Environmental Justice
Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA Progress in Correcting Past Problems Gao ID: GAO-07-1140T July 25, 2007A 1994 Executive Order sought to ensure that minority and low-income populations are not subjected to disproportionately high levels of environmental risk. Studies have shown that these groups are indeed disproportionately exposed to air pollution and other environmental and health problems. The Order sought to address the problem by requiring EPA and other federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their missions. In July 2005, GAO issued a report entitled, Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules (GAO-05-289). Focusing on three specific rules for detailed study, the report identified a number of weaknesses in EPA's approach to ensuring that environmental justice is considered from the early stages of rule development through their issuance. The report made several recommendations, to which EPA replied in an August 24, 2006 letter. GAO also met recently with cognizant EPA staff to obtain updated information on the agency's responses to these recommendations. In this testimony, GAO (1) summarizes the key findings of its 2005 report, (2) outlines its recommendations to EPA and EPA's August 2006 responses, and (3) provides updated information on subsequent EPA actions.
EPA generally devoted little attention to environmental justice when drafting three significant clean air rules between fiscal years 2000 and 2004. GAO's 2005 report concluded, for example, that while EPA guidance on rulemaking states that workgroups should consider environmental justice early in the process, a lack of guidance and training for workgroup members on how to identify potential environmental justice impacts limited their ability to analyze such issues. Similarly, while EPA considered environmental justice to varying degrees in the final stages of the rulemaking process, in general the agency rarely provided a clear rationale for its decisions on environmental justice-related matters. For example, in responding to comments during the final phase of one of the rules, EPA asserted that the rule would not have any disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority communities, but did not publish any data or the agency's assumptions in support of that conclusion. Among its recommendations, GAO called on EPA to ensure that its rulemaking workgroups devote attention to environmental justice while drafting and finalizing clean air rules. EPA's August 2006 letter responded that it had made its Office of Environmental Justice an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee so that it would be aware of important regulations under development and participate in workgroups as necessary. GAO also recommended that EPA improve the way environmental justice impacts are addressed in its economic reviews by identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques needed to assess such impacts. EPA responded that its Office of Air and Radiation was examining ways to improve its air models so it could better account for the socioeconomic variables identified in the Executive Order. GAO also recommended that cognizant EPA officials respond more fully to public comments on environmental justice by better explaining their rationale and by providing the supporting data for the agency's decisions. EPA responded that it would re-emphasize the need to respond fully to public comments, include the rationale for its regulatory approach, and describe its supporting data. Recent discussions between GAO and EPA officials suggest that some progress has been made to incorporate environmental justice concerns in the agency's air rulemaking, but that significant challenges remain. For example, while the Office of Environmental Justice may be an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, it has not participated directly in any air rules that have been proposed or finalized since EPA's August 2006 letter to GAO. Also, according to EPA staff, some of the training courses that were planned have not yet been developed due to staff turnover among other reasons. When asked about GAO's recommendation that cognizant officials respond more fully to public comments on environmental justice, the EPA officials cited a recent rulemaking in which this was done. But the officials said they were unaware of any memoranda or revised guidance that would encourage more global progress on this key issue.
GAO-07-1140T, Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA Progress in Correcting Past Problems
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1140T
entitled 'Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge
EPA Progress in Correcting Past Problems' which was released on July
25, 2007.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health,
Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
July 25, 2007:
Environmental Justice:
Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA Progress in Correcting Past
Problems:
Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-1140T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1140T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Superfund and Environmental Health, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, United States Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
A 1994 Executive Order sought to ensure that minority and low-income
populations are not subjected to disproportionately high levels of
environmental risk. Studies have shown that these groups are indeed
disproportionately exposed to air pollution and other environmental and
health problems. The Order sought to address the problem by requiring
EPA and other federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice
part of their missions.
