MANAGEMENT REVIEW
OF THE
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
IV)
cv
\ FINAL REPORT
*.
Program Evaluation Division
Office of Management Systems
and Evaluation/OPPE
August 30, 1984
UoSo Environmental Protection Agsncy
I-ibrary, Room 2404 PH-211-A
401 M Street, S.W.
ff-u:-viir.c-+on, DC 20480
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I. INTRODUCTION
II. KEY FINDINGS
PAGE
1
2
III. FINDINGS
A. STANDARD-SETTING
B. SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
C. NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
7
10
15
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. STANDARD-S ETTING
B. SUPPORT FOR IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT
C. NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
D. GENERAL
18
21
24
26
-------
MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
I. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a management review of
SPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
conducted by the Program Evaluation Division (PED) at the ,
request of the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. l
The PED project team consisted of Irv Auerbach, Fiona Jarrett,
Hugh Miller, Shirley Staton (project secretary), and David
Ziegele (project manager).
The Assistant Administrator requested that the study team
explore the following questions:
o What is OAQPS' mission? How is it/should it be
changing?
o How well does OAQPS perform its principal functions
and manage its relationships with other offices?
o Are there organizational or procedural changes that
would correct any problems identified in the study?
To obtain advice on what the study should encompass, the
Project Team talked with the (at that time Acting) Director
of OAQPS and all five division directors, the director of
OAQPS1 Office of Regional Programs, and three Regional Office
(RO) Air Management Division directors. Other preliminary
steps included review of relevant documents and collection of
data from OAQPS to enable the project team to get a perspective
on the relative emphasis placed on OAQPS1 many activities.
To gather information, the project team interviewed over 100
people in and outside of EPA. The interviewees included OAQPS1
Acting Director, all the division directors, most branch chiefs
and section chiefs, and other staff members; the directors of
the Air Management Divisions in Regions I, III, and V, plus
many other staff members in these ROs; either division directors
or Air Branch chiefs in most of the other ROs; members of the
AA's staff; staff in the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring; former EPA officials;
four State and local air pollution control program directors;
Congressional staff members; and others.
For the purpose of presenting the information gathered in
this study, OAQPS' program has been divided into three major
functional categories, listed below with examples of activi-
ties conducted in each category:
-------
-2-
1) Establish, Review, and Revise NationalStandards
- National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs)
- New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
2) Support Implementation and Enforcement
- Formulate and issue regulations governing the ,
development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
and coordinate EPA review of SIPs.
- Develop and issue national policies and program
guidance applicable to RO and State air program
activities.
- Provide technical support, primarily to ROs but
also to States in some cases, to enable them to
carry out their responsibilities in the areas of
implementation and enforcement.
- Conduct or support training classes and workshops
for professionals in the field of air pollution
control.
3) Provide Leadership andDirection as National Program
Manager
- Formulate and defend budget requests for the air
program, including RO air activities.
- Promote consistency among ROs and States.
- Provide leadership in dealing with emerging
issues in the field of air pollution control.
II. KEY FINDINGS
SUMMARY :
While the people interviewed for this study have had varying
experience with OAQPS and therefore gave differing and sometimes
conflicting answers to our questions, there is an underlying
consensus on three general points, which will be discussed in
more detail later in this report:
o OAQPS will have to maintain the capability to perform
its three major functions (i.e., standard-setting, sup-
porting implementation and enforcement, and providing
-------
-3-
national leadership). People interviewed for this study
identified a number of concerns about the way in which
OAQPS performs these functions. However, it is clear
that the functions themselves are (and will continue
to be) essential to the air program and that OAQPS is
uniquely equipped to perform them.
o The environment in which OAQPS operates has been chang-
ing and will keep changing. (The operating environ-
ment includes the statutory mandates under which EPA
deals with air pollution; the nature of the air pollu-
tion problems facing the nation; the status of the
nation's efforts to deal with those problems; the
availability of technological, financial, and human
resources, and so on.) To deal effectively with this
changing operating environment, OAQPS must constantly
seek ways to adapt.
o Over the past several years, OAQPS has adapted rather
well to some of the changes that have occurred, but it
has not gone far enough to meet all the new challenges
that have emerged.
In addition, interviewees outside OAQPS (who made up slightly
more than one-half the total) agreed without exception that
OAQPS generally is exemplary with respect to professionalism
and technical competence. Both implicitly and explicitly,
these people indicated that while they have been and still
are dissatisfied with some aspects of the Agency's air
program, and with OAQPS itself in many cases, they hold the
OAQPS staff in high esteem.
ELABORATION OF THE KEY FINDINGS
QAQPS will have to maintain the capabilitytoperform its three
major functions.
OAQPS1 role in setting national standards, supporting implemen-
tation and enforcement, and serving as National Program Manager
is, and will continue to be, essential to the Federal-State-
local effort to deal with air pollution.
In standard-setting, OAQPS is still completing work on the
priority list of New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) cate-
gories. Studies currently underway may lead to a recommenda-
tion to set a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter. Once NSPS and NAAQS are
set, the Clean Air Act requires that EPA review and, if
necessary, revise the existing standards on a periodic basis.
In the area of hazardous air pollutant standards, the Agency
has committed to making listing decisions by the end of 1985
on twenty-five potentially hazardous pollutants, a process
-------
-4-
which will result in the setting of at least some National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
Proposed changes to the Clean Air Act may add to"the Agency's
obligations in making listing decisions on, and possibly
setting standards for, hazardous pollutants. Additionally,
OAQPS has become involved in the development of "non-Clean
Air Act" air standards—it has recently begun developing
hazardous pollutant emission standards for facilities regu-
lated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Thus, unless unforeseen amendments to the Clean Air Act are
enacted which significantly curtail OAQPS1 responsibilities
in the setting of stationary source and ambient standards,
activity in these areas can be expected to continue.
