Recommended Framework for
State/Local/Tribal Air Toxics Risk Reduction
Program
Final Workgroup Report
September 2000
Workgroup on Integrated Air Toxics:
State/Local/Tribal Program Structure
Formed Under the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee
Subcommittee for Permits/New Source Review/Toxics
Submitted to:
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Submitted by:
EC/R, Inc.
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
Glossary of Terms Used in Report 22
1.0 INTRODUCTION JJ_
1.1 Formation of the Workgroup LI
1.2 Workgroup Charge U_
1.3 CAA Programs Included Under the Workgroup's Charge L2
1.4 Workgroup Report Development Process L3
1.5 Report Organization .L3
1.6 Air Toxics Problem L3
1.7 State of Knowledge of Air Toxics Risk L4
1.7.1 Air Toxics Program History L4
1.7.2 Air Toxics Monitoring L5.
1.7.3 Air Toxics Exposure Modeling Jj5
1.7.4 The Future Outlook \J_
2.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 2J_
2.1 Program Structure 2J_
2.1.1 Four Levels of Goals 2,2
2.1.2 Four-Step Process 2A
2.1.3 Responsible Agencies 2A
2.1.4 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options 2^5
2.1.5 Implementation Options 2.13
2.2 Critical Issues for Overall Program Success 2.18
2.2.1 EPA's Obligation to Address Mobile Sources and Other Areas Within the
Agency's Jurisdiction 2.18
2.2.2 Need for Functional Equivalency 2.18
2.2.3 Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles 2.19
2.2.4 Funding and Other Resources 2.20
2.2.5 Authority 2.21
2.2.6 Incentives 2.22
2.2.7 Stakeholder Involvement 2.23
2.2.8 Environmental Justice Issues 2.25
2.2.9 Tribes 2.27
2.2.10 Crisis Intervention 2.27
2.2.11 Definition of "Local" Agency and Intergovernmental Relationships 2.27
2.2.12 Urban Land Use Planning 2.28
2.2.13 Other Issues 2.28
3.0 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM 3.1
ii
-------
3.1 Program Goals Overview 3J,
3.1.1 National Goals 32
3.1.2 Area-Wide Goals 3A
3.1.3 Near-Source Goals 37
3.1.4 Community/Neighborhood Goals 3J£
3.2 Step 1: Assessment 3^9
3.2.1 Purpose of Assessment Step 39.
3.2.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options 3.10
3.2.3 Assessment Issues 3.15
3.2.4 Sources of Assessment Data 3.15
3.3 Step 2: Program Development 3.16
3.3.1 Purpose of Program Development Step 3.16
3.3.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options 3.16
3.3.3 Program Development Issues 3.20
3.4 Step 3: Program Implementation 3.20
3.4.1 Purpose of Program Implementation Step 3.20
3.4.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options 3.20
3.5 Step 4: Audit and Backstop Process 3.23
3.5.1 Purpose of the Audit and Backstop Process 3.23
3.5.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options 3.23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Program Goals Summary 2.2
Table 2.2 Overall Program to Address Air Toxics Risk 2.7
Table 2.3 Federal Program to Address National Air Toxics Risk Goals 2.8
Table 2.4 State/Local/Tribal Program to Address Area-Wide Air Toxics Risk Goals 2.9
Table 2.5 Overview of State/Local/Tribal Program to Address Near-Source Risk Goals 2.11
Table 2.6 Overview of State/Local/Tribal Program to Address Community/Neighborhood Risk
Goals 2.12
Table 2.7 Timeframe for Implementation of Program Activities 2.16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Structure 1.1
Figure 2.1 Four-Step Process 2.4
Figure 2.2 "Framework" Diagram from the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management Final Report, Volume 1, 1997 2.5
Figure 2.3 Program Implementation Options 2.15
iii
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Workgroup Membership List
Appendix B: Summary of State and Local Air Toxics Program Activities
Appendix C: Special Monitoring Studies to Assess Exposure and Risk from Air Toxics
Appendix D: Summary of EPA Air Toxics Program Activities Related to Step 1, Assessment
Appendix E: Resources Available to State/Local/Tribal Agencies for Program Development
Appendix F: National EPA Air Toxics Plan
Appendix G: Additional Issues the Workgroup Identified
Appendix H: Summary and Brief Discussion on Public Participation Procedures
Appendix I: Summary of EPA Air Toxics Program Activities Related to Step 2, Program
Development
Disclaimer: This report reflects the comments and discussions of the workgroup on integrated air
toxics State/local/Tribal program structure and does not constitute EPA's position on
these topics.
IV
-------
V
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What is the background of this report?
In February 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a workgroup
under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's (CAAAC) Subcommittee for Permits/New Source
Review/Toxics. The EPA created the workgroup to obtain stakeholder input on how to structure
State/local/Tribal (S/L/T) programs under the risk-based phase of the national air toxics program. The
workgroup consists of 21 members representing State and local agencies, cities and elected officials, an
academic association, tribal authorities, environmental groups, environmental justice groups, industry,
and EPA. This report is the product of the workgroup.
What is the charge to the workgroup that resulted in this report?
The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to reduce risk from air toxics in two phases at the
Federal level: first, through development and implementation of technology-based standards (including
the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or "MACT," standards) and, second, through a risk-
based program to meet goals for protection of human health and the environment specified in the CAA.
This program includes the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, developed under section 112(k) of
the CAA to address risks in urban areas, and the Residual Risk Program, being developed under
section 112(f) of the CAA to address risks remaining on an industry-specific basis, after the MACT
standards for each industry are implemented.
After implementation of the technology-based standards, some air toxics risks may remain.
While EPA has the authority to issue standards to address the remaining air toxics risks in the second
phase, in some cases these risks may be more appropriately addressed at the S/L/T level, rather than at
the Federal level. Therefore, EPA asked the workgroup to recommend how to structure a program
encompassing Federal, State, local, and Tribal authorities to coherently address air toxics risks and, in
particular, to define the interface between Federal, State, local, and Tribal programs so that:
Unacceptable public health risks are addressed across the country, including low income
people and people-of-color communities
An appropriate balance is struck between the need for local flexibility and the need for national
support for areas that require Federally mandated programs
Full advantage is taken of the programs already in place
CAA mandates are achieved
All geographic areas are addressed, regardless of race or income
The EPA will consider the recommendations from this report, along with public comments that
were received in 1999 on the proposed Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, in developing a plan for
vi
-------
an overall program to address air toxics risk. The EPA will issue the plan for how to structure the risk-
based program by February 2001.
What approach does the workgroup recommend for addressing its charge?
The air toxics risks remaining after EPA implements the technology-based elements of the
national air toxics program are likely to be variable and require flexibility to address. Therefore, the
workgroup recommends a flexible framework that seeks to accommodate existing, mature State and
local air toxics programs, as well as S/L/T agencies that will need to develop entire programs. In this
framework, the workgroup envisions a very strong role for S/L/T agencies in the development and
implementation of risk-based air toxics programs. The workgroup also believes that for the S/L/T
programs to achieve air toxics risk reduction, it is essential for S/L/T agencies to form partnerships with
EPA and for EPA to fulfill its obligations in several important areas outlined in this report. This program
must also be designed to ensure strong stakeholder involvement throughout the process.
What goals does the workgroup recommend the program adopt to address air toxics risk?
The workgroup identified four types of goals to be met by an overall program to reduce air
toxics risk. These are national, area-wide, near-source, and community/neighborhood risk reduction
goals. The EPA has defined the national goals of the program according to CAA mandates. However,
in order to achieve these broad national goals, there must be goals for smaller geographic units. One
set of goals is for air toxics emission reductions that must be met on a statewide or area-wide basis.
These goals address the high priority air toxics in the ambient air of a State or Tribal area. The
workgroup also identified near-source goals, which address public health risks associated with the area
immediately surrounding stationary sources. The community/neighborhood goals address public health
risks to air toxics present in the ambient air of communities.
What is the workgroup's recommended framework of a program to address air toxics risk at
the S/L/T level?
To meet each of the four types of goals, the workgroup recommends a four-step process:
Assessment of the problem
Program development
Program implementation
Audit/backstop process
The lead agency or agencies for each step are identified in this report. Further, the
workgroup's recommended program includes certain specified activities for each step that must be
included as minimum elements to ensure reduction goals are met. Options available to S/L/T agencies
to carry out the minimum elements criteria are also described in this report. Recommended action items
for key activities leading to completion of an overall program to reduce air toxics risk and schedule
vii
-------
milestones are presented. Finally, by February 2001, EPA will issue its plan for how to structure S/L/T
programs for the risk-based phase of the national air toxics program. Substantial, initial goals would be
met by 2010, with the remainder of the program implemented in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe.
How do the Tribes fit into the framework recommended by the workgroup?
Tribes are sovereign and independent nations. Therefore, the Federal government has a much
different relationship with Tribes than with State agencies. The EPA has only recently been given
authority to work with Tribes in the same manner as States, with respect to implementation of CAA
programs. Tribes, in general, do not possess the infrastructure to address risks from hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). Across the nation, only a few Tribes have developed air quality programs and the
focus of those programs is on criteria pollutants. Currently, no Tribe has a Federally approved
permitting program. In addition, Tribes that do have air toxic sources do not have adequate monitoring
resources and capacity for assessing air toxic levels and their cumulative risks to the community. In
some cases, the air toxic sources have not yet been included as a "source category" by EPA - a
prerequisite for developing a MACT standard.
For Tribes to develop programs to address risks from air toxics will take considerable time.
Indian Tribes want to fully develop their air toxic programs. However, realistically, Tribes need
additional assistance from EPA or State and local agencies in order to improve their program capability
and control air toxic sources in Indian country. The framework recommended by the workgroup
provides sufficient options and approaches to allow for the support and assistance the Tribes will need
to develop air toxics programs.
What critical issues did the workgroup identify?
The workgroup identified several issues that are critical to the success of the overall program
and its implementation. These are:
The EPA must carry out its obligations under the program to develop standards for
issues of national concern. While EPA currently has plans to address mobile source HAP emissions
and other issues of national concern, the workgroup feels these actions alone will not fully address
national air toxics risk. Therefore, the workgroup believes that it is critical to the success of the
program recommended in this report that EPA initiate national standards and programs in several key
areas:
Accelerate upgrade of diesel engines (require retrofits of older engines, accelerate removal of
older vehicles from fleet)
On-road and off-road motor vehicles (gasoline and diesel) standards
Gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel specification
Standards for commercial marine vessels
Aircraft, airport emissions, and locomotive standards
viii
-------
Standards for utilities
Standards in areas which are preempted from S/L regulation (e.g., portable equipment and
equipment used for farm and construction activities that is rated 175 horsepower or lower)
Development of Federal Action Plans for chemicals that are persistent bioaccumulative toxics
(PBTs)
Standards for other areas of national significance
Guidance for S/L/T agencies to carry out this program
The flexible program must allow S/L/T agencies that have well-developed air toxics
programs to continue without interference or interruption through a functional equivalency
process. This process would be an up-front approval through a simple verification process that an
existing S/L/T program may continue with current activities to reduce public health risks as a result of
exposure to air toxics.
Emissions from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles must be addressed under this
program. Because of significant health issues associated with diesel emissions, most workgroup
members believe that, in order to reduce toxics in urban areas, this program needs to address diesel
emissions. While EPA has already planned some activities to reduce diesel emissions, the significant
health issues associated with diesel emissions demand that additional measures be taken to fully address
this issue.
Adequate funding must be provided to ensure implementation of this program. While
many tools are already available for S/L/T agencies to develop this program, additional support is
essential. Key areas include the following:
Funding is needed for the S/L/T governments to develop and implement an air toxics risk
reduction program.
The EPA must have adequate resources to ensure it can carry out its obligations under the
program to support the S/L/T agencies, including completing national rulemakings and
developing tools critical to support S/L/T efforts.
Resources are also needed to encourage and support local community involvement, education,
and training.
Resources are essential to providing meaningful incentives for S/L/T agencies, industry, and
other stakeholders to participate in the process and to leverage additional resources.
An important issue concerns EPA's authority to require S/L/T agencies to develop
plans to reduce air toxics risk with certain minimum elements and to conduct oversight.
Before the recommended framework can be implemented nationally, particularly in S/L/T areas that
lack authority, EPA must establish or identify appropriate authorities. Some workgroup members
believe that EPA must determine what CAA authorities exist beyond sections 112(k) and 112(f) to
require S/L/T agencies to use this framework to address local risk. Other members suggest, instead,
that this framework could by adopted by S/L/T agencies as a comprehensive program (under the
IX
-------
authority in CAA section 112(1)) that meets the mandates of section 112(k) and 112(f) while allowing
them to customize goals and strategies to meet local air toxics concerns. In addition, many workgroup
members believe incentives should be devised to encourage S/L/T agencies to implement a program
regardless of the existence of CAA authority to require the program.
Incentives are an important program element regardless of the authority issue.
Incentives are needed for S/L/T participation, but also for industry, who would play a large role in the
success of an incentive-based program.
Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of the program the workgroup has
developed. The EPA and S/L/T agencies should create a viable process for stakeholder involvement
to ensure stakeholders are engaged early in the program as active partners, so that different technical
perspectives, public values, perceptions, and ethics are considered. Creating incentives for
stakeholders to become involved at the beginning of the program and through its conclusion may be
needed to ensure sufficient participation in the process.
Environmental justice (EJ) issues are central to operation of this program. The
workgroup agrees that EJ concerns need to be integrated within the framework recommended in this
document. Furthermore, the workgroup understands that policy decisions of where sources are sited,
based solely on science and economics may inadvertently result in a discriminatory effect. Therefore, in
developing their urban air toxic programs, S/L/T agencies need to include consideration of historical
patterns of racial and economic segregation in their decision-making. The workgroup suggests that
EPA and S/L/T agencies develop a process to identify these communities at disproportionate risk early
in the program. In addition, community-based research is an important tool that can be used by S/L/T
agencies to help improve their understanding of the risks impacting the health and welfare of the EJ
communities. Community outreach, including the establishment of advisory committees, is also
important to implementation of a framework that addresses EJ concerns.
There are special concerns specific to Tribes that need to be considered for the
implementation of this program in Tribal areas. Currently, none of the Tribes have a developed air
toxics program and virtually all lack the infrastructure to build one and to perform this program. In
addition, the structure of a Tribal program will differ from those of most State or local agencies. For
this program to be successful in Tribal areas, they will need extensive infrastructure support from EPA.
Also, in contrast to many States and local agencies, the Tribal air toxics concerns are generally rural in
nature, and would be based on hot-spots or near-source concerns rather than concerns of urban areas.
A concept important to this program is that EPA should be able to intervene in
situations where an immediate threat to public health is apparent. These "crisis" situations would
include instances where there is evidence that public health is severely compromised due to exposure to
air toxics. In the event of these occurrences, EPA or S/L/T agencies could take action to immediately
reduce or eliminate the threat.
x
-------
The definition of "local" agency and ensuring effective intergovernmental
relationships are important to the overall program. For the purposes of this report and the
framework it presents, "local" agency refers to the agency responsible for administering industrial
operating permits, rather than the local government. However, for this program to be successful at the
local level, different agency types will need to work together because each only has partial control of
any air toxics risk situation created by industrial air toxics emissions.
Proper and inclusive land use and urban planning can serve as primary prevention
tools for many environmental concerns and EJ issues. The issues of urban sprawl, greenfield
development, brownfield redevelopment, and the development of clean alternatives for mass
transportation involve other private and public organizations which are not part of the current
stakeholder discussions. These organizations must be included in any future planning process for the
development of a viable urban air toxics strategy as envisioned by the workgroup.
In addition to the above issues, the workgroup identified several other issues that they did not
address, but which are important and will need to be addressed in the future. These issues are listed in
Appendix G.
XI
-------
Glossary of Terms Used in Report
CAA means Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990.
CAA Section 112(k) means the section of the CAA that describes the area source program, including
the urban area source program.
CAA Section 112(f) means the section of the CAA that describes the residual risk program.
CAAAC means the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The CAAAC is a senior-level policy
committee EPA established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to advise the Agency on CAA
issues.
EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EJ means environmental justice.
HAPs means hazardous air pollutants as defined under section 112(a) of the CAA.
