Clean Air Act
EPA Has Completed Most of the Actions Required by the 1990 Amendments, but Many Were Completed Late Gao ID: GAO-05-613 May 27, 2005While air quality in the United States has steadily improved over the last few decades, more than a hundred million Americans continue to live in communities where pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at times, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963, was last reauthorized and amended in 1990, when new programs were created and changes were made to the ways in which air pollution is controlled. The 1990 amendments included hundreds of requirements for EPA, as well as other parties, to take steps that will ultimately reduce air pollution. The amendments also established deadlines for many of these requirements. Since the 1990 amendments, various actions have been proposed to either amend the Clean Air Act or implement its provisions in new ways. GAO was asked to report on the current status of EPA's implementation of requirements under Titles I, III, and IV of the 1990 amendments. These titles, which address national ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutants, and acid deposition control, respectively, are the most relevant to proposed legislation and recently finalized regulations addressing emissions of air pollutants by power plants.
As of April 2005, EPA had completed 404 of the 452 actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Of the 338 requirements that had statutory deadlines prior to April 2005, EPA completed 256 late: many (162) 2 years or less after the required date, but others (94) more than 2 years after their deadlines. Consequently, improvements in air quality associated with some of these requirements may have been delayed. The numerous actions required to implement these titles varied in scope and complexity. For example, these actions included reviewing numerous state plans to comply with national health- and welfare-based air quality standards for six major pollutants, setting technology-based standards to reduce emissions from sources of hazardous air pollutants, and developing a new program to reduce acid rain. EPA officials cited several reasons for the missed deadlines, including the emphasis on stakeholders' involvement during regulatory development, which added to the time needed to issue regulations; the need to set priorities among the tremendous number of new responsibilities EPA assumed as a result of the 1990 amendments, which meant that some actions had to be delayed; and competing demands caused by the workload associated with EPA's response to lawsuits challenging some of its rules. Of the 48 requirements EPA had not met as of April 2005, 45 had associated deadlines, and 3 did not. The unmet requirements include 15 Title I requirements to promulgate regulations to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds from a number of consumer and commercial products, such as household cleaners and pesticides. According to EPA officials, these rules were not completed because EPA shifted its priorities toward issuing standards related to the emissions of hazardous air pollutants regulated under Title III. However, the unmet requirements also include actions under Title III to periodically assess whether EPA's emissions standards for sources that emit significant amounts of hazardous air pollutants appropriately protect public health. These "residual risk" assessments are to be made within 8 years of the setting of each of the emissions standards, and 19 of these assessments are now past the 8-year mark. EPA completed the first of these residual risk assessments in March 2005. Any improvements in air quality that would result from EPA meeting these requirements remain unrealized. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed with our findings and provided supplemental information, primarily on the benefits of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the reasons for implementation delays.
GAO-05-613, Clean Air Act: EPA Has Completed Most of the Actions Required by the 1990 Amendments, but Many Were Completed Late
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-613
entitled 'Clean Air Act: EPA Has Completed Most of the Actions Required
by the 1990 Amendments, but Many Were Completed Late' which was
released on June 27, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
May 2005:
Clean Air Act:
EPA Has Completed Most of the Actions Required by the 1990 Amendments,
but Many Were Completed Late:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-613]
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-613, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
While air quality in the United States has steadily improved over the
last few decades, more than a hundred million Americans continue to
live in communities where pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at
times, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963, was last reauthorized and amended
in 1990, when new programs were created and changes were made to the
ways in which air pollution is controlled. The 1990 amendments included
hundreds of requirements for EPA, as well as other parties, to take
steps that will ultimately reduce air pollution. The amendments also
established deadlines for many of these requirements. Since the 1990
amendments, various actions have been proposed to either amend the
Clean Air Act or implement its provisions in new ways.
GAO was asked to report on the current status of EPA‘s implementation
of requirements under Titles I, III, and IV of the 1990 amendments.
These titles, which address national ambient air quality standards,
hazardous air pollutants, and acid deposition control, respectively,
are the most relevant to proposed legislation and recently finalized
regulations addressing emissions of air pollutants by power plants.
What GAO Found:
As of April 2005, EPA had completed 404 of the 452 actions required to
meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Of the 338 requirements that had statutory
deadlines prior to April 2005, EPA completed 256 late: many (162) 2
years or less after the required date, but others (94) more than 2
years after their deadlines. Consequently, improvements in air quality
associated with some of these requirements may have been delayed. The
numerous actions required to implement these titles varied in scope and
complexity. For example, these actions included reviewing numerous
state plans to comply with national health-and welfare-based air
quality standards for six major pollutants, setting technology-based
standards to reduce emissions from sources of hazardous air pollutants,
and developing a new program to reduce acid rain. EPA officials cited
several reasons for the missed deadlines, including the emphasis on
stakeholders‘ involvement during regulatory development, which added to
the time needed to issue regulations; the need to set priorities among
the tremendous number of new responsibilities EPA assumed as a result
of the 1990 amendments, which meant that some actions had to be
delayed; and competing demands caused by the workload associated with
EPA‘s response to lawsuits challenging some of its rules.
Of the 48 requirements EPA had not met as of April 2005, 45 had
associated deadlines, and 3 did not. The unmet requirements include 15
Title I requirements to promulgate regulations to limit the emissions
of volatile organic compounds from a number of consumer and commercial
products, such as household cleaners and pesticides. According to EPA
officials, these rules were not completed because EPA shifted its
priorities toward issuing standards related to the emissions of
hazardous air pollutants regulated under Title III. However, the unmet
requirements also include actions under Title III to periodically
assess whether EPA‘s emissions standards for sources that emit
significant amounts of hazardous air pollutants appropriately protect
public health. These ’residual risk“ assessments are to be made within
8 years of the setting of each of the emissions standards, and 19 of
these assessments are now past the 8-year mark. EPA completed the first
of these residual risk assessments in March 2005. Any improvements in
air quality that would result from EPA meeting these requirements
remain unrealized.
In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed with our
findings and provided supplemental information, primarily on the
benefits of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the reasons for
implementation delays (see app. V).
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-613.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
EPA Has Implemented Almost All Required Actions, but Many Were
Implemented Late:
Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Title I:
Appendix II: Title III:
Appendix III: Title IV:
Appendix IV: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Requirements with and without Statutory Deadlines as of April
2005, by Related Title:
Table 2: Status of Title I-, III-, and IV-Related Requirements as of
April 2005:
Table 3: Length of Time by which EPA Missed Deadlines for Title I-, III-
, and IV-Related Requirements:
Table 4: Status of Requirements Related to Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as of April 2005:
Table 5: Length of Time by which Title I-Related Requirements with
Statutory Deadlines Were Met Late:
Table 6: Title I-Related Requirements with Statutory Deadlines Not Met
by EPA as of April 2005:
Table 7: Status of Requirements under Title III of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as of April 2005:
Table 8: Length of Time by which Title III Requirements with Statutory
Deadlines Were Met Late:
Table 9: Title III Requirements Not Met by EPA as of April 2005:
Table 10: Status of Requirements under Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as of April 2005:
Table 11: Length of Time by which Title IV Requirements with Statutory
Deadlines Were Met Late:
Figure:
Figure 1: Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions of Six Air
Pollutants in the United States:
Abbreviations:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
MACT: Maximum Achievable Control Technology:
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard:
SIP: State Implementation Plan:
Letter May 27, 2005:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
Exposure to air pollution is associated with numerous effects on human
health, including respiratory problems, heart and lung diseases
resulting in hospitalization, and even premature death. While air
quality in the United States has steadily improved over the last few
decades, more than a hundred million Americans continue to live in
communities where pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at times,
according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air
Act, first passed in 1963, was last reauthorized and amended by the
Congress in 1990, when new programs were created and changes were made
to the ways in which air pollution is controlled. For example, the 1990
amendments created a market-based "cap-and-trade" program to reduce the
adverse effects of acid rain deposition by capping emissions of sulfur
dioxide nationwide and allowing electric power plants the flexibility
to either achieve emissions reductions themselves or purchase
allowances from plants that have achieved greater reductions than
required. In addition, the 1990 amendments required EPA to take
numerous actions, such as creating national technology-based standards
for hazardous air pollutants;[Footnote 1] issuing new regulations and
guidance documents; undertaking research studies; and preparing reports
to the Congress.
As we reported in 2000, the first six titles of the 1990 amendments
included hundreds of requirements for EPA and other parties--such as
states and local governments--to take steps that will ultimately reduce
air pollution.[Footnote 2] The amendments also established deadlines
for many of these requirements. We further reported that EPA had met
many of the requirements by February 2000, but that the agency had
missed statutory deadlines for most of the requirements that were met.
Some of the requirements EPA had not yet met had statutory deadlines
after February 2000.
