Clean Air Act: EPA Should Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics Program
Published: 2006-06-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) most recent data indicate that 95 percent of all Americans face an increased likelihood of developing cancer as a result of breathing air toxics--pollutants such as benzene and asbestos that may cause cancer or other serious health problems. Sources of air toxics include large industrial facilities, smaller facilities such as dry cleaners, and cars and trucks. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to regulate 190 pollutants from these sources through a multifaceted regulatory program. While EPA issues federal standards, state and local agencies generally administer these standards, and some develop their own rules to complement the federal standards. In this context, GAO was asked to assess (1) EPA's progress and challenges in implementing the air toxics program, (2) available information on the program's costs and benefits, and (3) practices of state and local air toxics programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While EPA has made some progress in implementing its air toxics program mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, most of its regulatory actions were completed late and major aspects of the program have still not been addressed. Most of EPA's progress relates to issuing emissions standards for large stationary sources, although EPA completed these standards about 4 years behind schedule. However, many of the unmet requirements pertain to limiting emissions from small stationary and mobile sources, which collectively account for most emissions of air toxics. The agency faces continuing implementation challenges stemming from the program's low priority relative to other programs and related funding constraints. To this end, the agency lacks a comprehensive strategy for completing the unmet requirements or estimates of resources necessary to do so. Senior EPA officials said the program's agenda is largely set by external stakeholders who file litigation when the agency misses deadlines. As a result of EPA's limited progress, the agency has not addressed health risks from air toxics to the extent or in the time frames envisioned in the Clean Air Act. Senior EPA officials said that issuing standards for large stationary sources had addressed the greatest risks from air toxics and that other clean air programs also control air toxics as a side benefit. However, EPA does not have reliable data on the degree of risk reduction achieved through its regulations. Furthermore, the data that are available suggest that the agency has substantial opportunities to reduce emissions from mobile and small stationary sources. Available information on EPA's efforts to control air toxics is not sufficiently comprehensive to measure the program's total costs and benefits. Specifically, EPA has not comprehensively estimated the national economic costs of all air toxics standards and lacks the data necessary to assess the benefits of these standards, such as decreased incidence of cancer. Information on these impacts would help the agency assess the overall net benefits (total benefits minus total costs) of the air toxics program and compare these effects with those generated by higher-priority clean air programs, such as those intended to address smog. Data on other indicators of the program's effectiveness, such as changes in emissions, concentrations of air toxics in the (ambient) outdoor air, and data on compliance with air toxics standards are also limited and inconclusive. The state and local programs we reviewed use practices that could potentially help EPA enhance the effectiveness of its air toxics program. For example, several state programs have systematic approaches for identifying and prioritizing new pollutants that could inform EPA's efforts to meet the act's requirement to review and update the list of regulated pollutants.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most recent data indicate  that 95 percent of all Americans face an increased likelihood of developing  cancer from air toxics—pollutants such as benzene, asbestos, and  chlorine—by breathing outdoor air. Other adverse health effects  associated with air toxics include damage to reproductive functions and  birth defects. Air toxics are emitted into the air in the United States by  large stationary sources such as industrial facilities, small stationary  sources such as dry cleaners, and mobile sources such as automobiles.  According to the most recent data available, EPA estimates that these and  other sources emitted 4.6 million tons of air toxics in 2002. The Clean Air  Act of 1970 established a program to reduce emissions of air toxics, and  the 1990 amendments to the act significantly expanded the program. Prior  to the amendments, the act had required EPA to identify air toxics that  posed unacceptable health risks and issue emissions standards for sources  of these pollutants. In part because of the limited success of this  approach—EPA established standards for seven air toxics over a 20-year  period—the amendments identified 190 specific air toxics to be regulated,  required EPA to list categories of sources to be regulated, and established  implementation timelines.
Specifically, the 1990 amendments established a range of air toxics  requirements for EPA to implement that generally fall into four categories:  (1) establishing emission standards based on existing pollution control  technologies, called Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT),  for an estimated 84,000 major stationary sources within 158 industries; (2)  examining the remaining health risk (called the “residual risk”) from these  sources 8 years after implementing each MACT standard and, if warranted,  issuing additional standards to protect public health or the environment;  (3) regulating air toxics emissions from small stationary sources, such as  dry cleaners; and (4) evaluating the need for and feasibility of regulation of  air toxics emissions from mobile sources, such as cars, and regulating  these sources based on this evaluation. In addition, the 1990 amendments  required EPA to periodically assess the costs and benefits of the entire  Clean Air Act. This included an assessment of the act’s costs and benefits  prior to 1990 as well as projections of future economic impacts resulting  from the amendments. Information on impacts, such as the costs to  regulated industries and the public health benefits resulting from cleaner  air, is necessary for analyzing whether the benefits of clean air regulations  exceed the costs. Furthermore, estimating the economic impacts of  individual regulations and clean air programs can help EPA compare the  net benefits and cost-effectiveness of its programs under the act. Finally,  the amendments required EPA to periodically review and revise the list of  regulated air toxics. The agency currently regulates 187 substances.
Prior GAO work dating to 1991 identified EPA’s difficulties in regulating  air toxics, including missed deadlines and inadequate funding. Most  recently, a May 2005 GAO report found that EPA had completed MACT  standards for major stationary sources but issued most of them behind  schedule. In addition, the EPA Inspector General, National Academies,  Congressional Research Service, and Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) have identified shortcomings with various aspects of the air toxics  program.
While responsibility for establishing federal standards under the Clean Air  Act rests with EPA, state and local air pollution control agencies generally  implement EPA’s emission standards. The act allows these agencies to  impose more stringent requirements than the federal standards, and some  state and local agencies have developed innovative air toxics programs  that go beyond the federal program, thereby enabling them to address air  toxics concerns that remain unaddressed by EPA’s standards.
In this context, you asked us to assess (1) EPA’s progress toward  implementing the air toxics program and any implementation challenges  the agency faces, (2) available information about the costs and benefits of  EPA’s efforts to control air toxics, and (3) the program design and  management practices of state and local air toxics programs that could  potentially help EPA enhance the effectiveness of the federal program.  You also asked us to assess EPA’s progress in responding to  recommendations pertaining to the air toxics program made by the  National Academies in 2004.
To respond to the first objective, we updated our previous analysis of the  agency’s progress in implementing the air toxics requirements under the  Clean Air Act and reviewed available studies by the National Academies,  OMB, and the EPA Inspector General to identify potential implementation  challenges. Based on this information, we conducted structured interviews  with EPA officials and external stakeholders to identify the most  important challenges. We met with senior air program officials to discuss  the priority of the air toxics program relative to other air programs as well  as priorities within the program. To respond to the second objective, we  analyzed available information on the economic impacts of the program  and data on trends in emissions, health risks, and compliance. We also met  with EPA staff responsible for analyzing the economic effects of clean air  regulations. To respond to the third objective, we conducted interviews  with officials from a nonprobability sample of four state and one local air  toxics programs to identify innovative program designs or management  practices. Among other criteria, we selected programs identified as  innovative by EPA and other stakeholders and that used strategies that  differ from those at the federal level. We focused primarily on practices  that EPA might find useful in addressing its program implementation  challenges and did not evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.  Finally, we obtained information from EPA officials on the agency’s  progress in responding to the National Academies’ recommendations  pertaining to air toxics and describe the status of these efforts in   appendix I. Our work included an assessment of data reliability and  internal controls. Unless otherwise noted, data are sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report. See appendix II for a more detailed description  of our scope and methodology. We conducted our work from June 2005 to  June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA regulates two primary types of air  pollutants. The first category—the so-called “criteria pollutants” for which  EPA has established air quality criteria that limit the allowable  concentrations in the ambient air—includes carbon monoxide, ground- level ozone (smog), lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur  dioxide. EPA sets these standards at a level it believes protects public  health and the needs of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children,  and the elderly. EPA and the states use air quality monitoring to measure  compliance with the standards and develop pollution control strategies to  help bring areas with poor air quality into compliance.
The second category consists of hazardous air pollutants (or “air toxics”)  for which no ambient air quality standards exist, and includes 187  chemicals that cause a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer.  A variety of sources emit one or more of these air toxics (see fig. 1). In  2002, mobile sources emitted 41 percent of all air toxics, small stationary  sources emitted 30 percent, major stationary sources emitted 20 percent,  and other sources, such as fires, emitted 9 percent, according to EPA’s  most recent data.
Table 1 identifies the most widely emitted air toxics, the primary sources  of these pollutants, and some of the adverse health effects associated with  exposure to these substances. It is important to note that the health risks  posed by air toxics vary considerably. Thus, small quantities of more  harmful pollutants can pose greater health threats than large quantities of  less harmful pollutants.