MACT means maximum achievable control technology, which is the level of control on which the
NESHAP are based.
NAT A means EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment.
NTI means the EPA National Toxics Inventory.
NESHAP means National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The EPA has developed
these standards under the authority of section 112 of the CAA.
PBTs means persistent bioaccumulative toxics.
S/L/T means State/local/Tribal.
STAPPA/ALAPCO means State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials.
VOCs means volatile organic compounds.
xii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Formation of the Workgroup
In February 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
created a workgroup under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's
(CAAAC) Subcommittee for Permits/New Source Review/Toxics. The EPA
created the workgroup to obtain stakeholder input on how to structure
State/1 ocal/Tribal (S/L/T) programs under the risk-based phase of the national
air toxics program. The CAAAC is a senior-level policy committee EPA
established in 1990 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The EPA
created CAAAC to advise the Agency on Clean Air Act (CAA) issues. The
EPA has created several subcommittees under the CAAAC, including the
Permits/New Source Review/Toxics Subcommittee (more information about
CAAAC can be found athttp ://www. epa. gov/oar/caaac/). The location of the
workgroup with respect to the committee is shown in Figure 1.1.
The current workgroup consists of 21 members1' 2 representing State and local agencies (6),
cities and elected officials (2), an academic association (1), tribal authorities (1), environmental groups
(2), environmental justice (EJ) groups (2), industry (4), and EPA (3).
1.2 Workgroup Charge
The CAA directs EPA to reduce risk from air toxics in two phases at the Federal level: first,
through development and implementation of technology-based standards termed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), or Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards (MACT), area source standards, and mobile source standards. These technology-based
standards also include those EPA is developing under section 112(k)(3)(B) for area sources,
accounting for 90 percent of the emissions from the 30 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) posing the
greatest threat to public health in urban areas. In the technology-based phase, the CAA requires EPA
to issue a range of air pollution control technology standards for 174 source categories to address the
national air toxics problem. In addition to the Federal program, many State and local air pollution
control programs have been in place and have been reducing air toxics for many years. Collectively,
these programs have resulted in significant reductions in air toxics emissions.
1 During the process three original workgroup members resigned; the workgroup membership
list appears in Appendix A.
2Five of the workgroup members are also members of the Permits/New Source Review/Air
Toxics Subcommittee.
Figure 1.1 CAAAC
Structure
1.1
-------
In addition to the technology-based standards, the CAA also contains risk-based air toxics
goals for protection of human health and the environment that are specified in the law. To address
these goals, the CAA also provides EPA with the authority to issue additional standards to address
remaining air toxics risk as necessary after the technology-based standards. However, some of these
remaining air toxics risks may be variable and on a smaller geographic scale. While EPA is responsible
for developing the residual risk program, the CAA risk-based goals can, in some cases, be met through
State, rather than Federal, programs. Therefore, EPA asked the workgroup to establish the details of a
program encompassing Federal and S/L/T authorities to coherently address air toxics risks.
In particular, the workgroup was asked to define the interface between Federal and S/L/T
programs so that:
Unacceptable public health risks are addressed across the country, including low income
people and people-of-color communities
An appropriate balance is struck between the need for local flexibility and the need for national
support for areas that require Federally mandated programs
Full advantage is taken of the programs already in place
The CAA mandates are achieved
All geographic areas are addressed, regardless of race or income
The EPA's intent is to take input from this group, along with comments that were received in
1999 on the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, to develop a plan for this program to address the
remaining air toxics risk. The EPA will issue the plan by February 2001.
1.3 CAA Programs Included Under the Workgroup's Charge
In addressing the charge, EPA asked the workgroup to address the mandates of the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy. The Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy) was established
under section 112(k) of the CAA and was published on July 19, 1999 (64 Federal Register 38705).
There are two primary mandates in the Strategy. One is for EPA to prepare a strategy to control HAP
emissions from area sources in urban areas, and the other is to develop a schedule of specific actions
that will substantially reduce public health risks posed by HAPs through Federal laws or by the States.
The resulting challenge, and the charge of this workgroup, is to develop a program which will result in
EPA and S/L/T actions to reduce air toxics risk in urban areas.
In addition, EPA asked the workgroup to consider developing an administrative approach that
addresses air toxics risk near stationary sources. The EPA made this request because the Agency is
interested in investigating potential opportunities for interested S/L/T programs to participate in the
implementation of the CAA residual risk program, which focuses on reducing air toxics risk. The
Residual Risk Program was established under section 112(f) of the CAA. The CAA requires a
determination of whether there is risk remaining after promulgation of the CAA section 112 source
1.2
-------
category technology standards. This determination must be made within 8 years after promulgation.
1.4 Workgroup Report Development Process
The workgroup met three times face-to-face in Washington, D C., in February, June and
August, 2000. In between these meetings, the workgroup held weekly conference calls. The
workgroup's meetings were facilitated by one of the workgroup members, Michael Brintnall of the
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration.
The workgroup requested to be kept informed of EPA's progress in implementing the
framework suggested in the report. The workgroup also requested that EPA's plan, which will be
issued by February 2001, should be subject to public comment prior to being finalized.
1.5 Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized according to the design the workgroup has developed
for this overall program. Chapter 2 outlines the structure of the program and discusses the issues
critical to the success of the program as a whole. Chapter 3 describes the recommended program in
detail in terms of its goals and procedural steps (assessment, program development, program
implementation, and the audit and backstop process). There are also several appendices that contain
useful background information.
1.6 Air Toxics Problem
Toxic air pollutants are those pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health
effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects.
Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, found in gasoline; perchloroethylene, emitted from
some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, used as a solvent by a number of industries. Most
air toxics originate from man-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, construction
equipment) and stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources
(e.g., building materials and activities such as cleaning). Some air toxics are also released from natural
sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires.
The EPA's cumulative exposure project suggests that HAP exposures are prevalent nationwide
and may pose significant health risks. People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations
may experience various health effects including damage to the immune system, as well as neurological,
reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory and other health problems. Exposure
to many of these HAPs may increase the risk of developing cancer or experiencing other serious health
effects. In addition to exposure from breathing air toxics, risks also are associated with the deposition
of toxic pollutants onto soils or surface waters. These deposits may then be taken up by plants and
1.3
-------
ingested by animals and eventually magnified up through the food chain. Like humans, animals may
experience health problems due to air toxics exposure.
The air toxics problem is of special concern in urban areas because sources of emissions and
people are concentrated in the same geographic area, leading to large numbers of people being
exposed to the emissions of many air toxics from many sources. Additionally, while urban exposures to
some pollutants may be fairly similar across the country, studies in a number of urban areas indicate that
exposures to other pollutants, and any associated risks, may vary significantly from one urban area to
the next. In addition to these urban concerns, "hotspots" may be present in rural areas. These areas of
elevated risk my be caused by the presence of one or more air toxic emission sources or from the
transport of pollutants from more distant locations.
The EPA does not maintain a nationwide monitoring network for air toxics. However, EPA
has developed a National Toxics Inventory (NTI) to estimate and track emissions trends for 188 toxic
air pollutants regulated under the CAA, which are known as HAPs3. As shown in the EPA document
"Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 1999 Status and Trends" (August 2000),4 the sources of air
toxic air pollutants are relatively equally distributed between the following four types of sources
(although the distribution varies from area to area):
Major (large industrial) sources
Area and other sources, which include smaller industrial sources, like small dry cleaners and
gasoline stations, as well as natural sources, like wildfires
Onroad mobile sources, including highway vehicles
Nonroad mobile sources, like aircraft, locomotives, and construction equipment
In addition, other types of sources are of concern, especially when they are located near
population centers. Examples include airports and "peaker plants," which are smaller power generators
used to create additional power when larger power plants are near or at capacity.
1.7 State of Knowledge of Air Toxics Risk
1.7.1 Air Toxics Program History
Given the charge to the workgroup and the scope of programs to be addressed, the workgroup
believes there are sufficient tools available to begin implementing a risk-based program. Many of these
tools have their origin in the CAA that was promulgated in 1970 and included provisions for controlling
3 Some members of the workgroup are concerned that the NTI is limited in its assessment of
area source emissions.
4This report is available at http://www.epa. gov/airtrends/.
1.4
-------
emissions of HAPs. Since then, numerous strategies to control air toxics have been implemented by
EPA. With the passage of the CAA amendments of 1990, as noted above, Congress mandated that
EPA regulate major sources of HAPs with NESHAPs in the first phase. In the second phase, EPA
would evaluate the residual risks that remain after implementation of the NESHAP for each source
category and decide which source categories warrant further regulation. As of July 2000, EPA has
promulgated 46 NESHAPs for 82 source categories, proposed 10 NESHAPs for 8 source categories,
and finalized the Residual Risk Report to Congress. The Residual Risk Report provides an overview of
EPA's general risk assessment methods and approaches for evaluating near-source risk. The EPA is
currently evaluating residual risk from several source categories.
In addition to these EPA activities, several S/L/T agencies have taken action to address air
toxics concerns. Prior to the passage of the 1990 CAA amendments, the Federal air toxics program
progressed slowly. In the absence of a strong Federal program, many State and local agencies began
to respond to the air toxics problem by developing their own programs (descriptions of some of the
current S/L/T air toxics programs are provided in Appendix B). Some of these air toxics programs
have been quite successful at reducing emissions of air toxics, notably those in California. In addition to
EPA and S/L/T programs, the regulated community has also instituted numerous voluntary air toxics
reduction programs (e.g., 33/50, environmental leadership, and responsible care).
The improvement from these programs is seen in the fact that, based on the data in the NTI,
estimates of nationwide air toxics emissions have dropped approximately 23 percent between 1990 and
1996. Although changes in how EPA compiled the national inventory over time may account for some
differences, EPA and S/L/T regulations, as well as voluntary reductions by industry, have played an
important role in achieving large reductions in overall air toxics emissions. However, individual trends
for different air toxics vary by pollutant.
Although air pollution control technologies have vastly improved, and large reductions in
emissions have been realized, much of the EPA and S/L/T regulatory focus has been on controls and
emission reductions rather than estimating actual population exposures to individual and mixtures of air
toxics. Therefore, after 30 years of implementing air toxics reduction programs at the Federal, State,
and local levels, a basic understanding of the existing risks to public health from exposure to toxic air
pollutants on a national level is only beginning to emerge.
1.7.2 Air Toxics Monitoring
Air toxics monitoring is a good tool for assessing public exposure to air toxics. The EPA's "Air
Toxics Monitoring Concept Paper"5 details the existing EPA and State and local agency HAP
monitoring activities and actions expected by 2001. Although there is still a need for more air toxics
monitoring, a recent State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air
5This paper can be downloaded at http://www.epa.gov/ttnuatw 1/urban/urbanpg.html.
1.5
-------
Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) survey indicated that many S/L/T agencies do
conduct air toxics monitoring. The EPA has also begun working with S/L/T agencies to implement
permanent air toxics monitoring stations and to develop a central repository for the data.6
California and New York are two examples of States that have established statewide air toxics
monitoring systems. California maintains a comprehensive 21-site monitoring network which monitors
for approximately 60 toxic air contaminants. With over 40,000 measurements generated each year,
this monitoring data is used to evaluate emission trends, to establish background risk levels, and to
prioritize identification and control actions.
The New York State Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance initiated the Toxics Air Monitoring
System in 1987. This monitoring network measures 17 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at various
locations across the State. Fifteen out of the 17 VOCs are identified as HAPs by the 1990 CAA
amendments. The initial development of the network and analytical capabilities was part of a joint
Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project coordinated with EPA's Region II
office from 1987 through 1989. The network expanded in 1990 to a statewide network.
The goal is to monitor air quality related to toxics in the State's urban, industrial, residential, and
rural areas. This network and the resultant report have initiated the development of a long-term toxics
air quality database for New York State. The database, one of the most complete in the country, will
be used to define, attain, and preserve good air quality in New York State. The data provide actual air
quality measurements of the VOCs and is used in the design and management of New York's air quality
program, which includes risk assessment, modeling, planning, and trends analyses.
In addition to the California and New York programs, Appendix C provides a brief description
of other EPA and State and local studies.
1.7.3 Air Toxics Exposure Modeling
Although exposures can be estimated with computer models, some States do not have an
inventory of air toxics emissions beyond the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which would serve
as an input to an exposure model. Some agencies have been reluctant to require or perform risk
6In September 1999, a group of Tribal air professionals, the Institute for Tribal Environmental
Professionals (ITEP), and EPA met to discuss the growing needs of Tribes in ambient air monitoring.
These discussions have culminated in the establishment of the Tribal Air Monitoring Support (TAMS)
Center at EPA's Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada. The
TAMS Center is a centralized location where Tribal air quality professionals can obtain air-monitoring
training and also arrange for technical support, both at the Center and at Tribal monitoring sites, from
Tribal air professionals, EPA, and other experts. The TAMS Center activities will be overseen by a
steering committee composed of Tribal air professionals, ITEP, and EPA.
1.6
-------
assessments because the results are often controversial and uncertain. Even though the National
Academy of Science has deemed risk assessment a valuable tool in assessing public health protection,
some States have relied strictly upon control technology standard approaches to reduce air toxics
emissions. Nonetheless, many States have used risk assessments to assist in making permitting
decisions and in developing control technology requirements for existing sources.
1.7.4 The Future Outlook
The good news is that more information is on the horizon nationally. The EPA, States, and
others are working to improve the NTI and to expand the air toxics monitoring networks to obtain
more data to better understand air toxic emissions and ambient concentrations nationally and locally.
The EPA also has proposed the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) and is seeking
comment on the addition of reporting requirements for HAPs7 (65 FR 33268, May 23, 2000). This
information will be used with the developing National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) initiative to help
identify potential problem areas with respect to air toxics risk. (See Appendix D and the attachment to
Appendix E for more information on NATA.) As part of the NATA, EPA is using emissions data from
the NTI, together with computer models, to estimate population exposures in 1996 and potential health
effects associated with the 33 priority air toxic pollutants identified in the NATA. This work will help
focus future efforts to reduce air toxics and resultant health effects.
In addition to NATA, the inventory requirements of the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory have
been expanded to gather emissions information about source categories which industry had not
previously been required to report. Finally, EPA has begun working with S/L/T agencies to evaluate all
of the existing air toxics monitoring networks and special studies that have been established over the
years and are focusing on the development of a national air toxics monitoring strategy. A successful
urban air toxics program will be one that integrates the Federal program with the S/L/T programs and
strengthens or complements those existing programs. This can only be accomplished through the
sharing of expertise, data analysis, and methodologies which will improve the knowledge base and
enable policy makers to address air toxics risk from a public health perspective.
7The STAPPA/ALAPCO supports the reporting of HAPs in the CERR, but believes that if
EPA wants to include HAPs in the CERR, the Agency will have to do so in a new proposed
rulemaking.
1.7
-------
2.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
2.1 Program Structure
The air toxics risks remaining after EPA implements the technology-based elements of the
national air toxics program are likely to be variable and require flexibility to address. Therefore, the
workgroup recommends a flexible framework that seeks to accommodate existing, mature State and
local air toxics programs, as well as S/L/T agencies that will need to develop entire programs. In this
framework, the workgroup envisions a very strong role for S/L/T agencies in the development and
implementation of risk-based air toxics programs. The workgroup also believes that for the program
they are recommending in this document to succeed, it is essential for S/L/T agencies to form
partnerships with EPA and for EPA to initiate national standards and programs in several key areas in
addition to those EPA has already identified. (See Appendix F for a list of EPA's currently planned
activities to implement the national air toxics program.) The workgroup identified the following areas
requiring additional action by EPA:
Accelerate upgrade of diesel engines (require retrofits of older engines, accelerate removal of
older vehicles from fleet)
On-road and off-road motor vehicles (gasoline and diesel) standards
Gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel specification
Standards for commercial marine vessels
Aircraft, airport emissions, and locomotive standards
Standards for utilities
Standards in areas which are preempted from S/L regulation (e.g., portable equipment and
equipment used for farm and construction activities that is rated 175 horsepower or lower)
Development of Federal Action Plans for chemicals that are persistent bioaccumulative toxics
(PBTs)
Standards for other areas of national significance
Guidance for S/L/T agencies to carry out this program
Finally, the workgroup also recommends that this program be designed to ensure strong stakeholder
involvement throughout the process.
