U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CUSTOMER SERVICE * INTEGRITY ~ ACCOUNTABILITY
Improving air quality
Total National Reported Clean
Air Act Compliance-Monitoring
Activities Decreased Slightly
During Coronavirus Pandemic,
but State Activities Varied
Widely
Report No. 22-E-0008
November 17, 2021
6,000
o 5,000
~ 4,000
O
™ 3,000
O
0 2,000
.Q
1 1,000
Historical average
Coronavirus
pandemic begins
¦ pandemic begins
mflliiifll
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
-------
Report Contributors:
Kevin Good
Erica Hauck
Tina Lovingood
Renee McGhee-Lenart
Wendy Wierzbicki
Abbreviations:
CAA
CAA CMS
C.F.R.
ECHO
EPA
FCE
FY
ICIS-Air
OECA
OIG
PCE
SOP
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring
Strategy
Code of Federal Regulations
Enforcement and Compliance History Online
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Full-Compliance Evaluation
Fiscal Year
Integrated Compliance Information System-Air
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Inspector General
Partial-Compliance Evaluation
Standard Operating Procedure
Cover Image: All air-related compliance-monitoring activities conducted, as reported by
state and local agencies, at Title V-major sources nationwide in fiscal
year 2020 compared to the historical average, by month, based on data
from the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online website. The
historical average for October, November, and December is based on fiscal
years 2017-2019 data. The historical average for all other months is based
on fiscal years 2016-2019 data. (EPA OIG image)
Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At a Glance
22-E-0008
November 17, 2021
Why We Did This Evaluation
We conducted this evaluation to:
• Assess the impacts of the
coronavirus pandemic on the
number and type of
compliance-monitoring
activities taken by state and
local agencies at facilities
that emit air pollution.
• Determine what guidance the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency provided
to state and local agencies to
target or prioritize
compliance-monitoring
activities at facilities and how
agencies conducted those
tasks during the pandemic.
The EPA's Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Compliance
Monitoring Strategy recommends
the frequency and type of
activities to be conducted by
delegated state and local
agencies, which then report
those activities to the EPA. We
relied on those reported activities
for our findings and
recommendations.
This evaluation supports an EPA
mission-related effort:
• Improving air quality.
This evaluation addresses these
top EPA management challenges:
• Overseeing states implementing
EPA programs.
• Maintaining operations during
pandemic responses.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
Total National Reported Clean Air Act
Compliance-Monitoring Activities Decreased
Slightly During Coronavirus Pandemic, but
State Activities Varied Widely
What We Found
The coronavirus pandemic marginally impacted
the total number of nationwide compliance-
monitoring activities at facilities that emit air
pollution. However, activities varied widely
among states and territories, with reported
changes in activities at high-emitting sources in
fiscal year 2020 ranging from an 88-percent
decline to a 234-percent increase. Substantially
lower levels of compliance monitoring limit the
deterrent effect that consistent monitoring can
have on facilities' noncompliance and increase
the risk that noncompliance could go undetected
Compliance-monitoring
activities are important to
ensure that facilities
comply with applicable
Clean Air Act
requirements and air
regulations to protect
human health and the
environment and deter
violations that result in
excess emissions.
at facilities.
State and local agencies shifted some types of compliance-monitoring activities
from on-site to off-site. This shift is in accordance with guidance the EPA issued
in July 2020, which provided some flexibility to state and local agencies to count
off-site compliance-monitoring activities toward the Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy, or CAA CMS, commitments for full
compliance evaluations. The EPA, however, has not yet assessed the impact of
this flexibility on the use of off-site full-compliance evaluations to ensure that
evaluations are consistent with the CAA CMS. In addition, while the EPA
convened a workgroup to explore using remote video to conduct off-site
partial-compliance evaluations, the Agency has not yet determined the
conditions under which remote video is technically, legally, and
programmatically feasible and has not finalized its draft standard operating
procedures.
While the EPA did not issue pandemic-specific guidance on how state and local
agencies should prioritize facilities for compliance monitoring, the three state
and local agencies we reviewed told us that they prioritized activities at the
largest emitters of air pollution to meet their commitments under the CAA CMS.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA address the needs of agencies that had
significant declines in compliance-monitoring activities. We also recommend
internal controls to strengthen the EPA's oversight of off-site
compliance-monitoring activities. The EPA provided acceptable corrective
actions and planned completion dates for our six recommendations. All
recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
November 17, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Total National Reported Clean Air Act Compliance-Monitoring Activities Decreased
Slightly During Coronavirus Pandemic, but State Activities Varied Widely
Report No. 22-E-0008
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this evaluation was OE-FY21-0065. This
report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG
recommends. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance
with established audit-resolution procedures.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is primarily responsible for the subjects discussed
in this report.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office provided acceptable planned corrective actions and
estimated milestone dates in response to the OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved
and no further response to this report is required. If you submit a response, however, it will be posted on
the OIG's website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be
provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want
to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction
or removal along with corresponding justification.
FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell
TO:
Lawrence Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Total National Reported Clean Air Act 22-E-0008
Compliance-Monitoring Activities Decreased
Slightly During Coronavirus Pandemic, but
State Activities Varied Widely
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 6
Scope and Methodology 6
Prior Report 8
2 Pandemic Had Small Impact on Total Number of Reported Compliance-Monitoring
Activities, but State and Territory Activities Varied Widely, and Off-Site Activities
Have Not Been Assessed 9
Total Air Compliance-Monitoring Activities in FY 2020 Were Slightly Below
Historical Average 9
Number of Compliance-Monitoring Activities in FY 2020 Varied Across States
and Territories 11
Total Compliance-Monitoring Activities Started Increasing in July 2020 12
State and Local Agencies Reduced On-Site Activities and Increased Off-Site Activities
During the Pandemic 13
EPA Convened Workgroup to Test Using Remote Video to Conduct Off-Site PCEs
but Has Not Yet Finalized Procedures 16
Conclusions 17
Recommendations 18
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 18
3 State and Local Agencies Relied on CAA CMS Guidance to Prioritize Facilities for
Compliance Monitoring During the Pandemic 20
EPA Did Not Provide Pandemic-Specific Guidance on How State and Local Agencies
Should Prioritize Facilities for Compliance Monitoring 20
State and Local Agencies We Reviewed Prioritized Conducting FCEs at Facilities Covered
by CAA CMS 20
Conclusions 21
Status of Recommendations 22
—continued—
-------
Total National Reported Clean Air Act 22-E-0008
Compliance-Monitoring Activities Decreased
Slightly During Coronavirus Pandemic, but
State Activities Varied Widely
Appendixes
A Change in Number of Total Compliance-Monitoring Activities at Title V-Major Sources 23
B Compliance-Monitoring Activities at Title V-Major Sources for State and Local Agencies
Reviewed 25
C Agency Response to Draft Report 30
D Agreed-Upon Corrective Actions and Planned Completion Dates 37
E Distribution 38
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General initiated this evaluation to
assess how the coronavirus pandemic—that is, the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resultant COVID-19 disease-
has impacted air compliance-monitoring activities undertaken by EPA-delegated state and local agencies
to confirm that facilities that emit air pollution are complying with the Clean Air Act, or CAA, and federal
air regulations. The OIG's objectives were to:
• Assess the impacts of the pandemic on the number and type of compliance-monitoring activities
taken by state and local agencies at facilities that emit air pollution.
• Determine what guidance the EPA has provided to state and local agencies to target or prioritize
compliance-monitoring activities at facilities.
• Determine how state and local agencies have targeted or prioritized compliance-monitoring
activities at facilities during the pandemic.
Top Management Challenges Addressed
This evaluation addresses the following top management challenges for the Agency, as identified in OIG
Report No. 20-N-0231. EPA's FYs 2020-2021 Top Management Challenges, issued July 21, 2020:
• Overseeing states implementing EPA programs.
• Maintaining operations during pandemic responses.
Background
The world first became aware of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resultant COVID-19 disease in
December 2019, and the COVID-19 disease quickly spread and became a global pandemic. On March 11,
2020, the World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak a pandemic, and on
March 13, 2020, the president declared the pandemic to be a national emergency. States and territories
across the United States implemented measures to reduce and slow the spread of the virus, such as
stay-at-home orders restricting people from leaving their homes except for essential reasons. Per the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from March 1 through May 31, 2020, 42 states and
territories issued mandatory stay-at-home orders, eight issued advisory stay-at-home orders, and six did
not issue any such orders. In a March 26, 2020 memorandum from the EPA to its governmental and
private sector partners, the Agency recognized the potential impacts from the coronavirus pandemic,
including worker shortages and travel and social distancing restrictions issued by governments and
corporations or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to limit the spread of
the COVID-19 disease.
22-E-0008
1
-------
Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring
The Clean Air Act calls for state and local agencies to work with the EPA to reduce air pollution. The EPA
has delegated much of the implementation of CAA programs to state and local agencies, which for the
purposes of this report includes any delegated agency, whether it is a state, tribal, territorial, or local
agency. These agencies in turn conduct most compliance-monitoring activities at regulated stationary
source facilities. The CAA defines a stationary source as any building, structure, facility, or installation
which emits or may emit any air pollutant. Examples of stationary sources include factories, power
plants, and refineries. Compliance monitoring at stationary sources consists of activities undertaken by
air regulators to assess whether a regulated source is complying with requirements in the CAA and EPA
regulations.
