^tosr/iv
2
<
5o
\.
'u
t-
o
*
*¦> /
PflCA^0
.<*
*?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2005-P-00010
March 9, 2005
Why We Did This Review
We sought to determine
whether (1) selected Title V
permits contained adequate
provisions consistent with key
Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements, (2) EPA's
oversight and guidance
contributed to improvements
in Title V implementation,
and (3) Title V had achieved
its goals of improving the
implementation and
enforcement of the CAA.
Background
In 1990 Congress enacted
Federal clean air permitting
requirements designed to
reduce violations and improve
enforcement of air pollution
laws for the largest sources of
air pollution. Known as Title
V, this provision requires that
all major stationary sources of
air pollutants obtain a permit
to operate. More than 17,000
sources are subject to Title V
permit requirements.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/
20050309-2005-P-00010.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and
Oversight of Title V Permits If Program Goals Are To Be
Fully Realized
What We Found
Our analysis identified concerns with five key aspects of Title V permits,
including (1) permit clarity, (2) statements of basis, (3) monitoring provisions, (4)
annual compliance certifications, and (5) practical enforceability. Collectively,
these problems can hamper the ability of EPA, State and local regulators, and the
public to understand what requirements sources are subject to, how they will be
measured, and ultimately to hold sources accountable for meeting applicable air
quality requirements. Factors such as extensive use of incorporation by reference,
failure to fully cite applicable regulations, complex permit format, and lack of
detail in source requirements for testing, monitoring, and reporting had a negative
impact on permit clarity. Also, the practical enforceability of some permits was
limited by vague permit language and insufficient monitoring provisions. Further
EPA guidance is needed in each of these Title V permitting program elements.
EPA's oversight and guidance of Title V activities have resulted in some
improvements in Title V programs; however, areas of further improvement
remain. Many Title V programs have improved as a result of EPA's issuing
formal notices of deficiency, and through EPA's efforts to obtain commitment
letters from selected State and local permitting authorities. However, some EPA
regions have been slow in issuing program evaluation reports for permitting
authorities within their respective regions, and have not responded to public
petitions against Title V permits in a timely manner. For example, of the 31 State
and local agency Title V evaluations completed, EPA regions have only reported
on 14 agencies. Several stakeholders expressed a need for increased EPA
guidance and oversight.
Despite implementation problems, the Title V program has resulted in some
significant benefits. The inclusion of all relevant CAA requirements in one
document has enabled stakeholders to obtain the information needed to
understand the applicable requirements for major emitting sources, and to express
their concerns. Anecdotal evidence suggests that permitting authorities and
industry sources have improved communications, that emissions inventories are
better, that compliance has been achieved more quickly, and that emissions have
been reduced due to the annual requirement for owners or operators to certify
compliance with all applicable CAA requirements.
What We Recommend
We made several recommendations for EPA to, among other things, reduce the
factors that negatively impact permit clarity, improve national Title V guidance,
actively identify monitoring deficiencies in state implementation plans, and
develop a comprehensive Title V oversight strategy. The Agency agreed with
several of our recommendations regarding issuing draft rules and improving EPA
oversight, but disagreed with several others related to issuing Title V guidance.

-------