The workgroup has structured the program to address air toxics risk reduction at several levels.
The program recommended by the workgroup is based on meeting four levels of goals that differ in
their geographic scope and address public health outcomes rather than strictly emissions reductions.
The program is composed of a four-step process that includes numerous options for implementing each
step. This flexibility allows the implementing agency to adopt a program that best fits its needs. The
program provides this flexibility by:
Giving S/L/T agencies an ability to address problems unique to a particular area
Leveraging existing S/L/T expertise in air toxics programs
2.1
-------
Increasing community capacity and support
Expediting reduction of exposure
In addition, each of the four steps includes minimum program elements that should be undertaken to
complete the step. This structure will allow S/L/T agencies with adequate air toxics authority to
continue to implement existing air toxics programs while empowering other agencies to do more. This
structure also allows EPA to continue to implement elements of sections 112, 129 and 202(1) of the
CAA, address air toxics issues that are of national concern, and assist S/L/T agencies that may be
precluded from developing a program.
2.1.1 Four Levels of Goals
The overall objective of this program is to protect human health from exposure to toxic air
pollutants. To achieve this objective, the workgroup identified four categories of goals based on
geographical extent (national, area-wide, near-source and community/neighborhood). As the
geographic scope, sources and pollutants addressed, and implementing agencies will differ for each goal
category, the workgroup envisions different types of programs to be developed to address the goals for
each goal category. Table 2.1 displays each goal category, describes the specific goals developed for
each category, and defines the scope of those goals.
Table 2.1 Program Goals Summary
Goal Category
Description
Scope
National8
Achieve 7 5% reduction in
cancer incidence
All 188 CAA air toxics
Stationary (major and area) sources in
urban areas, nationwide9
Can take credit for reductions under all
laws
Consider cumulative risks from exposures
to HAPs emissions from sources in the
aggregate10
8In addition to the national goals, section 112(k) also requires that EPA develop area source
standards to help achieve these goals for urban areas. Specifically, EPA is required to list area source
categories and to ensure that 90 percent of the emissions from area sources are subject to standards
pursuant to section 112(d).
9Some workgroup members interpret the 75% reduction goal as a goal that applies to area
sources.
10For a discussion of the consideration of cumulative risk, see the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy (64 FR 38706, 38712, July 19, 1999).
2.2
-------
Table 2.1 Program Goals Summary (continued)
Goal Category
Description
Scope
National
Achieve "substantial"
reduction in noncancer risks
All 188 CAA air toxics
Area sources in urban areas nationwide
Can take credit for reductions under all
laws
Consider cumulative risks from exposures
to HAPs emissions from sources in the
aggregate10
Address disproportionate
impacts of air toxics hazards
across urban areas, including
low-income and people-of-
color communities11
All 188 CAA air toxics
Stationary (area and major) and mobile
sources in urban areas nationwide12
Consider cumulative risks from exposures
to HAPs emissions from sources in the
aggregate10
Develop standards for issues
of national concern to address
air toxics emissions that S/L/T
agencies can't adequately
address
Standards needed on following sources:
mobile sources (e.g., automobiles, marine
vessels, aircraft, locomotives),
utilities/fuels, persistent bioaccumulative
toxics, etc.
Area-wide
Reduce potential cancer risk
and non-cancer health impacts
Flexibility to express goals as
reductions in HAPs
emissions, ambient
concentration reductions, or
reductions in risk
At a minimum, initial EPA list of 33 urban
HAPs or functionally equivalent S/L/T list
Stationary (major and area) and mobile
sources throughout the area defined by
the S/L/T
Near-source
Address cancer and non-
cancer health impacts at
stationary sources that are not
yet adequately addressed by
EPA or S/L/T programs
Address risks of concern
Individual facilities in urban areas and
rural hot spots
Community/
neighborhood
Address remaining pockets of
disproportionate risk after
imposition of the other goals
Address HAPs of concern
Cumulative health impacts from multiple
stationary sources or mobile sources in
both urban areas and rural hot spots
nThis national goal is based on policy considerations, while the first two goals are based
specifically on CAA section 112(k).
12Some workgroup members interpret this goal as a goal that applies to area sources.
2.3
-------
necessary to revise portions of their program and to repeat implementation of Figure 2.1 Four-Step
certain steps. Process
The workgroup used the final report from the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management entitled "Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management"
as a resource in the development of this program. The workgroup discussed information in this
document, particularly concerning the involvement of stakeholders and the public throughout the four
steps of the program.
The Commission's Framework defines a clear, six-stage process for risk management that can
be scaled to the importance of a public health or environmental problem, and that:
Enables risk managers to address multiple relevant contaminants, sources and pathways of
exposure, so that threats to public health and the environment can be evaluated more
comprehensively than is possible when only single chemicals in single environmental media are
addressed
Engages stakeholders as active partners so that different technical perspectives, public values,
perceptions and ethics are considered
Allows for incorporation of important new information that may emerge at any stage of the risk
management process
The workgroup believes that the Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management developed by
the Commission illustrates a desired process for risk management decision-making (see Figure 2.2)
which engages all stakeholders in the development and implementation of a national risk-based program
under the urban air toxics program.
2.4
-------
Figure 2.2 "Framework" Diagram from the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk
Assessment and Risk Management Final Report, Volume 1,1997
2.1.3 Responsible Agencies
The level of government responsible for implementing the steps of the program varies according
to the goal type and the ability of the agency to participate. The workgroup anticipates that all levels of
government may participate in developing the minimum program elements of the program. However,
some agencies may not be able to develop a program for a particular goal, may choose not to because
it is not a priority within the agency, or may lack the financial resources to take on this new task. The
level of government responsible for implementing the goals will be one of, or a combination of, the
following:
EPA
State agency
Local agency
Tribal entity
For example, a Tribe may not be able to develop and implement a risk-based air toxics program on
their reservation, and may choose to allow EPA to implement a program. Similarly, a community may
not have sufficient resources to develop a community-based program and may rely upon the State to
do so.
2.1.4 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options
The workgroup's recommended framework includes certain activities that must be completed
within each step. These activities are referred to as minimum program elements. The minimum
program elements are discussed in greater detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.5 in connection with each of
the four steps. The workgroup believes that there are several options available in carrying out each
minimum program element. This gives the implementing agency flexibility in developing a program for
each goal in their area. Depending on the implementing agency's circumstances, different options may
2.5
-------
be more viable than others. All of the options provided currently exist, and more information describing
each option is contained in Section 3.0 of this report. However, it may be necessary for EPA to
develop guidance for some of the options. For example, EPA has already made available health-based
values for many HAPs (see Appendix D for locations of information on health-based values). It is
critical that EPA publish health-based values for all of the HAPs addressed in this program, especially
for S/L/T agencies that do not have their own set of health values.
Table 2.2 provides information on the overall program and which agency is primarily
responsible for implementing the steps to achieve each goal. The activities listed below the
implementing agency in each column are the minimum program elements (broadly defined) for each
step. Tables 2.3 - 2.6 provide more detail for each of the four goal areas, including the available
options for each minimum program element. For example, Table 2.3 shows the structure of the
Federal Program to Address National Air Toxics Risk Goals. For each step beginning with
Assessment, the tables provide, across each row, the timeframe, the goals, minimum program elements,
and options that may be used to meet the minimum program elements. These five tables provide the
reader with a visual guide to the framework and illustrate a wide variety of measures an agency may
undertake to create a program.
2.6
-------
Table 2.2 Overall Program to Address Air Toxics Risk
National Risk Goals
Area-Wide Risk Goals
Near-Source Risk
Goals
Community/
neighborhood Risk
Goals
0)
EPA
EPA & S/L/T
EPA & S/L/T
EPA & S/L/T
c c
o
c
national concern and
and HAP
and HAP
and HAP
CD
E
develop
sources/source
sources/source
sources/source
Q_
o
regulations/other
categories and develop
categories and
categories and
6J 5
programs to reduce
plan to reduce
develop plan to reduce
develop plan to
Q. CD
o> O
+-'
CO E
2
i ^
I1
risk
emissions or risk
emissions or risk
reduce cumulative
risk
>
c
o
Implement program
Implement program
Implement program
Implement program
'4>
CO
plan to reduce risks
plan to reduce risks and
plan to reduce source
plan to reduce
+->
c
0
.. E
and meet Federal
meet S/L/T goals
emissions, reduce
cumulative
goals
risks, and meet near-
exposures, reduce
CO a)
Q_ Q.
source goals
risks, and meet
CD E
-i' »
community/
W E
£
O)
o
r *
neighborhood goals
Perform evaluation
Perform evaluation to
Perform evaluation to
Perform evaluation to
Q_
to determine if
determine if goals/plan
determine if goals/plan
determine if
O
>
goals/plan have/has
have/has been met and
have/has been met
goals/plan have/has
^ o
been met and
perform further action if
and perform further
been met and
o CO
0 OG
perform further
necessary
action if necessary
perform further action
SS
action if necessary
if necessary
<
2.7
-------
Table 2.3 Federal Program to Address National Air Toxics Risk Goals
Timeframe
National Goals
Minimum Program Elements
Options
^ Step 1:
Assessment
2003
Characterize
national ambient
air toxics risks
Compile national toxics
emissions inventory (NTI)
Establish or update health-
based values
Characterize risks from 188
HAPs of concern and
sources responsible through
the NATA methodology
Stakeholder process
Develop a process for
identifying communities
disproportionately impacted
by air toxics emissions
Inventory
Modeling
Monitoring
Combination of approaches
Establish 1990 emissions inventory
baseline
^ Step 2: Program
Development
2003 - 2006
Develop Federal
plan and options
to reduce risks
Identify priority HAPs and
sources
Develop stakeholder process
for setting priorities
Develop options to reduce
emissions
Provide opportunity for public
review and comments
Develop options to measure
progress
Command & control approaches:
NSR (MACT, BACT, RACT)
Existing source (MACT, BACT,
RACT)
Vehicle standards
Fuel requirements
Evaporative standards
Retrofit requirements
Other approaches:
Facility audit and plan
Notification (right-to-know)
Incentives
Pollution prevention/source
education
Compliance assistance
Market-based approaches
^ Step 3: Program
Implementation
2005-2010
Implement
program plan to
meet national
goals
Schedule that meets goal
deadlines
Public participation process
Adequate resources and
authority
Ways to measure progress
Process for amending plan
Approaches for CAA authority:
Existing (e.g., Federal risk-based
mandates under CAA) authority
New authority
Approaches for measuring progress:
Emission inventory
Monitoring
Modeling
2.8
-------
Q_
O
2010-2012
Reassess to
determine if goals
have been met
Periodic audit process
Backstop
Public participation
For Audit: NATA
For Backstop: to be determined
Step 4:
Audit/Backsl
Implement
backstop, if
needed
For public participation:
Public notification
Publish data
Public meetings
Community-based research
Public comment
2.9
-------
Table 2.4 S/L/T Program to Address Area-Wide Air Toxics Risk Goals
Area-Wide
Timeframe
Risk Goals
Minimum Program Elements
Options
2003
Characterize
Compile emission
For emissions reduction approach:
area-wide air
inventory, modeling or
Functionally equivalent S/L/T emissions
toxics
monitoring data or
combination
inventory
Monitoring data
-1'
c
Evaluate the cancer risk
Monitoring data/emissions inventory
0
c
and non-cancer health
combination
c
CO
impacts from, at a
0
minimum, each HAP on
For risk-based reduction approach:
CO
EPA's list of 33 HAPs or
EPA's emissions inventory and/or health values
on S/L/T functionally
S/L/T functionally equivalent emissions
Q_
equivalent list
inventory and/or health values
0
-i'
CO
Stakeholder and public
participation process
*
Develop process for
identifying communities
disproportionately
2003-
Develop area-
Identify priority HAPs and
Command & control approaches:
-1'
c
2006
wide plan and
source categories
NSR (MACT, BACT, RACT)
0
C
options to
Develop stakeholder
Existing source (MACT, BACT, RACT)
c
Q_
reduce
process for setting
Federal vehicle standards
O
0
emissions or
reduction priorities
Federal fuel requirements
>
0
risk
Develop options to reduce
Evaporative standards
Q
emissions
Retrofit requirements
E
2
Develop
Provide opportunity for
O)
regulation/
public review and
Other approaches:
o
n
infrastructure
comments
Transportation planning
to implement
Develop options to
Facility audit and plan
(Si
Q_
plan
measure progress
Notification (right-to-know)
0
-i'
Incentives
Pollution prevention/source education
2005-
Implement
Schedule for activities to
Options to identify and allocate resources:
C
2010
program plan
meet goals
Federal 105 funds
o
-1'
to meet area-
Public participation
Title V fees
TO
-i'
c
wide goals
process
Performance Partnership Agreements
0
C
Adequate resources and
Partnerships with industry (project XL)
c
_0
authority
Market-based program fees
Q_
E
Ways to measure
Fee-based inventory reporting
progress
E
2
Process for amending plan
Options for measuring program:
O)
Emission inventory aDDroach: demonstrate
Q_
reduction in emissions of the top 10 priority
CO
Q_
HAPs or risk-based reductions
Modelina accroach: demonstrate reduction
0
-i'
tt>
using modeled concentrations with risk
i
component
Monitorina accroach: demonstrate reduction
2.10
-------
Table 2.4 S/L/T Program to Address Area-Wide Air Toxics Risk Goals (continued)
Timeframe
Area-Wide
Risk Goals
Minimum Program Elements
Options
Step 4:
Audit/Backstop
2010-
2012
Reassess to
determine if
goals have
been met
Implement
backstop if
needed
Periodic audit process
Backstop
Public participation
For audit:
Periodic audit to measure progress toward
plan
Full audit at end of process to measure
progress toward goals
For backstop:
Implement backstop if there is a lack of
progress in plan activities
Implement backstop if there is a lack of
progress toward the goals
For public participation:
Public notification
Public meetings
2.11
-------
Table 2.5 Overview of State/Local/Tribal Program to Address Near-Source Risk
Goals
Timeframe
Near-source Risk
Goals
Minimum Program Elements
Options
2003
Affected sources
Identify sources of concern
Source identification:
>
c
conduct screening
Establish or update health-based
S/L/T ambient risk assessment
CD
^ E
or refined source
values
Use existing methodology such
Q (/)
I" 8
risk assessment
Stakeholder and public
as the California Air Resources
participation process
Board's Hot Spot Methodology
Identify communities
disproportionately impacted by air
or other comparable guidance
2003 - 2006
Develop near-
Command & control approaches:
>
c
source plan and
Identify priority HAPs and
. NSR (MACT, BACT, RACT)
CD
options to reduce
sources of near-source risk
Existing source (MACT, BACT,
Q_
emissions or risk
Develop stakeholder process for
RACT)
O
CD
setting reduction priorities
Source-specific regulation
>
CD
Develop
Develop options to reduce
Risk-based trigger for
Q
regulation/
emissions
regulatory control
E
£
D)
infrastructure to
Provide opportunity for public
implement plan
review and comments
Other approaches:
o
Develop options to measure
Facility audit and plan
Q_
progress
Notification (right-to-know)
CN
Incentives
Q_
CD
Pollution prevention/source
CO
*
education
Market based
I c
2005-2010
Implement program
Schedule for activities to meet
Progress measurement options:
CC o
plan to meet near-
goals
Reduction in near-source
source goals
Public participation process
monitoring values
dI S
Adequate resources and
Reduction in facility emissions
" i
authority
Reductions in facility modeled
Ways to measure progress
values
1
Process for amending plan
Rely on ambient risk
measurement
Site-specific health risk
assessments
2.12
-------
2010-2012
Reassess to
Periodic audit process
For audit:
determine if goals
Backstop
Periodic audit to measure
have been met
Public participation
progress toward plan
Full audit at end of process to
Q.
O
Implement
measure progress toward goals
-i"
W
V*
backstop if
O
CO
m
needed
For backstop:
Implement backstop if there is a
-i'
lack of progress in plan
activities
a.
Implement backstop if there is a
lack of progress toward the
Q.
