![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090512010105im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Consolidated Report on OECA's Oversight of Regional
and State Air Enforcement Programs
 |
Office of Inspector
General Audit Report |
| Consolidated Report on OECA's Oversight of Regional and State Air Enforcement Programs | |
| E1GAE7-03-0045-8100244 | |
| September 25, 1998 | |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed six audits on EPA's oversight of the states' air enforcement data. The six states reviewed were located in four of EPA's ten regions. We identified national issues during these audits and have used that work as a basis for this report. The objective of this audit was to determine the functions that the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) needs to perform in order to resolve the deficiencies identified by the previous audits of state enforcement data.
Results-In-Brief
Air enforcement audits disclosed fundamental weaknesses with state identification and reporting of significant violators of the Clean Air Act. This occurred because states either did not want to report violators or the inspections were inadequate to detect them. Without information about significant violators, EPA could neither assess the adequacy of the states' enforcement programs, nor take action when a state did not enforce the Clean Air Act. Numerous significant air pollution violators went undetected, and many of those identified were not reported to EPA.
State and even EPA regions disregarded Agency requirements, or were uncertain whether enforcement documents were guidance or policy. As a result, the effectiveness of air enforcement programs suffered. Moreover, these violators were not made known to the general public. This occurred in large part because EPA and the states did not adhere to EPA's Timely and Appropriate Enforcement policy (TAE) and its Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS).
For EPA's oversight system to work properly, OECA should oversee EPA regions, which are responsible for working with state agencies to promote an effective enforcement program. In response to our six individual audits, states and regions agreed to corrective actions to improve enforcement, and OECA should ensure that they fulfill their commitments.
In addition, OECA needs to undertake actions to address the concerns discussed in this report. OECA had not assigned internal responsibility for the oversight and implementation of CMS. EPA regions did not always know who to contact in OECA for clarification of enforcement issues. OECA did not routinely analyze enforcement data to detect trends and problem areas, and its regional reviews did not always assess the adequacy of regional oversight to identify violators. Air grants did not include specific amounts for enforcement, which resulted in EPA's loss of leverage to ensure state compliance.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
- Continually reinforce EPA regional compliance with the TAE and CMS.
- Assign oversight responsibility for the CMS.
- Work with the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) to earmark Section 105 grant funds to enforcement.
- Perform analysis and quality assurance of enforcement data.
- Conduct evaluations of regional air enforcement programs that assess regional compliance with the TAE and CMS.
- Improve communications with the EPA regions.
- Establish focal points within OECA so that states and EPA regions can obtain clarification of Agency enforcement directives.
EPA RESPONSE
In its August 12, 1998 response to the OIG draft report, OECA agreed with the report's recommendations. OECA stated that many of the findings validated issues that they were aware of, and contributed to their strategies to address them.
OIG EVALUATION
We concur with the Agency's response and the corrective actions that were already taken or proposed. OECA offered some clarifying suggestions and we revised the report accordingly.