From the interviews, it is also apparent that State and local
agencies, while more capable now than they were a decade ago,
will continue to have a significant need for EPA support if
they are to carry out the programs delegated to them under
the Clean Air Act. As a practical matter, State and local
agencies have few or no alternative sources of the products
and services OAQPS provides. Technical support (a key compo-
nent of support for implementation and enforcement) is the
only service that might be available from other sources, but
few State and local agencies appear to have the resources to
meet their technical information needs by purchasing assistance
in the market. Moreover, the difficulty of isolating technical
issues from policy considerations further limits State and
local agencies' ability to obtain meaningful technical guidance
from contractors and consultants.
<
In short, State and local agencies cannot get national stand-
ards, policy and program guidance, technical support (with
some exceptions) , or national program management from other
sources, in most cases regardless of how much they could or
would be willing to pay for .such products and services.
OAQPS is uniquely equipped to provide them and must maintain
the ability to do so for the foreseeable future.
It is conceivable that the standard-setting function, in par-
ticular, may decline somewhat in importance in dealing with
some current and future air pollution problems. However, the
study turned up no evidence that standard-setting or either
of the other major functions will become superfluous in the
foreseeable future or that any new functions will emerge as a
basic part of the OAQPS program, equivalent to these three.
The environment in which OAQPS operates is changing and will
cont inue to change.
Over the last several years, there have been many changes
in the conditions under which OAQPS conducts its business.
Because the air program {indeed, all EPA programs) is con-
-------
-5-
ducted in an environment affected by advances in science and
technology, national and regional economic trends, and shifts
in public and political views about environmental problems,
further change is certain to occur. Following are brief
descriptions of some of the major changes that have occurred
during the 1970s and 1980s (together with, in some cases,
indications of changes that can be expected in years to
come):
o The Clean Air Act was significantly modified seven
years ago, thus adding new dimensions to the air
program. For the past few years, the Congress has
been debating further changes, including amendments
dealing with acid rain and air toxics.
o State and local agencies have become increasingly
important participants in the air program. Through
delegations of authority from EPA, and by virtue
of continuing growth in their own technical and
managerial capabilities, they now play major roles
not only in developing and implementing plans for
NAAQS attainment and conducting air quality monitoring,
but also in assuring compliance with NSPS and NESHAPs.
In addition, State and local officials (with support
and encouragement from OAQPS) have been playing an
increasingly influential role in the formulation of
policies and programs under the Clean Air Act.
o The number of groups demanding a voice in decision-
making under the Clean Air Act has grown, as have
their knowledge of the technical and policy issues
and their skill at presenting their views. These
groups include not just governmental, industrial, and
environmental organizations but also groups within EPA
and other Federal agencies.
o Particularly during the last few years, there has been
an increasing demand that OAQPS (and other EPA program
offices) use sophisticated analytical techniques in
setting program priorities, analyzing alternative regu-
latory options, and so on. Not only EPA decision-
makers but also regulated industries and other inter-
ested groups have come to expect the use of techniques
such as quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis.
o New and complex issues keep getting added to EPA's
"agenda" of air pollution problems. Typically, they
are problems that have existed for many years but
did not get much public attention and therefore did
not generate much demand for control action. Acid
rain and toxic air pollutants are the most conspicu-
ous examples, along with inhalable particulatf; matter,
which is now the subject of a proposed NAAQS.
-------
-6-
Unfortunately, older problems are not going away.
While the nation has made significant progress in
dealing with them, problems such as sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, and ozone still are significant
in many areas. Another example of an "old" problem
which has not gone away (and which OAQPS has recog-
nized as needing its continued attention) is com-
pliance. Reported rates of compliance with SIP
regulations, NSPS, and NESHAPs are high, but the
reported rates generally are based on annual or semi-
annual inspections, and do not necessarily signify
that compliance is continuous*
OAQPS has responded quite well to some changes, but has not
moved far enough or fast enough in other cases.
By all accounts, OAQPS has done an outstanding job of adjust-
ing to State and local air pollution control agencies' in-
creasing interest in helping to shape the policies and prog-
rams they carry under delegated authority from EPA. OAQPS
has supported (with funds under Section 105) the efforts of the
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(STAPPA) to serve, together with the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), as focal points for State
and local involvement in OAQPS1 program development and
policy formulation. OAQPS works closely with STAPPA and ALAPCO
on many issues and initiatives, for example, the development
of a national program for evaluation of State air pollution
control agencies. State and local officials interviewed for
this study generally expressed satisfaction with OAQPS1 efforts
to enhance the relationship between EPA and their agencies.
This study found that OAQPS has made a much less satisfactory
adjustment to most of the other changes that have occurred.
Findings about problems in these areas are discussed below in
sections dealing with each of OAQPS1 major functions.
Perspective
In fairness to OAQPS, it must be noted that OAQPS cannot
control all the factors that affect the performance of its
day-to-day functions or the extent to which it can adapt to
changes in its operating environment. Factors that are
important in this regard include limitations on the resources
available to OAQPS, the need to deal with legal challenges to
air standards and regulations and with the results of such
litigation, EPA leadership changes, and the fact that many
people in EPA with diverse interests often are involved in
decision-making on air issues.
There is some tendency among OAQPS :sanagers to point to such
factors as the explanation for problems in the air program,
-------
-7-
including many of those identified in our study. However,
without denying the significance of these factors, we have
concluded that OAQPS could do more than it historically
has to shape the events that affect it, instead of being
shaped by them to such a substantial extent.
III. FINDINGS
This section presents the study findings in each of OAQPS1
major functional areas (standard-setting, support for imple-
mentation and enforcement, and national program management).
For each area, the findings are divided into "Strengths,"
in which OAQPS1 performance was found to be particularly
good and should be sustained, and "Problems," where the
study team's information-gathering and analysis indicate
that OAQPS' activities have not met the needs of the Agency
or its constituents and need to be strengthened.