0)
goals
CO
For public participation:
Public notification
Public meetings
Table 2.6 Overview of State/Local/Tribal Program to Address
Community/Neighborhood Risk Goals
Timeframe
Community/
Neighborhood
Risk Goals
Minimum Program Elements
Options
^ Step 1:
Assessment
2003-2005
Conduct
cumulative
risk
assessments
Stakeholder public
participation process
Identify communities
disproportionately impacted
by airtoxics emissions
Assemble EJ stakeholder
advisory committee
Other elements to be
determined
Use EPA's cumulative risk
guidance, or S/L/T
functionally equivalent
guidance
Step 2: Program
^ Development
2003-2008
Develop
protocol to
reduce risk
To be determined
To be determined
2.13
-------
Step 3: Program
Implementation
2005-2012
Implement
program plan
to meet
community
risk goals
To be determined
To be determined
2012-2020
Reassess to
Periodic audit process
To be determined
Q.
O
determine if
Backstop
to
goals have
Public participation
o
CO
been met
m
-i'
Implement
<
backstop, if
needed
Q.
0)
CO
2.14
-------
2.1.5 Implementation Options
In addition to four levels of goals and the four steps, the workgroup also recommends four
implementation options that address different approaches S/L/T agencies can use to carry out this
program. The workgroup developed the implementation options because it believes it is important to
understand how the S/L/T agencies might implement their respective programs under the current air
toxics program structure and EPA's role in the process.
For the S/L/T goals, the S/L/T agencies will need to determine:
How their existing program may meet any or all of the area-wide, near-source, and
community/neighborhood goals
How they can develop a program that will meet any or all of the area-wide, near-source and
community/neighborhood goals
The EPA's role will be to develop regulations/programs to reduce emissions from sources
under their jurisdiction (e.g., mobile sources, motor vehicle fuels, other sources that are national in
scope), to identify minimum program elements, and to help ensure S/L/T programs have these elements.
The EPA will help S/L/T agencies meet the goals the S/L/T agencies set for themselves, which will
enable EPA, ultimately, to show progress toward and meet the national goals. In the workgroup's
recommended framework, EPA may, in some cases, have to develop entire S/L/T programs, or, in
other cases, serve as a partner to assist S/L/T agencies in developing programs. The EPA's role may
vary considerably, depending on the situation in the area in question.
According to the timeframes recommended in this report, the workgroup anticipates that the
implementing agency will need to make a choice of which implementation option to pursue by 2002.
The workgroup also believes that, since Federal funding is a critical issue for this program, S/L/T
agencies will have to meet minimum elements in order to gain program approval from EPA.
The workgroup identified four implementation options. These options are also described in
F igure 2.3. They are:
EPA-S/L/T Partnership. The S/L/T may choose to design programs to meet its area-wide, near-
source, and community/neighborhood goals in partnership with EPA. The S/L/T would develop a
program that conformed with each of the minimum elements and agreed to the timeframe. In order to
formalize the partnership, the agencies would enter into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with EPA
Regional Offices to complete the program. An MOA is an agreement between EPA and its regulatory
partners which establishes a framework for leveraging the work of State and Federal personnel to
2.15
-------
accomplish mutually agreed-upon goals. Another possibility would be to use Performance Partnership
Agreements with clearly defined goals and benchmarks.13
S/L/T Plan This implementation option is designed primarily for agencies that have (or soon will have)
established air toxics programs. The EPA Regional Offices may certify that the existing S/L/T program
meets the minimum elements and that the program is likely to meet the prescribed goals. Alternatively,
the S/L/T may also perform a self-certification using specific guidelines or a process similar to that
established through section 112(g) of the CAA.14
Delegation Approach The S/L/T may be precluded from being more stringent that the Federal
program. Therefore, in this case, through the Regional Offices and in conjunction with headquarters for
national rules as necessary, EPA would develop a generic Federal program for the area-wide, near-
source and community/neighborhood goals. The S/L/T would adopt the programs/standards and seek
delegation, just as the MACT program is delegated to States.
Default: EPA Implements Plan. In this case, an S/L/T may chose not to accept delegation. In this
case, EPA would implement the Federal program in that area. Again, the Regional EPA Offices would
have the initial, primary responsibility of taking the lead to implement the air toxics program in specific
areas.
The order in which program activities under each of these approaches are to be implemented is
shown in Figure 2.3. In addition, the timeframes for implementation of these activities and the other
phases of the overall program are presented in Table 2.7. As these timeframes are ambitious, it is
critical for S/L/T agencies to begin planning for this program immediately.
13Performance Partnerships are a key component of the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS), one of several reinvention initiatives launched by EPA designed to
redefine the Federal/State oversight relationship. The purpose of NEPPS is to encourage States and
EPA to direct scarce resources to the highest environmental priorities, provide States greater flexibility
to achieve improved results, enhance public understanding of environmental conditions and choices, and
improve accountability for performance. Performance Partnership Agreements are the strategic
documents that provide the framework for States and EPA in the NEPPS process. These agreements
are a product of joint planning and priority-setting between States and EPA, with the ultimate goals of
improving environmental performance and strengthening relationships.
14The workgroup disagrees on which of these certification options should be used in the final
program. Some members on the workgroup do not support self-certification. These workgroup
members believe that EPA should certify the adequacy of programs.
2.16
-------
f
Begin program
implementation
Complete Stepl,
Assessment
S/L/T submits MOU/
Action Plan to EPA
Complete Step 2,
Program Development
Complete Step 3,
Implementation
Meet goals
Certification that S/L/T plan
meets minimum elements
S/L/T begins or continues
to implement steps 1-3
1
S/L/T" takes delegation of EPA Begin program
rule and begins implementation implementation
Meet goals
Complete Stepl,
Assessment
Complete Step 2,
Program Development
Complete Step 3,
Implementation
Meet goals
Complete Stepl,
Assessment
Complete Step 2,
Program Development
Complete Step 3,
Implementation
Meet goals
Complete Step 4, audit Complete Step 4, audit
Complete Step 4, audit
Complete Step 4, audit
Institute backstop
measures (if needed)
Implement backstop
measures (if needed)
Additional measures taken
(if needed)
Additional measures taken
(if needed)
Figure 2.3 Program Implementation Options
2.17
-------
Table 2.7 Timeframe for Implementation of Program Activities15
Timeframe
Activity
1999
EPA issues Tier 2 rule for stringent new emissions standards and gasoline
sulfur controls to reduce NOx, HC, and PM emissions from light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks
2000
EPA promulgates remaining combustion standards
EPA reaffirms 1997 heavy duty diesel standards
EPA plans to issue diesel fuel sulfur control and post-2004 heavy duty
standards
EPA plans to issue Section 202(1) rule to designate motor vehicle air toxics
and consider control options, particularly for benzene and formaldehyde
EPA will complete the 1996 national assessment
EPA will initiate the 1999 national assessment
EPA makes regulatory determination for air toxics emissions (including
mercury) from electric utilities
2001
EPA issues plan for how to structure the national, risk-based air toxics
program
EPA plans to issue Tier 3 rule on nonroad diesel fuel control
2002
EPA develops 10-year air toxics standards
S/L/T selects program implementation option
2002 - 2003
EPA develops guidance/rulemaking to carry out the national, risk-based air
toxics program
2002 - 2004
EPA develops any necessary residual risk standards (for 2- and 4-year
technology standards)
2003
For the national, area-wide, and near-source goals, complete Step 1,
Assessment
2003
S/L/T begins risk-based program or continues to implement existing program
For the area-wide risk goals, S/L/T agencies assess the area-wide potential
cancer risks and non-cancer health impacts throughout the State or region
from, at a minimum, each HAP on EPA's list of 33 HAPs or on S/L/T
functionally equivalent list
2003 - 2005
For the community/neighborhood goals, complete Step 1, Assessment
2003 - 2006
For the national, area-wide, and near-source goals, complete Step 2, Program
Development
2003 - 2008
For the community/neighborhood goals, complete Step 2, Program
Development
15Timeframes need to be reviewed for integration with existing Tribal programs.
2.18
-------
Table 2.7 Timeframe for Implementation of Program Activities (continued)
Timeframe
Activity
2004
For the area-wide risk goals, S/L/T agencies should develop a plan and risk
reduction goal for reducing risks for locations identified on phase one
EPA develops regulation (if positive determination is made) for utilities
2005 - 2010
For the national, area-wide, and near-source goals, complete Step 3, Program
Implementation
2005 - 2012
For the community/neighborhood goals, complete Step 3, Program
Implementation
2006
For the near-source risk goals, S/L/T agencies should develop a program to
identify, prioritize, and reduce near-source impacts from stationary sources
2009
EPA promulgates last group of area source standards
2010
EPA evaluates progress towards meeting national goals
For the near-source risk goals, using EPA-approved health-based guidelines
or S/L/T functionally equivalent health-based guidelines, S/L/T agencies
should achieve significant reductions in cancer risk and non-cancer health
impacts near major and area sources of HAP emissions in urban and rural
areas
S/L/T agencies meet area-wide goals
For the national, area-wide, and near-source goals, each S/L/T shall audit
and prepare a report on its air toxics program. There shall be a comment
period on the draft report with appropriate public hearings/meetings
throughout the S/L/T area
2010 - 2012
For the national, area-wide, and near-source goals, complete Step 4,
Audit/Backstop
2012 - 2020
For the community/neighborhood goals, complete Step 4, Audit/Backstop
2012
For the area-wide risk goals, S/L/T agencies reassess area-wide risks and
non-cancer health impacts throughout the State or region as identified in
phase one
2020 +
EPA and S/L/T agencies repeat the audit process in 2020 and every 10 years
thereafter
2.19
-------
2.2 Critical Issues for Overall Program Success
The workgroup has identified several issues that are critical to the overall program and its
implementation. The workgroup believes the success of this program hinges upon these issues and how
they are addressed and resolved. It is essential for EPA to address these issues.
2.2.1 EPA '.s Obligation to Address Mobile Sources and Other Areas Within the Agency '.s
Jurisdiction
Assessments performed to date have shown that mobile sources in particular contribute
significantly to ambient risks. State programs that have been successful at significantly reducing ambient
risks have done so by addressing both stationary and mobile sources. The workgroup recognizes that
many S/L/T agencies do not have the authority to address mobile sources through standards. The
workgroup believes that mobile source standards are critical for meeting goals for air toxics risk
reduction and are more appropriately addressed at the national level. The workgroup also believes that
for the program they are recommending in this document to succeed, it is essential for S/L/T agencies to
form partnerships with EPA and for EPA to initiate national standards and programs in several key
areas in addition to those EPA has already identified. (See Appendix F for a list of EPA's currently
planned activities to implement the national air toxics program.) The workgroup identified the following
areas requiring additional action by EPA:
Accelerate upgrade of diesel engines (require retrofits of older engines, accelerate removal of
older vehicles from fleet)
On-road and off-road motor vehicles (gasoline and diesel) standards
Gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel specification
Standards for commercial marine vessels
Aircraft, airport emissions, and locomotive standards
Standards for utilities
Standards in areas which are preempted from S/L regulation (e.g., portable equipment and
equipment used for farm and construction activities that is rated 175 horsepower or lower)
Development of Federal Action Plans for chemicals that are PBTs
Standards for other areas of national significance
Guidance for S/L/T agencies to carry out this program
Finally, the EPA should strive to use an approach that focuses on performance rather than command
and control in the development of any new standards under this program.
2.2.2 Needfor Functional Equivalency
This program has been designed to be flexible, which increases the need for S/L/T agencies to
be able to rely on a concept of functional equivalency. In particular, the program is based mostly on
2.20
-------
process, through which S/L/T agencies will be able to tailor the program to the specific concerns of
their areas. Through this format, S/L/T agencies will be able to develop goals specific to their
concerns, and to meet those goals through activities they choose to implement. While this program
does specify certain core items that must be a part of any program (minimum elements), there is a great
deal of flexibility in the manner in which these items are addressed. To demonstrate the range of
possibilities, options available to S/L/T agencies to fulfill the criteria of the minimum elements are
presented throughout this report, but S/L/T agencies also have the flexibility to consider other options
that will meet the minimum element requirements.
In order to preserve the S/L/T flexibility, the program must allow for functional equivalency, a
particular need for existing, mature State air toxics programs. For example, several S/L/T agencies
have very well developed air toxics programs and already have plans in place similar to the one
described here. To allow for those programs to continue without interference or interruption, this
program must have a functional equivalency process. Functional equivalency would allow S/L/T
agencies to use approaches, methodologies, or data that are different from those used by EPA, as long
as the alternative approaches, methodologies, or data, collectively considered, are likely to achieve the
same objective as the EPA approach.
The workgroup supports a functional equivalency process that would provide for both an "up-
front" approval prior to S/L/T agencies selecting their program approach, and approval during the plan
submittal or plan amendment process. The "up-front" determination of functional equivalency is critical
for those S/L/T agencies that have well developed programs or program elements which are equally or
more effective than the proposed Federal programs or program elements. Up-front approval would
be a simple verification that the S/L/T program has goals that are in line with the goals of this program,
and that the S/L/T program meets the minimum elements described for this program. Some examples
of program elements eligible for functional equivalency would include, but are not limited to, health risk
assessment methodology and health values, priority toxic air contaminants, emissions inventory
methodologies, and air toxics monitoring.
Alternatively, some S/L/T agencies may identify alternative approaches, methodologies, or data
during the plan development process or later during program implementation. It is critical that these
S/L/T agencies have the opportunity to seek approval for functionally equivalent approaches,
methodologies, or data. To avoid problems experienced in the past with detailed, line-by-line
demonstrations of equivalency, this approval should be based on equivalency of the S/L/T program as a
whole.
2.2.3 Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles
In general, the workgroup feels that emissions from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles should be
addressed under the recommendations in this report. Emissions from diesel-fueled engines and vehicles
include many substances that EPA has listed as HAPs. Fifteen of these have been identified by the
2.21
-------
International Agency for Research on Cancer as human carcinogens or probable or possible human
carcinogens. Diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks, buses, light-duty cars and trucks, as well as construction
and farm equipment and other nonroad sources, are common in all areas of the country and have been
increasing in number. Work in California suggests that diesel particulate matter is the most significant
source of toxic emissions in urban areas. While the workgroup recognizes that, as part of the Strategy,
some activities to address diesel emissions are already planned, most workgroup members believe that
the significant health issues associated with diesel emissions demand that additional national measures
be taken to fully address this issue16.
2.2.4 Funding and Other Resources
Overall need
The importance of ensuring adequate funding and other resources to develop and implement
this program cannot be overstated. Some workgroup members are also concerned about the
possibility that EPA could impose an unfunded mandate on the S/L/T agencies. Without
adequate funding, the S/L/T agencies will be unable to carry out these programs, and EPA will
be left to implement them. If EPA is left to implement this program, the workgroup is
concerned that EPA will not have the resources to do so successfully, particularly at the EPA
Regional Office level. Lastly, the workgroup seeks CAAAC assistance in addressing these
resource concerns.
EPA needs
The EPA must also ensure it can carry out its obligations under the program to support the
S/L/T agencies. This includes carrying out planned national regulatory development efforts,
such as completing the technology-based MACT program, the residual risk program, the area
source program, and future national rulemakings related to mobile sources, utilities, and
residential combustion. The emissions and risk reductions related to these programs are the
starting point of any S/L/T efforts. The EPA also must carry out the tool development activities
that are critical to support S/L/T efforts. These activities include modeling, monitoring, and
assessment tools, as well as development of public outreach tools.
S/L/T needs
Funding is an absolute necessity for S/L/T agencies to develop and implement the framework
recommended in this document. The S/L/T agencies anticipate the need for funding from EPA
in addition to funds they will be able to raise independently. In some cases, instituting an S/L/T
program may only become a political possibility when a certain level of Federal funding is
16See California's Proposed Risk Reduction Plan for Diesel-Fueled Engines
and Vehicles at http ://www.arb.ca. gov/toxics/diesel/diesel.htm.
2.22
-------
guaranteed. It is also important that the funding be earmarked for both program implementation
and for support of public participation and stakeholder processes.
