EPA REGION 2 REVIEW
OF THE
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
PROGRAM RELATING TO SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
April 28,1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FORWARD ii
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of NYSDEC Program Review 1
Methodology of NYSDEC Program Review 1
Deviation from Planned Methodology 3
Differences between NYSDEC Program Review and PADEP Audit 3
FINDINGS '
NYSDEC SV Identification and Reporting 4
Observations Noted During Program Review 6
FOLLOW-UP and NEXT STEPS
NYSDEC Follow-up Actions Taken 7
Next Steps 7
ATTACHMENTS 9
1. Procedures for NYSDEC Program Review
2. File Review Check List .
3. NYSDEC Region 2 findings
4. NYSDEC Region 8 findings
5. NYSDEC Press Releases
-------
FORWARD
EPA Region 2 expresses thanks to Art Fossa, Donald Spencer, Benjamin Conlon, Mary Ellen
Kris, Michael Kormanik, Thomas Marriott, Daniel Walsh, Thomas Wickerham, Robert Elbura,
Samuel Leiblich, Laurieann Silberfeld, and Paul John of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for their cooperation in this program review.
We acknowledge NYSDEC's commitment to improve their compliance/enforcement program and
the recent actions that they have taken to correct §ome of the problems noted in our review (see
attached NYSDEC press releases).
Special thanks to the following EPA personnel who contributed to this audit: Kenneth Eng, Karl
Mangels, Karen Sect, Yue On Chiu, Avia Eyllon, Sue Leung, Barbara McGany and David Stone.
-------
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF NYSDEC PROGRAM REVIEW
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2's (EPA's) review of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) air enforcement program was
conducted to:
• Determine whether the NYSDEC identified significant violators (SVs) in accordance with
EPA's Timely and Appropriate Policy for Significant Violators (SV/T&A);
• Identify whether NYSDEC reported these SVs to EPA, and
• Obtain an overall perspective of how well the NYSDEC's air compliance/enforcement
program is operating with respect to S V/T&A.
EPA's review of the NYSDEC program was conducted pursuant to an EPA HQ request to
Regional Offices to evaluate state S V reporting following a recent audit performed by the Office
of the Inspector General (IG) of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) air enforcement program.
METHODOLOGY OF NYSDEC PROGRAM REVIEW
• Identified the purpose of the program review and drafted review procedures ~ A draft
proposal for the program review was developed using procedures similar to those used in
the PADEP audit.
• Refined program review procedures based upon discussions between EPA and NYSDEC -
• EPA met with NYSDEC in Tanytown on January 22,1997 and presented the draft
procedures. There were subsequent communications between EPA Region 2 and
NYSDEC to refine the procedure to conduct this program review.
• Selected one large NYS region fRepon 21 and one mid size repon (Region tt for
evaluation - NYSDEC Region 2 consists of the five boroughs of New York Chy and is
the region with the largest number of major sources in the State. Region 8 consists of 11
counties in midwestern New York State.
• Determined numher of files to be reviewed in each region based upon source listings
provided bv NYSDEC — NYSDEC inspectors use a Notice of Compliance Determination
(NOCD) form to document the compliance status of a source after an inspection. Thus,
the NOCD list is expected to be an accurate source of information regarding the number
of sources inspected by NYSDEC. Therefore, EPA used the NOCD lists provided by
-------
NYSDEC which indicated that during FFY'951 and FFY'96 NYSDEC Region 2
conducted 515 inspections while NYSDEC Region 8 conducted 26 inspections. Based on
these numbers and factoring in available resources, EPA decided to target 25% of
NYSDEC Region 2's files and 100% of Region 8's source files for review (a total of 130
and 26 files respectively). In addition, EPA decided to randomly review the files for 25
major7 sources in each region (from major source lists provided by NYSDEC) that were
not listed as having been inspected during the review timeframe.
Identified the names of some cf the files that EPA intended to review to the NYSDEF<^
-------
DEVIATIONS FROM PLANNED METHODOLOGY
NYSDECRegion 2:
»
EPA intended to review up to 25% (or 130) of the 515 sources inspected during FFY'95 and
FFY'96 and 25 additional major sources that were not inspected during this period. However,
because the file reviews took more time than originally anticipated, h was decided to limit
coverage to 82 of the sources that had been inspected (49 major and 33 minor) during FFY'95
and FFY'96, and 18 of the major sources that had not been inspected. However, the 67 major
source files reviewed in NYSDEC Region 2 represents 13% of the 490 major sources in
NYSDEC Region 2 which is comparable to the 12% of major sources reviewed by the EPA 1C in
Pennsylvania (PA).
