EPA Needs to Develop a Strategy to Complete Overdue Residual Risk and Technology Reviews and to Meet the Statutory Deadlines for Upcoming Reviews


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CUSTOMER SERVICE * INTEGRITY ~ ACCOUNTABILITY

¦

Improving air quality

The EPA Needs to Develop
a Strategy to Complete
Overdue Residual Risk and
Technology Reviews and to
Meet the Statutory Deadlines
for Upcoming Reviews

Report No. 22-E-0026	March 30, 2022

-------
Report Contributors:

Bao Chuong
Jenny Drzewiecki
Lauretta Joseph
Chad Kincheloe
Renee McGhee-Lenart

Abbreviations:

CAA
C.F.R.
EPA
GACT

MACT
NESHAP

OAQPS

OAR

OIG

RTR

TR

U.S.C.

Clean Air Act

Code of Federal Regulations

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Generally Available Control Technology or

Management Practices

Maximum Achievable Control Technology

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Inspector General

Residual Risk and Technology Review

Technology Review

United States Code

Key Definitions:

Air Toxics

Residual Risk Review

Technology Review

Residual Risk and
Technology Review

Air pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer
or other serious health effects or adverse
environmental effects.

Statutorily required review assessing the health and
environmental risks remaining eight years after
implementation of technology-based emission
standards for certain industrial source categories.
Statutorily required review conducted at least once
every eight years after technology-based emission
standards are implemented to assess whether
there are cost-effective approaches to further
reduce emissions.

Combination of a residual risk review and the first
technology review for certain industrial source
categories.

Cover Image:

Playground with smokestack emissions in the background. (EPA image)

Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an
EPA program?

EPA Inspector General Hotline

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG Hotline@epa.gov

Learn more about our OIG Hotline.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq

Subscribe to our Email Updates.
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig.
Send us your Project Suggestions.

-------
Office of Inspector General

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

At a Glance

22-E-0026
March 30, 2022

Why We Did This Evaluation

We conducted this evaluation
to determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has conducted residual
risk and technology reviews in
a timely manner, as required
for the EPA to revise
standards, as needed, to
protect the public from air
toxics emitted by stationary
sources. A stationary source is
any building, structure, facility,
or installation that emits or may
emit an air pollutant.

The Clean Air Act requires the
EPA to conduct residual risk
reviews to assess the health
and environmental risks that
remain after the EPA issues
technology standards and the
stationary sources implement
the technology to limit air toxics
emissions in accordance with
those standards. If the risks are
deemed unacceptable, the EPA
is required to revise the
standards to reduce the risks.
Separately, the EPA is required
to conduct a technology review
of each technology-based
standard at least once every
eight years and, if necessary,
revise the standard.

This evaluation supports an EPA
mission-related effort:

•	Improving air quality.

This evaluation addresses a top
EPA management challenge:

•	Integrating and leading
environmental justice,
including communicating risks.

Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.

List of OIG reports.

The EPA Needs to Develop a Strategy to Complete
Overdue Residual Risk and Technology Reviews and
to Meet the Statutory Deadlines for Upcoming Reviews

What We Found

The EPA has not conducted all statutorily
mandated residual risk and technology reviews,
or RTRs, or recurring eight-year technology
reviews, or TRs, that are used to revise
standards, as needed, to protect the public from
air toxics emitted by stationary sources. As of
November 1, 2021, 93 of the 169 industrial
sources that require such reviews, known as

As of November 1, 2021, the
EPA had 93 overdue RTRs
or TRs, almost half of which
were overdue by more than
five years. These reviews
are used to establish limits
for air toxics emissions and
to protect public health.

source categories, had overdue RTRs or TRs.

The majority (79) of the 93 overdue reviews were TRs. The EPA had initiated the
reviews for only 30 percent (28) of those 93 source categories.

Although the EPA has conducted internal exercises to prioritize certain source
categories for RTRs or TRs, the EPA lacks a strategy to meet the statutory
deadlines for RTRs and TRs and to complete all overdue reviews. Of the
28 overdue reviews in progress as of November 1, 2021, the EPA initiated 25 in
response to court orders, consent decrees, or Office of Inspector General
recommendations issued in May 2021 in Report No. 21-P-0129. In addition,
although EPA staff told us that the volume of work, resource limitations, and
other competing administration priorities are impediments to meeting statutory
review time frames, we found that the EPA has not conducted a workforce
analysis to determine the level and types of staff and resources needed to
conduct the required RTRs and TRs.

Air toxics emitted from source categories with overdue RTRs and TRs can cause
cancer and other serious health conditions. Overdue RTRs and TRs may also
disproportionately impact communities with environmental justice concerns, given
that minority and low-income populations are more likely to live near industrial
facilities or other pollution sources.

Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA perform a workforce analysis to determine the staff
and resources needed to meet statutory RTR and TR deadlines. We also
recommend that the EPA develop and implement a strategy to conduct RTRs
and TRs by the statutory deadlines, as well as all overdue reviews in as timely a
manner as practicable. The strategy should take into account the Agency's
environmental justice responsibilities.

The EPA concurred with Recommendation 1 and partially concurred with
Recommendation 2. Both recommendations are unresolved because the EPA's
proposed completion dates are not aggressive enough to ensure that public
health risks are reduced in conformity with statutory direction.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

March 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: The EPA Needs to Develop a Strategy to Complete Overdue Residual Risk and
Technology Reviews and to Meet the Statutory Deadlines for Upcoming Reviews
Report No. 22-E-0026

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this evaluation was OSRE-FY21 -0224.
This report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the
OIG recommends. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established resolution procedures.

The Office of Air and Radiation is responsible for the issues discussed in this report.

Action Required

This report contains unresolved recommendations. The resolution process, as described in EPA's Audit
Management Procedures, begins immediately with the issuance of this report. Furthermore, we request a
written response to the final report within 60 days of this memorandum. Your response will be posted on
the OIG's website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be
provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want
to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction
or removal along with corresponding justification.

FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell

TO:

Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Radiation

We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
The EPA Needs to Develop a Strategy to Complete Overdue
Residual Risk and Technology Reviews and to
Meet the Statutory Deadlines for Upcoming Reviews

22-E-0026

Table of C

Chapters

1	Introduction	1

Purpose	1

Background	1

Responsible Offices	5

Scope and Methodology	6

Prior Report	7

2	The EPA Has Not Conducted All Statutorily Mandated RTRs and TRs	8

RTRs and TRs Overdue for 93 Source Categories	8

Several Factors Contribute to Overdue RTRs and TRs	11

Overdue RTRs and TRs May Delay the Development of Updated Standards

that Reduce Public Health Risks	12

Conclusions	13

Recommendations	14

Agency Response and OIG Assessment	14

Status of Recommendations	15

Appendixes

A Comparison of Residual Risk Review and TR	16

B Source Categories with MACT Standards that Need RTRs	17

C All Regulated Source Categories with MACT Standards and Completed RTRs	18

D All Regulated Area Source Categories with GACT Standards	21

E Examples: Emitted Air Toxics and Human Health Risks for Source Categories

with Overdue Statutory Reviews	23

F Agency Response to Draft Report	25

G Distribution	28

-------
Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General initiated this evaluation to
determine whether the EPA has conducted residual risk and technology reviews, or RTRs, in a timely
manner, as required for the EPA to revise standards, as needed, to protect the public from air toxics
emitted by stationary sources. Through these reviews, the EPA determines whether more
health-protective standards are necessary. If the reviews are delayed or not performed, public health
may be impacted.

Top Management Challenge Addressed

This evaluation addresses the following top management challenge for the Agency in fiscal year 2022,
as identified in OIG Report No. 22-N-0004. EPA's Fiscal Year 2022 Top Management Challenges, issued
November 12, 2021:

• Integrating and leading environmental justice, including communicating risks.

Background

Hazardous air pollutants are those pollutants known or suspected to cause serious health effects—such
as cancer, reproductive issues, or birth defects—or adverse environmental effects. Hazardous air
pollutants are also known as air toxics. The Clean Air Act, or CAA, Amendments of 1990 established a list
of 189 air toxics that the EPA must regulate. Since 1990, the EPA has slightly revised the list so that, as of
January 2022, it included 188 air toxics.

