\
ill
Office of Inspector General
Report of Audit
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
September 26,1997
-------
Inspector General Division Central Audit Division
Conducting the Audit Dallas, Texas
Region Covered Region 6
Program Offices Involved Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division
Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division
-------
September 26, 1997
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
Audit Report Number E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
FROM: Bennie S. Salem
Divisional Inspector General
TO: Jerry Clifford
Acting Regional Administrator
Attached is our audit report on Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas Air Enforcement Data.
The overall objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology: (1) identified significant violators in accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) timely and appropriate enforcement guidance, (2)
reported significant violators to EPA, and (3) performed inspections that were sufficient to
determine if a facility violated the Clean Air Act. This report contains findings and
recommendations that are important to both EPA and Arkansas.
This report contains findings that describe deficiencies the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) has identified and corrective actions OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion
of OIG. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings
contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you, as the action official, are required to provide us
within 90 days, a report on the actions the Agency plans or has taken as a result of our
recommendations. Your responses to the position papers and the draft report were sufficient to
satisfy this requirement. Consequently, we are closing this report upon issuance of the report.
If you wish to discuss this report, please contact me at (913) 551-7831 or Dave Boyce,
Audit Manager in our Dallas office, at (214) 665-6620. Please refer to the report number on all
related correspondence.
Attachment
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (Arkansas):
> Identified significant violators in accordance with
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
timely and appropriate enforcement guidance,
> Reported significant violators to EPA, and
> Performed inspections that were sufficient to
determine if a facility violated the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
BACKGROUND
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides EPA authority to
set and enforce national standards to protect human health and the
environment from emissions that pollute the air. CAA lists 188
toxic air pollutants that must be reduced. 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 ensure facilities meet EPA standards.
At the federal level, the air enforcement program is carried out
largely by the regions. The regions are expected to perform
inspections and take action against significant violators found
through inspections or other means. The regions can also delegate
portions of their air enforcement responsibility to the states and
often rely on the states to conduct inspections and take
enforcement actions.
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
Region 6 negotiated a grant agreement and a Memorandum of
Understanding for Enforcement with Arkansas. Region 6 uses
these agreements as the basis for evaluating the State's
performance under the grant. The agreements encompass activities
such as inspections, monitoring, permitting, and enforcement,
which include identifying and reporting significant violators in
EPA's national database known as the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Although the Arkansas air enforcement program provided for an
extensive inspection program, the Region 6 Compliance Assurance
and Enforcement Division and Arkansas need to better identify and
report significant violators. Due to wording in the guidance,
Arkansas applied a different interpretation to the definition of
significant violator than intended by EPA. Region 6 enforcement
did not adequately use information provided by Arkansas to
identify significant violators. Miscommunication between the
Region and Arkansas led to significant violators not being entered
into AFS. Without proper identification and reporting of
significant violator information, Region 6 could not adequately
monitor the progress of Arkansas in returning facilities to
compliance. Also, information reported to EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Congress, and the public
was not accurate.
Arkansas and Region 6 need to take actions to ensure significant
violators are returned to compliance timely. Arkansas did not
always set milestone dates for facilities to come into compliance
and did not always set stipulated penalties. Region 6 did not
elevate any enforcement actions. As a result, companies continued
to violate permit limits by emitting pollutants such as volatile
organic compounds, particulate matter, and methylene chloride.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Acting Region 6 Administrator require the
Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division to:
11
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
1. Develop a process with Arkansas to ensure that
significant violators are accurately identified and
reported,
2. Verify that significant violator information in AFS
is complete, and
3. Perform more effective oversight of significant
violators to ensure that Arkansas takes timely and
appropriate actions that result in facilities returning
to compliance. In instances where Arkansas does
not act timely, the Region should consider taking its
own enforcement actions.
REGION 6 RESPONSE Region 6 generally agreed with our findings and recommendations
and proposed taking the following corrective actions regarding
significant violators:
> Continue to implement the Memorandum of
Understanding, dated January 29, 1997, between the
Region 6 Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division and the Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division to better coordinate
significant violator information and ensure the
accuracy of information in AFS;
> Assist Arkansas with significant violator
determination and verify that significant violator
data is accurately reflected in AFS; and
> Ensure through effective oversight that Arkansas
takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions
regarding significant violators and consider taking a
federal enforcement action in the instance where
Arkansas' action does not follow the prescribed
guidance.
Region 6 also provided corrective actions proposed by Arkansas.
iii Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
ARKANSAS RESPONSE
Arkansas' response to the draft report expressed concerns
regarding the tonal quality of the report and did not discuss specific
findings and recommendations. However, Arkansas' response to
position papers addressed all findings and recommendations,
including detailed summaries of the facilities reviewed. In that
response, Arkansas generally agreed with the findings and
provided proposed corrective actions. We incorporated their
comments, as appropriate, in the draft and final reports.
OIG EVALUATION
We agree with the corrective actions proposed by the Region and
Arkansas. In response to Arkansas' concerns regarding the tone of
the draft report, we made revisions to the final report, as the
Region and Arkansas did respond very positively to our concerns
during our fieldwork and to the findings in the position papers.
IV
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE 1
BACKGROUND 1
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 3
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 4
CHAPTER 2 ARKANSAS AND THE REGION COULD BETTER IDENTIFY AND
REPORT SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS 5
ARKANSAS MAINTAINED AN EXTENSIVE INSPECTION
PROGRAM 6
ARKANSAS DID NOT ACCURATELY APPLY THE
DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS 7
REGION 6 ENFORCEMENT DID NOT ADEQUATELY USE
PROVIDED INFORMATION 8
MISCOMMUNICATIONS PREVENTED SIGNIFICANT
VIOLATOR INPUT INTO AFS 10
CONCLUSION 11
RECOMMENDATIONS 11
EPA RESPONSE 12
OIG EVALUATION 12
CHAPTER 3 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
NEED IMPROVEMENT 13
ARKANSAS NEEDED TO TAKE TIMELY ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS 14
ARKANSAS NEEDED TO SET MILESTONE DATES AND
STIPULATED PENALTIES 14
REGION 6 DID NOT ELEVATE ANY ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS 15
CONCLUSION 18
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
RECOMMENDATIONS 18
EPA RESPONSE 19
OIG EVALUATION 19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - REGION 6 RESPONSE 21
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE 27
APPENDIX 3 - ABBREVIATIONS 47
APPENDIX 4 - DISTRIBUTION 48
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (Arkansas):
> Identified significant violators in accordance with
EPA's timely and appropriate enforcement
guidance,
> Reported significant violators to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and
> Performed inspections that were sufficient to
determine if a facility violated the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
This audit was conducted as part of a nationwide audit of air
enforcement data.
BACKGROUND
The CAA, as amended in 1990, provides EPA authority to set and
enforce national standards to protect human health and the
environment from emissions that pollute the air. CAA lists 188
toxic air pollutants that must be reduced. CAA separately
regulates six of the more serious air pollutants — ground level
ozone, paniculate 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 ensure facilities meet EPA standards.
At the federal level, the air enforcement program is carried out
largely by the regions. The regions are expected to perform
inspections and take action against significant violators found
1
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
through inspections or other means. The regions can also delegate
portions of their air enforcement responsibility to the states and
often rely on the states to conduct inspections and take
enforcement actions.
Section 105 of the CAA provided the authority for federal grants to
help state and local agencies prevent and control air pollution.
EPA awards section 105 grant money so that states can operate
their air programs in accordance with their grant agreements. In
fiscal 1996, EPA awarded Arkansas $821,645 under the section
105 grant.
Region 6 negotiated a grant agreement, and a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for Enforcement with Arkansas. Region 6
uses these agreements as the basis for evaluating the State's
performance under the grant. The agreements encompass activities
such as inspections, monitoring, permitting, and enforcement,
which include identifying and reporting significant violators in the
Agency's database known as the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System Facility Subsystem (AFS).
The Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
(enforcement) is responsible for monitoring state enforcement
activities, and the Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
(permitting) is responsible for verifying the accuracy of AFS. As a
result of our previous audit entitled Region 6's Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program (E1GAF5-06-0056-6100309) and
dated September 26, 1996, the enforcement and permitting
divisions entered into an MOU on January 29, 1997, to better
define their responsibilities. The MOU requires that the Region 6
AFS compliance manager provide monthly AFS reports to the
enforcement division and to the states for comments related to the
accuracy of the data, including significant violator flagging.
Responses to the AFS report are due by the end of the month. As
of the date of our review, implementation of this MOU was still in
process.
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
SCOPE AND We performed our audit in accordance with the Government
METHODOLOGY Auditing Standards (1994 revision) issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States as they apply to program audits. Our
review included tests of the program records and other auditing
procedures we considered necessary. Our audit focused on state
inspections of major facilities during fiscal 1996. We conducted
our fieldwork from January to June 1997.