NYSDEC Region 8:
EPA reviewed a total of 50 files as originally planned (25 "inspected source** files (major and
minor) and 25 files for "not inspected major sources**). However, the list of NYSDEC
inspections conducted in FFY'95 and FFY'96 (e.g. "NOCD" list) provided by NYSDEC Albany
prior to our review was determined to be incomplete. They had in feet inspected 65 sources
(major & minor) in FFY'95/96. Therefore, the files reviewed did not represent 100% of the
universe. EPA relied on a FFY'95/96 Source Management System (SMS) inspection list, not the
"NOCD" list, to select the 25 files of inspected sources and cross checked this list with the major
source list provided by NYSDEC Albany to select the additional 25 major source files that were
not inspected.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NYSDEC PROGRAM REVIEW AND THE PADEP AUDIT
1. In PA, the EPA IG audited the population of potential SVs by examining every Notice of
Violation (NOV) that was issued and sent to EPA Region 3. Since NYSDEC does not issue
NOVs, the review of NYSDEC was based on a random sample of 107 sources (major &
minor) that were inspected during FFY'95/96 and 50 major sources that were not.
2. In PA, the EPA IG dismissed minor sources and focused on NOVs issued to major sources.
In NY, EPA's review also primarily focused on major source files. However, some minor
source files were reviewed to determine a violation rate and ensure the sources did not meet
the criteria of a SV.
3. In PA, the EPA IG focused on whether or not SVs were identified and reported to EPA. In
NY, EPA's review also dealt with the identification and reporting of SVs. However, other
aspects of NYSDEC's enforcement program were also evaluated to obtain a better
understanding of their enforcement program and how h affects implementation of the
SV/T&A Policy (i «• SOPS, organizational structure, data management systems,etc.).
4. In PA, the EPA IG spent five months surveying EPA Region 3 and PADEP procedures and an
additional five months conducting the file audit. In NY, EPA spent four weeks surveying
NYSDEC and approximately one week conducting the review.
-------
5. In PA; the EPA IG audit examined one fiscal year. In NY, EPA'i review covered two Federal
fiscal years (FFY'95 & FFY'96) in order to more accurately assess NYSDEC's record in
identifying and responding to S Vs.
FINDINGS
NYSDEC SV IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING
EPA's findings in this report (see Table I) are based on the definition of SVs as defined in EPA's
SV/T&A Policy. Under this policy, significant violations by a major source would only be
considered "addressed" by a legally enforceable and expeditious administrative/judicial order.
Thus, other actions that NYSDEC may have taken in response to violations found ( e.g.,
compliance assistance) were not recognized as appropriate actions to address violations at these
sources.
EPA reviewed a total of 150 source files in NYSDEC Regions 2 and 8. Of the 150
source files reviewed, 116 of the files pertained to major sources and 34 of the files pertained to
minor sources. Of the 116 major sources, 73 had been inspected and 43 had not been inspected
within the timeframe used in this review. A total of 27 violations were found among the 150 files
reviewed (a 18.0% violation rate).
Of the 73 major sources inspected, EPA found that 9 were SVs, none of which had been reported
to EPA. No significant violations were found among the 43 major sources not inspected in this
timeframe. This would constitute an SV violation rate of 9 of 73 or 12.3%. In addition, none of
the 9 have been "addressed" (as defined by SV/T&A Policy which requires a penalty) by
NYSDEC. At the time of the file review, 5 of the 9 had come into compliance without an
"addressing" action by NYSDEC.
The remaining 18 sources with violations pertained to major sources involving regulations that
were not federally enforceable (not SV by definition) or to minor sources. At the time of the
review, 7 of the 18 have already come into compliance without an "addressing" action by
NYSDEC.