According to the EPA, most air toxics originate from human-made sources, both mobile and stationary.
Mobile sources are pollution sources that move and produce exhaust and evaporative emissions.
Examples of mobile sources are vehicles and motorized equipment. Mobile sources are not addressed in
this report. Stationary sources are any buildings, structures, facilities, or installations that emit or may
emit an air pollutant. Examples of stationary sources are factories, refineries, boilers, and power plants.
Stationary sources are further divided into two groups: major and area sources (Table 1).

Table 1: Definitions of stationary sources of air toxics emissions

Stationary source

Definition

Major

Emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons or more per year of a single listed air toxic or
25 tons or more per year of a combination of listed air toxics.

Area

Emits or has the potential to emit less than 10 tons per year of a single listed air toxic
or less than 25 tons per year of any combination of listed air toxics.

Source: CAA and information from EPA. (EPA OIG table)

22-E-0026

-------
Two-Stage Regulatory Process to Control Air Toxics Emissions from
Stationary Sources

Section 112 of the CAA outlines a two-stage regulatory process for addressing air toxics emissions from
stationary sources: promulgation of technology-based standards and residual risk reviews. Figure 1 is a
schematic of this two-stage regulatory process.

Figure 1: Two-stage regulatory process for addressing air toxics emissions
from major and area stationary sources

Legend: MACT = Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

GACT = Generally Available Control Technologies or Management Practices.

Stage 1; Promulgation of Technology-Based Standards

In the first stage, the EPA is required to promulgate technology-based national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants, or NESHAP, for types of industrial sources—for example, the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry or the commercial sterilizer industry. Types of industrial sources are
referred to as source categories. In accordance with the CAA, the EPA has identified a total of 169 source
categories that require NESHAPs.

Depending on the source category, the NESHAP may be based either on maximum achievable control
technology, or MACT, standards or on generally available control technologies or management
practices, or GACT, standards:

• For major sources, the EPA must promulgate MACT standards. MACT standards reflect, at a
minimum, either the level of emissions achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of sources

22-E-0026

-------
in a category with 30 or more sources or the average emission limit achieved by the
best-performing five sources in a category or subcategory with fewer than 30 sources. This level
of emissions control may be achieved through various control methods, such as control devices
and work practices.

• For area sources, the CAA gives the EPA discretion to set either MACT or GACT standards. GACT
standards are based on typical performance in the source category and are usually less stringent
than MACT standards.

The EPA has promulgated MACT or GACT standards, as required under the first stage of the process, for
almost all source categories. Of the 169 source categories, 119 major and area source categories have
MACT standards, and 50 area source categories have GACT standards.

Stage 2: Residual Risk Reviews

For NESHAPs based on MACT standards, the EPA is required to complete the second stage of the
regulatory process, the residual risk review, within eight years of promulgating the MACT standard.1 For
NESHAPs based on GACT standards, the EPA is not required to conduct a residual risk review. In the
residual risk review, the EPA is required to assess the health and environmental risks that remain after
the EPA issues the technology standards and the stationary sources implement the technology (in other
words, the control methods) to meet those standards. For example, Figure 2 shows the decision-making
process that the EPA uses to assess the residual risk to public health from inhaling carcinogens. The EPA
has not completed a residual risk review for all source categories.

Figure 2: EPA decision-making process for addressing residual risk for carcinogens

Maximum

cancer'ris'k EPA decision-making process

A maximum individual cancer risk level of less
than 100 in one million is generally considered
acceptable by the EPA, but according to the
EPA, the overall determination of risk
acceptability and ample margin of safety is
also dependent on other health measures and
factors, including the chronic and acute
noncancer risks, number of people exposed at
various risk levels, and uncertainties.

million

Source: OIG summary of EPA process. (EPA OIG image)

Separately, the EPA must also review each of the technology-based standards at least every eight years
and, if necessary, revise those standards to account for developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies.2 The EPA calls this the technology review, or TR. Based on the results of its

Equal to or less
than one in one

Between one
and 100 in one

Equal to or
greater than
100 in one

"Ample margin of safety" is met. No additional action
is needed.

Costs, technical feasibility, and other factors are
considered in determining whether additional actions
are needed.

Risk level is generally not considered sufficiently
protective of public health, and additional actions are
needed to reduce elevated cancer risk.

1 CAA § 112(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2).

2 CAA § 112(d)(6), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(6).

22-E-0026

-------
residual risk reviews, TRs, or both, the EPA either revises the NESHAP or determines that revisions are
not necessary.

Appendix A compares residual risk reviews with TRs. For NESHAPs with MACT standards, the EPA
combines the residual risk review and the first required TR and calls it the risk and technology review, or
RTR. The results of RTRs and TRs, along with any modification to the standards, are published in the
Federal Register as rules, which are "mandatory requirements that can apply to individuals, businesses,
state or local governments, non-profit institutions, or others." Figure 3 shows the time frames for the
RTRs and recurring eight-year TRs.

Figure 3: Time frames for RTRs and TRs

Within eight years
of promulgation of
MACT standards	Every eight years .	j

RTR and TR Processes and Time Frames

The EPA has identified nine phases involved in RTR rulemakings, as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Phases involved in RTR rulemakings

Phase

Activities

Time

in months

1

Establish project team, determine whether to hire a contractor, identify stakeholders interested in
rule development, prepare written materials, and conduct meetings with stakeholder groups.

2

2

Collect preliminary information from project files, the EPA's library, major university libraries, and
the internet, and gather data on emissions from facilities in the source category.

3

3

Collect supplemental information.

0-28

4

Conduct data analysis to determine inputs for risk models.

3—4

5

Conduct risk analysis and TR.

2-6

6

Develop rule proposal package, including drafting proposed rules, briefing materials, and
supporting documentation, as well as submitting the package to the EPA workgroup for review.
EPA management is briefed on the rule proposal package, which may also require a 90-day
review by the Office of Management and Budget.

12-15

7

Conduct a public comment period, which includes one month for publication in the Federal
Register and a planned 60-day comment period. Outreach, such as webinars for communities
with environmental justice concerns and tribal consultations, may be required.

3

8

Summarize comments, and develop responses to comments.

3-5

9

Develop the final rule package, which involves drafting changes and preparing recommendations
based on comments, briefing EPA management, preparing the final rule, and updating supporting
documentation. The final rule package may require a 90-day review by the Office of Management
and Budget.

6-8

| Total |

| 34-74 |

Source: Summary of court decision, California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA, and information from the
EPA. (EPA OIG table)

Source categories
with MACT
standards

22-E-0026

4

-------
According to staff in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, or OAQPS, while many TR phases are
the same for RTRs, TRs typically do not include risk analysis (Phase 5 in Table 2). In addition, some phases,
such as information gathering (Phases 2 and 3 in Table 2), are more resource-intensive when conducting a
risk analysis, so less time is expected to be needed to complete those phases for a TR.

EPA Mission and Commitment to Environmental Justice

The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. The Agency achieves its mission, in
part, by ensuring that U.S. residents have clean air, land, and water. The EPA is also committed to
environmental justice in accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Signed on February 11,
1994, Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies:

To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, ... make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States.

The EPA defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation
and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies." According to the EPA, "fair treatment
means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies." Also,
according to the EPA, the integration of environmental justice principles into all EPA programs and
across all regions is necessary to achieve environmental equity across all communities.

In an April 7, 2021 announcement to all EPA employees, EPA Administrator Michael Regan stated that
equity and environmental justice principles and priorities must be infused into all EPA practices, policies,
and programs for the Agency to succeed in its pursuit of equity. He outlined four steps for all EPA offices
to take to ensure that the "country's environmental laws - and the policies implemented under them -
deliver benefits to all individuals and communities." One of those steps is to:

Take immediate and affirmative steps to incorporate environmental justice
considerations into their work, including assessing impacts to pollution-burdened,
underserved, and Tribal communities in regulatory development processes and
considering regulatory options to maximize benefits to these communities.

The Office of Air and Radiation, or OAR, has developed a working document that outlines procedures to
address environmental justice and tribal issues in rulemaking.

Responsible Offices

The EPA's OAQPS, within the OAR, conducts RTRs and TRs. The OAQPS's primary mission is to preserve
and improve air quality in the United States by:

•	Compiling and reviewing air pollution data.