A. Findings: Standard-setting
Strengths
All interviewees credited OAQPS with developing scientifically
and technically sound standards. OAQPS clearly does a thorough
job in this area. The only reservations expressed on this
point were comments to the effect -that it might sometimes be
better to give up a bit of scientific and technical polish
in return for timeliness.
Problems
Delays in issuing national standards are a concern expressed
by almost all RO and State staff interviewed for this study.
Delay tends to cause uncertainty, which in turn makes it
difficult to sustain the momentum of air pollution control
programs. As soon as the word is out that an existing national
standard might be altered or replaced, pressure against
compliance with that standard begins mounting.
To understand this concern, it is necessary to recognize that
people in the field use the term "delays" to characterize
not only instances of failure to meet statutory or other
deadlines but also any situation in which it.seems to take
the Agency an inordinately long time to complete action on
an issue. This is particularly true where the nature and
timing of the action will have a profound effect on the work
of ROs and State and local agencies.
-------
-8-
o The delay in issuing a national ambient standard for
inhalable particulate matter has caused widespread
concern. EPA's strategy for dealing with particulate
matter for most of the past several years has been
based on an expectation that an inhalable particulate
standard was about to be promulgated. As a result,
there have been prolonged problems in developing and
implementing State Implementation Plans for the exist-
ing primary standard for Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP).
o Also cited frequently was the seven-year lag between
invalidation of part of the Agency's first set of
regulations to control demolition/renovation of asbes-
tos-containing structures and the recent reissuance of
the regulations and implementation of a full regula-
tory program.
o Many interviewees were very negative about the time it
takes to complete the Agency's review of a national
ambient air quality standard. While most people seem
to understand the rationale for reviewing NAAQS every
five years, they cannot understand why such reviews
should take so long and thus generate uncertainty for
long periods. A separate study of the NAAQS process
currently is being conducted by the National Evaluation
Staff in the office of the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation.
In many cases, delays have occurred not only within OAQPS but
also in EPA's Washington, D.C. headquarters offices after
OAQPS has delivered packages to the Assistant Administrator's
office. There are many reasons why such delays occur. Some
are beyond OAQPS1 control. For instance, delay is inevitable
when EPA leadership changes and the new leaders want to take
a new approach to a standard-setting project that is near
completion. Other causes of delay include many of the prob-
lems described in the rest of this section, several of which
are attributable to the way OAQPS performs its standard-set-
ting functions.
A major source of delay is OAQPS' chronic difficulty in get-
ting its standards and regulations packages through EPA's
internal review process. This difficulty is attributable at
least in part to the following factors:
o OAQPS' failure to adapt well to the increasingly
influejvtial role of non-OAQPS participants in EPA's
internal review process. Some OAQPS staff members
get along quite well with other "players" (including,
in particular, the AA's staff and OPPE) and seem
able to keep such people involved and get the benefit
of their ideas without losing control. However,
others, as well as some OAQPS managers, seem not to
-------
-9-
have accepted the fact that the non-OAQPS partici-
pants have a legitimate role (despite narrow interests
in many cases) and cannot be ignored.
It should be pointed out that the large number of non-
OAQPS managers and staff involved in regulation devel-
opment and review makes consensus-building and coordi-
nation among all the parties a complicated process.
It also is apparent that some of the non-OAQPS parti-
cipants sometimes behave in ways that tend to alienate
OAQPS staff, e.g., by waiting until the last minute
to raise issues that should have been identified much
earlier or by making objections to a package after
failing to attend working group meetings. Even so,
our major finding here is that OAQPS has not made
a sufficient effort to "work the system," i.e., to
work closely enough with other participants in the
process, not only at staff levels but also at manage-
ment levels, to be able to understand their concerns
and deal with them before the eleventh hour.
o Failure to present a sufficient range of options.
To some extent, this complaint reflects people's
recollections of specific cases in which their own
favorite option was not included among those offered
by OAQPS. There is also some indication, however,
that OAQPS at times has excluded options that were
not in the mainstream of good engineering practice,
even though other EPA offices believed that the ex-
cluded options should at least be presented to deci-
sion-makers.
o Shortcomings in OAQPS' presentations to decision-
makers. A number of interviewees commented that
presentations by OAQPS often are focused too much on
technical details, not enough on policy issues, and
are often too involved and complex. Our own obser-
vations have indicated that OAQPS generally does a
better job of communicating with people in the air
pollution control field (including State and local
officials) than with EPA analysts and decision-makers.
o Uncertainty (and controversy) about the use of analy-
tical techniques such as risk assessment and benefits
analysis. While OAQPS has a well regarded staff in
the area of benefits analysis (the only such staff in
EPA outside OPPE), the extent to which it can and
should be used under the Clean Air Act remains a
subject of dispute among all interested parties (and
even among OAQPS staff members) and a cause of delays
during the Agency's internal review process. In the
area of risk assessment, OAR staff and management and
OAQPS management appear to have reached agreement
as to how risk assessment is to be incorporated into
-------
-10-
OAQPS* analysis and decision-making on regulation of
air toxics under Section 112. However, there are indi
cations that OAQPS staff do not fully agree with or
understand the approach decided on by management.
of a clear understanding about ROs1 and States'
role in the standard-setting process. One symptom
of this problem was the complaint from some ROs and
States that OAQPS does not seem to give serious con-
sideration to information they provide, particularly
in the NSPS program. OAQPS has indicated that RO
and State input is considered but acknowledges that
it often is not reflected in the standards issued.