To obtain an understanding of applicable laws and policies, we
reviewed the CAA, the Code of Federal Regulations, EPA's
Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to Significant Air
Pollution Violators, the CAA Compliance/Enforcement Policy
Manual, EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy, and the Arkansas
State Code. We also reviewed the fiscal 1996 section 105 grant
awarded to Arkansas under the CAA, and EPA's midyear reviews
of the State's performance. During this audit, we used various
printouts from AFS to obtain information about the inspections
performed.
To evaluate Arkansas' enforcement of the CAA requirements, we
reviewed the permit and compliance files maintained by Arkansas.
These files contained items such as inspection reports, letters of
violations, permits, permit applications, test results, emission
monitoring records, and correspondence.
We conducted interviews at Arkansas and Region 6's Compliance
Assurance and Enforcement Division and Multi-Media Planning
and Permitting Division. We obtained listings from Region 6 of
major sources and inspections performed for fiscal 1996.
To identify significant violators, we first obtained and reviewed a
list of all Arkansas facilities contained in AFS. This list contained
343 major facilities. We judgmentally selected a sample of 23
facilities out of 343, or 6 percent of listed major facilities. We
selected our sample based on a review of AFS reports and the
monthly Enforcement Activities reports dated October 1, 1996, and
March 10, 1997, provided by Arkansas. We reviewed the files for
the selected facilities to identify any that were significant violators.
During our analyses, we reviewed documents prior to fiscal 1996
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
to obtain historical information, such as how long problems
persisted and the results of previous inspections.
Our audit disclosed several areas needing improvements that are
discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. We provided position papers of our
draft findings to the Region 6 enforcement office in June 1997.
The Region forwarded a copy of the position papers to Arkansas
for comments.
We reviewed management controls and procedures specifically
related to our objectives, but did not validate the data associated
with the input and processing of information into AFS or any other
automated records system. Because of the inherent limitations in
any system of internal accounting control, errors or irregularities
may occur and not be detected. Except for the issues discussed in
this report, nothing came to our attention which would cause us to
believe the State's procedures were not adequate for our purposes.
PRIOR AUDIT On February 14, 1997, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
COVERAGE issued report number E1KAF6-03-0082-710015 entitled Validation
of Air Enforcement Data Reported to EPA by Pennsylvania. In
this report, OIG reported that Pennsylvania did not report all
significant violators to EPA and did not take aggressive
enforcement action to bring all violating facilities into compliance.
On September 26, 1996, OIG issued report number E1GAF5-06-
0056-6100309 entitled Region 6's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program. In this report, OIG reported that neither
Texas nor Louisiana formally computed economic benefit when
assessing fines; Region 6 and Texas were not timely in completing
enforcement actions against significant violators for any of the
cases reviewed; Region 6 and Louisiana did not adequately
publicize their enforcement actions; Region 6 air enforcement data
in AFS was incomplete, inconsistent, and untimely; and Region 6
did not work with states to develop and maintain active compliance
assistance programs.
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
CHAPTER 2
ARKANSAS AND THE REGION COULD BETTER IDENTIFY
AND REPORT SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
Although the Arkansas air enforcement program provided for an
extensive inspection program, Region 6 enforcement and Arkansas
need to better identify and report significant violators. Arkansas
applied a different definition of significant violators. Region 6
enforcement did not adequately use provided information to
identify significant violators. Miscommunication between the
Region and Arkansas led to significant violators not being entered
into AFS. Without proper identification and reporting of
significant violator information, Region 6 could not adequately
monitor the progress of the cases to ensure return to compliance.
Also, information reported to EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Congress, and the public was not accurate.
EPA's February 7, 1992, guidance entitled Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response to Significant Air Pollution Violators
(guidance) provides that the finding agency shall determine
whether or not a facility is a significant violator, and EPA shall add
the newly designated significant violator to the significant violator
list. This significant violator information is to be reported in AFS.
The fiscal 1996 section 105 grant required Arkansas to identify and
report significant violators in accordance with EPA's guidance.
Region 6 is currently working with its states to have the states
input the significant violators directly into AFS.
The guidance defines a significant violator as any major stationary
source of air pollution that violates emission, monitoring, or
substantial procedural requirements; is a repeat or chronic violator;
violates federal or state administrative or judicial orders; or
constructs or performs major modifications without a permit. This
guidance requires states to report significant violators to EPA
within 1 month of the violation, and to maintain the facility on
EPA's significant violator list until it achieves compliance. After
the violation is reported, the state and EPA should monitor the
5 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
source until it achieves compliance. The state and EPA should
determine an appropriate time schedule for achieving compliance
and assessing a penalty, if necessary. The state and EPA conduct
teleconferences to discuss new and existing significant violators. If
EPA is dissatisfied with a state's enforcement action, EPA has the
authority to override the state and assume the lead in resolving the
violation.
Arkansas provides Region 6 enforcement with a monthly report
(Enforcement Activities Report) that identifies significant violators
and facilities which might be labeled as significant violators based
on state inspections. The enforcement office reviews the report
and tracks significant violators.
ARKANSAS
MAINTAINED AN
EXTENSIVE
INSPECTION PROGRAM
According to an AFS report, Arkansas' inspection program
provided more coverage of major sources than most other states.
Arkansas conducted detailed inspections of each major facility at
least once each year to ensure it met federal and state regulations.
Arkansas also performed complaint inspections, as needed. Most
states did not inspect each major facility each year. Arkansas'
annual inspections met EPA's definition of Level 2 inspections,
and the inspection reports were well documented. Arkansas'
inspections provided support for enforcement actions and were a
viable method for determining whether a facility was violating the
CAA.
States can perform five different levels of inspections at air
pollution facilities. Level 0, commonly called a "drive by," is the
most basic inspection. To adequately evaluate a facility's
compliance with the CAA, EPA required each state to perform at
least a Level 2 inspection at major facilities. A Level 2 inspection
includes:
*• Reviewing facility records to determine compliance
with applicable regulations and permits,
> Taking and analyzing samples when required,
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
Recording process rates and control equipment
performance parameters, and
Performing visual observations of emissions.
ARKANSAS DID NOT
ACCURATELY APPLY
THE DEFINITION OF
SIGNIFICANT
VIOLATORS
For fiscal 1996, Arkansas only reported 2 significant violators in
AFS for their 343 major sources. Arkansas and Region 6 officials
agreed that all significant violators were not correctly identified as
such because of definition differences. Region 6 held meetings
and conference calls with Arkansas officials, since the initiation of
our audit, to discuss the definition of significant violators. As a
result, Arkansas identified 14 additional significant violators and
input them into AFS. Further, based on our review of 23 facilities,
we identified 10 additional significant violators.
While the severity of the violations varied, all 24 additional
facilities met the definition for significant violators. Furthermore,
some of these facilities violated the CAA for years without the
State or EPA taking strong enforcement action. The 10 facilities
that we identified included facilities that repeatedly constructed
and operated unpermitted equipment that emitted pollution,
repeatedly exceeded permit limits, operated without a prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality (PSD) permit, violated a
State Administrative Order, failed stack tests, failed to install
control equipment, and repeatedly failed to control fugitive
emissions.
For example, one facility added unpermitted sources on several
occasions over the past 3 years and was 15 months late performing
a stack test. In a letter dated July 29, 1994, Arkansas indicated that
during the course of issuing the original permit, it learned that the
facility was in the process or had already installed and was
operating equipment not included in the application for a permit.
(However, Arkansas issued the permit despite its findings.) The
letter advised the facility that it was in direct violation of its state
implementation plan and would be subject to possible enforcement
actions. Arkansas went on to explain in this letter that the most
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
recent submittal for a permit revision was inadequate and indicated
that the facility had once again commenced construction in clear
violation of the regulations. Arkansas issued a revised permit on
November 18, 1994. Arkansas inspectors identified additional
unpermitted sources in inspections conducted on August 23, 1995,
and June 14, 1996. Because the facility repeatedly constructed new
equipment without a permit and repeatedly failed to perform stack
testing requirements, this facility should have been identified as a
significant violator.
Other examples included facilities which operated for long periods
of time without permits and in noncompliance with their permits.
Arkansas considered one facility as out of compliance since 1991
for not having a PSD permit. Another facility has been considered
out of compliance with its permit since February 23, 1994. This
facility has continued to operate with unpermitted sources and
exceeded its permit limits for volatile organic compounds.
Region 6 enforcement stated in its response to our position papers,
that Region 6 discovered that some problems existed with
Arkansas in both interpreting the definition of a significant violator
and reporting significant violators in the AFS database. However,
through numerous discussions, the Region believed that both
problem areas have now been resolved. Arkansas agreed that nine
of the significant violators that we identified were significant
violators. For the tenth significant violator that we identified,
Region 6 and Arkansas responded that the violations were resolved
in fiscal 1997 when a PSD permit was issued and a subsequent
inspection in March 1997 disclosed no violations.
