^tDsr-%
* o \
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
16-P-0079
December 17, 2015
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this evaluation
to determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has used annual
air monitoring network reviews
and assessments to provide
reasonable assurance that
Region 6's fine particulate
matter (PM2 5) air monitoring
network is achieving its
objectives.
State, local and tribal agencies
monitor the air to determine
compliance with national air
quality standards, including
PM25standards. PIVhscan
lodge in people's lungs,
causing serious health effects
such as heart and respiratory
disease. Monitoring agencies
must prepare annual network
plans and conduct periodic
network assessments to ensure
monitoring requirements are
met and resources are
efficiently used. Our review
focused on Region 6 because
of its large population.
This report addresses the
following EPA goals or
cross-agency strategies:
•	Addressing climate change
and improving air quality.
•	Protecting human health
and the environment by
enforcing laws and
assuring compliance.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566 2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oia.
Listing of OIG reports.
EPA Can Strengthen Its Reviews of Small
Particle Monitoring in Region 6 to Better Ensure
Effectiveness of Air Monitoring Network
What We Found
Generally, state and local annual monitoring
network plans in Region 6 included most
information required by the EPA for PM2 5
monitoring. Also, Region 6 identified several
issues in its review of annual plans to help ensure
monitoring networks were operated in
accordance with requirements. However, annual
plans did not include evidence to demonstrate
monitoring sites were, in fact, in compliance with
More thorough reviews of
air monitoring networks in
Region 6 will better ensure
that PM2.5 monitoring is
adequate to inform and
protect the public. EPA's
AirNow website provides
the public with real-time
air quality data.
siting requirements. A lack of clarity in the EPA's
requirements for demonstrating siting compliance in the annual plan could have
contributed to this happening. The EPA needs to clarify this concept so that
states can better address this annual plan requirement.
It is important that monitoring organizations annually assess site conditions, as
these can change overtime. In one instance, an annual plan did not identify
changed site conditions, resulting in the EPA invalidating years' worth of data.
Another annual plan did not include plans to establish near-road PM2 5 monitoring
sites, instead EPA approved the near-road sites outside of the annual plan
process, which limited the opportunity for public comment. Thorough annual
plans provide reasonable assurance that monitors are located in the correct
areas and will be operated to collect valid data. Properly located and operated
monitors help protect public health by demonstrating whether air quality meets
health standards and provide the public with information on current air quality.
Opportunities exist in Region 6 to improve periodic network assessments, which
are intended to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of the network. The
lack of an established review process resulted in Region 6 accepting incomplete
periodic assessments.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation clarify what
constitutes sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with monitor siting and
operational requirements when developing annual plans; develop a process to
update analytic tools for future assessments; and emphasize the importance of
network assessments. We recommend that Region 6 address state-specific
deficiencies in monitoring plans and assessments and strengthen its network
assessment review process. Based on the EPA's full response, it agreed with all
six recommendations in our report and provided proposed corrective actions for
each. All report recommendations are resolved.

-------