For example, emissions data submitted by States and
ROs often are not accompanied by data on operating
conditions during the testing and therefore must be
set aside. Our conclusion is that a large part of the
problem boils down to the lack of feedback from OAQPS —
ROs and States often have no knowledge of what was
done with the data or comments they submitted.
o Lack of a clear delineation of responsibility for
shepherding packages through internal review. Stand-
ards and regulations packages tend not to move crisply
through EPA's review process. Left alone, they are
likely to languish on someone's desk for long periods.
It is not — and apparently never has been — clear whether
OAQPS is responsible not only for delivering packages
to the AA's office but also for shepherding them
through internal review.
o Lack of a well-defined process for reviewing and
making decisions on regulatory packages in the AA's
office. The only explicit information offered on
the role of the AA's staff in reviewing regulations
was a statement that the staff reviews regulatory
packages to ensure that a full range of options is
presented and that all options have been fully analyzed.
However, under current operating procedures, analysts
in the AA's office appear to have considerable freedom
to raise any questions that interest them and to hold
up packages for long periods of time.
B. Findings: Support for Implementation and Enforcement
OAQPS supports implementation and enforcement by providing
policy and program guidance and by providing technical sup-
port and guidance, primarily to EPA's Regional Offices. That
guidance and support has a two- fold purpose: to enable ROs
to carry on these implementation and enforcement activities
not delegated to States and to oversee and assist State
agencies in carrying out activities that have been delegated.
-------
-11-
For the most part, OAQPS interacts with the ROs and seldom
provides guidance or support directly to State agencies
(except for services such as the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and
training programs).
Strengths — Policy and Program Guidance and Technical Support
While some may assume that delegation of authority to EPA's
Regional Offices and State air pollution control agencies
reduces the importance of OAQPS functions other than standard-
setting, it is clear that ROs and State agencies alike depend
heavily on OAQPS to support implementation and enforcement
activities. In general, the RO and State people interviewed
for this study applauded OAQPS1 efforts to provide such support
and expressed satisfaction with the support they get in many
areas:
o National policy documents and written guidance pro-
vided when new initiatives are begun generally are
well regarded. There seems to be a correlation
between the extent of RO and State participation in
the preparation of such materials and the ROs1 and
States' perception of their quality and usefulness.
The Air Sanctions Policy developed last year is an
example of how RO and State participation can and
should be managed to produce a good product that
receives wide support in the field.
o Interviewees generally said they are satisfied with
the guidance provided in the areas of air quality
modeling and monitoring and with OAQPS1 responsive-
ness to requests for support in these areas. There
were also a number of favorable comments about the
activities of the Standing Air Monitoring Work Group.
o ROs and States generally said that SIP processing
has improved substantially over the past few years.
o Clearinghouses established by OAQPS to enable ROs
and States to share their experience in dealing with
specific problems are considered very useful.
Problems: Policy and Program Guidance
For the purpose of this study, the function of providing pol-
icy and program guidance is considered to include tasks such
as preparing nationally applicable policies dealing with
issues arising under the Clean Air Act (e.g., sanctions
policy), providing clarification and interpretation of exist-
ing policies and regulations, and providing guidance on the
development of RO and State programs to carry out specific
provisions of the Act or national standards and regulations
-------
-12-
issued under the Act. OAQPS has a responsibility for provid-
ing guidance not only at the time a new program is undertaken
or a major new national standard is issued but also throughout
the life of programs and standards. Following are brief
descriptions of the problems that seem most prevalent and
significant:
o Guidance provided at the time new initiatives are
undertaken sometimes is too detailed (e.g., PSD/NSR
guidance is needlessly complicated) or unrealistic
{e.g., ROs and States claim not to have sufficient
resources to inspect the number of asbestos
demolition-renovation sites necessary to comply with
OAQPS1 guidance).
o While OAQPS welcomes feedback from ROs, it does not
methodically follow up its guidance to determine
whether ROs are having problems interpreting and
applying it. ,
o ROs generally find it easier to obtain responsive
guidance through informal staff-level contacts than
through written requests through the OAQPS chain of
command. Guidance sought through channels often
takes a long time to obtain and sometimes is found
to be vague or noncommittal.
o While OAQPS currently has a system of sending out
significant guidance documents to ROs and States on
an as-needed basis and in a compiled form every six
months, not all Regional Office and State and local
agencies are receiving information or materials in
time for them to make best use of them. As an example,
ROs and States mentioned cases in which guidance
pertinent to SIP revisions did not reach them until
the SIP revisions were completed. Also, some important
guidance is given orally and thus travels by word-of-
mouth, making it subject to distortion.
o Where OAQPS has followed up written guidance with
workshops to explain new policies or programs, that
has been very helpful, but such follow-up does not
occur often enough (primarily because of the cost
of conducting workshops in the field).
RO and State and local managers and staff generally are more
receptive to policies and guidance they play a role in develop-
ing than those EPA Headquarters develops unilaterally, and
these people said that OAQPS has been increasingly willing to
involve them in its policy and guidance development.
Applicability Determinations — The fact that OAQPS no longer
makes applicability determinations with respect to NSPS and
NESHAPs was cited by all.ROs as a significant gap in the
-------
-13-
guidance available to them. ROs are concerned not only that
the lack of national guidance on applicability issues may
lead to inconsistency but also that it is inefficient and
resource-intensive for ROs to make their own determinations.
SIP Processing — While SIP processing has improved, as noted
above, it still takes longer in most cases than many people
in ROs and State agencies think it should. It still can and
sometimes does get bogged down (especially where there are
sensitive issues), partly because so many offices are involved
in the review process. To States, in particular, it seems
ironic that EPA can take fourteen months to complete a SIP
review (and believe it is doing quite well) after giving
States just nine months to prepare a new or revised SIP.
Problems: Technical Support
Technical support includes information and assistance in the
areas of science, technology, and engineering. In the air
program, the areas in which ROs and States often need techni-
cal support include ambient air and source monitoring, emis-
sion measurement, air quality modeling, and control technology.