The EPA distinguishes among three types of stationary sources for the purposes of compliance-
monitoring activities:
• Title V-major sources, which are large facilities that emit regulated pollutants over certain levels
measured by tons per year—referred to as major-source thresholds—and have to obtain
operating permits under Title V of the CAA. In general, Title V-major sources have the potential
to emit over 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant or lower in areas with poor air quality.
Some Title V-major sources may be megasites, which the EPA characterizes as "extremely large,
complex facilities."
• Synthetic-minor sources, which are facilities that have the potential to emit regulated
pollutants at or above major-source thresholds but agree to enforceable restrictions to limit
their emissions below these thresholds to avoid being subject to more stringent requirements
for Title V-major sources. Such enforceable restrictions, also called limitations, are included in a
facility's air permit. A subset of synthetic-minor facilities, known as SM-80s, are sources that
emit regulated pollutants at or above 80 percent of major-source thresholds. Synthetic-minor
sources are referred to as "synthetic" because they would be Title V-major sources if not for
their enforceable permit restrictions.
• True minor sources, which are facilities that have the potential to emit regulated pollutants
below major-source thresholds.
These distinctions in source types impact compliance-monitoring requirements for the facility and the
frequency with which the compliance-monitoring activity at the facility should occur.
State and local agencies with delegated authority conduct the following air-related compliance-
monitoring activities at regulated sources:
• Full-compliance evaluations, or FCEs, are comprehensive evaluations conducted on-site or off-
site to assess CAA compliance of a facility as a whole, covering all regulated pollutants and all
regulated emission units within the facility.
• Partial-compliance evaluations, or PCEs, are targeted evaluations conducted on-site or off-site
to assess a facility's CAA compliance regarding a subset of processes, regulated pollutants,
regulatory requirements, or emission units.
• Stack tests reviews are assessments of the results of stack tests conducted at a facility. Stack
tests are conducted to assess whether pollution-control equipment is operating as intended to
22-E-0008
2
-------
assure emission limitations are being met. Stack test reviews may be conducted as part of an
FCE or PCE.
• Title V compliance certification reviews are reviews of self-certification reports submitted by
facilities that are subject to the Title V requirements of the CAA pertaining to operating permits.
In these reports, facilities certify whether they are in compliance with their Title V operating
permits. Title V compliance-certification reviews may be conducted as part of an FCE or PCE.
Based on EPA data, for fiscal years 2016-2020, state and local agencies conducted about 98.5 percent of
all air-related compliance-monitoring activities, with the EPA conducting the remaining 1.5 percent.
Figure 1 shows the average number of compliance-monitoring activities per year reported by state and
local agencies from FYs 2016 through 2019 by type of activity.
Figure 1: Average number of compliance-monitoring activities reported per year by state and local
agencies at all types of stationary sources, FYs 2016-2019
FCEs on-site
FCEs off-site
PCEs on-site
PCEs off-site
Stack tests
Title V
Compliance
Certification
Reviews
Source: OIG analysis of data in the EPA's Enforcement Compliance History Online. (EPA OIG image)
EPA's CAA Compliance-Monitoring Strategy and Compliance-Monitoring Strategy
Plans
The EPA's 2016 Clean Air Act Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy, or CAA CMS, provides
guidance to delegated state and local air agencies on developing and implementing stationary source
compliance-monitoring programs. The CAA CMS is based on the federal fiscal year and focuses on
Title V-major and SM-80 sources of air pollution; the CAA CMS does not list minimum frequencies for
other synthetic minor and true minor sources. Throughout this report, fiscal year refers to the federal
fiscal year, which runs from October 1 through September 30. The CAA CMS recommends that FCEs be
completed at certain minimum frequencies depending on the type of facility, as shown in Table 1.
22-E-0008
3
-------
Table 1: Minimum FCE frequencies recommended by the CAA CMS
by type of facility
Type of facility
Minimum FCE frequency recommended by the CAA CMS
Title V-major
Once every two fiscal years.
Megasite
Once every three fiscal years.
SM-80
Once every five fiscal years.
Source: OIG assessment of the CAA CMS. (EPA OIG table)
We refer to these frequencies as CAA CMS commitments for FCEs. While the CAA CMS policy provides
for both on-site and off-site FCEs, it states that an on-site visit should be conducted, at a minimum, once
every five fiscal years at all Title V-major sources. On-site FCEs are conducted to ensure a compliance
presence in the field, verify record reviews, observe modifications or new construction, and identify any
Title V-major permit deviations. In the years when an FCE is not conducted, state and local agencies
should review annual compliance certifications submitted by Title V facilities and the underlying reports
supporting those certifications.
According to the CAA CMS, delegated state and local agencies should submit a CAA CMS plan to the
appropriate EPA region for discussion and approval every two years, although annual submission is
encouraged, and an alternative time frame may be approved under certain circumstances. These CAA
CMS plans should identify all Title V-major and SM-80 sources and the fiscal year in which each source
will receive an FCE. If delegated agencies want to request different facility evaluation frequencies than
those identified in the CAA CMS policy, the delegated agencies are to negotiate the alternative
frequencies with their EPA region and develop an alternative CAA CMS plan.
In July 2020, the EPA issued guidance providing flexibility to state and local agencies to count off-site
compliance-monitoring activities toward CAA CMS commitments and to adjust their compliance-
monitoring coverage and frequency because of the pandemic in consultation with their respective EPA
regions, without having to submit an alternative CAA CMS plan.
Health Impacts from Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
Title V-major and larger synthetic-minor sources have the potential to emit large amounts of harmful air
pollutants, which can pose serious health concerns when the pollutants accumulate in high-enough
concentrations. Table 2 describes the health impacts of air pollutants that are either directly emitted by
stationary sources of air pollution or formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Most of the
pollutants can impact the respiratory system, which is of particular concern for those with the COVID-19
disease. Studies suggest that there may be a link between long-term exposure to air pollution, including
particulate matter, ozone, and hazardous air pollutants, and the likelihood for more severe health
outcomes for those who contract the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Research suggests that more severe health
outcomes may result directly from pollutants causing damage to the lungs and reducing the lungs'
ability to expel pathogens, as well as indirectly by aggravating preexisting cardiovascular and respiratory
conditions.
22-E-0008
4
-------
Table 2: Health impacts from common stationary source pollutants
Pollutant
Health impacts
Ozone*
Variety of problems, such as sore or scratchy throat; coughing; inflamed and damaged airways; and
aggravated lung diseases, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. Lungs may also
become more susceptible to infection.
Particulate
matter
Variety of problems, including decreased lung function, increased respiratory problems, and
premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
Carbon
monoxide
Exposure to high levels can cause dizziness, confusion, and death. Short-term exposure to high
levels may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain.
Sulfur dioxide
Short periods of exposure can harm the respiratory system and make breathing difficult.
Nitrogen dioxide
Short periods of exposure can irritate airways and aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly
asthma. Longer exposures can contribute to the development of asthma and increase susceptibility
to respiratory infections.
Volatile organic
compounds*
Can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, and nausea; and damage
to the liver, kidney, or nervous system.
Hazardous air
pollutants
Can cause cancer or other serious health problems.
Source: OIG analysis of EPA information. (EPA OIG table)
*Ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds react with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
Minimum Reporting Requirements for Compliance-Monitoring Activities
The EPA has identified the minimum data requirements that state and local agencies are to report to the
EPA in order for the Agency to oversee state and local compliance-monitoring activities. These minimum
data requirements are identified in the EPA's information-collection request titled Air Stationary Source
Compliance and Enforcement Information Collection Reporting (Renewal). According to the EPA's
information-collection request, activities are to be reported when they occur at the following sources:
• Title V-major sources.
• Synthetic-minor sources.
• Sources included in a state or local agency's CAA CMS plan.
• Sources subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants under 40 C.F.R.
part 61.
• Sources subject to a formal enforcement action.
• Sources with a high-priority violation as defined by EPA policy.
State and local agencies are to report certain compliance-monitoring activities for these types of
facilities within certain periods of time. Specifically, state and local agencies are to report:
• On-site and off-site FCEs and Title V compliance certification reviews within 60 days of the
activity.
• Stack test reviews within 120 days of the stack test being performed.
State and local agencies are generally not required to report on-site or off-site PCEs but may do so
voluntarily.
22-E-0008
5
-------
State and local agencies report the required compliance-monitoring information to the EPA through the
Agency's Integrated Compliance Information System for Air, or ICIS-Air, database. The information in
ICIS-Air is publicly available through the Agency's Enforcement and Compliance History Online, or ECHO,
website. Since ECHO'S launch in 2002, use of ECHO website data has increased from approximately
1 million queries in 2003 to approximately 3.5 million queries in 2020. In addition to providing
enforcement and compliance data to the public, regulated entities, nongovernmental organizations,
press, government regulators, and academic researchers, ECHO also provides access to data analysis and
program-management tools.