In July 2005, GAO issued a report entitled, Environmental Justice: EPA
Should Devote More Attention to Environmental Justice When Developing
Clean Air Rules (GAO-05-289). Focusing on three specific rules for
detailed study, the report identified a number of weaknesses in EPA‘s
approach to ensuring that environmental justice is considered from the
early stages of rule development through their issuance. The report
made several recommendations, to which EPA replied in an August 24,
2006 letter. GAO also met recently with cognizant EPA staff to obtain
updated information on the agency‘s responses to these recommendations.
In this testimony, GAO (1) summarizes the key findings of its 2005
report, (2) outlines its recommendations to EPA and EPA‘s August 2006
responses, and (3) provides updated information on subsequent EPA
actions.
What GAO Found:
EPA generally devoted little attention to environmental justice when
drafting three significant clean air rules between fiscal years 2000
and 2004. GAO‘s 2005 report concluded, for example, that while EPA
guidance on rulemaking states that workgroups should consider
environmental justice early in the process, a lack of guidance and
training for workgroup members on how to identify potential
environmental justice impacts limited their ability to analyze such
issues. Similarly, while EPA considered environmental justice to
varying degrees in the final stages of the rulemaking process, in
general the agency rarely provided a clear rationale for its decisions
on environmental justice-related matters. For example, in responding to
comments during the final phase of one of the rules, EPA asserted that
the rule would not have any disproportionate impacts on low-income or
minority communities, but did not publish any data or the agency‘s
assumptions in support of that conclusion.
Among its recommendations, GAO called on EPA to ensure that its
rulemaking workgroups devote attention to environmental justice while
drafting and finalizing clean air rules. EPA‘s August 2006 letter
responded that it had made its Office of Environmental Justice an ex
officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee so that it would be
aware of important regulations under development and participate in
workgroups as necessary. GAO also recommended that EPA improve the way
environmental justice impacts are addressed in its economic reviews by
identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques needed to
assess such impacts. EPA responded that its Office of Air and Radiation
was examining ways to improve its air models so it could better account
for the socioeconomic variables identified in the Executive Order. GAO
also recommended that cognizant EPA officials respond more fully to
public comments on environmental justice by better explaining their
rationale and by providing the supporting data for the agency‘s
decisions. EPA responded that it would re-emphasize the need to respond
fully to public comments, include the rationale for its regulatory
approach, and describe its supporting data
Recent discussions between GAO and EPA officials suggest that some
progress has been made to incorporate environmental justice concerns in
the agency‘s air rulemaking, but that significant challenges remain.
For example, while the Office of Environmental Justice may be an ex
officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, it has not
participated directly in any air rules that have been proposed or
finalized since EPA‘s August 2006 letter to GAO. Also, according to EPA
staff, some of the training courses that were planned have not yet been
developed due to staff turnover among other reasons. When asked about
GAO‘s recommendation that cognizant officials respond more fully to
public comments on environmental justice, the EPA officials cited a
recent rulemaking in which this was done. But the officials said they
were unaware of any memoranda or revised guidance that would encourage
more global progress on this key issue.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1140T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above.
For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
Stephensonj@gao.gov.
[end of section]
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) consideration of environmental justice, particularly as
it has been used to develop clean air rules. According to EPA studies,
low-income and minority populations are disproportionately exposed to
air pollution and other environmental risks. In 1994 President Clinton
issued Executive Order 12898, which stated that EPA and other federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,
shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by
identifying and addressing as appropriate, the disproportionately high
and adverse human health of environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.[Footnote 1]
To implement the order, EPA developed guidance for incorporating
environmental justice into its programs, such as the enforcement of the
Clean Air Act, which is intended in part, to control emissions that
harm human health. A key to ensuring that environmental justice is
sufficiently accounted for in agency decisions and operations is that
it be considered at each point in the rulemaking process--including the
point when agency workgroups typically consider regulatory options;
perform economic analyses of proposed rules' costs; make proposed rules
available for public comment; and finalize them in advance of their
implementation.
My testimony today is based largely on our 2005 report,[Footnote 2]
which recommended that EPA devote more attention to environmental
justice when developing clean air rules. In addition, we met with
cognizant EPA staff to understand what actions the agency has taken
since the report's issuance to improve its treatment of environmental
justice issues during its air rulemaking process.