To varying degrees, OAQPS provides technical support in all
these areas. ROs are OAQPS' primary clients, but much of the
technical support they receive is passed through to States.
Nearly all interviewees expressed the same basic concern
about OAQPS' technical support activities—that they are not
sufficient to meet the ROs1 and States' needs. Following are
some specifics:
o OAQPS is not providing enough expert help to enable
ROs and States to make determinations about RACT,
BACT, and LAER and to prepare and prosecute cases
against alleged violators of Clean Air Act standards
and regulations. In some instances, OAQPS simply
lacks the needed expertise (sometimes because OAQPS
itself has relied on contractors). In others, OAQPS1
response often is that it lacks the travel funds to
send staff or that the staff members in question can-
not be spared from other duties (usually standard-
setting} .
o OAQPS is not investing enough to meet technical sup-
port needs in areas such as implementation of a NAAQS
for inhalable particulate matter (where there are con-
cerns about lack of emission factors, ambient air
data, and other needed information), VOC compliance
(where ROs and States need help evaluating regulated
industries' claims that they are unable to comply
with SIP regulations adopted on the basis of information
.provided in the Control Technology Guidelines issued
by OAQPS), ozone modeling (where OAQPS withdrew support
-------
-14-
from a study that northeastern States had hoped would
provide the basis for mid-course corrections to their
ozone SIPs), and air toxics (where ROs and States all
recognize that OAQPS is now moving toward providing
technical support but maintain that it's too little
and started much later than it should have).
o When States are adopting regulations in accordance ;
with EPA's requirements for SIPs, they sometimes
ask that the Agency send staff members to testify
about specific technical aspects of the SIP require-
ments (e.g., why the State must use a particular
dispersion model). Similarly, when ROs or the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) are
involved in enforcement litigation, they sometimes
need expert testimony or assistance in preparing
cases. ROs and OECM indicate that OAQPS often is
unwilling to provide help in this area. Lack of
staff time or travel funds often is the reason given,
but some people in EPA sense that OApPS staff members
responsible for standard-setting activities generally
are reluctant to get involved in adversarial proceed-
ings between EPA and industry.
o ROs and States voiced strong support for OAQPS training
programs, but were critical of the resource cutbacks
that have already been made in the training area and
concerned about the impact of further reductions.
While conceding that they have no hard data to demon-
strate the cost-effectiveness of the training programs,
RO and State people maintain that such programs serve
several purposes:
- They enable new employees to become productive
sooner than they would just through on-the-job
training.
- They enable all staff members to deal with problems
such as VOC compliance, which is far more complex
than the problems that previously constituted most
of the work done by field inspectors.
- They build morale and improve proficiency through-
out an organization.
There is concern that continued cutbacks in training,
when joined with limitations on the availability of
technical support and the increasing complexity of
the air pollution problems facing the nation, will
have a far more devastating effect than any of the
three would alone.
o There is some concern about the existing systems for
storage, retrieval, and analysis of air data. Some
people in ROs expressed the view that the existing
-------
-15-
systems are obsolete, difficult to use, and not
integrated. Common concerns included difficulties
in getting access and in updating and editing. In
addition, the lack of a link among the systems was
identified as a limitation on their usefulness.
There was less criticism of the Compliance Data
System (CDS) than of the others. Our impression was
that ROs think the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS), which has been in development for
several years, will solve many of .their data system
problems and are impatient to see it up and running.
C* Findings; National Program Management
For the purpose of this study, we have defined National Pro-
gram Management to include responsibility for tasks such as:
o preparing and defending budget requests (which OAQPS
does for its own and the ROs1 activities),
o ensuring that the ROs1 views are considered during
policy deliberations at EPA Headquarters,
o providing guidance to the ROs on State grant negotia-
tions and on review and evaluation of State programs,
o ensuring consistency among ROs and States in their
implementation and enforcement activities,
o keeping ROs informed of the status of policy and program
development activities at the HQ level,
o keeping itself (i.e., the HQ Program Office) well
informed about the progress being made and problems
being encountered in the field, and
o providing leadership in identifying and dealing with
emerging problems, as well as performing a number of
other administrative-type tasks.
Strengths
In general, interviewees seemed to think that OAQPS plays the
National Program Manager role well. OAQPS tends to be more
pragmatic and far less heavy-handed than other program offices
and less inclined to engage in second-guessing. Following
are other specific points on this subject:
o OAQPS played a major role in making the associations
of State and local air pollution control officials',
(STAPPA and ALAPCO, respectively) a cohesive and
influential force in the formulation of EPA policy
-------
-16-
under the Clean Air Act. OAQPS1 recognition of the
need to strengthen these groups and its success in
doing so were frequently cited as one of its most
significant accomplishments.
o Also hailed as a significant accomplishment was the
development of a national system for evaluation of
State and local air pollution control programs. Known
as the Air Audit System, it was developed jointly by
OAQPSf ROs, and State and local officials; in fact,
State officials chaired each of the work groups that
developed the audit criteria. While RO staff members
noted that conducting the audits has been resource-
intensive, there was almost universal agreement that
the audits were worthwhile and often provided new
information and new insights, even to RO staff members
already familiar with the programs being audited.
The only major concern expressed during our interviews
was the question of how the results would be used.
One State official said he hoped they would be used not
only to identify program areas in which OAQPS ought to
provide better guidance and monitor State activities
more closely but also, and more importantly in his
opinion, to build a case for getting more resources
for the air program.
o OAQPS does a good job of fostering communication and
team-building at the RO branch-chief level. RO staff
have found the quarterly meetings of air branch chiefs
and the annual technical conference at Southern Pines
to be particularly useful.
Problems
There are problems in four key aspects of OAQPS' performance
as National Program Manager:
o OAQPS historically has not done a very effective job
of presenting and defending budget requests for the
air program. RO and State officials who have had an
opportunity to review the budget requests prepared
by OAQPS or witness presentations all said that OAQPS
tends to be timid and unimaginative. Some of them
also said that OAQPS is much too willing to "find a
way" to take on new responsibilities without adequate
resources.