-------
TABLEI
NEW YORK STATE DEC FILE REVIEW
SUMMARY CHART
Nuabcr «T Flfee Reviewed Daring EPA Raffon 2 Prof ran Review
Total files reviewed(major tod minor sources)1
# major sources inspected by NYSDEC in FFY'95 and FFY'96'
# major sources not inspected in FFY'95 and FFY'96
# minor sources inspected in FFY'95 and FFY'96
Total Violations Documented in Source Files
(Observed during EPA Region 2 file review)
#SV ViobtNeferftdcn]b^«ifan«M«nful*tiambyaw4crMum
NYSDEC Region
2 8
100
49
18
33
16
6
50
24
25
1
11
3
SV as a % of total violations found
# Non-SV (ViobtiM) of M»4«lmlly.wfar«MM« r^uUtioeby •n)jernww /Minor
vioUtiao by a major nurot / VtoUtioe by • minor wura)
Non SV as a % of total violations found
SV reported to EPA in FY'95/96 (not tmoeuud with *» EFA RJCMO 2 protna
feview)
S V found during the review that were not reported to EPA
S/O/S 1 6/0/2
0
6
2J
3
TOTAL
a AS)
150
73
43
34
27
9
33.3%
11/0/7
66.7%
2
9
Statistic! on SV Found Durint the EPA Ret Ion 2 Fife Review
SV addressed under SV/T&A Policy by state
# addressed in timely fashion
# addressed with penalties
SV unaddressed under S V/T&A Policy by state
In eompb'anoe without assessed penalties
Out of compliance
0
0
0
6
3
3
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
9
5
4
Suittrttd on Non-SV Found Durint the EPA Retfon 2 FUe Review
Non S V that came into compliance with penalties assessed
Non S V that came into compliance without penalties
Non SV thai remain unaddressed
Non S V almost addressed (referral to legal)
0
6
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
7
6
4
in Allu^ NYSDEC fitfkv 2 aril
•jjea 2 «Dd 2SO auijon fa NYSDEC lUftxa »•
Iter* v« 490 amenta NYCDECRf
rqn^ by NYSDEC RifMBt. OMhtfwlWvw^cfRod>^(«toKrtrrvi«wdbyEM).
NYSDEC'* l>!
-------
OBSERVATIONS NOTED DURING PROGRAM REVIEW
Knowledge ofSV/T&A Policy
NYSDEC Regional staff are not sufficiently knowledgeable on SV/T&A Policy. Various
NYSDEC Regional staff are involved in reporting violations to Albany and are minimally involved
in actions required by the SV/T&A Policy. Some NYSDEC Regional staff were not aware of the
SV/T&A policy at the time of our review.
SV'Data Reporting
NYSDEC's SV reporting process to EPA needs improvement. There is confusion on how SV
information is reported to EPA since roles and responsibilities of staff within NYSDEC are not
clearly defined.
Penalties
EPA identified 9 SVs in our program review of which 5 had already come into compliance at the
time of our review. Although our SV/T&A policy requires that appropriate penalties be assessed
against SVs, none of the 5 sources currently in compliance had penalties assessed against them.
EPA and NYSDEC need to review all SV actions to ensure that appropriate enforcement actions
are taken.
Inspection Documentation
Inspection reports were not found in the majority of the source files reviewed. Instead, NOCDs
were primarily used by NYSDEC to document what equipment or emission points were observed
during an inspection and note a particular compliance status, i.e., non-compliance, in compliance,
source shut down, source removed, or other. The NOCDs are very brief and, in many cases, do
not adequately describe what was done during the inspection. This makes h difficult to verify the
compliance status of a source as reported by a inspector.
The NOCD, however, does not reflect the compliance status of a facility as a whole. Several
instances were found where a NOCD indicated compliance at one portion of the source while
enforcement action was pending at another portion of the facility.
Data Systems
EPA and NYSDEC each have their own data systems, Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS) and Source Management System (SMS), respectively which track compliance and
enforcement information. SMS does not have the capability of transferring inspection data into
AIRS and NYSDEC, at the time of our review, was not a direct user of AIRS. As a result, we
had to rely on SMS not AIRS to obtain the lists of NYSDEC sources for this review. As a result
of this review, EPA also observed some inconsistencies in the way the NYSDEC regional offices
were reporting their inspection numbers into the SMS system.
