Region II officials, the draft report only

addressed the quantity of stack tests, but fails to address the

quality of the stack tests. They further suggested that the

OIG should have undertaken an investigation of the quality

and effectiveness of additional state and regional stack test

oversight programs, if desired by EPA. 

Region II believes that regulatory change is needed to

require: periodic retesting, protocol submittal, acceptable

operating conditions during testing and test stoppages, and

the reporting of stack tests. 

OIG Evaluation The regions generally agreed that EPA and the states need

to issue a national policy to ensure more consistent and

uniform stack test activities. However, regional responses

show that differences exist about what stack test activities

need to be addressed in the revised CMS policy. OECA, EPA

regions, and the states must mutually agree on what stack

testing information needs to be addressed in the revised

CMS. Some regions responded that they have their own

operating procedures for implementing the stack test portion

of their air enforcement program. After the national stack

test guidance is finalized, the regions must revise their own

operating procedures accordingly.

In response to Region III’s and Region IX’s comments

regarding Section 105 grant funds, OECA and OAR have

recently decided that a portion of Section 105 funds will be

linked to air enforcement activities. OECA is currently

working with OAR to determine the proper fraction of

Section 105 grant funds that should be earmarked for state

and air enforcement activities.

We disagree with Region II’s comment that the quality of

stack testing oversight was not addressed in the draft report. 

The section of this report entitled “Inaccuracies Confirmed”

emphasizes a quality stack testing program. We did

evaluate the quality of NJDEP’s stack test program. As

stated in our report, EPA’s AFS database indicated that

NJDEP may not have had a quality program. We found the

opposite, which demonstrated that AFS does not always

accurately depict a state’s stack test program. Without

information showing which states and regions were

requiring tests as well as those not requiring them, we could

not select states to show best practices or those requiring
25

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

improvement. For this reason, we did not evaluate

additional states and regions during our review. Therefore,

until EPA obtains accurate data from the states, AFS is not a

reliable source for evaluating a state’s stack test program.

NJDEP Response NJDEP was pleased with the positive findings concerning its

stack test program. While NJDEP concurred with the need

for a defined EPA oversight program on a national level, they

could not emphasize enough that EPA oversight should be

achieved through limited and efficient reporting. Also,

NJDEP believed that data reporting requirements for stack

testing should not be mandated by EPA until both EPA and

the states have jointly developed and agreed to such

requirements on a national level. EPA should ensure that

the reporting requirements are not so prescriptive as to

effectively eliminate individual states' discretion to direct

resources to priority issues. 

NJDEP requested that the stack test guidance not be a

separate document. NJDEP relies heavily, as do other

states, on the Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA)

process to articulate New Jersey and EPA direction and

commitments for the upcoming years. The PPA also

establishes the parameters for the relationship between the

two agencies, which includes such things as data exchange.

Therefore, any requirements (data reporting or otherwise)

related to stack testing should be contained within the PPA,

rather than within a separate guidance document. 

OIG Evaluation OECA’s workgroup is currently working with EPA regions

and state officials to revise the Agency’s Compliance

Monitoring Strategy (CMS). The workgroup plans to address

our finding and recommendations. Perhaps NJDEP should

consider actively participating in this workgroup to better

ensure its concerns are sufficiently addressed in the

workgroup’s final decision-making. 
26

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
27

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

APPENDIX 1

OECA’S RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT
28

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

June 26, 2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OECA's Response to OIG's Draft Report of EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing

Programs

FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

TO: Carl A. Jannetti

Divisional Inspector General for Audit

Mid-Atlantic Division

The following is OECA's response to the OIG's Draft Report of EPA's Oversight of State

Stack Testing Programs. These comments have been developed and coordinated with the Office

of Compliance and the Office of Regulatory Enforcement.

OECA concurs with comment on the OIG's recommendations in the draft report. We agree

that stack testing is one of the primary methods for determining compliance with emission limits.

We also agree it is critical to our oversight function that we receive more complete and consistent

stack test information. Achieving increased uniformity in state stack test programs will help create

a more level playing field and help improve air quality.

While we have identified resource concerns in other OIG reports, we recognize that the

actions suggested in this report are central to the air enforcement program's ability to assess

compliance which will avoid excess emissions. Because these activities are integral to OECA's

mission, we will be able to implement the recommendations suggested by the OIG within current

resources.

OECA plans to address the OIG's recommendations through the implementation of a revised

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). OECA began the effort to revise the CMS in response

to the OIG's 1998 report, Consolidated Review of the Air Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance Program. In revising the CMS, we are attempting to resolve many of the issues you

raised in your 1998 report. Through our efforts on revising CMS, we also hope to resolve the

recommendations in your recent report on stack testing. While the revised CMS is still in draft,

we are working with the Regions and states to develop a strategy that is responsive to the

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

ENFORCEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
2

recommendations of your Office. Preliminary comments from the states indicate that a satisfactory

resolution can be achieved. However, the final CMS is largely dependent on agreement with the

states on these issues. A recent draft of the CMS has been shared with your Office.