Sources of funding
Many existing sources of funding must be considered. All parties will need to be creative in
finding sources of funding and will need to maximize efficiency with those resources. Several
possible sources of funding have been identified by the workgroup, including:
CAA section 105 funds
CAA Title V fees
Performance Partnership Agreements
Partnerships with industry (Project XL)
Market-based program fees
Fee-based inventory reporting
Other resource needs
Resources are also needed to ensure that non-governmental stakeholders can play their roles
fully. For example, several areas of this report stress the need for community involvement,
education, and training. Resources are needed in the following areas to increase community
involvement: transportation costs for participants to attend public meetings, training on risk-
based approaches, and long-term strategies based on developing and providing environmental
education curricula. (Appendix E contains a list of technical resources and guidance materials
to aid in the development of risk-based programs.) In addition, as discussed below, resources
are essential to providing meaningful incentives for S/L/T agencies, industry, and other
stakeholders to participate in the process and to leverage additional resources.
2.2.5 Authority
Section 112(k) of the CAA requires EPA to develop a strategy to control emissions of air
toxics in urban areas. The strategy must include actions that will result in the achievement of the urban
area goals outlined in Table 2.1:
Achieve 75% reduction in cancer incidence
Achieve "substantial" reduction in noncancer risks
Section 112(k) also requires that EPA develop area source standards to help achieve these goals for
urban areas. Specifically, EPA is required to list area source categories and to ensure that 90 percent
of the emissions from area sources are subject to standards pursuant to section 112(d). In addition to
section 112(k), as mentioned above in section 1.3, the CAA also requires EPA to address air toxics
risk through the residual risk program (section 112(f)).
2.23
-------
The workgroup believes that the technology standards, in combination with other EPA
standards and State and local programs, will not be sufficient in all cases to reduce air toxics risk to
acceptable levels. Therefore, in this report the workgroup is recommending a framework designed to
enable EPA and S/L/T agencies to further reduce air toxics risk to acceptable levels. Due to time
constraints, the workgroup did not identify specific CAA authorities that would require S/L/T agencies
to implement this recommended framework. Before this framework can be implemented nationally,
particularly in S/L/T areas that lack authority, EPA must establish or identify appropriate authorities.
Some workgroup members believe that EPA must determine what CAA authorities exist beyond
sections 112(k) and 112(f) to require S/L/T agencies to utilize this framework to address local risks.
Other workgroup members, however, suggest that this framework could be adopted by S/L/T agencies
as a comprehensive program (under the authority in section 112(1)) that meets the mandates of sections
112(k) and 112(f), while allowing them to customize goals and strategies to meet local air toxics
concerns. This approach provides functional equivalency for S/L/T agencies with adequate air toxics
authority, and allows them to more effectively integrate area source and residual risk requirements into
existing programs. Also, section 112(f) only requires residual risk assessments for major source
facilities (and discretion for area sources) regulated by a section 112(d) standard. Some S/L/T
agencies may wish to assess the risks from non-NESHAP sources in order to meet their goals.
However, many S/L/T agencies will need EPA regulations before they will be able to implement
risk-based programs. In addition, many workgroup members believe incentives should be devised to
encourage S/L/T agencies to implement a program regardless of whether CAA authority exists to
require the program.
2.2.6 Incentives
As noted in section 2.2.4, many workgroup members believe incentives should be devised to
encourage S/L/T agencies to implement a program, regardless of whether CAA authority exists to
require the program. In this incentive-based type of program, not only are incentives needed for S/L/T
participation, but also for industry, who would play a large role in the success of an incentive-based
program. The industry members of the workgroup note that in creating incentives for industry, it is
important to ensure that those who participate, the good actors, are not punished later using information
they helped to gather. These members also think the incentives for industry should be largely
performance-based. In addition, the workgroup agrees that giving industry relief from requirements
must be done carefully, interfacing with the trading program/criteria pollutant program and involving
community input. Some members on the workgroup think it is imperative for all incentives to industry
to be evaluated through a formal public comment process and that they complement the minimum
program elements. In addition, some members believe that, where applicable, there should be an
enforcement mechanism to ensure sources still comply with the applicable standards under these
incentives. Several suggested incentives for S/L/T agencies and for industry are listed below.
2.24
-------
Incentives for S/L/T agencies to institute a program:
~ Create a high-profile award for the most successful program
~ Allow S/L/T agencies to avoid EPA interference; if the S/L/T institutes a program, then
EPA will not, although EPA oversight may still be necessary
~ Allow for extension of timelines if S/L/T agencies make an early commitment to the
program
~ To spur action, provide the public with information about the extent and nature of the air
toxics problem
Incentives for industry to take part in this program (applicable options must be verifiable and
have some enforcement mechanism):
~ Give industry ability to streamline some recordkeeping and reporting requirements
~ Give industry relief from the need to apply for certain types of permits17
~ Provide operational flexibility
~ Allow for reductions in permit fees17
~ Give industry the opportunity to innovate and develop its own ways to reduce toxic
emissions (need clear goals and timeframe)
~ Reduce toxic air emissions through a voluntary program; the incentive being the promise of
reduced additional air toxics emissions regulations in exchange for early, voluntary
reductions
2.2.7 Stakeholder Involvement
Including stakeholders and input from the general public in every step of this program is vital to
the structure the workgroup has developed. Stakeholder participation is particularly important for risk
management because there can be many conflicting interpretations about the nature and significance of
risks. The stakeholders must be engaged early in the process as active partners so the different
technical perspectives, public values, perceptions, and ethics are considered. For this program, it is
important that stakeholder input is considered in the final decision, and the process is not simply a
compulsory action. Allowing the public and stakeholders to contribute to the development of this
program should produce benefits, including:
Supporting democratic decision-making
Ensuring that public values are considered
Improving the understanding needed to make better decisions
Improving the knowledge base for decision-making
Potentially reducing the overall time and expense involved in decision-making
Improving the credibility of agencies responsible for managing risks
17Some members on the workgroup did not agree that this should be an allowable incentive.
2.25
-------
Generating better accepted, more readily implemented risk management decisions
Creating incentives for stakeholders to become involved at the beginning of the process and
through its conclusion may be needed to ensure their sufficient participation. For example, offering
community stakeholders monetary resources for child care, transportation expenses, or funding for
technical reviews (including money to hire their own consultants and other expenses) could help
encourage their participation. The regulatory agency should also investigate the types of communication
routes that would be most appropriate to the situation. Offering evening meeting times or
communication of information via radio, newspaper, or television may help engage community
stakeholders who would otherwise be unable to participate. In most cases, industry, environmental,
and other non-governmental organization stakeholders would be attracted most by the opportunity to
obtain information about the issues, to keep abreast of new information and developments, to have the
ability to make input in the process, and to have the potential to help shape the program.
Some other general guidelines that regulatory agencies should consider in the stakeholder
involvement process are shown below. These concepts, as well as the benefits of the stakeholder
process discussed above, were presented in the "Framework for Environmental Health Risk
Management" created by the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
Management (http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/nr7me001.htm). Guidelines for stakeholder
involvement developed by the Commission include the following:
Stakeholder involvement should be made part of a regulatory agency's mission by:
~ Creating an office that supports stakeholder processes
~ Seeking guidance from experts in stakeholder processes
~ Training risk managers to take part in stakeholder involvement efforts
~ Building on experience of other agencies and on community partnerships
~ Emphasizing that stakeholder involvement is a learning process
Regulatory agencies should identify and involve all stakeholder groups as early as possible,
beginning with the problem/context stage. Stakeholder involvement efforts should attempt to
engage all potentially affected parties and solicit a diversity of perspectives. The optimal
process and goals of stakeholder involvement should also be determined at the outset.
Stakeholders may include:
~ Community groups
~ Representatives of different geographic regions
~ Representatives of different cultural, economic, or ethnic groups
~ Local governments
~ Public health agencies
~ Businesses
~ Labor unions
~ Environmental advocacy organizations
2.26
-------
~ Consumer rights organizations
~ Religious groups
~ Educational and research institutions
~ State and Federal regulatory agencies
~ Trade associations
Regulatory agencies should be clear about the extent to which they are willing or able to
respond to stakeholder involvement before they undertake such efforts. Don't waste
stakeholders' time if a decision is not negotiable.
Regulatory agencies should convey to stakeholders that it will be necessary for them to be
prepared to listen to and learn from diverse viewpoints and to be flexible and willing to
negotiate.
Where possible, empower stakeholders to make decisions, including providing them with the
opportunity to obtain technical assistance.
Give stakeholders credit for their roles in a decision, and how stakeholder input was used
should be explained. If stakeholder suggestions are not used, explain why.
The nature, extent, and complexity of stakeholder involvement should be appropriate to the
scope and impact of a decision and the potential of the decision to generate controversy.
In addition, regulatory agencies should acknowledge that the public participation and
stakeholder process is important, and that participation rates do not always reflect levels of interest in
the issues. Seeking creative solutions to overcome possible barriers to participation may be necessary.
Also, involving the community in research is another level of stakeholder participation. In recent years,
research involving the community has gained increased legitimacy, because in some instances, traditional
academic research has failed to serve their needs. Key stakeholders, including representatives from
community groups, government, universities, and industry, work together to define the problem,
develop methods for collecting and analyzing data, and apply the results of the research to policymaking
and problem-solving. To achieve maximal results and to ensure maximal community participation, these
research endeavors could be funded by government agencies.
2.2.8 Environmental Justice Issues
One of the national EPA goals is to address the disproportionate impacts of air toxics pollution
across urban areas and, specifically, low-income and people-of-color communities. This emphasis is
consistent with the principles of environmental justice.
The workgroup agrees that EJ concerns need to be integrated within the framework
recommended in this document, which the workgroup has done in several places in this report. For
example, the workgroup suggests that EPA and S/L/T agencies develop a process to identify
communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics emissions, especially low-income and people-of-
color communities, as part of the Step 1, assessment process. Another activity recommended in the
2.27
-------
framework is the establishment of advisory committees so that the perspectives of stakeholders would
be heard on a more continual basis.
Furthermore, the workgroup understands that policy decisions concerning where sources are
sited, based solely on science and economics, may inadvertently result in a discriminatory effect.
Therefore, the development of urban air toxics programs by S/L/T agencies needs to include
consideration of historical patterns of racial and economic segregation in their decision-making.
Community-based research is an important tool that can be used by S/L/T agencies to help
improve their understanding of the risks impacting the health and welfare of EJ communities. To fully
address this situation, an effort should be made to develop the program based not only on science but
also on other aspects important to the community. Community-based research addresses issues which
may include socio-economic status, the community's perception of risk, air toxic exposure duration,
and other factors based on historical aspects unique to the community. This community-based research
can be used to identify the concerns of the community, investigate the scientific basis for those
concerns, and research the best approaches to resolving the problems specific to that community.
Currently, only a small percentage of research funding is targeted for these types of studies. Additional
funding needs to be provided for both training and community-based research.
Community outreach is also an important aspect of community-based research. The
workgroup believes that this outreach should be designed to ensure that:
The community is aware of basic environmental health concepts, issues, and resources.
The community has a role in identifying and defining problems and risks related to
environmental exposures.
The community is included in the dialogue shaping research approaches to the problem.
The community actively participates with researchers and health care providers in developing
responses and setting priorities for intervention strategies.
One aim of this program is to facilitate the process of developing the trust needed for
establishment of effective partnerships among (1) individuals who are adversely impacted by an
environmental hazard in a socioeconomically disadvantaged community, (2) researchers in
environmental health, and (3) health care providers. Once this aim is achieved, the collaborative team
should then be able to initiate a research program that incorporates all parties and seeks to reduce
exposure to or health impacts from an environmental contaminant.
Finally, the EPA has already committed to a community-based environmental protection
(CBEP) framework, which can help EPA achieve its missions by integrating activities in ways that
complement and increase the effectiveness of EPA's regulatory programs. The framework identifies
specific goals, strategies, activities, and performance measures EPA will need for implementing the
2.28
-------
CBEP approach to environmental management. (For more information on CBEP, see
http://www.epa.uov/cbep/.)
2.2.9 Tribes
The workgroup agrees that there are special concerns specific to Tribes that need to be
considered for the implementation of this program in Tribal areas. Currently, no Tribes have air toxics
programs and virtually all lack the infrastructure to build one and to perform this program. The Tribes
lack the funding and expertise necessary to implement air toxics programs and do not have a viable
means of securing these program components. For this program to be successful in Tribal areas, they
will need extensive infrastructure support from EPA.
In addition, the structure of a Tribal program will differ from those of most State or local
agencies. Tribes are not held to the same timeframes as State and local agencies under the Tribal
Authority Rule, which EPA issued under the CAA (63 FR 7253, February 12, 1998). The EPA must
address its trust responsibility to the Tribes, considering sovereignty issues, as EPA assists Tribes in
coming to the playing field in a timely fashion. Also, in contrast to many States and local agencies, the
Tribal air toxics concerns are generally rural in nature, and would be based on hot-spots or near-source
concerns rather than concerns of urban areas.
2.2.10 Crisis Intervention
A concept important to this program is that EPA should be able to intervene in situations where
an immediate threat to public health is apparent These "crisis" situations would include instances where
there is evidence that public health is severely compromised due to exposure to air toxics. In the event
of these occurrences, EPA or the S/L/T could take action to immediately reduce or eliminate the threat.
This process could include two primary actions. The first action would be to alert the public to the
threat, offer advice for any actions they could perform to prevent or lessen their health threat, and
discuss the actions they plan to take to reduce or eliminate the threat. The other action, which should
be performed simultaneously, would be to alleviate the problem. In situations where the threat is due to
toxic emissions from stationary sources, this action could range from suspension of a facility's operating
permit to evacuation of a community and facility closure. If the threat is due to toxic emissions from
mobile sources, the action could include area-wide fuel requirements.
2.2.11 Definition of "Local" Agency and Intergovernmental Relationships
For the purposes of this report and the framework it presents, "local" agency refers to the
agency responsible for administering industrial operating permits, rather than the local government.
However, for this program to be successful at the local level, the two agency types will need to work
together because each only has partial control of any risk situation created by industrial air toxics
emissions. The permitting agency can only regulate the emissions from a facility, while only the local
2.29
-------
government can determine facility location through zoning. The workgroup recognizes that incompatible
land use issues sometimes result in frustration for both the air permitting authorities and local city and
county governments in addressing concerns about toxic exposure in a community. Therefore, when
addressing community/neighborhood risks, the two agency types need to be able to coordinate their
efforts to address potential toxic risks to a community during the planning process.
Local health departments and State permitting agencies are examples of additional key agencies
to involve in this program at the local level. Local health departments will have a broader base of
knowledge about public health in the local area and possible effects the risk drivers could present.
However, it may be a challenge to involve these agencies, since many local health agencies are not
currently involved with local air issues, and may not be immediately aware of their possible role in this
process. In some instances, the State environmental agencies, rather than local agencies, may perform
the permitting activities for local areas within the State. In these cases, it is important that the State
governments work with the local governments to ensure local interests are represented.
2.2.12 Urban Land Use Planning
The issue of interagency coordination is important to the success of this program on a scale
broader than that of coordination between local government agencies. The issues of urban sprawl,
greenfield development, brownfield redevelopment, and the development of clean alternatives for mass
transportation involve other private and public organizations which are not part of the current
stakeholder discussions. These organizations need to be included in any future planning process for the
development of a viable urban air toxics strategy as envisioned by the workgroup. Proper and inclusive
land use and urban planning can serve as primary prevention tools for many environmental concerns
and EJ issues (see Appendix E for resources on this topic). By involving all the key organizations in the
process from the onset, this coordination will create greater public awareness of problems, extend
enforcement authority, and allow for more thorough reviews of issues from different perspectives.
Also, by extending the diversity of the decision-making group, it will be possible to develop more
creative solutions to problems.
2.2.13 Other Issues
During the development of this framework, the workgroup identified several additional
concerns during conference calls and face-to-face meetings. However, due to time constraints, the
workgroup was unable to fully discuss or develop recommendations for these issues. Appendix G
contains a list of these issues.
2.30
-------
3.0 RECOMMENDED PROGRAM
This section describes in detail the workgroup's recommended program. The section first
addresses program goals (section 3.1) and then addresses the four steps of a risk-based air toxics
program (sections 3.2 - 3.5).