•	Developing regulations to limit and reduce air pollution, such as through RTRs and TRs.

22-E-0026

5

-------
• Assisting state and local agencies with monitoring and controlling air pollution.

• Making information about air pollution available to the public.

• Reporting to Congress on the status of air pollution and the progress made in reducing it.

OAQPS Resources for RTRs and TRs

According to the OAQPS, the following staff and budget were dedicated to RTRs, TRs, and NESHAP
issues, including addressing petitions for reconsideration of RTR rules:3

• 53 full-time equivalent employees and a budget of $6,657 million in fiscal year 2020.

• 51.5 full-time equivalent employees and a budget of $3,567 million in fiscal year 2021.

As shown, resources for RTRs, TRs, and NESHAP issues decreased from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2021.

OAR Priorities

The Office of Air and Radiation Final (OAR) FY 2020-2021 National Program Guidance stated that the
EPA will prioritize key activities to support attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
implementation of stationary source regulations.4 The guidance also said that the EPA will work with
state and tribal partners to promptly review and make approval decisions on their implementation plans
for attaining air quality standards and reducing contaminants that cause or exacerbate health issues.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this evaluation from June 2021 to February 2022 in accordance with the Quality
Standards for Inspection and Evaluation published in January 2012 by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards require that we plan and perform the evaluation to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on our review objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on our review.

To address our objective, we determined the number of source categories with technology-based
emission standards and their RTR and TR status by reviewing the EPA's internal spreadsheet on the
status of RTRs and TRs, as well as the EPA's responses to our questions about review statuses, staffing,
and resources.

3 Members of the public who disagree with any aspects of a final rule may submit a petition for reconsideration,
requesting the EPA to revise the rule.

4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are set for six criteria pollutants that are "common in outdoor air, considered
harmful to public health and the environment, and that come from numerous and diverse sources." These six criteria
pollutants are ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. Lead
is also a hazardous air pollutant. Particulate matter may or may not comprise hazardous air pollutants. Hazardous air
pollutants that typically exist as particulate matter include heavy metals (such as cadmium, mercury, chromium, and lead
compounds) and semivolatile organic compounds (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are generally emitted
from fuel combustion).

22-E-0026

-------
To determine whether source categories had overdue RTRs or TRs, we reviewed the EPA's internal
spreadsheet on RTR and TR statuses to determine the time that elapsed since the:

• MACT standards were developed for any source categories that did not have a residual risk
review or an initial TR.

• Last TR, if applicable, was conducted for each source category with MACT or area source
standards.

• Area source standards were developed for any source categories that had not had an initial TR.

For overdue RTRs and TRs that were not, as of November 1, 2021, under court order to be completed,
we reviewed the health effects of the air toxics emitted from these source categories, including
information from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry is a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services that responds to environmental health emergencies, investigates emerging
environmental health threats, conducts research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites, and
builds the capabilities of and provides actionable guidance to state and local health partners.

Prior Report

In EPA OIG Report No. 21-P-0129, EPA Should Conduct New Residual Risk and Technology Reviews for
Chloroprene- and Ethylene Oxide-Emitting Source Categories to Protect Human Health, issued May 6,
2021, we found that, despite the EPA classifying chloroprene as a likely carcinogen in 2010 and ethylene
oxide as a carcinogen in 2016, the EPA had not conducted new RTRs for most source categories that
emit chloroprene or ethylene oxide. We recommended that the EPA:

• Develop and implement an internal control process with specific criteria to determine whether
and when new residual risk reviews of existing NESHAPs and uncontrolled emission sources are
needed to incorporate new risk information that demonstrates an air pollutant is more toxic
than previously determined.

• Conduct new residual risk reviews for five source categories that emit chloroprene or ethylene
oxide.

• Revise the NESHAP for chemical manufacturing area sources to regulate ethylene oxide and
conduct a residual risk review.

• Conduct overdue TRs for five source categories.

The EPA agreed to conduct the overdue TRs for five source categories and provided acceptable
corrective actions with estimated completion dates. As of March 2022, the EPA had not provided
acceptable corrective actions for the other three recommendations, which remain unresolved.

22-E-0026

-------
Chapter 2

The EPA Has Not Conducted All
Statutorily Mandated RTRs and TRs

As of November 1, 2021, the EPA had not conducted, in a timely manner, all the CAA-mandated reviews
used to revise standards, as needed, to protect the public from air toxics emitted from stationary
sources. Specifically, of the 169 source categories, 93 had overdue RTRs or TRs:5

• RTRs were overdue for 14 of 16 source categories with MACT standards.6

• Recurring TRs were overdue for 35 of 101 source categories with MACT standards and
completed RTRs.

• TRs were overdue for 44 of 50 area source categories with GACT standards.

Of the 93 overdue RTRs or TRs, 42 were overdue by five or more years. In addition, the EPA had not
initiated reviews for 65, or 70 percent, of those 93 source categories. Of the 28 reviews in progress,
25 were initiated only in response to court orders; consent decrees; and an OIG recommendation issued
in Report No. 21-P-0129, as outlined in the "Prior Report" section of Chapter 1. According to EPA staff,
the volume of work, litigation, resource limitations, and other competing administration priorities are
impediments to meeting the statutory review time frames. The EPA, however, does not know the
number of staff and resources it needs to complete the statutorily mandated reviews within required
time frames because it has not conducted a workforce analysis to determine the level of funding and
staffing needed to complete its statutory obligations. In addition, the EPA lacks a strategy to meet the
statutory deadlines for RTRs and TRs and to complete overdue RTRs and TRs. Air toxics emitted from
source categories with overdue RTRs and TRs can cause cancer and other serious health
conditions. Also, overdue statutorily mandated reviews may disproportionately impact communities
with environmental justice concerns, given that minority and low-income populations are more likely to
live near industrial facilities or other pollution sources.

RTRs and TRs Overdue for 93 Source Categories

Of the 169 source categories, there were 93 with overdue statutorily required reviews as of November 1,
2021,7 42 of which were overdue by five years or more and 65 of which had not yet been initiated. These
overdue reviews include:

• RTRs for source categories with MACT standards.

• Recurring TRs for source categories with MACT standards and completed RTRs.

• TRs for area source categories with GACT standards.

5 The second number—the 93 source categories with overdue RTRs or TRs—excludes two source categories with MACT
standards that have overdue RTRs because there are no facilities within those two source categories that are regulated
under the corresponding NESHAPs.

6 The second number—the 16 source categories with MACT standards—excludes two source categories that do not have
any facilities that are regulated under the corresponding NESHAPs. There are a total of 18 source categories with MACT
standards, as shown in Appendix B.

7 See Footnote 5.

22-E-0026

-------
A source category may contain anywhere from one facility to thousands of facilities. The RTR or TR for a
source category would consider all the facilities within the source category. For example, a TR for the
glass manufacturing area source category has been overdue for more than five years. In 2007, the EPA
estimated there were 21 facilities within the glass manufacturing area source category in the United
States. Glass manufacturing emits several air toxics, including chromium compounds. Human studies
have established that inhaled hexavalent chromium is a human carcinogen that causes lung cancer.

RTRs Overdue for 14 of 16 Source Categories with MACT Standards

Of the 169 source categories, 119 have MACT standards and require RTRs. The EPA had not conducted
RTRs for 18 of the 119 source categories (Appendix B). As of March 2022, there are no facilities
regulated by NESHAPs for two of the 18 source

Examples of source categories with overdue RTRs

Primary copper smelting.

Coke ovens: pushing, quenching, and battery stacks.
Primary magnesium refining.

Gold mine ore and ore processing and production.
Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production.

categories without RTRs. Of the remaining
16 source categories without RTRs that have
NESHAP-regulated facilities, the EPA missed the
statutory deadlines for 14, seven of which were
overdue by at least five years. Of these 14 overdue
RTRs, the EPA is under a court order to conduct four
by various dates from April 1, 2022, through

December 26, 2022. According to the EPA, staff are working on the four overdue RTRs under court order
but on just one of the other ten overdue RTRs. The EPA initiated the one overdue RTR not under court
order for efficiency purposes, since it was working concurrently on a petition for reconsideration of the
MACT standards for the same source category. Figure 4 describes the RTR status of the 119 source
categories with MACT standards.