REGION 6
ENFORCEMENT DID
NOT ADEQUATELY USE
PROVIDED
INFORMATION
Because Region 6 enforcement did not make significant violator
reporting a priority, it did not verify whether Arkansas had
identified all significant violators and did not utilize information
provided by the State concerning facilities' noncompliance. Case
narratives in monthly reports usually provided enough information
for Region 6 enforcement officials to question whether additional
facilities should be classified as significant violators. Of the 14
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
significant violators added by Arkansas in March 1997, 10
facilities were not identified as significant violators in the monthly
Enforcement Activities Report dated October 1, 1996, but the
report generally contained sufficient information about the
facilities to draw that conclusion.
For the 10 additional significant violators identified by OIG, the
case narrative also usually provided enough information for Region
6 enforcement officials to question whether the facilities should be
significant violators. For example, for 1 of the 10 facilities, the
Arkansas monthly Enforcement Activities Report dated October 1,
1996, provided information that the past 2 inspections detected that
the facility had unpermitted sources, exceeded permit limits, and
had reporting violations. By definition, unpermitted sources and
emission violations are significant violations. However, Region 6
and Arkansas did not identify the facility as a significant violator.
Arkansas did report 4 of the additional 14 facilities as significant
violators to Region 6 enforcement personnel in the monthly
Enforcement Activities Report dated October 1, 1996. Further,
according to Region 6 enforcement personnel, enforcement was
monitoring these four facilities as significant violators. However,
these significant violations were not reported in AFS prior to
March 1997 because Region 6 enforcement officials did not check
to see if the facilities listed by Arkansas in their Enforcement
Activities Reports were in AFS as significant violators.
It is too early to determine whether the MOU entered into in
response to our previous audit will correct the reporting problems
identified above. As of the date of our review, implementation of
this MOU was still in process. Region 6 had not received
comments from Arkansas related to the accuracy of the AFS
reports. However, the MOU does provide a good basis for
coordination of significant violator information and, if properly
implemented, should correct problems related to differences
between the monthly Enforcement Activities Reports provided by
Arkansas and information in AFS. Better oversight will still be
needed by the Region 6 enforcement office to assure that Arkansas
correctly applies the definition of significant violators.
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
In response to the position papers, Region 6 enforcement stated
that during the monthly significant violator conference calls, many
facilities and their potential violations were discussed. Although
some of those facilities that were determined to be significant
violators were not adequately reflected in the AFS database (and
Region 6 is in the process of resolving this issue with Arkansas),
they were being tracked by Arkansas and Region 6 as significant
violators.
MISCOMMUNICATIONS
PREVENTED
SIGNIFICANT
VIOLATOR INPUT INTO
AFS
Region 6 enforcement officials assumed that Arkansas officials
were identifying significant violators in AFS. However, Arkansas
officials told us that they did not have the capability to input a
significant violator flag into AFS until March 24, 1997. They
provided a letter dated March 3, 1997, from the Region 6 AFS
Coordinator to all Region 6 states to provide this access and stated
that this access was provided effective March 24, 1997.
Region 6 officials contend that, although state access to this field is
new, states did have the capability to input significant violator
designation in a day zero field. Arkansas officials stated that they
did not have access to this field either. Arkansas sent a letter to
Region 6 on April 21, 1997, to clarify who will have the
responsibility to flag significant violators in AFS and requested
that Region 6 flag the significant violators. Region 6 responded to
Arkansas' letter on June 26, 1997, that the "Day Zero" action has
been required as minimally reportable since fiscal 1995. Region 6
also responded, "Records concerning the identification and
reporting of subsequent activity of SV's are minimally reportable
data elements and therefore should be reported by the State."
CONCLUSION
Arkansas added 14 significant violators to AFS, as a result of our
audit, and we identified 10 additional facilities that should have
10
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
been identified as significant violators for fiscal 1996. These
additional 24 significant violators represent a significant increase
from the two significant violators that were reported in AFS for
Arkansas in fiscal 1996 prior to the initiation of our audit. Region
6 must assure that significant violators are correctly identified and
reported in AFS. EPA needs accurate significant violator
information so that it can provide adequate monitoring of state
activities and can assure that information reported to Congress and
the public is accurate.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Acting Region 6 Administrator require
Region 6 enforcement to:
1. Review the narratives of the monthly Enforcement
Activities Reports to determine whether other
facilities should be classified as significant
violators;
2. Implement the MOU dated January 29, 1997,
between the Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division and the Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division;
3. Verify that significant violators reported in
Arkansas' monthly Enforcement Activities Reports
are included in AFS as significant violators, when
appropriate; and
4. Resolve the issue of who will input the significant
violator designation in AFS.
EPA RESPONSE
Region 6 concurred with the findings and recommendations.
Region 6 provided documentation of a June 26, 1997 response to
the Arkansas letter to Region 6 dated April 21, 1997. In Region 6's
11
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
response, the Region responded that the "Day Zero" action has
been required as minimally reportable since fiscal 1995. Since
records concerning the identification and reporting of subsequent
activity of significant violators are minimally reportable data
elements, they therefore should be reported by the State.
OIG EVALUATION We modified the "Miscommunication Prevented Significant
Violator Input Into AFS" section of our report to reflect Region 6's
response.
12 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
CHAPTER 3
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
NEED IMPROVEMENT
Arkansas and Region 6 need to take actions to ensure significant
violators are returned to compliance timely. Arkansas did not take
timely enforcement actions. Arkansas did not always set milestone
dates for facilities to come into compliance and did not always set
stipulated penalties. Region 6 did not elevate any enforcement
actions. As a result, companies continued to violate permit limits
by emitting pollutants such as volatile organic compounds,
particulate matter, and methylene chloride.
According to EPA's Five Year Strategic Plan (plan) dated July
1994, EPA's mandate to protect public health and safety depends
upon effective enforcement. EPA stated in the plan that:
Effective compliance and accountability are
cornerstones of environmental protection. Real
public health and safety, and a clean environment,
cannot be achieved without compliance with the
nation's environmental laws. Enforcement is a key
tool for producing compliance. It engenders
responsible behavior in the regulated community,
provides a level, competitive playing field, ensures
that goods and services reflect their true costs, and
establishes a baseline of integrity for EPA's
programs. Protection and enhancement of the
environment are dependent on public awareness and
accountability.
EPA's Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to
Significant Air Pollution Violators (guidance) requires that by day
150 a source be either resolved, addressed, or subject to a referral
to the state's Attorney General or the U.S. Department of Justice
for an adjudicatory enforcement hearing or judicial action. The
guidance defines resolved as in compliance and addressed as on a
13 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
legally enforceable and expeditious administrative or judicial
order. Day 150 equals 180 days from the inspection date since day
zero (when the clock starts) is defined as 30 days after the
discovering agency first receives information concerning a
federally enforceable violation. If the state's action is not timely,
EPA has the authority to take its own action.
The guidance further requires that all state enforcement actions
against significant violators assess civil penalties of sufficient
magnitude to maintain a credible deterrent effect, and that EPA
will consider overfiling when state penalties fail to meet the
criteria.
ARKANSAS NEEDED TO
TAKE TIMELY
ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
Arkansas adequately addressed the violations of only 1 of 15
sampled significant violators within the 180 day timeframe
required by the guidance. The remaining 14 facilities were out of
compliance an average of 940 days, as of May 2, 1997. Four of the
facilities were out of compliance in excess of 3 years. For
example, as discussed in Chapter 2, one facility added unpermitted
sources on several occasions over the past 3 years. Another facility
has been considered out of compliance with its permit since
February 23, 1994. This facility has continued to operate with
unpermitted sources and exceeded its permit limits. However, as
of the date of our review, Arkansas has not taken any enforcement
action for these violations.
ARKANSAS NEEDED TO
SET MILESTONE DATES
AND STIPULATED
PENALTIES
Consent administrative orders reviewed usually did not contain
compliance milestone dates and did not contain stipulated
penalties, if the facility did not come into compliance. Without
setting formal deadlines for compliance or submitting permit
modifications in the consent administrative order, Arkansas could
not ensure that facilities returned to compliance timely.
For example, one facility has been operating without a permit and
has continuously violated limits of an expired permit since 1991.