Prior to 1990, the Clean Air Act required EPA to list air toxics it deemed  hazardous and then promulgate regulations for them. However, by 1990,  EPA had regulated only seven such pollutants. In 1990, Congress  dramatically changed the program. Instead of requiring EPA to develop  ambient standards for air toxics as it does for the six criteria pollutants,  the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 listed the air toxics to be controlled  and directed EPA to control them by, among other things, (1) developing  technology-based emissions limits (MACT standards) for major stationary  sources, such as incinerators and chemical plants; (2) regulating emissions  from smaller sources, such as dry cleaners and gas stations; and (3)  evaluating the need for and feasibility of regulations from mobile sources,  such as cars, and regulating these sources based on this evaluation. The  standards for major stationary sources generally require the use of  available control technologies to achieve emissions reductions without the  explicit consideration of a chemical’s toxicity or potential risk. To develop  MACT standards, the 1990 amendments directed EPA to group emissions  points at industrial facilities into categories of similar sources and then  develop regulations for each “source category.” Examples of source  categories include cement manufacturing, hazardous waste combustion,  and semiconductor manufacturing. The next step consisted of evaluating  the level of emissions control achieved by the best-performing facilities in  each source category and using this as the minimum level of control  required throughout the entire source category.
Additionally, the amendments required EPA to review the MACT  standards every 8 years to evaluate any remaining, or residual, health risks  from these sources and identify developments in control technologies.  EPA has combined the residual risk assessments and technology reviews  into a concurrent process. Thus, the agency simultaneously evaluates the  remaining risks from each source category and the availability of new  pollution control technologies. The risk assessment process seeks to  estimate the cancer and other health risks faced by individuals exposed to  toxic emissions. As shown in table 2, the four steps of risk assessment  include hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure  assessment, and risk characterization.
The risk assessment process is limited by scientific uncertainty about the  health effects associated with exposure to air toxics. Nonetheless, the  Clean Air Act’s residual risk program seeks to determine whether the most  exposed individuals face excess cancer risk of more than 1 in 1 million. In  cases where estimated risks exceed this threshold, EPA develops a  residual risk standard that seeks to provide an ample margin of safety for  affected individuals. Figure 2 provides an overview of the regulatory  process for major stationary sources of air toxics, including MACT  standards and 8-year technology and residual risk reviews.
In addition to requirements for major sources, the act required EPA to  develop a comprehensive strategy to control emissions of air toxics in  urban areas, including identifying at least 30 small stationary source  categories that account for 90 percent of the risk from these sources, and  issue regulations by November 2000. EPA has listed 70 small stationary  source categories for regulation. The act also required EPA to assess the  need for and feasibility of air toxics standards for motor vehicles and  fuels, and, based on that assessment, issue regulations to control air toxics  from motor vehicles and fuels.
Table 3 summarizes the 453 actions required of EPA under the air toxics  provisions of the 1990 amendments. Because these actions range in scope  from developing MACT standards to issuing reports, they vary in their  potential to reduce emissions.
EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has primary responsibility for  completing air toxics actions required under the Clean Air Act. Within the  Office of Air and Radiation, responsibility for implementing the air toxics  requirements of the Act rests primarily with the Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards and, to a lesser extent, with the Office of  Transportation and Air Quality. The responsibility for analyzing the health,  economic, and other effects of individual air toxics programs also rests  with these offices. The Office of Policy Analysis and Review supplements  these program-specific analyses by conducting periodic assessments of the  health, ecological, and economic effects of the overall Clean Air Act,  including the air toxics provisions, and coordinating these studies as  appropriate with other EPA offices. In conducting these broader studies,  the Office of Policy Analysis and Review also works with the Advisory  Council for Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis, an independent, multi- disciplinary panel of outside experts organized under the auspices of  EPA’s Science Advisory Board. The agency’s Office of Research and  Development performs scientific research on air toxics to support  regulatory efforts. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  directs efforts to ensure compliance with air toxics requirements. In most  cases, state and local air pollution control agencies implement the  standards developed by EPA. Additionally, the act generally allows these  agencies to impose more stringent requirements than the federal  standards, although some states have enacted laws or rules prohibiting air  pollution control agencies from adopting more stringent requirements.  Nonetheless, some state and local programs have developed innovative air  toxics programs.
section_title: EPA Has Made Limited Progress in Addressing the Clean Air Act’s Requirements for Air Toxics and Faces Significant Implementation Challenges
paragraphs: EPA has completed issuing emissions standards for major stationary  sources but issued most of these standards late and has made limited  progress toward completing the remaining air toxics requirements. In  particular, EPA has made little progress and is behind schedule in  completing residual risk and technology reviews and in issuing emissions  standards for small stationary sources and mobile sources. EPA’s limited  progress and program implementation challenges have resulted primarily  from the program’s lower priority relative to other clean air programs.  Furthermore, the agency lacks a program implementation strategy.  Stakeholders we interviewed—including EPA, state and local agency  officials, environmental groups, and industry representatives—provided  additional perspective on EPA’s implementation of the air toxics program  and highlighted data limitations and inadequate funding as major  challenges.
subsections: section_title: EPA Issued Most of the MACT Standards behind Schedule and Has Made Limited Progress in Completing the Other Air Toxics Requirements
paragraphs: EPA has completed issuing the MACT standards for major stationary  sources but has made limited progress in addressing requirements related  to residual risk and technology reviews, and in issuing standards for small  stationary sources and mobile sources. As a result of the limited progress  in implementing these requirements, EPA has not reduced human health  risks from air toxics to the extent and in the time frames envisioned in the  act. Table 4 summarizes EPA’s overall progress in implementing air toxics  requirements under the Clean Air Act.
To meet the act’s requirements for major stationary sources, EPA had to  identify a list of major source categories and then issue standards  beginning in 1992, with all standards due by November 2000. In response,  EPA identified 158 major source categories and issued 96 standards  covering these categories between 1993 and 2004. Table 5 summarizes the  timeliness of EPA’s MACT standards relative to the act’s deadlines. While  the agency missed most of the deadlines, a senior EPA official said that  issuing the 96 standards represented a major achievement and that the  agency had never previously issued so many standards for one program in  such a limited period of time.
Because EPA issued most of the MACT standards well behind schedule,  the residual risk and control technology reviews, which EPA is to  complete 8 years after issuing each standard, have been pushed back  commensurately, thereby delaying any additional public health protection  that these reviews may provide. Specifically, instead of completing the  initial residual risk assessments and technology reviews for all of the  MACT standards by 2008 as specified by the act, EPA is not required to  complete all of the initial reviews until 2012 because it issued many MACT  standards behind schedule. For example, because EPA issued the MACT  standard for industrial boilers in 2004 rather than 2000, as required, the  residual risk assessment and technology review for this source category  become due in 2012, almost 4 years later than the act’s intended timeline.  Furthermore, EPA is behind schedule on the residual risk assessments and  technology reviews. As of April 2006, EPA had finalized only five of these  reviews, and all of these were late. Three additional reviews have court- ordered deadlines and will be completed by the end of 2006, according to  EPA.
The act required EPA to develop regulations for small stationary sources  by November 2000. However, the agency has not met this schedule. In  July 2000, EPA outlined its plans for issuing standards for small stationary  sources in a report to Congress describing its strategy for reducing threats  from air toxics in urban areas. This report identified 16 categories of  small stationary sources that it described as “already subject to regulation”  or “will be subject to regulation.” The report also identified 13 additional  categories for which it planned to issue standards by 2004. In 2002, EPA  expanded the list to include a total of 70 source categories. However, as of  April 2006, EPA has issued standards for only 16 categories of sources,  leaving standards for 54 source categories past due. Furthermore, the  agency faces court-ordered deadlines to complete standards for all of the  remaining categories of small stationary sources by June 15, 2009.
The act also required EPA to study the need and feasibility of air toxics  standards for motor vehicles and fuels and, based on the study, develop a  regulation to control air toxics from motor vehicles and fuels by 1995. EPA  completed the study in 1993 (about 11 months after the deadline) and,  after missing the 1995 deadline for the regulation, faced a court-ordered  consent decree to complete the regulation by 2001. To comply, EPA issued  an initial rule in 2001 that stated that a second and final rule making would  follow in 2004. The agency missed this deadline and eventually proposed  a second rule in February 2006, with a final rule planned for February  2007. The proposed rule would limit the benzene content of gasoline and  reduce toxic emissions from passenger vehicles and gas cans according to  EPA.
Finally, the act contained 31 requirements that do not fit into the  categories discussed above, including reports to Congress and guidance  for state and local programs. As of April 2006, EPA has met 29 of these  requirements. One of the key areas where EPA has not taken action relates  to the act’s requirement for the agency to periodically review and update,  as appropriate, the list of air toxics. Officials responsible for the program  said the agency does not proactively conduct such reviews and instead has  adopted a reactive approach, whereby the agency responds to petitions  filed by external stakeholders seeking to add or delete chemicals. EPA  officials, citing insufficient resources to develop a more proactive  approach, said that their efforts have focused on reviewing petitions for  additions and deletions filed by external stakeholders.
Since 1990, EPA has received one petition to list a new air toxic (diesel  exhaust) and seven petitions to delist. The petition to list diesel exhaust is  under review, and of the seven petitions to delist, three have been granted,  two have been denied, and two are under review, according to EPA.  Overall, EPA has not added any new chemicals to the list of regulated  pollutants, but three chemicals and several substances from a listed group  of chemicals have been removed. The agency’s consideration of diesel  exhaust in response to an environmental group’s petition has taken more  than 2 years, resulting in a lawsuit when the agency did not complete its  review within 18 months, as required by the act. EPA and the  environmental group reached an agreement in February 2006 that requires  the agency to decide by June 2006 whether to list diesel exhaust as an air  toxic.