One of your recommendations is to identify those facilities where stack testing is the only way to

determine compliance and then require stack testing at a specified frequency. We agree that stack

testing is particularly valuable for those emission points where there is no other way to make

compliance determinations. Consequently, we are working to include this concept into the revised

CMS. However, rather than identifying specific emission points that rely on stack testing to

determine compliance and specifying a testing frequency, our goal is to work with the Regions

and states to make stack testing a principal component of the CMS.

Your Office also recommended that we develop a policy to address test stoppages. The revised

CMS does not currently address this recommendation. However, we share your concern on this

issue and we will work on a policy on how stack tests should be conducted.

We have also attached the comments that we received from our Regional offices. We have

received comments from Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9. In general, the Regions concurred with the

OIG's recommendations. Some Regions concurred with comment and offered specific changes to

clarify statements in your draft report. Region 2 commented that the recommendations cannot be

implemented without significant regulatory changes. OECA does not anticipate the need for

regulatory changes to implement the OIG's recommendations or the revised CMS.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report. We will continue to

work with the Regions and states to develop a CMS that is responsive to your recommendations.

Should you have any questions, please contact Greg Marion, OECA's OIG Audit Liaison at (202)

564-2446.

Attachment

cc: Regional Administrators I - X
31

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

APPENDIX 2

EPA REGIONAL RESPONSES TO DRAFT REPORT
32

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov/region1

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 31, 2000

SUBJ: New England Region Comments on (April 26, 2000) Draft Report of EPA's Oversight

of State Stack Testing Programs Report Number 1999-000310

FROM: Mindy Lubber, Regional Administrator

New England

TO: Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

As requested in the above referenced audit we are providing the following written response to the

draft to your office. We have also been requested to send a copy of our comments to the MidAtlantic Division of the OIG.

Overall, the staff at the New England Region feels the report presents the situation accurately and

makes good recommendations. We had the following specific comments:

Page 1, Background, first paragraph, last line:

Insert the word "air" before pollution sources, to make it clear that only air sources are

included.

Page 2, Description of a Stack Test, first paragraph, last sentence:

Add nitrogen oxide to the list of pollutants.

Page 3, Second paragraph, first sentence:

Change the sentence to read, "Whenever possible, regulatory personnel should be

present during enough of the testing to ensure the test is valid."

Page 3, third paragraph, third sentence:

Change the sentence to read, "For example, a state or EPA Order. . .”

Page 4, second paragraph, first sentence:

Change the sentence to read, "There are two reasons why stack tests should be conducted

at facilities regulation by limits based on emission factors."

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 1

1 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 1100

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023

OFFICE OF THE

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Page 4, end of page:

Most facilities also conduct quarterly cylinder gas audits and RATAs

Page 9, first paragraph, first sentence:

Change to read, "Because of lack of guidance, EPA and the states are not consistently

implementing . . .”

Page 9, last paragraph, first sentence:

Change to read, "According to the EPA's database, which is not accurate, only 14 . . .”

Page 10, table:

Note that "major" includes synthetic minor sources.

Page 16, second paragraph, first sentence:

This sentence says Regions agreed that at a minimum, failed stack tests must be entered.

The New England Region feels that all stack tests, not just failures, need to be entered, in order to

assess level of stack testing activity.

Page 17, third paragraph:

The report says that for those states that do not routinely report any stack test data, state

and regions must mutually decide on the type of information needed and how it will be reported.

The New England Region believes this would be much easier if there were national guidance on

these questions.

Page 20, checklist:

Add, "Highly efficient control devices, where slight degradation in control would cause

orders of magnitude increases in emissions."

Page 21, second paragraph, first sentence:

Change the sentence to read, "The primary vehicle for controlling air emissions from stationary

sources in the United States . . . "

Page 21, second paragraph, last sentence:

Change sentences to read, "Stack testing is one of the primary methods for . . .”

Page 21, 1.1:

The New England Region agrees with this recommendation, but suggests that the

definition of stack test procedures should include development of a quality assurance plan by the

stack tester.

9

In addition, to the minimum requirements listed for stack test information provided by

states, the New England Region would include

• Unit # tested

2
• reference method used

T pollutant(s) measured

T whether the test was valid

T whether the source passed or failed

T the testing firm

T reason for test (114 requests, permit condition)

T date of completion of the test

Page 22:

The New England Region suggests a third recommendation. To address the problems

described on page 19, EPA needs to establish a certification system for labs, or establish a process

for quality assuring samples. Additionally, all test protocols should have Quality Assurance Plans.

