Environmental Protection Agency
Major Management Challenges Gao ID: GAO-11-422T March 2, 2011The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) overarching mission is to protect human health and the environment by implementing and enforcing the laws intended to improve the quality of the nation's air, water, and lands. EPA's policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the economy, society, and government. As such, it operates in a highly complex and controversial regulatory arena. In recent years, GAO's work has identified several significant and persistent challenges across a range of EPA programs and activities and has proposed corrective actions to enable the agency to more effectively accomplish its mission. Based on this work, this testimony highlights some of the major management challenges facing EPA today, the agency's efforts to address them, and the work GAO believes remains to be done.
On the basis of recent GAO work, key management challenges facing EPA include the following: (1) Improving agencywide management. EPA has struggled for years to deploy its staff efficiently and in a manner that would do the most good. It has also sought to improve the reliability of its environmental enforcement and other program data, as well as its coordination among EPA offices and with other agencies to improve efficiency and leverage limited resources. Generally, the agency's initiatives in these areas have yet to achieve their intended goals. In this connection, GAO is currently examining the extent to which EPA is taking a coordinated approach in managing its laboratories. (2) Transforming EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals. EPA has yet to develop sufficient chemical assessment information for limiting public exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks. As a consequence, GAO in February 2011 reaffirmed the need to transform EPA's process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals by continuing it as one if GAO's "high-risk" areas warranting increased attention by Congress and the executive branch. (3) Reducing pollution in the nation's waters. Among the nation's most pressing water quality problems with which EPA and other stakeholders struggle are the contributions of diffuse, or "nonpoint," sources of pollution and the challenges posed by deterioration in the nation's premier watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. Multibillion-dollar liabilities associated with replacing and upgrading the nation's aging water infrastructure are a looming issue that, if not sufficiently addressed, will impact water quality. (4) Addressing the cost and pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. EPA's Superfund program is intended to ensure the cleanup of hazardous waste sites on both private and public lands. Nonetheless, 30 years after the program began, GAO found that cleanup costs for remaining hazardous waste sites will not only be substantial, but that problems with the accuracy and completeness of data on the amount of remaining cleanup work prevent EPA from reliably estimating these costs. (5) Addressing the agency's emerging role in climate change issues. As a highly interdisciplinary issue, climate change poses management challenges for the federal government at large. For EPA, particular climate change-related challenges pertain to the legal and administrative barriers facing the agency in its ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions, its difficulties in coordinating activities involving numerous other agencies and other levels of government, and its efforts to account for and manage data on greenhouse gas emissions. GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve EPA's programs by, for example, improving the information upon which key regulatory decisions are based; improving oversight over enforcement and other key program activities; and improving EPA's coordination with other agencies in program delivery. EPA has concurred with most of the recommendations and has taken steps to implement some of them.
GAO-11-422T, Environmental Protection Agency: Major Management Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-422T
entitled 'Environmental Protection Agency: Major Management
Challenges' which was released on March 2, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Wednesday, March 2, 2011:
Environmental Protection Agency:
Major Management Challenges:
Statement of David C. Trimble, Acting Director:
Natural Resources and Environment Team:
EPA Major Management Challenges:
GAO-11-422T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-422T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) overarching mission is to
protect human health and the environment by implementing and enforcing
the laws intended to improve the quality of the nation‘s air, water,
and lands. EPA‘s policies and programs affect virtually all segments
of the economy, society, and government. As such, it operates in a
highly complex and controversial regulatory arena.
In recent years, GAO‘s work has identified several significant and
persistent challenges across a range of EPA programs and activities
and has proposed corrective actions to enable the agency to more
effectively accomplish its mission. Based on this work, this testimony
highlights some of the major management challenges facing EPA today,
the agency‘s efforts to address them, and the work GAO believes
remains to be done.
What GAO Found:
On the basis of recent GAO work, key management challenges facing EPA
include the following:
* Improving agencywide management. EPA has struggled for years to
deploy its staff efficiently and in a manner that would do the most
good. It has also sought to improve the reliability of its
environmental enforcement and other program data, as well as its
coordination among EPA offices and with other agencies to improve
efficiency and leverage limited resources. Generally, the agency‘s
initiatives in these areas have yet to achieve their intended goals.
In this connection, GAO is currently examining the extent to which EPA
is taking a coordinated approach in managing its laboratories.
* Transforming EPA‘s processes for assessing and controlling toxic
chemicals. EPA has yet to develop sufficient chemical assessment
information for limiting public exposure to many chemicals that may
pose substantial health risks. As a consequence, GAO in February 2011
reaffirmed the need to transform EPA‘s process for assessing and
controlling toxic chemicals by continuing it as one if GAO‘s ’high-risk“
areas warranting increased attention by Congress and the executive
branch.
* Reducing pollution in the nation‘s waters. Among the nation‘s most
pressing water quality problems with which EPA and other stakeholders
struggle are the contributions of diffuse, or ’nonpoint,“ sources of
pollution and the challenges posed by deterioration in the nation‘s
premier watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes.
Multibillion-dollar liabilities associated with replacing and
upgrading the nation‘s aging water infrastructure are a looming issue
that, if not sufficiently addressed, will impact water quality.
* Addressing the cost and pace of cleanup at Superfund and other
hazardous waste sites. EPA‘s Superfund program is intended to ensure
the cleanup of hazardous waste sites on both private and public lands.
Nonetheless, 30 years after the program began, GAO found that cleanup
costs for remaining hazardous waste sites will not only be
substantial, but that problems with the accuracy and completeness of
data on the amount of remaining cleanup work prevent EPA from reliably
estimating these costs.
* Addressing the agency‘s emerging role in climate change issues. As a
highly interdisciplinary issue, climate change poses management
challenges for the federal government at large. For EPA, particular
climate change-related challenges pertain to the legal and
administrative barriers facing the agency in its ongoing efforts to
reduce carbon emissions, its difficulties in coordinating activities
involving numerous other agencies and other levels of government, and
its efforts to account for and manage data on greenhouse gas emissions.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve EPA‘s
programs by, for example, improving the information upon which key
regulatory decisions are based; improving oversight over enforcement
and other key program activities; and improving EPA‘s coordination
with other agencies in program delivery. EPA has concurred with most
of the recommendations and has taken steps to implement some of them.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-422T] or key
components. For more information, contact David Trimble at (202) 512-
3841 or trimbled@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss management challenges facing
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These challenges are made
all the more important by increased demand for improved government
performance and responsiveness, as well as greater accountability. EPA
operates in a highly complex and controversial regulatory arena, and
its policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the
economy, society, and government.