Our own observation is that OAQPS seems to treat the
budget process as an unprofitable exercise to be
completed as quickly and effortlessly as possible.
OAQPS does not <-:>eem to have .any process for advance
identification of resource needs and development of
information to support requests for the needed resources
-------
-17-
Training and technical assistance, in particular, are
activities for which more and better empirical data,
gathered in advance for presentation during the budget
process, might improve OAQPS' case for resource needs.
o While OAQPS is credited with doing a good job of
team-building at the RO branch-chief level, a number
of interviewees said that it had not done as well at
the division-director level. Some interviewees said
that the OAQPS Office Director personally should play
a major role in team-building among RO division ;
directors but historically has not done so.
o Some ROs made the point that OAQPS does not do as much
as it might to assure consistency among ROs and States,
but opinion is divided on the question of how forceful
OAQPS should be with respect to national consistency.
Moreover, it is difficult to find evidence that OAQPS1
approach has caused major problems, although examples
of inconsistency in SIP regulations (e.g., differences
in averaging times for emission limits or lack of spe-
cified averaging times, differences in the way compli-
ance with VOC regulations is determined) are not hard
to find.
o OAQPS is sometimes slow to take the initiative in
dealing with emerging national issues, particularly
those that are outside the historical boundaries of
its program. Air toxics is the example mentioned most
frequently. ROs and States all complained that OAQPS
was late in recognizing the need to deal with air
toxics issues (if not through standard-setting, then
at least through dissemination of scientific and tech-
nical information).
Going back several years, some interviewees noted that
OAQPS played little role in dealing with the steel
industry during the late 1970s and deferred to the
Office of Enforcement for the development of guidelines
defining Reasonably Available Control Technology for
steel plants. On the other hand, OAQPS was credited
with providing leadership (by developing Control Tech-
niques Guidelines documents) in the control of VOC ,*
sources.
-------
-18-
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents recommended actions for the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation to put in place to rein-
force OAQPS1 strengths and correct the problems identified in
the course of this study. It is important to point out that
no one or two actions alone will make the difference in devel-
oping sustained effective performance in OAQPS. Outlined
below are many specific, trackable items which, if implemented
and maintained, will collectively provide the foundations for
long-term effectiveness. These foundations include more effi-
cient processing of regulations and standards, better policy
and technical guidance to the field, improved planning and
budgeting processes, an enhanced ability to adapt to changes
in the organization's operating environment, and better com-
munication with Regional Offices.
This section is divided into four sub-sections by functional
category of OAQPS1 work—standard-setting, support for imple-
mentation and enforcement, national program management, and
general recommendations. In each functional area, the major
objectives to be accomplished are described, followed by
specific recommendations designed to meet those objectives.
A. Recommendations; Standard-setting
The primary goal of recommendations in the area of standard-
setting is to speed up the process of getting standards
and regulations out of the Agency by improving the communica-
tion and coordination between OAQPS and other organizations
both inside and outside the Agency.
OBJECTIVE: Improve coordination with other Headquarters
offices involved in the review of OAQPS regulations. (See
findings on pages 8-10.)
Recommendation — OAQPS should be designated as having lead
responsibility for tracking regulations during the internal
Agency review cycle, for shepherding regulations through
the review process, and for addressing problems that arise
during reviews. Further, this responsibility should lie
with the OAQPS division director whose division produced
the standard or regulation. This places the responsibility
close to the levels of the organization that operationally
carry out the routine activities involved, yet places it
in a position of sufficient authority to allow effective
management action when non-routine problems arise. Addi-
tionally, placing this responsibility with the division
director whose division produced the regulatory package
will help foster practices during the earlier stages of
regulation development that will facilitate smoother Agency
reviews later.
-------
-19-
Recommendation — Schedule regular, frequent meetings
between the directors of the Emission Standards and Engi-
neering Division (ESED) and the Strategies and Air Stand-
ards Division (SASD) and the Office Director and staff in
the Office of Policy Analysis (OPA). The purpose of these
meetings would be to:
o Inform OPA of the packages scheduled for Steering Com-
mittee or Red Border Review during the coming weeks,
review issues raised and resolved during working group
meetings on those packages, and identify any remaining
issues of concern to OPA or those that may arise during
OMB's review.
o Identify the need to set up separate meetings to discuss
specific standards or other actions or issues in more
detail.
o Inform OPA of new standards work under consideration in
ESED or SASD and establish the role that OPA will play
in the development and review process (i.e., participate
on the working group, undertake independent analysis,
etc.)
o Inform ESED of new standards-related analytical proj-
ects being considered in OPA and discuss significant
findings of current OPA projects.
Such a process will help elevate reviewing offices' issues
to the managers' (rather than the analysts') perspective
and should thereby discourage the raising of relatively
insignificant issues. Further, it will foster early involve-
ment by OPA in the standards development process and will
help formalize the OAQPS division directors' role in getting
their regulatory packages through the DC review cycle.
Recommendation — Schedule similar meetings with the Office
of Policy Analysis and Review (OPAR) and any other staff
or office in Headquarters involved in review of OAQPS
packages.
Recommendation — Briefings for the Office Director on
regulatory packages should routinely include information
on issues that are likely to arise during review in the
AA's office, Red Border, or review by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB) and should also cover what has been
done or is planned to be done to facilitate early resolution
of the problems.
-------
-20-
OBJECTIVE — Improve the general quality of presentations
prepared for Headquarters decision-makers. (See finding
on page 9.)
Recommendation — Arrange for managers and as many of the
staff as possible to be trained in the preparation and
delivery of presentations for decision-makers (with the
training specifically tailored for OAQPS1 needs , i.e.,
technical material communicated to non-technical decision
makers) .