If you have questions about the comments provided by the New England Region, please

contact me. You may also call Arnie Leriche or Tom McCusker, of my staff, at (617) 918-1748,

and (617) 918-1862, respectively.

cc: Carl Jannetti, Divisional Inspector General for Audit, Mid-Atlantic Division (3AI00)

3
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 2

DATE: May 25, 2000

SUBJECT: Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report of EPA's Oversight of State Stack Test

FROM: Herbert Barrack, Assistant Regional Administrator

 for Policy and Management

TO: Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator

 for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Attached is Region 2's response to the findings and recommendations of the Office

of the Inspector General's draft report on EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing

Programs. We have contacted the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection and requested that they too submit comments on those sections of the

draft report that pertain to state activities.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please let me know, or have

your staff contact Barbara Pastalove of the Policy, Planning and Evaluation Branch

at (212) 637-3570.

Attachment

CC: Carl Jannetti, OIG

Patrick Milligan, OIG

Rich Biondi, OECA

Fred Stiehl, OECA
General Comments

The basic, and overriding, problem with the Draft Report is that it recommends policy solutions

for deficiencies that require regulatory change, and it ignores two important areas that can be

addressed by policy, though they will require serious resource evaluations,:

! Federal regulations do not require periodic retesting, do not directly require protocol

submittal, do not require specific operating conditions during testing, and do not address

test stoppage.

The policy remedies suggested in the Draft Report might be inappropriate in light of the

recent court decision of Appalachian Power Company vs. US EPA regarding periodic

monitoring, when regulatory changes are needed.

! OECA's policy and AIRS capabilities do not combine to provide consistent, workable

direction for tracking and reporting of stack testing results. The Draft Report fails to

address this topic, but it should.

! The quality of stack test project oversight is just as important as the quantity. The Draft

Report does not address this, but it should.

! OIG's instructions to the Regions state that the Regions should address the factual

accuracy of the draft report and indicate concurrence or nonconcurrence with each draft

finding and proposed recommendation. However, it is very difficult to figure out exactly

what constitutes a draft finding. It is also difficult to determine what level of disagreement

should constitute nonconcurrence. This is also true for the recommendations, in which

substantial comment on one aspect of a given recommendation may or may not constitute

nonconcurrence with the entire recommendation. The following comments do not,

therefore, address the issue of concurrence.

! An additional over-arching comment concerns OECA's charge to OIG, and an appropriate

response irrespective of the OIG's findings in the Regions and the states. The Federal

emission control regulations (as found in 40 CFR Parts 60 (NSPS), 61 (NESHAPS), and

63 (MACT)) all require initial stack testing for most facilities, but do not require periodic

or routine re-testing except for a very small minority, and do not require any notification

to EPA or the delegated states in the event of voluntary re-testing. In addition, there is no

concrete or consistent guidance from OECA concerning the frequency of re-testing, and

only ambiguous or difficult guidance concerning reporting. While some states may require

periodic re-testing and protocol submittal, and while some may collect test information in

such a way that reporting to EPA would be cost effective, none of this is required by

Federal rules. The sum total of this situation is that OECA wants and expects to receive

time-appropriate information about testing, while the agency regulations do not require or

even suggest either the testing or the reporting. One consistent remedy would seem to be

significant rulemaking, at the national level.
Specific Comments on IG Stack Test Draft Report

Chapter 1

Purpose -

1

st para, 2nd sentence - delete the word "performing" and replace it with "reporting and

overseeing"

In general, neither the Regions nor the states PERFORM stack tests (with rare

exception). Instead, they require and then oversee the performance of tests by the

regulated community and their contractors/consultants. This same comment applies later

in the report as well. "Overseeing" should replace "performing" throughout.

Phases of a stack test:

2

nd para, - Insert the following after the 2nd sentence "The protocol is, essentially, a Quality

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), designed to define the objectives of the test, and the

methodologies to be employed, including appropriate QA and Quality Control procedures,

and to ensure that those methodologies will produce useful results.

2

nd para, existing 3rd sentence should be changed as follows: The protocol should be made available

... prior to the test, although Federal regulations do not directly require submittal of a stack

test protocol to EPA or the delegated states.

3

rd para, 2nd sentence should be modified as follows: Depending on the type of test, samples may

be sent to a laboratory for analysis, and regulatory personnel may be present as well. In

addition, the regulatory agency may require the analysis of audit (performance test) samples.

Continuous Emission Monitoring System

2

nd para, delete the following: "EPA has not yet developed performance specification methods for

other types of pollutants, such as particulate matter. For pollutants such as these" and replace it

with - "Reliable CEMS are not yet available for all regulated pollutants, and some regulations

require the use of CEMS but do not allow them to be used for compliance determinations. In

situations such as these,"

An important deficiency in the OIG draft report is that it is concerned primarily with the quantity of

stack test projects overseen by the states, and less with the quality and usefulness of the oversight that is

performed. While the quantity of tests performed and reported is important, the quality of those tests is

equally important. Thus, the effectiveness of a states oversight program is just as important as its

completeness. There is nothing wronk with the focus of the OIG investigation. The problem is that the

report does not put the investigation into proper context. It is recommended that a new, brief section

titled "The Overall Stack Test Oversight Programs”
be added prior to the section titled "Scope and Methodology ", as follows:

The Overall Stack Test Oversight Programs

The oversight conducted by the regions and the states of stack test projects

performed by and/or for the regulated community generally involves some or

all of the following steps: require a test, review and approve the test protocol,

observe the test, review the test report, pursue enforcement action, if

appropriate, report to EPA. This audit focused quantitatively on the

consolidation of the first five steps under the umbrella of "oversees stack

tests", and the last step, reports to EPA. This in no way is intended to

diminish the importance of each of the first five steps or the importance of

the quality and effectiveness of their performance. Based on our review, there

is evidence, much of it circumstantial, that some states and Regions conduct

high quality and effective oversight of individual stack test projects. There

may also be states and Regions that do not. We could undertake an

investigation of the quality and effectiveness of state and regional stack test

oversight programs, if desired by EPA.
Chapter 2

Inaccurate EPA Database

4

th para, 3rd sentence - Without information showing which states and regions were

performing tests as well as those not performing them, we could not select states to show

best practices or those requiring improvement. This statement is not true. The OIG was

able to go to New Jersey and assess its program sufficiently, concluding "we found

NJDEP had an effective and efficient stack testing program ". Based on the

questionnaire responses from the regions, the OIG could have conducted similar

investigations in other states, or at least could have submitted questionnaires to states.

Thus, the statement should be deleted.

Inaccuracies Confirmed

1

st para, 4th sentence - Region officials also assured us that NJDEP had a quality stack test

program, but EPA personnel had no evidence to support this assertion. This statement is

untrue. It is true that the Region had no quantitative evidence of the state's stack test

oversight program, but the Region had a great deal of qualitative evidence, collected

over many years, indicating the high quality of the state's program. The Region had dealt

formally and informally with members of the state stack test oversight group over many

years, confirming their level of expertise, responding to their questions, consulting on

testing projects, and reviewing final and draft documents concerning test projects.

Variety of Stack Test Information Reported

4

th para, 1st sentence - delete the word "policies" and replace it with "regulations", delete

the word "address" and replace it with "define".

The NSPS regulations, the most important and widely applied of EPA's air compliance

regulations, address operating conditions, in 40 CFR 60.8(c), but do not so specify,

because of differences among facilities, situations, conditions, etc. This also applies to the

following section, Different Test Conditions.

Test Stoppages Are Not Recorded

4

th para - The final paragraph in this section does not belong here. Also, the statements

concerning the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC)

are incomplete. NELAC, working with EPA, is well on the way toward developing

procedures for certifying not only the laboratories but also the field crews that

conduct stack tests. While participation will be voluntary on the part of the states,

testing in participating states will be required. Over time, this will likely enhance the

quality of stack tests performed.
Facility Coverage

1

st para, 4th check mark - "a long time" should be deleted and replaced with "many years."

It would be helpful for the OIG to address how many years would be considered too many.

Conclusion

1

st para, 4th sentence - delete "is the primary method for" and replace it with "and CEMS

operation are the two primary methods for" and add the following sentence:

Regulations generally require stack testing for determining initial compliance status,

and some require periodic testing or CEMS operation (or other parametric

monitoring) for determining continuing compliance status. For all facility units not

currently required to test periodically, or that do not have adequate periodic

monitoring, compliance assurance monitoring or any other form of credible

evidence, specifically required stack testing would constitute the only available

definitive compliance determination procedure.

Recommendations

OIG Recommendation

1.1 Decide on the definition of a stack test; proper procedures for conducting tests; how

tests will be counted; the type of stack test information needed; and how it will be

reported.

At a minimum, stack test information received from states should include when a test is

completed, the results of the test, and the type of enforcement action taken for those

facilities found in violation.

Region 2 Response

1.1 It is not at all clear what is meant by the phrase “proper procedures for conducting

tests. " As stated elsewhere in the report, the methods are almost always specified by EPA

and/or the states. If it is intended to mean "specify required operating conditions during

the tests, " then this would require a major regulation change that is far more significant

than the policy directives apparently intended in the recommendations. This

recommendation needs to be clarified.

OIG Recommendation

1.2 Issue a policy addressing test stoppages. This policy should include identifying those

situations when it is appropriate to stop a test.

Region 2 Response

1.2 EPA has no current regulatory authority to order a facility/contractor to continue

testing when they wish to terminate a test for whatever reason. Such an authority would

require a significant change in regulations. Perhaps the recommendation could be

reworded as follows: The policy should also address what a state or a region is 
empowered and expected to do when the facility/contractor proposes to terminate a

test inappropriately

OIG Recommendation

2. We recommend that the 10 EPA Regional Administrators increase oversight of their

states' stack test programs as needed. Each Region can accomplish this by:

Region 2 Response

2. As stated earlier, this draft report does not emphasize the quality and effectiveness of

state stack test programs, focusing instead only on the quantity and reporting of the tests.