Our report examined how EPA considered environmental justice during the
drafting of these air rules (including activities of the workgroups
that typically consider regulatory options, the economic review of the
rules' costs, and the manner in which proposed rules are made available
for public comment) and their finalization (including how public
comments are addressed and how the economic review is revised). The
three rules we examined included a 2000 gasoline rule to reduce sulfur
in gasoline and to reduce emissions from new vehicles; a 2001 diesel
rule to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel and to reduce emissions from new
heavy-duty engines; and a 2004 ozone implementation rule to implement a
new ozone standard. My testimony today (1) summarizes the key findings
of our 2005 report, (2) provides both the recommendations we made to
EPA to address the problems identified and EPA's written response to
these recommendations in August 2006, and (3) provides updated
information on pertinent EPA actions.
In summary:
When drafting the three clean air rules, EPA generally devoted little
attention to environmental justice. Our 2005 report concluded, for
example, that while EPA guidance on rulemaking states that workgroups
should consider environmental justice in the rule-making process, a
lack of guidance and training for workgroup members on identifying
environmental justice issues limited their ability to identify such
issues. In addition, while EPA officials stated that economic reviews
of proposed rules considered potential environmental justice impacts,
the gasoline and diesel rules did not provide decision makers with
environmental justice analyses, and EPA did not identify all the types
of data necessary to analyze such impacts. In finalizing the three
rules, EPA considered environmental justice to varying degrees
although, in general, the agency rarely provided a clear rationale for
its decisions on environmental justice-related matters. In responding
to comments during the final phase of the gasoline rule, for example,
EPA asserted that the rule would not raise environmental justice
concerns, but did not publish data and assumptions to support that
conclusion.
Our report made four recommendations to help EPA ensure that
environmental justice issues are adequately identified and considered
when clean air rules are being drafted and finalized. The following
includes each recommendation and summarizes the response provided in
EPA's August 24, 2006, letter to the Comptroller General and cognizant
committees of the Congress:
* Ensure that the agency's rulemaking workgroups devote attention to
environmental justice while drafting and finalizing clean air rules.
Among the actions highlighted by EPA were that the Office of
Environmental Justice was made an ex officio member of the Regulatory
Steering Committee so that it would be aware of important regulations
under development and participate in workgroups.
* Enhance the workgroups' ability to identify potential environmental
justice issues through such steps as (a) providing workgroup members
with guidance and training to help them identify potential
environmental justice problems and (b) involving environmental justice
coordinators in the workgroups when appropriate. EPA responded that it
would supplement its existing environmental justice training with
additional courses to create a comprehensive curriculum to assist
agency rule writers. In response to our call for greater involvement of
Environmental Justice coordinators in workgroup activities, EPA said
that as an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, the
Office of Environmental Justice would be able to keep the program
offices' environmental justice coordinators informed about new and
ongoing rulemakings with potential environmental justice implications.
It said that the mechanism for this communication would be monthly
conference calls between the Office of Environmental Justice and the
environmental justice coordinators.
* Improve assessments of potential environmental justice impacts in
economic reviews by identifying the data and developing the modeling
techniques that are needed to assess such impacts. EPA responded that
the Office of Air and Radiation was examining ways to improve its air
models so they could better account for the socioeconomic variables
identified in Executive Order 12898.
* Direct cognizant officials to respond fully, when feasible, to public
comments on environmental justice by, for example, better explaining
the rationale for EPA's beliefs and by providing its supporting data.
EPA responded that it would re-emphasize the need to respond fully to
public comments and to include in those responses the rationale for its
regulatory approach and a description of its supporting data.
