Idaho's Air Enforcement Program
Office of Inspector General
Audit Report
Air
Idaho's Air Enforcement Program
E1GAF8-10-0018-8100249
September 30,1998
September 30, 1998
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Idaho's Air Enforcement Program
Audit Report No. E1GAF8-10-0018-8100249
FROM: Truman R. Beeler
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Western Audit Division
TO: Chuck Clarke
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 10
Attached is our final report titled Idaho's Air Enforcement Program. The overall purpose of the audit was to
evaluate the effectiveness of the State of Idaho's administration and EPA Region 10's oversight of the stationary
source air enforcement program in Idaho.
We concluded that the State's administration and the Region's oversight of the stationary source air enforcement
program for Idaho's significant violators were not sufficient to ensure compliance with federal and State laws
and regulations. We believe that improvements are necessary to prevent threats to public health and the
environment.
This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General has identified and
corrective actions the OIG recommends. This audit report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings
contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on
matters in this audit report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution
procedures. Accordingly, the findings described in this audit report are not binding upon EPA in any
enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of Justice.

-------
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you, as the Action Official, are required to provide our office with a
written response to the audit report within 90 days of the report date. The response should address all
recommendations. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, reference to specific
milestone dates will assist us in deciding whether to close this report.
We have no objection to the release of this report to the public.
We appreciate the cooperation from your staff and the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality staff during this
audit. Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at (415) 744-2445, or
Charles Reisig of our Seattle Office at (206) 553-4032.
Attachment
Distribution: APPENDIX D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, gives EPA authority to set and enforce national standards to protect
human health and the environment from emissions that pollute the air. EPA Region 10 (the Region) has granted
authority to the State of Idaho (the State) to implement and enforce the stationary source air program through
approval of the State Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution in the State of Idaho. The audit
focused on enforcement activities related to stationary source significant violators (SVs) in the State.
OBJECTIVES
The overall purpose of the audit was to evaluate the effectiveness of the State's administration and the Region's
oversight of the stationary source air enforcement program. The specific objectives were to evaluate whether the
State's:
. Enforcement actions were appropriate and penalties were of sufficient magnitude to have a credible deterrent
effect on major air pollution sources;
. Enforcement activities resulted in timely return of sources to compliance; and
. Inspection procedures ensure that all significant air pollution violations were identified.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
The State's administration and the Region's oversight of the stationary source air enforcement program for SVs
were not sufficient to ensure compliance with federal and State laws and regulations. We believe that significant
improvements are necessary to prevent threats to public health and the environment.

-------
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) needs to make significant improvements in its air
enforcement program because: (i) enforcement actions were not appropriate and penalties were not of sufficient
magnitude to have a credible deterrent effect on major air pollution sources; (ii) enforcement activities did not
result in timely return of sources to compliance; and (iii) inspection procedures did not ensure that all
significant air pollution violators were identified. We also found that: (i) emission reports were not reviewed
timely to ensure sources were in compliance with applicable emission limits; and (ii) SV data was not reported
accurately.
The Region's oversight of DEQ's enforcement program also needs significant improvement because the Region
did not: (i) establish enforcement criteria for assessing the State's program; (ii) perform any program reviews of
the State's air enforcement program after April 1993; and (iii) use its enforcement authority effectively when the
State was unwilling or unable to take timely and appropriate enforcement action in response to violations. In
addition, the Region's Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) assurance letter to the Administrator
did not report the weaknesses in the administration and oversight of the State's air enforcement program as a
material deficiency in management controls.
Lack Of Enforcement Against Many Stationary Source Significant Violators
Enforcement actions, including the use of penalties, were often insufficient to bring SVs into compliance with
federally enforceable air regulations and the Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho.
Enforcement actions were neither made nor escalated to deter SVs from gaining an economic advantage as a
result of their violations. Of the few penalties that had been assessed, none included amounts for the economic
benefit gained from noncompliance. Also, the penalties that we reviewed were significantly lower than the
amounts under the guidelines of EPA's Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy.
In addition, DEQ was not meeting EPA's Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to Significant Air
Pollution Violators guidance for timely resolution of the violations.
An adequate enforcement program had not been implemented in the State mainly because DEQ focused on
compliance assistance rather than enforcement to bring sources back into compliance. However, when
compliance assistance failed to timely bring the sources into compliance, appropriate enforcement actions were
not taken. Also, a contributing factor to DEQ's insufficient emphasis on enforcement was the Compliance
Assurance Agreement between DEQ and the Region. This enforcement agreement did not require DEQ to
follow EPA enforcement guidance.
Insufficient Inspections
DEQ's inspection activity did not provide adequate coverage to ensure that all SVs were identified and reported
timely. DEQ did not inspect sources as frequently as required by EPA guidance which states that all major
sources shall be inspected annually and all potential major sources shall be inspected biennially. In addition,
reports of inspections were not prepared timely in accordance with DEQ's guidance. As a result, there is
increased risk that significant air pollution violations will not be identified and resolved within a reasonable
period of time, which can adversely impact human health and the environment. These conditions occurred
because the Region had not required DEQ to meet EPA's Inspection Frequency Guidance, and DEQ's guidance
for timely finalization of inspection reports was not adequately communicated to DEQ inspectors.
Reviews Of Source Emissions Reports Were Not Timely
DEQ did not review source emissions reports timely, resulting in a significant backlog of emissions reports that
were pending review. These reports are required by permits and consent orders and provide important emissions
information that should be reviewed timely to determine source compliance with applicable emission limits. A
lack of review can lead to violations going undetected for long periods of time and enforcement action not being

