U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–773 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–306 

OVERSIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING 

INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE 

MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY

OVERSIGHT

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

BARBARA BOXER, California(ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 14, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Rounds, Hon. Mike., U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota ................... 1 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .......... 3 

Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .............................. 69 

WITNESSES 

Larsen, Alan, Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Chemical Safety And Hazard Investigation Safety Board ........................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 12 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sullivan .......................... 19 

Gomez, Alfredo, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Inhofe ................................................................................................................. 54 

Sullivan ............................................................................................................. 60 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016 

U.S. SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Rounds (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Rounds, Markey, Crapo, Boozman and Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. The Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory 

Oversight is meeting today to conduct a hearing entitled Oversight 

of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Progress in Implementing Inspector General and Government Accountability Office 

Recommendations. 

Approximately 1 year ago we held our first subcommittee hearing 

with Inspector General Arthur Elkins of the Environmental Protection Agency, who testified about his office’s work in conducting audits and investigations related to EPA agency actions and programs. Since then we have held hearings conducting oversight on 

various aspects of the EPA rulemaking process to make certain the 

regulations the EPA implements are promulgated in an open, 

transparent process with adequate public participation. 

Unfortunately, we have found this is often not the case. The 

GAO is an independent, non-partisan agency that prepares reports 

that are either mandated by public laws or committee reports, or 

at the request of Congress. They provide comprehensive audits examining the economy and the efficiency of government operations. 

The Office of Inspector General reports to both the EPA and Congress regarding any problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of the Agency’s programs and operations, and also 

serves as the investigative arm of the EPA, examining possible 

criminal or civil violations by the Agency. These offices conduct 

Agency oversight to determine whether Federal funds are being 

2 

spent efficiently and effectively, the Agency is being managed property, and to make certain that Government programs and policies 

are meeting their objectives in an open, transparent manner, and 

are complying with the applicable statutes when promulgating regulations. 

In addition to conducting their own investigations, the GAO and 

OIG make recommendations to the EPA that, when successfully 

implemented in a timely fashion, can be effective at correcting mismanagement and holding the EPA accountable in properly fulfilling 

its mission and responsibly managing taxpayer dollars. 

The GAO and the IG prepare regular reports detailing EPA’s 

progress in implementing these recommendations. While both offices track the EPA’s implementation of these corrective actions for 

several years after the recommendation is made, testimony today 

reveals that the EPA is slow to implement recommendations and 

there may be a need for these offices to do more to followup on 

open recommendations. 

When the EPA does not implement these recommendations or 

delays their implementation while continuing to conduct business 

as usual, the mismanagement at the Agency continues and taxpayer dollars are improperly managed. Most alarmingly, the EPA 

continues to promulgate regulations that impose huge costs on the 

U.S. economy and American families, while not using proper safeguards. 

In the past year alone, the EPA has moved forward with its finalizing the Waters of the U.S. Rule, the Clean Power Plan, and 

tightening ozone NAAQS. These regulations will impose unprecedented costs on American families and the U.S. economy. Further, 

two of these regulations are on hold by the courts. 

When the EPA finalizes regulations through an improper process 

without implementing recommendations that would make the process better, the result is bad regulations, and that is what we have 

seen from the EPA. Additionally, in the past year, the EPA has 

made headlines with the Gold King Mine spill and the Flint water 

crisis. Now, more than ever, we need the EPA to get back to its 

core functions rather than pursuing burdensome regulations based 

on shaky legal ground. The GAO and the OIG play an important 

role in this. 

Our witnesses today will provide us with an update on the EPA’s 

progress in implementing recommendations and help us conduct 

oversight over the EPA’s process for implementing corrective actions. 

I am happy to have with us today Alan Larsen, the Counsel to 

the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

Alfredo Gomez, the Director of the Natural Resources and Environmental Team of the Government Accountability Office. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and 

I look forward to hearing from your testimony. 

Now I would like to recognize my friend, Senator Markey, for a 

5-minute opening statement. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

scheduling today’s hearing. 

The Government Accountability Office and the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General are a vital component of governmental integrity. These watchdogs must be independent, non-partisan, and maintain the highest ethical standards. 

In addition to fighting fraud, waste, and abuse of power, they ensure that Government works the way Congress intended, and in a 

manner that the public deserves. From its work uncovering nearly $100 million in wasted refundable airline tickets, to probing weaknesses in aviation security, to 

protecting our water supply from damage caused by oil and gas 

production, GAO has provided an invaluable service to the American public. 

