Validation of Air Enforcement Data Reported to 

EPA by Pennsylvania

CHAPTER 3 

INSPECTIONS OF AIR FACILITIES NEED IMPROVEMENT

PADEP's inspection program needs improvement. Some Level 2 inspections that PADEP performed were not 

thorough enough to determine whether a facility was complying with state and federal regulations. Moreover, 

when PADEP identified violations, it did not always ensure the facility took corrective action. Because of these 

conditions, violations sometimes persisted longer than necessary. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the State's inspection program, we reviewed PADEP inspections performed 

during Fiscal Year 1995. In total, we reviewed 81 enforcement files and associated inspection reports. This 

review showed that six Level 2 inspections were not thorough enough. Another eight inspections identified 

violations or questions about permits, but the State did not ensure the facility took corrective action to resolve 

the questions or violations. In total, 17 percent of the inspections we reviewed needed improvement. 

Some PADEP Level 2 Inspections Were Inadequate 

For six of the inspections we reviewed, there was no evidence in the State's 

files to indicate that the inspector performed the evaluations required for a 

Level 2 inspection. In accordance with the Fiscal Year 1995 grant, PADEP 

scheduled and committed to perform Level 2 inspections at these facilities. Without documentation, there was 

no proof that the inspector ensured that the facility complied with its permit. 

For example, one facility we reviewed used surface coatings that contain VOCs. The PADEP inspector should 

have ensured that the VOCs emitted by this source did not exceed the allowable limits specified in the facility's 

permit. The PADEP inspector could have done that by reviewing the Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet or 

analyzing a sample of the coating. EPA prefers the second method because it is more accurate. However, the 

PADEP inspector did not conduct either method, and therefore could not determine if a violation existed. 

Corrective Action Not Always Verified

Eight of the inspection reports we reviewed showed that PADEP had identified violations. However, there was 

no evidence in the State's enforcement files to indicate that these violations were corrected. 

We found four instances where PADEP did not follow up on problems identified during an inspection. For 

example, in December 1994, PADEP issued an NOV to a facility for an opacity violation that occurred when 

the plume of smoke from its stack exceeded the allowable density. According to PADEP's file, the facility 

claimed that the violation was a one-time occurrence and that there would be no future opacity violations. 

PADEP accepted this response and did not perform any follow-up inspections during the 16 months that elapsed 

between PADEP's initial inspection and our review. 

During a July 1995 inspection at another facility, PADEP identified broken gauges on the facility's equipment. 

These gauges were to be used to ensure that pollution was being captured. The facility's permit requires that the 

gauges operate properly. It also requires that the facility take periodic readings from the gauges and record these 

readings. Because the gauges were broken, the facility's records were incomplete, and PADEP could not tell if 

the facility's emissions complied with the CAA. As of April 1996, more than eight months after the inspection, 

Inspections Not Thorough 

Enough To Identify Violations.
PADEP had not determined if the gauges had been repaired. PADEP officials informed us that the facility was 

conscientious and did not believe a second visit was necessary. 

At a third facility, the 1995 inspection report showed violations. To determine if these violations were preexisting, we reviewed prior inspection reports and found 1982 test results showing the facility's emissions were 

almost five times the allowable limit. Further examination of the State's records showed there was no follow-up 

performed to determine if these violations were corrected. We identified a similar situation at another facility 

where the 1982 test results showed emissions were almost seven times the allowable limit. Again, the State's 

file did not indicate that any follow-up was performed to determine if these emission violations were corrected. 

We also found four instances when PADEP identified questions about the 

facility's permits, but did not resolve these matters timely. For example, 

PADEP's February 1995 inspection at one facility showed that the equipment 

being used did not agree with the permit. One month later, PADEP conducted a follow-up inspection and 

informed the facility that it had permitting deficiencies. At that time, PADEP told the facility to submit the 

documentation needed to resolve the permitting deficiencies. It was not until June 1996, that PADEP personnel 

met with facility representatives to discuss the permitting issues. This first meeting took place 16 months after 

the initial inspection. 

According to PADEP officials, their inspectors may have performed some follow-up sooner than the file 

indicated. However, PADEP personnel could not provide evidence to support their position. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that the Region 3 Administrator: 

1. More aggressively enforce the requirements of the Section 105 grant awarded to PADEP by ensuring the 

State;

o Conducts Level 2 inspections that are thorough enough to determine a facility's compliance.

o Performs follow-up in order to resolve violations timely.

o Documents their follow-up activities.

2. Withhold a portion of Pennsylvania's Section 105 grant funds until the State complies with the 

inspection requirements of the grant.