Upon meeting with cognizant EPA officials on July 18, 2007, we learned
that in the two years since our July 2005 report was issued, some
progress has been made to incorporate environmental justice concerns
into EPA's air rulemaking process but that considerably more remains to
be done. For example, while the Office of Environmental Justice may be
an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, it has not
participated directly in any air rules that have been proposed or
finalized since EPA's August 2006 letter to us. In addition, according
to EPA staff, some of the training courses that were planned have not
yet been developed due to staff turnover, among other reasons.
Regarding EPA's efforts to improve assessments of potential
environmental justice impacts in economic reviews, agency officials
said that their data and models have improved since our 2005 report,
but that their level of sophistication has not reached their goal for
purposes of environmental justice considerations. They said that
economists within the Office of Air and Radiation are, among other
things, continuing to evaluate and enhance their models in a way that
will further improve consideration of environmental justice during
rulemaking. When asked about GAO's recommendation that cognizant
officials respond more fully to public comments on environmental
justice, the EPA officials cited a recent rulemaking in which this was
done; but added that they were unaware of any memoranda or revised
guidance that would encourage more global, EPA-wide progress on this
important issue.
Background:
Executive Order 12898 stated that to the extent practicable and
permitted by law, each federal agency, including the EPA, "—shall make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States—" In response to the 1994 order, among other things, the
EPA Administrator issued guidance the same year providing that
environmental justice should be considered early in the rule-making
process. EPA continued to provide guidance regarding environmental
justice in the following years. For example, in 1995, EPA issued an
Environmental Justice Strategy that included, among other provisions,
(1) ensuring that environmental justice is incorporated into the
agency's regulatory process, (2) continuing to develop human exposure
data through model development, and (3) enhancing public participation
in agency decision making.
The Office of Environmental Justice, located within EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, provides a central point for the
agency to address environmental and human health concerns in minority
communities and/or low-income communities. However, the agency's
program offices also play essential roles. As such, the key program
office dealing with air quality issues is the agency's Office of Air
and Radiation. In fulfilling its Clean Air Act responsibilities, the
Office works with state and local governments and other entities to
regulate air emissions of various substances that harm human health. It
also sets primary national ambient air quality standards for six
principal pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, ground level ozone, and lead) that harm human
health and the environment. These standards are to be set at a level
that protects human health with an adequate margin of safety which,
according to EPA, includes protecting sensitive populations, such as
the elderly and people with respiratory or circulatory problems.
The Office of Air and Radiation has a multistage process for developing
clean air and other rules that it considers a high priority. Initially,
a workgroup chair is chosen from the lead program office--normally the
Office of Air and Radiation in the case of clean air rulemakings. The
workgroup chair assigns the rule one of the three priority levels, and
EPA's top management makes a final determination of the rule's
priority. The priority level assigned depends on such factors as the
level of the Administrator's involvement and whether more than one
office in the agency is involved. The gasoline, diesel, and ozone
implementation rules were classified as high-priority rules on the
basis of these factors. They were also deemed high priority because
they were estimated to have an effect on the economy of at least $100
million per year or were viewed as raising novel legal and/or policy
issues.[Footnote 3]
For high-priority rules, the workgroup chair is primarily responsible
for ensuring that the necessary work gets done and the process is
documented. Other workgroup members are assigned from the lead program
office and, in the case of the two highest priority rules, from other
offices. Among its key functions, the workgroup (1) prepares a plan for
developing the rule, (2) seeks early input from senior management, (3)
consults with stakeholders, (4) collects data and analyze issues, (5)
analyzes alternative options, and (6) recommends one or more options to
agency management. In addition, a workgroup economist typically
prepares an economic review of the proposed rule's costs to society.
According to EPA, the "ultimate purpose" of an economic review is to
inform decision makers of the social welfare consequences of the rule.
After approval by relevant offices within EPA, the proposed rule is
published in the Federal Register, the public is invited to comment on
it, and EPA considers the comments. Comments may address any aspect of
the proposed rule, including whether environmental justice concerns are
raised and appropriately addressed in the proposed rule. Sometimes,
prior to the publication of the proposed rule, EPA publishes an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. The
notice provides an opportunity for interested stakeholders to provide
input to EPA early in the process, and the agency takes such comments
into account to the extent it believes is appropriate.