It is suggested that an additional bullet be added as follows:

2.3. Continuing due vigilance in overseeing the quality of state stack test

oversight programs, despite the fact that this issue is not covered by the

findings of the report, is an integral part of a properly administered stack test

program.

OIG Recommendation

2.2 Performing sufficient follow-up on stack tests, particularly for those facilities that

failed the test.

Region 2 Response

2.2 - delete "Performing" and replace it with "Ensuring that the states perform"

The failure of the Agency to track stack test activity was the primary driving force for the

OIG audit. This shortcoming is mentioned throughout the draft report, including in the

section titled "Frequency of Tests, " which states that "Once a reliable tracking system is

established... " However, none of the recommendations address this issue. While

instituting and implementing an effective and consistent tracking system may well be very

difficult and expensive, it still seems appropriate for the OIG to include it in the

recommendations of its audit report.

It is suggested that the recommendation not be prescriptive, instead leaving it to OECA,

the Regions, and the states to develop and implement an effective system that will provide

the necessary information without consuming vast amounts of resources. A starting point

might be to survey the states that already have internal tracking and reporting systems,

and then attempt to develop a workable consensus. However, resources will be a major

factor in the implementation of any system.
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

May 30, 2000

SUBJECT: Draft Inspector General Report, " EPA's Oversight of

State Stack Testing Programs" ( Report Number 1999-

000310)

FROM: Bradley M. Campbell 

Regional Administrator (3RA00)

TO: Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator

 for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report of State Stack Testing

Programs (Report Number 1999-000310). As one of the three principal Regional Offices that

were the subject of the audit, we have rather strong opinions on the importance of using stack

testing as an effective tool in making compliance determinations. It is our understanding that

during negotiations with the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators

(STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) on the revised

Timely and Appropriate Policy that this issue first surfaced as a possible concern. Two midwestern agencies noted at the time that they were finding an unexpectedly high noncompliance

rate resulting from recent stack test findings. Since facilities have the ability to prepare in advance

for the test, it is thought to be rather uncommon for a facility to record a violation. This however

proved contrary to what they found.

During the course of the Inspector General's investigation, we canvassed each of our

grantee agencies concerning State stack testing capabilities. There were three relevant issues we

found regarding that capability, and EPA's oversight thereof. First, there are no national policies

that pertain directly to oversight of State or local agency stack testing programs. Each Region III

grantee agency was found to have a state/local stack testing program. Sources are commonly

tested upon start-up to determine initial compliance, and are tested as an obligation for

enforcement settlement purposes when a facility is found to be in violation. However, we do not

believe that any grantee agency looks to determine periodic, and continued, compliance of major

sources where the only compliance reference method is determined through stack testing. This, in

part, is due to the wide-spread use of continuous emission monitors (CEMs) in Region III.

Therefore, oversight of compliance in this Region is devoted, in large measure, to review of CEM

data from the State and local agencies. We have been far more concerned about continued

compliance than infrequent compliance tests that have been known to be passed with relative

ease.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
Secondly, it is important to note that since 1994 when OECA was formed, there were no

longer any line items for enforcement in the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR) grant process. It

was at that time that States began to seriously push back on EPA's annual enforcement grant

commitments. To make matters worse, beginning in Fiscal Year 2000, it was made perfectly clear

that there are no Section 105 Clean Air Act grant dollars provided to State and local Agencies

that are earmarked for air enforcement activities. As you well know, this issue was prominently

discussed in the Inspector General's audit report titled "Consolidated Report on OECA's

Oversight of Regional and State Air Enforcement Programs" dated September 25, 1998. It was

suggested that OECA "...work with OAR to earmark Section 105 grantfunds to (air)

enforcement. This will enable the EPA regions to reinforce to the states that (air) enforcement

is an Agency priority. " As the report notes, OECA's failure to participate in the grant process

has already affected the Regions' ability to leverage the states to comply with enforcement

priorities. Therefore, any grant commitment related to stack testing is more of a result of

successful grant negotiations by the respective Regional Office and has no force of regulatory

backing. Should any State or local Agency decide not to carry-out any of the implied

commitments, the Region can not threaten to withhold grant money for failure to implement.

Lastly, Region III was successful in procuring contractor money from OECA in Fiscal

Year 1999 that was used to initiate a facility inspection targeting project using stack testing as the

basis. This will be accomplished by focusing on various industrial sectors subject to stack testing

provisions under Federal and/or State regulations. Once these facilities are identified and

cataloged by industrial sector, Region III will focus on identifying those facilities which have

performed stack testing, and those facilities which have not, in recent years. The targeting strategy

will also identify any stack testing inconsistencies within Federal and State regulatory programs.

At the conclusion of the project, we expect to have a report documenting our findings and,

depending upon the results, may move towards targeting facilities/sectors for stack testing under

Section 114 authority. We hope that this work will be used as a national model for the other nine

EPA regional offices. This compliance assurance tool will be used to further enhance continued

compliance of the approximately 29,000 facilities in Region III.