Inspectors general play an equally important role. The Securities 

and Exchange Commission inspector general uncovered the mishandling of whistleblower tips in the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In response, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, bringing the most 

significant changes in financial regulation since the Great Depression. 

At the EPA, the inspector general has raised concerns ranging 

from how the EPA oversees States’ implementation and enforcement of programs designed to protect the public from bacteria-contaminated beaches to how the EPA conducts proper long-term monitoring of Superfund sites and ensuring that they are safe for 

reuse, to how the EPA can improve the review process for potentially harmful chemicals. 

EPA has implemented 174 GAO recommendations of the 325 

made during the last 10 years. When one factors in the 4-year average time it takes to implement a GAO recommendation, the 

Agency has a 77 percent implementation rate. This rate is on par 

with other Federal agencies and with the 80 percent implementation target for recommendations that GAO has set for all agencies. 

The EPA has also worked hard to close out recommendations 

from the inspector general. Over the past 7 years, the inspector 

general has made over 1,700 recommendations to the EPA. At the 

time of the last annual report, only 158 remained unimplemented. 

The EPA is battling diminished resources, a lack of authority, and 

program updates that are underway but incomplete. Those struggles are compounded by a 20 percent decrease in appropriated 

funds and a 15 percent loss to its work force since 2010. 

If we are going to expect more rapid and complete agency responses to GAO and the inspector general recommendations, then 

we must ensure that EPA has access to the resources that are necessary to achieve its mission. Just look at Flint, Michigan and our 

Nation’s failing water infrastructure, or hazardous air water pollutants with health risks that have yet to be assessed, or even the 

harmful pesticides that threaten bee populations that are vital to 

our ecosystem. 

We must recognize that our responsibility in creating those problems due to the prevailing dissidence between required funding levels and actions that should be taken by EPA are necessary to keep 

4 

Americans safe. We must also combat other obstacles that hinder 

agency oversight. Both GAO and the inspectors general provide a 

crucial public service, and it is imperative that you are provided 

with all the tools you need to do your job effectively. 

Now, I have been made aware of the possibility that a Department of Energy contractor who cooperated with the GAO investigation that I requested may have been fired in retaliation for their 

cooperation. We should be doing everything possible to enhance 

GAO’s ability to obtain the information it needs to undertake its 

mission of ensuring ‘‘the accountability of the Federal Government 

for the benefit of the American people and protect those who help 

in such efforts.’’ 

Inspectors general’s investigations can also be slowed without a 

review of all the critical materials. Preventing investigators from 

timely access to all records, documents, and other materials is contrary to the fundamental idea of transparency that Congress intended when establishing the inspector general. 

I thank each of you in advance for your testimony and I thank 

you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Our witnesses joining us for today’s hearing are Mr. Al Larsen, 

Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Chemical Safety and 

Hazard Investigation Safety Board; Mr. Alfredo Gomez, Director, 

Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Gentlemen, your written statements will be made a part of the 

record without objection and at this time we will turn to both of 

you. Mr. Larsen, if you would like to begin, for your 5-minute opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN LARSEN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION SAFETY BOARD 

Mr. LARSEN. Good afternoon, Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey and members. I am Alan Larsen, counsel to the Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I would like to 

thank the Subcommittee for shining a spotlight on unimplemented 

OIG recommendations. I will provide an overview of what happens 

after OIG makes a recommendation and progress to date by both 

agencies with regard to implementation. 

Most of our audit and program evaluation work is performed in 

accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Findings and recommendations for correcting any deficiencies 

are issued to agency officials as part of the final report, and that 

is also made public. 

The impact of a recommendation may be direct cost savings or 

an improvement in program efficiency or effectiveness. A recommendation may ensure the integrity of a program or result in 

other benefits. 

Once OIG issues a report, it is up to the agency to implement 

recommendations. However, OIG staff tracks each recommendation 

5 

until it is fully implemented, which is a significant part of our oversight work. 

OIG lists unimplemented recommendations in our semiannual 

reports to Congress. Our most recent report cited 148 recommendations unimplemented by EPA and 10 recommendations 

unimplemented by CSB. The average number of unimplemented 

recommendations for the last seven semiannual reporting periods 

was 144, or 133 for EPA and 11 for CSB. The numbers for the first 

and the most recent of those periods were virtually identical: 159 

and 158. In other words, overall, the agencies have been implementing recommendations at the same pace that new ones are 

being added to the list. 