A 2004 report by the National Academies highlighted EPA’s lack of a  process for reviewing new pollutants despite the estimated 300 chemicals  that enter commerce each year. The report recommended that EPA  “establish a more dynamic process for considering new pollutants.” To  date, EPA has not addressed this recommendation, according to senior  agency officials. Furthermore, a 2004 study published in the Journal of the  Air & Waste Management Association screened 1,086 chemicals for  potential addition to the list of regulated air toxics and found that 44  merited further consideration for addition to the list based on available  toxicity and emissions data.
Senior EPA air program officials said the agency’s progress in meeting the  act’s air toxics requirements should be viewed within the context of  limited funding for clean air programs and the agency’s need to focus its  resources on the areas where it expects the greatest health-risk  reductions. Scientific information on the health effects of air toxics is less  comprehensive than that available for higher-priority clean air programs,  such as those targeting smog and particulate matter. Additionally, several  officials said that other regulatory and voluntary programs limit emissions  of air toxics as a side benefit.
section_title: EPA Faces Implementation Challenges and Lacks an Overall Management Strategy
paragraphs: EPA considers the air toxics program a lower priority than its three other  major clean air programs—including those to address criteria pollutants,  international environmental issues such as climate change, and indoor air  quality issues such as exposure to radon gas—because senior officials in  EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation believe these programs have more  potential to reduce health risks. As shown in table 6, the percentage of  funding for air toxics relative to all clean air programs ranged from 18  percent to 19 percent between 2000 and 2003, but declined to 15 percent in  2004 and 12 percent in 2005. However, the total dollar amounts (in  inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars) devoted to air toxics increased each year  between 2000 and 2004, with a decline in 2005.
Within the air toxics program, EPA’s initial priority was to complete the  MACT standards because the agency believed that this aspect of the  program had the greatest potential to address risks from air toxics.  Despite EPA placing a priority on issuing the MACT standards, the agency  still fell behind schedule when it missed deadlines for the first round of  standards (due in 1992) and has never caught up to the act’s  implementation schedule. EPA officials said they missed some of the  MACT deadlines because of technical challenges, including a lack of  emissions data from affected source categories and the complexity of  many of the regulated facilities. The missed deadlines led to lawsuits filed  by external parties seeking compliance with the act’s implementation  schedule, resulting in court-ordered deadlines for the agency to complete  standards. Furthermore, senior EPA officials said these court-ordered  deadlines largely drive the program’s agenda. In this way, EPA ceded  control of the priority-setting process, and this problem is still evident. For  example, a senior official responsible for the development of regulations  said that the agency’s highest priority for the remaining requirements is  addressing residual risk reviews and small stationary source standards  with court-ordered deadlines.
The lower priority of the air toxics program in general and the priority  given to MACT standards within the program, as well as technical  challenges, have caused delays in completing the residual risk and  technology reviews, as well as standards for small stationary and mobile  sources. Further, as shown in table 7, available EPA data indicate that  small stationary and mobile sources in total have accounted for more  emissions than major stationary sources in every emissions inventory  completed since the 1990 amendments. Furthermore, the agency has  estimated that benzene—a known carcinogen emitted primarily by mobile  sources—accounts for about 25 percent of the cancer risk posed by air  toxics across the nation. Benzene is also the only air toxic that, to date,  EPA has determined poses sufficient risks to qualify as a “national cancer  risk driver.”
EPA developed air toxics emission inventories for 1993, 1996, 1999, and  2002. A large part of the 1993 baseline inventory is based on data obtained  from 1990. For simplicity, and because EPA has traditionally referred to it  as such, we refer to this data as the 1993 baseline inventory. EPA said it  did not provide data for 1996 because the agency has not updated the  information from that year for consistency with the methodology used for  the 1993, 1999, and 2002 data.
EPA expects that the proposed mobile source air toxics rule will reduce  benzene emissions. In addition, a senior EPA air program official said that  other regulations for mobile sources, including standards that affect  gasoline formulations as well as programs addressing emissions from  diesel engines, will also reduce emissions of air toxics as a side benefit.  Nonetheless, mobile sources will continue to represent an area of  significant opportunity to reduce emissions and related human health  risks.
Addressing the remaining requirements for residual risk standards and  small stationary sources will require overcoming significant technical  challenges. Regarding residual risk standards, the Clean Air Act’s  requirement that EPA introduce a risk element into the regulatory  decision-making process marks a departure from the approach the act  used with MACT standards, which generally did not require EPA to take  the inherent toxicity or health risks from pollutants into account. EPA  officials said that conducting the residual risk assessments requires a large  amount of data, much of which is difficult to obtain. For example, to  adequately assess the human health risk posed by a particular source, EPA  needs data on the health effects associated with each pollutant, the  location of sources, distances between sources and affected populations,  and the concentrations of emissions at different distances from facilities.
Challenges in regulating small stationary sources center on difficulty in  characterizing the large number of widely dispersed facilities such as  industrial boilers, paint-stripping operations, and auto-body shops. In  some cases, data do not exist on the number or location of facilities  potentially subject to a regulation. Furthermore, unlike the large stationary  sources affected by MACT standards, owners and operators of these  sources have limited resources to implement regulations and will require  extensive outreach and compliance assistance.
EPA’s challenges in meeting the act’s remaining requirements are  exacerbated by the lack of a management plan that identifies priorities and  necessary resources. The agency’s overall strategic plan outlines the goals  and targets for emissions and risk reduction across all clean air programs  but does not specify priorities or necessary levels of funding for the air  toxics program. Similarly, the agency’s budget requests provide limited  information on the agency’s air toxic program activities or priorities.  Furthermore, a senior EPA official said that the agency has not estimated  how much funding the air toxics program needs to meet the act’s  remaining requirements. Such information could assist Congress in  making its appropriations decisions, enhance the program’s transparency  to the public, and guide the agency in implementing the program.
section_title: Key Program Stakeholders Provided Further Insights on EPA’s Implementation Challenges
paragraphs: To better understand the challenges facing EPA’s air toxics program, we  interviewed various stakeholders, including officials from EPA, industry  and environmental groups, and state and local air pollution control  agencies. Each respondent rated the extent to which nine specific issues  posed a challenge to EPA in implementing the air toxics program, and we  then averaged the responses within each stakeholder group. As shown, in  table 8, the average response within each group identified at least one of  seven different issues as a challenge to a large or very great extent.  Although perceptions varied among the stakeholder groups, three issues  emerged as primary challenges—the availability of reliable data to assess  the benefits of regulating air toxics, the adequacy of program funding, and  the program’s low priority relative to other clean air programs. As shown  in the table, respondents from at least three of the four stakeholder groups  we interviewed identified each of these challenges as significant.
Several stakeholders identified linkages among the three primary  challenges. For example, some stakeholders said that the problems with  limited resources stemmed from the program’s low priority. In addition,  some stakeholders said that the lack of information on the benefits of  regulating air toxics reinforced the program’s low priority because the  agency cannot demonstrate the results it achieves through investments in  the program.
In addition, industry and EPA stakeholders cited the number of air toxics  requirements as a challenge to a large or very great extent. Respondents  from both groups stated that the agency has insufficient resources to meet  such a large number of requirements in the specified time frames. Industry  officials noted that the number of requirements was unrealistic, and some  EPA stakeholders said that Congress did not understand the number of  emissions sources involved or the level of effort required to write  standards. EPA and state and local stakeholders also cited the adequacy of  resources at the state, local, and tribal levels to implement regulations as a  significant challenge.
section_title: Available Information on Costs and Benefits Is Not Sufficient to Measure the Program’s Effectiveness
paragraphs: The information available on the costs and benefits of EPA’s air toxics  program is not sufficiently comprehensive to measure the overall  effectiveness of the program. For example, because of limited data, EPA’s  major economic assessments of the Clean Air Act have not included  monetized estimates of the program’s benefits, such as reduced incidence  of cancer, and have provided only limited information on costs. The  absence of information on benefits stems from a lack of data on the extent  to which incremental reductions in exposure to air toxics affect an  average person’s chance of developing adverse health effects. The agency  also lacks reliable data on the quantities of each pollutant emitted prior to  the adoption of air toxics regulations or in the years thereafter.  Furthermore, other potential indicators of the program’s effectiveness,  such as data on compliance with air toxics regulations, are inconclusive.  As a result, it is difficult to compare the results of investments in the air  toxics program with those generated by clean air programs on which EPA  has placed a higher priority.
subsections: section_title: EPA’s Assessments of the Clean Air Act Have Not Estimated the Economic Benefits of the Air Toxics Program
paragraphs: Although EPA has conducted two major assessments of the costs and  benefits of its programs under the Clean Air Act, the agency has not fully  analyzed the air toxics program primarily because of difficulty in  characterizing the program’s effects on public health. Without a  comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits, it is difficult to gauge the  program’s cost effectiveness or net benefits (total benefits minus total  costs) or compare these effects with those of higher-priority air pollution  control programs.
