![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090512005807im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
The Effectiveness and Efficiency of EPA's Air Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Since 1993, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been conducting a coordinated body of audit work in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Air Program, that led to this overall report. We began this effort with a general survey in 1993 and issued a strategic plan in May 1994. We have issued reports on air grants, toxics, enforcement, state implementation plans, emission factors, and voluntary programs. This report culminates our efforts, pulling together overall issues from OIG and U.S. General Accounting Office work.
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is responsible for carrying out EPA's Air Program. Its mission is to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air resources and protect human health and the environment from airborne pollutants and radiation. OAR carries out this mission by implementing the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (Act), and the 1993 Climate Change Action Plan. OAR also develops programs to reduce risk from indoor air pollution and radiation. This report primarily focuses on OAR's activities under the Act.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Air Program was working effectively and efficiently to make the nation's air cleaner.
This report is separated into three parts based on the above objective. Part 1 is the introduction, providing background information on the Air Program and our audit work. Part 2 discusses whether the Air Program has been effective. Part 3 summarizes our conclusions on whether the Air Program has been efficient.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
OAR data show that the Air Program has been effective in cleaning the air and reducing the potential for depleting the ozone layer.(1) We also concluded that, while the Air Program has generally operated efficiently, it could also be more efficient.
The Air Program Has Been Effective in Reducing Emissions
Between 1987 and 1996, U.S. emissions of all criteria pollutants declined. Much of this reduction was due to emission controls placed on motor vehicles and utilities. OAR estimates that, without the emission reductions, there would have been more health problems, such as heart disease and respiratory illnesses. Also, because of OAR's Acid Rain Program, the damage to lakes and forests has been reduced.
Emissions of ozone depleting chemicals have decreased, through the phase out of the production of certain chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Without the phase out of CFCs, OAR predicts that the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer would increase, accompanied by an increase in skin cancer.
The Air Program Could Be More Efficient
The Air Program has generally operated efficiently. Several prior audit reports found that OAR had good management practices and good internal controls over operations reviewed. OAR officials, however, could increase their program efficiency in several ways. For instance, Air Program officials could improve their relations with other parties that OAR needs to carry out its mission. These parties include the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Communications, Education, and Public Affairs (OCEPA), and outside stakeholders, such as states. OAR officials could also direct more attention to several ongoing activities to improve their efficiency. These issues are summarized in the following paragraphs.
OAR and ORD Needed to Ensure That Air Research and Monitoring Needs Were Met
One way the Air Program could be more efficient is if its research and monitoring needs were adequately met. To do this, officials from OAR and ORD agreed they needed to work together.
Although the officials generally worked well together and agreed on most of their activities, some areas of disagreement existed. The disagreements mainly focused on how ORD used its budget for air activities. ORD has not established a consistent process for making Agency-wide research planning and budgeting decisions. Both offices agreed, however, that the fiscal year 1999 process was an improvement over prior years. The two offices also did not have a method for resolving disagreements or sharing decisions with all managers and staff in both offices. Disagreements between the two offices have resulted in impaired working relationships. If the offices do not work well together to resolve disagreements, they may not be making decisions to use their joint resources in the most efficient ways.
OAR and OCEPA Needed to Work Together to Raise Public Awareness
The Air Program could also be more efficient if it worked with OCEPA to raise public awareness about air pollution. The public is important to the success of OAR programs. Officials from the two offices agreed they have not communicated or coordinated sufficiently with each other in the past. As a result, OAR did not always use its resources efficiently. Recently, officials in both offices have taken steps to improve their working relationship. They must continue working together to resolve past differences.
OAR Needed to Give Stakeholders Sufficient Feedback
A third way the Air Program could be more efficient is if OAR was more responsive to stakeholders, such as EPA regional offices, states, and industry and environmental groups, in implementing the Act. OAR frequently consulted stakeholders for ideas; however, some stakeholder relationships could have benefitted from more feedback from OAR. Stakeholders may have perceived a lack of feedback because (1) they may not have had a clear understanding of how the stakeholder process worked and entered the partnership with high expectations, (2) there was not always a formal mechanism to provide feedback, and (3) the process for working with stakeholders was lengthy. As a result, some stakeholders were reluctant to work with OAR again. OAR cannot efficiently carry out the Act without the cooperation and help of its stakeholders.
OAR Needed to Give Attention to Several Activities
Finally, the Air Program needs to devote attention to several ongoing activities to improve efficiency. These activities have been discussed in prior audit reports and include: leading the state implementation plan process, developing and improving emission factors, and issuing air toxic standards. OAR has not considered these activities high priorities, compared with other program areas. This resulted in delays and limited funding. Consequently, these activities have operated inefficiently and may not be achieving their desired results. For example, state plans to achieve emission reductions could be delayed. The plans may also be incorrect if the state's estimates of emissions from major sources are based on inaccurate emission factors. Also, industry deadlines for installing controls over emissions of air toxics will be delayed if OAR is late in issuing standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation:
1. Along with the Acting Assistant Administrator for Research and Development continue the improvements made in the fiscal year 1999 research planning process.
2. Work with the Associate Administrator for Communications, Education, and Public Affairs to establish procedures to ensure that the offices work up-front with each other when developing projects to raise public awareness of air pollution.
3. Establish a process to ensure that feedback is provided to all stakeholders when OAR has not addressed their concerns, or has not used the input.
Additional and expanded recommendations are included at the end of each chapter, beginning in Part 3.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION
The Acting Assistant Administrators for OAR and ORD and the Associate Administrator for OCEPA concurred with our recommendations. They need to provide specific corrective actions and milestone dates for implementing the recommendations. See appendices 1, 2, and 3 for the OAR, ORD, and OCEPA responses.
1. We did not independently verify information relating to emissions or the health effects of emissions. Instead, we relied on EPA or other published sources for information in this part of our report.