As required by the Clean Air Act, when finalizing a rule, EPA must
respond to each significant comment raised during the comment period.
In addition, EPA's public involvement policy states that agency
officials should explain how they considered the comments, including
any change in the rule or the reason the agency did not make any
changes. After these tasks are completed, the rule, if it is
significant, is sent to OMB for approval. Once OMB approves the final
rule and the Administrator signs it, it is published in the Federal
Register. After a specified time period, the rule takes effect.
EPA Generally Devoted Little Attention To Environmental Justice in
Drafting Three Rules and Considered it to Varying Degrees in Finalizing
Them:
When drafting the three clean air rules, EPA generally devoted little
attention to environmental justice. We found, for example, that while
EPA guidance states that workgroups should consider environmental
justice early in the rulemaking process, this was accomplished only to
a limited extent. Key contributing factors included a lack of guidance
and training for workgroup members on identifying environmental justice
issues. In addition, while EPA officials stated that economic reviews
of proposed rules considered potential environmental justice impacts,
the gasoline and diesel rules did not provide analyses of such impacts,
nor did EPA identify all the types of data that would have been needed
to perform such analyses. In finalizing the three rules, EPA considered
environmental justice to varying degrees although, in general, the
agency rarely provided a clear rationale for its decisions on
environmental justice-related matters.
For the three rules we examined, concerns about whether environmental
justice was being considered sufficiently early in the rulemaking
process first became evident by its omission on the agency's "Tiering
Form." Once a workgroup chair is designated to lead a rulemaking
effort, the chair completes this key form to alert senior managers to
potential issues related to compliance with statutes, executive orders
and other matters. In each case, however, the form did not include a
question regarding the rule's potential to raise environmental justice
concerns, nor did we find any mention of environmental justice on the
completed form.
Beyond this omission, EPA officials had differing recollections about
the extent to which the three workgroups considered environmental
justice at this early stage of the rulemaking process. The chairs of
the workgroups for the two mobile source rules told us that they did
not recall any specific time when they considered environmental justice
while drafting the rules. Other EPA officials associated with these
rules said environmental justice was considered, but provided no
documentation to this effect. Similarly, the chair of the ozone
workgroup told us that his group considered environmental justice, but
could not provide any specific information. He did, however, provide a
document stating that compliance with executive orders, including one
related to low-income and minority populations, would be a part of the
economic review that would take place later in the process.
Overall, we identified three factors that may have limited the ability
of workgroups to identify potential environmental justice concerns
early in the rulemaking process. First, each of the three workgroup
chairs told us that they received no guidance in how to analyze
environmental justice concerns in rulemaking. Second, as a related
matter, each said they received little, if any, environmental justice
training. Two chairs did not know whether other members of the
workgroups had received any training, and a third chair said at least
one member did receive some training. Some EPA officials involved in
developing these three rules told us that it would have been useful to
have a better understanding of the definition of environmental justice
and how to consider environmental justice issues in rulemaking.
Finally, the Office of Air and Radiation's environmental justice
coordinators--whose full-time responsibility is to promote
environmental justice--were not involved in drafting any of the three
rules.
As required, an economic review of the costs, and certain other
features, was prepared for all three rules. According to EPA officials,
however, the economic review of the two mobile source rules did not
include an analysis of environmental justice for various reasons,
including the fact that EPA did not have a model with the ability to
distinguish localized adverse impacts on a specific community or
population. EPA's economic review of the 2004 ozone rule did discuss
environmental justice, claiming that the rule would not raise
environmental justice concerns. However, it based this claim on an
earlier analysis of a 1997 rule that established the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard. Yet rather than indicating that
the 1997 ozone rule did not raise environmental justice concerns, this
earlier economic review said it was not possible to rigorously consider
the potential environmental justice effects because the states were
responsible for its implementation. Hence, the inability of EPA to
rigorously consider environmental justice in the economic review of the
1997 rule appears to contradict EPA's subsequent statement that there
were no environmental justice concerns raised by the 2004 ozone
implementation rule.