Findings and Recommendations:

We are in total agreement with each of the Inspector General's findings and recommendations.

The Draft Report captures each of the major impediments leading to effective EPA oversight of

State Stack Testing Programs, and reflects Region III's personal experience. Therefore, with

regards to the specific recommendations, we offer the following comments.

Recommendation 1 We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:

T Decide on the definition of a stack test; proper procedures for conducting tests;

how tests will be counted; the type of stack test information needed; and how it will

be reported.

At a minimum, stack test information received from states should include when a

test is completed, the results of the test, and the type of enforcement action taken

for those facilities found in violation.
We fully support this recommendation. As noted above, we are aware that there is no

national consistency and believe efforts to bring about such change will be an

enhancement. We agree with the minimum requirements recommended by the OIG to be

included for completed tests. The States in Region III do submit stack test reports in

varied formats. They provide a listing of the facilities and the source(s) tested with the test

report/results on a monthly or quarterly basis. Region III grantee agencies are required,

through their federal grant agreements, to input such data into the national data base.

However, as noted above, our success with grant negotiations has been severely

compromised with lack of a regional line item for air enforcement activities in the OAR

budget process. We are uncertain what affect, if any, a national enforcement policy will

have once written without federal Clean Air Act monies being earmarked for its execution.

Recommendation 1.2 Issue a policy addressing test stoppages. This policy should include

identifying those situations when it is appropriate to stop a test.

We are in support of having a policy on stopping a stack test in mid-stream if it appears

that the company is aware that should the test continue they are likely to fail and be found

in violation. During the course of the audit, it was learned that one of the EPA Regions,

and one State, allow a facility to stop the stack test prior to its conclusion if it had

indications that it is likely to fail. This is contrary to Region III policy where once a

compliance test commences, it must be completed unless there is a disruption or upset

somewhere in the plant, or more commonly, part of the stack testing equipment breaks or

malfunctions. In speaking to the OIG concerning this audit, we learned that one regional

official indicated that on average 20% of all stack tests conducted in their region cease

with no real justification. With no national policy preventing this type of behavior, we will

never know the "real" noncompliance rates involving stack testing. In the case of the

State, officials indicated that they allowed tests to stop because there are no EPA

regulations or policies that they can point to which precludes a stack test from stopping

regardless of the reasons.

Recommendation 1.3 Identify those facilities where stack, resting is the only way to determine

compliance and then require stack testing at a specified frequency.

Again we are in agreement with the OIG concerning this recommendation. As noted

above, in Region III we have already undertaken a project designed to help identify the

universe of sources where stack testing is the only means available for determining

compliance with the applicable emission limit. And although the Office of Compliance has

begun to address the frequency issue in the revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy now

before STAPPA, ALAPCO and the Regional Offices for comment, we are uncertain what

impact the Appeals Court ruling in Appalachian Power Company et al v. EPA will have if

we try to impose stack testing on a frequency more onerous than provided for in the

underlying state or federal rules. While we support the effort to try all available options, it

seems that we must inevitably turn our attention to requiring a stack testing frequency in

our rules at the time of promulgation.
facilities that failed the test.

Again we support the above recommendations by the OIG. For both recommendations 2.1

and 2.2, we believe that the currently proposed Compliance Monitoring Strategy dated

March 29, 2000, is the proper vehicle to address these recommendations. The proposal is

attempting to update the compliance monitoring programs of the state/local agencies and

the EPA regions. A component of the revised CMS Policy is intended to place greater

emphasis on the stack test programs when no other means of certifying or determining

compliance exist. Current language in the proposed policy also contains mechanisms for

enforcement tracking and targeting.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to express Region III's comments regarding the Draft Audit

Report on EPA's Oversight of Stack Testing Programs. If you have any questions, please contact

Bernard Turlinski, Associate Director, Office of Enforcement and Permits Review, Air Protection

Division at 215-814-2052.
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 50% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)

May 26, 2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Draft Report of EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs

FROM: Francis X. Lyons

Regional Administrator

TO: Carl A. Jannetti

Divisional Inspector General for Audit

 Mid-Atlantic Division (3AI00)

Thank you for providing Region 5 with a copy of the Draft Report of EPA's Oversight of State

Stack Testing Programs. Region 5 agrees with the report's conclusion that stack testing is a

primary method for determining compliance with emission limits. Within the Region, both State

air programs and Region 5's Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch (AECAB)

emphasize the importance of stack testing.

With regard to the report's recommendation for increased oversight of state stack testing

programs, AECAB’s current partnership with its States promotes an efficient stack testing

program which includes protocol review, stack test observation, final report evaluation, and

"follow-up on stack test results”. We have found this partnership to be an effective means of

sharing State/Federal expertise in stack testing. The report's finding that regional involvement

with stack testing is on a case-by-case basis is correct. Consequently AECAB does not have data

for all stack tests that are done. AECAB does not see this as an area of concern in terms of

quality of stack tests and does not agree with the reports findings that “Stack Test Information

Reported" and “Test Stoppages" are State deficiencies in stack testing. Rather, we view it as

missing data that could be valuable not only in evaluating the compliance history of source

categories throughout the Region but also in establishing future enforcement strategies.