-------
Additionally, the review found that the Al and A2 emission classifications for many of the
inspection targets have changed over the years because of efforts by the target sources to reduce
their emissions and "cap out" of various applicable regulations. Since NYSDEC has traditionally
placed most of their inspection resources on Al and A2 sources because of their large emission
potential, the Al and A2 classifications in SMS need to be accurate so that NYSDEC will not
target Al or A2 sources that are actually "minor" sources. This file review found that these two
NYSDEC regions, as well as the remaining seven, are aware of this and have been making efforts
to correct the source classifications in their system.
NYSDEC is currently developing a new data system that will include both permitting and
enforcement information. NYSDEC believes that all of the data issues will be addressed once the
new system is in place. NYSDEC anticipates that h will be approximately one and a half years
before the new system will be operational for enforcement purposes. In the meantime, NYSDEC
has started to enter pertinent compliance data, including S V related information, directly into
AIRS.
FOLLOW-UP and NEXT STEPS
NYSDEC FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TAKEN
Following the Tarrytown meeting on January 22,1997, NYSDEC:
• conducted seminars to educate their regional staff on the requirements of the SV/T&A Policy.
• created a unit in Albany to develop new standard operating procedures (SOP) to strengthen
their staffs understanding and implementation of applicable enforcement policies, including
auditing the regional offices to ensure conformity with the SV/T&A policy. Once fully
implemented, these SOPs will ensure that the regions have appropriate and consistent
documentation/enforcement procedures to follow.
• obtained access to AIRS and has started to enter requisite SV information into AIRS.
As of 12/96,' the state had identified a total of 26 SVs in the AIRS database.
As of 2/97, the state had identified a total of 56 SVs in the AIRS database.
As of 4/15/97, the state had identified a total of 152 SVs in the AIRS database.
• has designated an enforcement coordinator in each regional office to ensure that enforcement
matters are pursued in a timely fashion. In addition, NYSDEC has announced plans to
increase its inspections at major sources of air pollution (as outlined in the SV/T&A Policy),
and at sources that emit toxic pollutants.
NEXT STEPS
1. EPA will provide a list of specialized air staff to NYSDEC to facilitate communication
between staff in both agencies in specialized areas. There is a need for EPA/NYSDEC staff to
share and understand each others* issues and concerns in fight of new Federal and State
regulations, and NYSDEC's Title V program.
-------
2. NYSDEC will appoint a task force within DEC to identify issues of concern to the Division of
Air, review the division's staffing and structure and make recommendations to improve its
overall effectiveness and enforcement performance.
3. NYSDEC will establish a computer system that will allow DEC staff to communicate directly
with EPA's Region E office in New York City as well as EPA's national database on air
enforcement and compliance matters.
4. EPA will continue to work with NYSDEC to strengthen and enhance their enforcement
program. EPA and NYSDEC will meet on May 14,1997, to discuss measures to be taken by
NYSDEC to address the issues raised in this report. In addition, a joint enforcement strategy
will be developed to address the newly identified universe of S Vs.
8
-------
ATTACHMENTS
-------
February 7,1997
File Review of
^Pollution Compliance & Enforcement Activities
JEf_SlatJ£Darv Sources of Air Pollution
&lftte_Departipent of Environmental Conservation
£eJu3iaj2j
-------
e. Teams are as follows: One is the team leader who is more familiar with NYSDEC
files. The same staff should also be ones to review files in other stales to maintain
a consistent review format
Region 2: Karen Seet (leader) & Sue Leung
Region 8: Yue On Chiu (leader) & Avia Eyllon
4. The week of February JO, 1997
a. Conduct file reviews at Regions 2 and 8 (Region 2 will begin on Tuesday,
February 11). All staff conducting reviews will ensure that they are consistent in
what they are looking for.
i. Reports of findings from each regional office are to be written
immediately upon return to ACB. The coordinator will consolidate the
two reports into one.
ii. ' EPA's review of NYSDEC files will be conducted in a manner which
ensures the integrity any privilege which NYSDEC is entitled to assert.
EPA's file review will be conducted so as not to impair any such privilege,
or any potential or active enforcement action which may be or has been
initiated by the NYSDEC.
iii. Conduct file reviews/inspectdr/attorney interviews to get supplemental
info. Use the attached checklist
iv. EPA will advise NYSDEC of any indications of violations upon the
completion of a file review. This will allow NYSDEC to take appropriate
action to address the violation.
v. The repon of this file review will be available for comment by the
NYSDEC before the report is finalized and disseminated to persons
outside EPA Region II so that any misunderstandings or misconceptions
would be clarified.