State files contained a consent administrative order dated
14
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
November 1, 1994, for the facility for failure to certify its
Continuous Emission Monitoring and exceeding its volatile
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and total sulfur emission
limits. The consent administrative order was based on an
inspection conducted in September 1991 and additional stack
testing performed in November 1991. The consent administrative
order required the facility to pay a fine of $40,000, which was paid
on December 12, 1994. However, the order did not contain any
milestone dates to ensure that the facility returned to compliance
and did not contain stipulated penalties if those milestone dates
were not met. An inspection conducted on August 7, 1996,
disclosed that the facility was still out of compliance for exceeding
permit limits for volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide,
and total sulfur. According to the inspection report, the facility had
been out of compliance for 3 years and will continue to be until a
PSD permit is issued. As of April 27, 1997, the PSD permit still
had not been issued.
In response to our position papers, Arkansas stated that all consent
administrative orders for significant violators will now contain
milestone dates and provisions for stipulated penalties in the event
that requirements of the orders are not met.
REGION 6 DID NOT
ELEVATE ANY
ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
Despite the problems identified with the Arkansas enforcement
program, Region 6 did not elevate any enforcement actions for
Arkansas in fiscal 1996. Region 6 generally allowed states to run
their own enforcement programs and therefore did not overfile or
take any other enforcement actions in Arkansas since 1994.
Region 6 did not monitor 12 of the 15 significant violators
reviewed as significant violators because of the identification and
reporting problems identified in Chapter 2 of this report. Also, as
discussed in Chapter 2, some of these facilities violated the CAA
for years without the State or EPA taking strong enforcement
action. The 10 facilities that we identified included facilities that
repeatedly constructed and operated unpermitted equipment that
emitted pollution, repeatedly exceeded permit limits, operated
without a PSD permit, violated a State Administrative Order, failed
15
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
stack tests, failed to install control equipment, and repeatedly failed
to control fugitive emissions.
Region 6's most recent Enforcement Activities Report for Arkansas
indicated that it was aware that 3 of the 15 facilities reviewed were
significant violators. These three facilities have been classified as
significant violators since 1993 on the Enforcement Activities-
Arkansas list maintained by Region 6 enforcement. However, two
of these facilities remain in noncompliance and unresolved.
According to Arkansas, the violations for the third facility were
resolved in March 1997. All three facilities were operating without
a PSD permit. Region 6 had not taken its own actions against any
of these facilities.
For example, a review of enforcement data identified one facility
which failed a stack test in May 1992. At the time, the facility
notified Arkansas that the facility may need to apply for a PSD
permit. In response, Arkansas issued a consent administrative
order requiring the facility to submit a PSD air permit application
not later than March 1, 1994, and assessed a penalty of $60,000.
The facility failed to satisfy the consent administrative order
resulting in Arkansas filing a complaint and requesting a
permanent injunction and reduction of particulate emissions. In
exchange for dropping the complaint, the facility agreed to a
second consent administrative order dated June 7, 1995. This
order required the facility to obtain a PSD permit, establish a
compliance schedule, and set stipulated penalties. The facility
filed a PSD permit application on November 30, 1995, which is
still under review. On September 20, 1995, the facility lost a
citizen suit with a penalty of $226,250. The facility was found
negligent for releasing nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and other
volatile organic compounds into the air. However, this decision
was reversed. Residents living near the facility filed at least three
other lawsuits. Further, we found that the facility, as of March 10,
1997, was still considered out of compliance by Arkansas.
Another facility entered into a consent administrative order dated
June 21, 1991, for violation of emission limits between January 1,
1991, and March 31, 1991. The facility is considered a major
stationary source under PSD regulations for particulates, sulfur
16 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic
compounds. The facility agreed to submit a plan of action to
comply with emission limits no later than June 10, 1991.
Additionally, the facility was required to pay $3,000 as a voluntary
civil penalty. The order expired October 1, 1991, and during the
interim of June 3, 1991, to October 1, 1991, Arkansas waived
penalties for noncompliance. Arkansas issued a second consent
administrative order on September 30, 1991, because the facility
failed to comply with the previous consent administrative order
milestone date. To resolve the alleged violations, the facility was
required to submit a complete PSD permit application no later than
January 1, 1992. The facility was fined $14,000 as a voluntary
assessment. A routine inspection conducted June 24, 1994,
disclosed that the facility was out of compliance pending issuance
of a PSD permit. Enforcement files reviewed at both the State and
the Region verified that the facility had been out of compliance
since 1991. In response to our position papers, Region 6 and
Arkansas responded that a PSD permit was issued in fiscal 1997,
and the facility was subsequently found to be in compliance during
a March 1997 inspection. Fines of $3,000, $14,000, and $5,000
were levied on the facility, but it continued to operate out of
compliance until March 1997.
In response to the position paper, Region 6 enforcement agreed that
significant violators need to be addressed and resolved in a timely
manner. However, three of the significant violators that were
reviewed by OIG required the issuance of a PSD permit in order to
be considered "resolved." This type of permit generally takes more
than 150 days from receipt of a "complete" permit application to
final issuance of an enforceable permit.
In response to our position paper, Arkansas agreed that it did not
always take timely enforcement actions and will implement the
following corrective actions:
1. Upon identification of a significant violator,
Arkansas will immediately begin enforcement
action.
17 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
2. All consent administrative orders will now contain
milestone dates for compliance.
3. All air inspectors and air inspector supervisors have
been provided a copy of the criteria for defining a
significant violator as outlined in the guidance. Air
inspectors have been instructed to submit a
memorandum to their supervisor each time they
believe they have identified a significant violator.
Inspector supervisors have been instructed to review
every inspection report so that all significant
violators are identified and referred for enforcement
action.
4. All consent administrative orders for significant
violators now contain provisions for stipulated
penalties in the event that requirements of the orders
are not met.
CONCLUSION Region 6 and Arkansas have not addressed or resolved significant
violations timely. Significant violations have remained unresolved
an average 940 days.
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Acting Region 6 Administrator require
Region 6 enforcement to perform more effective oversight of
significant violators to ensure that Arkansas takes timely and
appropriate actions that result in facilities returning to compliance
timely by :
1. Ensuring that Arkansas implements its proposed
corrective actions outlined in its response to our
position papers and Region 6's response to our draft
report, and
2. Taking its own enforcement action when Arkansas
does not take timely enforcement action and
18 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
considering overfiling when the State action does
not result in timely resolution of the violations.
EPA RESPONSE
Region 6 concurred with our findings and recommendations but
provided comments related to the second sentence of our
Conclusion section. Region 6 responded that the number of days
that significant violations have remained unresolved ("an average
of 940 days") is based upon inaccurate data entry into AFS (i.e.,
incorrect day zero dates, failure to include the date that violations
were "addressed," incorrect "addressed" date, etc.). Region 6 also
responded that Guidance on the Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response to Significant Air Pollution Violators does
not require a company to be returned to compliance within 180
days but states that the source shall either be in compliance
(resolved) or addressed (on a legally-enforceable and expeditious
administrative or judicial order, or be subject to a referral to the
(State) attorney general or (Federal) Department of Justice for an
adjudicatory enforcement hearing or judicial action). Region 6
also responded that at least three of the significant violators
required a PSD permit, which generally takes more than 150 days
from receipt of a "complete" permit application to final issuance of
an enforceable permit.
OIG EVALUATION
We based our computed average days on actual file documentation,
not AFS. Further, we discussed in the first sentence of our
conclusion that Region 6 and Arkansas have not addressed or
resolved significant violators timely (emphasis added). While the
guidance does not specifically require that facilities be returned to
compliance within 180 days, we believe that 2 or 3 years is
excessive. The guidance does allow for some flexibility related to
PSD issues; however, the three facilities that operated without PSD
permits have been considered significant violators since 1993.
The State should be able to bring facilities into compliance within
a more reasonable timeframe.