Of the pending unimplemented recommendations reported for 

EPA, the time elapsed since report issuance ranges from less than 

1 year to more than 9 years. The age of CSB’s unimplemented recommendations ranges from nearly 3 years to more than 5 years. 

Government auditing standards require that OIG obtains the 

agency’s views regarding proposed recommendations. If the agency 

agrees with the recommendations, it must provide intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates. OIG’s project team assesses the agency’s proposal and determines if it sufficiently meets 

the intent of our recommendations. 

When the agency does not fully agree with OIG’s findings or recommendations, we note that disagreement in our report. OMB requires an audit resolution process; EPA fulfills this requirement 

via its Manual 2750, which establishes that the agency is responsible for ensuring that management decisions on OIG recommendations are implemented. 

In most cases, OIG and the agency agree on final report recommendations. When there is a disagreement, we follow an escalating resolution process with three tiers as needed. OIG would not 

remove a recommendation from our unimplemented list based on 

agency refusal to act or because too much time has passed. 

The EPA chief financial officer and OMB managing director are 

responsible for assessing and reporting to OIG on each agency’s 

progress. In turn, the OIG monitors, reviews, and verifies that 

progress. In addition, OIG conducts followup audits. These assignments are based on size, complexity, and significance of the issues 

and recommendations in the original report. 

In conclusion, accomplishing the tasks I have discussed requires 

sufficient appropriated funds from Congress. During the past year, 

we have returned $16 for every dollar given to us. When OIG is 

unable to carry out its responsibilities because of inadequate funding, it is a net loss to the Federal Government and the American 

taxpayers. While I am aware that this Subcommittee is not an appropriations committee, I respectfully ask for any help that you can 

provide us in this regard, and we certainly appreciate your support 

for our work. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you or the members have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:] 

6 


20773.001
7 


20773.002
8 


20773.003
9 


20773.004
10 


20773.005
11 


20773.006
12 


20773.007
13 


20773.009
14 


20773.010
15 


20773.011
16 


20773.012
17 


20773.013
18 


20773.014
19 


20773.015
20 

Senator ROUNDS. Mr. Larsen, thank you for your testimony. 

We will now hear from Mr. Alfredo Gomez. Mr. Gomez, you may 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOMEZ. Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, and 

members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I am pleased to be 

here today to discuss the status of recommendations GAO has 

made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

As you have both noted, the mission of EPA is to protect human 

health and the environment. We have conducted reviews focused on 

various aspects of EPA’s programs and operations, and through 

these reviews we have made numerous recommendations to improve EPA’s performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of its 

programs and operations. 

My statement today focuses on two main areas: first, the status 

of EPA’s implementation of GAO’s recommendations from fiscal 

years 2006 through 2015, and how these recommendations relate 

to EPA programs and operations; and, No. 2, benefits realized by 

EPA based on our work. 

As part of our process, we followup on recommendations we have 

made and report their status to Congress. Agencies have a responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records on the status of 

our recommendations. We then followup with EPA at least once a 

year to determine the extent to which our recommendations have 

been implemented and the benefits that have been realized. We 

consider a recommendation implemented when EPA has taken actions that address the issue or deficiency we have identified. 

With regard to the first area on the status of GAO recommendations, we found that of the 325 recommendations we made EPA 

had implemented 174. The remaining 151 recommendations remain 

open or not implemented. For recommendations that we made over 

a 4-year period, that is, from Fiscal Year 2006 to 2011, EPA had 

implemented 77 percent. For recommendations made within the 

last 4 years, that is, from Fiscal Year 2012 to 2015, EPA had implemented 17 percent. 

Experience has shown that it takes time for some recommendations to be implemented. It is for this reason that we actively track 

unaddressed or open recommendations for 4 years. 

The 325 recommendations fall into six categories, such as EPA 

management and operations, water-related issues, and environmental contamination and cleanup. With regard to the 151 recommendations that EPA has not yet implemented, 70 percent of 

these recs we made in the last 4 years and mainly concern EPA 

management and operations and water-related issues. 

For example, in 2014, we reported on EPA’s Regulatory Impact 

Analyses, or RIAs, which are analyses of the benefits and costs of 

proposed regulations. We found that the information that EPA included and presented in the RIAs was not always clear. We recommended that EPA enhance the Agency’s review process for RIAs 

to ensure that information for selected elements is transparent and 

clear, such as when discussing regulatory alternatives. While EPA 

21 

agreed with this recommendation, the recommendation remains 

open until we see evidence that EPA has taken action to enhance 

its review process. 