In recent years, EPA and the Congress have sought to achieve further
reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from
power plants in order to, among other things, help improve air quality
in communities that do not meet EPA's health-based standards for major
pollutants. In addition, EPA and the Congress have sought to reduce
mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time. In
fact, in March 2005, EPA issued two regulations--the Clean Air
Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule--addressing these
pollutants. The interstate rule permanently caps emissions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 28 eastern states and the District of
Columbia, and the mercury rule sets nationwide limits on mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants. In these rules, EPA uses the
cap-and-trade approach to allow power plants to either reduce emissions
or buy allowances from other power plants that have reduced their
emissions below their limit. As you know, certain proposals of the
current session of Congress, such as the "Clear Skies" bill, would
similarly impose reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
mercury, though they would do so on a nationwide basis for all three
pollutants.[Footnote 3] Some proponents of the legislative approach to
controlling emissions have argued that legislation that specified
emissions reduction levels may be subject to fewer legal challenges
than EPA-promulgated regulations developed under broader statutory
authorities. Along these lines, we note that on the day EPA issued the
mercury rule, attorneys general for nine states initiated a lawsuit
challenging various aspects of this rule.
In this context, you asked us to report on the current status of EPA's
implementation of requirements under Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, which address national ambient (outdoor)
air quality standards, hazardous air pollutants, and acid deposition
control, respectively, and are the most relevant to the recent
regulations and proposed legislation addressing emissions of air
pollutants by power plants.
To obtain information on the status of EPA's implementation of Titles
I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, we spoke with
EPA officials knowledgeable about EPA's workload related to these
titles. These officials verified a list of the requirements related to
each title for accuracy and completeness and provided documentation for
any changes made to the list. This list had originally been developed
as evidence for GAO's 2000 report on the status of EPA's implementation
of the 1990 amendments.[Footnote 4] In addition, EPA officials provided
explanations and documentation for requirements that had not been met
as of April 2005. This report focuses on the extent to which EPA has
met its requirements with statutory deadlines prior to April 2005 and
those without statutory deadlines related to Titles I, III, and IV
under the 1990 amendments, but does not show the extent to which the
states have implemented applicable requirements. A more detailed
description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix IV.
We conducted our work from January 2005 to May 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
As of April 2005, EPA had completed all but 48 of the 452 actions that
the agency identified as required to meet the objectives of Titles I,
III, and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The number, scope,
and complexity of the required actions under each of these titles
varied widely, and these differences, along with other challenges EPA
faced, led to varying timeliness in implementing these requirements.
Some of the major actions that EPA has taken related to these three
titles include reviewing state plans for achieving national health-and
welfare-based standards for six major air pollutants, developing
technology-based standards for 174 separate categories of sources of
hazardous air pollutants, and implementing a market-based cap-and-trade
program to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide from power plants. Of the
404 actions completed, 338 had statutory deadlines prior to April 2005,
most of which EPA did not meet on time. In fact, EPA completed 256 of
these actions late: many (162) 2 years or less after the required date,
but others (94) more than 2 years after their deadlines. Consequently,
improvements in air quality associated with some of these requirements
may have been delayed. According to EPA officials, the agency missed
these deadlines for several reasons, including an emphasis on
stakeholders' review and involvement during regulatory development; the
necessity to set priorities among the actions required of EPA resulting
from the 1990 amendments; and competing demands caused by the workload
associated with EPA's response to lawsuits challenging some of its
rules. EPA officials explained that 45 of the requirements with
statutory deadlines were still unmet as of April 2005 because of
competing priorities, among other factors. For example, 15 requirements
for EPA to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds from various
products, such as cleaning products and insecticides, were not
completed because the agency shifted its priorities toward implementing
standards related to the emissions of hazardous air pollutants
regulated under Title III, according to EPA officials. In addition, EPA
has not implemented 19 actions required under Title III to assess
whether EPA's emissions standards for certain sources of hazardous air
pollutants appropriately protect public health. Any improvements in air
quality that would result from EPA meeting these requirements remain
unrealized.
Background:
The Clean Air Act, a comprehensive federal law that regulates air
pollution from stationary and mobile sources, was passed in 1963 to
improve and protect the quality of the nation's air. The act was
substantially overhauled in 1970 when the Congress required EPA to
establish national ambient air quality standards for pollutants at
levels that are necessary to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety and to protect public welfare from adverse effects.
EPA has set such standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. In addition, the act
directed the states to specify how they would achieve and maintain
compliance with the national standard for each pollutant. The Congress
amended the act again in 1977 and 1990. The 1977 amendments were passed
primarily to set new goals and dates for attaining the standards
because many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines set
previously. The act was amended again in 1990 when several new themes
were incorporated into it, including encouraging the use of market-
based approaches to reduce emissions, such as cap-and-trade programs.
The major provisions of the 1990 amendments are contained in the first
six titles. As requested, this report addresses EPA's actions related
to Titles I, III, and IV:[Footnote 5]
* Title I establishes a detailed and graduated program for the
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards;
* Title III expands and modifies regulations of hazardous air pollutant
emissions and establishes a list of 189 hazardous air pollutants to be
regulated;
* Title IV establishes the acid deposition control program to reduce
the adverse effects of acid rain by reducing the annual emissions of
pollutants that contribute to it.[Footnote 6]
Although the Clean Air Act is a federal law, states and local
governments are responsible for carrying out certain portions of the
statute. For example, states are responsible for developing
implementation plans that describe how they will come into compliance
with national standards set by EPA. EPA must approve each state's plan,
and if an implementation plan is not acceptable, EPA may assume
enforcement of the Clean Air Act in that state. Once EPA sets a
national standard, it is generally up to state and local air pollution
control agencies to enforce the standard, with oversight from EPA. For
example, state air pollution control agencies may hold hearings on
permit applications by power or chemical plants. States may also fine
companies for violating air pollution limits.
According to EPA, by many measures, the quality of the nation's air has
improved in recent years. Each year EPA estimates emissions that impact
the ambient concentrations of the six major air pollutants for which
EPA sets national ambient air quality standards. EPA uses these annual
emissions estimates as one indicator of the effectiveness of its air
programs. As figure 1 shows, according to EPA, between 1970 and 2004,
gross domestic product, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, and
U.S. population all grew; during the same time period, however, total
emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 54 percent.
Figure 1: Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions of Six Air
Pollutants[A] in the United States:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
dioxide, and lead.
Note: This figure represents data for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and
1995 through 2004.
[End of figure]
Despite this progress, large numbers of Americans continue to live in
communities where pollution sometimes exceeds federal air quality
standards for one or more of the six principal air pollutants. For
example, EPA reported in April 2004 that 159 million people lived in
areas of the United States where air pollution sometimes exceeds
federal air quality standards for ground-level ozone.[Footnote 7]
According to EPA, exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of
adverse health effects, including significant decreases in lung
function; inflammation of the airways; and increased respiratory
symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep breath. Moreover,
in 2003, 62 million people lived in counties where monitors showed
particle pollution levels higher than national particulate matter
standards, according to a December 2004 EPA report.[Footnote 8] Long-
term exposure to particle pollution is associated with problems such as
decreased lung function, chronic bronchitis, and premature death. Even
short-term exposure to particle pollution--measured in hours or days--
is associated with such effects as cardiac arrhythmias (heartbeat
irregularities), heart attacks, hospital admissions or emergency room
visits for heart or lung disease, and premature death.
EPA Has Implemented Almost All Required Actions, but Many Were
Implemented Late:
EPA identified 452 actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I,
III, and IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. About half of
these required actions were included under Title III, which also
included the largest number of requirements with statutory deadlines.
As shown in table 1, the 1990 amendments specified statutory deadlines
for 338 of the Title I-, III-, and IV-related requirements.
Table 1: Requirements with and without Statutory Deadlines as of April
2005, by Related Title:
Type of requirement: Requirements with statutory deadlines;
Title I: 83;
Title III: 229;
Title IV: 26;
Total: 338.
Type of requirement: Requirements without statutory deadlines;
Title I: 88;
Title III: 8;
Title IV: 18;
Total: 114.
Total;
Title I: 171;
Title III: 237;
Title IV: 44;
Total: 452.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: This table does not include data on certain Title III actions--
residual risk and other reviews with deadlines after April 2005.
[End of table]
The numerous actions required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III,
and IV of the 1990 amendments vary in scope and complexity. For
example, Title I of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to periodically
review and revise, as appropriate, the national health-and welfare-
based standards for air quality. After EPA revises any one of these
standards, states are responsible for developing plans that detail how
they will achieve the revised standard. EPA then must review the
individual state plans for each standard and decide whether to approve
them. While EPA must review and approve all individual state plans
submitted, each set of reviews is only counted as one action. Other
Title I requirements, on the other hand, only require EPA to publish
reports on air quality and emission trends. While the reports may
represent a significant amount of effort, the steps required to
implement national ambient air quality standards are inherently more
difficult to accomplish and often require parties independent of EPA,
such as state and local agencies, to pass legislation and issue, adopt,
and implement rules. Comparing the requirements among titles also shows
how they vary in complexity. For example, Title IV required EPA to
develop a new market-based cap and trade program to reduce emissions of
sulfur dioxide and a rate-based program to reduce emissions of nitrogen
oxides from power plants. While developing the cap and trade program
was a large undertaking on EPA's part, it involved regulating a
specified number of stationary sources in a single industry. In
contrast, under Title III, EPA is required to implement technology-
based standards for 174 separate categories of sources of hazardous air
pollutants, involving many industries.