19
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas
Air Enforcement Data
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
20 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 1 - EPA RESPONSE
UNITED $TATES ENVIRON MEKTALPROTtCTiONAGENCV
1445 ROSS AV ENU E, SUITE 1 £00
DALLAS, TX 75202-2733
SEF | ', ISsJ
; Ixijif^.. 5 ' -j fJvi-r-gljt of Ar^^s^E
air RL-, forcemcnt Data
Draft Audit H£pnrt Wo. ELGAF7-06-0014-XXXXXXX
FROM; Sam }lftcker^% -V^cJ^^
Actinq AasJw&fcSrit Riegional
For
TO: Benni.s S- Salem
inspector General
Division
TJxa draft audit report numbor ElC-AT7-06~oa:4-XXXXXXX has
j/i-viewELj a a requested, 1'ha review at V-fie draft report
by the gtiff of the Region 6 Compliance Assurance and
Fin forewent rjiviBion (SEW) and Hultimtidia Planning and
Division (6PD>. The Region's coiKments on subject draft audit
rapurt ware coordinated between the Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Divisinn (5EWJ and Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division (6PO)* The corrective Actions that We and the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCfiE) will be
taking to address the findings ancf recommendations, contained in
the draCt audit report are reflected on the attachment,
Thank you for the cpportunity to comment on the subject
draft report. If you have any questions, please call me, or you
can contact Jim Ealey, Audit Resolution Coordinator, Resource
Brunch at (214)
Attachment
cc: Dave Boyce (6OIG)
21 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 1 - EPA RESPONSE
Region 6's Comments on the PIG Draft Audit Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-XXXXXXX.
dated August 9.1997
Summary of Finding/Recommendations
Area
1. Executive Summary
A. Results in Brief
B. Recommendations
2. Chapter 1 - Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Background
C. Scope and Methodology
D. Prior Audit Coverage
3. Chapter 2 - Arkansas and the Region Could
Better Identify and Report Significant Violators
A. Arkansas Maintained an Extensive
Inspection Program
B. Arkansas Did Not Accurately Apply
The Definition of Significant
Violators
C. Region 6 Enforcement Did Not
Adequately Use Provided Information
D. Miscommunications Prevented
Significant Violators Input Into AFS
E. Conclusion
Remark
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur with comments
(See below)
Concur
22
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 1 - EPA RESPONSE
F. Recommendations
4. Chapter 3 - Enforcement Actions Against
Significant Violators Need Improvement
A. Arkansas Needed to Take Timely
Enforcement Actions
B. Arkansas Needed to Set Milestone
Dates and Stipulated Penalties
C. Region 6 Did Not Elevate Any
Enforcement Actions
D. Conclusion
E. Recommendations
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur with comments
(See below)
Concur with comments
(See below)
Concur
23
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 1 - EPA RESPONSE
Comments on Specific Sections of the IG Draft Report
1. Chapter 2 - Section entitled "Miscommunications Prevented Significant Violators Input into
AFS", 2nd paragraph
"Region 6 officials are currently in the process of drafting a response to Arkansas' letter."
This statement is no longer accurate. Region 6 sent a response to Keith Michaels of the
ADPC&E on June 26, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
In the April 21, 1997 letter, ADPC&E stated that they did not have access to the "day
zero" field. However, in the June 26, 1997, response letter, Region 6 makes the statement
that "The 'Day Zero' action has been required as minimally reportable since FY95."
ADPC&E also requested a clarification of who will have the responsibility to flag
significant violators in AFS and requested that Region 6 flag the significant violators. In
response, Region 6 stated the following: "Records concerning the identification and
reporting of subsequent activity of SV's are minimally reportable data elements and
therefore should be reported by the State." (emphasis added)
2. Chapter 2: Arkansas and the Region Could Better Identify and Report Significant Violators:
We believe that the reporting weaknesses outlined in Chapter 2 (data not adequately
reflected in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Facility Subsystem
(AFS), confusion of data entry responsibilities) are symptomatic of problems with the
interpretation of the definition of "Significant Violator" (SV). The reporting accuracy of
the AFS has never been emphasized due to the reliance of manual activity reports
submitted by the State to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
As noted on page 9 of the OIG report, the State was confused about its ability to report
SV information in AIRS. The EPA responded to the April 21, 1997, letter clarifying its
reporting options. This June 26, 1997, response is attached.
In our efforts to improve data quality, the Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
(6PD) has instituted the policy "if it's not in AIRS, it doesn't count." Our Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
further enforces that policy across the Divisions in Region 6. The procedures in the
MOU will continue toward the goal of timely and accurate reporting of significant
violator activities. The proposed actions by the Enforcement Division, however, will
resolve the real issue of determination of "Significant Violator".
4. Chapter 3 - Section entitled "Conclusion"
24 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 1 - EPA RESPONSE
"Significant violations have remained unresolved an average 940 days, which far
exceeds the 180 day time frame required by the policy to help return companies to
compliance."
This statement is incorrect in two major ways. First of all, the number of days
that significant violations have remained unresolved ("an average of 940 days") is
based upon inaccurate data entry into AFS (i.e., incorrect day zero dates, failure to
include date that violations were "addressed" or incorrect "addressed" date, etc.).
Second, the "Guidance on the Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to
Significant Air Pollution Violators" does not require a company to be returned to
compliance within 180 days. It states that "By Day 150 (or 190 with lead
change), the source shall either be in compliance (RESOLVED) or
ADDRESSED i.e.,. on a legally-enforceable and expeditious administrative or
judicial order, or be subject to a referral to the (State) attorney general or (Federal)
Department of Justice for an adjudicatory enforcement hearing or judicial action."
(emphasis added).
Furthermore, in the case where a prevention of significant deterioration of air
quality (PSD) permit is required for a facility, the guidance states that "All SVs,
except emergency episodes and sources which construct without a valid PSD
or Part D permit (where one is required), are subject to the following timelines
and penalty requirements." (emphasis added). At least 3 of the significant
violators required a PSD permit, which generally takes more than 150 days from
receipt of a "complete" permit application to final issuance of an enforceable
permit.
As a general comment, it was noted that some of the language in the Executive Summary and
Introduction sections of the Arkansas audit resembles that found in the Pennsylvania audit.
While the information on "air toxins" may be particularly appropriate for the industrial makeup
in Pennsylvania, it may not be completely accurate and appropriate for Arkansas. Of the
facilities that were audited in Arkansas, only one of the 10 additional significant violators even
emitted a "hazardous air pollutant", as defined in the Clean Air Act.
Corrective actions to be taken in response to the IG Audit
ADPC&E has proposed the following changes to their enforcement policy regarding Significant
Violators:
25 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 1 - EPA RESPONSE
There will now be a three-tiered review of all violations discovered during an inspection
to determine SV status (i.e., Inspector receives copy of definition of a SV and writes a
memo to Supervisor if a SV is suspected during inspection; Supervisor reviews every
inspection report for SV determination, even if inspector did not note facility as a
possible SV; enforcement personnel will also review all reported violations in order to
promptly and correctly identify SVs.
Within 45 days after a facility is designated as a SV, ADPC&E will issue a written SV
notice to the facility, informing them of the violation and directing that corrective action
be taken. Copies of such letters will be sent to Region 6 Air Enforcement.
A formal transmittal memo from ADPC&E Air Enforcement to the AIRS Data Manager
has been created and will contain all of the information needed to update AIRS
concerning an enforcement case and SV status.
ADPC&E will continue to send monthly enforcement reports regarding all out-of-
compliance sources, including all facilities believed to be SVs, to Region 6 and will
continue to hold monthly SV conference calls. Both ADPC&E and Region 6 Air
Enforcement personnel and AIRS Data Managers will be present at the conference calls.
All ADPC&E Consent Administrative Orders for SVs will now contain milestone dates
for compliance and provisions for stipulated penalties.
EPA Region 6 proposes to take the following actions regarding Significant Violators:
Continue to implement the MOU dated January 29, 1997, between 6PD and 6EN.
Assist ADPC&E with SV determination and verify that SV data is accurately reflected in
AIRS.
Ensure through effective oversight that ADPC&E takes timely and appropriate
enforcement actions regarding SVs and consider taking a federal enforcement action in
the instance where ADPC&E's action does not follow the prescribed guidance.
26 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL & ECOLOGY
&DD1 lUatinnil Drive, P.O. Box 8913
Lrtllt Ruck, Arkansas 72219-B913
Phone [5011083-0744 F«: (5D1| BBZ.0790
September 12, 1997
B=nnie 5_
Divisional Inspector General
E/iviiififp.ei/ital Protection Agency
Office of Tr.5p=c:%or General
Central Audit Division
726 MinneEona Aver.ue
Kansas City, Kar.sas £6101
Dave Royce
Audit Manager
Sdviiorimental Projection Agency
Region 6
14^S Ross
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: fir Kansas' Response to Oraft Audit Repc-rt
Ms- SsLem and Mr. Boy-re :
l-ltase fir.d enclosed firial hard copies of ftD?C»E' s
final dzEi£^ of Lhe audit t&port prepared by the EPfi Office of
Inspector GenersJ - Thj s is i denf-ral t-n t:i^ docLLrt^n^: "e-mailed." to
I'avc: lioyce (through Dan Howard) two days age,
"we appreciate your p^t.ienc-e a.nri fleKibility r&^arding s-bmit^al of
our response. fts you are surely ^warej several
yu.plcy^H^ insiist&d or. input to ^ihis response up to the las- Jii
The enclosed res^ops^ is ncc subshantively di£ferer_t frorr. the
"watornarted™ copy faxed September 9, 1597, wit.n the; exception d£
t. hs ?5e::t.ion en Li Lied "Tinely and App±Op± ici ie Enforcement,1'' This
section, for resscns lost in -he documerit' s software hisLtz-ry, w=ii
c:leiLrLy a v^iy roue]}: dfifi Lhdi somehow 90' incorporated inio what
we thought was o'jr final dreft.