We have also identified many benefits, such as programmatic 

and process improvements based on EPA taking actions on our recommendations. For example, we issued several reports on drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure issues. In particular, we reported on the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs 

of rural and small communities. 

We found that these communities face potentially duplicative application requirements when applying to multiple State and Federal programs, making it more costly and time-consuming to complete the application process. We recommended that EPA work 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop a uniform preliminary engineering report template, a key step in the application 

process, and they have done so. 

In summary, our recommendations provide a good opportunity to 

improve the Government’s fiscal position, better serve the public, 

and make Government programs more efficient and effective. EPA’s 

implementation of our recommendations will help the Agency continue to improve its performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. 

We will continue to work with Congress to monitor and draw attention to this important issue. 

Chairman Rounds, Ranking Member Markey, and members of 

the Subcommittee, that completes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:] 

22 


20773.016
23 


20773.017
24 


20773.018
25 


20773.019
26 


20773.020
27 


20773.021
28 


20773.022
29 


20773.023
30 


20773.024
31 


20773.025
32 


20773.026
33 


20773.027
34 


20773.028
35 


20773.029
36 


20773.030
37 


20773.031
38 


20773.032
39 


20773.033
40 


20773.034
41 


20773.035
42 


20773.036
43 


20773.037
44 


20773.038
45 


20773.039
46 


20773.040
47 


20773.041
48 


20773.042
49 


20773.043
50 


20773.044
51 


20773.045
52 


20773.046
53 


20773.047
54 


20773.048
55 


20773.049
56 


20773.050
57 


20773.051
58 


20773.052
59 


20773.053
60 


20773.054
61 


20773.055
62 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Gomez. 

Senators will now have 5 minutes each for questions. I will 

begin. 

Mr. Larsen, the OIG’s most recent semiannual report to Congress cited 148 unimplemented EPA recommendations. Your testimony mentions annual followup audits, but how else does the OIG 

work with EPA to ensure these recommendations are thoroughly 

implemented in a timely manner? 

Mr. LARSEN. The Agency has the official and ultimate responsibility to track and implement these recommendations, and they do 

that. We keep track, ourselves, of their progress, and at the end of 

each semiannual reporting period we compare with the Agency’s 

tracking and we make sure that we agree on what are open recommendations and what are unimplemented recommendations. At 

that point we sometimes check back and say you promised progress 

as of a certain date and you haven’t done it; why is that not happening. We also will do followup audits. In addition to tracking the 

existing recommendations, we may launch a new project to find out 

what is going on, why things aren’t progressing. 

Senator ROUNDS. Do you report your progress back to Congress 

as well, on the implementations and the followup? Is there a followup on a regulation-by-regulation basis that Congress receives as 

well? 

Mr. LARSEN. The primary reporting back is in the semiannual report, and in that we have an appendix that report-by-report, recommendation-by-recommendation indicates the status of the 

unimplemented recommendations; how far behind they are and 

what the Agency’s reason for not having made the progress is. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Gomez, the EPA has implemented 77 percent of recommendations that the GAO made from 2006 to 2011, as you indicated, and only 17 percent of the recommendations were made from 

2012 to 2015. These figures also reveal that for older recommendations, from 2006 to 2011, nearly 30 percent remain unimplemented. 

What is the average amount of time the EPA takes to implement 

GAO’s recommendations and why does it take years to implement 

your recommendations? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So, in most cases, our experience has shown that it 

takes agencies, EPA among them, about 4 years to implement our 

recs. So we make a variety of recommendations. Some of them do 

require a little bit more time, for example, if the recommendation 

is where EPA has to work with stakeholders, whether they be 

other Federal agencies, State agencies, to put together different 

memorandums or strategies. In other cases, though, where we 

make a recommendation, for example, that EPA use existing web 

tools that it has to provide information to the public to clarify information, in those cases we think that the Agency could actually do 

those a lot faster than a couple of years. 

As I mentioned in my statement, we also track them for 4 years 

very carefully. We have a website where you can see for each report the status of each recommendation, similar to what the IG 

does. So anyone can see what the status is. We do encourage the 

agency to implement the recommendations as quickly as possible. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Gomez. 

