Validation of Air Enforcement Data Reported to 

EPA by Pennsylvania

CHAPTER 4 

OTHER MATTERS

Each quarter, PADEP received Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) data from about 100 facilities in 

Pennsylvania. In essence, CEM data is around-the-clock surveillance of a facility's emissions. PADEP in turn 

submitted this monitoring data to EPA. As a result, both PADEP and EPA had detailed information about the 

emissions from these facilities. 

One of the significant violators we identified was a CEM facility. Because of the CEM data, EPA had more 

information about this facility than the other significant violators we identified. We believe that EPA should 

have used the CEM data as the reason for requesting more information from PADEP about this source. With 

this additional information EPA could have listed this facility as an SV. However, it is noteworthy that PADEP 

also was responsible for identifying and reporting it as a significant violator. 

EPA personnel indicated that about a year ago they adopted a more aggressive approach for the use of CEM 

data. This more aggressive approach by EPA is a step in the right direction. 

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend the Region 3 Administrator ensure that his staff determines if a facility should be placed on 

EPA's list of significant violators, when CEM data identifies "potential" significant violators. 

PADEP RESPONSE

We must note that your endorsement of EPA's "more aggressive" approach to CEM data is a step in the wrong 

direction. CEM data can be very useful in identifying violations that really are significant. However, to list a 

source as a significant violator for every minimal and transient exceedence serves no useful purpose. To suggest 

that a facility should be considered a significant violator when a CEM identifies "potential violators" is 

outrageous. 

EPA RESPONSE

The Air, Radiation and Toxics Division will continue with its aggressive approach in the use of CEM data and 

discuss with EPA Headquarters the establishment of national policy with defined action levels. 

OIG EVALUATION

EPA's response is noted, and should correct the conditions we cited, if Region 3 uses the CEM information to 

identify potential significant violators. Once they identify these potential violators, Region 3 needs to confirm 

the significant violator status with the State. 

PADEP's comments are also noted; however, this recommendation was not addressed to the State. We revised 

this chapter to clarify our position that it was EPA that should have reacted more aggressively to the 

information it had about the source. 
This chapter was directed toward EPA because it had CEM data indicating that the source reviewed was a 

potential significant violator. Because of this information, EPA should have researched further, i.e., reviewed 

PADEP's NOV issued to this facility and requested additional information from the State, to determine if this 

facility was a significant violator. Contrary to the State's contention, this source had violations that were far 

above minimal and transient exceedences. We did not recommend labeling every facility with minimal 

exceedences as an SV. If that were so, we would have recommended listing many more than one facility. 

Go To:

Table of Contents Appendices