Figure 4: RTR status of the 119 source categories with MACT standards*

101 source categories
with completed RTRs

119 source categories
with MACT standards

RTR not overdue for two source
categories

18 source categories

RTR overdue for 14 source

without RTRs

categories with regulated facilities

RTR overdue for two source
categories with
no regulated facilities

Source: OIG analysis of the CAA and information from the EPA. (EPA OIG image)
*As of November 1, 2021

Legend: I Source category with MACT standards. I Not overdue. ¦ Overdue.

RTR for 10 source

EPA staff working

categories not under

on RTR

court order to be

for one source

completed

categories

In progress.

Recurring TRs Overdue for 35 of 101 Source Categories with MACT Standards
and Completed RTRs

Of the 101 source categories with MACT standards and completed RTRs, the eight-year recurring TRs for
35 were overdue (Appendix C). Nine of these TRs were overdue by at least five years. According to the
EPA, of the 35 source categories with overdue recurring TRs, staff were working to complete four by

22-E-0026

-------
December 2022 because of court orders or consent decrees.

For the other 31 overdue recurring TRs, EPA staff were
working on two for the following source categories:

• Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.

In response to a May 2021 OIG recommendation
issued in Report No. 21-P-0129, the Agency
committed to completing the overdue TR for this
source category by the second quarter of fiscal
year 2024.

• Commercial sterilizers. In response to a May 2021 OIG recommendation issued in Report

No. 21-P-0129, the EPA committed to conducting the overdue TR by the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2022.

Examples of source categories with
MACT standards and completed RTRs
but overdue TRs

• Coke ovens: charging, top side, door leaks.

• Gasoline distribution (Stage 1).

• Halogenated solvent cleaning.

• Industrial cooling towers.

• Marine vessel loading operations.

Figure 5 describes the TR status for the 101 source categories with MACT standards and completed RTRs.
Figure 5: TR status of the 101 source categories with MACT standards and completed RTRs*

Source: OIG analysis based on the CAA and information from the EPA. (EPA OIG image)

*As of November 1, 2021

Legend: I Source category with MACT standards. I Not overdue. ¦ Overdue. In progress.

TRs Overdue for 44 of 50 Area Source Categories with GACT Standards

Of the 50 area source categories with GACT standards, TRs for 44 were overdue (Appendix D). TRs were
overdue by five years or more for 26 of these 50 area source categories. According to the EPA, of the
44 area source categories with overdue TRs, staff were
working to complete four by 2022 and two by 2023 because
of court orders or consent decrees. For the remaining
38 overdue TRs, EPA staff were working on 11 of them.

Figure 6 describes the TR status for the 50 area source
categories with GACT standards.

Examples of area source categories
with GACT standards and overdue TRs

• Lead acid battery manufacturing.

• Wood preserving.

• Paint stripping and miscellaneous surface
coating operations.

• Glass manufacturing.

• Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing.

22-E-0026

-------
Figure 6: TR status of the 50 area source categories with GACT standards*

Source: OIG analysis based on the CAA and information from the EPA. (EPA OIG image)

*As of November 1, 2021

Legend: Source category with GACT standards. ¦ Not overdue. I Overdue. In progress.

Several Factors Contribute to Overdue RTRs and TRs

According to OAQPS staff, the factors contributing to overdue RTRs and TRs are the volume of work,
litigation, insufficient resources, and other competing administration priorities. The EPA has not,
however, conducted a workforce analysis to determine the resources needed to conduct the statutory
reviews. In addition, the EPA lacks a strategy to conduct the RTRs and TRs within the required time
frames. These reviews need to be conducted for the EPA to determine whether updated standards need
to be developed to protect the public from air toxics emissions.

Workforce Analysis Has Not Been Conducted

The OAQPS does not know the number of staff or amount of resources needed to meet statutory
deadlines for RTRs and TRs and has not conducted a workforce analysis. A workforce analysis includes
determining what the current workforce resources are and how these resources will evolve through
turnover. A workforce analysis also includes developing specifications for the types, numbers, and
location of workers and managers needed to accomplish the Agency's strategic requirements, as well as
determining what gaps exist between the existing and projected workforce needs. OAQPS staff stated
that conducting a workforce analysis for the RTR and TR requirements would be challenging because of
the following factors, which may vary from year to year:

• Number of source categories that need RTRs or TRs.

• Complexity of a given NESHAP undergoing an RTR or TR, such as the number of affected facilities
in the source category, as well as of rule elements needing review; the existence of significant
local issues for the affected facilities; and the impacts to small businesses.

• Statutorily required timing of the RTRs and TRs.

• Availability of funding for contractor assistance, which is often necessary for RTRs and TRs.

• Rulemakings prioritized by the administration.

• Litigation, including petitions for reconsiderations and lawsuits to impose deadlines on the EPA.

22-E-0026

-------
OAQPS staff could conduct a workforce analysis that accounts for these challenges and that is based on
resources needed for previous RTRs and TRs. Without a workforce analysis, the EPA is not prepared to
adequately staff RTRs and TRs. Without adequate staffing, RTRs and TRs cannot be conducted on time to
meet statutory time frames, which would limit the information that the EPA can use to assess whether it
is necessary to revise NESHAPs to protect the public from air toxics emitted from stationary sources.
While completion of a workforce analysis does not guarantee that the RTR and TR program will receive
the resources needed, the results of the analysis can be used to identify resources that the program
needs to meet statutory deadlines and complete overdue reviews.

EPA Lacks Strategy to Meet Statutory Review Deadlines and Complete
Overdue Reviews

According to OAQPS staff, since 2015, the Agency's work on RTRs and TRs has been driven by lawsuits
and administration priorities. From 2015 through November 1, 2021, the OAQPS has completed RTRs for
55 source categories, all of which were completed under court order or consent decree except for one
that was an administration priority. Beyond addressing court orders, consent decrees, and
administration priorities, the OAQPS does not have a strategy to meet statutory RTR and TR deadlines or
to complete all overdue reviews. Developing and implementing a strategy that includes sufficient
funding and staffing to complete RTRs and TRs within statutory time frames, as well as all overdue RTRs
and TRs, would ensure that these reviews are not conducted solely in reaction to lawsuits or
administration priorities. Implementing the strategy also requires sufficient resources. The EPA could
use the results of the workforce analysis to identify necessary program resources to implement the
strategy to meet statutory deadlines and complete overdue reviews.

According to the OAQPS, when there are resources available to conduct RTRs and TRs that are not
administration priorities or subject to court orders or consent decrees, the Agency has conducted
internal prioritization exercises to choose which RTRs and TRs to perform. Risk metrics considered for
these internal prioritization exercises include maximum individual cancer risk, noncancer hazard index,
acute hazard quotient,8 number of people with estimated cancer risk above one in one million, potential
for high multipathway risk, and toxicity weighting of all air toxics. Risks to minority or low-income
populations are not considered as part of these exercises.

Overdue RTRs and TRs May Delay the Development of Updated
Standards that Reduce Public Health Risks

Overdue RTRs and TRs delay the EPA's assessment of source categories to determine whether the
Agency needs to update NESHAPs to protect the public from air toxics emissions and reduce public
health risks. Source categories with overdue statutory reviews emit certain hazardous air pollutants,

8 According to the EPA's glossary of National Air Toxics Assessment terms, a hazard quotient is defined as the "ratio of
the potential exposure to a substance and the level at which no adverse effects are expected (calculated as the exposure
divided by the appropriate chronic or acute value). A hazard quotient of 1 or lower means adverse noncancer effects are
unlikely, and thus can be considered to have negligible hazard. For HQs greater than 1, the potential for adverse effects
increases, but we [the EPA] do not know by how much." A hazard index is defined as the "sum of hazard quotients for
toxics that affect the same target organ or organ system. Because different air toxics can cause similar adverse health
effects, combining hazard quotients from different toxics is often appropriate. A hazard index (HI) of 1 or lower means
air toxics are unlikely to cause adverse noncancer health effects over a lifetime of exposure. However, an HI greater than
1 doesn't necessarily mean adverse effects are likely. Instead, EPA evaluates this on a case-by-case basis." (Webpage
accessed January 11, 2022.)