As you know, EPA's responsibilities are carried out under a complex
array of environmental laws, including the Clean Air and Clean Water
acts, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and others. The legal
framework within which the agency operates is also shaped by numerous
court orders resulting from lawsuits that have been filed over the
years by states, concerned citizens, special interest groups, and
others. Structurally, EPA comprises headquarters offices largely
aligned with its primary authorizing statutes and 10 regional offices
that help to implement these statutes across the country. The regional
offices possess considerable autonomy, which has sometimes led to
questions and concerns about variation from region to region in
enforcement and other aspects of program delivery. The agency's
budget, while rising in nominal terms from $7.8 billion for fiscal
year 2000 to $10.4 billion for fiscal year 2010, has remained
relatively flat in real terms.[Footnote 1] EPA's fiscal year 2010
budget included about $1.1 billion for clean air and climate change,
$4.9 billion for clean water (which includes federal funding for both
the Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds), and $1.8
billion for land restoration.[Footnote 2]
My testimony today updates our 2009 report on EPA's management
challenges[Footnote 3] and is drawn largely from our work over the
last several years (see Related GAO Products at the end of this
statement). Many of these reports included recommendations intended to
improve EPA's programs by enhancing the information it uses to manage
its programs and strengthening internal controls.[Footnote 4] EPA has
generally concurred with our recommendations and has taken steps to
implement some of them. I will highlight some notable issues arising
from our recent work. Some are long-standing issues involving the
agency's core programs; others are emerging challenges for which we
believe the agency will need to become better prepared. With this in
mind, I would like to focus my remarks today on the need to (1)
improve key aspects of the agency's overall management, (2) transform
EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals, (3)
reduce pollution in the nation's waters, (4) address the cost and pace
of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites, and (5)
address the agency's emerging role in climate change issues.
Improving Agencywide Management:
EPA's size, geographical dispersion, reliance on its partnership with
state and local governments, and broad and complex mission all combine
to make management of the agency a formidable challenge. Our recent
work has identified several particular management challenges at EPA,
including the need to address workload and workforce planning, to
ensure consistent environmental enforcement and compliance data, and
to better coordinate with other agencies to more effectively leverage
limited resources.
Addressing Workload and Workforce Planning Needs:
EPA has struggled for years to identify its human resource needs and
to deploy its staff throughout the agency in a manner that would do
the most good. In 2008, we reported that rather than establishing a
process for budgeting and allocating human resources that fully
considers the agency's current workload, EPA makes requests for
funding and staffing by making incremental adjustments, largely based
on historical precedent.[Footnote 5] We noted that the agency has not
comprehensively analyzed its workload and workforce since the late
1980s to determine the optimal numbers and distribution of staff
agencywide. Moreover, EPA's human capital management systems have not
kept pace with changing legislative requirements and priorities,
changes in environmental conditions in different regions of the
country, and the much more active role that states now play in
carrying out day-to-day-activities of federal environmental programs.
To remedy its piecemeal methods for determining workload and staff
allocation, we recommended that EPA improve its workforce planning by
identifying the factors driving its workload and developing more
accurate allocation systems for deploying staff with the requisite
skills and capabilities to areas where they are most needed. The
agency has taken some recent steps to improve its workforce planning.
For example, in 2009 it hired a contractor to provide information
about the agency's workload in several key areas, such as staffing
levels and workload shifts. In addition, the agency asked one of its
advisory councils to help developing its next strategic workforce plan
to supersede the last plan established in 2006, which delegated
responsibilities to the various offices. We have not evaluated whether
EPA has made meaningful progress in these efforts.
Ensuring Consistent Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Data:
EPA has authorized states to carry out many of the day-to-day
responsibilities for timely and appropriate enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations. We have noted instances in the
past where EPA has not (1) identified the causes of poorly performing
state enforcement programs, (2) informed the public about how well the
states are implementing their enforcement responsibilities, or (3)
assessed the performance of EPA's regional offices in carrying out
their state oversight responsibilities--performance that has generally
proven to be inconsistent over the years.[Footnote 6]
EPA has been slow to improve long-standing problems with often
incomplete and unreliable enforcement data. Among other things,
enforcement data are needed to accurately identify and characterize
regulated entities to improve the transparency and accuracy of the
agency's reports to Congress and the public when reporting on the
effectiveness of the enforcement programs. Furthermore, we have
reported problems in how EPA calculates and reports on measures of
program effectiveness, such as penalties, the value of injunctive
relief, and any resulting reduction in pollution.[Footnote 7] These
problems may undermine the transparency and accuracy of EPA's reported
outcomes and cause the agency to either over-or underreport its
enforcement achievements.
In recent years, we have recommended ways for EPA to enhance its
oversight of regional and state enforcement activities so as to
implement environmental programs consistent with the requirements of
federal statutes and regulations. In particular, we recommended that
EPA develop an action plan for addressing enforcement problems
identified in state programs; ensure that states have sufficient
resources to implement and enforce programs as authorized by EPA; and
help the states improve their capacity for enforcement.[Footnote 8] We
also suggested that EPA (1) routinely assess the performance of
regional and state enforcement programs and communicate the results of
these assessments to the public and the regulated industry and (2)
disclose more information when reporting penalties and estimates of
the value of injunctive relief and pollution reduction.[Footnote 9]
EPA has generally agreed with our recommendations and is in the
process of implementing them. In particular, the agency has developed
an initiative known as the State Review Framework that it believes
will (1) address many of the long-term problems related to providing
fair, consistent, and transparent enforcement throughout the country
and (2) obtain accurate data that can be used to determine the extent
of state compliance with enforcement standards and the need for
corrective actions. Still, implementation of the framework is clearly
a work in progress. During its fiscal year 2008 evaluation of the
framework, for example, EPA identified significant noncompliance with
water permitting requirements and an unacceptably low level of
enforcement activity. In response, in 2009 the agency issued its Clean
Water Act Enforcement Action Plan, which described efforts to (1)
raise the bar for EPA and state enforcement performance; (2) inform
the public clearly and fully about serious Clean Water Act violations
and actions to address them; and (3) use the latest technology to
transform the collection, use, and availability of EPA data. In
addition, EPA now publishes its State Review Framework reports and
data on enforcement performance on its Web site and has developed new
Web-based tools to help the public search and analyze the performance
data.
EPA also stated that it would take actions to disclose more
information when reporting estimates of injunctive relief and
pollution reductions and consider our recommendation to report
collected penalties. For example, in 2010, EPA began reporting
penalties in a manner that clearly indicates that penalties are
reported as assessed, rather than as collected, and began properly
presenting time-series data that are adjusted for inflation. Overall,
the agency's efforts in this area are still in their early stages, and
their success is uncertain. Much will depend on the continued
commitment of senior management, along with sufficient priority and
resources.
Coordinating with Other Agencies to More Effectively Leverage Limited
Resources:
EPA relies on other federal and state agencies to help implement its
programs. Given the federal deficit and the government's long-term
fiscal challenges, it is imperative that EPA improve coordination with
its federal and state partners to reduce administrative burdens,
redundant activities, and inefficient uses of federal resources. For
example, EPA and other federal agencies may work together to fund
water infrastructure projects.[Footnote 10] In 2009, we reported that
EPA and six federal agencies obligated $1.4 billion for drinking water
and wastewater projects to assist communities in the U.S.-Mexico
border region from fiscal years 2000 through 2008.[Footnote 11]
Nevertheless, we found that the agencies' efforts to fund these
projects were ineffective because the agencies, with the exception of
the Indian Health Service, had not comprehensively assessed the
region's needs and lacked coordinated policies and processes for
selecting and building projects. As a result, we suggested that
Congress may wish to consider establishing an interagency task force
to develop a plan for coordinating funding to address the region's
most pressing needs.