The two assessments of the act’s costs and benefits focused on separate  time periods. EPA refers to the first assessment, completed in 1997, as the  “retrospective” analysis because it covered the period 1970 to 1990. It is of  limited use in understanding the economic effects of the current air toxics  program because this time period predates the significant expansion of the  program after the 1990 amendments.
The second analysis, completed in 1999, is referred to as the “prospective”  analysis because it covered the period 1990 to 2010. This study attempted  to forecast the future economic impacts of the 1990 amendments and  estimated that the overall net benefits of clean air regulations from 1990 to  2010 would total $510 billion (1990 dollars), with a benefit-to-cost ratio of  four to one. Most (over 90 percent) of the monetized benefits included in  the analysis stemmed from reduced incidence of health effects associated  with exposure to five of the six criteria pollutants—carbon monoxide,  ground-level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.  EPA places the highest priority within its clean air programs on the  criteria pollutants.
The prospective analysis is of limited use in understanding the effects of  the air toxics program because it provided incomplete information on the  costs of air toxics standards and did not include estimates of the human  health or other benefits of these standards. Specifically, the cost estimates  reflect only the 21 standards EPA had issued at the time of the study—a  number that has since grown to 96. EPA estimated that the cost to industry  of complying with these 21 MACT standards would total $780 million in  2000 and rise to $840 million by 2010. According to EPA, these estimates  primarily reflect the cost of purchasing, operating, and maintaining  pollution control equipment. As shown in table 9, these costs represent a  relatively small fraction of the total estimated costs of the 1990  amendments over that time period.
An EPA official responsible for the prospective study said that the agency  did not include estimates for the aspects of the program that it had not yet  implemented—such as the 75 remaining MACT standards—because, at the  time, the agency did not have information on the number of facilities that  would have to comply with future standards or the level of emissions  control the standards would require. Without this information, the official  said it was appropriate to exclude these future standards from the  analysis. Nonetheless, EPA acknowledged the lack of information on the  costs of future air toxics standards as a key uncertainty of the analysis.
EPA plans to update its cost estimates as part of a new prospective  analysis covering 1990 to 2020. The revised cost estimates will include all  of the completed MACT standards as well as any other air toxics rules  issued by September 2005 (except the residual risk rule for coke ovens,  which entails emissions reductions and compliance costs that would have  a negligible effect on the overall analysis). An EPA official responsible for  the analysis said the agency expects to have preliminary results of the  revised cost estimates in late 2006, with a final report expected in 2007.
section_title: EPA Lacks Key Data Needed to Estimate the Benefits of Air Toxics Regulations
paragraphs: The prospective analysis of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments did not  include monetized estimates of the benefits of air toxics regulations, such  as decreased cancer risks to affected individuals, because the agency did  not have sufficient data to estimate these effects. As shown in table 10,  estimating the benefits of EPA’s air toxics program requires a substantial  amount of scientific data. Specifically, this process involves determining  the extent to which reductions in exposure to air toxics have decreased  the incidence of adverse health effects, including cancer and noncancer  illnesses. This, in turn, requires estimating the extent of adverse health  effects stemming from exposure to air toxics both before (see steps 1 to 3  below) and after (see steps 4 to 6 below) adopting air toxics regulations.  For example, exposure to air toxics prior to the adoption of a regulation  may have caused 1,000 cases of cancer per year but the presence of a  regulation may have decreased this number to 500 cases per year. The 500  avoided cases would represent a key health benefit of the regulation. The  final step of the process (step 7) involves assigning dollar values to these  health benefits.
Two primary factors limit EPA’s ability to estimate the benefits of air  toxics regulations. First, EPA lacks adequate information on the extent to  which incremental reductions in exposure affect an average person’s  chance of developing adverse health effects. The limited information on  these “dose-response” relationships represents the greatest challenge for  the agency in conducting a benefits assessment for the air toxics program,  according to a senior EPA official responsible for the retrospective and  prospective analyses. A senior EPA official responsible for risk analysis  drew a distinction between the type of data needed for a risk assessment,  which often involves extrapolation from studies involving laboratory  animals, and the type of data that economists need for a benefits  assessment, which generally requires studies of human exposures. The  official said that EPA currently has sufficient toxicological data, primarily  from animal studies, to assess risks from 133 of the 187 air toxics.
However, the official said the agency only has the type of dose-response  data needed to estimate the economic benefits for a handful of pollutants.
Second, EPA lacks reliable information on the quantities of each pollutant  emitted prior to the adoption of air toxics regulations or in the years after  adopting the regulations. EPA has tracked emissions of air toxics since  1993 and prepares a National Emissions Inventory every 3 years. In 2006,  EPA completed its most recent inventory, which has information on  emissions in 2002. While the inventory represents the best available data  on emissions of air toxics and is useful for identifying the relative  contribution of emissions from different sources, a 2004 EPA Inspector  General report identified shortcomings of the inventory that raise  questions about its reliability and usefulness in measuring the effects of  the air toxics program. For example, the report said that EPA cannot tell  whether apparent reductions or increases in the inventory have resulted  from changes in the way the agency estimated the inventory or from real  reductions or increases in emissions. The report also cited problems with  the limited involvement of state agencies in the development and  validation of the inventory.
Although the data in the emissions inventory are limited, EPA has used the  emissions inventory and other available data to estimate human exposures  to these pollutants. In 1999, EPA released its first National-Scale Air  Toxics Assessment (NATA), which relied on data from the 1996 emissions  inventory to estimate the potential health risks posed by air toxics in  different geographic areas. EPA updated this analysis in 2006 using data  from the 1999 emissions inventory. While NATA is a useful indicator of  potential health risks from air toxics at a given point in time, it is not  useful as a measure of the agency’s effectiveness in implementing the air  toxics program because, according to EPA, the agency revised the number  of stationary sources and pollutants included in its analysis. For example,  the analysis based on the 1996 emissions inventory assessed risks from 33  pollutants, while the most recent analysis included 177 pollutants. As a  result, EPA believes it is not meaningful to compare the results of the two  assessments.
Overall, the limited information on health outcomes associated with  changes in exposure to air toxics hinders EPA’s ability to quantify or  monetize the economic benefits resulting from the air toxics program. In  turn, this limits EPA’s ability to develop monetized estimates of the  program’s net benefits or cost effectiveness. Such information would be  useful not only for better understanding the economic effects of the air  toxics program, but also for comparing the cost effectiveness of different  air quality programs, which would help prioritize funding in addressing  human health problems caused by air pollution. This information would  also help EPA prioritize its remaining obligations under the 1990  amendments. In May 2002, EPA’s Office of Research and Development  (ORD) released a draft air toxics research strategy that discussed the  agency’s plans for improving information on dose-response relationships.  In addition, ORD issued an air toxics plan in April 2003 that identified the  shortcomings of existing dose-response data and plans for improving this  information. In reviewing these documents, the agency’s Science  Advisory Board identified several concerns, including poor linkages across  the two documents, inadequate research funding, and the need for a better  research prioritization scheme.
section_title: Other Indicators of the Program’s Effectiveness Are Inconclusive
paragraphs: Without sufficient information to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit  analysis, EPA measures the effectiveness of its air toxics program based  on estimated data from its emissions inventory. Specifically, EPA  measures the changes in aggregate emissions (measured in tons per year)  of all air toxics by comparing estimates from the most recent emissions  inventory with the 1993 baseline inventory. While estimated emissions  decreased by about 35 percent between 1993 and 2002 according to EPA,  the data quality problems discussed above limit their usefulness in  measuring the program’s effectiveness.
Two other problems also limit the usefulness of the emissions data as a  performance measure. First, because pollutants differ substantially in their  toxicity—small quantities of some chemicals pose greater risks than large  quantities of less harmful chemicals—measuring changes in the total tons  of all air toxics emitted does not necessarily provide a strong indication of  the program’s effectiveness in addressing health risks. The EPA Inspector  General report discussed above recommended developing performance  measures that address progress toward reductions in human exposure and  health risk. Such measures would provide a better indication of changes in  risks from air toxics. In the justification for its proposed fiscal year 2007  budget, EPA said that it was developing a “toxicity-weighted” emissions  measure for the program.
Second, EPA’s practice of measuring the air toxics program’s performance  using estimated aggregate emissions data may not accurately measure the  effect that the program has had on changes in emissions. The current  performance measure attributes all changes in emissions to the federal air  toxics program, but emissions may change for reasons unrelated to the  agency’s regulations. Some decreases in emissions may reflect cases  where state and local air pollution control agencies have issued rules to  control emissions that go beyond the federal regulations. As discussed in  the next section of this report, some states set more stringent standards  than EPA. On the other hand, a senior EPA official responsible for the  economic analysis of air pollution regulations said that the agency may  actually underestimate the program’s effect. The official said that because  of economic growth and related increases in industrial production over  time, emissions would far exceed the current levels without the existing  EPA air toxics regulations.