In finalizing each of the three rules, EPA considered environmental
justice to varying degrees, but the gasoline rule in particular
provided a questionable example of how comments and information related
to environmental justice were received and handled. As noted earlier in
this testimony, the Clean Air Act requires that a final rule must be
accompanied by a response to each significant comment raised during the
comment period. In addition, according to EPA's public involvement
policy, agency officials should explain how they considered the
comments, including any change in the rule or the reason the agency did
not make any changes. In the case of the gasoline rule, representatives
of the petroleum industry, environmental groups, and others had
asserted during the comment period that the proposed rule did in fact
raise significant environmental justice concerns. One commenter claimed
that inequities arose from the fact that while the national air quality
benefits were broadly distributed across the country, higher per capita
air quality costs were disproportionately confined to areas around
refineries.
Despite comments such as these, EPA's final rule did not state
explicitly whether it would ultimately raise an environmental justice
concern, although EPA officials told us in late 2004 that it would not.
Furthermore, EPA did not publish the data and assumptions supporting
its position. In fact, an unpublished analysis EPA developed before
finalizing the rule appeared to suggest that environmental justice may
indeed have been an issue. Specifically, EPA's analysis showed that
harmful air emissions would increase in 26 of the 86 counties with
refineries affected by the rule. According to EPA's analysis, one or
both types of emissions--nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds--could be greater in the 26 counties than the rule's benefit
of decreased vehicle emissions. In one case involving a Louisiana
parish, EPA estimated that net emissions of nitrogen oxides could
increase 298 tons in 1 year as a result of the rule to refine cleaner
gasoline.
Under EPA's rulemaking process, the agency prepares a final economic
review after considering public comments. EPA guidance indicates that
this final economic review, like the economic review during the
proposal stage, should identify the distribution of the rule's social
costs across society. In the case of the three air rules, however, EPA
completed a final economic review after receiving public comments but
performed no environmental justice analyses. The publication of the
final rules gave EPA another opportunity to explain how it considered
environmental justice in the rule's development. When EPA published the
final rules, however, two of the three rules did not explicitly state
whether they would raise an environmental justice concern. Only the
ozone rule stated explicitly that it would not raise an environmental
justice concern.
GAO's Recommendations and EPA's Response:
We made four recommendations to help EPA resolve the problems
identified by our study. In its June 10, 2005 letter on a draft of our
report, EPA initially said it disagreed with the recommendations,
saying it was already paying appropriate attention to environmental
justice. However, EPA responded more positively to each of these
recommendations in an August 24, 2006 letter.[Footnote 4] The first
recommendation called upon EPA rulemaking workgroups to devote
attention to environmental justice while drafting and finalizing clean
air rules. EPA responded that to ensure consideration of environmental
justice in the development of regulations, the Office of Environmental
Justice was made an ex officio member of the agency's Regulatory
Steering Committee, the body that oversees regulatory policy for EPA
and the development of its rules. The letter also said that (1) the
agency's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (responsible in
part for providing support and guidance to EPA's program offices and
regions as they develop their regulations) convened an agency-wide
workgroup to consider where environmental justice might be considered
in rulemakings and (2) it was developing "template language" to help
rule writers communicate findings regarding environmental justice in
the preamble of rules.
Second, to enhance workgroups' ability to identify potential
environmental justice issues, we called on EPA to (a) provide workgroup
members with guidance and training to help them identify potential
environmental justice problems and (b) involve environmental justice
coordinators in the workgroups when appropriate. In response to the
call for better training and guidance, EPA said it was supplementing
existing training with additional courses to create a comprehensive
curriculum that will meet the needs of agency rule writers.