22-E-0026

12

-------
such as mercury, vinyl chloride, arsenic, or lead. These
pollutants can damage the nervous or respiratory systems,
cause cancer, or even result in death. Appendix E lists some of
the hazardous air pollutants emitted from the sources with
overdue RTRs and TRs, along with the corresponding human
health risks. For example, most dry-cleaning facilities use and
emit tetrachloroethylene, which has been classified as a likely
carcinogen (see green sidebar).

In January 2022, the EPA and the World Health Organization
signed an agreement to protect the public from increased
environmental and public health risks and address
environmental justice. Increased public health risks are a
concern for minority and low-income populations. The EPA's
overdue RTRs and TRs may disproportionately impact
minority and low-income populations, thus negatively affecting the EPA administrator's goal—described
in Chapter 1—to achieve environmental justice. While not specifically concerning RTRs and TRs,
disparities in residential proximity to industrial facilities and other pollution sources in terms of income
level, race, and ethnicity have been a concern in the United States.9

According to the administrator, the EPA's responsibility is to "protect the health and environment of all
Americans, including those historically marginalized, overburdened, underserved, and living with the
legacy of structural racism." To meet the administrator's directive to incorporate environmental justice
considerations into the regulatory development processes and to consider regulatory options to
maximize benefits to these communities, it is important to address overdue RTRs and TRs of source
categories with facilities that may be disproportionately sited in areas with large minority or low-income
populations. It is also important to address overdue RTRs and TRs of source categories emitting air toxics
that can cause cancer or other serious health conditions.

Conclusions

The EPA needs to complete overdue RTRs or TRs to ensure that NESHAPs are updated to protect the
public from air toxics emissions, including minority and low-income communities that are
disproportionately impacted by industrial facilities and other pollution sources sited in their
communities. The EPA needs to determine the workforce needed to meet its statutory mandate. In
addition, rather than being driven by court orders and consent decrees, as well as by administration
priorities that may detract from the Agency's ability to meet statutory deadlines, the EPA should
develop a strategy incorporating the results of its workforce analysis to ensure that overdue reviews are
completed in as timely a manner as practicable and that future reviews are conducted in accordance
with statutory deadlines.

9 Mohai, P.; Lantz, P.M.; Morenoff, J.; House, J.S.; and Mero, R.P., "Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Residential
Proximity to Polluting Industrial Facilities: Evidence from the Americans' Changing Lives Study," American Journal of
Public Health 99, no. S3 (2009), accessed June 25, 2021. Mikati, I.; Benson, A.F.; Luben, T.J.; Sacks, J.D.; Richmond-Bryant,
J., "Disparities in Distribution of Particulate Matter Emission Sources by Race and Poverty StatusAmerican Journal of
Public Health 108, no. 4 (April 2018). accessed June 25, 2021. Terrell, K.A. and St. Julien, G., Toxic Air Pollution is Linked to
Higher Cancer Rates among Impoverished Communities in Louisiana, July 23, 2021. accessed July 12, 2021.

Most dry-cleaning facilities use
and emit tetrachloroethylene

Breathing high levels of tetrachloroethylene
for a brief period may cause dizziness or
drowsiness, headache, and incoordination;
higher levels may cause unconsciousness
and even death. Exposure for longer periods
to low levels of tetrachloroethylene may
cause changes in mood, memory, attention,
reaction time, and vision.

Tetrachloroethylene exposure may also
cause adverse effects in the kidney, liver,
and immune and hematologic systems, as
well as on development and reproduction.
The EPA has classified tetrachloroethylene as
likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

22-E-0026

-------
Recommendations

We recommend that the assistant administrator for Air and Radiation:

1. Perform a workforce analysis to determine the staff and resources needed to meet the statutory
deadlines for residual risk and technology reviews, initial technology reviews, and recurring
eight-year technology reviews, as well as to complete any such reviews that are overdue.

2. Develop and implement a strategy to conduct (a) residual risk and technology reviews and
recurring technology reviews by the applicable statutory deadlines and (b) any overdue residual
risk and technology reviews and recurring technology reviews in as timely a manner as
practicable. The strategy should take into account the Agency's environmental justice
responsibilities under Executive Order 12898 and other applicable EPA and executive branch
policies, procedures, and directives.

Agency Response and OIG Assessment

The OAR concurred with Recommendation 1 and partially concurred with Recommendation 2. However,
both recommendations are unresolved because the OAR's estimated completion dates for the proposed
corrective actions are not aggressive enough to ensure that public health risks are reduced in conformity
with statutory direction.

In response to Recommendation 1, the OAR committed to completing a workforce analysis by the end of
the first quarter of fiscal year 2024, which is December 31, 2023. A more aggressive time frame than the
21 months allotted is needed, given the large number of overdue RTRs and TRs that had not been
initiated as of November 1, 2021. Therefore, Recommendation 1 is unresolved.

For Recommendation 2, the OAR concurred with developing a strategy but did not concur with
implementing the strategy. The OAR was concerned that it may not have sufficient resources to
successfully implement the strategy. Instead, the OAR committed to developing a strategy by the end of
the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, which is December 31, 2024, and then seeking the necessary
resources to implement the strategy. The OAR's 33-month time frame for completing the development of
the strategy is not aggressive enough for the same reason stated above. Furthermore, by not committing
to the implementation of the strategy, the OAR's planned corrective actions do not meet the intent of
the recommendation. Actual implementation of the strategy is needed to ensure that overdue RTRs and
TRs are conducted in as timely a manner as practicable and that future reviews will be completed by
statutory deadlines. We acknowledge that strategy implementation requires sufficient resources.
However, the OAR could start implementing the strategy with the funding that it has while it uses the
results of the workforce analysis to identify the resources it needs to fully implement the strategy to
meet statutory deadlines and address overdue reviews. Therefore, Recommendation 2 is unresolved.

Appendix F contains the Agency's response to the draft report. The response also included technical
comments, and we updated the report where appropriate.

22-E-0026

-------
Status of Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS

Rec.
No.

Page
No.

Subject

Status1

Action Official

Planned
Completion
Date

1

14

Perform a workforce analysis to determine the staff and resources needed to
meet the statutory deadlines for residual risk and technology reviews, initial
technology reviews, and recurring eight-year technology reviews, as well as to
complete any such reviews that are overdue.

U

Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation



2

14

Develop and implement a strategy to conduct (a) residual risk and technology
reviews and recurring technology reviews by the applicable statutory deadlines

U

Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation



and (b) any overdue residual risk and technology reviews and recurring
technology reviews in as timely a manner as practicable. The strategy should take
into account the Agency's environmental justice responsibilities under Executive
Order 12898 and other applicable EPA and executive branch policies,
procedures, and directives.

1 C = Corrective action completed.

R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress

22-E-0026

15

-------
Appendix A

Comparison of Residual Risk Review and TR

Residual risk review

Purpose

The EPA assesses the remaining health and
environmental risks from air toxics emissions
after implementation of the original MACT
standards.

The EPA assesses advances in practices,
processes, and control technologies.

The EPA also takes this opportunity to address
unregulated emission points, to require
appropriate monitoring and add electronic
compliance reporting, and to resolve
administrative requirements that are duplicative
or inconsistent.

Frequency

The EPA conducts a residual risk review within
eight years of promulgating the original MACT
standard. The CAA is silent on the frequency of
residual risk reviews after the initial one is
conducted.3

The EPA stated in the 2006 commercial
sterilizers RTR rulemaking that it has the
authority to revisit past rulemakings if
improvements to science suggest that the
public is exposed to significant increases in risk
as compared to the initial residual risk review.b

The CAA requires the EPA to conduct a TR
every eight years after the original standard was
developed.

Reason for
revising
standards

If risks are determined to be unacceptable, the
EPA revises the MACT standards without cost
considerations.

If current MACT standards do not provide an
"ample margin of safety" to protect public health
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect,
the EPA revises the standards.

If the EPA finds cost-effective approaches to
further reduce emissions, it revises the MACT
or GACT standards, taking into account
advances in practices, processes, and control
technologies.

Whether
review is
required for
area sources
with GACT
standards

The EPA is not required to conduct residual risk
reviews of area source categories subject to
GACT standards.

