Instead of requiring EPA to develop  ambient standards for air toxics as it does for the six criteria pollutants,  the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 listed the air toxics to be controlled  and directed EPA to control them by, among other things, (1) developing  technology-based emissions limits (MACT standards) for major stationary  sources, such as incinerators and chemical plants; (2) regulating emissions  from smaller sources, such as dry cleaners and gas stations; and (3)  evaluating the need for and feasibility of regulations from mobile sources,  such as cars, and regulating these sources based on this evaluation. EPA Has Made Limited Progress in Addressing the Clean Air Act’s Requirements for Air Toxics and Faces Significant Implementation Challenges

EPA has completed issuing emissions standards for major stationary  sources but issued most of these standards late and has made limited  progress toward completing the remaining air toxics requirements. Furthermore, the agency lacks a program implementation strategy. As a result of the limited progress  in implementing these requirements, EPA has not reduced human health  risks from air toxics to the extent and in the time frames envisioned in the  act. Additionally, several  officials said that other regulatory and voluntary programs limit emissions  of air toxics as a side benefit. For example, some stakeholders said that the problems with  limited resources stemmed from the program’s low priority. Available Information on Costs and Benefits Is Not Sufficient to Measure the Program’s Effectiveness

The information available on the costs and benefits of EPA’s air toxics  program is not sufficiently comprehensive to measure the overall  effectiveness of the program. We also evaluated two other potential indicators of the program’s  effectiveness—data on levels of air toxics in the ambient air and  information on the degree of compliance with clean air regulations—to  determine their usefulness as indicators of the program’s effectiveness. While EPA may have been driven by  certain deadlines in the act, some state and local officials said that the  agency has chosen to focus on certain large stationary sources even  though EPA’s data suggest that emissions from small stationary sources  and mobile sources may pose greater risks. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the management of EPA’s air toxics program and enhance its  ability to reduce risks of cancer and other adverse health effects, we  recommend that the EPA Administrator require the Assistant  Administrator for Air and Radiation to develop an air toxics program  improvement plan that incorporates the following five issues:    provides a detailed schedule for completing its mandated air toxics  activities and identifies the staffing and funding resources needed to meet  the schedule and address the health risk assessment needs;    prioritizes activities within the air toxics program, placing the highest  priority on those actions that have the greatest potential to address health  risks, to the extent permitted by the Clean Air Act;    establishes a process and timelines for meeting the act’s requirements to  periodically review and update the list of air toxics;   outlines an approach and timelines for improving the agency’s ability to  measure the program’s costs and benefits; and   describes how the agency plans to improve its air toxics emissions  inventory, including a discussion of the statutory authority for, and the  merits of, requiring states and emissions sources to submit standardized  emissions data. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to assess (1) EPA’s progress toward implementing the air  toxics program and any implementation challenges the agency faces, (2)  what available information indicates about the costs and benefits of EPA’s  efforts to control air toxics, and (3) the program design and management  practices of state and local air toxics programs that could potentially help  EPA enhance the effectiveness of the federal program. More complete information on costs and  benefits would help the agency, Congress, and the public understand  the effects of the air toxics program and enable the agency to compare  the net benefits of the air toxics program with those achieved under  other clean air programs on which the agency has placed a higher  priority. This suggests  that EPA has substantial opportunities to further address air toxics  risks from mobile sources.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) most recent data indicate that 95 percent of all Americans face an increased likelihood of developing cancer as a result of breathing air toxics--pollutants such as benzene and asbestos that may cause cancer or other serious health problems. Sources of air toxics include large industrial facilities, smaller facilities such as dry cleaners, and cars and trucks. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to regulate 190 pollutants from these sources through a multifaceted regulatory program. While EPA issues federal standards, state and local agencies generally administer these standards, and some develop their own rules to complement the federal standards. In this context, GAO was asked to assess (1) EPA's progress and challenges in implementing the air toxics program, (2) available information on the program's costs and benefits, and (3) practices of state and local air toxics programs.

What GAO Found

While EPA has made some progress in implementing its air toxics program mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, most of its regulatory actions were completed late and major aspects of the program have still not been addressed. Most of EPA's progress relates to issuing emissions standards for large stationary sources, although EPA completed these standards about 4 years behind schedule. However, many of the unmet requirements pertain to limiting emissions from small stationary and mobile sources, which collectively account for most emissions of air toxics. The agency faces continuing implementation challenges stemming from the program's low priority relative to other programs and related funding constraints. To this end, the agency lacks a comprehensive strategy for completing the unmet requirements or estimates of resources necessary to do so. Senior EPA officials said the program's agenda is largely set by external stakeholders who file litigation when the agency misses deadlines. As a result of EPA's limited progress, the agency has not addressed health risks from air toxics to the extent or in the time frames envisioned in the Clean Air Act. Senior EPA officials said that issuing standards for large stationary sources had addressed the greatest risks from air toxics and that other clean air programs also control air toxics as a side benefit. However, EPA does not have reliable data on the degree of risk reduction achieved through its regulations. Furthermore, the data that are available suggest that the agency has substantial opportunities to reduce emissions from mobile and small stationary sources. Available information on EPA's efforts to control air toxics is not sufficiently comprehensive to measure the program's total costs and benefits. Specifically, EPA has not comprehensively estimated the national economic costs of all air toxics standards and lacks the data necessary to assess the benefits of these standards, such as decreased incidence of cancer. Information on these impacts would help the agency assess the overall net benefits (total benefits minus total costs) of the air toxics program and compare these effects with those generated by higher-priority clean air programs, such as those intended to address smog. Data on other indicators of the program's effectiveness, such as changes in emissions, concentrations of air toxics in the (ambient) outdoor air, and data on compliance with air toxics standards are also limited and inconclusive. The state and local programs we reviewed use practices that could potentially help EPA enhance the effectiveness of its air toxics program. For example, several state programs have systematic approaches for identifying and prioritizing new pollutants that could inform EPA's efforts to meet the act's requirement to review and update the list of regulated pollutants.