In addition to funding water infrastructure projects, EPA has
coordinated with numerous federal and state agencies as the lead
agency in a multi-billion dollar effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
We found, however, that key commitments and plans were inconsistent
with one another, and some were viewed to be unachievable by some
partners. We found, however, that key commitments and plans were
inconsistent with one another, and some were viewed to be unachievable
by some partners. In 2008, we reported that the Chesapeake Bay Program
(a partnership among EPA, several states, and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission) had taken several actions in response to our findings,
such as developing a strategic framework to unify planning documents
and identify how it will pursue its goals. While these actions are
positive steps, we found that additional actions are needed before the
program has the comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy we
recommended.[Footnote 12]
Transforming EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic
Chemicals:
As we reported in March 2009, EPA's ability to effectively implement
its mission of protecting public health and the environment depends on
credible and timely assessment of the risks posed by toxic chemicals.
Such assessments are the cornerstone of scientifically sound
environmental decisions, policies, and regulations under a variety of
statutes, including TSCA. EPA assesses chemicals under its Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) program and is authorized under TSCA to
obtain information on the risks of chemicals and to control those it
determines pose an unreasonable risk. Because EPA had not developed
sufficient chemical assessment information under these programs to
limit public exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial
health risks, in 2009 we added this issue to our list of areas at high
risk for waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or in need of broad-
based transformation.[Footnote 13] In a number of reports, we have
also made recommendations to (1) improve the timeliness and
credibility of EPA's IRIS program, which provides EPA's scientific
position on the potential human health effects of more than 540
chemicals, and (2) enhance EPA's ability under TSCA to, among other
things, obtain health and safety information from the chemical
industry. We also recently addressed nanotechnology as an emerging
area of toxic substance regulation.
Addressing IRIS' Timeliness, Transparency, and Credibility:
EPA's IRIS database provides the basic information the agency needs to
determine whether it should establish controls to protect the public
from exposure to toxic chemicals in the air, in water, and at
hazardous waste sites. In March 2008, we reported that IRIS' viability
was at risk because EPA had been unable to complete timely and
credible chemical assessments--including those for chemicals of
greatest concern, such as formaldehyde and dioxin.[Footnote 14]
Assessments of these two chemicals have been in progress for 13 and 19
years, respectively. In addition, EPA had been unable to decrease its
long-standing backlog of ongoing assessments or to keep its existing
assessments current.
In May 2009, EPA revised its IRIS assessment process. If implemented
effectively, these assessment reforms will be largely responsive to
our 2008 recommendations. Among other things, they will restore EPA's
control of the process and increase its transparency. Specifically,
under the prior process, interagency reviews were required and managed
by the Office of Management and Budget, and EPA was not allowed to
proceed with assessments at various stages until the office agreed
that EPA had sufficiently responded to interagency comments. In
contrast, under the reforms, EPA is to manage the entire assessment
process, and all written comments on draft assessments provided during
the interagency process are to be part of the public record. It is too
soon to determine whether the reforms will be effective, but EPA
reports it has made some progress in addressing its assessment
backlog.[Footnote 15] We are currently reviewing EPA's implementation
of the revised process.
Addressing EPA's Ability to Obtain Chemical Health and Safety
Information:
We have also reported that EPA's assessments of industrial chemicals
under TSCA provide limited information on health and environmental
risks.[Footnote 16] In contrast to the approach taken by the European
Union--which generally places the burden on companies to provide data
on the chemicals they produce and to address the risks posed by these
chemicals to human health and the environment--TSCA generally places
the burden on EPA to obtain information about the roughly 80,000
chemicals in the agency's TSCA inventory. For example, the act
requires EPA to demonstrate certain health or environmental risks
before it can require companies to further test their chemicals.
Consequently, EPA does not routinely assess the risks of the
industrial chemicals already in use.[Footnote 17]
For the approximately 700 new chemicals introduced into commerce
annually, chemical companies are required to provide EPA with certain
information in premanufacture notices, and EPA can ban or limit the
chemicals' use if the information is inadequate. Nevertheless,
although 85 percent of the notices lack any health or safety test
data, EPA does not often use its authority to obtain more information.
After our reports, EPA began taking steps to address some of these
issues. For example, under its existing authorities, EPA has initiated
actions on such chemicals as mercury and lead to, for example, ban or
phase out their use in certain products. Most of these actions are in
their early stages of development.
As we reported in our February 2011 High-Risk Update, EPA needs to
continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to and support of the IRIS
program and its TSCA initiatives. Specifically, we stated that EPA
needs to ensure that its 2009 IRIS reforms are implemented effectively
and that the program can routinely provide timely and credible
assessments. Regarding TSCA, we have recommended both statutory and
regulatory changes to, among other things, provide EPA with additional
authorities to obtain health and safety information from the chemical
industry and to shift more of the burden to chemical companies for
demonstrating the safety of their chemicals.[Footnote 18] The EPA
Administrator has expressed support for TSCA reforms and in 2010
developed principles for addressing them.
Addressing Nanotechnology as an Emerging TSCA Issue:
Finally, one emerging area of toxic substance regulation on which we
recently reported, and for which EPA faces challenges, is the area of
nanotechnology.[Footnote 19] Nanotechnology involves the ability to
control matter at the scale of a nanometer--one billionth of a meter.
The world market for products containing nanomaterials is expected to
reach $2.6 trillion by 2015. EPA has taken some regulatory action
under TSCA to address potential risks to human health and the
environment related to nanotechnology, but other planned actions have
not yet gone into effect. Overall, EPA has issued four regulations
characterizing the manufacture of four different nanomaterials as
significant new uses of existing chemicals under TSCA.
In our May 2010 report, we recommended, among other things, that EPA
finalize a number of regulatory actions it had planned to pursue.
Specifically, according to EPA, the agency plans to propose a new rule
that would regulate, in a single rule, a range of nanoscale versions
of existing chemicals as significant new uses of those chemicals. EPA
also plans to require companies to provide certain information on
nanomaterials--including production volume, methods of manufacture and
processing, exposure and release, and available health and safety
studies--and plans to require companies to generate test data on the
health effects of different nanomaterials. At the time our report was
released, EPA reported that it planned to propose these rules by
December 2010, but has not yet done so. While EPA continues to work on
these rules, however, products may be entering the market without EPA
review of available information on their potential risk. In addition,
although EPA requires chemical companies to periodically provide
certain information on many of the chemicals currently in commerce, it
has not extended this requirement to nanomaterials.
Reducing Pollution in the Nation's Waters:
The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating
discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and
regulating the quality of surface waters. Since its enactment, much
progress has been achieved under the act to control pollution from
wastewater treatment plants and other specific "point sources" of
discharge. Since that time, however, other challenges have emerged and
continue to confront EPA and other levels of government in their
efforts to ensure safe and abundant water supplies for the American
people. These challenges include (1) the need to focus more attention
on diffuse, or "nonpoint," sources of pollution to address the most
significant of the nation's remaining water quality problems; (2) the
unique challenges posed by deterioration in the nation's premier
watersheds including, among others, the Chesapeake Bay and Great
Lakes; and (3) daunting challenges posed by the multibillion dollar
liabilities associated with replacing, maintaining, and building new
water infrastructure.
Controlling Nonpoint Sources of Pollution:
The Clean Water Act's effectiveness has become increasingly challenged
by a recognition that the largest share of the nation's remaining
water quality problems are more decentralized and diffuse in nature--
and therefore more difficult to monitor and regulate. One such
nonpoint pollution source, for example, is urban storm water runoff.