We also evaluated two other potential indicators of the program’s  effectiveness—data on levels of air toxics in the ambient air and  information on the degree of compliance with clean air regulations—to  determine their usefulness as indicators of the program’s effectiveness.  While both could eventually serve as useful performance indicators, the  available data are currently limited and inconclusive. Regarding data on  ambient levels of air toxics, EPA has a monitoring network that includes  22 locations nationwide. The monitors generally track ambient levels of  six priority air toxics that EPA believes pose a concern in all geographic  areas of the United States.
A 2005 EPA Inspector General report found shortcomings of the  monitoring network, including limited monitoring in areas with the highest  estimated cancer risks from air toxics as well as inconsistencies in the  operation of the monitors. In responding to the report, EPA said that the  Inspector General’s concerns generally aligned with the agency’s  monitoring improvement efforts. It is currently unclear whether the  existing monitoring data are representative or reliable indicators of the  program’s effectiveness. Nonetheless, ambient monitoring is a valuable  component of the air toxics program and could eventually serve as a  useful performance measure. It is also important to note that, while not  part of the national monitoring network, a number of state and local  agencies conduct their own air toxics monitoring.
Finally, we reviewed available information on the degree of compliance  with air toxics standards identified through evaluations of regulated  facilities conducted by federal and state enforcement officials. As shown  in table 11, inspectors have found most facilities in compliance with air  toxics standards, with some degree of noncompliance at about one-quarter  of all facilities. Compliance rates for these facilities may not represent the  degree of compliance at all facilities because enforcement officials do not  visit each facility every year and often target facilities where they suspect  noncompliance. EPA enforcement officials said they do not currently  have comprehensive data explaining the magnitude of the noncompliance  in cases where inspectors found violations. For example, noncompliance  could range from record-keeping problems to more serious violations,  such as exceeding an emissions standard. Furthermore, it is important to  note that, while EPA has completed issuing all of the MACT standards, 16  standards have compliance dates after June 2006. Thus, information on  compliance with these standards will not become available until after that  time.
While the available enforcement data are limited, EPA has identified cases  of significant noncompliance with air toxics regulations. Specifically, the  agency has initiated a nationwide air toxics enforcement strategy to  identify and correct noncompliance and achieve emissions reductions in  targeted industry sectors. According to EPA, in 2005, the agency took  enforcement actions against facilities that failed to comply with targeted  MACT standards which resulted in air toxics reductions of more than 160  tons and fines exceeding $600,000 (2005 dollars). Furthermore, an official  in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance said that the  agency achieved about 190 additional tons of air toxics reductions in 2005  through enforcement actions that were not associated with the national air  toxics enforcement strategy.
section_title: State and Local Programs Employ Practices That Could Potentially Help EPA Enhance the Effectiveness of the Federal Air Toxics Program
paragraphs: State programs we reviewed in California, New Jersey, Oregon, and  Wisconsin, and the local program we reviewed in Louisville, Kentucky,  have air toxics programs that go beyond the federal program and employ  practices that might help EPA enhance the effectiveness of its program.  First, these programs address some public health risks that have not been  addressed by the federal program. EPA could potentially strengthen its  program by assessing and considering what states perceive as the primary  gaps in the federal program. Second, the programs generally prioritize air  toxics activities based on their risk reduction potential, which could serve  as an example for EPA in prioritizing its remaining obligations under the  act. Third, some of the programs conduct comprehensive risk assessments  to identify the risk posed by all emissions from a facility, while EPA’s  residual risk program assesses risk in a more piecemeal and limited  fashion. Fourth, several of the programs employ systematic approaches to  identify and prioritize chemicals for addition to their lists of regulated air  toxics, whereas EPA does not have such a process. Finally, the agencies  stressed the importance of reliable data on emissions and chemical  toxicity, and several programs have processes to better ensure the  accuracy of emissions data submitted by regulated facilities. (See app. III  for information on the key features of the state and local programs we  reviewed.)
subsections: section_title: Several State and Local Programs Address Gaps in EPA’s Program
paragraphs: The five programs we reviewed address some public health risks that  EPA’s program does not. For example, the programs regulate smaller  sources than EPA, set more stringent technology standards to control  emissions, and include some large stationary sources that EPA does not  address. In Wisconsin, any facility that emits one of 535 air toxics in  amounts that exceed certain thresholds may be subject to the state’s air  toxics program. In some cases, annual emissions of less than 1 pound per  year from a facility could trigger the state rule, depending upon the  toxicity of the chemical. Wisconsin officials said that they use lower  thresholds than the Clean Air Act’s 10- or 25-ton thresholds because even  small emissions of very toxic chemicals can present risks to the public.  Similarly, New Jersey officials said that their state program addresses  smaller facilities than EPA because most of the numerous chemical  facilities in the state are not subject to MACT standards since they do not  emit air toxics at levels that exceed federal thresholds. In contrast, in  accordance with the Clean Air Act, MACT standards for major sources and  the corresponding residual risk reviews apply to facilities in 158 industries  with emissions of 10 tons or more of a single air toxic or 25 tons or more  of a mixture of the 187 federal air toxics.
In terms of the stringency of the technology standards used to limit  emissions of air toxics, California and New Jersey officials said that the  technology standards in their states were often more stringent than EPA’s  MACT standards. For example, California officials said that petroleum  refineries in their state use more stringent control technologies, and they  noted that EPA chose not to include these technologies as part of its  survey of controls already in use when it developed the MACT standard  for this industry.
Regarding the types of facilities that are regulated by EPA, some state  officials expressed concern that EPA did not develop MACT standards for  some major stationary sources of air toxics in their states. For example,  Oregon officials said that they requested EPA to issue MACT standards for  several categories of sources, including ceiling tile manufacturing and  titanium smelting if it found that they were major sources of air toxics.  Oregon officials expressed concern with EPA’s apparent lack of response  to their request because these significant emitters of air toxics in Oregon  do not fall into one of the 158 major source categories that EPA identified  and regulates. Further, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program  Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials  (STAPPA/ALAPCO) has compiled a list of over 40 major emission source  categories of air toxics that were not regulated by EPA MACT standards.  While the five programs we reviewed would generally address such  sources, similar sources would be unregulated in the states whose  programs are based entirely on the federal program. Importantly, in a  number of cases, state law limits the ability of state and local programs to  go beyond federal requirements. For example, in 2002, STAPPA/ALAPCO  found that 26 states from every region in the country have precluded their  state air pollution control agencies from imposing clean air requirements  beyond those established by EPA.
section_title: State and Local Programs Prioritize Their Actions Based on Risk Reduction Potential
paragraphs: The approaches some state and local agencies use to develop their air  toxics programs differ from EPA’s approach in that they direct resources  to the areas of highest risk, whereas, given the Clean Air Act’s prescribed  schedule, EPA has primarily focused on regulating emissions from certain  large stationary sources. In contrast, several state and local programs  generally rely on monitoring (the measurement of air toxics in the ambient  air) and modeling (estimating toxics in the air using computer models) to  identify chemicals, geographic areas, or facilities of concern and develop  measures to address these risks.
The Oregon and Louisville, Kentucky, programs illustrate the use of risk- based prioritization. Oregon’s air toxics program seeks to identify  geographic areas of high risk through modeling and monitoring and to  then concentrate resources on those areas. While not yet fully  implemented, the program plans to conduct statewide modeling using its  emissions inventory to identify areas of potential concern and then  conduct monitoring to delineate geographic areas of high risk. According  to program staff, the geographic approach is an efficient way to address  risk because it is targeted and focuses on the greatest risks. Because  public health risks from air toxics may vary depending on proximity to  emissions sources and other factors, the practice of identifying areas of  high risk and taking steps to address these risks shows promise as part of  an overall risk reduction strategy.
Similarly, Louisville created a program to address high health risks near an  industrial complex and in the surrounding community that were identified  through monitoring of pollutants in the ambient air. According to program  officials, toxic emissions from a section of Louisville called  “Rubbertown”—home to a complex of chemical facilities and other  manufacturers—have been the subject of public concern since the 1940s.  From 2000 through 2001, program officials worked with the University of  Louisville, EPA, and other stakeholders to monitor the ambient air near  Rubbertown and the surrounding community to assess the extent of the  problem. A risk assessment based on the monitoring data determined that  18 chemicals posed an unacceptable risk to the public. Consequently,  Louisville officials designed the program to target large emitters of these  18 chemicals before targeting smaller emitters of air toxics.
In addition to some states’ focus on identifying geographic areas or  chemicals of concern, the state and local programs we reviewed use  monitoring and modeling data to focus their efforts on specific facilities  that pose risks to the public. For example, California requires certain large  and small sources of air toxics to conduct facilitywide risk assessments  using a standardized risk-screening model. If the modeling results show  that risks exceed certain thresholds, the facility must conduct a more  comprehensive risk assessment. This process allows California’s state and  local agencies to identify and focus on the sources that pose high risks to  the public. In addition, Louisville and Wisconsin require certain sources to  conduct facilitywide risk assessments as part of the permitting process.