Specifically, it explained that its Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation was focusing on how agency staff can best be trained to
consider environmental justice during the regulation development
process; while the Office of Air and Radiation had already developed
environmental justice training tailored to the specific needs of that
office. Among other training opportunities highlighted in the letter
was a new on-line course offered by the Office of Environmental Justice
that addresses a broad range of environmental justice issues. EPA also
cited an initiative by the Office of Air and Radiation's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards to use a regulatory development
checklist to ensure that potential environmental justice issues and
concerns are considered and addressed at each stage of the rulemaking
process. In response to our call for greater involvement of
Environmental Justice coordinators in workgroup activities, EPA said
that as an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, the
Office of Environmental Justice will be able to keep the program office
environmental justice coordinators informed about new and ongoing
rulemakings with potential environmental justice implications. It said
that the mechanism for this communication would be monthly conference
calls between the Office of Environmental Justice and the environmental
justice coordinators.
Third, we recommended that the Administrator improve assessments of
potential environmental justice impacts in economic reviews by
identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques needed to
assess such impacts. EPA responded that its Office of Air and Radiation
was reviewing information in its air models to assess which demographic
data could be introduced and analyzed to predict possible environmental
justice effects. It also said it was considering additional economic
guidance on methodological issues typically encountered when examining
a proposed rule's impacts on subpopulations highlighted in the
executive order. Finally, it noted that the Office of Air and Radiation
was assessing models and tools to (1) determine the data required to
identify communities of concern, (2) quantify environmental health,
social and economic impacts on these communities, and (3) determine
whether these impacts are disproportionately high and adverse.
Fourth, we recommended that the EPA Administrator direct cognizant
officials to respond more fully to public comments on environmental
justice by, for example, better explaining the rationale for EPA's
beliefs and by providing supporting data. EPA said that as a matter of
policy, the agency includes a response to comments in the preamble of a
final rule or in a separate "Response to Comments" document in the
public docket. The agency noted, however, that it will re-emphasize the
need to respond to comments fully, to include the rationale for its
regulatory approach, and to better describe its supporting data.
EPA's Progress in Responding to Our Recommendations:
On July 18, 2007, we met with EPA officials to obtain more up-to-date
information on EPA's environmental justice activities, focusing in
particular on those most relevant to our report's recommendations.
While we have not had the opportunity to independently verify the
information provided in the few days since that meeting, our
discussions did provide insights into EPA's progress in improving its
environmental justice process in the two years since our report was
issued. The following discusses EPA activities as they relate to each
of our four recommendations.
First, regarding our recommendation that workgroups consider
environmental justice while drafting and finalizing regulations, EPA
had emphasized in its August 2006 letter that making the Office of
Environmental Justice an ex officio member of the Agency's Regulatory
Steering Committee would not only allow it to be aware of all important
EPA regulatory actions from their inception through rule development
and final agency review, but more importantly, would allow it to
participate on workgroups that are developing actions with potential
environmental justice implications and/or recommend that workgroups
consider environmental justice issues. To date, however, the Office of
Environmental Justice has not participated directly in any of the 103
air rules that have been proposed or finalized since EPA's August 2006
letter. According to EPA officials, the Office of Environmental Justice
did participate in one workgroup of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and provided comments on the final agency review
for the Toxic Release Inventory Reporting Burden Reduction Rule. EPA
officials also emphasized that its Tiering Form would be revised to
include a question on environmental justice. As noted earlier, this key
form is completed by workgroup chairs to alert senior managers to the
potential issues related to compliance with statutes, executive orders,
and other matters. However, two years after we cited the omission of
environmental justice from the Tiering Form, EPA explained that its
inclusion has been delayed because it is only one of several issues
being considered for inclusion in the Tiering process.
Second, regarding our recommendation to (1) improve training and (2)
include Environmental Justice coordinators from EPA's program offices
in workgroups when appropriate, our latest information on EPA's
progress shows mixed results. On the one hand, EPA continues to provide
an environmental justice training course that began in 2002, and has
included environmental justice in recent courses to help rule writers
understand how environmental justice ties into the rulemaking process.