Recommendation — After major briefings for the AA or
other decision-makers, OAQPS should conduct brief reviews
of the meetings in order to identify problems or particu-
larly effective features of the prepared material or the
delivery that can be considered in the preparation of
future briefings.
OBJECTIVE — Improve information-gathering from and coordina-
tion with Regional Offices (ROs) and States on standard-setting
activities. (See finding on page 10.)
Recommendation — When Regional Offices and State and local
agencies provide comments or technical data during the
development or review of standards, ESED and SASD should
provide explicit responses to comments or input, either
through correspondence or by telephone.
Recommendation — As part of briefings on major decision
packages presented to the Office Director, OAQPS divisions
should include a section on significant issues raised by
Regional Offices and State and local agencies and how they
were addressed.
Recommenda t ion — Because technical inadequacies in the
data often hamper ESED's use of State and RO enforcement-
related data for setting new standards or reviewing/revising
existing standards, ESED should issue guidance to ROs and
States outlining the minimal procedural and documentation
requirements that stack test data must conform to if they
are to be considered for standard-setting purposes.
OBJECTIVE — Clarify the roles that benefits analysis and risk
assessment will play in O.AQPS1 standard-setting activities.
(See finding on page 9.)
Re comme nd at ion — In the long term EPA may wish to pursue
changes to the Clean Air Act which would allow the Agency
to make better use of benefits analysis and benefit-cost
-------
-21-
analysis in decision-making on National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). This would require a cooperative effort
between OAQPS, the Immediate Office of the AA/OAR, OPPE,
and other internal and perhaps external groups. However,
the most important step in the short run is for SASD to
resolve internal differences that have gradually arisen
over'when and how benefit-cost work should fit into the
development of NAAQS within the current constraints of the
Clean Air Act.
As most of the problems appear to be related to communica-
tion between branches in SASD, it should be sufficient for
the Director of SASD to set up a forum through which repre-
sentatives of the Ambient Standards Branch and the Economic
Analysis Branch can discuss current problems and present
him with options, if necessary, for resolving them.
Recommendation — Regarding the role of risk assessment in
the regulation of air toxics, the primary problem appears
to be staff's incomplete acceptance of new ways of approach-
ing Section 112 listing decisions and the setting of NESHAPs.
OAQPS management should take steps—either formal or infor-
mal—to more clearly communicate its policies and plans
to staff in ESED and SASD and to discuss any concerns that
may exist at the staff level.
B. Recommendations^— Support for Implementation and^ Enforcement
OBJECTIVE — Improve follow-up to initial program and policy
guidance. (See findings on page 12.)
Recommendation — For large program initiatives (such as a
revised ambient standard or new enforcement policy) OAQPS
should establish a more formal process for evaluating the
progress of implementation and assessing the need Cor fur-
ther guidance or assistance. At a minimum, this should
include two activities:
1) OAQPS staff should keep a record (for their own use)
of phone calls or written requests for guidance or
clarification on the subject area, identifying the
caller, the nature of the problem, and the response
given, if any.
2) At frequent intervals during the first several months
of a new initiative, the Division Directors and key
staff from each involved division should meet to
discuss the kinds of problems that are emerging in
the field (as reflected in the various records of
requests for guidance or information) and to identify
action that OAQPS should take to resolve current
problems and preclude additional ones. This could
-------
-22-
include issuing a follow-up guidance document, schedu-
ling a series of workshops, or revising the original
regulation or policy statement.
An additional step in an evaluation process would be a brief
survey (either written, by telephone, or a combination)
of Regional Offices and selected State and local agencies
conducted several months after a new initiative is set in
place. This would provide more comprehensive feedback to
OAQPS on the policy guidance or technical support needs
that remain in the field.
Recommendation —- OAQPS should upgrade its current system
for distributing guidance materials .to Regional Offices
and State and local agencies in order to better ensure
that all organizations which may need or be affected by the
guidance receive it as soon as possible after it is issued.
The elements of such a system should include:
o Numbering system for guidance documents (e.g., program
guidance memorandum 84-1)
o Standard list of addressees
o Standard general format or coversheet for guidance docu-
ments that allows field managers and staff to quickly
recognize it as guidance material and to pull out the
key information (e.g., subject covered, purpose of
guidance, any previous guidance that it supersedes,
who it applies to, etc.)
Recommendation — OAQPS should expand its current newsletter
to Regional Offices and State and local agencies to include
more information on the status and, where possible, the
substance of significant work in progress (regulations,
policies, guidance documents, etc.). The purpose of this
expansion would be to better inform the field of events
or upcoming OAQPS products which may affect their ongoing
work.
Recommendation — OAQPS should continue whenever possible
its practice of providing workshops for ROs and State and
local personnel on significant programmatic initiatives or
other areas where information exchange is required. It is
a function that OAQPS performs well and one that meets
many of the support and guidance needs that arise in the
field. When the need for workshops is identified but re-
source constraints appear to preclude a full tour of work-
shops, OAQPS should be encouraged to examine whether other
activities could be cancelled or postponed in order to
free up resources for the workshops or at least a scaled-
down workshop program.
-------
-23-
OBJECTIVE — Improve technical support to Regional Offices
and State and local agencies. (See findings on pages 13-15.)
Recommendation — OAQPS should begin as soon as possible
to develop a strategy for its training programs for field
staff. This will require, at a minimum:
o gathering data from ROs and State and local agencies
on current and projected training needs?
o determining which program or technical areas to focus
on in the future, assuming continued tight funding for
training (i.e., new program initiatives or instruction
in the traditional subjects such as compliance inspec-
tions, modeling, etc.); and
o developing budget initiatives for areas where the data
appear to support a case for increased funding.