Therefore, AECAB does agree with the report's findings that “Facility Coverage” and “Frequency

of Tests" are problems that could be addressed with more complete

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO, IL. 60604-3590

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF

(R-19J)
2

stack test information. Accordingly, in the upcoming 105 Grant process AECAB will negotiate

the requirement for States to submit stack test data for all stack tests.

Concerning the report's recommendations on issues involving the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance, Region 5 agrees with the report’s recommendations for national policies

on stack test stoppages and stack testing frequency. However, Region 5 does not believe that the

procedures for conducting tests, the type of stack test information needed, and how it will be

reported need to be modified. The test methods contain the procedures and can be found at 40

C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A. The type of information needed and how it will be reported are

found both in the test methods and in the standard applicable to the source that is being stack

tested.

If you have questions regarding these comments please contact me or Brent Marable of AECAB

at (312) 386-6812.

Francis X. Lyons

Regional Administrator

standard bcc’s: official file copy w/attachment(s)

originator’s file copy w/attachment (s)

originating organization reading file w/attachment (s)

other bcc’s: Ken Westlake

Tinka Hyde (OECA)

Naimah Karim (RA 2000-37)

ORA w/cover slip (RA 2000-37)

ORA Reading File

Branch Reading File

APD:AECAS:ES(IL/IN) :Marable:BM:05/24/00 DISKETTE/FILE: Jannettimemo
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII

901 N. 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

OFFICE OF

THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

May 31, 2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to "Draft Report of EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing

Programs, Report Number 1999-000310"

FROM: Dennis Grams, P.E.

Regional Administrator

TO: Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. (2201A)

This memorandum is Region 7's response to the recommendations outlined in the

memorandum "Draft Report of EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs, Report

Number 1999-000310", dated April 25, 2000.

Region 7 generally agrees with the reported findings. Region 7 has a comprehensive

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP No. 2312.8C) which defines, outlines, and establishes

uniform procedures concerning activities related to air pollution source performance tests and

continuous emission monitoring system performance evaluations and certification tests. This SOP

was provided to the Inspector General during their October 1999 visit. Additionally, Region 7

has uniform procedures for the preparation for, performance of, and reporting on an audit of air

pollution source performance test observation and related activities of a state or local air

pollution control agency or an Environmental Protection Agency contractor.

cc: Carl A. Jannetti, Divisional Inspector General for Audit

Mid-Atlantic Division (3AI00)
[This page was intentionally left blank.]
June 9, 2000

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Comments on the Office of the Inspector General's "Draft Report of EPA's

Oversight of State Stack Testing Program” (Report # 199-000310)

FROM: Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator

EPA Region 9 (ORA-1)

TO: Steven Herman Assistant Administrator

for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG's)

evaluation of state stack testing programs. I am providing the following response on behalf of

Region 9's Air program, as was requested of each Regional Administrator by the OIG’s report. 

Below please find a summary of our region’s stack testing program and concurrence with

comments on the report and its recommendations.

Summary of Region 9 Stack Testing Program:

Region 9 has been very supportive of stack testing for many years. Generally, our major

sources are tested upon start-up to determine initial compliance. Sources continue to receive

periodic inspections and testing to confirm compliance with federal, state, and local air pollution

control regulations and with their respective permits. Specifically, California, Arizona, and

Nevada have policies and requirements for annual testing of their major emissions units. 

However, as the OIG report notes, EPA has no national guidance for how these tests should be

conducted and reported. Therefore, while our states have conducted many annual source tests,

few were reported to the national air database, the Air Information Retrieval System (AIRS). We

are confident that once the guidance and requirements are clarified, our states will be willing to

report their true level of testing activity for major and synthetic minor sources.

Many of our sources also have Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMS), submit their

CEMS data electronically or via mailings, and those data are reviewed by the states and the region

to verify continuing compliance with air pollution regulations and permits. It has always been our

policy that when actionable violations are discovered, sources should be cited, and the violations

should be resolved with corrective action in accordance with EPA’s policies.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

OFFICE OF THE

 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Region 9 has also worked with our permitting agencies to assure that stack testing is considered

and required when appropriate for Title V Periodic Monitoring . In additions, we have supported

alternative parameter monitoring when stack testing is impractical, such as for very small units. 

We are recommending that any national guidance from OECA or OAQPS support this approach

as an essential element of Periodic and Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) for Title V

permits.

Concurrence with Comment on Report and its Recommendations:

We concur with all of the findings for both Recommendations 1 and 2. We agree that

OECA should issue national guidance to better define: stack test procedures, how to count tests

(including numbers of unit tests that would equal one credit for a stack test and also how multiple

pollutant test should be counted), what standard test information is needed in documentation,

what to report to AIRS, a de minimus level for reporting, and reporting/testing frequency. These

have all long been in need of national clarification in a single guidance document. The new stack

test guidance should also address test stoppages and clearly identify when issuance of a violation

notice must be made in lieu of making repairs or adjustments.