In contrast, several state and local officials said that EPA’s program has  not focused on the greatest risks. While EPA may have been driven by  certain deadlines in the act, some state and local officials said that the  agency has chosen to focus on certain large stationary sources even  though EPA’s data suggest that emissions from small stationary sources  and mobile sources may pose greater risks. Further, EPA is currently  developing a rule that would exempt MACT-regulated facilities from  regulation under its residual risk program if, on the basis of risk  assessments, the facilities demonstrate that the cumulative risks from all  of their toxic emissions do not exceed certain thresholds. According to  EPA, this strategy could achieve voluntary risk reductions from facilities  that would not be required to reduce risks under the current residual risk  program and will provide high-quality, site-specific emissions data for use  in future assessments and emission reduction strategies. While this  approach has the potential to ease the regulatory burden on low-risk  facilities, EPA may have opportunities to apply its limited resources to  approaches that have greater potential to reduce risks.
section_title: Several of the Programs We Reviewed Conduct More Comprehensive Facilitywide Risk Assessments Than EPA
paragraphs: Several state and local programs we reviewed generally evaluate the  emissions from all of the emissions points within a facility in a single risk  assessment in order to assess the health risks associated with the entire  facility. In contrast, EPA’s residual risk assessments—aimed at identifying  and mitigating any remaining health risk from emissions sources subject to  MACT standards—have only evaluated risk from a portion of the facilities.  Specifically, to date, EPA has limited the scope of its residual risk  determinations to emissions points within facilities that must comply with  the MACT standards at issue, although other emissions points may also  emit air toxics. As a result, according to several state and local officials,  some facilities with a high impact on public health may avoid additional  control requirements because EPA’s focus on limited portions of facilities  may underestimate the risk posed by whole facilities.
Figure 3 illustrates a facility emitting air toxics from four emission points.  Of the four emission points within the facility, points 1 and 2 are each  covered by different MACT standards and, therefore, are subject to  separate residual risk assessments. Emission points 3 and 4 emit air  toxics, but are not subject to MACT standards, because emissions from  these two points do not exceed the MACT threshold.
The programs we reviewed in California, Wisconsin, and Louisville would  generally evaluate the emissions from all of the emissions points in this  facility in a single risk assessment. In contrast, EPA’s approach to date  would be to conduct a residual risk assessment for emission point 1 that  would consider the exposure and human health risk attributable to  emissions from that emission point, and generally would not consider the  emissions from point 2, which falls under a different MACT standard, or  the emissions from points 3 and 4. According to EPA, it is not entirely  precluded from considering emissions from additional emissions points  not covered by the MACT standards at issue, but the agency, to date, has  not exercised this discretion in a final rule.
Several state and local stakeholders said that they were concerned that  EPA’s risk assessments may show a lower level of risk to the public than if  the agency considered emissions from all of the emission points at the  facility. They said that EPA’s residual risk approach may exclude some  facilities with a high impact on public health from more stringent control  requirements. Several officials said it would make more sense, from a  public health perspective, to consider the impact from all sources at the  facility at once, as some states do, rather than review each emission point  individually. Along these lines, several EPA officials said that evaluating all  of the emissions from a facility simultaneously would enhance the  efficiency of the program and better protect public health.
section_title: Several Programs Have Systematic Approaches to Identify and Prioritize Air Toxics
paragraphs: Several of the state programs we reviewed use systematic approaches to  identify and prioritize chemicals for addition to their air toxics lists. In  contrast, EPA has not acted on the requirement to periodically review and  revise the list of regulated federal air toxics. For example, California  officials work with the state’s public health agency to determine if a  substance qualifies as a state air toxic. This process includes assessing (1)  the potential for human exposure to a substance, (2) the chemical’s  cancer-causing potential, (3) any noncancer effects such as irritation of  the lungs or nausea, and (4) the impact on children’s health, among other  factors. A panel of scientific experts reviews the work for accuracy,  followed by the formal development of a regulation, including a public  hearing. Similarly, Oregon works with a committee composed of  toxicology, public health, and technical experts to periodically identify air  toxics for review and to develop health-based emission benchmarks. The  committee prioritizes air toxics for review based on Oregon’s emission  inventory, the pollutant’s toxicity or potency, the number of people at risk,  and the impact on sensitive populations such as children, among other  factors spelled out in state regulations. The systematic approaches of  these programs could inform EPA’s efforts to meet the act’s requirement  to review and update the federal list of regulated air toxics.
section_title: The Programs We Reviewed Stressed the Importance of Data on Emissions and Toxicology
paragraphs: Several of the state and local programs we reviewed require major and  small stationary sources to submit standardized annual emissions reports  and certify their accuracy. These programs, like EPA, rely on emissions  inventory data to develop regulations and conduct risk assessments. For  example, Wisconsin requires over 2,000 facilities to report emissions of  623 air toxics each year if the facility emits more than certain quantities of  each pollutant. Facilities must certify the accuracy of their final  submissions. The air toxics program in California similarly requires certain  major and small stationary sources to report air toxics emissions of over  450 chemicals and to certify that the data are correct. New Jersey and  Louisville have similar requirements for a smaller subset of air toxics and  sources.
In contrast to the programs that require sources to report and certify their  emissions, EPA, to date, generally has not required emissions sources or  state or local agencies to systematically report these data. Such data  collection could enhance EPA’s analysis and decision making in future air  toxics rule makings. However, it is not clear how states without air toxics  emissions inventories would comply with a federal requirement or the  extent to which the data collected from the states would be comparable.  For example, in 2002, EPA solicited comments on a rule to require state  and local agencies to submit standardized air toxics emissions inventory  data but the agency postponed consideration of the requirements partly  due to concerns raised by state and local agencies about the lack of detail  in EPA’s proposal. EPA officials also told us that they had concerns over  whether there is adequate statutory authority to collect these data.
Officials representing the state and local programs we spoke with  expressed mixed opinions about a potential EPA requirement to submit  standardized air toxics emissions inventories. For example, officials in the  states we reviewed except California supported a federal requirement to  report air toxics emissions because it would improve the consistency of  the federal inventory and its usefulness to states in activities such as risk  assessment modeling. In addition, some state officials said that a federal  requirement would enable states that are prohibited from having their own  programs to collect information on emissions of air toxics. However,  several officials cautioned that some programs would have difficulty  meeting such a requirement without additional funding. California officials  said that EPA should focus on states that do not currently have an  inventory.
In addition, state and local officials said that EPA does not regularly  update chemical toxicity values that describe the potency of different air  toxics—key information for conducting risk assessments. These officials  told us that their agencies generally do not have the resources to develop  quantitative risk estimates for air toxics and must rely on other sources of  data, such as EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). According  to several officials, the basic science necessary to develop air toxics  regulations is lacking in many cases. For example, Oregon officials cited  limited and out-of-date toxicity values for a number of common chemicals  in the IRIS database. Officials from other programs expressed similar  concerns and said that EPA needed to enhance its efforts to provide  quantitative toxicity information and conduct studies of sufficient quality  to make determinations about chemical toxicity. A 2004 report by the  National Academies also identified the need for more timely updates to  EPA’s IRIS database. In addition, California officials pointed out that EPA  does not have a cancer toxicity value for diesel particulate matter, so some  states have developed a patchwork of different toxicity values. Further,  state and local officials questioned EPA’s use of a formaldehyde risk factor  developed by an industry group instead of its peer-reviewed IRIS value  when developing a recent MACT standard for plywood and composite  wood products. Several officials were concerned that the deviation from  IRIS would cause confusion about what toxicology data were most  accurate for state and local requirements.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: EPA has made some progress in controlling emissions of air toxics, but its  overall implementation of the air toxics program falls short of the agency’s  statutory obligations because of the limited progress in (1) addressing  requirements to limit emissions from small stationary sources and mobile  sources, (2) evaluating the residual health risks associated with existing  emissions standards and setting additional standards as appropriate, and  (3) reviewing and updating the list of regulated pollutants, as appropriate.  While EPA places a lower priority on air toxics than other programs that it  believes have a greater potential to reduce adverse health effects from air  pollution, more comprehensive information on the air toxics program’s  costs and benefits would help the agency compare the cost effectiveness  of its investments in various clean air programs. Key data issues affecting  the agency’s ability to develop more comprehensive cost and benefit  estimates include unreliable data on emissions and limited information on  the extent to which changes in exposure to air toxics affect the incidence  of adverse health effects. Until EPA supports efforts to address these data  gaps that hinder its ability to evaluate the health risks of air toxics, the  agency will not have assurance that its current priorities and programs  necessarily target the areas of greatest opportunity for reducing health  risks associated with air pollution.