In sections 3.2 - 3.5, the report describes minimum program elements and program options for
EPA's national program and then for the three implementation options described in section 2.1.5 that
S/L/T agencies would implement:
EPA - S/L/T partnership
S/L/T plan
Delegation approach
The minimum program elements and program options also apply to the fourth option described
in section 2.1.5: the EPA default option. If an S/L/T decides not to develop its own program, section
2.1.5 provides this option in which EPA develops and implements the program by default. This option
would be used if an S/L/T is unable or unwilling to perform any activities associated with this program.
Under this option, EPA would take full responsibility to implement and enforce the program in place of
the S/L/T. In addition, if the S/L/T is unable or unwilling to take complete delegation of a program
developed by EPA, then the S/L/T could form a partnership with EPA. In this situation, the
enforcement and implementation responsibilities could be split between the two agencies.
3.1 Program Goals Overview
The EPA has defined the national goals of this program according to CAA mandates and EPA
policy considerations. However, in order to achieve these broad national goals, there must be goals for
smaller geographical units. This workgroup has defined three additional sets of goals. One set of goals
is for air toxics emission reductions that must be met on a statewide or area-wide basis. These goals
address the high priority air toxics in the ambient air of a State or Tribal area. The workgroup has also
identified near-source goals, which address public health risks associated with the area immediately
surrounding stationary sources. Finally, community/neighborhood goals address public health risks
associated with the cumulative exposure to air toxics from all sources present in the ambient air of
communities.
While there are defined overall program goals set out in the CAA, the workgroup is not
defining the goals for the S/L/T programs in the same manner. The area-wide, near-source, and
community/neighborhood goals are not defined so precisely. Since each S/L/T has separate concerns,
HAPs to address, sources of HAPs, and past achievements in toxics reduction, no single goal can
guarantee adequate and equitable air toxic emissions reductions for each S/L/T. Instead, each S/L/T
should follow a uniform goal-setting process during the assessment step. By focusing instead on the
3.1
-------
goal-setting process, each S/L/T will have the flexibility to design goals that will achieve risk reduction
most effectively and efficiently.19
The workgroup is concerned that too much focus on risk reduction versus emissions reductions
could result in profitless debate in setting effective goals and allow some participants to "game" the
system and avoid meaningless reductions. They note that efforts to meet goals should not allow the
relocation of pollution at the expense of real reductions. The workgroup also considered alternative
forms of goals such as percent of population exposed, a set reduction in the possibility of adverse
events, or other health risk management measures. However, the following recommendations are
based on fundamental risk management approaches that allow plenty of flexibility for EPA and the
S/L/T agencies to arrive at meaningful goals to address air toxics emissions.
3.1.1 National Goals
As part of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, EPA established two goals based on the
authority found in section 112(k) of the CAA:
75% reduction in cancer "incidence" (Section 112(k) (C)), which includes all 188 CAA air
toxics, stationary sources,20 urban areas nationwide, all laws, and consideration of
cumulative risks from exposures to HAPs emissions from sources in the aggregate21
"Substantial" reduction in noncancer risks (Section 112(k) (C)), which includes all 188
CAA air toxics, area sources, urban areas nationwide, all laws, and consideration of
cumulative risks from exposures to HAPs emissions from sources in the aggregate21
The EPA's third national goal is based on policy considerations and is intended to address
disproportionate impacts of air toxics hazards across urban areas, including low income and people-of-
color communities. This goal addresses all 188 CAA air toxics, emission sources (area, major, mobile
sources), and consideration of cumulative risks from exposures to HAPs emissions from sources in the
19Some workgroup members did not agree with this goal-setting process, arguing that goal
uniformity is important. Goal uniformity and equity reduces incentives for industry to relocate to
greenfields and would not require EPA review/approval for each S/L/T's goals.
20Some workgroup members interpret the 75% reduction goal as a goal that applies to area
sources.
21For a discussion of the consideration of cumulative risk, see the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy (64 FR 38706, 38712, July 19, 1999).
3.2
-------
aggregate.21'22 The workgroup recommends that a target of 2010 be set for evaluating progress
toward meeting the national goals.
The workgroup believes that, for the program they are recommending in this document to
succeed, it is essential for S/L/T agencies to form partnerships with EPA and for EPA to initiate national
standards and programs in several key areas in addition to those EPA has already identified. (See
Appendix F for a list of EPA's currently planned activities to implement the national air toxics program.)
The workgroup identified the following areas requiring additional action by EPA:
Accelerate upgrade of diesel engines (require retrofits of older engines, accelerate removal of
older vehicles from fleet)
On-road and off-road motor vehicles (gasoline and diesel) standards
Gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel specification
Standards for commercial marine vessels
Aircraft, airport emissions, and locomotive standards
Standards for utilities
Standards in areas which are preempted from S/L regulation (e.g., portable equipment and
equipment used for farm and construction activities that is rated 175 horsepower or lower)
Development of Federal Action Plans for chemicals that are PBTs
Standards for other areas of national significance
Guidance for S/L/T agencies to carry out this program
These standards would address emissions of air toxics that S/L/T agencies are not able to adequately
address individually. Without this component, the workgroup believes the CAA goals may not be
achievable.
An additional element of goal-setting includes the means to measure progress toward the goals.
In the case of the above national goals, EPA will determine the appropriate measurements.
Workgroup members are also especially concerned about the integration of the various goals.
Two of the three national goals do not address mobile sources. The workgroup is specifically
concerned about how the S/L/T goals will enable the nation to meet the national goal of 75 percent
reduction in cancer incidence when that goal focuses on only stationary sources. In addition, the
national goal that addresses noncancer risks focuses on just area sources. Because several recent
studies have indicated that mobile sources drive the air toxics risk in many urban areas, many
22In addition, section 112(k) also requires that EPA develop area source standards to help
achieve these goals for urban areas. Specifically, EPA is required to list area source categories and to
ensure that 90 percent of the emissions from area sources are subject to standards pursuant to section
112(d).
3.3
-------
workgroup members believe that these two goals, which only look at stationary or area sources, would
provide less public health benefit than a goal which also addresses mobile sources. Therefore, the
workgroup has developed an area-wide goal category and a community/neighborhood goal category
which include assessing and reducing risk from mobile sources.
The workgroup does recognize that in some cases, stationary sources can play a significant role
in public health risk; however, the workgroup is concerned about the meaning of the national goal, how
progress toward the goal would be measured, and whether the tools exist today to measure such a
goal. Rather than focus on the national goal, the workgroup recommends that S/L/T agencies move
forward in partnership with EPA, while taking into consideration the focus of the national goals and
including stationary sources within the scope of all three S/L/T goals. In the future, as S/L/T agencies
report on progress made toward the area-wide, near-source, and community/neighborhood goals, EPA
will periodically assess whether that progress is sufficient to enable the nation to meet the national goals.
3.1.2 Area- Wide Goals
This goal category is intended to address area-wide impacts due to the presence of toxics in the
ambient air. The areas addressed by this goal category could vary to include the area within a State's
boundaries, a subsection of a State, such as a district, a multi-state metropolitan area, or other area as
defined by the S/L/T. The workgroup recommends that a numerical goal be developed in three phases
and reflect the process-oriented approach as described for national goals.
The workgroup discussed whether setting area-wide goals was a useful step or a waste of
resources. Some members feel that States that had already made a lot of progress in addressing
ambient issues should start their program by focusing on near-source and community level goals.
Additionally, some members of the workgroup believe that S/L/T agencies without existing, mature
programs should look at maximally exposed or vulnerable populations immediately. They argue that
delay in addressing these issues will only delay conversations with the public in the most impacted
areas, and these lines of communication should be opened now. Such an approach would potentially
start addressing EJ and other more local goals sooner. However, other members note that in many
areas, area-wide, and more specifically, statewide area-wide goals may result in cost-effective
reductions, which benefit local populations. Also, many programs may only have the tools in the near-
term to effectively address area-wide goals, and will need several more years to be able to address the
near-source and community goals. The workgroup concludes that area-wide goals, combined with the
flexibility described below, will achieve the greatest program benefits. Finally, the workgroup
recommends that 2010 be established as a target date for meeting these goals.
The area-wide goals focus on potential cancer risk and non-cancer health impacts from both
stationary (major and area sources) and mobile sources. In selecting the HAPs to focus on, either EPA
could prioritize risk drivers, or the S/L/T could choose risk drivers. The EPA could quantify risk
3.4
-------
reduction from mobile source regulations, and the S/L/T could quantify risk reduction from major and
area stationary sources.
The S/L/T will develop the statewide (or region-wide) goals in a three-phase process:
Phase one. In the assessment phase, S/L/T agencies should assess the area-wide potential
cancer risks and non-cancer health impacts throughout the State or region from, at a minimum, each
HAP on EPA's list of 33 HAPs or on an S/L/T functionally equivalent23 list by 2003. In this
assessment, S/L/T agencies should use EPA health-based guidelines or S/L/T functionally equivalent
guidelines. Next, S/L/T agencies should prioritize HAPs based on contribution to area-wide potential
cancer risk or non-cancer health impacts through an open public process. For priority HAPs, S/L/T
agencies should identify locations where ambient risks and non-cancer health impacts exceed a defined
target level. A defined target level could be based on an emissions level, ambient concentration level,
risk level, or determined by the S/L/T and community in an open public process.
Key elements of this phase include assessing whether the EPA HAP list includes the HAPs that
are of most concern in the State or region. For example, some States may have HAPs, or even non-
HAPs, that are determined to be the critical risk drivers. The S/L/T agencies should use this
information to develop a list of HAPs to target that are of most concern in the area. This flexibility will
allow goals to be established that reflects State- or region-specific conditions and that begins to address
vulnerable populations.
Phase two. In the program development phase, S/L/T agencies should develop a plan and risk
reduction goal by 2004 for reducing risks in locations identified in phase one. The plan should address
prioritization of identified locations, specific risk or emission reduction goals as appropriate for each
location, timelines for meeting those goals, and timelines for reassessment of area-wide risks. The goals
might include overall area-wide ambient reductions in HAPs emissions, concentrations, or risk from
identified priority HAPs. The goals might be more site-specific or refined to reduce emissions,
concentrations, or risk from specified HAPs in certain identified locations. Emission/risk reduction
strategies should address HAPs emissions from mobile, major, and area sources.24
23Functional equivalency assumes the S/L/T has met some specified minimum requirements for
major program elements of a risk based program. If a program component is deemed functionally
equivalent, the S/L/T may substitute their data/approach for EPA's data/approach for that functionally
equivalent program component.
24Some of the members on the workgroup stress the importance of having S/L/T agencies
prioritize their activities by focusing on stationary sources unique to their areas. However, the full
weight of the program (of meeting the area-wide risk reduction goals) should not fall to the States and
locals when EPA maintains authority over sources of concern, and where, in some cases, S/L/T
agencies would be precluded from acting (as with mobile sources).
3.5
-------
The workgroup discussed whether the reduction goal should be uniform across all areas.
However a pre-determined, uniform goal ignores the results of the risk assessment and may unfairly
penalize areas that have already achieved substantial reductions. The workgroup opted for flexibility in
the design of phase two, to allow States or regions to establish reductions that are specific to the area in
question.25
Phase three. By 2012, reassess area-wide risks and non-cancer health impacts throughout the
State or region as identified in phase one. Evaluate the need for further risk reduction for all 33 HAPs
and any new compounds of concern.
The workgroup determined that there are three options for measuring progress towards
achieving the area-wide S/L/T goals. The approaches are the emissions inventory, modeling, and
monitoring approaches. The approaches may be used separately or in combination, depending on the
exact format of the individual goal and the tools and expertise available to the S/L/T.
The emissions inventory approach contains the following steps:
Demonstrate reduction in emissions of priority HAPs - could use EPA's emissions inventory, or
functionally equivalent S/L/T emissions inventory
Demonstrate reduction in statewide potency-weighted emissions - could use EPA's emissions
inventory and/or health values or use S/L/T functionally equivalent emissions inventory and/or
health values
The modeling approach requires the S/L/T to demonstrate reductions using modeled
concentrations with risk component. The S/L/T could use either NATA results or an S/L/T functionally
equivalent risk analysis. Some members of the workgroup believe that the modeling results need to be
verified by monitoring data whenever possible.
The monitoring approach contains the following steps:
Demonstrate reduction based on monitoring data - could use EPA's monitoring data or use
functionally equivalent S/L/T monitoring data
Demonstrate reduction based on a combination of monitored and potency-weighted emissions -
could use EPA's monitoring data, emissions inventory, and health values or could use S/L/T
functionally equivalent monitoring data, emissions inventory and health values
250ne workgroup member feels that without a specified goal, the program framework does not
identify who may have input throughout the process - from identifying risk, to setting goals, to
developing a risk reduction plan.
3.6
-------
3.1.3 Near-Source Goals
The purpose of near-source goals is to address the impacts of toxic emissions from stationary
sources.26 The near-source part of the program will address cancer and non-cancer health impacts
from stationary sources (major and area sources) only. It should address all 188 HAPs and/or
additional S/L/T toxic air contaminants of concern and will address near-source risks. Through the
CAA Residual Risk Program under section 112(f), risk remaining after implementation of technology
standards on a source category-wide basis will be addressed. The EPA will be addressing to what
extent this program can be delegated to S/L/T agencies, which may become a component of their near-
source goals program. The risk assessment procedures developed through this program may also
provide S/L/T agencies with a model to follow in assessing and addressing near-source risk. These
goals would address near-source risk from single stationary sources or could address cumulative, near-
source risk from multiple stationary sources.
The near-source goals should be set in two phases:
Phase one. By 2006, S/L/T agencies should develop a program to identify, prioritize, and
reduce near-source impacts from stationary sources.
Phase two. Using EPA-approved health-based guidelines or S/L/T functionally equivalent
health based guidelines, by 2010, S/L/T agencies should achieve significant reductions in cancer
risk and non-cancer health impacts near major and area sources of HAP emissions in urban
and rural areas. (Some limitations may exist with respect to health values used for assessment
because these guidelines may not be available for each HAP.)
The workgroup identified several options for identifying where to apply near-source goals and
how to structure them:
Potential high risk facilities conduct screening and/or refined facility-specific risk assessments,
as appropriate (California's AB 2588 Hot Spots Program)
Require all major and selected area sources to develop MACT level of control (Louisiana
approach)
Require facilities with significant risk (cancer and non-cancer) to reduce risks below a defined
level of significance (New York approach, California's AB 2588 Hot Spots Program)
Require new and modified facilities to install T-BACT (Vermont approach, California's Toxic
New Source Review Program)
To quantify risk reduction, evaluate risks prior to and after risk reduction measures
26The near-source impacts may be from sources already regulated by MACT or S/L standards.
The source may already be using lowest achievable emission reduction (LAER), but the combination of
the emissions from the source and the nearness of receptors may still result in a risk level of concern.
3.7
-------
Conduct air monitoring at the source prior to and after risk reduction measures, where
appropriate27
3.1.4 Community/Neighbor hood Goals
The purpose of community/neighborhood goals are to address remaining pockets of
disproportionate risk remaining after imposition of the national, area-wide, and near-source goals. This
phase of the program will address both urban area and rural hot spots. Community/neighborhood goals
will be based on risk from all sources and will address all HAPs and other S/L/T priority HAPs of
concern. They will also address cancer and non-cancer risks.
Community/neighborhood goals will be the focal point for addressing EJ perspectives or issues.
Issues such as how to define the "community," how to train and educate stakeholders, and how to
effectively obtain and use their input are all particularly important in this phase of the program. See
section 2.2.7 of this report for more information on how to maximize stakeholder involvement and the
need for integrated public participation in the overall process. Another resource available to S/L/T
agencies in structuring a community-based program is EPA's "Framework for Community-Based
Environmental Protection", which can be found at http J/www, epa. gov/ cbep/.
The community/neighborhood goals will be developed in four steps. The timelines summarized
below and in table 2.6 reflect the significant time and effort for S/L/T agencies to develop the expertise
and tools (with EPA's help) to develop and address these goals. The steps also provide the
communities with flexibility to set goals that address community concerns.
Step 1. In the 2003 - 2005 timeframe, complete Step 1, Assessment, by developing tools to
conduct cumulative risk assessments.