5. By 3/15/97 The consolidated repon is due to ACB management
RESOURCES
We anticipate that 0.64 FTEs will be spent to review two regions. 0.54 FTEs are projected for
file review, and 0.1 FTE for writing the repon of the findings. (See analysis below).
Region 2
Region 8
70 files*
48 files *
llSfiles
8 files /day
8 files /day
X
X
8 hours/day -
8 hours/day*
Total
70
48
118
hours
hours
hours
118 hours / 220 bours/FTE « 0.54 FTEs
-------
CHECKLIST FOR FILE REVIEW
NYSDEC Region.
]. Facility file reviewed: (name and address, contact name and phone number)
Date inspected ______
Incompliance? Yes/No.
If there was a violation, what was done?.
II. If enforcement action was taken, record the following information:
A. county _________
B. state registration number ____________
C. facility size •
D. SIC code
E. rule(s) violated
F. type of violation (i.e., emission, recordkeeping, permit, notification, reporting.
testing)
G. Record information on enforcement action that has been taken as follows:
1. NOCD (NOV) date issued
2. referral to Attorney (action type & when) ______
3. meeting w/company (when; any commitments)
4. draft consent order (dates) ________
5. final order (date) .
6. penalty (assessed & suspended) ______
Comments:
in. If no enforcement action was taken, was compliance assistance provided? Yes / No
If yes, did the facility get back to compliance? When?
IV. If no compliance assistance was provided or enforcement action taken, what was done?
Notify NYSDEC of any indications of violations at this point. This will allow NYSDEC
to take immediate action.
-------
EPA Audit of NYSDEC Region 2
February 10-14,1997
Number of Files Reviewed:
• 81 facilities reported as inspected in FFY-95 and 96 (70 facilities reported in compliance
and 11 facilities reported in violation)
• 19 Title V facilities reported as not inspected in FFY'95 and 96
Total 100 facilities
M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Summary Table
Total Violations Found
•#SV
•#non-SV
SV Universe
• S V reported to EPA
• S V not reported to EPA
•SV addressed by state
# addressed in timely fashion
# addressed with penalties
• SV not addressed by state
• SV resolved (not addressed)
Non SV universe
• Addressed
•Not addressed
• Resolved (not addressed)
16
6
10
0
6
0
0
0
6
3
0
4 (3 are in legal)
6
-------
5V*i found bv EPA review:
1) Source A
(Al)
2) Source B
(Potential T5)
3) Source C
(Potential T5)
4) Source D
(Potential T5)
5) Source E
(Potential T5)
6) Source F
(Potential T5)
SVs resolved but not addressed
1) Source A
2) Source C
3) Source F
Non SV'i found bv EPA review
Inspected 8/21/95 - NOCD dated 12/14/95,228 violation
Inspected 5/30/96 in compliance
Potential VOC - 70 TPY
Inspected 12/29/95 -NOCD dated 3/26/96,228 violation
Potential VOC -35 TPY
Inspected 1/31/95 • 228 violation
NOV issued 4/28/95
Reinspected 7/29/95, in compliance
Potential VOC -65 TPY
Inspected 12/8/94 - 228 & 201 violations
NOV sent 2/16/95
Potential VOC -92 TPY
inspected 7/28/95
NOV sent 5/15/96 for 228 violation
Potential VOC-76 TPY
Inspected 4/25/95
NOV sent 5/8/96 for 228/201 violations
No further action per NSYDEC 2/14/97
No follow-up inspection found
Potential VOC -45 TPY (capped out to resolve violation).
D
2)
3)
4)
5)
Source G
Source H
Source I
Source J
Source K
-------
SVi resolved but not addressed
1) Source G
2) Source H
3) Source I
4) Source J
Facilities not inspected fNOX RACT/201 cases!
1) Source K Facility is installing equipment to reduce emissions.
(Cap out) NOV sent with compliance schedule letter: submit applic for 201 &
227-2, and stack test.
Recommended fines and enforcement to be suspended.
2) Source L Case initiation form for 227-2 and 201 violations
Facility submitted compliance plan and PC issued.
Facility sent stack test protocol to Albany.