The tone ot o'^r response ;s, at tines, qu;r.e <-oTit>aLiv^, ic:r reii
discussed in the 'cxt. We, of course, welcome further discussions
-em ing the tone and generfll iTips-f- -:;f OIC.L'i fir.uL report -
27 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
Ms. 2alcm and Mr. Boycc
Tags 2 cf 2
September 11, 133'J
If you have any questions of comments^ feel free vo call sis at
(50U 69
Sinceiely,
Steve Wea
Policy Advisoi to ihe Director
cc; Kichelle Kelly
Keith Michaels
28
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
ARKANSAS' RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT
ISSUED BY THE U.S.E.P.A. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
A. Introduction.
As reflected in Arkansas' past comments and the EPA Office of Inspector General's (OIG's)
latest Draft Report, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology (ADPC&E) immediately
implemented in-house procedures to address EPA Headquarters' recent concern about this agency's use
of the "Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to Significant Air Pollution Violators" Guidance
(T&A/SV Guidance). Remembering the Pennsylvania experience, ADPC&E hoped that cooperation
would be matched by an appropriate degree of comity from the OIG. The Final Draft on which we
comment today, however, continues to relay a deliberate tone designed to humiliate rather than improve
this agency's air enforcement program.
For years, ADPC&E has maintained a generally amicable relationship with the oversight officials
of EPA Region 6 in its air programs as well as all other major environmental programs. In fact,
Arkansas has been authorized or delegated more responsibility for more federal regulatory programs
than any other State in Region 6. For a relatively small agency, ADPC&E juggles numerous multi-
media expectations from EPA, a problematic task in the 1990's as EPA Headquarters sends mixed
signals concerning its dedication to efficient and flexible regulation.
In order for meaningful cooperative federalism to work, the dialogue between state and national
officials must be candid, mutually respectful, and (most importantly in this context) consistent. As the
29 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
OIG previously noted in a 1996 audit, Region 6 had not made reporting to the AFS data base a consistent
priority in its oversight of state programs. See Region 6's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Program at 14-17. While the focus of that Report was Region 6's oversight of air enforcement in
Louisiana and Texas, obviously the same low priority on AFS reporting would apply to other Region 6
states as well. Rather than following through with recommendations from that Report, however, OIG
launched an independent audit of Arkansas' program, knowing already that consistent AFS reporting
was not demanded of Region 6 States. And in a disturbing rerun of the Pennsylvania experience, OIG
chose to extend its report beyond the stated scope of its audit into one paragraph synopses of specific
cases, ignoring the considerations that any environmental enforcement agency must contend with in
allocating its limited resources.
Apparently, OIG rejects ADPC&E's effort to resolve the narrow issues raised by this audit
reasonably and constructively, and prefers to issue a Report that is unnecessarily inflammatory, based
upon a controversial and apparently unworkable policy, and totally antithetical to any attempt to advance
cooperative federalism between EPA and the State of Arkansas. Rather than make a defense at the
expense of our partners at Region 6, ADPC&E charges OIG and EPA Headquarters with promoting an
arcane accounting procedure as the bureaucratic litmus test of a State's commitment to its own
environmental integrity.
B. The OIG Report Is Unnecessarily Inflammatory.
1. Irrelevant Introductory Language.
30 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
Both the Executive Summary and the Introduction of the OIG Draft Report begin with alarming
statistics describing the worst-case consequences of air pollution, including threats of 3,000 cancer
deaths and brain damaged children. This language is lifted virtually verbatim from the controversial
audit report on the Pennsylvania program (Validation of Air Enforcement Data Reported to EPA by
Pennsylvania, Report No. 7700775)(hereafter "Pennsylvania Report"). When identical or even broader
issues are discussed in reports on the enforcement performance of EPA Offices, OIG does not use such
sensationalistic prose. Cf. Region 6's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program (hereafter
"Region 6 Report") at 1-2 ("Background"); Region 5's Air Enforcement and Compliance
Assistance Program (hereafter Region 5 Report) at 1-3 ("Background").
Apparently, OIG is using the Pennsylvania Report as the word-processor template for audit
reports on States, and reserving its more judicious introductory sections for reports on EPA's own
activities. Since the controversy of the Pennsylvania Report is so notorious, OIG's "cut-and-paste"
strategy in this Draft Report must be designed to achieve the same unwarranted reaction for Arkansas'
environmental programs.
The fact is, OIG did not come to Arkansas to audit cancer deaths, brain-damaged children, or
even air pollution. The stated purpose and actual scope of the audit was to discern whether ADPC&E
identified and reported "significant violators" to EPA in accordance with a widely disputed policy, and
whether ADPC&E performed adequate inspections. Only the last of these inquiries (inspections) is
directly tied to discovering the effect of point source air emissions on public health and the environment.
In contrast, identifying and reporting "significant violators" is described by OIG as a contract obligation,
31 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
an accounting task tied more to the receipt of federal grant funds than discovering harmful air emissions.
See Pennsylvania Report at Chapter 2, pg. 10.
The purpose and the content of this Draft Report do not support the inflammatory nature of its
introductory paragraphs. This language should be deleted in its entirety. At the very least, we ask that
the initial paragraph in the Executive Summary and Introduction of the Draft Report be moved under the
heading "Background" consistent with the other audit reports issued by OIG on similar issues.
2. The Section 105 Grant.
The Inspector General's draft report states that in fiscal 1996, the EPA awarded Arkansas
an $821,645 grant pursuant to Section 105 of the Clean Air Act, and justifies EPA's demands on
Arkansas' enforcement program based upon this grant amount. A breakdown of this grant money,
however, reveals that most of it passed through the Air Division to other state agencies or Department
branches. Only approximately $250,000 was actually for use by the Air Division. The annual budget of
the Air Division is approximately 3.2 million dollars. Thus, the federal government's actual monetary
contribution to Arkansas' air enforcement program is quite small. The final report should reflect this
fiscal reality.
3. ADPC&E's Inspection Program.
The OIG's Draft Report states
Arkansas' inspection program provided more coverage of major sources than
most other states. Arkansas conducted detailed inspections of each major facility
at least once each year to ensure that it met federal and state regulations.
Arkansas also performed complaint inspections, as needed. Most states did not
inspect each major facility each year. Arkansas' annual inspections met the
EPA's definition of Level 2 inspections, and the inspection reports were well
32 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
documented. Arkansas' inspections provided support for enforcement actions and
were a viable method for determining whether a facility was violating the CAA.
Ironically, OIGuses the fruits of this inspection program as the evidence for damning Arkansas'
enforcement program.
The OIG audit focused on 23 facilities, following the regulatory history of these facilities back
to, in some cases, 1991. From 1991 through the end of fiscal year 1996, ADPC&E performed
approximately 6,624 inspections of permitted facilities. These facilities each have one to more than one
hundred sources. Even a conservative average of twenty-five sources per facility would indicate that
Arkansas inspected 165,600 permitted sources of pollution during the referenced time period. In most
cases, the facilities reviewed by OIG had violations at a single source, indicating that OIG reviewed only
0.0001389% of the sources of pollution inspected by Arkansas since 1991. ADPC&E performs a similar
level of inspection and complaint response concerning its state law mandates, which are vastly more
inclusive than the single federal guidance document that is the subject of the OIG audit. The sheer
volume of thorough inspections performed in Arkansas creates the context for judging ADPC&E's
enforcement response, which OIG claims to be inadequate. Consider then that the most pressing and
resource-intensive air pollution issues facing this agency during the period audited fell outside federal
jurisdiction. And through inspections procedures that were admitted by OIG to be more than adequate,
ADPC&E identified violations that existed at major sources falling within federal jurisdiction through
monthly reports and other informal communications. These routine communications with Region 6,
which ADPC&E assumed were the essence of EPA/State partnership, are now used by OIG as evidence
for indicting this State's commitment to environmental protection.
33 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
4. ADPC&E's Authorization to Enter AFS Data.
The most galling example of OIG's selective attention to detail is its handling of information
proving that ADPC&E did not have authority to directly enter SV information into the AFS data base
until after the OIG audit was initiated. During the course of the audit, ADPC&E provided OIG with a
copy of the March 3, 1997 letter from Region 6 granting ADPC&E the authority to input a significant
violator flag into AFS effective March 24, 1997. Given the audit's stated purpose — to determine
whether ADPC&E identified and reported significant violators to EPA — one would think that this
documented evidence would be the linchpin of any report issued by OIG.
Instead, OIG discounts this hard evidence with a back-hand remark: "Arkansas officials claimed
that they did not have the capability to input a significant violator flag into AFS until March 24, 1997."
Draft Report at 9 (Emphasis added). Thus, OIG discounts what really happened regarding ADPC&E's
implementation of the T&A/SV Guidance in favor of a statement insinuating the possibility of
misrepresentation or unsubstantiated claims on ADPC&E's part.