As shown in table 2, a large portion of the requirements with statutory
deadlines related to Titles I, III, and IV were met late. That is, 256
of the 338 requirements with statutory deadlines have been completed
but were late. Of the 114 requirements without statutory deadlines, all
but 3 of the requirements have been completed.
Table 2: Status of Title I-, III-, and IV-Related Requirements as of
April 2005:
Type of requirement: Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met on
time;
Title I: 16;
Title III: 13;
Title IV: 8;
Total: 37.
Type of requirement: Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met late;
Title I: 45;
Title III: 195;
Title IV: 16;
Total: 256.
Type of requirement: Requirements with statutory deadlines: Unmet-
deadlines prior to April 2005;
Title I: 22;
Title III: 21;
Title IV: 2;
Total: 45.
Type of requirement: Requirements with statutory deadlines: Subtotal;
Title I: 83;
Title III: 229;
Title IV: 26;
Total: 338.
Type of requirement: Requirements without statutory deadlines:
Completed;
Title I: 85;
Title III: 8;
Title IV: 18;
Total: 111.
Type of requirement: Requirements without statutory deadlines: Not
completed;
Title I: 3;
Title III: 0;
Title IV: 0;
Total: 3.
Type of requirement: Requirements without statutory deadlines:
Subtotal;
Title I: 88;
Title III: 8;
Title IV: 18;
Total: 114.
Total;
Title I: 171;
Title III: 237;
Title IV: 44;
Total: 452.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: This table does not include data on certain Title III actions--
residual risk and other reviews with deadlines after April 2005.
[End of table]
On average, EPA met the requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV
about 24, 25, and 15 months after their statutory deadlines,
respectively. Of the 256 requirements that EPA met late, 162 were met
within 2 years of their statutory deadline and 94 were completed more
than 2 years after their deadlines (see table 3). Consequently,
improvements in air quality associated with some of these requirements
may have been delayed.
Table 3: Length of Time by which EPA Missed Deadlines for Title I-, III-
, and IV-Related Requirements:
Length of time: Up to 12 months;
Title I: 24;
Title III: 41;
Title IV: 10;
Total: 75.
Length of time: 13 to 24 months;
Title I: 9;
Title III: 75;
Title IV: 3;
Total: 87.
Length of time: 25 to 36 months;
Title I: 4;
Title III: 50;
Title IV: 2;
Total: 56.
Length of time: Over 36 months;
Title I: 8;
Title III: 29;
Title IV: 1;
Total: 38.
Length of time: Total;
Title I: 45;
Title III: 195;
Title IV: 16;
Total: 256.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
EPA officials cited several factors to explain why the agency missed
deadlines for so many requirements. Among these factors was an emphasis
on stakeholders' review and involvement during regulatory development,
which added to the time needed to issue regulations. For example,
according to an EPA official, the process to develop an early
technology rule under Title III involved protracted negotiations among
EPA, industry groups, a labor union, and environmental groups. The rule
was finalized in October 1993, 10 months after its statutory deadline.
In addition, EPA officials mentioned the need to set priorities among
the tremendous number of new requirements for EPA resulting from the
1990 amendments, which meant that some of these actions had to be
delayed. Moreover, competing demands caused by the workload associated
with EPA's responses to lawsuits challenging some of its rules caused
additional delays. For example, the time needed to respond to
litigation of previous rules impinged on EPA staff's ability to develop
new rules, according to agency officials. In addition, at the time of
our 2000 report, EPA officials also attributed delays to the emergence
of new scientific information that led to major Clean Air Act
activities unforeseen by the 1990 amendments. For example, the
emergence of new scientific information regarding the importance of
regional ozone transport led to an extensive collaborative process
between states in the eastern half of the country to evaluate and
address the transport of ozone and its precursors.
As of April 2005, 45 of the requirements related to Titles I, III, and
IV with statutory deadlines that had passed have not been met. Thus,
any improvements in air quality that would result from EPA meeting
these requirements remain unrealized. The majority of the unmet
requirements related to Title I are activities involving promulgating
regulations that limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds from
different groups of consumer and commercial products. According to EPA
officials, these rules were never completed because EPA shifted its
priorities toward issuing the Title III technology-based standards.
Additionally, EPA officials noted that many states have implemented
their own rules limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds from
these products, and these state rules are achieving the level of
emissions reductions that would be achieved by a national rule passed
by EPA. However, EPA is currently being sued because it did not
implement these rules by their statutory deadlines. According to an EPA
official, the agency and the litigant have agreed on the actions to be
taken to address the requirements, but they could not reach agreement
on completion dates. As a result, EPA is currently awaiting court-
issued compliance dates. In addition, 21 Title III requirements have
yet to be met.[Footnote 9] Most of these are "residual risk" reviews of
technology-based standards with deadlines prior to April 2005. That is,
within 8 years of setting each technology-based standard, EPA is
required to assess the remaining health risks (the residual risk) from
each source category to determine whether the standard appropriately
protects public health. Applying this "risk-based" approach, EPA must
revise the standards to make them more protective of health, if
necessary. EPA completed its first review and issued the first set of
these risk-based amendments in March 2005. Two actions required by
Title IV have not been met, but, according to EPA, the agency has
decided not to pursue these actions further. The requirements were to
(1) promulgate an opt-in regulation for process sources and (2) conduct
a sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxides inter-pollutant trading study.
According to EPA officials, the agency decided not to promulgate the
opt-in regulation because it determined that the federal resources
needed to develop the rule would be well in excess of those available
and the implementation of this provision would not reduce overall
emissions. EPA officials also said that the rule would not be cost-
effective due to these factors and the limited number of sources
expected to use the opt-in option. EPA officials said that the agency
decided not to pursue the sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxides inter-
pollutant study because of the lack of a trading ratio that would
capture the complex environmental relationship between sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides and because an inter-pollutant trading program
would be complex and unlikely to result in environmental benefits.
The list of specific actions EPA is required to take to meet the
objectives of Titles I and III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
includes requirements for periodic assessments of some of the standards
related to these titles. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required every
5 years to review the levels at which it has set national ambient air
quality standards to ensure that they are sufficiently protective of
public health and welfare. If EPA determines it is necessary to revise
the standard, the agency undertakes a rulemaking to do so. Each new
national ambient air quality standard, in turn, will trigger a number
of subsequent EPA actions under Title I, such as setting the boundaries
of areas that do not attain the standards and approving state plans to
correct nonattainment. As a result, the set of required actions related
to Title I tends to repeat over time. Title III also includes
requirements for periodic assessments of its technology-based
standards. In addition to the residual risk assessments discussed
above, the Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the technology-based
standards every 8 years, and, if necessary, revise them to account for
improvements in air pollution controls and prevention. The first round
of these recurring reviews will occur concurrently with the first round
of residual risk assessments, according to an EPA official. Moreover,
EPA's workload related to its air programs may increase as a result of
recommendations for regulatory reform compiled by the Office of
Management and Budget. For example, in response to a recommendation to
permit the use of new technology to monitor leaks of volatile air
pollutants, EPA plans to propose a rule or guidance in March 2006.
Observations:
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 constituted a significant overhaul
of the Clean Air Act, and notable reductions in emissions of air
pollutants have been attained as a result of the many actions these
amendments required of EPA, states, and other parties. Currently, EPA
has completed most of the 452 actions required by the 1990 amendments
related to Titles I, III, and IV. The number, scope, and complexity of
the required actions under each of these titles varied widely, and
these differences, along with other challenges EPA faced, led to
varying timeliness in implementing these requirements. Although EPA did
not meet the statutory deadlines in many cases, we believe that the
deadlines played an important role in EPA's implementation of the
myriad and diverse actions mandated in the 1990 amendments by providing
a structure to guide and support the agency's efforts to complete them.
As EPA and the Congress now move on to addressing the remaining air
pollution problems that pose health threats to our citizens, some
points from our 2000 report on the implementation of the 1990
amendments bear repeating. First, some of the stakeholders we
interviewed representing environmental groups and state and local
government agencies expressed a preference for legislation and
regulations that describe specific amounts of emissions to be reduced,
provide specific deadlines to be met, and identify the sources to be
regulated. Second, we, along with many of these stakeholders, concluded
in that report that the acid rain program under Title IV could offer a
worthwhile model for some other air quality problems because it set
emission-reduction goals and encouraged market-based approaches, such
as cap-and-trade programs, to attain these goals. While EPA officials
noted that emissions-trading programs may not be suitable for all air
pollutants, the agency has applied this approach to several pollutants
since 2000. Specifically, EPA has issued final rules using cap-and-
trade programs to achieve further reductions in sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides and to require reductions of mercury emissions for the
first time. However, whether EPA can apply the cap-and-trade model to
hazardous air pollutants such as mercury in the absence of express
statutory authority to do so is unclear, particularly in light of the
lawsuit that has been filed challenging EPA's March 2005 rule on
mercury emissions.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
EPA generally agreed with the findings presented in the report and
provided supplemental information about the air quality, public health,
and environmental benefits associated with implementation of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and comments related to its future
challenges. The agency also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate. Appendix V contains the full text of
the agency's comments and our responses.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator,
EPA; 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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-
3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Title I:
The Clean Air Act requires that all areas of the country meet national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which are set by EPA at levels
that are expected to be protective of human health and the environment.
