Validation of Air Enforcement Data Reported to 

EPA by Pennsylvania

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP): 

• Identified significant violators in accordance with EPA's Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Policy.

• Reported significant violators to EPA.

• Performed inspections that were sufficient to determine if a facility violated the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Background

The CAA of 1990 lists 189 toxic air pollutants that must be reduced. 

EPA estimates that more than 2.7 billion pounds of toxic air 

pollutants are emitted annually in the United States. The list of air 

toxics touches every major industry, from the mining of base metals to the manufacture of high-tech electronics. 

EPA studies also show that exposure to these air toxics may result in up to 3,000 cancer deaths each year. Other 

adverse health effects of air toxics include: respiratory illness; lung damage; premature aging of lung tissue; as 

well as retardation and brain damage, especially in children. 

The CAA separately regulates six of the more serious air pollutants -- ground level ozone, particulate matter, 

carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen dioxide. These six criteria pollutants are emitted in large 

quantities by a variety of sources. EPA sets national standards for each of these criteria pollutants and the states 

must take action to assure facilities meet EPA standards. 

One criteria pollutant, ground level ozone, is a major problem in the southeast portion of Pennsylvania. When 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) react with nitrogen dioxide, it creates ground level ozone. This toxic air 

pollutant should not be confused with the "ozone layer" which protects the earth from the sun's ultraviolet rays. 

EPA Awards States Grant Money for Air Programs

Section 105 of the CAA provided the initial authority for federal grants to help state and local agencies prevent 

and control air pollution. Throughout the years, the CAA increased the responsibilities of the states, which were 

matched with an increase in grant funds. Region 3 awards Section 105 grant money so that states can operate 

their air programs in accordance with their grant agreements. The most recent amounts provided are shown 

below. 

Fiscal Year Amounts Awarded To All 

States in Region 3 

PADEP Grant Amounts

1994 $18,725,483 $5,004,533

1995 $19,754,725 $5,036,701

Air toxics may cause 3,000 cancer 

deaths each year.
1996 $17,708,800 $5,152,874

Before EPA awards each grant, it negotiates a work program with the state. The program contains specific work 

commitments the state agrees to perform. Region 3 uses the work program as the basis for evaluating the state's 

performance under the grant. The work program encompasses activities such as inspections, monitoring, 

permitting, and enforcement, which includes identifying and reporting significant violators. 

Types of Inspections

Pennsylvania conducts inspections of most major facilities each year to ensure they meet federal and state 

regulations. According to EPA policy, states can perform five different levels of inspections at air pollution 

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. A Level 4 inspection is the most thorough and 

time consuming. This type is generally done only for activities such as developing a legal case against the 

facility. 

To adequately evaluate a facility's compliance with the CAA, the 105 grants required each state to perform 

Level 2 inspections at specified major facilities. A Level 2 inspection includes: 

• Reviewing facility records to determine compliance with applicable regulations and permits,

• Taking and analyzing samples when required,

• Recording process rates and control equipment performance parameters, and

• Performing visual observations of emissions.

These activities provide support for enforcement actions and are a viable method for determining whether a 

facility is violating the CAA. 

Types of Permits

To assess compliance during an inspection, the inspector should refer to the facility's permit. The permit 

translates requirements of laws such as the CAA into individualized enforceable requirements. In other words, 

the permit defines the parameters by which a facility must operate. 

There are two types of permits. The first is a federally-enforceable construction permit. This type allows a 

facility to install or construct new equipment and modify its existing equipment. The construction permit issued 

by a state is valid for a specified period of time and enables the facility to fine tune or adjust its newly installed 

equipment. At the time the construction permit expires, the state should inspect the facility and issue the second 

type of permit called an operating permit. 

Since operating permits were not federally enforceable at the time of our review, any violations of these permits 

did not require PADEP to place the facility on EPA's significant violator list. Therefore, EPA used the 

construction permit to measure a facility's compliance. During August 1996, EPA obtained the authority to 

enforce operating permits. 