This documented fact is clear and crucial. ADPC&E did more than "claim" that it did not have
the ability to enter data to the AFS; we provided direct proof of this fact in EPA's own words. It is
incomprehensible why OIG chooses to ignore this dispositive fact.
5. Timely and Appropriate Enforcement.
If the scope of this audit had remained true to its stated purpose, Chapter 3 of the Draft Report
would not have been included. OIG's previous findings had already revealed a foregone conclusion:
ADPC&E, like several other state agencies, was not consistently following the T&A/SV Guidance as it
34 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
applied to major sources in Arkansas.1 Procedures addressing this deficiency were being established
before the auditors left Arkansas.
Despite ADPC&E's efforts to cooperate, however, OIG embarks on cursory analysis of particular
enforcement cases which leaves the impression that Arkansas' enforcement mechanism is unresponsive.
The Draft Report purports to summarize more than six years of enforcement experiences in five pages of
selected case narratives. ADPC&E objects to OIG's misleading and demoralizing history of Arkansas'
enforcement efforts.
Certain issues raised by OIG can only be described as a prefabricated conclusion in search of a
program deficiency. For instance, the Draft Report faults ADPC&E's enforcement program for not
setting out milestone compliance dates and stipulated penalties in administrative orders, but fails to note
refinements in administrative practice that preceded the OIG audit. Since mid-1996, well before the
audit, all Consent Administrative Orders contain milestones for compliance, as well as stipulated
penalties, as a boilerplate condition which will be deleted only upon a showing that it is inapplicable.2
1 OIG audits from the last two years indicate widespread disregard of the T&A/SV
Guidance by the States. See Pennsylvania Report; Region 6 Report at 15; Region 5 Report at
Chapter 6; EPA Region 2 Review of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Program Relating to Significant Violators at 6.
2 Compliance schedules and stipulated penalties for delay are not always appropriate in
enforcement orders. All ADPC&E Consent Orders contain a condition that the Order only
applies to the specific violations addressed in the Findings of Fact. This condition assures that a
particular Order will not foreclose enforcement action for environmental obligations discovered
independent of the circumstances that prompted that Order. Case in point: A facility noted in the
Draft Report at page 7 was the subject of a Consent Order assessing a penalty for construction of
a source without a permit. The 1994 Consent Order assessed a penalty, but did not apply a
compliance schedule or impose stipulated penalties for failure to comply, nor should it have. The
35 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
Similarly, OIG's recital of various examples of timeliness problems is based upon a false
premise. The report states, "Arkansas addressed the violations of only 1 of 15 sampled significant
violators within the 180-day time frame required by the policy. The remaining 14 facilities were out of
compliance an average of 940 days, as of May 2, 1997. Four of the facilities were out of compliance in
excess of three years.3" The T&A/SV Guidance, however, does not set out time lines for compliance.
The minimum requirement in the Guidance is that violations are addressed within 180 days. Arkansas
did take action on each violation within the 180-day time frame, but not always in a way that met the
Guidance definition of "addressed." The timeliness of "compliance" is not, however, a fair or accurate
measure of Arkansas' compliance with the Guidance or the success of its enforcement program.
Like other States, ADPC&E's adherence to the narrow enforcement options recognized by the
T&A/SV Guidance is often affected by definition issues that stem from disagreement over what
violations are actually "significant." Under the Guidance, a major source that violates any monitoring
1994 Order acknowledged that the facility had already submitted the required application for the
unpermitted source. In contrast, the same facility was issued an Order in 1996 for failure to
conduct a scheduled stack test. The facility was fined, a stack test was scheduled for a date
certain, and a stipulated penalty clause for failure to comply was included.
3 Contrast OIG comments on failure to take timely enforcement concerning Arkansas
with how similar circumstances were reported about Michigan and Illinois. The Arkansas Draft
Report implies that agency inertia was the reason for up to three-year delays in compliance; a
three-and-a-half year period for reaching compliance in a Michigan case was attributed to
"Industry Delays." See Region 5's Air Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Program at
Chapter 5, pg.3.
36 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
or substantial procedural requirement would be classified a "significant violator," regardless of the
emissions that caused its designation as a "major source" or the environmental impact of its emissions.
Consequently, a major source that failed to keep required records of hours of operation of an emergency
standby generator that operated only ten hours during a twelve month period would be a significant
violator. Similarly, if a facility is found during an inspection to be operating an unpermitted source, that
facility would be a significant violator even if the emissions and resulting environmental impact are
insignificant. In order to correct the matter, the facility would be required to submit an application to
modify its permit to include the source and its emissions at the same level of emissions that were emitted
without a permit. At that point, the matter is out of the facility's hands; it can only wait for ADPC&E to
issue the modified permit. If manpower shortages, heavy workloads (at any one time 500 permit
applications may be pending), and prioritization procedures delay ADPC&E's issuance of the permit for
up to two or three years, the facility in question is still required, according to the Guidance, to be carried
as a significant violator until the permit is issued, even if the facility submitted the required application
within thirty days of being notified of the problem. Therefore, while on its face the designation
"significant violator" seems to present a weighty environmental issue, this is not often the case.
Judging from the experiences of Pennsylvania, New York, and Texas, ADPC&E sees no reason to
submit a case-by-case rebuttal of each of OIG's one paragraph synopses. Suffice it to say that OIG's
case analysis simply does not capture all of the competing considerations that must be weighed in any
enforcement response.4
4 OIG's review of one complex case continues to be grossly misleading. The MDF
facility referenced on page 16 of the Draft Report was indeed the subject of a hotly contested
37 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
The actions or inactions of any enforcement agency, including EPA, are not easily captured with
glib second-guessing. In a case involving approval of the Texas SIP, EPA successfully argued to the
federal court of appeals that enforcement duties were inherently discretionary, subject to the agency's
expert determination on "the significance of the alleged violation, the reliability or credibility of the
information received, or the most efficient allocation of the agency's resources in carrying out its many
statutory duties."5 These principles generally stem from a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision
concerning enforcement discretion:
[A]n agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated balancing of a
number of factors which are peculiarly within its expertise. Thus, the agency
must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether agency
resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely
to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits
the agency's overall policies, and indeed, whether the agency has enough
resources to undertake the action at all. An agency generally cannot act against
each technical violation of the statute it is charged with enforcing.6
question of whether PSD had been "triggered" on a particular production line. After extensive
information requests, ADPC&E has now resolved the PSD issue in the company's favor. The
citizen suits have since been settled after reversal of one verdict in the Court of Appeals and
summary judgment decisions in district court regarding two others. In all of these cases, the
courts determined that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence to prove negligence on the
part of the company. Most important, in the last 2-3 years, this facility has been compelled to
expend up to $20 million on pollution control measures, a process that is still on-going. Notably,
emission reductions were achieved through efforts by ADPC&E that would not be recognized in
the Guidance as an enforcement option.
5 CitvofSeabrookv. Costle. 659 F.2d 1371, 1374 (5th Cir. 1981).
6 Heckler v. Chaney. 470 U.S. 821,831 (1985).
38 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
These same principles are applicable to State enforcement programs. With the benefit of
crystal clear hindsight and no concern about resource constraints, however, OIG charges
ADPC&E with inertia because it did not take action consistent with a preconceived enforcement
strategy. If such a charge were made in a context in which ADPC&E could mount a defense that
would be given a fair hearing, OIG's indictment of ADPC&E's enforcement program would be
dismissed out of hand. For these reasons, ADPC&E requests that Chapter 3 be deleted from the
Report.
C. The OIG Report Is Based Upon a Disputed and Unworkable Policy.
1. T&A/SV Guidance in the Real World.
The "SV" designation, as well as properly reporting such to the EPA, is a bookkeeping
mechanism for tracking putatively noncompliant facilities that fall within the comparatively
narrow ambit of federal jurisdiction. On its face, the EPA's T&A/SV Guidance provides
mechanisms and time lines for addressing violations at major sources and reporting these
violations to the EPA, providing EPA the option to initiate its own enforcement action if it
deems Arkansas' response inadequate. In practice, strict application of the T&A/SV Guidance at
the State level would divert limited resources to inconsequential violations simply because they
fall within the ambit of a federal guidance document, and would force Regional attention away
from national initiatives in favor of relatively inconsequential or otherwise addressed matters. In
other words, compliance with the T&A/SV Guidance is not an accurate measure of overall
39 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
efficacy of a State's enforcement program. At most, it is a measure of how rigidly bureaucratic
the regulatory dialogue between EPA and a State has become.