NAAQS have been established for six "criteria" pollutants: ozone,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur oxides, particulate matter,
and lead. The act further specifies that EPA must assess the level at
which the standards are set every five years and revise them, if
necessary.
To accomplish the objectives of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, EPA identified 171 requirements.[Footnote 10] The specific
requirements contained in Title I direct EPA to perform a variety of
activities, many of which are related to implementing the NAAQS.
Implementation of the standards involves several stages, many requiring
efforts by both EPA and states. For example, once EPA has determined
the appropriate air quality level at which to set a standard, the
agency then goes through a designation process during which it
identifies the areas of the country that fail to meet the standard.
After the nonattainment areas are identified, states have primary
responsibility for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. To do this,
states develop state implementation plans (SIPs) that specify the
programs that states will develop to achieve and maintain compliance
with the standards. Once a state submits a SIP to EPA, EPA is
responsible for reviewing it and either approving or disapproving the
plan. To assist states in developing their plans, EPA develops guidance
documents that help states interpret the standards and provide
information on how to comply. For example, EPA established several
alternative control techniques documents for various sources that emit
nitrogen oxides. These documents provide suggestions for states and
industry on different techniques that can be used to reduce nitrogen
oxides emissions. In some circumstances, EPA may provide guidance to
the state and local air pollution control agencies through the issuance
of EPA guidance and/or policy memos. For example, although designating
areas as nonattainment or attainment is a complex and time-consuming
process, EPA issued guidance through policy memos on the factors and
criteria EPA used to make decisions for designating areas of the
country as nonattainment.
As of April 2005, EPA had completed 146 of the requirements that the
agency must implement to meet the objectives of Title I. Sixty-one
requirements that EPA had met by April 2005 had statutory deadlines. As
table 4 shows, EPA met 16 of these requirements on time and missed the
deadlines for 45 of them. EPA also completed 85 of the 88 requirements
that did not have statutory deadlines.
Table 4: Status of Requirements Related to Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as of April 2005:
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met on time;
Number: 16.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met late;
Number: 45.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Unmet-deadlines prior to April
2005;
Number: 22.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Subtotal;
Number: 83.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Completed;
Number: 85.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Not completed;
Number: 3.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Subtotal;
Number: 88.
Total;
Number: 171.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
On average, Title I-related requirements that were met late were
completed 24 months after their statutory deadline. As table 5 shows,
the length of time by which requirements were met late for Title I
varied. For example, 24 of the late requirements were met within 1 year
of their statutory deadline while 8 requirements were completed more
than 3 years late.
Table 5: Length of Time by which Title I-Related Requirements with
Statutory Deadlines Were Met Late:
Length of time: Up to 12 months;
Number of requirements: 24.
Length of time: 13 to 24 months;
Number of requirements: 9.
Length of time: 25 to 36 months;
Number of requirements: 4.
Length of time: Over 36 months;
Number of requirements: 8.
Length of time: Total;
Number of requirements: 45.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
According to EPA, the agency missed deadlines for Title I-related
requirements for a number of reasons, such as (1) having to review a
larger quantity of scientific information than was available in the
past; (2) competing demands placed on agency staff who had to work
concurrently on more than one major rulemaking; and (3) engaging in
longer, more involved interagency review processes. According to agency
officials, many of the requirements that EPA completed late arose due
to issues beyond EPA's control. For example, in implementing the ozone
and particulate matter NAAQS, the emergence of new scientific
information regarding the importance of regional ozone transport led to
an extensive collaborative process between states in the eastern half
of the country to evaluate and address the transport of ozone and its
precursors. This information was then taken into account in the review
and subsequent revision of the ozone NAAQS in 1997. In addition, EPA
was sued on both the 1997 ozone and particulate matter standards, which
delayed EPA's action to designate areas as nonattainment. Moreover, the
ongoing review of the particulate matter NAAQS has been significantly
extended as a consequence of the unprecedented amount of new scientific
research that has become available since the last review, according to
EPA.
Currently, EPA has not completed 22 requirements related to Title I
with statutory deadlines (see table 6). Fifteen of these requirements
call for rules involving different groups of consumer and commercial
products, six involve reviewing the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants,
and one requires EPA to finalize approving the state implementation
plans for ozone and carbon monoxide. The outstanding rules involving
the consumer and commercial products are to limit volatile organic
compound emissions from various products, such as cleaning products,
personal care products, and a variety of insecticides. The 1990
amendments specified that the rules be promulgated in four groups,
based on a priority ranking established by EPA that includes a number
of factors, such as the quantity of emissions from certain products.
While EPA completed the first group of rules by September 1998, the
agency had not done anything further to implement the remaining three
groups of rules. According to EPA officials, no further work had been
done to implement the rules because EPA shifted its priorities toward
issuing the Title III technology-based standards. Additionally, EPA
officials noted that many states have implemented their own rules
limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds from these products,
and these state rules are achieving the level of emissions reductions
that would be achieved by a national rule passed by EPA. An EPA
official stated that a national rule would not provide much of an
additional benefit in the areas where emissions of volatile organic
compounds are a problem and that a national rule would be fought by
industry in states where emissions of volatile organic compounds are
not a problem. However, promulgating these rules is a requirement under
the 1990 amendments, and according to EPA officials, the agency is
currently being sued by the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy
group, for not promulgating them by their statutory deadline. EPA and
the litigant have agreed on the actions to be taken to address the
requirements, however, they could not reach agreement on the completion
dates and are currently awaiting court-issued compliance dates.
In addition, the other six unmet requirements related to Title I
involve potentially revising the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants.
While EPA has been involved in litigation regarding four of these
standards, litigation is still ongoing only regarding the lead NAAQS.
EPA is being sued for not reviewing since 1991 the lead NAAQS that was
originally issued in October 1978. According to EPA officials, the
agency did not undertake this review because it shifted its focus to
controlling other sources of lead, such as drinking water and hazardous
waste facilities. As shown in table 6, EPA expects to complete the
required reviews for four of the criteria pollutants by 2009.
Table 6: Title I-Related Requirements with Statutory Deadlines Not Met
by EPA as of April 2005:
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 2-
-Flex package printing;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 1999;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 3-
-Aerosol spray paints;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2001;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 3-
-Industrial cleaning solvents;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2001;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 3-
-Flat wood paneling;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2001;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 3-
-Lithographic printing;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2001;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Paper, film, and foil coatings;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Letterpress printing;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Plastic parts;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Metal furniture;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Auto and light duty trucks assembly;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Petroleum dry-cleaning;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Misc metal parts;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Large appliances;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Fiberglass boat manufacturing;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Consumer and Commercial Products--Group 4-
-Misc industrial adhesives;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Promulgate decision on ozone NAAQS;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: July 2002;
Projected completion date: December 2007.
Description of requirements: Promulgate decision on particulate matter
NAAQS;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: July 2002;
Projected completion date: September 2006.
Description of requirements: Promulgate decision on sulfur oxides
NAAQS;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: May 1991;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Promulgate decision on carbon monoxide
NAAQS;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: August 1999;
Projected completion date: May 2009.
Description of requirements: Promulgate decision on nitrogen dioxide
NAAQS;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: October 1991;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Promulgate decision on lead NAAQS;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: 1996[A];
Projected completion date: June 2009.
Description of requirements: Approve or disapprove state implementation
plans for ozone and carbon monoxide;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: November 1994[B];
Projected completion date: September 2005.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: Consumer and commercial product requirements have been issued
either as regulations or as guidelines in the past.
[A] EPA provided only the year of this statutory deadline.
[B] There was more than one statutory deadline for this requirement.
This table presents the latest deadline.
[End of table]
In addition to the unmet requirements discussed above, EPA has three
requirements related to Title I without statutory deadlines that have
not yet been completed. The first is to develop a proposed particulate
matter implementation rule, which EPA expects to complete in summer
2005. The second is the promulgation of methods for measurement of
visible emissions; EPA has not yet set a completion date for this
action. The third is the promulgation of phase II of the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule, expected in summer 2005.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Title III:
Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established a new
regulatory program to reduce the emissions of hazardous air pollutants,
specifying 189 air toxics whose emissions would be controlled under its
provisions. The list includes organic and inorganic chemicals,
compounds of various elements, and numerous other toxic substances that
are frequently emitted into the air. Title III was intended to reduce
the population's exposures to these pollutants, which can cause serious
adverse health effects such as cancer and reproductive dysfunction.
