I
5
%
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Inspector General

                   At  a   Glance
                                                            10-P-0007
                                                       October 14, 2009
                                                                Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review

According to U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) data, in many
instances EPA and States are
not addressing high priority
violations (HPVs) of the Clean
Air Act in a timely manner
(generally within 270 days).
We undertook this review to
determine why this  is
occurring and what
improvements are planned.
I If HPVs are not addressed in a
timely manner, continued
emissions from facilities may
result in significant
environmental and public
health impacts, deterrence
I efforts being undermined, and
unfair economic benefits
being created.

Background

In 1998, EPA revised a 1992
policy to prioritize and focus
on the most environmentally
important violations of the
Clean Air Act by stationary
sources. EPA and States
jointly determine which
agency will be taking the lead
for each HPV case.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.

To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/
20091014-10-P-0007.pdf
EPA Oversight and Policy for High Priority
Violations of Clean Air Act Need Improvement
 What We Found
HPVs were not being addressed in a timely manner because regions and States did
not follow the HPV policy, EPA Headquarters did not oversee regional and State
HPV performance, and regions did not oversee State HPV performance. According
to EPA data, about 30 percent of State-led HPVs and about 46 percent of EPA-led
HPVs were unaddressed after 270 days.  This can result in significant
environmental and public health impacts.

Regions are not ensuring that sources receive notices of violation within 60 days.
None of the regions reviewed held meetings with their States after HPVs had been
unaddressed for 150 days to discuss case strategy.  Several States addressed HPVs
with informal rather than formal enforcement actions. EPA Headquarters did not
use the  "Watch List" and trend reports to assess performance of regions and States
in addressing HPVs. The regions did not ensure that State-led HPVs are addressed
in a timely manner by taking over delinquent State HPV cases. Regions also did
not always ensure that States entered accurate data into the Air Facility System
database. Although EPA noted some of these deficiencies, it has not developed a
plan to  correct them.

EPA regions reviewed generally conducted status meetings with States to discuss
HPVs.  Also, EPA implemented the State Review  Framework as a means to better
evaluate the performance of its Clean Air Act compliance and enforcement
programs.
 What We Recommend
To improve oversight over HPVs, we recommend that EPA (1) direct regions to
comply with the HPV policy, (2) make needed revisions to the policy, and
(3) implement proper management controls over HPVs.

EPA concurred with two of the recommendations but did not provide sufficient
detail for us to agree with their proposed corrective actions. EPA did not agree
with a third recommendation indicating it needed to revise HPV policy because it
intends to conduct a review of the policy before committing to revising the policy.
For reasons detailed in the report, we believe the recommendation is valid. For
resolution purposes, all recommendations are considered "undecided."

-------