63 

Mr. Larsen, you indicated there was a cost-savings for the 

amount of money that we spend in OIG activities versus the return. Can you elaborate on the amount of cost-savings your office 

finds at the EPA and how you find these cost-savings and how you 

make the recommendation? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. What I can’t do, and I am sorry to say I won’t 

be able to do, is to take an individual recommendation and say that 

one will end up saving $1 million. So we can’t do that. There are 

any number of recommendations we make that we don’t attempt to 

and are unable to assign a dollar figure to. So those $16 per dollar comes from the projects we do where 

there is an identifiable dollar savings; and, as I say, many of the 

other projects may have, I don’t know, a more intangible benefit, 

whether it is health benefits or a process savings. So we don’t try 

to establish a cost-savings where it would be a fanciful number. 

Senator ROUNDS. I understand. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Gomez, for the EPA to properly evaluate and regulate 

toxic substances, it is essential that they have the most up-to-date 

chemical and toxicity data available. One key recommendation you 

have made is that EPA needs to improve its efforts to test and 

evaluate chemicals. To what extent will the recently passed TSCA 

reform legislation assist EPA in addressing GAO’s open chemical 

safety recommendations? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So we believe that some of the provisions in the new 

TSCA law would help EPA address some of the open recommendations that we have. For example, one of the recommendations we 

made was that EPA should take steps to obtain more chemical toxicity and exposure information; and the new TSCA legislation does 

enhance EPA’s authority to obtain such information from chemical 

manufacturers and processors. So once EPA takes action on those 

measures, we will then reevaluate to see if we can close those recommendations. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much, because when we were 

working together on a bipartisan basis on that legislation, it was 

important, as we negotiated TSCA, that we remove the catch–22 

that forced EPA to know a chemical was dangerous before it could 

require safety testing to be done on that chemical. And I am also 

that EPA’s new authority will help with that as well. 

Again, Director Gomez, in your testimony you stated that the 

EPA has implemented 174 out of 325 recommendations made in 

the last 10 years. However, GAO recognizes that recommendations 

cannot be implemented overnight and takes an average of 4 years 

to implement. 

When you look at recommendations made four or more years ago, 

EPA has an implementation record that is just about equal to the 

80 percent Government-wide average. Do you agree, Director 

Gomez, that EPA is putting a concerted effort toward implementing 

GAO recommendations in a manner that is similar to other Federal 

agencies? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So, right, EPA’s average is similar to the agencywide average. What we have done with EPA most recently was we 

decided to do outreach and update twice a year because we wanted 

64 

to get more current information from EPA so that perhaps we 

could close more of the recommendations, or at least just work with 

them in terms of if there are some recommendations where they 

disagree with us, so we agree to disagree. 

But the recommendations for us is a pretty high bar. I mean, it 

is a recommendation that is made based on having good understanding of what is happening on the ground, what the requirements are that the Agency is supposed to be doing, what the reasons are as to why they are not doing that or why there is a deficiency. So our recommendations are fairly well supported and articulated, so we want the Agency to implement our recommendations. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Larsen, let me come over to you. In the 

last 7 years EPA has received over 1,700 recommendations from 

the inspector general. Since, in the last annual report, only 148 of 

those 1,700 remained unimplemented, would you agree, Mr. 

Larsen, that EPA generally does act on your recommendations in 

about 4 years, similar to EPA’s record in implementing GAO recommendations? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, Senator Markey. We don’t track them exactly 

that way, but in preparation for this hearing I asked our staff to 

try to come up with that number and we came up with 3.7 years 

on average for implementing the recommendations by the Agency. 

Senator MARKEY. So, in general, what you are saying is that 

GAO and the inspector general at the department at the EPA have 

a very similar view of the speed with which EPA does respond. 

Mr. LARSEN. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. And that it is in line with all other agencies 

in the Federal Government. 

Mr. LARSEN. That one I can’t answer. We don’t know where the 

other agencies stand, but for us it appears we are in line with the 

GAO. 

Senator MARKEY. I guess the fact that we were having a hearing, 

had you had to compile that information wouldn’t give you enough 

time to then compare it to the rest of the whole Government. 

But do you agree with that, Mr. Gomez, that in general it is in 

the ballpark? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So that has been our experience, that Governmentwide it generally takes agencies a little longer, and that is why we 

track it each year closely. 