Pollutants and sediment carried by storm water, as well as the volume
and temperature of runoff, can alter aquatic habitats and make it hard
for fish and other organisms to survive.[Footnote 20] Polluted storm
water runoff can also make fish and shellfish unsafe to eat and can
adversely affect people using fresh-and saltwater areas for
recreation. In 2007, we reported that while many communities were
still implementing their first permits for controlling storm water
runoff, several factors influence the extent to which EPA's storm
water program burdens a community, such as prior storm water
management experience.[Footnote 21] We recommended that EPA evaluate
the implementation of its storm water program, issue additional
program guidance, and consider regulatory changes to improve the
quality and consistency of activity reporting by communities. EPA
agreed with our recommendations to develop guidance to help the agency
obtain better data to evaluate the program and provided additional
program guidance to states and regions on such items as storm water
pollution prevention plans. In 2009, the agency issued a guide to
assist permit writers in strengthening storm water permits in 2010.
The agricultural sector accounts for a large share of water problems
stemming from nonpoint sources and therefore much of the effort to
control such pollution lies within the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Crop production, for example, impairs water
quality as pesticides, fertilizer, and sediment run off fields and
into nearby water bodies. Of particular note, a 10-year, nationwide
study published in 2006 by the U.S. Geological Survey detected
pesticides in 97 percent of streams in agricultural and urban
watersheds. In 2009, we reported that many experts believe that the
increased use of pesticides (insecticides and herbicides) related in
particular to increased crop production for biofuels, will likely
further degrade surface and ground water quality.[Footnote 22]
Another major source of agriculture-related pollution stems from
discharges associated with large-scale animal feeding operations.
[Footnote 23] More than a dozen government-sponsored or peer-reviewed
studies since 2002 on water pollutants emitted by concentrated animal-
feeding operations found increased levels of phosphorus, nitrogen, or
hormones in surface water and groundwater near animal-feeding
operations. Excessive amounts of these nutrients can deplete oxygen in
water, which could result in fish deaths, reduced aquatic diversity,
and illness in infants. Our 2008 report on the subject found that
despite its long-term regulation of concentrated animal-feeding
operations, EPA still lacks comprehensive and reliable data on the
number, location, and size of the operations that have been issued
permits and the amounts of discharge they release.[Footnote 24] As a
result, EPA has neither the information it needs to assess the extent
to which these concentrated animal-feeding operations may be
contributing to water pollution, nor the information it needs to
ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act.
The question of how well EPA is coordinating its own efforts to
control agricultural pollution with Agriculture is an important part
of our ongoing review of the agency's Nonpoint Source Management
Program, established under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. This
program supports state nonpoint source management programs, providing
funds to states to implement projects directed toward resolving
nonpoint source pollution problems. Among the key issues being
addressed in this broad program review are the extent to which EPA
coordinates the implementation of its section 319 program with similar
efforts to control agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution
undertaken by Agriculture, as well as with other federally funded
efforts to control nonpoint sources of pollution (including efforts
funded through EPA's own Clean Water State Revolving Fund).
Emphasizing a Watershed-Based Approach:
EPA has increasingly emphasized a "watershed-based approach" that
attempts to restore and protect the nation's water resources by taking
into account the full range of stresses emanating from all pollution
sources. Under this holistic approach, EPA and its partners seek to
identify the priority threats to large, often multistate watersheds
like the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. EPA partners with federal,
state, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations to develop
and implement approaches that reduce pollution in out nation's
significant water bodies.
Nonetheless, after decades of effort and expense by EPA and its
partners to spearhead restoration efforts for these watersheds, we
reported that these efforts have been impeded by a lack of targeted
strategies; poor coordination among federal, state, and local
stakeholders; and unrealistic goals for ensuring that limited
restoration resources are being used for the most effective
restoration activities. In 2006, for example, we recommended that EPA
ensure that the Chesapeake Bay Program develop a coordinated
implementation strategy unifying its various planning documents and
establishing a means to better target its limited resources to the
most cost-effective restoration activities.[Footnote 25] Along similar
lines, in 2008 we recommended that EPA develop for its Great Lakes
Initiative a more consistent permitting strategy for controlling
mercury and gather more information to help it develop water quality
standards and assess the effect of programs intended to minimize
pollutants that are exceeding standards.[Footnote 26]
EPA has taken some actions in response to our recommendations. In
addition, in May 2009, the President issued an executive order
establishing a Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay to
oversee the development and coordination of programs and activities of
agencies participating in protection and restoration of the bay.
Chaired by EPA, the committee includes six other federal agencies.
Part of its responsibilities included developing a strategy for
coordinated implementation of existing programs and projects to guide
efforts to protect and restore Chesapeake Bay. The resulting strategy
was issued in May 2010. We are currently assessing this strategy.
Additionally, EPA has indicated that it plans to work with the Great
Lakes states in assessing approaches for reducing mercury in lieu of
developing a mercury permitting strategy.
Rebuilding the Nation's Aging Water Infrastructure:
Some of the most daunting water pollution control problems will be
those faced by EPA and the nation's water utilities in addressing the
multibillion-dollar costs of upgrading aging and deteriorating water
infrastructure and building new infrastructure to serve a growing
population. The investment made throughout the 1970s and 1980s to
build and upgrade the nation's water infrastructure accounted for much
of the progress in past years to deal with what were, at that time,
the pressing water issues of high bacterial contamination and toxic
water pollution. Many of the wastewater treatment plants and other
water infrastructure built in those years, however, have since
reached, or will soon reach, the end of their design lives. Frequent
and highly publicized incidents of combined sewer overflows into
rivers and streams, as well as water main breaks in the nation's
largest cities, have been perhaps the most visible manifestations that
the problem is growing.
EPA provides funding to the states for water infrastructure upgrades
and construction through the Clean Water and the Drinking Water state
revolving funds, authorized by Congress in 1987 and 1996,
respectively. Congress provided $2.1 billion and $1.4 billion,
respectively, for each program in fiscal year 2010. These funds
supplement other revenue--from water rates or other taxes--raised by
local utilities to pay for their infrastructure projects. While EPA
also received and distributed about $6 billion in additional water
infrastructure funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, the total cost to meet water infrastructure needs across the
country through 2029 has been estimated to be from $485 billion to
$1.2 trillion.
EPA faces a challenge in working with the states and utilities to
address this issue. We have noted in the past that better management
techniques can, at least to some extent, help utilities make the best
use of available dollars in their struggle to meet their
infrastructure needs. We recommended comprehensive asset management--a
technique whereby water systems systematically identify their needs,
set priorities and better target their investments--as a tool for
helping utilities make better use of available funds. However,
additional funds--or revenue from rate increases--will still likely be
needed to address future needs.
To address options for alternative funding sources for these
infrastructure needs, we have issued reports providing information on
various proposals to develop alternative funding sources and
mechanisms to address current and projected water infrastructure
needs. In 2009, we reviewed one proposal to establish a Clean Water
Trust Fund, which would provide a dedicated source of federal funding
for wastewater infrastructure.[Footnote 27] Stakeholders we
interviewed disagreed over whether EPA should administer such a trust
fund as part of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. These
stakeholders also disagreed over whether funding should be provided as
loans or grants to recipients, although a majority did agree that
funds should pay for capital projects. We also discussed potential
revenue sources for funding a Clean Water Trust Fund and obstacles to
generating revenue from these sources.