In addition, we concur with the OIG that OECA should conduct a study to identify the

universe of facilities “where stack testing is the only way to determine compliance.” Like several

other regions, we are concerned that there may be too large a number of small units subject to

annual source testing if the requirements is left as broadly defined as is quoted above. Instead, we

recommend the stack testing guidance focus on large emission units and those with variable

emission control effectiveness.

Finally, we would like to see OECA work closely with the Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR) and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) to find acceptable ways to restore Section 105

grant work elements and assistance for annual enforcement workplans and for the support of

enforcement targeting and reporting commitments. Theo OIG recommended this in a September

25, 1998 report which said OECA should: “work with OAR to earmark Section 105 grant funds

to (air) enforcement,” because that would “enable the EPA regions to reinforce to the state that

enforcement is an Agency Priority.” Alternatively, if OGC feels that all enforcement and

enforcement-related reporting at major sources must be funded with Title V fees, we believe that

a strong regional oversight of monitoring (periodic monitoring and CAM) is essential.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Steve

Frey at (415)744-1140.

cc: Director, Office of Compliance (221A)

Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement (2241A)

Audit Liaison - Office of Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance (2201A)

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits (2421)
55

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

APPENDIX 3

NJDEP RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT
56

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
Robert C. Shinn, Jr.

Commissioner

Tel. # (609) 292-

2885

Fax # (609) 292-7695

Christine Todd Whitman

Governor

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer

Recycled Paper

May 26, 2000

Carl A. Jannetti

USEPA Divisional Inspector General for Audit

Mid-Atlantic Division (3A100)

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Re: EPA Oversight of Stack Testing Program

Draft Audit Report (1999-000310)

Dear Mr. Jannetti:

This is in response to your letter of April 25, 2000 transmitting a draft copy of the audit

report of "EPA's Oversight of State Stack Testing Programs." Given that New Jersey was the

state selected for the audit, I appreciate that you provided us a copy of the draft report and

allowed us the opportunity to comment. Enclosed is a return copy of your draft with a

compilation of my staff’s comments in the margins.

Recognizing the complex technical nature of the stack test program, we were pleased to

find that the report correctly characterizes the nature of the program and shows insight into the

importance of maintaining adequate quality control. We are also pleased with the positive

findings concerning the New Jersey stack test program.

While we concur with the conclusion of a need for a defined EPA oversight program on a

national level, we cannot emphasize enough that EPA oversight be achieved through limited and

efficient reporting. New Jersey seeks to maintain a reasonable balance between its efforts in

maintaining an effective testing program and providing assurance to EPA of proper program

function.

NJ relies heavily, as do other states, on the PPA process to articulate DEP and EPA

direction and commitments for the upcoming years. The PPA also establishes the parameters for

the relationship between the two agencies, which includes such things as data exchange.

Therefore, any requirements (data reporting or otherwise) related to stack testing should be

contained within the PPA, rather than within a separate guidance document. Further, no data

reporting requirements for stack testing should be mandated by EPA until EPA and the states

have jointly developed and agreed to such requirements on a national level. In developing such

requirements, EPA should ensure that they are
not so prescriptive as to effectively eliminate individual states' discretion to direct resources to

priority issues.

We are grateful for the courteous and professional demeanor with which your staff

conducted this audit and trust that a continued focus on our common goal of better environmental

protection will ensue. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please feel free to

contact William O'Sullivan, Administrator, Air Quality Regulation at (609) 984-1484 or Donald

Patterson, Administrator, Air Compliance and Enforcement at (609) 633-7288.

Sincerely,

Marlen Dooley, Deputy Commissioner

Plco11/marlen/oigrpt

C: Gary Sondermeyer, Chief of Staff

Dennis Hart, Assistant Commissioner, Environmental Regulation

Cathy Tormey, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement

William O'Sullivan, Administrator, Air Quality

Donald Patterson, Administrator, Air Compliance and Enforcement

John Preczewski, Chief, Bureau of Technical Services
77

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

APPENDIX 4

DISTRIBUTION
78

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

[This page was intentionally left blank.]
79

Report No. 2000-P-00019 

DISTRIBUTION

Headquarters

Office of Inspector General - Headquarters (2410)

Agency Audit Followup Coordinator (3304)

Agency Audit Followup Official (3101)

Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Enforcement

 and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (6101A)

Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and State/Local Relations (1501)

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301)

Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Media

 Relations (1701)

Director, Office of Regional Operations (1108)

Headquarters Library (3404)

Regional Offices

Regional Administrators

Regional Air Enforcement Directors

Regional Audit Followup Coordinators

Regional Directors of Public Affairs

Regional Libraries

State Office

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

General Accounting Office