EPA Enforcement Procedures 

When an inspector identifies a violation, PADEP should issue the facility a Notice of Violation (NOV). An 

NOV specifies the type of violation and the regulations the facility violated. It may also require the facility to 

show what actions it will take to achieve compliance. If the violation meets EPA's definition of a significant 

violator, the state should report the facility to EPA for placement on the Agency's significant violator list. The 

Section 105 grant required PADEP to identify and report significant violators in accordance with EPA's 
February 7, 1992, guidance entitled Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to Significant Air Pollution 

Violators.

According to EPA's Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Policy, a significant violator is any major stationary 

source of air pollution, which is violating a federally-enforceable regulation. This policy required states to 

report significant violators to EPA within one month of the violation, and to maintain the facility on EPA's list 

until it achieves compliance. After the violation is reported, the state and EPA should monitor the source until it 

achieves compliance. This includes determining an appropriate time schedule for achieving compliance and 

assessing a penalty, if necessary. 

To resolve violations expeditiously, EPA stresses to each state the importance of identifying and reporting 

significant violators promptly. This issue is of such importance that Region 3 allotted part of the Section 105 

grant funds for identifying significant violators and reporting them timely. 

State Reporting Requirements

Each month EPA and the states are responsible for updating the air enforcement data on the Agency's database 

known as the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS). The 105 grant PADEP received from EPA 

also required the State to report new significant violators within 30 days of identifying the violation. The new 

violators are to be reported to EPA via telephone and AIRS. EPA and the states conduct quarterly 

teleconferences to discuss new and existing significant violators. EPA uses this communication to promote a 

greater degree of teamwork between themselves and the states. However, if EPA is dissatisfied with a state's 

enforcement action, the Agency has the authority to override the state and assume the lead in resolving the 

violation. 

During Fiscal Year 1995, PADEP's regional offices reported six significant violators to EPA Region 3. 

Regional Office Violators 

Reported

Conshohocken* 0

Wilkes-Barre* 0

Harrisburg* 2

Williamsport 0

Pittsburgh 1

Meadville 3

Total 6

*Offices Visited by the OIG 

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 economy and efficiency program audits. Our review 

included tests of the program records and other auditing procedures we considered necessary. 
To accomplish our objectives we performed reviews at PADEP regional and district offices, and at their central 

office in Harrisburg. We visited three of PADEP's six regional offices and two district offices within those 

regions. While at the PADEP offices, we had discussions with air inspectors, compliance specialists, permit 

chiefs and air quality program directors. We also interviewed managers, engineers, and inspectors from EPA 

Regions 3 and 5. 

We reviewed the CAA, the Code of Federal Regulations, EPA's Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Policy, 

the CAA Compliance/Enforcement Guidance Manual, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy, and Title 25 of 

the Pennsylvania Code. We also reviewed Section 105 grants awarded to Pennsylvania under the CAA, EPA's 

midyear reviews of the State's performance, and the NOVs PADEP submitted to Region 3. During this audit, 

we used various printouts from the EPA's AIRS to obtain information about the inspections performed. 

To evaluate PADEP's enforcement of the CAA requirements, we reviewed the air quality files maintained at 

PADEP offices. These files contained items such as inspection reports, NOVs, permits, permit applications, test 

results, emission monitoring records, and correspondence. Due to the complexity of air enforcement files, we 

received technical assistance from EPA personnel in Regions 3 and 5. 

We performed two analyses to accomplish our objectives. First, we reviewed the 556 NOVs that the six PADEP 

offices submitted to EPA Region 3 during Fiscal Year 1995. During our second analysis, we judgementally 

sampled enforcement files, and the associated Fiscal Year 1995 PADEP inspection reports, for 45 major 

stationary sources of air pollution in Pennsylvania. These inspections did not result in the State submitting an 

NOV to EPA, or reporting the facility as a significant violator. We selected facilities that were sources of 

various pollutants and of varying size. During both analyses, it was sometimes necessary to review documents 

prior to Fiscal Year 1995. This was done to obtain historical information, such as how long problems persisted 

and the results of previous inspections. 