Senator MARKEY. OK, beautiful. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Chairman INHOFE. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Gomez, in response to a request that I submitted, the GAO issued a legal opinion on December 14th of 2015 

concerning the EPA’s use of social media to promote its WOTUS 

rule. Because GAO found EPA had violated the Anti-Deficiency 

Act, the EPA was required to submit a report to the President and 

Congress and GAO. Now, the first thing I would ask is, what is the 

status of that request? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So we have not received the Anti-Deficiency Act report from EPA. 

65 

Senator INHOFE. Are they making any statement that they deny 

that this was a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act? 

Mr. GOMEZ. Based on our finding, as you noted, the agencies are 

required to submit a report to Congress, to the President through 

OMB, and at the same time submit that report to the comptroller 

general, who is my boss. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, do you have any idea of any kind of discussion or response to that particular one that has taken place 

since 2015? 

Mr. GOMEZ. I do not, but what we can do is we can inquire with 

EPA through our general counsel’s office and get back to you. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, so it would be in line for me or any Member 

of Congress to request that you get a status report on that and 

anything that we want to release for public consumption would be 

acceptable? 

Mr. GOMEZ. Yes, I can take that back. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, I think we should do that, because in 

this case this is a statute that is on the books. It is one that we 

knew this was going on at the time. It is on an issue, the WOTUS 

issue is arguably the most significant issue of all the over-regulations that we have, at least in my State of Oklahoma, and I think 

it is really incumbent to do that. 

Mr. Larsen, as you know, I have been a frequent requester of the 

IG investigations reviews. For instance, in response to a request I 

submitted in 2011, the IG made several recommendations for EPA 

to update its conflict of interest policies and peer review process in 

the 2013 report. This is something that Senator Boozman has 

called to our attention in these meetings; it is something that is 

significant. 

Now, I understand the EPA has reported the recommendations 

are complete, but the OIG has not conducted any formal followup 

review to assess the adequacy of EPA actions. Does the IG plan to 

followup on EPA’s actions per this report? 

Mr. LARSEN. As I mentioned, we do followup reports. We are entering into, as we head into summer, the work plan planning process, and out of that comes our discretionary projects. I don’t know 

if that is on tap for next year for followup. I will check with our 

entities that do those reports and get back to your staff. 

Senator INHOFE. What concerns me is if it is a case of a corporation, corporations or an individual could own stock in a corporation, 

the corporation could own two or 300 or many, many more. So that 

could fall as a conflict of interest. When it is an environmentalist 

group of some kind, you don’t have that, you don’t have the reams 

and reams. 

So I assume when you are looking at the reform of a conflict of 

interest, you are taking things like that into consideration, and 

they are looking at it now, is that correct? 

Mr. LARSEN. What I don’t know is if we have a new project 

planned in that area, and I will get back to you on whether we do. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, I appreciate that. 

Mr. Gomez, July 2014, the GAO report found, among other 

things, that the EPA does not properly consider the impact of its 

66 

regulations on employment. The GAO recommended EPA update 

its approach to estimating employment impacts, but the EPA has 

not done so. You have heard, if you watch what goes on in this 

Committee, on three different occasions we have quoted Administrator McCarthy when she said that there is no evidence that EPA 

regulations have a negative impact on jobs. 

Senator Capito is sitting over here and her eyes started rolling 

around. There are some things that are so obvious it doesn’t take 

that type of a report out there. 

Now, how can McCarthy make such claims when EPA’s process 

for evaluating employment impacts remains broken? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So that was one of our recommendations in the report also, for EPA to look closely at the information they were 

using in calculating employment of facts, and to really find more 

current—— 

Senator INHOFE. Let me ask both of you a question. I know my 

time has expired, but it is significant to me. 

I agree with Senator Markey when he said that both GAO and 

IG have to be independent. Now, GAO, in my eyes, is independent 

because there is not a relationship in that line. That isn’t quite 

true with the IG because isn’t the IG actually a part of EPA? 

Mr. LARSEN. Senator, we are a part administratively, but the IG 

and the OIG do not take direction from the administrator; we report results to—— 

Senator INHOFE. So you think your level of independence is not 

impaired by that relationship? 

Mr. LARSEN. That is correct. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

and Senator Markey for having this hearing today. 

Mr. Gomez, last year you appeared before this Committee at a 

hearing examining S. 543, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, 

which I introduced with Senator Manchin and Inhofe. At the time 

you testified that EPA’s procedures for processing congressional requests to the Science Advisory Board did not comply with the law. 