EPA still has a significant number of remaining requirements under the  act, including (1) setting 54 emissions standards for small stationary  sources; (2) conducting more than 90 reviews of the remaining health risks  associated with emissions sources covered by its existing standards, and  issuing additional standards as necessary; and (3) reviewing and updating,  as appropriate, the list of regulated air toxics. Over the past 15 years, the  air toxics program has not met its statutory deadlines, in part, because of  its low priority relative to other programs and related funding constraints.  Obtaining sufficient funding will continue to pose a challenge for EPA,  especially in light of the nation’s current fiscal situation. We believe that  developing an implementation plan that identifies the remaining tasks,  data needed to estimate the benefits of reductions in exposure to air  toxics, timelines, and required funding would improve the management of  the program as well as its transparency and accountability to Congress  and the public. In addition, EPA could examine state and local approaches  to air toxics that may have the potential to more effectively address risks  by focusing resources on sources, communities, and geographic areas that  face the greatest risks. This would require EPA to evaluate opportunities  to enhance its efforts to focus on the greatest risks to human health within  the current legislative framework.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the management of EPA’s air toxics program and enhance its  ability to reduce risks of cancer and other adverse health effects, we  recommend that the EPA Administrator require the Assistant  Administrator for Air and Radiation to develop an air toxics program  improvement plan that incorporates the following five issues:    provides a detailed schedule for completing its mandated air toxics  activities and identifies the staffing and funding resources needed to meet  the schedule and address the health risk assessment needs;    prioritizes activities within the air toxics program, placing the highest  priority on those actions that have the greatest potential to address health  risks, to the extent permitted by the Clean Air Act;    establishes a process and timelines for meeting the act’s requirements to  periodically review and update the list of air toxics;   outlines an approach and timelines for improving the agency’s ability to  measure the program’s costs and benefits; and   describes how the agency plans to improve its air toxics emissions  inventory, including a discussion of the statutory authority for, and the  merits of, requiring states and emissions sources to submit standardized  emissions data.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation with a copy of this report  for review and comment. In commenting on the report, the Acting  Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation said that EPA agrees in part  with the conclusions and recommendations in the report. The agency did  not identify specific aspects of our conclusions or recommendations with  which it disagreed, but rather provided only clarifications to statements in  the report regarding the availability of information on the costs and  benefits of the agency’s efforts to control air toxics, the agency’s progress  in completing certain air toxics requirements of the Clean Air Act, and on  EPA’s management of the remaining requirements. EPA’s letter and our  response to their clarifications are included as appendix IV. EPA also  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated, as  appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the EPA Administrator  and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others  upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Respond to Recommendations in the National Academies’ Report on Air Quality
paragraphs: This appendix discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)  response to the findings and recommendations of the National Academies’  (Academies) report on air quality management. The Academies prepared  this report in response to a congressional request for an independent  evaluation of the effectiveness and implementation of the Clean Air Act.  The report examined the roles of science and technology in the  implementation of the act and recommended ways to improve air quality  management. One of the report’s key recommendations was for EPA to  form a work group to evaluate the report and provide a detailed list of  actions EPA could take to improve its implementation of clean air  programs. The work group completed this review in December 2004 and  provided the agency’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee with a list of 38  recommendations.
EPA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Review has taken the lead in  responding to the recommendations and provided an initial response in  April 2005, which was updated in November 2005. The response included  information about ongoing and proposed activities to address the  recommendations and estimated time frames for responding to each  recommendation. The agency has prioritized the recommendations and  developed a proposed schedule for completing its activities, with some  actions already under way or completed and others not scheduled for  completion until fiscal year 2008. Based on our review of available  documents and discussions with EPA program managers, the agency has  taken affirmative steps to respond to a number of the recommendations,  and its proposed actions generally appear responsive to the Academies’  findings. A comprehensive evaluation of EPA’s response to the Academies’  recommendations will not be possible until the agency has made further  progress in implementing its proposed response actions.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to assess (1) EPA’s progress toward implementing the air  toxics program and any implementation challenges the agency faces, (2)  what available information indicates about the costs and benefits of EPA’s  efforts to control air toxics, and (3) the program design and management  practices of state and local air toxics programs that could potentially help  EPA enhance the effectiveness of the federal program. In addition, we  were asked to assess EPA’s progress in responding to recommendations  pertaining to the air toxics program made by the National Academies in  2004.
To respond to the first objective, we updated our previous analysis of the  agency’s progress in implementing program requirements. We reviewed  the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and EPA’s  actions to respond to these requirements, including the number of  regulations the agency promulgated and other requirements to issue  reports and guidance. Specifically, we considered EPA’s Maximum  Achievable Control Technology (MACT), small stationary source, mobile  source, residual risk, and technology review activities, and other activities  in the act that were specifically related to air toxics.
We also evaluated the timeliness of EPA’s actions versus the schedule  mandated by the act by comparing the dates specified in the act with the  dates on which EPA published the rules in the Federal Register. We  independently developed a list of actions required by EPA and worked  with agency officials to refine and confirm the list we used. We made  minor modifications to the list approved by EPA to account for the  promulgation of residual risk and area source standards, to separately  count area source standards issued in conjunction with MACT standards,  and to delete source categories that were delisted.
To determine the priority of the air toxics program relative to other air  programs, and the priorities within the air toxics program, we met with  senior air program officials and analyzed budget data submitted by EPA.  Specifically, we compared the funding for EPA’s air program as a whole  with the funding for the air toxics program.
To identify the implementation challenges EPA faces, we reviewed  available studies by the National Academies, the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB), and the EPA Inspector General. We identified nine  implementation challenges, such as the adequacy of program funding and  the priority of the program relative to other air programs, and developed a  structured interview in order to evaluate the magnitude of the challenges  identified by these studies in the opinions of various stakeholders. We  pretested the interview questions and made relevant changes to the  questions based on the pretest.
We designed the structured interview so that respondents could rate each  implementation challenge on a scale from 0 (not a challenge at all) to 4 (a  challenge to a very great extent). When conducting the interviews, we  asked followup questions if the respondents rated the challenge as a 3 (a  challenge to a large extent) or 4, such as what they thought could be done  to address the challenge. We also provided a list of key definitions, an  explanation of the rating system, and a description of each challenge to  respondents prior to conducting each interview.
We conducted structured interviews with a nonprobability sample of 22  officials, including 8 EPA, 5 industry, 4 environmental, and 5 state and  local officials. Specifically, for EPA, we interviewed senior officials within  the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of  Transportation and Air Quality. We identified national-level environmental  and industry stakeholders through consultation with EPA (and referrals  from contacts identified through this consultation) and membership on the  Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The five industry groups we  interviewed were the American Forest & Paper Association, the American  Petroleum Institute, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the American  Chemistry Council, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The  four environmental groups we interviewed were the Natural Resources  Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Earth Justice, and an air toxics  consultant recommended by environmental stakeholders and EPA. We  interviewed officials from state and local programs in California, New  Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Louisville, Kentucky.
Following the structured interviews, we determined the most significant  challenges for all of the stakeholders by averaging the ratings from all 22  respondents for each challenge. However, because ratings of the most  significant challenges differed for each stakeholder group, we also  averaged the scores for each challenge for each stakeholder group. We  identified the greatest challenges identified by each stakeholder group (an  average rating of 3 or higher, or those rated as challenges to a large or very  great extent) to assess how perceptions of the challenges differed among  the stakeholder groups.
To respond to the second objective, we analyzed available information on  the economic impacts of the program, as well as data on trends in  emissions, health risks, and compliance. Regarding data on economic  impacts, we reviewed EPA’s 1997 and 1999 reports to Congress on the  economic impacts of the Clean Air Act as well as the agency’s guidance for  analyzing the effects of air pollution regulations. We also met with EPA  staff in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of  Policy Analysis and Review responsible for analyzing the economic effects  of clean air regulations. Regarding emissions and monitoring data, we met  with EPA staff responsible for maintaining the National Emissions  Inventory, reviewed the agency’s documentation and plans for improving  the inventory, and reviewed relevant reports by EPA’s Inspector General.  Regarding data on health and risks, we met with EPA staff responsible for  risk assessment and the development of the National-Scale Air Toxics  Assessment. We also reviewed EPA’s methodology for developing the  assessment and available information on the risk assessment process. We  obtained compliance data from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance  Assurance’s Air Facility Subsystem. We reviewed these data for obvious  completeness and consistency problems, reviewed available  documentation, and interviewed the system administrator. Unless  otherwise noted, we determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
To respond to the third objective, we reviewed a nonprobability sample of  air toxics programs from California, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin  and from Louisville, Kentucky to identify innovative program designs or  management practices. We focused on programs that (1) went beyond  federal standards, (2) were identified by EPA and other stakeholders as  innovative programs, (3) used strategies to address air toxics that differed  from those used by EPA, and (4) represented a range of geographic  locations and experience addressing air toxics. Specifically, we asked EPA  and the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the  Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO),  the stakeholders most knowledgeable about state and local air toxics  programs, whether there were specific programs we should review, and  used their recommendations as selection criteria. GAO conducted  independent research to confirm that the selections cited by these  stakeholders were reasonable, including analyses of the stringency of state  and local air toxics programs based on current law, policy, and guidance  documents and summary documents developed by EPA and state and  local agencies.
We visited each program selected for review and conducted  semistructured interviews with state and local officials. We developed an  interview protocol and revised it after limited testing with respondents.  The semistructured interview included questions about how the programs  interact with EPA, how the program views EPA’s current and future  requirements, regulate different chemicals and sources, account for risk,  collect emissions inventory data, and measure progress, among other  factors. We focused primarily on practices that EPA might find useful in  addressing its program implementation challenges and did not evaluate  the effectiveness of the state and local programs we reviewed. Our  discussion of the practices employed by these programs should not be  construed as an endorsement of any particular approach but rather as an  acknowledgement that alternative strategies exist.