After identifying the pollutants to be regulated, Title III directs EPA
to impose technology-based standards, or Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards, on industry to reduce emissions.These
technology-based standards require the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions that EPA determines achievable for new and existing sources,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving such reduction, health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. The process for
developing each MACT standard may include surveying impacted
industries, visiting sites, testing emissions, and conducting public
hearings. As a second step, within 8 years after completing each
technology-based standard, EPA is to review the remaining risks to the
public and, if necessary, issue health-based amendments to each of the
MACT rules to address such risks. The first set of these "residual
risk" standards was finalized in March 2005; residual risk standards
for the remaining MACT rules have not been completed. Finally, the
Clean Air Act requires that EPA review and, if necessary, revise the
technology-based standards at least every 8 years, to account for
improvements in air pollution controls and prevention. The first round
of these recurring reviews will occur concurrently with the first round
of residual risk assessments, according to an EPA official.
EPA identified 237 requirements--either with statutory deadlines prior
to April 2005 or without statutory deadlines--that accomplish the
objectives of Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.[Footnote 11] Most of the specific requirements under Title III
direct EPA to promulgate MACT standards for various sources of
hazardous air pollutants, such as dry cleaning facilities, petroleum
refineries, and the printing and publishing industry. Title III also
requires EPA to issue a variety of studies and reports to the Congress.
For example, EPA has issued a series of studies on the deposition of
air pollutants to the Great Lakes and other bodies of water. In
addition, Title III also directs EPA to issue guidance on a number of
subjects, including, for example, guidance regarding state air toxics
programs.
As of April 2005, EPA had met almost all of the requirements it
identified to fully implement the objectives of Title III of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, as shown in table 7. EPA's most recent data
show that it has taken the required action to meet 216 of the 237 Title
III requirements, although 195 of these were met late, as shown in
table 7.
Table 7: Status of Requirements under Title III of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as of April 2005:
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met on time;
Number: 13.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met late;
Number: 195.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Unmet;
Number: 21.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Subtotal;
Number: 229.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Completed;
Number: 8.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Not completed;
Number: 0.
Total;
Number: 237.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Notes: This table does not include data on residual risk reviews with
deadlines after April 2005. It also does not separately count recurring
reviews of MACT standards to account for improvements in air pollution
controls and prevention; the first round of these reviews will occur
concurrently with EPA's residual risk reviews.
[End of table]
As shown above, the vast majority of Title III requirements were met
late. On average, Title III requirements met late were completed 25
months after their statutory deadline. However, the length of time by
which requirements were met late varied. As shown in table 8, 116 of
the 195 requirements met late were completed within the first 2 years
after the statutory deadline, while 29 were not completed until more
than 3 years after the deadline.
Table 8: Length of Time by which Title III Requirements with Statutory
Deadlines Were Met Late:
Length of time: Up to 12 months;
Number of requirements: 41.
Length of time: 13 to 24 months;
Number of requirements: 75.
Length of time: 25 to 36 months;
Number of requirements: 50.
Length of time: Over 36 months;
Number of requirements: 29.
Length of time: Total;
Number of requirements: 195.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
In explaining why requirements under Title III were met late, an EPA
official discussed several factors. For example, the official said that
the vast majority of the requirements involved the development of the
MACT standards, which requires a significant amount of time and effort.
The official also confirmed the reasons that requirements were met late
provided by EPA officials at the time of our 2000 report, which
included the need to prioritize, given resource limitations, the time
needed to develop the policy framework and infrastructure of the MACT
program, and the need for stakeholder participation in the rulemaking
processes for certain MACT standards. In addition, the EPA official
pointed out that in the past, litigation on issued rules has imposed
additional demands on EPA staff working to meet outstanding
requirements, leading to delays.
There are 21 requirements under Title III that EPA had not met as of
April 2005, most of which involve the residual risk reviews required
after EPA has set technology-based standards (see table 9).
Specifically, EPA has not yet reviewed residual risk for 19 MACT
standards with deadlines prior to April 2005. EPA completed its first
review and issued the first set of these risk-based amendments, for the
coke oven batteries MACT standard, on March 31, 2005.[Footnote 12] In
addition to the residual risk reviews, EPA has not yet completed its
urban area source standards.[Footnote 13] The other unmet requirement
under Title III calls for EPA to promulgate standards for solid waste
incinerators not previously regulated under the title. According to an
EPA official, the agency has focused its resources on regulating major
solid waste incinerators, while this requirement consists of a "catch-
all" to pick up remaining sources. Part of the challenge to completing
this action has involved identifying what these other sources might be,
according to the official.
Table 9: Title III Requirements Not Met by EPA as of April 2005:
Description of requirements: Promulgation of urban area source
standards;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: November 2000;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Promulgation of standards for "other"
solid waste incinerators;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: November 2000;
Projected completion date: November 2005.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for perchlorethylene
emissions from dry cleaning facilities;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: September 2001;
Projected completion date: April 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for organic hazardous
air pollutants from the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry and other processes subject to the negotiated regulation for
equipment leaks;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: April 2002;
Projected completion date: December 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for industrial
process cooling towers;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: September 2002;
Projected completion date: March 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for ethylene oxide
commercial sterilization and fumigation operations;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: December 2002;
Projected completion date: March 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for gasoline
distribution (stage 1);
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: December 2002;
Projected completion date: March 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for halogenated
solvent cleaning;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: December 2002;
Projected completion date: December 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for magnetic tape
manufacturing operations;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: December 2002;
Projected completion date: March 2006.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for chromium
emissions from hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium
anodizing tanks;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: January 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for epoxy resins
production and non-nylon polyamides production;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: March 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for secondary lead
smelting;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: June 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for petroleum
refineries;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: August 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for aerospace
manufacturing and rework facilities;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: September 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for marine tank
vessel loading operations;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: September 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for shipbuilding and
ship repair (surface coating) operations;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: December 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for wood furniture
manufacturing operations;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: December 2003;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for printing and
publishing industry;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: May 2004;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for off-site waste
and recovery operations;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: July 2004;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for group I polymers
and resins;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: September 2004;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Description of requirements: Residual risk review for group IV polymers
and resins;
Type of requirement: Regulation;
Statutory deadline: September 2004;
Projected completion date: Unknown.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review MACT standards at least
every 8 years and revise them, if necessary, to account for
improvements in air pollution controls and prevention; the first round
of these reviews will occur concurrently with EPA's residual risk
reviews.
[End of table]
In addition to the unmet requirements above, EPA has not yet completed
residual risk reviews for 76 MACT standards whose deadlines fall later
than April 2005. Because these residual risk reviews are not due until
8 years after the completion of each technology standard, some of these
residual risk reviews are not due until 2012.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Title IV:
Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established the acid
deposition control program. This program was designed to provide
environmental and public health benefits through reductions in
emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary causes of
acid rain [Hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/index.html]. The
program provides an alternative to traditional "command and control"
regulatory approaches by using a market-based trading program that
allocates sulfur dioxide emission allowances to affected electric
utilities. The program creates a cost-effective way for utilities to
achieve their required sulfur dioxide emission reductions in the manner
that is most suitable to them. Utilities can choose to buy, sell, or
bank their allowances, as long as their annual emissions do not exceed
the amount of allowances (whether originally allocated to them or
purchased) that they hold at the end of the year.[Footnote 14] The
nitrogen oxides program, on the other hand, does not cap emissions of
nitrogen oxides, nor does it utilize an allowance trading system.
Rather, this program, which focuses on emissions of nitrogen oxides
from coal-fired electric utility boilers, provides flexibility for
utilities in meeting emission limits by focusing on the emission rate
to be achieved and providing options for compliance.
To accomplish the objectives of Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, EPA identified 44 requirements. Many of the
required activities had to do with setting up the acid rain program--
for example, conducting allowance auctions, issuing allowances to
utilities, and establishing an allowance trading system. Additionally,
EPA developed requirements for utilities to continuously monitor their
emission levels to properly account for allowances.
As of April 2005, EPA had completed 42 of the 44 requirements to meet
the objectives of Title IV. There were 26 requirements in Title IV with
statutory deadlines--EPA met 8 of them on time and missed 16; 2 others
were unmet. There were 18 requirements that did not have statutory
deadlines, and EPA has completed all of them. (See table 10.)
Table 10: Status of Requirements under Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 as of April 2005:
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met on time;
Number: 8.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Met late;
Number: 16.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Unmet;
Number: 2.
Requirements with statutory deadlines: Subtotal;
Number: 26.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Completed;
Number: 18.
Requirements without statutory deadlines: Not completed;
Number: 0.
Total number of requirements;
Number: 44.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: Based on additional information obtained for this report, we
determined that, compared with our 2000 report, one additional
requirement was met late.