EPA Oversight of State and Local Compliance-Monitoring Programs
Three of the main tools the EPA uses to oversee state and local compliance-monitoring programs are the
CAA CMS plans, data reported by state and local agencies in ICIS-Air, and the State Review Framework.
Under the State Review Framework, the EPA regions review state and local agencies' compliance-
monitoring and enforcement programs and assess CAA CMS plan implementation and accuracy of
reported data. State Review Framework metrics include data completeness, data accuracy, timeliness of
data entry, and completion of CAA CMS commitments. The EPA generally conducts a review under the
State Review Framework for each state once every five years. According to the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, or OECA, EPA regional offices have discretion on how often to review local
agencies. The EPA makes the results of these reviews publicly available on its State Review Framework
website.
Responsible Offices
OECA and the EPA regions' enforcement offices are responsible for overseeing and making sure
delegated state and local agencies implement a compliance-monitoring program that ensures source
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate enforcement action when
sources do not meet those requirements.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this evaluation from January through August 2021. We conducted this evaluation in
accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation, published in January 2012 by the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards require that we perform
the evaluation to obtain sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
To answer our objectives, we reviewed EPA regulations, policies, procedures, and guidance related to
compliance monitoring. We also reviewed memorandums issued by OECA during the coronavirus
pandemic to identify guidance to state and local agencies on how to target or prioritize facilities for
compliance-monitoring activity. We also interviewed staff and managers from OECA on several
occasions.
To assess the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on state and local agencies' compliance-monitoring
activities, we downloaded data from the ECHO State Air Dashboard on March 18, 2021. We compared
compliance-monitoring activity in the third and fourth quarters of FY 2020—April through September
22-E-0008
6
-------
2020—to FYs 2016-2019. We selected the third and fourth quarters of FY 2020 because they cover the
months after the pandemic began. We refer to the average for the four preceding fiscal years as the
historical average.
Our review included state and local agency-reported data in the 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. While some states have multiple agencies that conduct
CAA compliance-monitoring activities, we conducted our overall analysis at the state or territory level,
thus aggregating the data reported by all the agencies within the state or territory. We did not review
compliance-monitoring activities reported in ECHO for which the EPA was the lead agency because our
objective is focused on activities conducted by state and local agencies.
Our review covered the following compliance-monitoring activities:
• On-site and off-site FCEs.
• On-site and off-site PCEs.
• Stack test reviews.
• Title V compliance certification reviews.
For our analysis, we categorized the data by on-site and off-site compliance-monitoring activities. We
defined on-site compliance-monitoring activities as on-site FCEs and on-site PCEs and off-site
compliance-monitoring activities as off-site FCEs, off-site PCEs, stack test reviews, and Title V compliance
certification reviews. We understand that some stack test reviews may have been conducted on-site,
but they were not specified in the ECHO data. As such, some stack test reviews that were actually
conducted on-site may be categorized in our analysis as off-site activities.
Our review included compliance-monitoring activities for all Title V-major sources, synthetic-minor
sources, and true minor sources reported to ICIS-Air and included in ECHO. OECA staff, however, told us
that the data are most reliable for sources covered by the EPA's information-collection request, in
particular for Title V-major sources. As a result, we separated activity by type of source and conducted
in-depth analyses of compliance-monitoring data for Title V-major sources.
In addition, we selected three state and local agencies for review:
• The Georgia Environmental Protection Division in Region 4.
• The Indiana Department of Environmental Management in Region 5.
• California's South Coast Air Quality Management District in Region 9. Its jurisdiction includes
sources in San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties.
We selected this judgmental sample of agencies based on (1) the size of the state compliance
monitoring program, (2) significant declines in compliance monitoring activities in the third and fourth
quarters of FY 2020 as reported by state and local agencies, and (3) whether they have areas with poor
air quality.
We interviewed these agencies and their corresponding EPA regions about what trends in compliance-
monitoring activity occurred during the pandemic, what guidance state and local agencies received from
the EPA during the pandemic, and how state and local agencies targeted or prioritized facilities for
22-E-0008
7
-------
compliance-monitoring activities during the pandemic. We also reviewed documentation provided by
the state and local agencies, such as governors' executive orders issued, during the pandemic, guidance
the agencies received from the EPA during the pandemic, and internal agency policies or procedures for
inspections during the pandemic.
Data Limitations
We did not conduct independent verification of the accuracy of compliance-monitoring data in ECHO.
Instead, our analyses, conclusions, and recommendations relied on data reported by state and local
agencies to ICIS-Air and included in ECHO. In addition, because the EPA does not require state and local
agencies to report PCEs, our analysis of PCEs is limited only to the ones that were voluntarily reported
by state and local agencies. Further, the EPA does not require compliance-monitoring data for most
minor sources to be reported, so our data are limited to the ones that were voluntarily reported by state
and local agencies. We focused on the number of compliance-monitoring activities conducted and
reported by state and local agencies. We did not assess the quality of the activities that were
undertaken, such as whether FCEs contained all the elements laid out in the CAA CMS.
Prior Report
We previously evaluated the EPA's oversight of state and local compliance-monitoring programs in
Report No. 16-P-0164, Clean Air Act Facility Evaluations Are Conductedbut Inaccurate Data Hinder EPA
Oversight and Public Awareness, issued May 3, 2016. We found that Region 9's management controls
could be improved, in part because 89 percent of the 35 local air districts in California had outdated CAA
CMS plans. We found, as a result, that the EPA had less assurance that local agencies in California were
conducting adequate compliance activities, which increased the risk that excess emissions could impact
human health and the environment. We recommended that the Region 9 administrator "direct
California's local air districts that do not have a current CAA CMS plan to submit draft plans to Region 9
by a specific date" and "provide guidance to California's local air districts as to how and when to submit
new draft CAA CMS plans in the future." The EPA reported that corrective actions to address this
recommendation were complete as of July 2016. OECA told us that it continues to believe that Region 9
has sufficient assurance that the California local air districts are implementing adequate compliance-
monitoring programs and conducting adequate compliance activities. We may conduct future work in
this area.
22-E-0008
8
-------
Chapter 2
Pandemic Had Small Impact on Total Number of
Reported Compliance-Monitoring Activities, but State
and Territory Activities Varied Widely, and Off-Site
Activities Have Not Been Assessed
The coronavirus pandemic marginally impacted the total number of nationwide compliance-monitoring
activities at facilities that emit air pollution, but the number of activities varied widely among states and
territories. Some states and territories had substantial declines, which we define as a decrease of
25 percent or more, in compliance-monitoring activities in FY 2020, while others had marginal declines
or increases. Substantially lower levels of compliance monitoring activity could limit the deterrence
effect that consistent monitoring can have on facilities and increase the risk that noncompliance could
go undetected at facilities.
In response to the pandemic, state and local agencies shifted the type of some compliance-monitoring
activities from on-site to off-site. This shift is in accordance with OECA guidance that provided some
flexibility to state and local agencies to count off-site compliance-monitoring activities toward CAA CMS
commitments for FCEs. The EPA has not yet assessed the impact of this flexibility on the use of off-site
FCEs to ensure that they are consistent with the elements of an FCE as described in the CAA CMS. In
addition, while the EPA convened a workgroup to explore the use of remote video to conduct off-site
PCEs, the Agency has not completed its assessment. We believe that there are opportunities for the EPA
to assess the effectiveness of off-site FCEs conducted during the pandemic and complete its assessment
of the feasibility of remote video in lieu of on-site activities. Completing these actions could enable the
EPA to develop guidance for future emergencies and enhance the efficiency of compliance activities
during normal operations.
Total Air Compliance-Monitoring Activities in FY 2020 Were Slightly
Below Historical Average
The number of total compliance-monitoring activities conducted by state and local agencies at all
facilities as reported in ECHO decreased by 2.1 percent in FY 2020 compared to the average for
FYs 2016-2019. This represents a decline of 1,357 activities—from a historical average of
64,582 activities per year to 63,225 activities in FY 2020, as shown in Figure 2. This total includes the six
types of compliance-monitoring activities reported in ICIS-Air: on-site FCEs, off-site FCEs, on-site PCEs,
off-site PCEs, stack test reviews, and Title V compliance certification reviews.
22-E-0008
9
-------
Figure 2: Total compliance-monitoring activities
at all types of stationary sources in FY 2020
compared to the historical average
64,582
63,225
-2.10%
Historical
Average
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
For Title V-major sources, the decline in FY 2020 compliance-monitoring activities was slightly less than
it was for all types of sources. Specifically, as shown in Figure 3, total activities conducted at Title V-
major sources decreased from a historical average of 43,606 activities per year to 42,741 in FY 2020, a
decline of 1.98 percent.
Figure 3: Total compliance-monitoring
activities at Title V-major sources in
FY 2020 compared to the historical average
43,606
]—1.98%
Historical
Average
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
22-E-0008
10
-------
Number of Compliance-Monitoring Activities in FY 2020 Varied Across
States and Territories
State and local agency-reported data show that total compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major
sources decreased in 33 of 53 states and territories and increased in 20 states. The range of decreases
spanned from 1 percent to 88 percent, as shown in Appendix A. For example, activities in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands declined by over 85 percent and activities in Oregon, Vermont, and
Massachusetts declined by over 30 percent compared to the historical average. Ten states and
territories had a 25-percent or more decline in activities in FY 2020, which we consider to be a
substantial decline. A substantial decline in compliance monitoring could:
• Limit the deterrent effect that consistent monitoring has on facilities' noncompliance.