3) Source M Letter dated 3/2/95 notifying facility they are referred to Div of
Legal Affairs for formal enforcement action.
NOX enforcement -
4) Source N Inspected 12/1/95
NOX RACT enforcement
5) Source O R2-nnnn-95-mm
NOX RACT enforcement
-------
EPA Audit of NYSDEC Region 9
February 9-13,1997
Number of Files Reviewed:
• 25 facilities reported as inspected in FFY-95 or 96
• 25 Title V facilities reported as "not inspected" in FFY-95 or 96.
Summary Table
Total Violations Found
•#SV
•Non-SV
SV Unrvene
•SV reponed to EPA
•SV not reported to EPA
•SV with an "addressing action"
# of timely "addressing actions".
# of "addressing actions" with penalties
•SV without an "addressing action"
•SV in legal referral for an "addressing action"
•SV that came into compliance without an "addressing action"
Noo-SV Universe
•Non-SV with an "addressing action"
•Non-SV without an "addressing action"
•Non-SV in legal referral for an "addressing action"
•Non-SV that came into compliance without an "addressing action"
Questionable Potential SV. (AddKooal information Needed for Identification)
Total of 11
3
8
Total of 3
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
2
Total of 8
1
5
1
1
4
-------
Summary of the Facility Filei
When there wai a Violation or a Potential Violation
SV's Found bv EPA File Review:
1) SourccA 1993 violations of SIP 228,231,212 and 201. Opacity violation
observed but not properly documented using Method 9 procedures.
Potential NSPS DC and Db violations as well. No "addressing action"
issued. Source is in compliance aw according to file.
2) Source B NSPS XX • failure of to operate controls. Violation found on 1123/96.
No "addressing action" issued. Source is in compliance because they
corrected the problem in 4/96.
3) Source C NSPS OOO and Part 201. NYSDEC made a confidential referral to
legal. Violation found on 9/11/96. No "addressing action" issued yet
SV's Not Reported to EPA:
Same as above
Was an Timelv "Addressing Action" issued1*:
1) Source A no
2)
3)
SourceB
Source C
no
no
Non-SV Violations'
1) Source D
2) Source E
3) Source F
4) Source 0
5) SourceH
6) Source 1
7) Source J
Nor- SIP 228, using non-compliant paint. No "addressing action"
issued.
Non-SIP 228, using non-compliant paint. No "addressing action" issued.
Part 212 at a minor source. Opacity violation observed, but not
documented with Method 9 procedures. No "addressing action" issued.
Facility was reported as being in compliance in 9/3/96.
Marginal compliance because of observation of opacity. Violation was
not documented with Method 9 procedures. No "addressing action"
issued.
Fuel was changed from coal to gas and #2 oD. Possibly a minor source now.
Opacity violation observed (3/8/94), but not documented with Method 9
procedures. No "addressing action" issued
NSPS OOO •failure to suck test. DEC did not detect the violation. No
"addressed action" issued yet.
Not considered an SV because it is in violation of the NOx RACT, which is not
SIP-approved. However, it is a high priority violation. Consent order signed
2/10/97.
S700K penalty
S28K back regulatory fees
S600K security for control equipment
-------
8) Source K Confidential referral to Legal. Don't know for what violation.
Potential SV's Found bv EPA File Review:
(i.e., EPA review determined that there may be possible significant violations at these sources, of which NYSDEC were
not aware - NYSDEC Deeds to follow-up).
1) Source L Potential NSPS GO - failure to submit EER's.
2) Source M Potential NSPS I - failure to suck test
3) Source N Potential NSPS I and OOO - failure to stack test
4) Source O Potential NSPS 0 - failure to submit yearly analyses
-------
7671
OaAftpt
JET
y>u?/ *•
HM /r? * ^
ivntf
F«T
George £. Pttikl, Governor
John P. Csh///, Acting Commissioner
FOR RELEASEt XKUEDXATE
Friday, April IB, 1997
CONTACT* Gary fiheffer
(516) 457-5400
DZC TAKES CTEPfl TO BOL8TIR AZft WrOltClKDlT VROQRAK8
to Jte mjmlgamd/ tmmJt forom foxmmd
New YorX fit«t« Cttpartmant of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) Acting Comroiaaioner John P. Cahill today announced
additional actions to bolster the Department's air enforcement
efforta.