PADEP RESPONSE

We would agree that we and EPA should continuously strive to improve inspections. If the final report 

identifies specific inspections that are deficient we will take appropriate steps to make corrections. 

We are unable to respond with specificity to your allegations regarding PADEP inspections since the 

inspections in question were not identified. On balance PADEP does perform Level 2 inspections as 

contemplated by the grant. As noted, PADEP performed over 2,000 inspections at major sources in FY 1995. 

We request that you identify the eight inspections the report contends were not thorough enough. Additionally, 

we would call to your attention that not all inspections we conduct are intended or required to be Level 2 

inspections. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the particular inspection in question was intended to 

be a Level 2 inspection. 

We also request that you identify to us each of the facilities and inspections used as examples in Chapter 3 of 

the report. Specifically, identify the inspections for which the report indicated that corrective actions were not 

verified. We have had limited success in trying to identify the examples used in Chapter 3. However, to the 

Violations Were Not Always 

Corrected Timely.
extent that we have guessed correctly, we believe your summaries again present an incomplete or inaccurate 

picture. 

• The example regarding the incinerator is incomplete. We believe our four inspectors were able to 

determine whether the incinerator was capturing the required amount of pollutants. We disagree that a 

stack test was required. In addition, our records show this to be a 1990 inspection, well before the Fiscal 

Year audited.

• The facility in Conshohocken gave a reasonable explanation that the opacity violation was a one-time 

event. Numerous PADEP personnel, including the facility inspector, drive by the facility on the way to 

work each day, no further emissions were observed and therefore we did not feel an additional 

inspection was needed.

• The summary of the broken gauge example highlights the real issue. Our inspectors determined, based 

on their experience with the source and the circumstances of the case, that no follow up was necessary. 

After the fact, EPA now is second-guessing that decision based on looking at a file.

We do not claim to be perfect. If out of these thousands of inspections only eight were not complete enough, we 

feel we did well. However, we will continue to seek improvement. 

EPA RESPONSE

We concur with the main themes and recommendations expressed in this chapter that not all inspections 

PADEP performed were Level 2 inspections, and that violations were not always corrected timely. Anything 

less than a Level 2 inspection is largely inadequate to determine compliance with many of the sources that 

PADEP inspects. The problems detected in this chapter, in part, may have resulted when the 1990 CAA 

changed the definition of a major source in a way that caused a significant increase in the universe of sources 

requiring state inspections. This greater universe poses a significant challenge to both EPA and the states in 

providing proper balance to field activities while maintaining high standards for quality inspections. 

Concerning the recommendation to ensure PADEP performed the Level 2 inspections, Region 3 will work with 

EPA Headquarters in reviewing current national policies in an attempt to bring consistency to all state 

inspections. This may mean that fewer inspections will need to be conducted to ensure greater quality. 

Appropriate documentation will become a significant issue during any negotiations for an effective PPG with 

Pennsylvania. We also concur with the recommendations to perform and document follow-up inspections. 

OIG EVALUATION

On December 24, 1996, we provided PADEP the identity of all facilities discussed in Chapter 3. However, 

PADEP did not provide any additional comments during the seven-week interim between December 24 and the 

date of this report. Moreover, we discussed all of our concerns about the State's inspections with PADEP 

personnel during the audit. As a result, we believed that PADEP staff knew which facilities we reviewed. 

We recognized that not all of PADEP's inspections were intended or required to be Level 2 inspections. 

However, the six inadequate inspections discussed in this chapter were committed by the State to be Level 2 

inspections. 

Regarding the three specific comments in PADEP's response, we provide the following. According to EPA's 

Timely and Appropriate Policy, a "drive by," or Level 0 inspection is not acceptable for determining 

compliance. Without performing a follow-up inspection, PADEP had no assurance that the violation was 

corrected. Similarly, without performing a follow-up inspection to ensure the gauges were repaired, the State 

cannot be assured that the facility was in compliance. We believe that relying on a facility's verbal commitment 

to take corrective action is not prudent. 
We recognized that it was a 1990 inspection that highlighted the need for a stack test. However, similar to the 

1990 inspection, the 1995 inspection report also raised concerns about the incinerator. Because a stack test is 

not required as part of a Level 2 inspection, we reclassified this inspection as one that did not verify that 

corrective action was taken. 

It is important to note that we reviewed 81 inspections and found that 14, or 17 percent, needed improvement. 

This percentage shows that the State's procedures need revision. For the inspections with inadequate follow-up, 

PADEP personnel often stated that they performed the follow-up, but did not document it. Without 

documentation, we cannot verify that PADEP inspectors performed follow-up. 

Go To:

Table of Contents Chapter 4