• Increase the risk that noncompliance could go undetected at facilities.
According to the Agency, although some states and local agencies conducted fewer compliance-
monitoring activities in FY 2020 than the historical average, they still met their CAA CMS commitments,
which OECA told us is a benchmark for providing the needed oversight for deterring noncompliance.
This is because those states and local agencies typically conduct more activities than are recommended
in the CAA CMS. The three state and local agencies we reviewed told us this was the case for them in
FY 2020.
Twenty states had increases in total compliance monitoring, ranging from less than 1 percent to
234 percent. For example, activities in North Carolina and New Mexico increased by over 200 percent
and activities in Illinois, Colorado, and Kansas increased by 50 percent or more compared to the
historical average.
Figure 4 illustrates the trend in compliance-monitoring activities for all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Appendix A contains data on total compliance-
monitoring activities at Title V-major sources for each of these entities.
22-E-0008
11
-------
Figure 4: Percent change in states' and territories' FY 2020 total compliance
monitoring activities at Title V-major sources compared to the historical average
-2%
-48%
7%
-15%
-7%
-43%
\\
27%
-17%
10%
20%
22%
1
¦
54%
-
231%
. J
-5%
-25%
-13%
•I
-32%
-2%
-21%
-28%
4% \
-16
3% ^6%
4%
V ^-33%
.8% O.C., -8%
-13%
Alaska
-16%
-25%
-6% -3%
-13% -6% -8%
10%
28%
Hawaii
-88%
U.S. Virgin
Legend
(Percent change from historical average)
Biqgest decrease No change Biggest increase
-88% 0% 234%
Puerto Rico
Islands /o
Source: OIG image based on ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
Note: Values are rounded.
Total Compliance-Monitoring Activities Started Increasing in
July 2020
State and local agency-reported data show that the number of total compliance-monitoring activities at
Title V-major sources was lower than the historical average from March through June 2020 but higher
than the national average from July through September 2020, as shown in Figure 5. Specifically, we
found that the number of compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources was 16 percent
below the historical average in the third quarter of FY 2020, which covers the period from April through
June 2020, In contrast, the number of compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources was
9 percent above the historical average in the fourth quarter of FY 2020, which covers from July through
September 2020, which indicates that, on a national level, state and local agencies were able to recover
in July through September and partially make up for the decreases they experienced in the earliest
months of the pandemic.
22-E-0008
12
-------
Figure 5: Total compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources nationwide in FY 2020
compared to the historical average,* by month
Coronavirus
Historical average . pandemic begins
iiiiiiiniii
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
State and Local Agencies Reduced On-Site Activities and Increased
Off-Site Activities During the Pandemic
State arid local agencies decreased the number of on-site compliance-monitoring activities in FY 2020.
Specifically, on-site compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources in FY 2020 declined by
25 percent—on-site FCEs and on-site PCEs declined by 19 percent and 34 percent respectively when
compared to the historical average. Off-site activities, however, increased by 4 percent. Although the
shift to off-site activities is reasonable given the challenges posed by the pandemic and the need to
protect the safety of inspectors, off-site activities may not be as effective as on-site activities in
assessing compliance or detecting violations. For example, the CAA CMS notes that an on-site visit
should be conducted, at a minimum, once every five fiscal years at all Title V-major sources to ensure a
compliance presence in the field, verify record reviews, and observe modifications or new construction
at a facility.
Safety Concerns and Stay-At-Home Orders Led to Decreased On-Site
Compliance-Monitoring Activities
Forty-five of the 48 states and territories we reviewed that issued mandatory or advisory stay-at-home
orders had decreases in on-site compliance-monitoring activities from April through June 2020 when
compared to their historical average. An Indiana Department of Environmental Management manager
told us that its on-site FCEs dropped in April because it was under governor orders to not conduct
inspections except in critical situations like emergency responses. Similarly, a manager from the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division told us that the division stopped conducting on-site inspections in
mid-March 2020 and resumed them at the end of May 2020.
A South Coast Air Quality Management District manager told us that the district's field inspectors were
deemed to be essential workers, so they were not restricted by the state's stay-at-home orders.
6,000
v
£ ./> 5,000
-------
However, the district temporarily paused on-site inspections while it evaluated how to safely conduct
on-site activities and developed protocols for inspectors. The manager told us that this was done to
protect the safety of not only the district's staff but also the facility personnel and members of the
public with whom inspectors regularly come into contact, such as through the complaint response
process. The manager also said that many facilities also attempted to limit access to outsiders during the
first days of the pandemic until safety protocols were developed and negotiated. The manager further
said that the South Coast Air Quality Management District started conducting on-site activities again in
April 2020 and, following a pause of in-person facility visits during the summer because of COVID-19,
became fully operational in November 2020.
Appendix B shows the level of compliance-monitoring activities for each of the state and local agencies
we reviewed on a month-by-month basis for FY 2020.
Off-Site Compliance-Monitoring Activities, Including FCEs, Increased in FY 2020
While on-site compliance-monitoring declined in FY 2020, off-site compliance-monitoring activities
increased. For example, off-site compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources increased by
4 percent in FY 2020 compared to the historical average. This overall increase in off-site activities was
due to increased use of off-site PCEs and off-site FCEs. The increase in the use of off-site FCEs is
noteworthy because their use has historically been very low. Specifically, the number of off-site FCEs
conducted by state and local agencies at Title V-major sources in FY 2020 increased by 195 percent
compared to the historical average, as shown in Figure 6. State and local agencies in 36 of the 53 states
and territories we reviewed increased their use of off-site FCEs at Title V-major sources in FY 2020.
Agencies in 14 of these 36 states and territories reported conducting off-site FCEs for the first time in
FY 2020.
Figure 6: Off-site FCEs at Title V-major
sources in FY 2020 compared to the
historical average
1,094
195% -
Increase
Historical FY 2020
Average
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
22-E-0008
14
-------
EPA Has Not Assessed Impact of Increased Use of Off-Site Compliance-
Monitoring Activities
In July 2020, OECA issued guidance informing state and local agencies that OECA would count off-site
compliance-monitoring activities toward state and local agencies' CAA CMS commitments during the
pandemic. This guidance was intended to provide flexibility to state and local agencies in meeting
compliance-monitoring commitments under several environmental programs, not just air. As such, the
guidance referred generally to compliance-monitoring commitments rather than specifically to FCEs,
which are only used in the air program. Because CAA CMS commitments are made for FCEs, we
conclude that the guidance was intended to provide flexibility in using off-site activities to meet FCE
commitments.
According to the CAA CMS, an FCE is intended to be a comprehensive evaluation that assesses
compliance of the facility as a whole and addresses all regulated pollutants at all regulated emission
units. FCEs are generally intended to be conducted on-site. However, the CAA CMS policy states that the
types of facilities where an FCE can be conducted without an on-site visit are "limited to a small universe
of facilities and source categories" and that examples of where an off-site FCE may be appropriate
"include, but are not limited to, a gas-fired compressor station, a boiler in a large office or apartment
building, a peaking station and a gas turbine." The CAA CMS states that off-site FCEs are to be reported
only when state and local agencies are able to complete an FCE without having to conduct an on-site
visit to assess control devices and process operating conditions. Moreover, the CAA CMS states that
"decisions on whether an on-site evaluation is not necessary should be made on a facility-specific basis."
The CAA CMS does not specify facility conditions, such as risk level or size under which an off-site FCE
may be appropriate.
At least one state agency, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, expanded the types of
facilities where it conducted off-site FCEs beyond the examples identified in the CAA CMS. For example,
it conducted off-site FCEs at facilities in industries such as wood pellet manufacturing, medical device
sterilization, textile finishing, and fabric coating. A manager from the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division told us that most of the facilities where the off-site FCEs were conducted would be followed up
in the next year with an on-site FCE. However, given the large increase in off-site FCEs conducted in
FY 2020, other state and local agencies may have similarly expanded their use to include facilities not
specifically identified in the CAA CMS or be using off-site FCEs to count toward their CAA CMS
commitments.
While the flexibility provided by OECA's guidance during the pandemic can be positive, it increases the
risk that state and local agencies may conduct off-site FCEs at facilities where the EPA did not intend or
count an activity as an off-site FCE when it does not meet the requirements under the CAA CMS. OECA's
guidance encouraged state and local agencies to discuss plans to substitute off-site compliance-
monitoring activities for FCEs with their region and document any agreements. OECA managers told us
that OECA has not conducted a formal assessment of state and local agencies' use of off-site FCEs during
the pandemic to determine whether they align with the CAA CMS. OECA should assess whether off-site
FCEs at types of facilities other than those specifically identified in the CAA CMS are appropriate.
22-E-0008
15
-------
Regions Provided Instruction to State and Local Agencies on What Constitutes
an Off-Site FCE That Was Not Intended by OECA to Be Official Policy
State and local agencies received instructions from regions during the pandemic on what constitutes an
off-site FCE that were not included in the CAA CMS policy or intended by OECA to be official policy. In a
September 3, 2020 email, a Region 4 manager told a Georgia Environmental Protection Division
manager that off-site FCEs need to include "a remote video or some type of visual component."