•Protecting and improving the quality of our air is a
fundamental responsibility of government and enforcement Is an
important tool that oust be used to achieve these goals," Cahill
said. 'During try first three months as acting commissioner, it
has become apparent to me that the department's enforcement
resources must be strengthened, particularly in the Division of
Air."
In January, Acting Commissioner Cahill announced a
comprehensive plan to increase enforcement efforts at DEC,
including adding 15 new employee* dedicated to enforcement.
That plan established a new air enforcement unit to provide
support and expertise to other DEC personnel and act as a liaison
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure
•significant violators* are being nonitored pursuant to SPA'a.
Significant Violator Policy. Cahill «aid today two attorneys and
four engineers will be assigned full-time to the unit.
Other actions related to air enforcement announced by Cahill
today include:
* appointing a task force within DEC to Identify issues of
(MOKE)
-------
concern to the Division of Air, review the division's
•taf fing and structure and naka recommendation* to improve
it* overall effectiveness and enforcement performance;
• conducting a national search for director for the Division
of Air;
(MORE)
-------
-a-
* conducting reviews o£ DEC regional air enforcement
activities; and.
• establishing a computer eyetem that will allow DEC »taff
to communicate directly with EPA'a Region XI Office in Hew
York City as well as EPA'* national database on air
enforcement and compliance matter*.
EPA Region 2 Administrator Jeanne W. Pox isaid, 'With the
cooperation of the State, EPA is currently evaluating Mew York's
air enforcement program. I am pleased to eee the step* being
taken by Commissioner Cahill to strengthen the management and
effectiveness of this program. SPA will continue to work with and
support these efforts. A predictable enforcement response is not
only a deterrent to major non-compliera. but also necessary to
ensure that businesses have a .level playing field.*
• Acting Commissioner Cahill said DEC has intensified its
efforts to enter enforcement information into EPA's computer •
database because EPA hed raieed concerns about DEC'a performance
in this area. A substantial amount of data regarding potential
significant air violations has been entered into the EPA database
this past quarter. DEC is reviewing this data and evaluating it
for appropriate enforcement response.
•DEC is committed to working cooperatively with EPA to
ensure that our enforcement efforts related to air quality and
* * * . .
all media are timely, vigorous and fair,* Cahill said.
The enforcement plan announced by Cahill In January aleo
created DEC enforcement coordinators in each of DEC'a nine
regions 'and called for increased inspections en eignificant air
pollution sources.
Cahill aaid be strongly supports DBC pollution prevention
and compliance assistance efforts to help business and others
adhere to environmental laws.
*
•Pollution prevention -and compliance assistance programs are
(MORE)
-------
•a-
1 -the first and best choices for protecting our air, O.and and
water,* Cahill Mid. 'Enforcement, however, can be an effective
environmental protection tool when it i» applied fairly and
consistently.*
•30-
97-55
-------
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
i ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
3 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-1020
NEWS
6iorg9 E. totoU, Governor John ft Cthlll, Acting Commhshn*
TOR 2XLZASES IMMEDIATE COVTAOTt Gary'Shaffer
Thursday, Jan. 30, 3.997 (518) 457-5400
mm.! uofouiicss »LA» TO inMioi EMvaojocHmu, n?oacBcxvT
State Department of Environmental Conservation (DIG) Acting
Commissioner John P. cahill today announced a six-point plan to
bolster enforcement of environmental law* in Haw York State,
building on Governor Gaorga X. Pataki•• success in making New
York Stata a laader in environmental protection and conservation.
"The Pataki Administration baa led the nation for two years
in developing innovative environmental protection policies/
cahill said. "As we implement ether major environmental
initiatives, such as the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act and the
Mow York city watershed agreement, ve also must enhance Mew
York's enforcement efforts.'
Sarlier this month, Governor Pataki asked Cahill to review
DEC'S enforcement policies and to recommend opportunities for
improvement. The resulting plan adds 15 new DEC employees for
enforcement, positions that will be paid for through a 30-day
budget amendment to be introduced by Governor Pataki.m
The Governor previously bad announced that be would provide
an additional $1 Billion in 1997-91 .for new DEC personnel through
a 36-day amendment. Cahill maid the Governor will add f400,000 to
that to belp pay for the new enforcement staff. The amendment
vould pay for a total of 41 new DEC positions.