The EPA is required to conduct TRs of all major
and area source categories.

Source: CAA and EPA information. (EPA OIG table)

a The court in Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future v. Andrew R. Wheeler, 469 F. Supp. 3d 920 (N.D. Cal. 2020),
found that the CAA did not create a mandatory duty for the EPA to review risk-based standards for potential
revision when technology-based standards are revised.

b Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities, Final Decision, 71 Fed. Reg. 17712, 17715,
April 7, 2006.

22-E-0026

-------
Appendix B

Source Categories with MACT Standards

that Need RTRs

Subpart of



Number of source

Statutory

Court order



EPA staff

40 C.F.R.



types within

due date for

due date for

Years

working on

part 63

Source category

category

RTR

RTR

overdue3

RTR?a

QQQ

Primary copper smelting

1

6/12/10

4/1/22

11.4

Yes

YY

Spandex production (generic
MACT II)

1

7/12/10

N/A b

11.3

No b

CCCCC

Coke ovens: pushing, quenching,
and battery stacks

1

4/14/11

12/26/22

10.6

Yes

BBBBB

Semiconductor manufacturing

1

5/22/11

N/A b

10.5

No b

TTTTT

Primary magnesium refining

1

10/10/11

8/1/22

10.1

Yes

Mill

Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants

1

12/19/11

5/2/22

9.9

Yes



(includes area sources)











ZZZZ

Stationary reciprocating
internal-combustion engines
(includes area sources)

1

6/15/12

N/A

9.4

No

EEE

Hazardous waste combustors
(includes area sources)

1

10/12/13

N/A

8.1

No

YYYYY

Electric arc furnace steelmaking
facilities (area sources)

1

12/28/15

N/A

5.8

No

EEEEEEE

Gold mine ore and ore processing
and production

1

2/17/19

N/A

2.7

No

JJJJJJ

Industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers (area sources)

2

3/21/19

N/A

2.6

No

DDDDD

Industrial, commercial and
institutional boilers and process
heaters—major sources

3

3/21/19

N/A

2.6

No

J

Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production

1

4/17/20

N/A

1.5

Yes c

JJJJJ

Brick and structural clay products
manufacturing

1

10/26/23

N/A

N/A

No

KKKKK

Clay ceramics manufacturing

1

10/26/23

N/A

N/A

No

| Total

18



Source: OIG analysis based on the CAA and EPA information. (EPA OIG table)
a As of November 1, 2021.

b RTR for the source category was originally under a court order to be completed by October 1, 2021, but the plaintiffs in
the court case agreed with the EPA that an RTR is no longer warranted because there are currently no facilities in the
United States that are subject to the NESHAP.

c For efficiency, EPA staff is working on the RTR while addressing the petition for reconsideration of the original MACT
standards.

22-E-0026

17

-------
Appendix C

All Regulated Source Categories with MACT
Standards and Completed RTRs

Subpart of



Number of

Statutory

Court order or



EPA staff

40 C.F.R.



source types

due date

consent decree

Years

working on

part 63

Source category

within category

for TR

due date forTR

overdue3

TR?a

L

Coke ovens: charging, top side,

1

4/15/13

12/26/22

8.6

Yes



door leaks











R

Gasoline distribution (Stage 1)

1

4/6/14

12/1/22

7.6

Yes

Q

Industrial cooling towers

1

4/7/14

N/A

7.6

No

O

Commercial sterilizers (includes

1

4/7/14

N/A

7.6

Yesb



area sources)











EE

Magnetic tape

1

4/7/14

N/A

7.6

No

M

Dry cleaning (includes area

2

7/27/14

12/1/22

7.3

Yes



sources)











F, G, H,I

Hazardous organic NESHAP

1

12/21/14

N/A

6.9

Yesc

T

Halogenated solvent cleaning

1

4/16/15

N/A

6.6

No



(includes area sources)











W

Polymers and resins II (two

2

12/16/16

N/A

4.9

No



categories)











YY, UU

Generic MACT l-acetal resins

1

12/16/16

N/A

4.9

No

YY, UU

Generic MACT l-hydrogen fluoride

1

12/16/16

N/A

4.9

No

Y

Marine vessel loading operations

1

4/21/19

N/A

2.5

No

KK

Printing and publishing

1

4/21/19

N/A

2.5

No

U

Polymers and resins I (seven of

7

4/21/19

N/A

2.5

No



nine categories)











GGG

Pharmaceuticals production

1

4/21/19

N/A

2.5

No

TTT

Primary lead smelting

1

11/15/19

N/A

2.0

No

JJ

Wood furniture

1

11/21/19

N/A

1.9

No

II

Shipbuilding and ship repair

1

11/21/19

N/A

1.9

No

X

Secondary lead smelters (includes

1

1/5/20

N/A

1.8

No



area sources)











HHH

Natural gas transmission and

1

8/16/20

N/A

1.2

No



storage











HH

Oil and natural gas production

2

8/16/20

N/A

1.2

No



(includes area sources)











S

Pulp and paper (non-combust)

1

9/11/20

N/A

1.1

No



MACT











N

Chromium electroplating (includes

3

9/19/20

N/A

1.1

No



area sources)











ccc

Steel pickling-hydrogen chloride

1

9/19/20

N/A

1.1

No



process facilities and hydrogen













chloride regeneration plants











JJJ

Polymers and resins IV (five of

5

3/27/22

N/A

N/A

No



seven categories)











ppp

Polyether polyols production

1

3/27/22

N/A

N/A

Yesd

MMM

Pesticide active ingredient

1

3/27/22

N/A

N/A

No



production











III

Flexible polyurethane foam

1

8/15/22

N/A

N/A

No



production











YY, UU

Generic MACT l-polycarbonates

1

10/8/22

N/A

N/A

No



production











22-E-0026

18

-------
Subpart of



Number of

Statutory

Court order or



EPA staff

40 C.F.R.



source types

due date

consent decree

Years

working on

part 63

Source category

within category

for TR

due date forTR

overdue3

TR?a

YY, UU

Generic MACT l-acrylic/modacrylic
fibers

1

10/8/22

N/A

N/A

No

OOO

Polymers and resins III

1

10/8/22

N/A

N/A

No

DD

Off-site waste recovery operations

1

3/18/23

N/A

N/A

No

XXX

Ferroalloys production (major
sources)

1

6/30/23

N/A

N/A

No

DDD

Mineral wool production

1

7/29/23

N/A

N/A

No

NNN

Wool fiberglass manufacturing

1

7/29/23

N/A

N/A

No

AA, BB

Phosphoric acid/phosphate
fertilizers



8/19/23

N/A

N/A

No

RRR

Secondary aluminum (area source
MACT for dioxin and furan
emissions)

1

9/8/23

N/A

N/A

No

LL

Primary aluminum

1

10/15/23

N/A

N/A

No

GG

Aerospace

1

11/19/23

N/A

N/A

No

CC

Petroleum refineries

1

12/1/23

N/A

N/A

No

UUU

Petroleum refineries (catalytic
cracking, catalytic reforming, sulfur
plant units, associated bypass lines)

1

12/1/23

N/A

N/A

No

MM

Pulp and paper combustion sources

1

9/29/25

N/A

N/A

No

cccc

Nutritional yeast manufacturing

1

9/29/25

N/A

N/A

No

vvv

Publicly owned treatment works
(includes area sources)

1

10/16/25

N/A

N/A

No

LLL

Portland cement manufacturing
(includes area sources)

1

7/25/26

N/A

N/A

No

QQQQQ

Friction products manufacturing

1

2/8/27

N/A

N/A

No

TTTT

Leather finishing operations

1

2/12/27

N/A

N/A

No

HHHH

Wet formed fiberglass mat
production

1

2/28/27

N/A

N/A

No

QQQQ

Wood building products

1

3/4/27

N/A

N/A

No

NNNN

Large appliances

1

3/15/27

N/A

N/A

No

RRRR

Metal furniture

1

3/15/27

N/A

N/A

No

OOOO

Fabric printing

1

3/15/27

N/A

N/A

No

SSSS

Metal coil

1

2/25/28

N/A

N/A

No

KKKK

Metal can

1

2/25/28

N/A

N/A

No

YYYY

Stationary combustion turbines

1

3/9/28

N/A

N/A

No

LLLLL

Asphalt processing and roofing
manufacturing



3/12/28

N/A

N/A

No

GGGG

Solvent extraction for vegetable oil

1

3/18/28

N/A

N/A

No

WW

Boat manufacturing

1

3/20/28

N/A

N/A

No

wwww

Reinforced plastics and composites
production

1

3/20/28

N/A

N/A

No

AAAA

Municipal solid waste landfills
(includes area sources)