In 2010, we examined two other proposed alternative funding sources
for water infrastructure projects: a national infrastructure bank and
public-private partnerships.[Footnote 28] Concerning an infrastructure
bank, stakeholders disagreed over whether an infrastructure bank
should be administered by a federal agency or structured as a
government corporation or other entity and over which types of
projects--such as large infrastructure projects or small ones--should
be eligible for bank financing. Stakeholders did agree, however, that
federal funds should be used to finance a bank initially but that
other mechanisms could be used to generate funds for financing
projects over the long term. Regarding public-private partnerships,
officials for the 7 municipalities that had experience with such
arrangements said that advantages of public-private partnerships
include access to nontraditional funding sources, creating potential
efficiency through economies of scale, and completing projects more
quickly. These officials also identified challenges to public-private
partnerships, such as local opposition to potential or perceived rate
increases, higher interest rates charged by private entities involved
in the partnership, and increased project costs because of complex
contracts and arrangements.
As a related matter, in 2010, we reviewed 14 states' spending of
Recovery Act funding on water infrastructure projects.[Footnote 29]
The Recovery Act provided $6 billion in additional funding for states,
$2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $4 billion
for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. We found that these states
allocated the funding to 504 drinking water projects and 890 clean
water projects. We also found that the states met Recovery Act
requirements for providing Clean Water revolving fund assistance for
"green" projects (projects that included environmentally friendly
infrastructure, provided water-or energy-efficiency improvements, or
other environmentally innovative activities).[Footnote 30] We found,
however, that attention and monitoring by EPA and the states of
Recovery Act projects could be strengthened. As a result, we
recommended that EPA work with the states to implement specific
oversight procedures to monitor and ensure Recovery Act compliance.
EPA issued new guidance in June 2010. We are continuing our review of
EPA's implementation of Recovery Act funds and how the funds will help
address states' water quality problems. As part of this work, we will
continue to assess EPA's and the states' monitoring of Recovery Act
projects.
Costs and Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and Other Hazardous Waste Sites:
To protect human health and the environment from the effects of
hazardous substances, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980, which established
the Superfund program. Since 1980, EPA has identified more than 47,000
hazardous waste sites potentially requiring cleanup. As of the
beginning of fiscal year 2010, 1,269 of the most seriously
contaminated sites were included on EPA's National Priorities List:
1,111 nonfederal sites and 158 federal facilities. Among the key
findings of our recent work are that (1) cleanup costs are likely to
be substantial, (2) problems with the accuracy and completeness of
data prevent the agency from estimating future cleanup costs, and (3)
several key obstacles have delayed cleanup progress at Department of
Defense (DOD) installations. Our recent work provides an indication of
the challenges that lie ahead for this important program.
Addressing Substantial Cleanup Costs:
We and other organizations have cited the growing gap between the
costs associated with cleaning up sites remaining on the National
Priorities List and funds available to do so. Cleanup efforts at
listed sites are typically expensive and can take many years. While
responsible parties are liable for conducting or paying for site
cleanup of hazardous substances--and EPA can seek reimbursement for
its cleanup costs from these parties--the parties in some cases cannot
be identified or may be unwilling or financially unable to perform the
cleanup. To fund EPA-led cleanups at nonfederal National Priorities
sites, EPA uses the Hazardous Substance Superfund (trust fund) from
which EPA receives annual appropriations. Historically, the trust fund
was financed primarily by taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals, as
well as an environmental tax on corporations based on their taxable
income. The authority for these taxes expired in 1995, however, and
shortly thereafter the balance in the trust fund started to diminish.
Since 2001, appropriations from general revenues have been the largest
source of funding for the trust fund. At the start of fiscal year
2009, the trust fund had a balance of $137 million. Superfund program
appropriations have averaged about $1.2 billion annually since 1981,
although the annual level of these appropriated funds has generally
declined in recent years when adjusted for inflation.
In June 2010 we reported that EPA's cost to remediate existing and
future National Priorities sites will likely exceed current funding
levels.[Footnote 31] Considerable work remains at most nonfederal
sites on the list with unknown or unacceptable human exposures, and
some site cleanups have not been funded at a level that is sufficient
to ensure meaningful results. Moreover, site costs are likely to
increase because, according to EPA, in the program's early years the
agency focused resources on sites that needed less construction work
and were farther along in the cleanup process. Consequently, the sites
that have been on the National Priorities List the longest without
completing construction of cleanup remedies are likely to face more
complex and costly future cleanup work.
Resolving Data Limitations Hindering Estimates of Program Costs:
While remedial actions have been implemented or are under way at most
sites on the National Priorities List, the amount of work remaining is
unclear because, as we reported in July 2009, data on whether
construction is complete at sites do not provide a clear picture of
the amount of work that actually remains at sites, and the progress of
cleanup is even less clear for sites where construction is not
complete.[Footnote 32] EPA program status reports do not provide
information on the number and cleanup status of megasites--sites with
actual or expected total cleanup costs, including removal and remedial
action costs, that are expected to amount to $50 million or more
(especially mining and sediment sites). This information could help
indicate the types of conditions driving EPA's remedy decisions at
sites that were listed more recently, as well as the impediments to
cleanup progress at older sites. Additionally, these reports do not
provide information on the number of sites where responsible parties
are financially unable to help pay for cleanup activities or on the
potential impact on EPA's ability to carry out cleanup activities when
it cannot obtain reimbursement from responsible parties for agency
cleanup costs. Such information could help indicate the factors that
are driving program expenditures and potential future costs.
Accordingly, we recommended that EPA assess the comprehensiveness and
reliability of the data the agency collects and, where necessary,
improve the data to provide aggregated information on (1) the status
and cost of cleanups at individual sites, particularly complex and
expensive sites; (2) the extent to which there are viable responsible
parties at sites on the National Priorities List; and (3) the
potential financial impacts from EPA's inability to obtain
reimbursement for agency cleanup costs from nonviable responsible
parties. EPA agreed to assess data reported on program status and
costs but did not agree to assess and report data on the extent to
which there are viable responsible parties, nor on the financial
impacts if such parties cannot be identified. We believe these data
are essential to assess EPA's future funding needs.
As we reported in May 2010, most EPA regional offices expect an
increase in the number of sites added to the National Priorities List
over the next 5 years but cannot estimate the associated cleanup
costs.[Footnote 33] One factor that could increase the number of sites
eligible for the list is whether EPA begins to assess the risks of
subsurface hazardous substances leaking upward into homes and
businesses (vapor intrusion). As a result, we recommended that EPA
determine the extent to which EPA will consider vapor intrusion as
part of the listing process for the National Priorities List and how
this phenomenon will affect the number of sites listed in the future.
EPA agreed with our recommendation.
Confronting Difficulties in the Cleanup of DOD Superfund Sites:
Our July 2010 report on DOD-related Superfund sites identified several
obstacles--including poor coordination, lack of interagency
agreements, contract management, and legal limitations--that have
delayed cleanups.[Footnote 34] First, poor coordination with
regulators and incomplete record reviews have resulted in poor
decision making, such as placing military personnel in housing at risk
of contamination, ultimately leading to their evacuation. Second,
because DOD had not signed interagency agreements at some of its
National Priorities List sites, EPA lacked the mechanisms to ensure
that cleanup proceeds expeditiously, is properly done, and has public
input as required by law. Third, DOD's use of performance-based
contracts to clean up installations has affected how the cleanup work
was scoped and conducted and has created pressure on contractors to
operate within price caps and meet deadlines, which may conflict with
regulatory review times and encourage the department to take
shortcuts. Finally, EPA has virtually no enforcement tools available
to compel agency compliance with the law at installations without an
interagency agreement, unless EPA has concurrence from the Department
of Justice, whose policy generally precludes one agency from bringing
suit against another.