Region 4 told us this guidance came from OECA. A South Coast staff member told us that they had also
heard this instruction from Region 9. OECA managers said that they had conversations with some
regional offices about what would be needed to qualify as an off-site FCE and that they discussed that
the EPA regions need to consider the use of remote video or photographs in some cases to bolster
activities to meet FCE requirements. OECA managers told us that it was not their intention that it be
formal policy for all off-site FCEs to require a video or visual component and that this decision should be
made on a case-by-case basis.
The CAA CMS, as noted above, provides for instances in which an FCE can be conducted off-site and
does not require the use of a remote video or other visual component. The differing instruction
provided by the regions and the CAA CMS could result in inconsistent implementation of off-site FCEs.
For example, some state and local agencies may only count off-site evaluations as FCEs if they include a
remote video or visual component while others may not require a remote or video component.
EPA Convened Workgroup to Test Using Remote Video to Conduct
Off-Site PCEs but Has Not Yet Finalized Procedures
In April 2020, the EPA, in coordination with the
Environmental Council of the States, assembled the
Remote Video Partial Compliance Evaluation workgroup to
test the use of remote video to address the coronavirus
pandemic's constraints on the ability of inspectors to
perform routine on-site compliance-monitoring activities
for various environmental programs.
The EPA charged the workgroup with launching several pilot projects to explore whether the use of
remote video for off-site PCEs is feasible from a legal, technical, and programmatic perspective. The EPA
envisioned that the pilot projects would test the use of live video—a representative of the regulated
facility would walk around the facility with a camera and focus on items of interest to an inspector
participating remotely on the live video call.
Workgroup documents also stated that if the pilot projects were successful, remote video PCEs could
also be used after the pandemic to increase efficiency and supplement scarce government inspection
resources to remotely view facility operations. For example, an OECA manager said that there are
several states, such as those with large land masses where an inspector has to drive a day or two to
conduct an on-site inspection, that are interested in using remote video to expand their reach. Although
time frames were established in the workgroup documents for beginning the pilot projects, the
documents did not establish time frames for when the results and lessons learned from the pilot
projects would be used to establish new policies or procedures.
The Environmental Council of the States is a
national nonprofit association made up of
state and territorial environmental agency
leaders that focuses on improving the
capability of state environmental agencies to
protect and improve human health and the
environment.
22-E-0008
16
-------
State and Local Agencies Have Used Remote Video but Documented Results Are
Limited
Air-related pilot projects conducted by state and local agencies have included the use of live video
(1) for inspectors to remotely observe stack tests and (2) to conduct a virtual tour or walk-through to
observe operating conditions. Documented results from these pilot projects are limited, and the
workgroup has not made a formal determination, including documentation, of the parameters or
conditions under which the use of remote video to conduct PCEs is feasible from a legal, technical, and
programmatic perspective.
Workgroup Developed Draft Standard Operating Procedures that Have Not Been
Finalized
The Remote Video Partial Compliance Evaluation workgroup held meetings approximately every
two weeks and developed draft guidance documents in September 2020 regarding remote video PCEs,
including a standard operating procedure describing how to plan for and conduct off-site PCEs using
remote video communication tools.
Two states and one EPA region told us that the draft SOP should be finalized, and OECA believed that,
while the preferred method is on-site inspections, remote video could be used in limited circumstances
to supplement certain on-site activities more efficiently during normal operations. In April 2021, OECA
managers said that it was premature to finalize the SOP or recommend remote video as a tool because
they were still collecting comments and input from the states and gathering information through the
various pilot projects on the legal, technical, and programmatic feasibility of using remote video to
conduct off-site PCEs. OECA managers told us that the workgroup does not have a time frame for
finalizing the SOP.
State and Local Agencies Requested Information on How Remote Video Activities
Could Be Used to Meet FCE Commitments
One programmatic issue that the workgroup and draft SOP have not addressed is whether and how
remote video activities may be used to meet FCE commitments under the CAA CMS. While the purpose
of the workgroup was to determine whether using remote video to conduct PCEs is feasible from a legal,
technical, and programmatic perspective, some state and local agencies asked how remote video could
be used to meet CAA CMS FCE commitments. OECA managers said that they do not envision remote
video replacing on-site FCEs, but a state or local agency could use remote video in conjunction with
reviewing a facility's records to meet the EPA's definition of an FCE per the CAA CMS under certain
conditions. The EPA has not provided additional documentation about these conditions, and the draft
SOP does not identify what documentation would be needed for a state and local agency to use remote
video in conjunction with a records review to qualify as an off-site FCE.
Conclusions
In order to maintain effective compliance monitoring in the future, the EPA should assess lessons
learned from the pandemic relating to the needs of air agencies in the states and territories with
substantial declines in compliance-monitoring activities because of the pandemic, the flexibility
provided by the EPA to state and local agencies to use off-site compliance-monitoring activities to meet
CAA CMS commitments, and the use of remote video to conduct off-site compliance-monitoring
22-E-0008
17
-------
activities. Lower levels of compliance monitoring during the pandemic or in future emergencies could
result in a diminished deterrent effect against noncompliance and less assurance that facilities are
complying with statutory and regulatory requirements intended to protect human health and the
environment.
Without assessing the use of off-site FCEs during the pandemic, the EPA does not have assurance that
activities reported as off-site FCEs were conducted at the proper types of facilities or represented a
comprehensive compliance determination for the entire facility. Completing its assessment of the
remote video pilot projects is important so that the EPA can finalize its SOP and state and local agencies
have a standardized approach to use remote video during emergencies or to improve the efficiency of
normal operations.
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
1. In coordination with the EPA regional offices, evaluate the needs of the state and local agencies
in states and territories that had significant declines, as determined by the EPA, in their total
compliance-monitoring activities for fiscal year 2020 to determine whether technical assistance
is needed and provide it as appropriate.
2. Assess a portion of off-site full-compliance evaluations reported by state and local agencies
during the coronavirus pandemic to determine whether they meet the requirements of a full-
compliance evaluation.
3. After assessing a portion of the off-site full-compliance evaluations reported by state and local
agencies during the coronavirus pandemic, determine whether additional guidance on what
constitutes an off-site full-compliance evaluation, the types of facilities where an off-site full-
compliance evaluation is appropriate, and when a remote visual component is necessary. If such
a determination is made, issue updated guidance on off-site full-compliance evaluations.
4. Determine and document the conditions or parameters under which the use of remote video to
conduct off-site partial compliance evaluations is feasible from a legal, technical, and
programmatic perspective.
5. Finalize the Remote Video Partial Compliance Evaluation workgroup's standard operating
procedures.
6. Determine whether and how remote video can be used in conjunction with a document review
to qualify as a full-compliance evaluation for purposes of the Clean Air Act Stationary Source
Compliance Monitoring Strategy and provide instructions to state and local agencies.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency responded to our draft report on September 22, 2021. See Appendix C for the Agency's full
response. The Agency suggested revisions to our recommendations, which we did not make because we
believe they were either unnecessary or combined actions in such a way that the proposed revisions
changed the intent of the recommendations. For example, the Agency suggested we combine
22-E-0008
18
-------
Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 into a new recommendation with revised language. We do not agree with
combining these recommendations because each recommendation is a distinct, discrete action that
needs to be taken by the Agency.
The Agency provided acceptable corrective actions and planned completion dates in its September 22,
2021 response for Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5. In subsequent communications, the Agency
provided acceptable corrective actions and planned completion dates for Recommendations 4 and 6.
For Recommendation 1, the Agency stated that OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional offices in
evaluating the needs of the state and territorial agencies with reported declines of 25 percent or more
in total compliance-monitoring activities for FY 2020 to determine whether technical assistance is
needed. For those agencies determined to be in need of technical assistance, OECA and the regional
office will coordinate on the delivery of such assistance, as appropriate. We agree with this planned
corrective action.
For Recommendations 2 and 3, the Agency stated that OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional
offices in assessing a portion of FY 2020 off-site FCEs reported by state and local agencies during the
coronavirus pandemic to determine whether they meet the requirements of an FCE. In completing the
assessment, OECA will determine whether additional guidance is needed on what constitutes an off-site
FCE. OECA will also determine the sources for which an off-site FCE is appropriate as well as when a
remote virtual component would be necessary. If such a determination is made, OECA will issue
additional guidance. We agree with this planned corrective action.
For Recommendation 4, the Agency stated that OECA will determine and document the conditions or
parameters under which the use of remote video to conduct off-site PCEs is feasible from a legal,
technical, and programmatic perspective. We agree with this planned corrective action.
For Recommendation 5, the Agency stated that OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional offices in
finalizing the Remote Video Partial Compliance Evaluations SOP. We agree with this planned corrective
action.
For Recommendation 6, the Agency stated that OECA will determine whether and how remote video
can be used in conjunction with document reviews to qualify as an FCE for the purposes of the CAA CMS
and provide instruction to state and local agencies. We agree with this planned corrective action.
All recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending (Appendix D). The EPA also provided
technical comments, and we modified the report as appropriate.
22-E-0008
19
-------
Chapter 3
State and Local Agencies Relied on CAA CMS
Guidance to Prioritize Facilities for Compliance
Monitoring During the Pandemic
OECA did not provide guidance to state and local agencies on how they should prioritize or target
facilities for compliance-monitoring activities during the pandemic. The primary guidance that OECA
issued during the pandemic was intended to provide state and local agencies with some flexibility in
meeting the commitments they had made under their CAA CMS plans. OECA and Region 5 managers
told us that the primary EPA guidance for prioritizing facilities for FCEs is the CAA CMS, and OECA
managers said that this guidance applied during the pandemic. Accordingly, staff from the three state
and local agencies we reviewed told us that they prioritized conducting FCEs at facilities covered by the
CAA CMS during the pandemic and, as result, were able to meet their CAA CMS commitments despite
the challenges posed by the pandemic.
EPA Did Not Provide Pandemic-Specific Guidance on How State and
Local Agencies Should Prioritize Facilities for Compliance Monitoring
OECA managers said that they did not provide guidance on how states should target or prioritize
facilities for compliance-monitoring activities during the pandemic because they wanted to provide as
much flexibility to state and local agencies as possible. OECA and two of the three EPA regions we
reviewed told us that the primary guidance related to compliance monitoring that the EPA issued during
the pandemic was the July 2020 guidance, which was intended to assure state and local agencies that
OECA would work with them to adjust inspection commitments made under their CAA CMS plans.
However, this guidance did not address how state and local agencies should target or prioritize
compliance-monitoring activities during the pandemic. Rather, it was intended to provide states with
some flexibility in how to meet the commitments made under their CAA CMS plans.
OECA and Region 5 managers pointed to the CAA CMS as the Agency's primary guidance on
prioritization, stating that state and local agencies' prioritization is based on facilities covered by the
CAA CMS—that is, Title V-major and SM-80 sources. OECA managers said that this guidance continued
to apply during the pandemic. None of the state or local agencies we reviewed stated that they needed
any guidance on targeting or prioritizing beyond the CAA CMS.
State and Local Agencies We Reviewed Prioritized Conducting FCEs
at Facilities Covered by CAA CMS
During the pandemic, the three state and local agencies we reviewed told us that they prioritized
conducting FCEs at facilities covered by the CAA CMS, particularly Title V-major sources, in order to
meet the CAA CMS commitments for FCEs and assure a compliance monitoring presence at the largest
emitters of air pollution. As a result, all three state and local agencies we reviewed told us that they
were able to meet or exceed the CAA CMS commitments for FCEs despite challenges posed by the
pandemic, and this was partly because they normally conduct FCEs at more facilities than recommended
22-E-0008
20
-------
by the CAA CMS each year. The CAA CMS recommends that agencies conduct an FCE at all Title V-major
sources at least once every two fiscal years and at all SM-80s at least once every five fiscal years.
Although the three state and local agencies we reviewed said that they prioritized facilities covered by
the CAA CMS, they also considered other factors when deciding where to conduct compliance-
monitoring activities during the pandemic. Specifically:
• They said that they responded to complaints from the public. For example, a manager from the
South Coast Air Quality Management District told us that the district continued to respond to all
complaints from the public, consistent with its standard practice.
• The Georgia Environmental Protection Division and the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management said that they considered past enforcement action at facilities.
• The Georgia Environmental Protection Division said that it considered the size of the facility and
whether compliance-monitoring activities could be conducted outside.
Conclusions
While OECA did not issue new guidance on how to prioritize facilities for compliance-monitoring
activities during the pandemic, state and local agencies prioritized conducting FCEs at large emitters that
are covered by the CAA CMS policy, which continued to apply during the pandemic. As a result, the
three state and local agencies we reviewed told us that they were able to meet or exceed the CAA CMS
commitments for FCEs despite challenges posed by the pandemic.
22-E-0008
21
-------
Status of Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
1
18
In coordination with the EPA regional offices, evaluate the needs
of the state and local agencies in states and territories that had
significant declines, as determined by the EPA, in their total
compliance-monitoring activities for fiscal year 2020 to determine
whether technical assistance is needed and provide it as
appropriate.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
9/30/22
2
18
Assess a portion of off-site full-compliance evaluations reported
by state and local agencies during the coronavirus pandemic to
determine whether they meet the requirements of a full-
compliance evaluation.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
12/30/22
3
18
After assessing a portion of the off-site full-compliance
evaluations reported by state and local agencies during the
coronavirus pandemic, determine whether additional guidance
on what constitutes an off-site full-compliance evaluation, the
types of facilities where an off-site full-compliance evaluation is
appropriate, and when a remote visual component is necessary.
If such a determination is made, issue updated guidance on off-
site full-compliance evaluations.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
12/30/22
4
18
Determine and document the conditions or parameters under
which the use of remote video to conduct off-site partial
compliance evaluations is feasible from a legal, technical, and
programmatic perspective.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
12/30/22
5
18
Finalize the Remote Video Partial Compliance Evaluation
workgroup's standard operating procedures.
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
12/30/22
6
18
Determine whether and how remote video can be used in
conjunction with a document review to qualify as a full-
compliance evaluation for purposes of the Clean Air Act
Rfafinnarv Source Cnmriliance Mnnitnrinn Rtratenv and nrnvide
R
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
12/30/22
instruction to state and local agencies.
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
22-E-0008
-------
Appendix A
Change in Number of Total Compliance-Monitoring
Activities at Title V-Major Sources
Table A-l contains information on compliance-monitoring activities conducted at Title V-major sources
for all states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Table A-1: Percentage change in total compliance monitoring activities at Title V-major sources in
FY 2020 compared to the historical average
Average total
compliance-
monitoring Total compliance-
activities per year monitoring
State or territory FYs 2016-2019 activities in FY 202C
Percentage change between FY 2020 and
historical average
Puerto Rico
59
7
-88
U.S. Virgin Islands
7
1
-86
Oregon
295
152
-48
Vermont
25
14
-43
Maryland
715
481
-33
Massachusetts
643
437
-32
Indiana
1,968
1,408
-28
California
2,361
1,756
-26
Texas
1,908
1,426
-25
Tennessee
799
601
-25
Ohio
2,204
1,738
-21
New Hampshire
113
92
-19
South Dakota
180
150
-17
Alaska
741
619
-16
Rhode Island
63
53
-16
Montana
375
320
-15
Wisconsin
793
690
-13
Mississippi
911
793
-13
Kentucky
516
450
-13
Nebraska
157
141
-10
District of Columbia
85
78
-8
Virginia
2,541
2,340
-8
Georgia
3,090
2,857
-8
Wyoming
437
405
-7
Arkansas
578
542
-6
Alabama
1,553
1,465
-6
Florida
2,393
2,261
-6
Oklahoma
1,832
1,745
-5
Iowa
776
743
-4
South Carolina
824
797
-3
Michigan
1,090
1,063
-2
Washington
1,130
1,102
-2
New York
2,311
2,288
-1
Minnesota
595
598
<1
West Virginia
405
413
2
Pennsylvania
3,389
3,485
3
Delaware
395
409
4
Connecticut
160
167
4
North Dakota
135
143
6
New Jersey
314
333
6
Idaho
124
133
7
22-E-0008
23
-------
State or territory
Average total
compliance-
monitoring
activities per year
FYs 2016-2019
Total compliance-
monitoring
activities in FY 202C
Percentage change between FY 2020 and
historical average
Louisiana
642
708
10
Missouri
681
762
12
Maine
343
396
16
Utah
220
265
20
Arizona
324
395
22
Nevada
116
148
27
Hawaii
126
161
28
Kansas
353
530
50
Colorado
383
588
54
Illinois
411
688
67
New Mexico
131
434
231
North Carolina
889
2,970
234
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG table)
22-E-0008
24
-------
Appendix B
Compliance-Monitoring Activities at Title V-Major
Sources for State and Local Agencies Reviewed
The figures below show the following for each of the state and local agencies we reviewed: (1) total
compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources by month in FY 2020 compared to the
historical average; (2) on-site FCEs at Title V-major sources by month in FY 2020 compared to the
historical average; and (3) off-site FCEs at Title V-major sources by month in FY 2020 compared to the
historical average. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management did not conduct any off-site
FCEs in FY 2020.