1

3/26/28

N/A

N/A

No

NNNNN

Hydrochloric acid production

1

4/5/28

N/A

N/A

No

UUUUU

Utility NESHAP (mercury and air
toxics standards) (includes area
sources)

1

5/22/28

N/A

N/A

No

PPPPP

Engine test cells/stands

1

6/3/28

N/A

N/A

No

uuuu

Cellulose products manufacturing



7/2/28

N/A

N/A

No

YY

Ethylene processes

1

7/6/28

N/A

N/A

No

EEEE

Organic liquids distribution

1

7/7/28

N/A

N/A

No

22-E-0026

19

-------
Subpart of
40 C.F.R.
part 63

Source category

Number of
source types
within category

Statutory
due date
for TR

Court order or
consent decree
due date forTR

Years
overdue3

EPA staff
working on
TR?a

PPPP

Plastic parts

7/8/28

N/A

Mil

Auto and light duty 1

7/8/28

N/A

MMMM

Miscellaneous metal parts

7/8/28

N/A

JJJJ

Paper and other web coating 1

7/9/28

N/A

GGGGG

Site remediation

7/10/28

N/A

FFFFF

Integrated iron and steel 1

7/13/28

N/A

AAAAA

Lime manufacturing

7/24/28

N/A

XXXX

Rubber tire manufacturing 1

7/24/28

N/A

HHHHH

Miscellaneous coating
manufacturing

8/14/28

N/A

EEEEE

Iron and steel foundries 1

9/10/28

N/A

RRRRR

Taconite iron ore processing

7/28/28

N/A

FFFF

Miscellaneous organic NESHAP 1

8/12/28

N/A

DDDD

Plywood and composite wood
products

8/13/28

N/A

Carbon black production 1

11/19/29

N/A

Cyanide chemicals manufacturing

11/19/29

N/A

MMMMM

Flexible polyurethane foam 1
fabrication

11/18/29

N/A

sssss

Refractory products manufacturing

11/19/29

N/A

I Total

101

Source: OIG analysis of the CAA and EPA information. (EPA OIG table)
aAs of November 1, 2021.

b EPA staff is working on the overdue TR as part of its two-pronged strategy to address ethylene oxide emissions. The
Agency also committed to conducting the TR by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2022 to address an OIG recommendation
in Report No. 21-P-0129. issued May 6, 2021.

c EPA staff is working on the overdue TR because the Agency committed to conducting the TR by the second quarter of
fiscal year 2024 to address an OIG recommendation in Report No. 21-P-0129, issued May 6, 2021.

d EPA staff is working on the TR after the Agency committed to conducting the review by the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2024 to address an OIG recommendation in Report No. 21-P-0129, issued May 6, 2021.

22-E-0026

-------
Appendix D

All Regulated Area Source Categories
with GACT Standards





Number of









Subpart of



source types

Statutory

Court order or



EPA staff

40 C.F.R.



within

due date

consent decree

Years

working

part 63

Source category

category

for TR

due date for TR

overduea

on TR? a

EEEEEE

Primary copper smelting (area sources)

1

1/23/15

N/A

6.8

Yes b

GGGGGG

Primary nonferrous metals-zinc,

1

1/23/15

N/A

6.8

No



cadmium, and beryllium (area sources)











FFFFFF

Secondary copper smelting (area

1

1/23/15

N/A

6.8

No



sources)











LLLLLL

Acrylic/modacrylic fiber (area sources)

1

7/16/15

N/A

6.3

No

NNNNNN

Chromium compounds (area sources)

1

7/16/15

N/A

6.3

No

PPPPPP

Lead acid battery manufacturing (area

1

7/16/15

2/9/23

6.3

Yes



sources)











QQQQQQ

Wood preserving (area sources)

1

7/16/15

3/1/23

6.3

Yes

RRRRRR

Clay ceramics manufacturing (area

1

12/26/15

N/A

5.9

No



sources)











SSSSSS

Glass manufacturing (area sources)

1

12/26/15

N/A

5.9

No

TTTTTT

Secondary nonferrous metals

1

12/26/15

N/A

5.9

No



processing (brass, bronze, magnesium













and zinc) (area sources)











WWWWW

Hospitals: ethylene oxide sterilizers

1

12/28/15

N/A

5.8

No



(area sources)











HHHHHH

Paint stripping and miscellaneous

3

1/9/16

11/1/22

5.8

Yes



surface coating operations (area













sources): rule covers miscellaneous













surface coating, motor vehicle and













mobile equipment surface coating, and













paint stripping source categories











CCCCCC

Gasoline dispensing facilities (area

1

1/10/16

N/A

5.8

No



sources)











BBBBBB

Gasoline distribution bulk terminals,

1

1/10/16

12/1/22

5.8

Yes



bulk plants, and pipeline facilities (area













sources)











wwwwww

Plating and polishing operations (area

1

7/1/16

N/A

5.3

No



sources)











xxxxxx

Metal fabrication and finishing-nine

9

7/23/16

N/A

5.3

No



source categories (area sources)











YYYYYY

Ferroalloys production (area sources)

1

12/23/16

N/A

4.9

No

N
N

I5I
I5I

Nonferrous foundries: aluminum,

3

6/25/17

N/A

4.4

No



copper, and other (area sources)











WWW

Chemical manufacturing industry (area

9

10/29/17

N/A

4.0

Yes c



sources)











AAAAAAA

Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing

1

12/2/17

N/A

3.9

No



manufacturing (area sources)











CCCCCCC

Paints and allied products

1

12/3/17

N/A

3.9

No



manufacturing (area sources)











BBBBBBB

Chemical preparations industry (area

1

12/30/17

N/A

3.8

No



sources)











DDDDDDD

Prepared feeds manufacturing (area

1

1/5/18

N/A

3.8

No



sources)











22-E-0026

21

-------
Subpart of
40 C.F.R.
part 63

Source category

Number of
source types
within
category

Statutory
due date
for TR

Court order or
consent decree
due date for TR

Years
overduea

EPA staff
working
on TR? a

DDDDDD

Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
production (area sources)

1

4/17/20

N/A

1.5

Yes d

NN

Wool fiberglass manufacturing (area
sources)

1

7/29/23

N/A

N/A

No

zzzzz

Iron and steel foundries (area sources)

2

9/10/28

N/A

N/A

No

MMMMMM

Carbon black production (area sources)

1

11/19/29

N/A

N/A

No

oooooo

Flexible polyurethane foam production
and fabrication (area sources)

2

11/18/29

N/A

N/A

No

1 Total

I 50 I



Source: OIG analysis based on the CAA and information from the EPA. (EPA OIG image)
a As of 1, November 2021.

b EPA staff is working on the overdue TR as part of the major source RTR that the Agency is conducting under
court order.

c EPA staff is working on the overdue TR after the Agency committed to conducting the TR by the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 2024 to address an OIG recommendation in Report No. 21-P-0129. issued May 6, 2021.
d For efficiency, EPA staff is working on the TR while addressing the petition for reconsideration of the original
GACT standards.

22-E-0026

22

-------
Appendix E

Examples: Emitted Air Toxics and
Human Health Risks for Source Categories
with Overdue Statutory Reviews

Glass manufacturing

Arsenic: According to the EPA, acute high-level inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic has resulted in respiratory effects,
such as cough, dyspnea, and chest pain; gastrointestinal effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; and central
and peripheral nervous system effects. Chronic inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans is associated with skin,
cardiovascular, and neurological effects. The EPA has concluded that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen. According to
the ATSDR, there is some evidence that long-term exposure to arsenic in children may result in lower Intelligent Quotient
scores. There is also some evidence that exposure to arsenic in the womb and early childhood may increase mortality in young
adults.