Addressing EPA's Emerging Role in Climate Change:
As one of the most complicated interdisciplinary environmental issues
currently facing the federal government, climate change poses
particular management challenges for EPA. We have previously reported
that, in addition to its environmental implications, climate change
has implications for the fiscal health of the federal government,
affecting federal crop and flood insurance programs and placing new
stresses on infrastructure and natural resources. We have also
analyzed and reported on recent legislative and regulatory efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recent GAO work has also identified a
range of climate change management challenges for the federal
government at large, including a broad array of departments with
diverse missions. For EPA, particular challenges relate to the
agency's ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions; to coordinate
activities with other agencies; and to account for and manage data on
greenhouse gas emissions.
Legislative and Regulatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Efforts:
Several bills that would have established comprehensive emissions
reduction programs were introduced and debated during the 111th
Congress, although none became law. To provide the Congress with
relevant information during these deliberations, however, we reported
on the economic implications of different policy options and on
lessons learned from the European Union's own efforts to implement
mandatory carbon reductions. We found, for example, that the European
Union set its overall emissions limit, or "cap," too high (i.e., at a
level that was higher than actual emissions) because of uncertainty
surrounding the emissions data used to set the cap.[Footnote 35] We
also reported on carbon offsets--reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions from an activity on one place to compensate for emissions
elsewhere--noting that the credibility of offsets could compromise the
environmental integrity of a system to reduce emissions.[Footnote 36]
In the absence of a law establishing a cap-and-trade program in the
United States, EPA is implementing a regulatory program to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions that is facing an array of legal challenges.
Specifically, in 2009 EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gas
emissions from new motor vehicles are contributing to air pollution
that is endangering public health and welfare. This finding, known as
the Endangerment Finding, is the foundation for all of EPA's efforts
to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Twenty-six
lawsuits have been filed challenging the endangerment finding for
greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, the EPA rule establishing emissions
standards for light-duty motor vehicles went into effect on January 2,
2011. Additional rules subjecting certain stationary sources to
regulation under the Clean Air Act as of January 2, 2011, have also
been challenged. All of these lawsuits are to be heard together by the
same panel of judges. Moreover, to date, five bills that would
preclude EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
have been introduced in the 112th Congress.
Coordinating Climate Change Activities with Other Agencies:
Climate change has the potential to affect every sector and level of
government operations. Consequently, there are areas in which EPA will
need to work closely with other agencies and to clarify its own role
within broader, governmentwide efforts. One example arose during our
2008 work on the federal government's examination of carbon capture
and storage as a means of reducing carbon emissions from the electric
utility sector. Carbon capture and storage involves capturing carbon
dioxide from a power plant's emissions, transporting it to an
underground storage location, and then injecting it into a geologic
formation for long-term storage. In addition to its formidable
technological challenges, we noted that carbon capture and storage
faces significant legal and regulatory uncertainties. We noted that
EPA was addressing some of these uncertainties (specifically by
issuing a rule to govern underground injection of carbon dioxide for
geologic sequestration), but that "many of them fall within the domain
of the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Transportation, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other agencies in a manner
that would require collaboration between agencies and, in many cases,
coordination with state governments and other entities."[Footnote 37]
We recommended that EPA more comprehensively examine barriers to the
development of carbon capture and storage by identifying key issues
that fall outside the agency's Safe Drinking Water Act authority.
EPA's Office of Water responded to GAO that it is committed to work
both with other offices within the agency as well as other "partner
federal agencies" to assess the implications of various statutes on
the development of carbon capture and storage. As a related matter,
the White House established an Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage on February 3, 2010, to develop a comprehensive
and coordinated federal strategy to speed the commercial development
and deployment of clean coal technologies. Among other things, the
Task Force's August 2010 report recommended that EPA and other
relevant agencies work to quickly and collaboratively propose,
finalize, and implement a regulatory framework to ensure safe and
effective carbon capture and storage deployment.
Developing and Managing Data on Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
High-quality data on greenhouse gas emissions are critical to the
development and implementation of domestic and international efforts
to address climate change. As we recently reported, for example, a
European Union program designed to control carbon emissions has run
into difficulties due to a lack of facility-specific data on baseline
emissions.[Footnote 38]
EPA faces particular challenges in accounting for and managing
emissions data from facilities. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2008 directed EPA to issue a regulation requiring mandatory reporting
of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all
sectors of the economy. EPA issued the regulation under its Clean Air
Act authority on October 30, 2009. The regulation includes provisions
to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring, record-
keeping, and verification requirements. According to EPA, the rule
covers approximately 10,000 facilities responsible for an estimated 85
to 90 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Data collection,
monitoring, and verification for a universe of facilities this large
could be expected to pose a formidable challenge for EPA especially in
light of the tight budget environment.[Footnote 39]
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact David
Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions
to this testimony include Steve Elstein, Assistant Director, Nathan
Anderson, and Joseph D. Thompson. Also contributing to this testimony
were Liz Beardsley; Antoinette Capaccio; Ellen Chu; Emily Eischen;
Elizabeth Erdmann; Christine Fishkin; Mike Hix; Richard P. Johnson;
James R. Jones, Jr.; Susan Iott; Barbara Patterson; Vincent Price;
Diane Raynes; Daniel Semick; John C. Smith; and Jeanette Soares.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
High Risk Series:
High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. Washington, D.C.: February
2011.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271]. Washington, D.C.: January
2009.
Improving Agencywide Management:
Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should
Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-413]. Washington, D.C.:
March 31, 2010.
Clean Water Act: Longstanding Issues Impact EPA's and States'
Enforcement Efforts [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-165T]. Washington, D.C.: October
15, 2009.
EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal year 2007 New Budget Authority for the
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional Offices.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1109R]. Washington,
D.C.: September 26, 2008.
Environmental Enforcement: EPA Needs to Improve the Accuracy and
Transparency of Measures Used to Report on Program Effectiveness.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1111R]. Washington,
D.C.: September 18, 2008.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward More
Effectively Guiding Restoration Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1033T]. Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2008.
Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Follow Best Practices and
Procedures When Reorganizing Its Library Network. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-579T]. Washington, D.C.: March 13,
2008.
Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Ensure That Best Practices and
Procedures Are Followed When Making Further Changes to Its Library
Network. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-304].
Washington, D.C.: February 29, 2008.
Toxic Chemical Releases: EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental
Information Available to Many Communities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-128]. Washington, D.C.: November
30, 2007.
Measuring Our Nation's Natural Resources and Environmental
Sustainability: Highlights of a Forum Jointly Convened by the
Comptroller General of the United States and the National Academy of
Science. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-127SP].
Washington, D.C.: October 2007.
Environmental Right-To-Know: EPA's Recent Rule Could Reduce
Availability of Toxic Chemical Information Used to Assess
Environmental Justice. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-115T]. Washington, D.C.: October 4,
2007.
Environmental Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has
Improved, but EPA's Oversight Needs Further Enhancement. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-883]. Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2007.
Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA
Progress in Correcting Past Problems. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1140T]. Washington, D.C.: July 25,
2007.
Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability
of Environmental Information to the Public. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-464T]. Washington, D.C.: February
6, 2007.
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: EPA's Effort to Improve and
Make More Consistent Its Compliance and Enforcement Activities.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-840T]. Washington,
D.C.: June 28, 2006.
Clean Water Act: Improved Resource Planning Would Help EPA Better
Respond to Changing Needs and Fiscal Constraints. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-721]. Washington, D.C.: July 22,
2005.
Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop
Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-52]. Washington, D.C.: November 17,
2004.
Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help
EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-812]. Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2001.
Transforming EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic
Chemicals:
Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA
Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-549]. Washington, D. C: May 25,
2010.
Chemical Regulation: Observations on Improving the Toxic Substances
Control Act. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-292T].
Washington, D.C.: December 2, 2009.
EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to
Address Key Problems. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-774T]. Washington, D.C.: June 11,
2009.
Scientific Integrity: EPA's Efforts to Enhance the Credibility and
Transparency of Its Scientific Processes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-773T]. Washington, D.C.: June 9,
2009.
Chemical Regulation: Options for Enhancing the Effectiveness of the
Toxic Substances Control Act. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-428T]. Washington, D.C.: February
26, 2009.
High Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271]. Washington, D.C.: January,
2009.
Environmental Health: EPA Efforts to Address Children's Health Issues
Need Greater Focus, Direction, and Top-Level Commitment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1155T]. Washington, D.C.: September
16, 2008.
Chemical Assessments: EPA's New Assessment Process Will Further Limit
the Productivity and Credibility of Its Integrated Risk Information
System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-810T].
Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2008.
Toxic Chemicals: EPA's New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges
EPA Faces in Evaluating and Regulating Chemicals. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-743T]. Washington, D.C.: April 29,
2008.
Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review
Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-440]. Washington, D.C.: March 7,
2008.
Chemical Regulation: Comparison of U.S. and Recently Enacted European
Union Approaches to Protect against the Risks of Toxic Chemicals.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-825]. Washington, D.C.:
August 17, 2007.
Environmental Contamination: Department of Defense Activities Related
to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1042T]. Washington,
D.C.: July 12, 2007.
Perchlorate: EPA Does Not Systematically Track Incidents of
Contamination. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-797T].
Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2007.
Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness
of EPA's Chemical Review Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1032T]. Washington, D.C.: August 2,
2006.
Chemical Regulation: Approaches in the United States, Canada, and the
European Union. Washington, D.C.: [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-217R]. November 4, 2005.
Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess
Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-458. Washington, D.C.: June 13,
2005.
Reducing Pollution in the Nation's Waters:
Wastewater Infrastructure Financing: Stakeholder Views on a National
Infrastructure Bank and Public-Private Partnerships. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-728]. Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2010.
Recovery Act: Status of States' and Localities' Use of Funds and
Efforts to Ensure Accountability. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-604]. Washington, D.C.: May 26,
2010.
Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in
Production and Use. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-446]. Washington, D.C.: August 25,
2009.
Clean Water Infrastructure: A Variety of Issues Need to Be Considered
When Designing a Clean Water Trust Fund. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-657. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009.
Environmental Health: EPA Efforts to Address Children's Health Issues
Need Greater Focus, Direction, and Top-Level Commitment. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1155T]. Washington, D.C.: September
16, 2008.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More Information and
a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water Quality from
Pollutants of Concern, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-944]. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4,
2008.
Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps Toward
More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional Steps
Are Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1131R].
Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward More
Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1033T]. Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2008.
Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the
Nation's Infrastructure, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-763T]. Washington, D.C.: May 8,
2008.
International Boundary and Water Commission: Two Alternatives for
Improving Wastewater Treatment at the United States-Mexico Border.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-595R]. Washington,
D.C.: April 24, 2008.
Great Lakes Initiative: EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Much
Remains to Be Done If Water Quality Goals Are to Be Achieved.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-312T]. Washington,
D.C.: January 23, 2008.
Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could
Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-130]. Washington, D.C.: December
14, 2007.
South Florida Ecosystem: Some Restoration Progress Has Been Made, but
the Effort Faces Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and
Rising Costs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1250T].
Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2007.
Maritime Transportation: Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, but
Risks to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1085]. Washington, D.C.: September
7, 2007.
The BEACH Act of 2000: EPA and States Have Made Progress Implementing
the Act, but Further Actions Could Increase Public Health Protection.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1073T]. Washington,
D.C.: July 12, 2007.
South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing
Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-520]. Washington, D.C.:
May 31, 2007.
Clean Water: Further Implementation and Better Cost Data Needed to
Determine Impact of EPA's Storm Water Program on Communities.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-479]. Washington, D.C.:
May 31, 2007.
Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health
Protection. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-591].
Washington, D.C: May 1, 2007.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Needed to Better Guide
Restoration Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-614T]. Washington, D.C.: July 13,
2006.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better
Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-96]. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
2005.
Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and
Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-829]. Washington, D.C.: July 27,
2005.
Water Infrastructure: Comprehensive Asset Management Has Potential to
Help Utilities Better Identify Needs and Plan Future Investments,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-461]. Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 19, 2004.
Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and Other Hazardous Waste
Sites:
Superfund: Interagency Agreements and Improved Project Management
Needed to Achieve Cleanup Progress at Key Defense Installations.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-348]. Washington, D.C.:
July 15, 2010.
Superfund: Costs to Remediate Existing and Future Sites Will Likely
Exceed Current Funding Levels. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-857T]. Washington, D.C.: June 22,
2010.
Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed
Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the
National Priorities List. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-380]. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.
Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information
on Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program Funding
Requirements. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-656.
Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009.
Superfund: Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance
Cleanup at DOD Sites. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-278]. Washington, D.C.: March 13,
2009.
Electronic Waste: Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually Unrestricted
Because of Minimal EPA Enforcement and Narrow Regulation. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1166T]. Washington, D.C.: September
17, 2008.
Hurricane Katrina: Continuing Debris Removal and Disposal Issues.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-985R]. Washington,
D.C.: August 25, 2008.
Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and
Administration Activities. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-841R]. Washington, D.C.: July 18,
2008.
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility Data Could
Improve Implementation of EPA's Spill Prevention Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-482]. Washington, D.C.: April 30,
2008.
Hazardous Waste: Information on How DOD and Federal and State
Regulators Oversee the Off-Site Disposal of Waste from DOD
Installations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-74].
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2007.
Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-
Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public
Notification Process. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-71]. Washington, D.C.: October 12,
2007.
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: Observations on EPA's Economic Analyses
of Amendments to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
Rule. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-763]. Washington,
D.C.: July 27, 2007.
Hurricane Katrina: EPA's Current and Future Environmental Protection
Efforts Could Be Enhanced by Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on
the Gulf Coast. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-651].
Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2007.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better
Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-152]. Washington, D.C.: February 8,
2007.
Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-37]. Washington, D.C.:
December 29, 2006.
Environmental Liabilities: EPA Should Do More to Ensure That Liable
Parties Meet Their Cleanup Obligations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-658]. Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17,
2005.
Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results Is Needed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-462]. Washington, D.C.:
May 20, 2005.
Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites
Could Better Protect the Public, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-163]. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28,
2005.
Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues:
Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal
Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903]. September 23, 2010.