Step 2. In the 2003 - 2008 timeframe, complete Step 2, Program Development, by identifying
priority HAPs and HAP sources/source categories and developing a plan to reduce cumulative
risk.
Step 3. In the 2005 - 2012 timeframe, complete Step 3, Program Implementation, by
implementing a program plan to reduce cumulative exposures, reduce risks, and meet
community/neighborhood goals.
Step 4. By 2012 - 2020, complete Step 4, Audit/Backstop, by performing an evaluation to
determine if the goals/plan have/has been met and performing further action if necessary. The
S/L/T agencies also should achieve substantial reduction in cumulative risk in specific
27Some of the members on the workgroup feel that this monitoring should be required.
3.8
-------
neighborhoods. Finally, the S/L/T agencies should measure reduction in cumulative risk in
specific neighborhoods both prior to and after taking into account risk reduction measures.28
3.2 Step 1: Assessment
3.2.1 Purpose of Assessment Step
The purpose of the assessment step is to evaluate existing emissions data and/or estimate public
health risk from exposure to the emissions and use these results to prioritize program activities to reduce
risk. Overall, assessments can include four activities:
Estimating emissions
Estimating concentrations
Estimating exposures
Risk characterization
For the program recommended in this report, S/L/T agencies may wish to prioritize program
activities based solely on emissions inventory data rather than a risk assessment activity. The
assessments for this program could include identification of cancer risks, chronic health risks, and acute
risks to public health. The identification of public health risk may include risks to adults, children,
infants, and pregnant women. In order to prioritize these risks, criteria may be developed in the
program development stage, which may vary from agency to agency.
Not all assessments are the same. An assessment may be a screening level analyses that
compares predicted or measured ambient concentrations to health-based values. In some cases, a
more refined analyses may be preferred to a screening level analysis. The types of analyses S/L/T
agencies perform may be dictated to some degree by the geographic extent of the area of concern.
The geographic extent of the areas of concern are reflected in the scope of the goals: nationwide,
areawide, near-source and community/neighborhood.
The workgroup notes that both EPA and several S/L/T agencies currently have programs that
are gathering and assessing information required to characterize exposure and estimate public health
risks from exposure to air toxics. Information derived from the experience of these programs can be
found in Appendices B, D and E. This information may be helpful for S/L/T agencies starting risk-
based air toxics programs, as well as agencies with more mature programs. Appendix D and the
Attachment to Appendix E provide information on EPA activities related to assessment. Appendix B
28Some of the members on the workgroup feel that the phrase "substantial reduction" is too
vague and needs to be defined and that the 2012 - 2020 timeframe is too far in the future for
community/neighborhood goals to be met.
3.9
-------
provides information on State and local programs. Appendix E provides a resource list of materials for
performing air toxics assessments.
3.2.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options
The assessment step of the program includes several activities, which vary by goal. There are
many program options available for completing these activities, and the way in which these activities are
conducted is not prescribed here. However, each program must include, at a minimum, certain
program elements. Following is a discussion of the minimum program elements, by goal category.
S/L/T Program. Area-wide Risk Goals
For the S/L/T agency, there are four minimum elements:
Compile emission inventory, modeling or monitoring data, or combination
Evaluate the cancer risk and non-cancer health impacts from, at a minimum, each HAP on
EPA's list of 33 HAPs or on S/L/T functionally equivalent list
Stakeholder and public participation process
Develop process for identifying communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics
emissions
Compile emission inventory, modeling or monitoring data or combination. The S/L/T
agencies will need to gather or produce information in order to perform an assessment of air toxics risk.
The activities can include producing an emission inventory, performing modeling, or conducting air
quality monitoring, or using a combination. (Resources will need to be made available to S/L/T agencies
to carry out these activities, as discussed in the critical issues section of this document.)
The emissions inventory should be compiled for air toxics from outdoor sources, and may
include major stationary sources, area stationary sources, other sources such as residential combustion
and outdoor burning, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. The emissions inventory
could be the NTI or a more refined inventory developed by the S/L/T. The inventory needs to fill in
the gaps that currently exist. Therefore, S/L/T agencies need to collect information on small, area
sources (stationary and otherwise) that are not captured by inventories, such as the NTI, either due to
reporting thresholds or existing mandates. This inventory may include all or a select set of the 188
HAPs in the CAA or other S/L/T priority non-HAPs. The S/L/T agencies should be given flexibility to
determine whether additional sources should be included in inventories (e.g., indoor sources, consumer
products, or other human activities).
If the S/L/T has collected sufficient monitoring data to characterize ambient air toxics
concentrations, monitoring data may be used in lieu of developing an extensive emission inventory. If
3.10
-------
the S/L/T wants to characterize air toxics concentrations but lacks sufficient monitoring data, the S/L/T
may wish to perform air quality modeling.
Evaluate the cancer risk and non-cancer health impacts from, at a minimum, each HAP
on EPA 's list of 33 HAPs29 or on S/L/Tfunctionally equivalent list. Using EPA health-based
guidelines or S/L/T functionally equivalent guidelines, assess the ambient potential cancer risks and non-
cancer health impacts throughout the State or region from, at a minimum, each HAP on EPA's list of 33
HAPs or on S/L/T functionally equivalent list (where health values are not available for a given HAP,
the S/L/T may not be able to quantify potential cancer risk and/or non-cancer health impacts for that
respective HAP). This assessment can be completed using emission inventory data, ambient monitoring
data and/or modeling data depending on the area of concern or goal. For example, S/L/T agencies
may use a potency-weighted emission inventory or they may default to EPA's characterization of risk to
assess statewide concerns (EPA will characterize risks from 33 HAPs of concern using the NATA
methodology). Synergistic and combined effects maybe considered as well.
Stakeholder and public participation process. In section 2.2.7, the workgroup highlighted
concerns with respect to stakeholder involvement and how it should be conducted. For the assessment
step, EPA and S/L/T agencies should develop a meaningful stakeholder and public participation
process along the lines discussed in that section. The EPA and S/L/T agencies should also seek ways
to provide incentives to encourage disadvantaged stakeholders to participate in the process.
Develop process for identifying communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics
emissions. The workgroup agrees it is important to develop the process early for identifying
communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics emissions, especially low income and people-of-
color communities, to ensure the needs and issues of EJ communities are considered from the beginning
of the program. Therefore, the workgroup listed this process as a minimum element in the assessment
step.
S/L/T Program. Near-Source Risk Goals
The minimum elements for these goals are similar to those necessary for performing an
assessment of the area-wide risk goals. A process for identifying sources of concern needs to be
developed. Updates on health-based values may be needed as well. Moreover, for evaluating near-
source risks or cumulative risks, a more accurate emission inventory specific to the area of impact or
ambient monitoring data may be needed. A more refined modeling analysis or ambient monitoring may
also be needed to assess near-source or community risk. As for the area-wide goals, developing and
implementing a meaningful stakeholder and public participation process and involving the community are
29The workgroup recommends that S/L/T agencies focus, at a minimum, on the 33 pollutants or
a functionally equivalent list. However, in the NATA EPA plans to address the 188 air toxic pollutants
listed in the CAA.
3.11
-------
essential. Finally, the S/L/T agencies will need to identify communities disproportionately impacted by
air toxics emissions.
S/L/T Program. Community/Neighborhood Goals
Developing and implementing a meaningful stakeholder and public participation process is
especially critical in determining the scope and nature of community risks. However, there may be little
information on how to successfully address community risks. Therefore, the workgroup has not
identified any firm set of minimum elements, but recommends that, at this time, S/L/T agencies have the
flexibility to use available tools and guidance or develop their own techniques for assessing community
risk. As the air toxics community gains more knowledge about community risk, more specific minimum
elements can be specified. For example, in certain situations, collecting health data and data on cancer
rates in areas being assessed may be helpful in determining if there may be an air toxics problem.
However, the workgroup did identify four elements that could be considered as part of the
assessment process for community/neighborhood goals:
Stakeholder public participation process
Identify communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics emissions
Assemble EJ stakeholder advisory committee
Other elements to be determined
For the stakeholder advisory committee element, S/L/T might assemble university and public health
experts, EJ and other environmental groups for working roundtable discussions about addressing air
toxics exposures and vulnerable populations in the S/L/T area.
EPA National Program. National Goals
For the national program, there are five minimum elements:
Compile national air toxics emissions inventory (NTT)
Establish or update health-based values
Characterize risks from 188 HAPs of concern and sources responsible through the NATA
methodology
Stakeholder process
Develop process for identifying communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics
emissions
(Appendix D contains additional descriptions of EPA activities that relate to these minimum program
elements and option activities.)
3.12
-------
The program options are discussed below in the context of these minimum elements.
Compile NTI. Over the past several years, EPA has been compiling information to support the
development of national inventories of air toxics emissions. To date, EPA has compiled a NTI data set
for the 1990 to 1993 period (called the baseline NTI) and 1996. The NTI provides estimates of
emissions at the county level of resolution (or better, in many cases) which allows the 1996 NTI to be
used to develop screening-level modeling assessments of ambient concentrations and inhalation
exposures down to county-level resolution. As such, the 1996 NTI represents the most recently-
verified and complete emissions inventory available for national assessments.30
The NTI contains air toxic emission estimates for four overarching categories (or "sectors") of
man-made outdoor emissions sources: major, area, onroad mobile and nonroad mobile source
categories.
The EPA has compiled the 1996 NTI using five primary sources of data:
State and local toxic air pollutant inventories (developed by State and local air pollution control
agencies)
Existing databases related to EPA's air toxics regulatory program
EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database
Estimates developed using mobile source methodology (developed by EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality)
Emission estimates generated from emission factors and activity data
The EPA plans to continue these types of inventory efforts to compile a complete national
inventory every 3 years. The next efforts, which will focus on 1999 data, are already underway through
discussions between EPA staff and State and local air pollution control agencies.
Establish or update health-based values. An important component of an assessment is to
have health-based values available to evaluate cancer and non-cancer risk. It is critical to establish
dose-response relationships to characterize the relationship between exposure to a pollutant (the dose)
and an estimate of the potential for adverse health effects in exposed populations. This may be done by
estimating the incidence of effects, including cancer, chronic, and/or acute endpoints, as a function of
exposure to the pollutant. Some appropriate health-based values may have already been developed,
but additional or updated ones are needed. The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), prepared
and maintained by EPA, is an electronic data base containing information on human health effects that
30Some workgroup members noted that the NTI is a work in progress and there are State by
State inconsistencies in the quality of the air toxics inventories provided to the EPA and used in the
NAT A project.
3.13
-------
may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment.
Characterize risks from 188 HAPs of concern and sources responsible through the NAT A
methodology. The EPA's major effort to characterize risk and monitor progress associated with HAP
emission reduction has been through the undertakings of the NATA. The NATA consists of four
building blocks:
Emission inventories
Air dispersion modeling
Inhalation exposure modeling
Risk assessment/characterization
Under NATA, EPA is currently engaged in the 1996 assessment, which includes characterizing the risk
from 33 priority HAPs. (In the NATA, EPA plans to expand the analysis and address the 188 air toxic
pollutants listed in the CAA.) In addition, EPA will be engaged in other assessment activities such as
air quality monitoring, air deposition modeling, and evaluating air toxics on a more local scale.
Stakeholder process. As part of the NATA, EPA has conducted (and will continue to
conduct) significant outreach in its effort to characterize national air toxics risks and monitor progress
toward reducing air toxics nationally (see Appendix D and the attachment to Appendix E). For
example, using a group of diverse stakeholders, EPA has developed a national monitoring strategy (Air
Toxics Monitoring Concept Paper). The strategy calls for incremental changes to existing monitoring
networks, guided by data analysis and model predictions, to improve the collection of ambient data for
future model evaluations. In addition, as part of the NATA activities, EPA is now conducting an initial
assessment to characterize air toxics risks nationwide. Stakeholders have been involved in several
aspects of the assessment for 1996 and will be involved in future assessments as well.
Develop process for identifying communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics
emissions. The workgroup agrees it is important to develop the process early for identifying
communities disproportionately impacted by air toxics emissions, especially low income and people-of-
color communities, to ensure the needs and issues of EJ communities are considered from the beginning
of the program. Therefore, the workgroup listed this process as a minimum element in the assessment
step.
3.2.3 Assessment Issues
Areas without an air toxics problem. Some S/L/T agencies may not believe air toxics pose a
risk to public health or the environment in their area and may not wish to implement this complete
program. While in some cases implementation of the full program may not be necessary, completion of
a full assessment is essential to ensure that an unacceptable level of risk from air toxics truly does not
3.14
-------
exist. In instances in which the S/L/T suspects there is no risk to public health or the environment from
air toxics, the assessment should focus on urban areas.
This assessment must include stakeholder involvement and a period for public comment on the
results. If a complete assessment confirms that air toxics exposure does not pose unacceptable human
health risks, then performing the other steps of this program may be suspended if the stakeholders and
the public support this action. In these instances, the S/L/T must perform the full assessment
periodically, such as every five years, to confirm that the conditions have not changed to necessitate
implementation of the other program steps.
Flexibility. Flexibility to meet the minimum elements through activities the S/L/T chooses is an
important concept for this program and the assessment step. For example, some S/L/T agencies may
choose to use an emissions inventory, whereas other S/L/T agencies may use monitoring data to
conduct an assessment. The flexibility to use these and other approaches to complete the requirements
of the assessment step is integral to the program structure.
3.2.4 Sources of Assessment Data
Through several programs, EPA has collected air toxics data and other information which may
be helpful to S/L/T agencies in completing the assessment activities and in developing their programs.
Appendix D of this document includes a description of EPA activities and a brief discussion of how
each activity relates to Step 1. The activities covered in Appendix D are:
NATA
Proposed Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
EPA's Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (see http J/www, epa. gov/ttn/chiefO
TRI
IRIS
Risk Assessment Guidelines
Residual Risk Determinations
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Construction, and Liability Act data
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) data
In addition, Appendix E of this document provides a list of assessment-related resources that should
help S/L/T agencies in the development of their assessment activities and includes an attachment which
provides a schedule of EPA's NATA activities.
3.3 Step 2: Program Development
3.15
-------
3.3.1 Purpose of Program Development Step
The workgroup envisions a strong national air toxics program which addresses national air
toxics goals by continuing to address issues that are national in scope, such as mobile sources, certain
stationary source categories, and energy-related issues. In addition to program development at the
national program, S/L/T agencies need to develop programs to reduce risk from exposure to air toxics
to meet area-wide, near-source and community/neighborhood program goals.
3.3.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options
The program development step of the program includes several activities, which vary by goal
category. There are many options available to implement these activities, and the workgroup is not
prescribing the manner in which these activities should be performed. However, the program must, at a
minimum, include the following elements:
S/L/T Program. Area-wide Goals
For the S/L/T program, there are five minimum elements:
Identify priority HAPs and source categories
Develop stakeholder process for setting reduction priorities
Develop options to reduce emissions
Provide opportunity for public review and comments
Develop options to measure progress.
The program options are discussed below in the context of these minimum elements.
Identify priority HAPs and source categories. For S/L/T programs, S/L/T agencies will use
the information collected in the assessment phase to identify the HAPs that will be targeted in the
program and prioritize the HAPs whose emissions reductions will result in the greatest reduction in risk.
The S/L/T agencies will also identify and prioritize sources that are contributing to HAPs of concern
that are not addressed by the national program, giving consideration to the degree of exposure. This
may include major stationary sources, area (non-major) stationary sources, other sources (such as
residential combustion, outdoor burning), on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources that
contribute to areawide risk or a stationary source that may result in a near-source impact. (Some of the
members on the workgroup feel strongly that S/L/T agencies need to emphasize identification of area
sources to ensure they are being adequately addressed.)
The workgroup believes that indoor air issues may be considered in this step in cases where the
S/L/T feels that they are relevant to specific concerns in their area and where the S/L/T has appropriate
jurisdiction.
3.16
-------
Develop stakeholder process for setting reduction priorities. The public should be involved
in the program development step. The S/L/T agencies should develop a stakeholder process for setting
reduction priorities. (However, as noted in the assessment step, it is important to get public and private
support prior to program development.) The program should include a public outreach strategy that
addresses how to conduct outreach, how to identify key stakeholders, and how to train and involve
stakeholders in technical issues associated with the risk characterization. (Examples of existing public
involvement are found in Appendix H of this report.)