[End of table]
On average, for the 16 requirements EPA met late, they were completed
within approximately 15 months of their deadlines. As shown in table
11, 10 were met within 1 year of their deadline and 1 was met more than
3 years late.
Table 11: Length of Time by which Title IV Requirements with Statutory
Deadlines Were Met Late:
Length of time: Up to 12 months;
Number of requirements: 10.
Length of time: 13 to 24 months;
Number of requirements: 3.
Length of time: 25 to 36 months;
Number of requirements: 2.
Length of time: Over 36 months;
Number of requirements: 1.
Length of time: Total;
Number of requirements: 16.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
According to EPA officials, the agency was late with some of the
requirements because interagency review and consultation with the Acid
Rain Advisory Committee added time to the process. Officials consider
this time spent worthwhile because it allowed for more stakeholder
input into the rulemaking process, which may have made the rules less
controversial. In fact, EPA officials stated that Title IV has been
subjected to less litigation than other titles. According to the
officials, litigation, however, did cause a delay in the effective date
of the first phase of the acid rain nitrogen oxides reduction program
by 1 year. EPA officials said the second phase of this program affected
approximately three times more units and was implemented on schedule.
EPA officials stated that since implementation of the acid rain
program, changes have been necessary to keep the program up to date and
successful. For example, EPA revised the continuous emission-monitoring
rule in 1999 and 2002. According to EPA, these updates were necessary
because of changes in the industry, such as technological advances and
growth in the number of sources.
Two Title IV requirements that EPA has not completed have statutory
deadlines that have passed. The two requirements are (1) promulgating
the opt-in regulation for process sources and (2) conducting a sulfur
dioxide/nitrogen oxides inter-pollutant trading study. After conducting
preliminary work for the first action, which was to have been completed
by May 1992, EPA determined that the federal resources required to
accomplish it were well in excess of those available. Additionally,
according to an EPA official, there was evidence of very limited use of
the opt-in election for other sources. Given these two factors, and
EPA's view that implementation of this provision would not reduce
overall emissions, the agency determined that it would not be cost-
effective to promulgate the regulation. Finally, EPA officials said
that the agency decided not to pursue the second action, which was to
have been completed by January 1994, for three reasons. Specifically,
according to EPA officials, (1) they lacked a trading ratio that would
capture the complex environmental relationship between sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides; (2) if the ratio issue could be resolved, an
annual allowance system for nitrogen oxides would need to be created
with which to trade sulfur dioxide allowances; and (3) it was not clear
that implementing inter-pollutant trading would result in a net
environmental benefit as there are multiple and complex health and
environmental impacts of both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
requiring a comprehensive analysis of impacts and cost-effectiveness
beyond available resources.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed the various actions
required to meet the objectives of Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. These titles, which respectively address
national ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutants, and
acid deposition control, are the most relevant to proposed legislation
and recently finalized regulations that address emissions of air
pollutants by power plants.
To obtain information on the status of EPA's implementation of
requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990--both those with and without statutory deadlines--we
obtained lists of these requirements used for GAO's 2000 report, Air
Pollution: Status of Implementation and Issues of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 ([Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00-72]) and held discussions with EPA officials
knowledgeable about EPA's workload required to meet the objectives of
these titles. EPA officials verified the list of requirements related
to each of the three titles for accuracy and completeness and provided
documentation for any changes and additions made to the list.[Footnote
15] To determine how late the requirements were met, we compared the
statutory deadline for each requirement to the month in which the
requirement was met. For regulations that appeared in the Federal
Register, for example, we considered the date the Federal Register
issue was published to be the date the requirement was met, as agreed
with EPA officials.[Footnote 16] In addition, we obtained explanations
for why a large number of requirements were met after their statutory
deadlines from two sources--our 2000 report and through discussions
with EPA officials. For requirements that had not been met as of April
2005, we obtained additional information from EPA officials, including
actions taken to date.
To ensure the reliability of the information provided by EPA, we
requested documentation for any changes EPA made to the list of
requirements developed for our previous report and checked the
documentation to ensure it matched the description of the requirement.
In addition, we reviewed the information EPA submitted to ensure there
were no duplicate entries or apparent inconsistencies; for any entries
that appeared questionable, we followed up with EPA officials and
usually obtained additional documentation. In certain cases, in
particular with regard to Title III requirements, we also independently
verified the status of the requirements. In all cases, EPA provided
confirmation for the conclusions we reached as well as, in some cases,
additional documentation. We determined that the data we obtained about
the status of EPA's implementation of required actions were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also reviewed
the methodology of two EPA studies that contained information about
areas of the United States impacted by ground-level ozone and
particulate matter.[Footnote 17] We determined that these studies were
sufficiently methodologically sound to present their results in this
report as background information.
While this report addresses the extent to which EPA has met its
requirements related to Titles I, III, and IV of the 1990 amendments,
it does not address the status of requirements under other titles of
the amendments or show the extent to which states have implemented
applicable requirements. We conducted our work from January 2005 to May
2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460:
MAY 18 2005:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report entitled "EPA
Has Completed Most of the Actions Required by the 1990 Amendments, but
Many Were Completed Late" (Draft Report). We appreciate the work that
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has done to evaluate the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) track record in meeting the
deadlines established in three important sections of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (1990 CAAA). Although this information meets the
specific request to which you were responding, it presents only a piece
of the picture of EPA's implementation of the 1990 CAAA. We believe it
is important to look not only at how many regulations were issued when,
but also at the public health and environmental benefits achieved by
these regulations.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide a short review of the air
quality, public health, and environmental benefits associated with
implementation of the 1990 CAAA. As you state in your Draft Report, the
Clean Air Act (CAA) has been extraordinarily successful in reducing air
pollution. This country should be very proud of the tremendous
improvements that it has made in air quality because of this law and
efforts by EPA, States, Tribes, local governments, industry,
environmental groups, and other stakeholders.
Progress Under the 1990 CAAA:
Building on Success: The 1990 CAAA built on the Clean Air Act, which
had already accomplished significant reductions in air pollution and
provided significant public health and environmental benefits. For
example, in a 1997 Report to Congress, EPA found that without the air
pollution control programs established from 1970 to 1990, 205,000
Americans would have died prematurely in 1990 and millions more would
have suffered illnesses ranging from mild respiratory symptoms to heart
disease, chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, and other severe
respiratory problems. Other benefits and costs are set forth in the
report, which found the mean estimate of total benefits over the period
was more than 42 times the total costs.[NOTE 1]
Benefits of the 1990 CAAA: In 1990, Congress set an incredibly
ambitious regulatory agenda for the Agency when it passed the 1990
CAAA. The agenda was ambitious in terms of the number of regulations to
be issued, the public health and environmental benefits to be achieved,
the cost of compliance, and the number of industries that would be
affected. Although the methodologies for estimating costs and benefits
are continuing to evolve, one measure of the extent of the regulatory
accomplishments of the 1990 CAAA is provided in the Thompson Report,
issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which found that
the 1990 CAAA achieved very large benefits compared to all other
federal regulations adopted in the same time period. OMB estimated that
major federal rules issued by the federal government from fiscal years
1994 through 2003 had total monetized benefits ranging from $63 to $169
billion and cost between $35 and $40 billion. Of these rules, major
rules issued by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) accounted for
total monetized benefits from $35 to $116 billion and costs of $16 to
$22 billion. [NOTE 2] This report did not include the benefits of the
Acid Rain Trading Program because those rules were adopted prior to the
ten-year period under review. In OMB's previous Thompson Report, which
looked at fiscal years 1993 through 2002, OMB included the Acid Rain
Trading Program rules, and estimated their benefits as $78 to $79
billion and its costs as $1.1 to $1.9 billion. [NOTE 3]
In a separate study, [NOTE 4] EPA projected the annual public health
benefits in 2010 from actions implementing the 1990 CAAA and projected
the avoided incidences of adverse health problems, as shown in Table 1.
These measures of success of the 1990 CAAA are not broken apart by
specific title, but there are specific measures that are useful for
evaluating the individual titles covered by your Draft Report.
TABLE 1: Benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act: 2010 Incidence Reductions:
Endpoint: Mortality 30+;
5th%: 14,000;
Mean: 23,000;
95th%: 32,000.
Endpoint: Chronic Bronchitis;
5th%: 5,000;
Mean: 20,000;
95th%: 34,000.
Endpoint: Chronic Asthma;
5th%: 1,800;
Mean: 7,200;
95th%: 12,000.
Endpoint: Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization;
5th%: 23,000;
Mean: 64,000;
95th%: 134,000.
Endpoint: Asthma ERV;
5th%: 430;
Mean: 4,800;
95th%: 14,000.
Endpoint: Minor Illnesses (millions): Restricted Activity Days;
5th%: 10,000,000;
Mean: 12,000,000;
95th%: 13,000,000.
Endpoint: Minor Illnesses (millions): Work Loss Days;
5th%: 3,600,000;
Mean: 4,100,000;
95th%: 4,600,000.