On the other hand, some training courses that were planned have not yet
been developed. Specifically, the Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation has not completed the planned development of training on
ways to consider environmental justice during the regulation
development process. In addition, while the EPA said in its August 2006
letter that Office of Air and Radiation had developed environmental
justice training tailored to that office, air officials told us last
week that in fact they were unable to develop the training due to staff
turnover and other reasons. Regarding our recommendation to involve the
Program Offices' Environmental Justice coordinators in rulemaking
workgroups when appropriate, EPA's August 2006 letter had said that the
Coordinators' involvement would be facilitated through the Office of
Environmental Justice's participation on the Regulatory Steering
Committee. Specifically, it said that the Office of Environmental
Justice would be "able to keep the agency's [Environmental Justice]
Coordinators fully informed about new and ongoing rulemakings with
potential Environmental Justice implications about which the
coordinators may want to participate." According to EPA officials,
however, this active, hands-on participation by Environmental Justice
coordinators in rulemakings has yet to occur.
Third, regarding our recommendation that EPA improve assessments of
potential environmental justice impacts in economic reviews by
identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques that are
needed to assess such impacts, EPA officials said that their data and
models have improved since our 2005 report, but that their level of
sophistication has not reached their goal for purposes of environmental
justice considerations. EPA officials said that to understand how
development of a rule might affect environmental justice for specific
communities, further improvements are needed in modeling, and more
specific data are needed about the socio-economic, health, and
environmental composition of communities. Only when they have achieved
such modeling and data improvements can they develop guidance on
conducting an economic analysis of environmental justice issues.
According to EPA, among other things, economists within the Office of
Air and Radiation are continuing to evaluate and enhance their models
in a way that will further improve consideration of environmental
justice during rulemaking. For example, EPA officials told us that at
the end of July, a contractor will begin to analyze the environmental
justice implications of a yet-to-be-determined regulation to control a
specific air pollutant. EPA expects that the study, due in June 2008,
will give the agency information about what socio-economic groups
experience the benefits of a particular air regulation, and which ones
bear the costs. EPA expects that the analysis will serve as a prototype
for analyses of other pollutants.
Fourth, regarding our recommendation that the Administrator direct
cognizant officials to respond more fully to public comments on
environmental justice, EPA officials cited one example of an air rule
in which the Office of Air and Radiation received comments from tribes
and other commenters who believed that the proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for PM 10-2.5 raised environmental justice
concerns. According to the officials, the agency discussed the comments
in the preamble to the final rule and in the associated response-to-
comments document. Nonetheless, the officials with whom we met said
they were unaware of any memoranda or revised guidance that would
encourage more global, EPA-wide progress on this important issue.
Concluding Observation:
Our 2005 report concluded that the manner in which EPA has incorporated
environmental justice concerns into its air rulemaking process fell
short of the goals set forth in Executive Order 12898. One year after
that report, EPA committed to a number of actions to be taken to
address these issues. Yet an additional year later, most of these
commitments remain largely unfulfilled. While we acknowledge the
technical and financial challenges involved in moving forward on many
of these issues, EPA's experience to date suggests the need for
measurable benchmarks--both to serve as goals to strive for in
achieving environmental justice in its rulemaking process, and to hold
cognizant officials accountable for making meaningful progress.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Contacts and Acknowledgements:
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further
information about this testimony, please contact John B. Stephenson,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment (202) 512-3841, or
stephensonj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this testimony included Steven
Elstein, Karen Keegan, and Daniel Semick. Other contributors included
Marc Castellano, John Delicath, Brenna Guarneros, Terry Horner, Richard
Johnson, Carol Kolarik, Alison O'Neil, and Cynthia Taylor.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Efforts to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on specific populations and communities are commonly referred
to under the term "environmental justice."
[2] GAO, Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to
Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules, GAO-05-289
(Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005).
[3] President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866 on September 30,
1993, to begin a program to reform the regulatory process and make it
more efficient. Among other things, an OMB review is conducted to
ensure that the rule is consistent with federal laws and the
President's priorities, including executive orders.
[4] 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to submit a
written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of issuance of our
recommendations.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