In designing a public participation process, priority should be on local and community
stakeholder involvement. Resources should also be provided to support stakeholder involvement. For
example, resources are needed to assist people in attending accessible meetings held at convenient
times because fostering a good working relationship with the public is an important part of program
development. Resources are also needed to include funding to hire technical expertise to advise the
public on air toxics issues. The S/L/T agencies may need to conduct public meetings to identify
priorities within the affected community and to educate the public about the potential risks identified.
The stakeholder process should be instituted in conjunction across relevant agencies, including public
health agencies. Stakeholder processes should include a permanent body such as a State and/or
regional advisory board with "local" input and balanced representation to oversee programs.
Develop options to reduce emissions. For S/L/T programs, approaches for setting priorities
should include many of the following:
Emissions-based: In a strictly emissions-based prioritization process, top priority would be
given based on amount of emissions from inventory data. Other factors, such as impacted
population, may also be considered.
Emission-based, with pollutants weighted for toxicity (the same concept as lesser
quantity cut-offs): Weighting for toxicity would mean that pollutants are prioritized based on
amount of emissions AND the relative toxicity of the pollutant. For example, "A" carcinogens
may be weighted higher than "C" carcinogens. Another example of potency weighing is to
multiply emissions by its respective unit risk factor.
Monitoring-based: Air quality monitoring data can be used to set priorities.
Risk-based (e.g., California's "Hot Spots" program): In this case, screening level risk
assessments would be performed to prioritize risks, pollutants, and/or sources/source
categories. Screening level assessments would be performed by the source, EPA or the S/L/T.
Market-based: Prioritizing based on markets could involve determining incentives for various
sectors. Depending on the program, priority may be given to areas where reductions in
emissions or risk is most easily achieved.
Indicators-based: Based on the overall state of the environment in a region, priority would be
given to the environmental indicators. For example, a State may determine that its highest
priority is achieving the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for mercury. Therefore, it may
target mercury emissions reductions from all sources.
3.17
-------
Provide opportunity for public review and comments. In addition to the stakeholder
process described above, S/L/T agencies must also ensure that they solicit and consider public
comments on the program as it is being developed. This includes providing adequate notice of review
opportunities, making review materials readily accessible, providing forums for public discussion, and
carefully listening to public concerns and integrating them into the final program.
Develop options to measure progress. The S/L/T agencies need to establish a process to
periodically monitor the progress that is being made toward the goals. This process will also serve to
fulfill part of the goals assessment process that is discussed more in Step 4.
S/L/T Program. Near-Source Risk Goals
For the near-source risk goals, the minimum elements are the same as the elements for the
S/L/T area-wide goals, except that the description of the first minimum element is different for near-
source programs:
Identify priority HAPs and sources of near-source risk. For the near-source risk goals,
S/L/T agencies will need to develop procedures for evaluating and prioritizing near-source risk to
determine which stationary sources need to be targeted for emission reductions.
S/L/T Program. Community/Neighborhood Goals
For the community/neighborhood goals, the workgroup recommends that the minimum
elements be developed in the future as more is learned about how to measure and address
community/neighborhood risk. However, some of the workgroup members emphasize that the
community/neighborhood goals should be a priority. For example, in some cases targeting at-risk
communities for immediate action may be the most cost-effective strategy for reducing air toxics and
achieving significant risk reductions. However, some workgroup members are concerned that an
approach that first focuses on specific neighborhoods could result in resources being pulled away from
developing the area-wide and near-source programs.
National Program. National Goals
For the national program there are five minimum elements:
Identify priority HAPs and sources
Develop stakeholder process for setting priorities
Develop options to reduce emissions
Provide opportunity for public review and comments
Develop options to measure progress
3.18
-------
Identify priority HAPs and sources. For the national program, on July 19, 1999, EPA
published a Federal Register notice describing the National Air Toxics Program and the Integrated
Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706). Among other things, the Strategy includes a list of 33
priority HAPs judged to pose the greatest potential threat to public health in the largest number of urban
areas, including 30 HAPs specifically identified as being emitted from smaller industrial sources known
as "area" sources and a list of area source categories which emit a substantial portion of these HAPs,
and which are being considered for regulation. In addition, EPA will use the information collected in the
assessment phase to determine sources that contribute most to national risks and develop options to
reduce emissions that include regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and incentives.
Develop stakeholder process for setting priorities. The EPA has utilized stakeholder
processes in some cases to aid in setting program priorities and in developing programs. For example,
this workgroup has spent 6 months discussing how to structure the risk-based phase of the national air
toxics program. The EPA should expand its efforts in this area.
Develop options to reduce emissions. Under the CAA, EPA is required and/or authorized to
issue a wide array of national standards to reduce air toxics emissions. These standards are described
in Appendix I of this report. In addition, the workgroup identified EPA's responsibility for issuing
national standards as a critical issue in section 2.2 above. The workgroup also emphasizes the
importance that any new standards should be performance-based standards and promote pollution
prevention and process-based change rather than standards requiring "end-of-the-pipe" emission
controls. The EPA should also work with S/L/T agencies to determine what reductions are needed
from sources under Federal control.
Provide opportunities for public review and comments. In its program development
activities EPA has provided numerous opportunities for the public to review and comment on EPA's
rulemakings and program policies.
Develop options to measure progress. The EPA will use the results from the national
assessments conducted under NATA as the primary mechanism to assess national progress towards
meeting the CAA goals described in section 3.1.1 of this report. The EPA is currently completing the
assessment for 1996 and is beginning the process for performing the 1999 assessment, which is
estimated to be completed in 2 to 3 years.
3.3.3 Program Development Issues
Alternatives to S/L/T developing its own program. If a S/L/T decides not to develop its
own program, several other options are available for program implementation. The S/L/T may take
delegation of the program developed by EPA, in which it would become the agency responsible for
implementing the full program and meeting the goals defined by EPA. Alternatively, if the S/L/T is
3.19
-------
unable or unwilling to take complete delegation of a program developed by EPA, then the S/L/T could
form a partnership with EPA. In this situation, the enforcement and implementation responsibilities
would be split between the two agencies. If a S/L/T is unable or unwilling to perform any activities
associated with this program, EPA would take full responsibility to implement and enforce the program
in place of the S/L/T. In each of these cases, EPA would perform the entire program development
step.
Multi-State urban areas. Multi-State urban areas and other entities that cross jurisdictional
boundaries will face special issues, because areas may contribute to each other's problems. In the
past, these areas may have not worked well together. In these cases, existing organizations (e.g., the
Western Regional Air Partnership, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management) can help
with planning and coordination. These areas may also need to consider establishing new relationships
through memoranda of understanding (MOU) and other mechanisms. Additional discussion will need
to occur among S/L/T agencies to find ways to work more effectively across political boundaries.
3.4 Step 3: Program Implementation
3.4.1 Purpose of Program Implementation Step
The implementation step of the program involves the performance of the activities specified in
Step 2, Program Development.
3.4.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options
Since the programs developed in Step 2 are variable, the activities conducted in Step 3 will also
vary. Depending on the type of program chosen (e.g., S/L/T - EPA partnership, S/L/T plan, etc.), the
agency actually conducting the activities specified in the program developed in Step 2 will also vary.
However, there are common elements to the implementation step that must, at a minimum, be carried
out.
S/L/T Program. Area-wide Goals
For S/L/T programs, there are five minimum elements:
Schedule for activities to meet goals
Public participation process
Adequate resources and authority
Ways to measure progress
Process for amending plan
3.20
-------
Schedule for activities to meet goals. The S/L/T agencies should include specific deadlines
for achieving major milestones for the areawide risk goals.
Public participation process. Extensive public participation is important in all of the minimum
elements listed here for the program implementation phase of the program (see writeup above under
section 3.3, Step 3).
Adequate resources and authority. The EPA must have adequate resources to implement the
national air toxics program. In addition, the S/L/T must have adequate resources to implement the
parts of the program that they agree to take on. Possible sources of funding for S/L/T air toxic risk
reduction programs include:
Industry-based: Programs should provide industry clear goals, a timeframe for goal
achievement, and indication of consequences of not meeting goals, then allow industry to
innovate and achieve the goals with their own resources.
Performance partnerships: Partnerships should be established between industry and EPA to
provide EPA-based funding. The EPA should allocate funds from its budget to put toward this
program, distributing it among S/L/T agencies.
EPA-S/L/T-based: The S/L/T agencies and EPA should both allocate resources toward this
program (e.g., EPA matches S/L/T funds).
In addition to resources, before developing and implementing a program, implementing agencies
must have a good understanding of the existing authority under the CAA and State statutes.
Ways to measure progress. Based on public input obtained on options determined during
program development, the S/L/T must specify ways to measure progress towards achieving goals. One
option is to engage stakeholder participation to implement and track risk reduction program by State
and Federal air quality and public health agencies, environmental advocacy groups, regulated industry,
trade associations, academia, and interested citizens (see discussion in Step 4).
Process for amending plan. The workgroup recognizes that there are unexpected
circumstances that may require changes in S/L/T plans. The S/L/T plans must include a process for
amending plans which includes public stakeholder input.
3.21
-------
S/L/T Program. Near-Source Risk Goals
For the near-source risk goals, the minimum elements are the same as the elements for the
S/L/T areawide goals, with one exception. Deadlines must be included for when procedures should be
in place to address near-source risk goals; specific deadlines for achieving near-source goals may not
be practical.
S/L/T Program. Community/Neighborhood Goals
For the community/neighborhood goals, the workgroup recommends that the minimum
elements be developed in the future as more is learned about how to measure and address
community/neighborhood risk.
National Program. National Goals
For the national program, there are five minimum elements:
Schedule that meets goal deadlines
Public participation process
Adequate resources and authority
Ways to measure progress
Process for amending plan
Schedule that meets goal deadlines. The EPA has established a schedule for when to
complete certain activities to carry out the national air toxics program. Some of the dates are
specifically mandated by the CAA, while other dates are EPA's estimates of when activities will occur.
The attached Action Plan from EPA provides a detailed schedule for the Agency's activities (see
Appendix F).
Public participation process. During program implementation, S/L/T agencies are more likely
to interact directly with the public on questions and issues than EPA. During this phase, EPA needs to
continue to provide the public with program information and assessment results so that the public can
monitor program progress toward meeting the national goals outlined above in section 3.1.
Adequate resources and authority. The EPA needs to ensure that it has adequate resources
and authority to carry out the program recommended in this report. The workgroup has identified
adequate resources and authority as critical issues in section 2.2 above.
Ways to measure progress. The EPA will use the results from the national assessments
conducted under NATA as the primary mechanism to assess national progress towards meeting the
CAA goals described in section 3.1.1 of this report. The EPA is currently completing the assessment
3.22
-------
for 1996 and is beginning the process for performing the 1999 assessment, which is estimated to be
completed in 2 to 3 years.
Process for amending plan. As EPA and the S/L/T agencies implement their programs,
develop improved tools to measure progress, and achieve results, the original program plan will most
likely need refining. Therefore, as part of the program implementation step, EPA needs to develop a
process for amending its national air toxics strategy. The process should include public stakeholder
input.
3.5 Step 4: Audit and Backstop Process
3.5.1 Purpose of the Audit and Backstop Process
The purpose Step 4 is to put in place a process to monitor progress toward goals to ensure that
corrective action is taken if adequate progress is not achieved.
3.5.2 Minimum Program Elements and Program Options
As in the other steps, minimum program elements vary by goal and according to the agency
carrying out the program.
S/L/T Program. Area-wide and Near-Source Risk Goals
The minimum elements consists of three components:
Periodic audit process
Backstop
Public participation
Periodic Audit Process. The audit process contains two distinct types of evaluations. One
evaluation is necessary to determine whether S/L/T agencies are completing tasks in a timely manner
according to the S/L/T plan, and another evaluation is necessary to determine whether the plan's goals
have been met.
The first type of evaluation is intended to ensure that the activities that should have been
conducted were performed in the appropriate manner and timeframe. This audit process should be
periodic, with an audit performed after each step of the process. This evaluation should be conducted
as a joint effort by the S/L/T and EPA and may take the form of progress reports made available to the
public for comment. These progress reports could be completed jointly by the S/L/T and EPA, or
independent progress reports could be submitted by each agency. In either case, by having periodic
progress reports, S/L/T agencies will be aware of areas where sufficient progress has been made
3.23
-------
according to the plan and areas that need attention. In addition, having an audit process will ensure
continual progress and attention to the program. By making progress reports public, the agency will
also be held publicly accountable to perform the actions laid out in the plan and make progress toward
the goals. To create greater public awareness, a stakeholder advisory committee could also be
convened to provide comments and to suggest areas for further investigation.
In addition to the more periodic progress reports, the workgroup envisions having a full audit of
the program performed as a joint effort between the S/L/T and EPA at the completion of the process.
This full audit would involve an analysis of the progress made toward the goals. The audit would be
completed either after all four program steps had been completed or after 10 years since the onset of
the program, beginning with the assessment step. The results of this full audit would be made public,
and would allow for a public comment period on the program. When the goals are attained, or if
sufficient progress is made toward the goals, the audit would also suggest future actions and activities to
continue this progress. If the results of the audit show other actions are needed to make sufficient
progress toward the goals, a backstop would be implemented. The general full audit process is
outlined below.
In the 2010-2012 timeframe, each S/L/T shall audit and prepare a report on its air toxics
program.
There shall be a comment period on the draft report with appropriate public hearings/meetings
throughout the S/L/T area.
This process shall be repeated in 2020 and every 10 years thereafter.
The results of this audit should be compiled into a report for the S/L/T and the public to view.
This report should include at a minimum:
An assessment as to whether the S/L/T goals have been achieved or are on track to be
achieved
For each goal, a report on the implementation of the program elements including the
identification of any problems and/or need for additional resources
Recommendations to address identified problems
Recommendations for altering the goals and/or program
Backstop. The workgroup also envisions EPA implementing a backstop if significant progress
toward the goals has not been achieved. This backstop is intended to provide a means of making
progress toward or achieving the goals where implementation of other measures was not successful. It
is also envisioned that the backstop will also provide an incentive for S/L/T agencies to perform well
and achieve the goals in order to avoid the backstop measures.
There are two types of situations in which a backstop would be necessary:
3.24
-------
Lack of progress toward completing plan tasks
Lack of progress toward meeting the plan goals
The workgroup did not fully address the contents of the backstop measures. However, they believe the
community should be involved in developing the backstop measures.
Public participation. The workgroup believes that the stakeholders and public should be
involved in the audit and backstop process. Mechanisms for public participation include the following:
Public notification
Publish data
Public meetings
Community-based research
Public comment
S/L/T Program. Community/Neighborhood Goals
The workgroup recommends the same three minimum elements for the
community/neighborhood goals as for the other goals (periodic audit process, backstop, and public
participation.) However, the workgroup recommends that the options to implement these minimum
elements be developed in the future as more is learned about how to measure and address
community/neighborhood risk.
EPA National Program. National Goals
For the national program, the workgroup recommends three minimum elements:
Periodic audit process
Backstop
Public participation
Periodic audit process. The EPA will measure progress toward the national goals every three
years as it performs the national assessments as part of the NATA Program, which is described in more
detail in Appendix D and the attachment to Appendix E. The EPA is currently completing the 1996
assessment. In 2000 EPA will be comparing air toxics inventories from 1990 and 1996 on a toxicity-
weighted basis to help determine progress toward meeting the risk reduction goals. The EPA is starting
the 1999 assessment, which is projected to be completed in the 2002/2003 timeframe.
Backstop. The workgroup did not have a full discussion about the form or content of a
backstop for the national program. However, the workgroup believes that EPA has many important
responsibilities as indicated in section 3.1.1 and should make a strong commitment to adjust its activities
3.25
-------
in accordance with the results of the EPA audit process. In addition, stakeholders and the public
should be kept abreast of the progress and any new or amended activities planned for the national
program.
Public participation. The workgroup believes that the stakeholders and public should be
involved in the audit and backstop process. Mechanisms for public participation include:
Public notification
Publish data
Public meetings
Community-based research
Public comment
3.26
------- |