[End of table]
Progress Under Title I of the 1990 CAAA: Title I of the 1990 CAAA
modified the existing program for the attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to concerns that
many parts of the country still had not met health-based standards for
six key pollutants. Thus, one measure of our success in implementing
Title I is that 70% of areas not meeting a NAAQS in 1990 meet those
standards today, as shown in Table 2. [NOTE 5]
TABLE 2: Reductions In Number of Nonattainment Areas:
Criteria Pollutant: NO2;
Nonattainment areas as of 1992: 1;
Areas currently monitoring nonattainment (based on 2003 data): 0.
Criteria Pollutant: SO2;
Nonattainment areas as of 1992: 54;
Areas currently monitoring nonattainment (based on 2003 data): 16.
Criteria Pollutant: CO;
Nonattainment areas as of 1992: 43;
Areas currently monitoring nonattainment (based on 2003 data): 0.
Criteria Pollutant: Lead;
Nonattainment areas as of 1992: 13;
Areas currently monitoring nonattainment (based on 2003 data): 2.
Criteria Pollutant: PM10;
Nonattainment areas as of 1992: 87;
Areas currently monitoring nonattainment (based on 2003 data): 21.
Criteria Pollutant: Ozone (1-hour);
Nonattainment areas as of 1992: 101;
Areas currently monitoring nonattainment (based on 2003 data): 27.
[End of table]
Progress Under Title III ofthe 1990 CAAA: Under Title III of the 1990
CAAA, EPA has issued regulations that, when fully implemented, will
produce annual reductions in stationary source hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) almost 15 times greater than the reductions EPA was able to
achieve between 1970 and 1990. In Title III, Congress adopted a new
approach to regulating HAPs out of concern that, under the 1970 CAA as
amended in 1977, EPA was moving too slowly in regulating HAPs. Prior to
1990, EPA had listed and regulated only 7 HAPs. Congress decided that a
completely different approach was required. In Title III, Congress
(rather than EPA) listed the 189 chemicals that would be regulated and
then, in a key provision of Title III establishing the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, set up a series of
deadlines by which EPA had to issue regulations limiting HAP emissions
from all stationary source categories (over a certain size). This
required EPA to issue 96 regulations covering 174 source categories
over a 10-year period-an incredibly ambitious task. As noted in your
Draft Report, EPA has now issued all of the required MACT standards.
Air toxics emissions from major stationary sources will decline by 1.7
million tons annually (approximately 60%) from 1993 levels once the
MACT standards are fully implemented in 2007.
Progress Under Title IV ofthe 1990 CAAA: By any measure, the Acid Rain
Trading Program in Title IV of the 1990 CAAA has been an unqualified
success. S02 emission reductions from the Acid Rain Trading Program
began early (well before the formal first phase compliance deadline of
January 1, 1995). The results of the program have been dramatic and
unprecedented. Compliance has been nearly 100 percent. Reductions in
power plant S02 emissions were larger and earlier than required,
providing earlier human health and environmental benefits. S02
emissions from power generation have decreased 32 percent from 1990
levels, which is associated with a 30% reduction in ambient levels of
sulfate in the Eastern United States since 1990. [NOTE 6] Compliance
costs are 75 percent lower than initial EPA estimates. As a result of
new limits issued under Title IV, NOx emissions from power generation
are 2 million tons below annual levels projected to occur in the
absence of Title IV. Title IV's reductions in sulfates and nitrates
have reduced ambient levels of PM2.5, which has reduced premature
mortality and pulmonary and cardiovascular illnesses caused by PM2.5,
and have increased visibility in national parks.
Future Challenges:
Although we have made significant progress in improving air quality in
the United States, we still have air quality challenges to meet. As a
result of new science that showed the then-existing NAAQS did not
adequately protect public health, in 1997 EPA adopted a revised, more
stringent national ambient air quality standard for ozone (called the 8-
hour ozone standard) and, for the first time ever, set a NAAQS for fine
particles (PM2.5).
Although it is still early in the statutorily-established timeline for
bringing areas into attainment with these standards, EPA has already
issued several rules that, in combination with existing regulations,
will bring many of these areas into attainment. These rules include the
NOx SIP Call, which limited eastern power plants' summer-time NOx
emissions; the Tier 2 standards for cars, light-duty trucks and low-
sulfur fuel; the standards for heavy-duty on-road and off-road vehicles
and low-sulfur diesel fuel; and the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which is
designed to limit S02 and NOx emissions from power plants. For the
eastern part of the country, EPA projects that by 2015, these rules in
combination with other existing state and federal rules, will bring
into attainment 98 of the current 104 eight-hour ozone nonattainment
areas and 22 of the current 36 PM2.5 nonattainment areas. By addressing
large, regional components of the ozone and PM2.5 pollution early in
the implementation process, EPA has made it easier for state and local
governments to understand the scope of the air pollution problem they
will need to address and to focus their resources accordingly.
Although the scope of the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment problems
is a good measure of our future air quality challenges, it should not
be used to measure EPA's implementation of Title 1 of the 1990 CAAA, as
is implied in the Draft Report. The new standards were not adopted
until seven years after the 1990 CAAA and were then litigated for
several years. The Draft Report should be corrected so that it does not
convey the misleading impression that the missed 1990 CAAA deadlines
are somehow responsible for, or associated with, the scope of the
current PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone nonattainment problems.
Timing of Issuance of Regulations:
GAO correctly notes that EPA has completed most of the rules and other
activities required by the 1990 CAAA through the present. GAO also
correctly observes that many requirements were completed after the
statutory deadline.
Effect of Delays in Meeting 1990 CAAA Deadlines: Without providing any
support, the Draft Report notes that, for requirements for which we
missed deadlines, associated improvements in air quality were delayed.
While this may seem to be nothing more than a statement of the obvious,
it is nevertheless untrue. A delay in issuing a rule does not
necessarily lead to a delay in the compliance date for the rule, and
thus does not necessarily lead to a delay in air quality improvements
associated with the rule. For example, although several regulations
related to the Acid Rain Trading Program were late, the program started
on time. The air quality improvements were not delayed-and in fact they
started earlier than was required by the statute. Also, not all rules
required by the 1990 CAAA had air quality benefits. For example, our
judgment is that the Title IV requirement to adopt a rule to allow
process sources to opt in to the Acid Rain Trading Program would not
have had associated air quality improvements. Furthermore, some rules
were delayed because EPA worked with stakeholders to develop a
consensus for the rule-which made it less likely that implementation of
the rule (and associated air quality improvements) would be delayed by
legal challenges.
Although the Draft Report notes that there may have been delays in air
quality improvements as a result of missed deadlines, it fails to
acknowledge the flip side-that there were air quality improvements as a
result of EPA regulations that were issued under CAA authority but
without a statutory deadline. For example, the Clean Air Interstate
Rule that EPA issued in March, 2005, will provide significant air
quality improvements. EPA had authority to issue it, but not a
statutory deadline to do so.
Reasons for Delays in Meeting 1990 CAAA: In assessing EPA's record in
meeting the deadlines in the 1990 CAAA, EPA believes it is important to
consider the public health and environmental results mentioned above.
We also believe it is useful to examine in slightly more detail than in
the Draft Report the reasons the deadlines were missed. Some of the
more significant reasons are outlined below.
Collaborative Rulemaking Processes: The 1990 CAAA set tight deadlines
for an unprecedented number of new actions by EPA, including
development of major new programs (e.g., air toxics, acid rain,
operating permits) and emission standards that involved controversial,
precedent-setting and complex issues important from environmental and
economic standpoints. At the outset, EPA recognized that extensive
involvement of state and local leaders, industry and environmental
groups would be necessary if the 1990 CAAA were to be implemented
successfully. This collaborative approach added to the time needed to
complete many rulemakings. In a number of cases, EPA conducted formal
or informal regulatory negotiations with all the stakeholders prior to
proposing regulations. These historic negotiations were successful in
reaching agreement on several very complex programs, including several
hazardous air pollutant standards and the core regulations for the acid
rain trading program. The time spent in up-front discussions, although
often lengthy, paid off by getting stakeholder agreement early in the
rulemaking process.
Interrelated Rulemakings: The array of deadlines in the 1990 CAAA
required EPA to move forward simultaneously with states and
stakeholders on multiple major rulemakings, placing multiple demands
upon EPA managers and key non-EPA participants. Some programs (e.g.,
hazardous air pollutants) involved multiple, interrelated rulemakings
that were moving ahead simultaneously, and changes in one ongoing
rulemaking could affect another, causing delays.
Non-1990 CAAA Obligations: Major competing demands were placed on EPA,
states and other stakeholders by CAA issues not arising from the 1990
amendments, including scientific and other issues. One example was the
development, including an extensive scientific review, of the new air
quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, which the CAA
requires EPA to review every five years. In addition EPA undertook an
extensive stakeholder consultation process on implementation issues.