Cadmium: According to the EPA, the acute effects of cadmium in humans through inhalation exposure mainly involve the
lungs, such as pulmonary irritation. Chronic inhalation or oral exposure to cadmium leads to a buildup of cadmium in the
kidneys, which can cause kidney disease. The EPA has classified cadmium as a probable human carcinogen, while the
Department of Health and Human Services and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have determined that
cadmium and cadmium compounds are human carcinogens.

Chromium: According to the EPA, chromium occurs in primarily in two valence states: (1) trivalent chromium, or Cr III, and
(2) hexavalent chromium, or Cr VI. Cr III is much less toxic than Cr VI. The respiratory tract is the major target organ for Cr III
and VI exposure. Acute exposure to Cr VI resulted in shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing, while chronic exposure
resulted in perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other
respiratory effects. Human studies have established that inhaled Cr VI is a human carcinogen, resulting in an increased risk of
lung cancer. According to the ATSDR, it is likely that health effects seen in children exposed to high amounts of chromium will
be similar to the effects seen in adults.

Lead: According to the ATSDR, lead can affect almost every organ and system in the human body. The nervous system is the
main target for lead poisoning in children and adults. Chronic exposure can result in decreased learning, memory, and
attention, as well as weakness in fingers, wrists, or ankles. Lead exposure can cause anemia and kidney damage. It can also
cause increases in blood pressure, particularly in middle-aged and older individuals. Exposure to high lead levels can severely
damage the brain and kidneys and can cause death. In pregnant women, exposure to high levels of lead may cause

22-E-0026

-------
miscarriage. In men, it can cause damage to reproductive organs. Children are more vulnerable to lead poisoning than adults
because their nervous systems are still developing. The EPA has classified lead as a probable human carcinogen.

Manganese: According to the EPA, chronic exposure to high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans may affect the
central nervous system. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination were affected in chronically
exposed workers. Manganism—a syndrome characterized by feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-like face,
and psychological disturbances—may result from chronic exposure to higher levels. Respiratory effects have been noted in
workers chronically exposed by inhalation to manganese-bearing particles. According to the ATSDR, whether children are
more sensitive to the effects of manganese is unknown, but experiments on laboratory animals suggest that they may be. The
EPA has concluded that the existing scientific information cannot determine whether excess manganese can cause cancer.

Nickel: According to the ATSDR, some people have asthma attacks following exposure to nickel. Workers in nickel refineries
or nickel-processing plants have experienced chronic bronchitis and reduced lung function. Cancers of the lung and nasal
sinus have resulted when these workers breathed dust containing high levels of nickel compounds. It is likely that the health
effects seen in children exposed to nickel will be similar to those seen in adults. Nickel can be transferred from the mother to
an infant in breast milk and can cross the placenta. The EPA has determined that nickel refinery dust and nickel subsulfide are
human carcinogens.

Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing a

Formaldehyde: According to the EPA, acute and chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde in humans can result in
respiratory symptoms, as well as eye, nose, and throat irritation. Limited human studies have reported an association between
formaldehyde exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an increased incidence
of nasal squamous cell cancer. The EPA considers formaldehyde a probable human carcinogen, while the Department of
Health and Human Services determined in 2011 that formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.

Polycyclic organic matter: According to the EPA, the term polycyclic organic matter defines a broad class of compounds,
including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds such as benzo[a]pyrene. Cancer is the major concern of exposure to
polycylic organic matter. Epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to mixtures that
contain polycylic organic matter. Animal studies have reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to
benzo[a]pyrene. The EPA has classified seven polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds as probable human carcinogens:
benzo[ajpyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and
indeno[1,2,3- cd]pyrene.

Source: Information from the EPA and ATSDR. (EPA OIG table)

aThe asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing area source category also emits hexane, phenol, and
toluene, but the EPA does not regulate these three air toxics for area sources.

* Legend: ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Acute = Short-Term; Chronic = Long-Term.

22-E-0026

------- Appendix F Agency Response to Draft Report -

-------
competencies are fulfilled, succession planning is well managed, costs are optimized, agility is
achieved and resiliency is retained.

The report notes that OAQPS staff interviewed stated that conducting a workforce analysis would
be challenging thanks to a number of factors, including: the sheer number of actions, complexity,
required timing and availability of funding. OAR would clarify that these factors do not necessarily
make conducting a workforce analysis challenging. Instead, these factors make maintaining the
staff and necessary contractor resources identified in a workforce analysis challenging,
particularlyin recent years where the Agency has encountered reduction in both intramural and
extramural funding.

In any case, OAR fully supports and concurs with the OIG's first recommendation to conduct a
workforce analysis to determine the staff and resources needed for the RTR and TR program to
complete overdue reviews and to complete future reviews in accordance with statutory deadlines,
contingent on available resources. As noted in the February 28th exit interview, OAR would like
to understand the key components the OIG believes should be included in a workforce analysis
(e.g., past workforce analysis examples). OAR would also appreciate further dialogue with the
OIG to share proposed ideas for conducting a workforce analysis to ensure it meets expectations.

Planned Completion Date: FY 2024, Quarter 1 - to complete a workforce analysis

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a strategy to conduct (a) residual risk and
technology reviews and recurring technology reviews by the applicable statutory deadlines and
(b) any overdue residual risk and technology review and recurring technology review in as timely
a manner as practicable. The strategy should take into account the Agency's environmentaljustice
responsibilities under Executive Order 12898 and other applicable EPA and executive branch
policies, procedures, and directives.

Response 2: OAR concurs with the part of the OIG's second recommendation that OAR should
develop a strategy to timely meet statutory deadlines for RTRs and TRs and complete all overdue
RTRs and TRs. OAR fully supports developing a strategy that integrates the workforce analysis
with the Agency's administration priorities, legal deadlines (e.g., court-ordered deadlines,
settlement agreements), risk prioritization, and other factors in an effort to protect human health
and the environment, particularly for those groups that have been historically marginalized,
overburdened, underserved, and living with the legacy structural racism.

Concerning the part of the recommendation to implement such a strategy, we could support
implementing the strategy if we receive adequate resources in the future. We will seek to include
the necessary resources to implementthe strategy in a future budget formulation opportunity (e.g.,
FY 2024 and out years).

The report also notes that such a strategy "should include sufficient funding and staffing to
complete future reviews in accordance with statutory deadlines, rather than waiting to react to
court orders or consent decrees on overdue reviews or being directed by senior leadership." OAR
has two comments on this statement. First, similar to development of a workforce analysis,
development of a strategy is distinct from implementation of such a strategy. As noted above, OAR
fully supports and concurs with the recommendation to develop an RTR and TR strategy. However,

22-E-0026

26

-------
we wish to reiterate that successful implementation of such a strategy is contingent on the Agency
receiving sufficient resources, both intramural and extramural, to allocate to these activities.

Second, the statement indicates that OAQPS merely "waits" to react to legal action or
Administration direction. OAR would clarify that although a formal workforce analysis and
strategy have not been carried out for the RTR and TR program, OAQPS is very strategic when
allocating resources and staff to the RTR and TR program. Indeed, in FY 2021, the Sector and
Policies and Programs Division in OAQPS developed and implemented a strategy that optimizes
the allocation of resources and gains efficiencies. We would disagree with the characterization that
OAQPS passively waits to react with respect to program direction; instead, OAQPS is very
deliberate in prioritizing the Agency's limited resources to reduce risks to human health,
particularly as it relates to environmental justice and equity issues.

Planned Completion Date: FY 2025, Quarter 1 - to complete a strategy and seek necessary
resources to implement the strategy

Thank you for providing OAR the opportunity to review and provide comments on this draft OIG
report. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Tiffany Purifoy,
OAQPS/OAR Audit Liaison, at (919) 541-0878.

cc: James Hatfield
Bao Chuong
Betsy Shaw
Grant Peacock
Marc Vincent
Peter Tsirigotis
Mike Koerber
Penny Lassiter
Peter South
Juan Santiago
Tiffany Purifoy
Jodi Howard
Brian Shrager

22-E-0026

27

-------
Distribution

The Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator

Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Stationary Sources, Office of Air and Radiation

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

Senior Advisor to the Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation

Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator

Audit Follow-Up Coordinators, Office of Air and Radiation

Audit Liaison, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation

22-E-0026

-------