GAO subsequently issued a report with four specific recommendations to ensure EPA compliance. 

Your written testimony for today’s hearing indicates that EPA 

has not implemented the recommendations. The question is how 

can EPA go a year without adopting these common sense recommendations to ensure compliance with the law? 

Mr. GOMEZ. So, right, we made four recommendations in that report and the recommendations were focused on helping to improve 

the procedures that EPA has in place for processing congressional 

committee requests for scientific advice from the Science Advisory 

Board; and as we understand it, as of March of this year, EPA is 

developing a written process that would address our recommendations. 

We are waiting for that process to be completed so that we can 

then assess it and look to see if it addresses the intent of our recommendations. And our recommendations were very specific about 

67 

the process that we believe EPA should have in place as it processes requests from Congress for scientific advice. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So is this a budget issue, as to why they have 

not come forward? 

Mr. GOMEZ. We have not been told that is a budget issue. Our 

recommendations were about improving the process that they have 

in place. In some cases it wasn’t well documented, so we don’t see 

that it is a resource issue and they haven’t said it is a resource 

issue there. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And I guess that is an irritant of mine. We 

hear a lot about budgets and budgets are tight, but some of these 

things just don’t get done; and, again, a year is a long time. 

On the topic of the EPA Science Advisory Board, I want to ask 

you about a requirement of the Fiscal Year 2016 omnibus that EPA 

develop a policy statement on Science Advisory Board membership 

that would incorporate the goals of increasing State and Tribal representation on the Science Advisory Board, as well as update its 

conflict of interest policy similar to what Senator Inhofe was asking 

Mr. Larsen. 

Per the omnibus, EPA was to develop the policy and submit to 

the GAO again for review in March. Has EPA submitted the statement to GAO? 

Mr. GOMEZ. EPA has not submitted that conflict of interest statement to us yet. The last we had heard was that they were reviewing it internally and it was due to us the end of April, but we have 

not received it yet. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. So do they say the reason for the delay, 

then? 

Mr. GOMEZ. Only that it is currently being reviewed by the EPA 

Office of congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And, again, this is another thing that doesn’t 

seem to be driven by budget, but just simply not getting things 

done. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Yes, it is not a budget issue, as we understand it; 

it is going through their process. And I know that you had a timeframe for when it was due to GAO, and it is over that timeframe. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen, IG plays an important oversight role in helping Congress improve programs by leading efforts to cut waste, fraud, and 

abuse across Washington. In the EPA OIG semiannual report to 

Congress, more than $6 billion was accounted for as insufficient or 

not documented as being provided to the EPA because EPA failed 

to have complete and accurate data. The report goes on to further 

describe the negative impact this has had on taxpayers, public 

health, and natural resources. 

Can you address the findings and explain to us how the EPA could mismanage $6 billion? Again, with us talking about the problem of not having the resources that some of these basic functions 

need to get done. 

Mr. LARSEN. I understand the question and I am not going to 

pretend that I have the answer to each and every of the reports 

we have. I do have in the room our assistant inspector general for 

audit, or I can get back to you with a specific answer to that, but 

I don’t have those facts at my fingertips. 

68 

Senator BOOZMAN. My time is up. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But I would appreciate it if you would get 

back to us. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Just thinking and listening to the testimony 

here and your responses to the questions, first of all, I appreciate 

the candid way in which you have responded. Second of all, I sense 

the frustration that members of this Committee have offered, both 

Senator Markey and also Chairman Inhofe and Senator Boozman. 

In each case there has been a frustration suggested, and I am just 

going to try to paraphrase this and see if there isn’t something that 

we need to do about it. 

Three and a half to 4 years seems like an awfully long time in 

which to expect to have these things implemented as an average, 

regardless of whether it is with the EPA or with any other Federal 

agency. And at the same time, as Senator Inhofe had suggested, 

there was clearly a wrongdoing, one that you have pointed out and 

that you have asked for a response on, none of which has been 

forthcoming at this time. 

If there was one thing that would frustrate anybody who is concerned with appropriate application of law, protections, as Senator 

Markey has shared or as Senator Inhofe has indicated, a violation 

of a law in terms of how the money was spent, justice that takes 

that long to come through seems to me to be, as they would suggest, justice denied. 

I am just going to ask this, and, Senator Markey, I understand 

that you have another meeting that you have to be at, but I would 

give you, as Ranking Member, the opportunity to respond as well. 