Another was the emergence of new scientific information documenting the
importance of regional ozone transport. This led EPA to extend
deadlines for state submittal of ozone plans for many areas, and
engaged states and EPA in a two-year process to conduct modeling
studies and to study potential solutions. That process led to EPA's NOx
SIP Call rule, another major effort. This was followed by extensive
additional work on transport related to ozone and fine particle
pollution, which culminated in the Clean Air Interstate Rule. The
workload associated with response to litigation on some rules also
caused competing demands.
Prioritization and Finite Resources: Some implementation activities are
more important than others because they have greater impact-even though
they may not have a statutory deadline (e.g., the Clean Air Interstate
Rule or the NOx SIP Call). The ambitious agenda in the CAA, given the
reality of finite resources, inevitably required EPA to stage the
timing of implementation activities to ensure that the most important
activities were given priority, which resulted in missed deadlines for
other activities. As part of the yearly appropriations process, EPA
made its Congressional authorizers and appropriators aware that
resource limitations and prioritization decisions would result in
missed statutory deadlines, particularly for the hazardous air
pollutant MACT standards.
Minor Comments on Report Methodology:
OAR generally uses a different definition than does GAO of the date on
which OAR meets its statutory obligations to issue final rules.
Generally, OAR considers that it has met its statutory obligation to
issue a rule on the date on which it promulgates a final rule, which
occurs when a final rule is signed and publicly disseminated. OAR's
practice has been to disseminate final rules publicly (either by
placing them on the web or distributing hard copy to interested
stakeholders) on the date on which the rule is signed or shortly
thereafter. At that time, the rule is final and affected stakeholders
understand the obligations created by the rule. Publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register occurs later, often by a month or
more. In its analysis, GAO looks to the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Looking to date of promulgation rather than date of
Federal Register publication would undoubtedly shorten the average
amount of time by which EPA missed deadlines (perhaps by a month or so)
and might also decrease somewhat the number of regulations that were
issued late. However, EPA does not believe that it would change the
basic conclusions of GAO's Draft Report.
We also noted some inconsistencies in the description of the scope of
Title I requirements covered by the Draft Report and suggest that the
language be clarified. For example, Appendix IV says that the Draft
Report does not address the status of requirements established before
the 1990 CAAA, but Table 6 in Appendix I lists six actions that are
required under the pre-existing Clean Air Act and are not required
under the 1990 Amendments (i.e., promulgate decisions on six different
NAAQS).
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report and
provide additional information about the air quality, public health and
environmental improvements from implementation of the 1990 CAAA.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead:
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation:
NOTES:
[1] United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to 1990 "
(October 1997). Note that these benefits estimates do not include a
number of potentially important benefits which could not be readily
quantified, such as ecosystem changes and air toxics-related human
health effects. The point estimate of direct costs does not reflect
several potentially important uncertainties, such as the degree of
accuracy of private sector cost survey results that could not be
quantified.
[2] Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Reform, "Progress on Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities" (2004, Tables 2 and 3 at
pp. 7 and 10). Although this was a key period for implementation of the
1990 CAAA, this 10-year snapshot does not capture all of the costs and
benefits of implementation of the 1990 CAAA.
[3] Id. at Table 13, p. 139.
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
Office of Policy, "The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to
2010" (November, 1999). The analysis was designed to estimate the costs
and benefits of the 1990 Amendments incremental to those assessed in
the 1997 retrospective analysis cited in fn. 1. It does not include
benefits from certain rules adopted later, such as the Tier 2 and heavy
duty on-road and off road motor vehicle and low sulfur fuel rules.
[5] Please note that, although Title I of the CAA as amended by Title I
of the 1990 CAAA sets up the framework and key regulatory programs to
bring areas into attainment with the NAAQS, attainment is also a result
of other programs, such as fuel and mobile source regulations
promulgated under Title 11 of the CAA as amended by Title II of the
1990 CAAA.
[6] The Acid Rain Program 2003 Progress Report (Sept. 2004, pp. 2-3).
The following are GAO's comments on EPA's letter dated May 18, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. As background, our report states that while air quality in the
United States has steadily improved over the last few decades, more
than a hundred million Americans continue to live in communities where
pollution causes the air to be unhealthy at times, according to EPA.
EPA has apparently interpreted this statement as implying that missed
deadlines described in the report are responsible for the scope of the
current particulate matter and ozone nonattainment problems. However,
our report does not make that link.
2. EPA provided us several examples of cases in which a delay in the
implementation of certain specific requirements did not lead to a delay
in improvements in air quality. While our draft report indicated that
requirements met late delayed improvements in air quality, we did not
mean to suggest that all late requirements delayed improvements in air
quality. Therefore, we revised the report to say that delays in
implementation of some of the requirements may have led to delays in
improvements in air quality.
3. During the course of our work, we discussed our proposed methodology
with EPA officials and they agreed with our plan to use the Federal
Register publication date as the completion date for relevant
requirements. In commenting on the draft report, however, the agency
stated that its Office of Air and Radiation generally considers that it
has met its statutory obligation to issue a rule on the date on which a
final rule is signed and disseminated to the public, which is likely to
be earlier than the publication of that rule in the Federal Register.
Although we agree with EPA's assessment that using the signature date,
rather than the Federal Register publication date, would not change the
report's conclusions, we revised the report to include EPA's comment.
4. We revised report language throughout to reflect the fact that
certain actions originally included as requirements of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were established earlier but are
related to these amendments.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 [Hyperlink, stephensonj@gao.gov];
Christine Fishkin, (202) 512-6895 [Hyperlink, fishkinc@gao.gov].
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals named above, Nancy Crothers, Christine
Houle, Karen Keegan, Judy Pagano, and Nico Sloss made key contributions
to this report.
(360543):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards are
technology-based standards developed to control the emissions of
certain air toxics from numerous industry source categories and are
based on emissions levels that are already being achieved by the better-
controlled and lower-emitting sources in each category.
[2] GAO, Air Pollution: Status of Implementation and Issues of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, GAO/RCED-00-72 (Washington, D.C.:
April 17, 2000).
[3] Versions of the Clear Skies proposal are represented by bills S.
131 and H.R. 227. Bills that differ, among other aspects, in that they
would also cap carbon dioxide, include S.150 and H.R. 1451.
[4] See footnote 2.
[5] Other titles contain provisions for controlling air pollution from
motor vehicles, engines, and their fuel (Title II), establishing a
national permit program to ensure compliance with all applicable
requirements of the act (Title V), and protecting the stratospheric
ozone layer (Title VI).
[6] Acid rain is the result of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
reacting in the atmosphere with water and returning to earth as rain,
fog, or snow. Acid rain is also referred to as acid deposition, which
is the process by which acidic particles, gases, and precipitation
leave the atmosphere.
[7] EPA, The Ozone Report: Measuring Progress through 2003 (EPA 454/K-
04-001, April 2004). These "nonattainment" areas included areas that
had violated the ozone standard or contributed to violations of this
standard.
[8] EPA, The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air
Quality and Emissions through 2003 (EPA 454-R-04-002, December 2004).
[9] This number does not include those residual risk reviews that were
not yet due as of April 2005, nor does it include recurring reviews of
MACT standards to account for improvements in air pollution controls
and prevention, as discussed further in appendix II.
[10] The number of requirements identified by EPA to meet the
objectives of Title I has increased since GAO conducted its previous
study in 2000. This increase is due to the recurring nature of Title I-
related requirements (for example, EPA must review each NAAQS every 5
years).
[11] The number of requirements identified by EPA to meet the
objectives of Title III has increased since GAO conducted its previous
study in 2000. This change in the number of requirements is due to the
inclusion of residual risk reviews, among other factors.
[12] Coke ovens convert coal to coke which is used to produce iron at
steel mills and foundries. A coke oven battery consists of a group of
ovens connected by common walls.
[13] While EPA has completed area source standards for 15 of 70
categories of sources that emit over 30 different hazardous air
pollutants, 50 of the remaining source categories are under litigation,
and the remaining 5 categories have court-ordered deadlines for
implementation.
[14] The total amount of allowances allocated for all sources comprise
the national cap for sulfur dioxide, and sources whose emissions exceed
the amount of allowances held forfeit allowances to cover the excess
emissions and must pay automatic financial penalties.
[15] This report does not include some actions under titles I and III
that EPA officials identified after our work was completed, the agency
had reviewed and provided comments on a statement of facts, and EPA had
provided official agency comments on the draft report (see app. V). The
actions EPA identified, which they categorized as incomplete, involve
periodic reviews of new source performance standards and combustion new
source performance standards required by the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990.
[16] While agency officials agreed to use the publication date in the
Federal Register as the date the various required actions were
completed, EPA said in its comments on the draft report that the Office
of Air and Radiation generally views the date a rule is signed and
shared with the public as the date the agency has met its statutory
obligations. The agency acknowledged that using the signature date
would not change the report's conclusions.
[17] EPA, The Ozone Report: Measuring Progress through 2003 (EPA 454/K-
04-001, April 2004); and EPA, The Particle Pollution Report: Current
Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003 (EPA 454-R-04-
002, December 2004).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