"Protecting Mew York's sir and water is an immense
responsibility and Governor Pataki has, once again* provided the
leadership and the resources to get the job done/ Cahill maid.
These new people vill not be tied to their desks. They will be
technical staff that will be out in the field performing
inspections and coordinating enforcement.*
(MORE)
-------
•*•
"These steps demonstrate Mew York'* ongoing commitment to
firm enforcement of environmental lavs and regulations, while
ensuring that they are applied fairly and consistently,' Cehill
•aid. "Vigorous environmental enforcement helps create a level
playing field for honest business people. Violators must be
punished appropriately and cannot be allowed to gain an economic
or competitive advantage because of their nonooapliance vith the
law.'
The plan:
• Creates a comprehensive lafoxeesie&t Team at PEC that vill
include select members of DEC'S technical and legal staff to
perform inspections for all forms of pollution (air, water, solid
and hazardous waste) at facilities across New York, especially
those with poor compliance records. The team would be dedicated
solely to these multimedia inspections and would bring
enforcement actions, where appropriate.
* Establishes a &ew air enforcement unit to provide support
and expertise to other DEC personnel and act as a liaison with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (SPA) Region ZZ office
to ensure that "significant violators* are being monitored
pursuant to EPA'S Significant Violator Policy.
* Creates DEC regional enforcement coordinators. The plan
would add a technical staff person in each of Dfic*s nine regions
to serve es regional enforcement coordinator. These coordinators
would ensure enforcement natters are pursued and brought to
resolution in a timely fashion.
* Z&ereases i&speetio&e on significant air pollution
•ourgee. DEC vill concentrate its inspection efforts on major
sources of air pollution e« outlined by ZPA's Significant
Violator Policy. These major sources would include facilities
that emit wore than 100 tons per year of pollutants, as veil as
facilities that emit toxic pollutants.
• * Proposes ehaages to DBC's Cnviroame&tal Benefit Project
Policy/ which allows qualifying businesses, and organizations to
fund environmental projects in partial mitigation of penalties
related to environmental violations. Die's experience vith this
26-aonth-old policy has revealed opportunities for improvement.
Thu revised policy:
~ stipulates that there should be a payable pen<y;
(MORE)
-------
— bans the us* of environmental benefit projects in
instances where grave or serious snvironaental bar* bas
occurred;
— requires DEC to'inereaee penalties for violators Who ssefc
income tax benef it* for expenditures related to
•nvirwaental benefit projects;
— requires that thera ba a clear eonnaction batwaan
violations and tha types and locations of environmental
benafit projaets; and
— raguiras that environmental banafit pro 3 acts ba parfomed
within a 25-aile radius of tha violation (a) that lad to tha
pro j acts.
Cahill said, The Snvironaental Banafit Project Policy can
ba a useful anforcaaaat tool that providas tangibla banafita to
' ' c anvironaant and natural rasouroas of eoaaunitias whara
auvironaental daaaga haa oceurrad. Vhasa projaets aust diractly
bc.-.cfit tha anvirbnaant and hava a elaar ralationship to tha
Tha proposed policy changes will ba published in tha Feb. 11
Environmental Notice Bulletin. DEC vill accept coanants froa the
~ ' .^ic through March 10.
* Opposes audit privilege for violators. Cahill aaid the
fruudKi Administration is opposed to anvironaental audit privilege
i Icias that protect* regulated entities froa disclosing
••' • '.utions revealed in internal audits.
'This kind of policy erects barriers between amvironaental
and the regulated community,' Cahill aaid. *Zt would
the flow of information to regulators and the public.*
Instead, the edainistration supports policies that
: Vuitially provide reduced penalties to those who quickly report
and correct violations, consistent with tha approach taken by
" •"* 0
Cahill said the adainistrative changes Identified in the
" .Adrcaaent plan will ba iaplaaantad as aeon as possible.
Cahill is' supportive of ef forte DEC faes s»d« to
: x busines* and other* comply with environaental laws.
i-uorcanant is another tool to achieve eeaplianea. ^Environaantal
«r-';.roeaent cannot be a goal unto itself . The real goal of any
ironaental enforeeaent policy, and the goal of thia
• •' ,'iniatration, is to protect our air, land and water.*
-10-
------- |