Carbon Trading: Current Situation and Oversight Considerations for
Policymakers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-851R].
Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2010.
Climate Change: The Quality, Comparability, and Review of Emissions
Inventories Vary Between Developed and Developing Nations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-818]. July 30, 2010.
Climate Change: Observations on Options for Selling Emissions
Allowances in a Cap-and-Trade Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-377]. Washington, D.C.: February
24, 2010.
Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help
Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113]. Washington, D.C.: October 7,
2009.
Climate Change Adaptation: Information on Selected Federal Efforts To
Adapt To a Changing Climate GAO-10-114SP], October 7, 2009), an E-
supplement to GAO-10-113. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-114SP]. Washington, D.C.: October
7, 2009.
Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but
Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can
Help Control Emissions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-554]. Washington, D.C.: June 8,
2009.
Climate Change Science: High Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data are
a Cornerstone of Programs to Address Climate Change. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-423T]. Washington, D.C.: February
24, 2009.
International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the
European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's
Clean Development Mechanism. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-151]. Washington, D.C.: November
18, 2008.
Climate Change: Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of
Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1080]. Washington, D.C.: September
30, 2008.
Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market Is Growing, but Quality
Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1048]. Washington, D.C.: August 29,
2008.
Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to
Address Climate Change. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-605]. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008.
Climate Change Research: Agencies Have Data-Sharing Policies but Could
Do More to Enhance the Availability of Data from Federally Funded
Research. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1172].
Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007.
Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the
Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863]. Washington, D.C.: August 7,
2007.
Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing
Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-713]. Washington, D.C.:
June 8, 2007.
Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in
Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-285]. Washington, D.C.: March 16,
2007.
Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be
Clearer and More Complete. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-461]. Washington, D.C.: August 25,
2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In real terms, using 2011 dollars, EPA's budget equated to $9.9
billion in fiscal year 2000 and $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2010.
[2] EPA's 2011 budget is uncertain, given that the federal government
is operating under a continuing resolution set to expire on March 4,
2011.
[3] GAO, Environmental Protection Agency: Major Management Challenges,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-434] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 4, 2009).
[4] We conducted our work in accordance with all sections of GAO's
Quality Assurance Framework that were relevant to the objectives of
each engagement. The framework requires that we plan and perform each
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analyses
conducted, provided a reasonable basis for the findings and
conclusions in each report.
[5] GAO, EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority
for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional
Offices, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1109R]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2008).
[6] For example, see GAO, Clean Water Act: Longstanding Issues Impact
EPA's and States' Enforcement Efforts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-165T] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2009).
[7] GAO, Environmental Enforcement: EPA Needs to Improve the Accuracy
and Transparency of Measures Used to Report on Program Effectiveness,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1111R] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 18, 2008).
[8] GAO, Environmental Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership
Has Improved, but EPA's Oversight Needs Further Enhancements,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-883] (Washington, D.C.:
July 31, 2007).
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1111R].
[10] The agencies are the Department of Agriculture; the Department of
Housing and Urban Development; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the
Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce; the
Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human
Services; and the Bureau of Reclamation, within the Department of the
Interior.
[11] GAO, Rural Water Infrastructure: Improved Coordination and
Funding Processes Could Enhance Federal Efforts to Meet Needs in the
U.S.-Mexico Border Region, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-126] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18,
2009).
[12] GAO, Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps
Toward More Effectively Guiding Restoration Efforts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1033T] (Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2008). In May 2009, the President issued an executive order
establishing a Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay to
oversee the development and coordination of programs and activities of
agencies participating in the protection and restoration of the bay.
The committee is chaired by EPA and includes six other federal
agencies. Part of the Committee's responsibilities included developing
a strategy for coordinated implementation of existing programs and
projects to guide efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
The resulting strategy was issued in May 2010. We have ongoing work
assessing this strategy.
[13] GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22,
2009); GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16,
2011).
[14] GAO, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency
Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-440] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7,
2008).
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-440].
[16] GAO, Chemical Regulation: Options for Enhancing the Effectiveness
of the Toxic Substances Control Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-428T] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26,
2009).
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278].
[18] GAO, Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability
to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-458] (Washington, D.C.:
June 13, 2005).
[19] GAO, Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce,
but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-549] (Washington, D.C: May 25,
2010).
[20] Discharges from urban storm water runoff share many of the traits
of a diffuse, nonpoint source, but they are technically treated and
regulated under the Clean Water Act as a point source.
[21] GAO, Clean Water: Further Implementation and Better Cost Data
Needed to Determine Impact of EPA's Storm Water Program on
Communities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-479]
(Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007).
[22] GAO, Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required
Increases in Production and Use, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-446] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25,
2009).
[23] Discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations share many
of the traits of a diffuse, nonpoint source, but they are technically
treated and regulated under the Clean Water Act as a point source.
[24] GAO, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More
Information and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water
Quality from Pollutants of Concern, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-944] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4,
2008). Among other things, the report recommended that EPA complete
its efforts to develop an inventory of permitted operations.
[25] GAO, Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to
Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-96] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28,
2005).
[26] GAO, Great Lakes Initiative: EPA and States Have Made Progress,
but Much Remains to Be Done If Water Quality Goals Are to Be Achieved,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-312T] (Washington,
D.C.: Jan. 23, 2008).
[27] GAO, Clean Water Infrastructure: A Variety of Issues Need to Be
Considered When Designing a Clean Water Trust Fund, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-657] (Washington, D.C.: May 29,
2009).
[28] GAO, Wastewater Infrastructure Financing: Stakeholder Views on a
National Infrastructure Bank and Public-Private Partnerships,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-728] (Washington, D.C.:
June 30, 2010).
[29] GAO, Recovery Act: States' and Localities' Use of Funds and
Actions Needed To Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster
Accountability, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-604]
(Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010).
[30] States were also required to use at least 20 percent of funds
provided under the Recovery Act for Clean Water revolving funds as a
"green reserve" to provide assistance for green infrastructure
projects, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other
environmentally innovative activities.
[31] GAO, Superfund: Costs to Remediate Existing and Future Sites Will
Likely Exceed Current Funding Levels, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-857T] (Washington, D.C.: June 22,
2010).
[32] GAO, Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better
Information on Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program
Funding Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-656] (Washington, D.C.: July 15,
2009).
[33] GAO, Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites
Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added
to the National Priorities List, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-380] (Washington, D.C.: May 6,
2010).
[34] GAO, Superfund: Interagency Agreements and Improved Project
Management Needed to Achieve Cleanup Progress at Key Defense
Installations, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-348]
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2010); GAO, Superfund: Greater EPA
Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Cleanup at DOD Sites,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-278] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 13, 2009).
[35] GAO, International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from
the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's
Clean Development Mechanism, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-151] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18,
2008). GAO did not recommend executive action in response to this
work, but stated that, in deliberating legislation for emissions
trading, Congress may wish to consider the lessons learned from the
European Union's efforts.
[36] GAO, Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market Is Growing, but
Quality Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1048] (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 29, 2008). GAO did not recommend executive action based on
this work, but stated that, as it considers legislation that allows
the use of offsets for compliance, Congress might consider, among
other things, directing the establishment of standardized quality
assurance mechanisms.
[37] GAO, Climate Change: Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the
Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1080] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 30, 2008).
[38] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-151].
[39] GAO, Climate Change Science: High Quality Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Data are a Cornerstone of Programs to Address Climate
Change. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-423T]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