Gentlemen, is there something that we should be doing here in 

order to expedite responses? Is there something we can do to actually get a more expedited response from not just EPA, but from 

other agencies as well, when those recommendations are there and 

clearly there is a time delay? 

Mr. LARSEN. Senator, this is going to sound more bureaucratic 

than I intend it to be, but the structure that was created for the 

IGs allows us to make recommendations. We cannot order an agency to do anything. And it is left to them to decide what to do. Part 

of the independence that I was discussing with Senator Inhofe is 

that we report to the agency. We also report to the Congress. If the 

agency chooses not to, or is unable to, act, Congress is also aware 

of the recommendations we have made; and the way the process 

works, then, if Congress has the ability, if it chooses, to waggle its 

finger or take more strong action. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Gomez. 

Mr. GOMEZ. So our recommendations are exactly that, recommendations; they are not binding. I think what you are doing 

now is exactly what we would like, is to bring more attention to 

the recommendations. As I noted also, our reports are public. Anyone can go and look at the recommendations and look at the status. 

69 

And I have to tell you that we get a lot of inquiries from lots of 

people asking what is the status of recommendations, so EPA is 

well aware of that; and that is one of the reasons why we have 

agreed to update the recommendations twice a year, so that we can 

try and bring closure to them or at least articulate why there is 

disagreement in some cases. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, once again I want to thank you for your testimony 

and just for taking the time today to be with us and participate in 

this hearing. 

I would also like to thank Senator Markey, my colleague, Senator 

Boozman, Senator Inhofe for being here. 

The record will be open for 2 weeks, which brings us to Tuesday, 

June 28th, and, with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Subcommittee Chairman Rounds for convening today’s oversight hearing, and thank you to our witnesses from the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) for being here to testify. 

Today’s hearing is important because Members of Congress are charged with conducting oversight over executive agencies, such as the EPA, to ensure compliance 

with their statutory authority and mission in a manner free of waste, fraud, and 

abuse. EPA watchdogs such as the GAO and the OIG play a critical role in partnership with Congress to fulfill this oversight function. 

I have long valued this partnership as a frequent requester of both GAO and EPA 

OIG reviews and investigations, which in many cases result in recommendations for 

the Agency to enhance performance, create efficiencies, and safeguard taxpayer dollars. However, as testimony today reveals, EPA has been slow to implement OIG 

and GAO recommendations. For instance, GAO will testify that nearly thirty percent of EPA recommendations made between 2006 and 2011 remain 

unimplemented, and only 17 percent of GAO’s recommendations from 2012 to 2015 

have been implemented. The EPA OIG’s testimony similarly highlights a significant 

number of open recommendations; most recently reporting 148 unimplemented EPA 

recommendations, 89 of which are more than a year old. 

Among those unimplemented OIG and GAO recommendations, several are of 

great interest to the Committee’s oversight efforts. For example, EPA has yet to implement various GAO recommendations regarding the Agency’s procedures for processing congressional requests for scientific advice by the Agency’s Science Advisory 

Board. Further, EPA has yet to implement nearly 2-year-old recommendations from 

GAO to improve its regulatory impact analyses, including updates to the way EPA 

estimates the impact its regulations have on employment. Finally, EPA still needs 

to implement various recommendations from the OIG to ensure its hiring process 

is sound in light of the John Beale scandal and the Agency’s recent mass hiring. 

These outstanding recommendations are concerning as both the EPA OIG and 

GAO are in the midst of substantial reviews and investigations into the Animas 

River spill at Gold King Mine and the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Subsequent GAO and OIG reports will undoubtedly include numerous recommendations 

for EPA, yet based on testimony today I have little confidence EPA will fully and 

swiftly implement these recommendations. 

Indeed, today’s hearing raises questions about why EPA has been late to implementing many common-sense recommendations. I have been concerned the EPA has 

been deviating from its core mission and focusing on pushing new regulatory actions 

that are political priorities of President Obama without new authority from Congress, as is the case with the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule, which 

have both been halted by the Courts pending judicial review. 

For these reasons, we need to engage with EPA watchdogs like GAO and the OIG 

to ensure they are effective and hold EPA accountable. Today is another step toward 

continuing that relationship. 

70 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who will share perspective on 

EPA’s major challenges and how the Agency is implementing GAO and OIG recommendations. 

I ask that my full statement be entered into the record. Thank you. 

Æ