Our audit disclosed several areas needing improvement that are discussed in Chapters 2 through 4. We provided 

recommendations to ensure PADEP identifies and reports significant violators to EPA. Our recommendations 

also addressed the need to improve the quality of inspections, and EPA's use of monitoring data. 

We reviewed management controls and procedures specifically related to our objectives. However, we did not 

review the internal controls associated with the input and processing of information into AIRS or any other 

automated records system. 

As part of this audit we also reviewed the Region 3 Air, Radiation and Toxics Division's Annual Report on 

Internal Controls for Fiscal Years 1993 through 1995. These reports were prepared to comply with the Federal 

Manager's Financial Integrity Act. We found that none of the weaknesses cited during our audit were disclosed 

in Region 3's annual reports. 

Our survey began on November 2, 1995, and ended on April 15, 1996. As a result of the survey, we initiated an 

in-depth review on April 16, 1996. We completed fieldwork for the audit on September 15, 1996. To obtain a 

preliminary response to the issues in this report, we issued position papers to EPA Region 3 on October 10, 

1996. We received their response on October 18, 1996. 

We issued a draft report on November 15, 1996. PADEP submitted its response to us on December 13, 1996. 

EPA Region 3 provided comments on December 18, 1996. After evaluating these responses, we made minor 

modifications to our report. However, our position remains unchanged on the major issues discussed in this 

report. 

In his response, the Secretary of PADEP requested that we provide the names of the facilities we reviewed so 

that he could respond with specificity. On December 24, 1996, we provided this information to PADEP. 
However, PADEP did not provide any additional comments during the seven-week interim between December 

24 and the date of this report. 

In his response, the Secretary also indicated that he asked the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) to the 

Department of Environmental Resources to undertake an independent review of the State's violation reporting 

system and the allegations in the draft report. On December 20, 1996, the CAC asked that we not finalize our 

report until they completed their review at the end of January 1997. Because of this request, we did not finalize 

our report until we received the CAC's report. 

PADEP's and Region 3's responses to our findings are summarized at the end of each chapter. We also provide 

our evaluation of these responses at the end of each chapter. PADEP's complete response is included in 

Appendix A, and Region 3's complete response is included in Appendix B. On February 11, 1997, the CAC 

issued their report on the issues we identified. Their complete report is included in Appendix C. Our evaluation 

of the CAC's report is also included in this Appendix. 

Prior Audit Coverage

An EPA Office of the Inspector General audit report (E1KAE5-24-0015-5100510) issued on September 29, 

1995 discussed Section 105 grants awarded to Pennsylvania and other states. This report also addressed the 

need for states to complete the work plan commitments of these grants, and EPA's reluctance to withhold funds 

from states that do not complete grant commitments. 

Other OIG audit reports addressed topics similar to those discussed in this report. For example, past reports 

disclosed that data submitted by the states through AIRS was incomplete, inconsistent, and untimely. AIRS data 

was not reliable, and EPA relied on supplementary information and manual reports from other databases. 

Past audit reports have also identified concerns with other aspects of EPA's oversight of state air enforcement 

programs such as inadequate penalty calculations, untimely completion of enforcement actions, and inadequate 

publicity of enforcement actions. EPA Office of Inspector General reports discussing these topics include: 

• Region 5's Air Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Program (E1GAF5-05-0045-6100284, 

September 13, 1996)

• Region 6's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program (E1GAF5-06-0056-6100309, September 

26, 1996)

• Review of Region 5's Stationary Source of Air Pollution Compliance and Enforcement Program

(E1K67-05-0449-80743, March 11, 1988)

• Capping Report on the Computation, Negotiation, Mitigation, and Assessment of Penalties Under EPA 

Programs (E1G8E9-05-0087-9100485, September 27, 1989)

• Follow-up Review on EPA's Mitigation of Penalties (E1GMG4-05-6009-4400107, September 15, 1994).

Go To:

Table of Contents Chapter 2