When an inspection reveals noncompliance, ADPC&E seeks to address all violations,
federal or State, at all sources, and follows through as resources permit to assure that these
violations are corrected. As stated in our response to the initial position papers issued by the
Inspector General, we did not apply the disputed Significant Violator definition in our
enforcement program7. However, each violation was identified and reported to EPA Region 6 in
our monthly Enforcement Activities Report. OIG admits as much in its Draft Report, which
states that they selected their sample for the report from the "monthly Enforcement Activities
reports dated October 1, 1996, and March 10, 1997, provided by Arkansas." Additionally, the
report states that, "case narratives in monthly reports usually provided enough information for
Region 6 enforcement officials to question whether additional facilities should be classified as
significant violators," and, "because Region 6 enforcement did not make significant violator
reporting a priority, it did not verify whether Arkansas had identified all significant violators and
did not utilize information provided by the State concerning facilities' noncompliance." What
the Draft Report fails to note is that, often, ADPC&E charted its efforts to "address" a putative
"significant violator" only after consultation with its cohorts at Region 6.
7 Arkansas is not alone in its failure to adopt the federal data base as its primary tracking
mechanism for enforcement actions. Every OIG audit report on this issue notes that States have
developed their own tracking systems, mostly because the AFS system was deemed unwieldy as
a practical tool.
40 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
ADPC&E does not seek to shift blame for its shortcomings to its partners at Region 6.
Instead, the point here is that ADPC&E was conducting extensive inspections of facilities within
its jurisdiction and was making extensive monthly reports to officials of Region 6. ADPC&E's
contacts with Region 6 even included requests for advice or concurrence on how to proceed in
particularly complex enforcement matters. Region 6 and ADPC&E maintained a constant
dialogue on enforcement cases arising in Arkansas. The gist of this dialogue, however, was not
always entered into the AFS computer system. In fact, the real world circumstances of some
complex cases would thwart any effort to reduce the resolution or "addressing" of the matter to
the narrow contexts allowed in the AFS system. Still, Arkansas and Region 6 are now called to
task for failing to commit their already stressed resources to satisfy this relatively insignificant
data entry problem. The policy implications of this controversy are next discussed.
2. EPA's Recent Implementation of the T&A/SV Guidance.
The February 7, 1992, Seitz and Van Heuvelen Memorandum transmitting the revised
T&A/SV Guidance to the Regions stated the promise of this new approach to oversight:
"This guidance is being revised largely to encourage a greater degree of team-
building and cooperative resolution of Significant Violators by all responsible
agencies, to encourage agencies to give priority attention to those violators which
they believe are most environmentally important, and to permit an increased
degree of agency flexibility in identifying and resolving [SV's]."
These are goals that any governmental agency would embrace. But ADPC&E must agree
with her sister State agencies that EPA's recent application of the revised guidance is antithetical
to achieving interagency cooperation, responsible prioritization, and common sense flexibility.
41 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
After five years' experience with its implementation — culminating with OIG's recent use of this
policy to unjustly pummel state enforcement programs — the States' previous "buy-in" to this
policy is now irrelevant. Serious and widespread dispute between the States and EPA continues
over the definition of an S V. More specific to ADPC&E, the options provided for coding how
the bureaucratic clock is stopped by a violation being "addressed" simply don't apply as a matter
of law or practice in Arkansas (e.g., ADPC&E rather than the Arkansas Attorney General has
primary jurisdiction to bring civil actions, and this State's AG does not have criminal prosecution
authority.) Clearly, this guidance document should be fine-tuned to fit both generic and state-
specific concerns. Until recently, however, this agency sincerely believed that by choosing a
guidance document over a rigid command-and-control oversight regime, EPA valued case-
specific narratives between professionals over the superficial logic of computer software, and
substantive enforcement work over bureaucratic reporting requirements. At least, that is how
ADPC&E negotiated its federal grants and worked enforcement cases with Region 6 oversight
officials for years.
In the OIG's hands, however, the EPA Guidance document is now a rigid template that
leaves no room for human interaction. Given the tenor of this and the previous audit report, OIG
must be signaling that the flexibility implicit in regulatory guidance is gone, replaced by a
adversarial attitude toward oversight of State programs. Whatever new rules apply now,
ADPC&E had no notice that its regulatory program was so grossly out of sync with EPA's
expectations until we received the first draft of the OIG's Report.
42 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
Most likely, OIG will insist, as it did in response to Pennsylvania's objections, that the
T&A/SV Guidance Document is a contractual obligation tied to the receipt of federal grant
funds. If, however, this issue is to be understood in the terms of contracts, then it should be
noted that the law recognizes that habitual or customary practice (i.e., "usage") and past course of
dealing between parties are established principles for judging the performance due under
contracts. See Restatement of Contracts 2d, §§219-221; 223; see also Restatement of Contracts
2d, §205. Here, the parties to the delegation "contract" have been Region 6 and ADPC&E, with
a working understanding of SV reporting requirements. It is EPA Headquarters, through OIG,
that has inserted an unfamiliar usage and course of dealing into the federal relationship with the
States. Thus, it is EPA's unilateral change in how the T&A/SV Guidance is applied that is, to
use the language of contract, unconscionable.
ADPC&E suggests that implementation of the T&A/SV Guidance is an issue best
addressed in the context of grant negotiations between the State and Region 6, not inflammatory
journalism by OIG. Furthermore, given recent developments, ADPC&E submits that this
controversial document is no longer regulatory guidance, but a snare for capturing and
humiliating States that have relied to their detriment on long-standing relationships with their
partners in EPA Regional Offices. If EPA Headquarters, through OIG, has decided after five
years to re-interpret this Guidance and institute an aggressive new implementation strategy, then
EPA is obliged to discuss these new expectations with the States before launching media events
43 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
disguised as audits D. The OIG's Approach to This Issue Violates the Basic Tenets of
Federalism.
Federalism is "a commitment to partnership and active cooperation on the part of
individuals and institutions that also take pride in preserving their own respective integrities."
The federal model is characterized by a spirit of negotiation, mutual forbearance and self-
restraint, and consideration of the consequences of actions.8 The EPA Guidance at issue in this
audit was meant to promote the same principles: partnerships, flexibility, and efficient
prioritization. The point of "guidance" as a regulatory tool — as opposed to intractable
regulations or contract obligations — is to allow the participants in its implementation some
latitude in reaching statutory goals with limited resources.
These OIG audits, however, apply the Guidance in such a categorical and intractable manner
that the goals of the Guidance and the tenets of federalism are forgotten. The efficacy of State
environmental programs is being measured against strict compliance with the T&A/SV
Guidance, and most are found lacking. The States' widespread disenchantment with the
Guidance is certainly evidence that it is not meeting its purported purpose and should be
revisited. Experience has shown, however, that issuance of EPA audit reports such as this draft
will lead to vivid generalizations in the press and feed ammunition to the opponents of regulatory
agencies.
D. Elazar, Exploring Federalism at 154 (Univ. Of Alabama 1987).
44 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
EPA has now decided that strict compliance with the T&A/SV Guidance is a State reporting
requirement of the highest priority. Realigning the bureaucracy to meet EPA's new expectations
can be accomplished without demeaning the integrity of State environmental programs. If EPA
is serious about partnerships with the States and its role in cooperative federalism, it will
abandon oversight by ambush as a way of communicating its new policies to the States.
E. Conclusion.
The T&A/SV Guidance is not an environmental indicator. It is not even a very efficient
tool for prioritizing environmental violations or tracking program compliance. At most, it is a
measure of how dutifully a State agency translates its real world observations into the constraints
of a computer software program.
Now, in contrast to past local practice, EPA Headquarters demands strict adherence to the
Guidance as a high-profile program requirement. In Arkansas, that was accomplished before
OIG issued its first draft report. ADPC&E committed its resources to reviewing its enforcement
records once again in light of the Guidance criteria. And, for the first time since the adoption of
the policy, ADPC&E was given the authority to directly enter data into the AFS system in order
to satisfy the demands of the Guidance.
45 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 2 - ARKANSAS RESPONSE
State compliance with the Guidance is apparently not enough, however. Using the
controversial Pennsylvania Report as a form document, OIG is prepared to issue a factually-
slanted broadside criticizing ADPC&E's enforcement program despite this agency's good faith
attempt to satisfy EPA's unexpected mandate. The Draft Report proceeds beyond the stated
purpose and scope of the audit and second-guesses this agency on individual enforcement matters
that range from the insignificant to the extraordinarily complex. Such an attack is unwarranted
and counterproductive to any constructive dialogue between the State and EPA.
46 Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ABBREVIATIONS
Arkansas
AFS
CAA
enforcement
EPA
guidance
MOU
OIG
permitting
plan
PSD
ABBREVIATIONS
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
Clean Air Act
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to Significant Air
Pollution Violators
Memorandum of Understanding
Office of Inspector General
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
EPA's Five Year Strategic Plan
Prevention of Significant Determination of Air Quality
47
Report No. E1GAF7-06-0014-7100295
------- |