In addition, we obtained information about EPA’s response to the  recommendations of the National Academies’ 2004 report entitled Air  Quality Management in the United States. We reviewed the  recommendations in the report, the associated recommendations of the  Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, and EPA’s actions to respond to these  recommendations. We worked with EPA officials to determine whether  EPA’s actions addressed the recommendations. Our work included an  assessment of data reliability and internal controls. We conducted our  work from June 2005 to June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix III: Profiles of State and Local Air Toxics Programs
paragraphs: This appendix provides general information on the nonprobability sample  of four state and one local air toxics programs we reviewed to identify  innovative program designs or management practices. We focused on  programs that (1) went beyond federal standards, (2) were identified as  innovative by EPA and other stakeholders, (3) used strategies to address  air toxics that differ from EPA’s, and (4) represented a range of geographic  locations and experience addressing air toxics. Table 12 presents basic  information about the programs we reviewed, followed by profiles of each  program.
subsections: section_title: California
paragraphs: California’s air toxics program regulates certain new and existing major  stationary sources, small stationary sources, and mobile sources more  stringently than EPA. In 1983, the state legislature adopted Assembly Bill  1807, the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act, which  defined a process for identifying chemicals that qualify as state air toxics  and developing control standards to reduce emissions from certain  sources based on the application of pollution control technology.  California has listed 245 toxic air contaminants as of May 2006. The state  regulates diesel particulate matter emissions from motor vehicles, such as  school buses, under its program.
In 1987, the state legislature passed an additional law, Assembly Bill 2588,  the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, which  required the submission of air toxics emissions inventory data from  certain facilities and notification of local residents of significant risk from  nearby sources of air toxics. Under this act, certain sources of air toxics  must conduct risk assessments to determine their health impact on the  community. In conducting these risk assessments, regulated facilities must  consider the risks posed by their emissions of 451 different chemicals. In  1992, the legislature passed an amendment to the “hot spots” law that  required facilities that pose a significant health risk to the community to  develop risk management plans. Policy documents and other information  are available at the program’s Web site  http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/toxics.htm.
section_title: New Jersey
paragraphs: New Jersey’s air toxics program regulates certain large and small  stationary sources more stringently than EPA through the state’s  permitting program. The New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act of 1954  requires new or modified sources that emit air pollutants, including air  toxics, to incorporate state-of-the-art air pollution controls to reduce their  emissions. In 1979, the New Jersey Department of Environmental  Protection (DEP) adopted a regulation that specifically addressed air  toxics emissions. This rule listed 11 air toxics and required sources  emitting these chemicals to register with DEP and demonstrate that they  utilize state-of-the-art controls to limit their emissions. The department  incorporates control requirements for other air toxics on a case-by-case  basis as part of the permitting process. In the early 1980s, the DEP  instituted a risk assessment policy to better ensure that sources with state- of-the-art controls protect public health. The risk assessment policy  requires certain facilities seeking permits to estimate the risk to the  community that remains after the application of technology standards and  to take additional measures as necessary to meet health-based targets  established for 237 air toxics. General information about New Jersey’s air  toxics program is available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/airmon/airtoxics/,  and policy documents, such as risk assessment policies are available at  http://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqpp/risk.html.
section_title: Oregon
paragraphs: Oregon’s air toxics program is authorized to go beyond federal  requirements for some large and small stationary sources. In November  1998, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) convened a  broad-based stakeholder group to outline a program to complement the  existing federal program and reduce the impact of air toxics in Oregon.  DEQ worked with stakeholders until the adoption of Oregon’s air toxics  rule on October 9, 2003. The rule requires sources in specific geographic  areas of high risk to develop, with other stakeholders, a risk reduction  plan to meet certain health based goals. In addition, some stationary  sources may be required to estimate and mitigate the risk they pose to the  public and apply control technologies. The program is still being  developed and has not been fully implemented. Policy and guidance  documents and other information are available at the program’s Web site  http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/hap/index.htm.
section_title: Wisconsin
paragraphs: Wisconsin’s air toxics program regulates certain new and existing  stationary sources more stringently than EPA. In 1983, the Wisconsin  Department of Natural Resources (DNR) formed a group of scientists,  industry, environmental, and government stakeholders in response to  public concern about the health effects of air toxics and the lack of policy  and regulations at the federal level. The group recommended an approach  for a state air toxics rule in 1985, and DNR developed a rule that became  effective in 1988. This original rule was rewritten and redeveloped from  2000 through 2004 using an advisory committee process that included  government, industry, and environmental stakeholders. The final rule  became effective in July 2004. The rule lists 535 air toxics and requires  certain facilities that emit specific amounts of cancer-causing air toxics to  apply control technology to reduce emissions. In addition, certain facilities  that emit other air toxics beyond specific thresholds must estimate the  risks posed by these chemicals and meet health-based standards.  Guidance documents and other information are available on the program’s  Web site, http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/air/health/airtoxics/.
section_title: Louisville, Kentucky
paragraphs: In September 2004, the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District  prepared a draft Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) program in  response to air monitoring that documented and modeled data that  suggested that air toxics posed significant risks to the community.  Adopted by the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board in June 2005,  the STAR program requires certain facilities to estimate the risk posed by  their air toxics emissions and to reduce the risk, potentially through the  application of control technologies, to meet certain health-based goals.  Louisville’s program first focuses on emissions of 18 air toxics that posed  unacceptable risk to the public based on monitoring studies. In total, the  STAR program applies to new or modified processes and process  equipment that will emit any of 191 air toxics, and existing sources that  emitted any of 37 air toxics in quantities that exceed certain thresholds.  Policy documents and other information are available on the program’s  Web site, http://www.apcd.org/star/.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
paragraphs: 1.  Regarding our discussion of the economic effects of air toxics  regulations, EPA stated that the agency finds it appropriate to focus  risk assessments and benefits analysis on the air toxics that pose the  most significant risks within the context of the residual risk program.  EPA’s letter also stated that such an approach would assist the  rulemaking process to a greater extent than comprehensive  assessments of the total benefits and costs of all air toxics controls.  While EPA may hold this view, the Clean Air Act requires the agency  not only to assess residual risks after completing the MACT standards,  but also to periodically assess the costs and benefits of clean air  programs. Regarding the first set of requirements, EPA was late in  issuing almost all of the MACT standards and is already well behind  schedule in completing the residual risk assessments. With respect to  the second set of requirements, EPA’s economic assessments of clean  air programs have included limited information on the costs of  regulating air toxics and have not included monetized estimates of the  human health or other benefits—either for individual pollutants or for  all of the pollutants in total. More complete information on costs and  benefits would help the agency, Congress, and the public understand  the effects of the air toxics program and enable the agency to compare  the net benefits of the air toxics program with those achieved under  other clean air programs on which the agency has placed a higher  priority.  2.  In its letter, EPA stated that GAO uses an inappropriately narrow  measure of progress in regulating air toxics and that the agency has  issued a number of regulations that control air toxics as a side benefit.  However, as we discuss in the report, data limitations compromise the  usefulness of other performance measures. EPA has indeed taken  regulatory actions outside of the air toxics program that control toxic  emissions as a side benefit. However, the progress—in terms of  emissions reductions—that EPA cites should be considered in the  context of the limitations of the emissions data discussed in this  report. For example, the EPA Inspector General has reported that EPA  cannot tell whether apparent reductions or increases in emissions have  resulted from changes in the way the agency estimates emissions or  from actual reductions. It is also important to note that EPA does not  expect some of the emissions reductions cited in its letter to occur  until 2020. Furthermore, EPA’s most recent data on risks from air  toxics identifies benzene—a known carcinogen emitted primarily by  mobile sources—as a national risk driver that accounts for 25 percent  of the cancer risks posed by air toxics across the nation. This suggests  that EPA has substantial opportunities to further address air toxics  risks from mobile sources. Finally, the Clean Air Act mandated specific  actions and timelines for evaluating and regulating toxic emissions  from mobile sources. As discussed in this report, the agency has  missed its deadlines for completing these actions but has proposed a  mobile source air toxics rule that it intends to finalize in 2007.  3.  In response to our finding that EPA lacks a strategy for managing its  implementation of the remaining air toxics requirements, the agency’s  letter stated that the Clean Air Act provides a road map for air toxics  and that EPA developed an integrated air toxics strategy in 1999. EPA  also stated that the agency is developing a strategy to respond to its  court-ordered deadlines for completing certain air toxics requirements.  As discussed in the report, EPA has missed most of the act’s deadlines  related to air toxics and has not fully implemented the actions outlined  in its integrated strategy. Additionally, EPA’s discussion of its efforts  to meet court-ordered deadlines underscores the need for more  proactive management.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Christine Fishkin (Assistant  Director), Jennifer Dougherty, Cindy Gilbert, Tim Guinane, Michael Hix,  Andrew Huddleston, Karen Keegan, Alison O’Neill, Judy Pagano, Melissa  Saddler, and Joseph Thompson made significant contributions to this  report.