Georgia
Figure B-1: Total compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources in Georgia in FY 2020
compared to the historical average,* by month
Coronavirus
. pandemic begins
Historical Average
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
22-E-0008
25
-------
Figure B-2: On-site FCEs at Title V-major sources in Georgia in FY 2020 compared to the historical
average,* by month
»
LU
o
U_
0)
55
£=
o
0)
n
E
3
Coronavirus
pandemic begins
50 Historical Average
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
Figure B-3: Off-site FCEs at Title V-major sources in Georgia in FY 2020 compared to the historical
average,* by month
»
LU
o
U_
0)
•M
'55
-------
Indiana
Figure B-4: Total compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources in Indiana in FY 2020
compared to the historical average,* by month
u 250 Historical average
200
150
| Coronavirus
. pandemic begins
100
50
ifcHhiiii
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
Figure B-5: On-site FCEs at Title V-major sources in Indiana in FY 2020 compared to the historical
average,* by month
in
LLI
45 Historical average
O 40
u_
£ 35
55
£ 30
o
0 25
| 20
1 15
z
10
Coronavirus
pandemic begins
Iflfii itll
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
22-E-0008
27
-------
South Coast Air Quality Management District (California)
Figure B-6: Total compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources in South Coast in
FY 2020 compared to the historical average,* by month
$ 160
o
re
Historical average
Coronavirus
ndemic begins
0)
n
E
3
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019- data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
Figure B-7: On-site FCEs at Title V-major sources in South Coast in FY 2020 compared to the
historical average,* by month
50 Historical average
45
»
LU
o
U_
0)
55
£=
o
0)
n
E
3
Coronavirus
pandemic begins
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
* The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
22-E-0008
28
-------
Figure B-8: Off-site FCEs at Title V-major sources in South Coast in FY 2020 compared to the
historical average,* by month
16
Coronavirus
Historical average
Historical average I
pandemic begins!
.imI.ii
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
FY 2020
Source: OIG analysis of ECHO data. (EPA OIG image)
"The historical average for October, November, and December is based on FYs 2017-2019 data. The historical
average for all other months is based on FYs 2016-2019 data.
22-E-0008
29
-------
Appendix C
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
VR0^
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
September 22, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report: "Total National Clean Air Act
Compliance Monitoring Activities Decreased Slightly During Coronavirus Pandemic, but
State Activities Varied WidelyProject No. OE-FY21-0065, August 9, 2021
FROM: Lawrence E. Starfield
Acting Assistant Administrator
STARFIELD
LAWRENCE STARFIELD
Date: 2021.09.22
15:58:58 -04OT
TO:
Tina Lovingood
Director, Pollution Control and Cleanup
Office of Audit
Office of Inspector General
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) appreciates the opportunity to
respond to the draft findings and recommendations presented in the Office of Inspector General
(OIG) draft report, " Total National Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Activities Decreased
Slightly During Coronavirus Pandemic, but State Activities Varied WidelyIn general, OECA is
largely in agreement with the OIG findings; however, we do have one remaining concern
regarding the assessment of the reported data reviewed by the OIG.
EPA agrees with the OIG on the importance of compliance monitoring activities for assuring
facilities comply with applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and air regulations. We
appreciate and agree with the OIG findings that the total number of CAA compliance monitoring
activities decreased only slightly during the coronavirus pandemic and delegated agencies were
able to continue relying upon the CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(CMS) as EPA's primary guidance for prioritizing facilities for evaluation. (OECA provided
flexibility to adjust compliance monitoring commitments during the COVID-19 public health
emergency in a July 22, 2020 letter, and state and local agencies subject to the review informed
the OIG that they were able to continue to meet CMS commitments despite the challenges posed
by the pandemic.) We also agree with the OIG's conclusion that, in relying upon the CMS,
22-E-0008
30
-------
delegated agencies continued to prioritize conducting evaluations at the largest emitters of
potential excess emissions, consistent with EPA guidance.
As the OIG report points out, many state, local, and territorial agencies shifted the type of some
compliance monitoring activities from on-site to off-site compliance monitoring activities in
response to the pandemic consistent with our July 22, 2020 letter. As a result, the data reviewed
by the OIG showed not only that the number of such activities varied widely among the
agencies, but certain agencies reported a substantial decline in activity. We agree with the OIG
that consistent monitoring can deter violations that result in excess emissions and a substantial
decline in compliance monitoring activities may both limit the deterrent effect on facilities'
noncompliance and increase the risk that noncompliance may go undetected.
OECA Concern
In order to provide context to the data reviewed, we believe it would be beneficial for the
OIG report to include a complete assessment of the reported data. To that end, we request
the report be expanded to acknowledge some of the additional factors contributing to the decline
in compliance monitoring activities reported to the national CAA compliance and enforcement
database, ICIS-Air. Documenting these factors in the report will enable a more comprehensive
understanding of the extent to which a reported decline in overall activities actually reduced the
deterrent effect or led to an increase in noncompliance going undetected. These factors include
the following:
1) In reviewing the data reported by the delegated agencies, the OIG analysis was limited
in accounting for all compliance monitoring activity conducted.
a) Some of the data reported by the delegated agencies is voluntarily reported (e.g.,
off-site partial compliance evaluations), and therefore may not reflect the full or
consistent set of activities conducted.
b) Agencies shifted some compliance monitoring activities from on-site to off-site
activities in response to the pandemic, consistent with our guidance. However,
they are generally not required to report off-site activities in ICIS-Air and may
have alternatively documented such activity in another reporting mechanism (e.g.,
spreadsheet; end-of-year report). Thus, the overall decline in reported compliance
monitoring activities as shown in the database may not fully capture all activities
conducted.
OIG Response 1: While we agree that delegated agencies are not required to report most off-site
PCEs, we do note that they are required to report off-site FCEs and stack tests. We explain in the
Scope and Methodology section that reporting of PCEs and activities for most minor sources is
voluntary.
22-E-0008
31
-------
2) As the OIG report confirmed, the agencies continued to successfully prioritize full
compliance evaluations at the largest emitters of air pollution, Title V major sources.
Prior to the pandemic, many agencies typically exceeded their CMS commitments. While
agencies reduced their field presence in response to the pandemic, resulting in a decline
in reported activity, they managed to still meet their CMS commitments, which is a
benchmark for providing the needed oversight for deterring noncompliance.
OIG Response 2: While the three state and local agencies we reviewed told us they typically
exceed CAA CMS commitments and were able to still meet them in FY 2020, we do not have
evidence that this is the case for all states and territories that reported declines in their compliance
monitoring activities. We have added statements to the report to reflect that the Agency told us
some states typically exceed their CAA CMS commitments and thus, despite declines, still met
commitments in FY 2020. We also added a statement that the three state and local agencies we
reviewed told us this was the case for them.
3) The period of the OIG evaluation for which data was compared extended back to fiscal
year 2016. During this time, certain states had a decline in their overall source universe.
With fewer facilities operating, there necessarily would be a decline in the overall
number of compliance monitoring activities. Moreover, the pandemic led to many
facilities closing for an extended period in FY 2020. Consequently, activities such as
stack test observations were not conducted, leading to a reduced number of overall
compliance monitoring activities.
OIG Response 3: According to data in ECHO, at a national level as of October 6, 2021, the number
of operating Title V-major facilities was higher in FY 2020 than any other year covered by the scope
of our review, which was from FYs 2016 through 2020. Thus, while the number of sources may
have declined in some states, the number of operating Title V-major sources was actually highest
in FY 2020. Further, we compared the change in number of Title-V major sources to declines in
total compliance-monitoring activities at Title V-major sources for the ten states and territories
that had declines in FY 2020 of 25 percent or more. We found that the decline in activities could
not be fully explained by a decline in Title-V major sources for any of them. Three of the ten states
and territories with declines of 25 percent or more had increases in their number of Title-V major
sources in FY 2020 compared to the historical average, one had no change, and five had declines
between 0.2 percent and 7.3 percent. Only Vermont had a relatively large decline in Title-V major
sources of 27.3 percent in FY 2020 compared to the historical average, which is less than its decline
of 43 percent in total compliance-monitoring activities. Thus, Vermont's decline cannot be
explained fully by the decline in Title-V major sources.
4) With the shifting away from on-site compliance monitoring activity due to the
pandemic, the decline in the total number of reported activities is, in part, a result of
agencies conducting fewer full compliance evaluations (FCEs) on-site at facilities. A
reduced number of on-site FCEs is a consequence of stay-at-home orders, the need to
protect the health of inspectors, and facilities not operating during the pandemic. [Note:
22-E-0008
32
-------
Once we are able to move beyond the pandemic, it would be helpful to analyze the extent
to which agencies shifted away from conducting on-site FCEs at facilities during the
pandemic with the resumption of a more normal inspection schedule and whether
agencies are shifting back to on-site activities to ensure the necessary and appropriate
field presence.]
OIG Response 4: We agree that the decline in total number of compliance-monitoring activities is
in part due to a decline in on-site FCEs, which was the result of stay-at-home orders and the need
to protect the health of inspectors. We believe this is adequately reflected in the report.
For your consideration, attached are Technical Comments that highlight the above comments and
supplement this overall response.
For the recommended corrective actions, EPA appreciated the August 27, 2021 meeting with the
OIG to discuss suggested changes. We have proposed revisions to the recommendations
consistent with our discussion and believe implementation of the OIG recommendations as
revised would be beneficial. We acknowledge your email of September 9, 2021, which indicates
your office would not accept our proposed revisions. However, we continue to believe the
revisions are appropriate and request that you review our proposed corrective actions and
reconsider the recommendation revisions. We provide below OECA's narrative response to the
revised recommendations and a table with the suggested corrective actions with an estimated
timeframe for completion.
OIG Recommendation 1
EPA Response
OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional offices in evaluating the needs of the state and
territorial agencies with reported declines of 25% or more in total compliance monitoring
activities for fiscal year 2020 to determine if technical assistance is needed. For those agencies
determined to be in need of technical assistance, OECA and the regional office will coordinate
on the delivery of such assistance, as appropriate.