R_e comme nd a t i o n — OAQPS should reinstitute the practice of
maintaining industry experts within EPA in key areas in
which ROs and State and local agencies require technical
assistance. This will require that OAQPS:
o establish (with ROs & States) which industrial categories
to cover;
o identify the individuals within ESED or SSCD (or perhaps
ROs) who should serve as the industry expert in each
category;
o procure the training or whatever else is needed to
develop and maintain these individuals' expertise in
their subject areas; and
o if necessary, revise performance standards and schedules
for other work (e.g., standard-setting activities)
in order to make the technical assistance activities
a regular part of the responsibilities of the industry
experts.
Recommendation — In light of the concern among managers
in the field regarding the availability of technical tools
for implementation of the PM10 standard, OAQPS should
immediately reassess RO and State and local technical
needs for implementation of the standard and determine the
extent to which these will or will not be met by the agency.
This should consist of:
o resurrecting and updating, if necessary, the content of
the original CPDD planning document on implementation
of the inhalable particulate standard;
-------
-24-
o assessing how well the identified needs are being or
will be met, given current State and EPA activities,
and what the consequences of any shortfalls will be;
and
o preparing a report or briefing for the Director of
OAQPS and the AA/OAR on the findings of the review and
recommended actions, if any, for correcting identified
problems.
Recomroendat i on — OAQPS should reinstitute, at least on a
limited basis, its assistance to ROs in making case-by-case
determinations of whether national standards are applicable
to new sources ("applicability determinations").
Recommendation — In light of the preliminary results of
the OAQPS/OPPE "Six-month Study" of the air toxics problem,
as well as the intense concern in ROs and State and local
agencies regarding the lack of site-specific air toxics
monitoring capability, OAQPS should reassess its proposed
strategy for air toxics monitoring in order to determine
whether it will result in genuinely useful information for
EPA and other control agencies to use in assessing problems
and devising control strategies.
C. Recommendations — National Program Management
OBJECTIVE: Improve planning for and presentation of budget
requests. (See findings on pages 16-17.)
Recommendation — OAQPS should institute a comprehensive
planning and budgeting process for the office. The purpose
would be to:
o allow for early identification of areas where new initia-
tives are necessary or where ongoing activities may
be vulnerable to budget cuts;
o plan the actions which may be necessary for making bud-
get decisions or defending budget requests (e.g., data
gathering, special studies, support from outside groups,
etc.); and
o incorporate the supporting information into effective
requests during the regular Agency budget process.
Recommendation — Documents currently prepared for the
Agency budget process do not allow the OAQPS Office Direc-
tor or the AA to assess trends or the budgetary trade-offs
that are being made between.standard-setting activities and
-------
-25-
activities to provide guidance and support to the field.
OAQPS should do a special analysis on the OAQPS budget
request each year (only for the use of the Office Director
and the AA), breaking out policy guidance and technical
support from other categories of activities.
OBJECTIVE: Improve national team-building and consistency
across the various components of the national air program.
(See findings on page 17.)
Recipmmendaition — OAQPS should conduct formal audits of
Regional Office air programs. These could be conducted
in a way that is similar in concept to that which OAQPS
set up for audits of state air agencies. The benefits
should be:
o Better understanding by ROs of what Headquarters expects
of them in the way of procedures and outputs?
o More direct feedback to ROs on how they are performing
in relation to pre-determined measures?
o Better Headquarters understanding of the problems being
faced by the ROs and States in implementing national
standards and policies;
o Easier identification of and control of program areas
in which national policies are not being implemented
in a consistent manner.
Recommendation — The Director of OAQPS should begin now
to plan a series of visits to Regional Offices and, if
possible, one State or local air agency in each region.
If the Director is to effectively fulfill his responsibili-
ties related to providing leadership and direction to the
national air program, he will need to establish and main-
tain—starting at management levels—effective lines of
communication between OAQPS and the field. However,
given the steady demands of standard- and policy-setting
and everyday management of the Office, natural opportunities
to leave both Durham and DC for a few days to travel to
the field will probably not present themselves. It will
therefore be necessary for the Director to take the
initiative and plan these trips well enough in advance
to allow accommodations for his absence from Headquarters,
e.g., delegations of authority or adjustments in meeting
schedules.
-------
-26-
D. RECOMMENDATIONS — GENERAL
OBJECTIVE: Improve communication and team-building within OAQPS,
Recommend a t i o n — Establish regular (perhaps bi-monthly)
meetings of OAQPS Branch Chiefs to discuss upcoming actions
and cross-cutting initiatives, iron out coordination/commu-
nication problems, brainstorm, and identify administrative
or policy issues which should be brought to the attention
of upper management. Secondary benefits of these meetings
would be better communication between the divisions on a
daily basis and better integration of SSCD into the opera-
tions of the OAQPS divisions located in Durham, where appro-
priate.
Recommendation — One possible disadvantage of OAQPS1
geographic location is that its employees may not be exposed
to "outside" information or ideas as readily as EPA's Head-
quarters personnel based in Washington. OAQPS should be
encouraged to set up brown bag lunches or some similar
informal mechanism for promoting discussion of general
air program issues or such'topics as future trends, alter-
native regulatory approaches, risk assessment and its
uses/limitations, etc. Also, outside speakers, such as
representatives of environmental or industry groups, may
be willing to travel to Durham to speak to OAQPS staff and
answer questions in an informal setting. OAQPS should be
encouraged to pursue this opportunity.
OBJECTIVE: Maintain a "field perspective" in OAQPS.
Recommendation — OAQPS should be encouraged to continue
and, if possible, expand the practice of targeting RO and
State and local employees in announcing openings in
OAQPS.
Recommendation — OAQPS should be encouraged to investigate
the expanded use of exchange programs or iPAs between EPA
(OAQPS and ROs) and State and local agencies and between
OAQPS and ROs.
i c
401 tt Street, b.w
------- |