-------
taken timely. This condition occurred because DEQ did not provide sufficient resources needed to eliminate this
backlog.
Significant Violator List Inaccurate
The Region did not ensure that data reported on the SV lists for the State was accurate and complete. A review
of 37 sources reported on SV lists for DEQ disclosed inaccurate data for half of those sources. EPA uses the SV
list as an oversight tool to ensure that SVs are addressed and resolved timely and appropriately. EPA's guidance
provides definitions of an SV and criteria for the various action dates reported on the SV list. Inaccurate SV
reporting hinders the Region's ability to monitor the timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement actions and
resolution of SVs. This condition occurred because the Region did not establish adequate procedures to ensure
that the data reported on the SV lists conformed to the reporting criteria specified by EPA's guidance.
Insufficient Oversight By The Region
The Region did not perform sufficient oversight of the State's air enforcement program. This contributed to the
weaknesses in the State's enforcement program which did not meet Clean Air Act requirements. Specifically,
the Region did not: (i) establish criteria for assessing the State's enforcement program; (ii) perform any program
reviews of DEQ's air enforcement program after April 1993; (iii) use its enforcement authority effectively when
the State was either unable or unwilling to pursue timely and appropriate enforcement action in response to
violations; or (iv) report the weaknesses in the State's enforcement program as management control deficiencies
to the EPA Administrator as required by the Federal Mangers Financial Integrity Act.
The Region attributed the conditions to three main causes: (i) a loss of positions and experienced staff because
of two recent reorganizations; (ii) difficulty in determining the level of oversight to provide because the states
have requested more autonomy and flexibility under performance partnership agreements; and (iii) a lack of
clear criteria defining oversight under performance partnership agreements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Principal recommendations to the Regional Administrator are to:
•	Require DEQ to develop and implement enforcement policies and procedures which are consistent with
EPA enforcement guidance.
•	Ensure major and potential major source inspection coverage is in accordance with EPA's Inspection
Frequency Guidance.
•	Implement procedures that ensure SV data is accurately reported on the Region's SV lists.
•	Revise the Compliance Assurance Agreement with DEQ to include EPA enforcement guidance as
criteria for assessment of the State's stationary air enforcement program.
•	Conduct, at least annually, evaluations of the State's air enforcement program for SVs for consistency
with EPA guidance.
•	Report the weaknesses in the administration and oversight of the stationary source air enforcement
program for SVs in the State as a management control deficiency in the next FMFIA assurance letter to
the EPA Administrator.
•	Withhold final approval of the State's Title V operating permit program until the State establishes
procedures for enforcement which are consistent with EPA's enforcement guidance.
•	Assume responsibility for enforcement of the stationary source air program if the State is unable or
unwilling to implement an enforcement program consistent with EPA guidance and the Clean Air Act.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation

-------
A draft report was provided to the Region and DEQ on July 31, 1998 for their comments. Both the Region and
DEQ responded to the draft report on August 31, 1998 and their responses are included as APPENDIX C to this
report. The Region concurred with the recommendations and described corrective actions that have been taken
or will be taken. It also commented that it has already taken a number of actions to begin addressing some of the
major findings reported. These actions included frank and open discussions at the highest levels of management
in both agencies to jointly work through the steps to improve DEQ's air enforcement program.
DEQ did not concur with the findings and recommendations. It stated that its programs have performed
according to established agreements and in a manner protective of public health and the environment at all
times. It commented that the report inappropriately emphasized differences in DEQ's administration and
implementation of its program compared to a preestablished set of national criteria that DEQ had never agreed
to strictly comply with. In addition, DEQ stated that strict adherence to national policy as opposed to the
operating principles DEQ agreed to operate its program under in no way points to poor performance or
ineffectiveness in meeting its goals.
The corrective actions taken or planned by the Region will significantly improve the stationary source air
enforcement program in Idaho. We agree with those actions. In regard to DEQ's response, we believe the
conditions described in this report clearly demonstrate a need for major improvements. DEQ's enforcement
actions were not consistent with EPA enforcement guidance and often were insufficient to bring SVs into
compliance with federally enforceable air regulations and the Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air
Pollution in Idaho. While the Compliance Assurance Agreement between the Region and DEQ did not
specifically require DEQ to follow EPA enforcement guidance, it did state that it is DEQ's goal to build an
adequate and balanced compliance program which will result in enforcement processing consistent with EPA's
SV guidance.

-------