OIG Response 5: We agree with the Agency's proposed corrective actions in response to
Recommendation 1. The Agency also provided an acceptable planned completion date as shown in
the table below. Thus, Recommendation 1 is resolved with corrective actions pending.
OIG Recommendation 2
EPA Response
OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional offices in assessing a portion of fiscal year 2020
off-site FCEs reported by state and local agencies during the coronavirus pandemic to determine
if they meet the requirements of a full compliance evaluation. In completing the assessment,
OECA will determine if additional guidance is needed on what constitutes an off-site FCE, the
22-E-0008
33
-------
sources for which an off-site FCE is appropriate, and when a remote virtual component would be
necessary. If such a determination is made, OECA will issue additional guidance.
OIG Response 6: We note that these corrective actions are in response to Recommendations 2
and 3, which the Agency suggested we combine into one recommendation (see "Table of
Corrective Actions" below). The Agency refers to it here as Recommendation 2. We do not agree
with combining these two recommendations since they are both distinct, discrete actions. We do
agree with the Agency's proposed corrective actions and believe they are responsive to both
Recommendations 2 and 3. The Agency also provided acceptable planned completion dates as
shown in the table below for Recommendation 2 and in subsequent communications for
Recommendation 3. Thus, Recommendations 2 and 3 are resolved with corrective actions pending.
OIG Recommendation 3
EPA Response
OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional offices in finalizing the Remote Video Partial
Compliance Evaluations standard operating procedures.
OIG Response 7: The Agency proposed that we combine Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 into one
recommendation with revised language (see "Table of Corrective Actions" below). The Agency
refers to it here as Recommendation 3. We do not agree with combining them since they are
distinct, discrete actions, and the Agency's proposed edits change the intent of Recommendation
4. We note that this proposed corrective action and planned completion date as shown in the table
below were only responsive to Recommendation 5 and were appropriate to resolve
Recommendation 5 but did not provide corrective actions for Recommendations 4 and 6. In
subsequent communications, the Agency provided acceptable corrective actions and planned
completion dates for Recommendations 4 and 6. Thus, Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 are resolved
with corrective actions pending.
Table of Corrective Actions
Rec#
IG Draft Report
Recommendations
EPA Suggested revisions
Corrective Action and
Completion Dates
1
In coordination with the EPA
regional offices, evaluate the
needs of the state and local
agencies in states and territories
that had significant declines, as
determined by the EPA, in their
total compliance monitoring
activities for fiscal year 2020 to
determine whether technical
assistance is needed and
provide it as appropriate.
In coordination with the EPA regional
offices, evaluate the needs of the state and
local agencies in states and territories that
had significant declines, as dotorminod by
the EPA, substantial declines, as considered
by the OIG to be a decline of 25 percent or
more, in their total compliance monitoring
activities at major sources for fiscal year
2020 to determine whether technical
assistance is needed and provide it as
appropriate.
lune 30, 2022, for
completing evaluation
of needs.
September 30, 2022, to
commence technical
assistance for those
state and territorial
agencies determined to
be in need of such
assistance.
22-E-0008
34
-------
2
Assess a portion of off-site full
compliance evaluations
reported by state and local
agencies during the coronavirus
pandemic to determine whether
they meet the requirements of a
full compliance evaluation.
Combine Recs 2 - 3 to:
In coordination with the EPA regional
offices, assess a portion of off-site FCEs
reported by state and local agencies during
the coronavirus pandemic (fiscal year 2020)
to determine whether they meet the
requirements of an FCE. In completing the
assessment, determine if additional
guidance is needed on what constitutes an
off-site FCE, the sources for which an off-
site FCE is appropriate, and when a remote
virtual component would be necessary. If
such a determination is made, issue
additional guidance.
December 30, 2022, for
completing assessment
of a portion of fiscal
year 2020 off-site FCEs
and, if necessary, issue
additional guidance.
3
After assessing a portion of the
off-site full compliance
evaluations reported by state
and local agencies during the
coronavirus pandemic,
determine whether additional
guidance on what constitutes an
off-site full compliance
evaluation, the types of
facilities where an off-site full
compliance evaluation is
appropriate, and when a remote
visual component is necessary.
If such a determination is made,
issue updated guidance on off-
site full compliance
evaluations.
4
Determine and document the
conditions or parameters under
which the use of remote video
to conduct off-site partial
compliance evaluations is
feasible from a legal, technical,
and programmatic perspective.
Combine Recs 4 - 6 to:
Finalize the Remote Virtual Partial
Compliance Evaluation (RVPCE)
workgroup's standard operating procedures
(SOP). Recognizing the high-level
procedure needs to be adaptable for use
across programs, the final procedure should
provide guidance on conditions or
parameters to ensure legal, technical, and
programmatic sufficiency in any resulting
enforcement response. Specific to the CAA
stationary source program, the SOP also
will provide guidance on the use of
RVCPEs in conjunction with document
reviews to qualify as an off-site FCE for
purposes of the Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
December 30, 2022, for
finalizing RVPCE SOP.
5
Finalize the Remote Video
Partial Compliance Evaluation
workgroup's standard operating
procedures.
6
Determine whether and how
remote video can be used in
conjunction with document
reviews to qualify as a full
compliance evaluation for
purposes of the Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Compliance
Monitoring Strategy and
provide instruction to state and
local agencies.
22-E-0008
35
-------
OIG Response 8: As stated in OIG Responses 5, 6, and 7, we do not agree with the Agency's
proposed edits to our recommendations, and the recommendations remain as stated in Chapter 2.
However, the Agency did provide acceptable corrective actions and planned completion dates for
all recommendations, either in this memorandum or in subsequent communications. Thus, all
recommendations are resolved with corrective actions pending. Appendix D provides a table
showing all agreed-upon corrective actions and planned completion dates.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA
Audit Liaison, at spri ggs.gwendolyn@epa.gov or (202) 564-2439.
Attachment
cc: David Cozad, Senior Advisor, OECA
John Blevins, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4
Cheryl Newton, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5
Deborah Jordan, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 9
John Dombrowski, OECA
Jacqueline Robles Werner, OECA
Rochele Kadish, OECA
Tony Miller, OECA
Rick Duffy, OECA
Bob Scinta, OECA
Robert Lischinsky, OECA
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA
Erica Hauck, OIG
22-E-0008
36
-------
Appendix D
Agreed-Upon Corrective Actions
and Planned Completion Dates
Recommendation
Agreed-Upon Corrective Action
Agreed-Upon
Planned
Completion Date
In coordination with the EPA regional offices,
evaluate the needs of the state and local
agencies in states and territories that had
significant declines, as determined by the
EPA, in their total compliance-monitoring
activities for fiscal year 2020 to determine
whether technical assistance is needed and
provide it as appropriate.
OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional
offices in evaluating the needs of the state
and territorial agencies with reported
declines of 25 percent or more in total
compliance-monitoring activities for FY
2020 to determine whether technical
assistance is needed. For those agencies
determined to be in need of technical
assistance, OECA and the regional office
will coordinate on the delivery of such
assistance, as appropriate.
9/30/22
Assess a portion of off-site full compliance
evaluations reported by state and local
agencies during the coronavirus pandemic to
determine whether they meet the
requirements of a full compliance evaluation.
OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional
offices in assessing a portion of FY 2020
off-site FCEs reported by state and local
agencies during the coronavirus pandemic
to determine whether they meet the
requirements of an FCE. In completing the
assessment, OECA will determine whether
additional guidance is needed on what
constitutes an off-site FCE, the sources for
which an off-site FCE is appropriate, and
when a remote virtual component would be
necessary. If such a determination is made,
OECA will issue additional guidance.
12/30/22
After assessing a portion of the off-site full
compliance evaluations reported by state and
local agencies during the coronavirus
pandemic, determine whether additional
guidance on what constitutes an off-site full
compliance evaluation, the types of facilities
where an off-site full compliance evaluation is
appropriate, and when a remote visual
component is necessary. If such a
determination is made, issue updated
guidance on off-site full compliance
evaluations.
Determine and document the conditions or
parameters under which the use of remote
video to conduct off-site partial compliance
evaluations is feasible from a legal, technical,
and programmatic perspective.
OECA will determine and document the
conditions or parameters under which the
use of remote video to conduct off-site
PCEs is feasible from a legal, technical,
and programmatic perspective.
12/30/22
Finalize the Remote Video Partial
Compliance Evaluation workgroup's standard
operating procedures.
OECA will coordinate with the EPA regional
offices in finalizing the Remote Video
Partial Compliance Evaluations SOP.
12/30/22
Determine whether and how remote video
can be used in conjunction with document
reviews to qualify as a full compliance
evaluation for purposes of the Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring
Strategy and provide instruction to state and
local agencies.
OECA will determine whether and how
remote video can be used in conjunction
with document reviews to qualify as an
FCE for the purposes of the Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring
Strategy and provide instruction to state
and local agencies.
12/30/22
22-E-0008
37
-------
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Deputy Administrators, Regions 1-10
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinators, Regions 1-10
22-E-0008
------- |