Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

Status of Achieving

Key Outcomes and

Addressing Major

Management

Challenges

GAO-01-774
Page 1 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

June 15, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson:

As you requested, we reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan required by the Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency’s progress in achieving selected

key outcomes that you identified as important mission areas for the

agency.1

 These are the same outcomes we addressed in our June 2000

review of the agency’s fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year

2001 performance plan to provide a baseline by which to measure the

agency’s performance from year-to-year.2

 These selected key outcomes are

• the air in every community is safe and healthy to breathe,

• water is safe for drinking and recreation,

• hazardous waste (“Superfund”) sites are cleaned up, and

• food supplies are free from unsafe pesticide residues.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for EPA as a framework, we

(1) assessed the progress EPA has made in achieving these outcomes and

the strategies the agency has in place to achieve them and (2) compared

the EPA fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan with the agency’s prior year performance report and

plan for these outcomes. Additionally, we agreed to analyze how EPA

addressed its major management challenges, including the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security, that we and EPA’s Office of Inspector General

 1

This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act

agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal year 2002 performance plans.

2

See Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance

Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-00-203R, June 30, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

(OIG) identified. (App. I provides detailed information on how EPA

addressed these challenges).

EPA reported reasonable progress in achieving its key outcomes. In

general, EPA’s strategies for achieving these outcomes appear to be clear

and reasonable. Specifically,

• Planned outcome: The air in every community is safe and healthy to

breathe. EPA reported attaining air quality standards in more areas of

the country and reducing emissions of toxic pollutants. However, EPA

noted that the data demonstrating attainment have potential

limitations, including imprecise measurement and recording and

inconsistent or nonstandard methods of data collection and processing.

The agency further noted that data to confirm the toxic emissions

reductions will not be available for several years. EPA’s strategy for

achieving its goal of improving air quality appears clear and reasonable

and relies on working with states, tribes, and local governments to

achieve compliance with standards for six principal pollutants. For

other toxic air pollutants, EPA has developed a monitoring strategy

with the assistance of states and local regulators and is beginning to

implement this strategy.

• Planned outcome: Water is safe for drinking and recreation. EPA

reported that it is making strides in achieving its goal of safe and clean

drinking water by achieving the annual performance goal of having 91

percent of the population served by community drinking water systems

receiving drinking water that meets all health-based standards that

were in effect as of 1994. However, EPA acknowledged that the data

for drinking water are of uncertain quality, noting discrepancies

between state and national databases. The agency further reported that

it achieved its goal of reducing exposure to contaminated recreational

waters by increasing information available to the public and

decisionmakers on beach contamination; however, this information

may be incomplete because it is reported voluntarily and there are no

rigorous quality checks on data quality. EPA’s strategy for ensuring that

water is safe for drinking and recreation appears reasonable and

involves several approaches, such as providing states with funding for

drinking water revolving funds. These strategies may not be fully

successful in achieving the strategic goal because of factors such as

funding constraints that may impair the states’ ability to implement

their programs, as we reported.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

• Planned outcome: Hazardous waste (“Superfund”) sites are cleaned up.

EPA reported that it made progress in cleaning up hazardous waste

sites by exceeding its fiscal year 2000 goal of completing construction

cleanup at 85 Superfund sites by having 87 sites completed. EPA’s

measure of completing construction reflects that a cleanup remedy is

in place, and not necessarily that all cleanup work is completed and the

sites can be returned to economic use. The agency also reported that it

nearly attained its goal of securing cleanup commitments from

responsible parties for 70 percent of new construction sites. For

federal Superfund sites, the agency fell short in reaching inter-agency

agreements with other agencies that are responsible for site

contamination and clean up. Of the six agreements targeted for

completion in fiscal year 2000, only two were completed. EPA’s

strategy of working in partnership with state and tribal governments to

clean up Superfund sites is reasonable. EPA’s strategy for reaching

interagency agreements for site cleanups with other federal agencies is

less clear without more specific information in its performance report.

• Planned outcome: Food supplies are free from unsafe pesticide

residues. EPA reported making progress in ensuring that food is free

from unsafe pesticide residues, especially where children are

concerned. It reported that it met its goals in registering new pesticides

for use that are safe for human health and the environment. However,

the agency reported that it fell short in its efforts to reassess the safety

of existing pesticide residue levels to ensure that they meet the

statutory standard, primarily because of the continued development of

a policy on addressing cumulative risk. EPA’s strategies to accomplish

its goals involve evaluating test data on pesticide ingredients before it

registers a product for sale and developing and evaluating improved

methods to estimate human exposure risk from pesticides. These

reported strategies appear clear and reasonable.

EPA made a number of improvements to its fiscal year 2000 performance

report. For example, the report (1) presents tables of performance results

by individual strategic goal, rather than a consolidated table for all goals;

(2) presents more information on the actions taken to identify or validate

the quality of information included in the report; and (3) addresses, in a

separate section, the major management challenges that we and the OIG

raised as well as agency-identified internal weaknesses. Several of these

changes are in direct response to the concerns we raised regarding the

prior year’s report. The performance report still falls short, however, in

providing information on crosscutting goals and measures, such as how

other federal agencies’ goals supplement or complement EPA’s goals.
Page 4 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

EPA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan is similar—in format, clarity, and

amount of information presented—to the prior year’s plan. However, the

2002 plan is based on EPA’s revised (in fiscal year 2000) Strategic Plan,

while the fiscal year 2001 performance plan was based on the previous

Strategic Plan; accordingly, the goals and the objectives differ somewhat.

For example, the focus of the safe food goal has been modified, and the

number of objectives has been changed.

EPA’s fiscal year 2000 performance report addressed all of the major

management challenges that we raised. For example, the report presents

information on the agency’s implementation of a human capital strategy

and sets forth the agency’s corrective action strategy, which calls for

identifying program skills needed in the future and the gap with existing

skills. EPA’s 2002 performance plan’s goals and performance measures

address some, but not all, major management challenges. Of the four

major management challenges we identified, EPA’s performance plan has

four goals and seven measures that are directly related to three of the

challenges—strategic human capital management, information security,

and environmental and performance information management. We

provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and

comment. The agency generally agreed with our findings and provided

several technical clarifications, which we incorporated, as appropriate,

into the report.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,

management, and accountability from activities and processes to the

results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable

information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been

provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA,

annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the

public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs

and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3)

the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals,

and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate

performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after

transmittal of the president’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an

agency’s longer-term goals and mission and day-to-day activities.3

 Annual

performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which

performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance

 3

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual plans under GPRA.

Background
Page 5 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more

substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to

assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to

consider what steps are needed to improve performance, and reduce costs

in the future.4

With over 18,000 employees and an annual budget of approximately $7

billion, EPA funds diverse regulatory, research, enforcement, and

technical assistance programs and activities that are directed toward

controlling pollution of the air, land, and water. The nation’s annual costs

to comply with environmental regulations are substantial and have been

growing, and costs were estimated at about $148 billion in 2000. A key

aspect of EPA’s performance management involves working cooperatively

with its state partners in managing environmental programs. As authorized

by environmental statutes, the agency has delegated to the states the

responsibility for day-to-day implementation of most federal

environmental programs; thus, EPA’s working relationships with the states

can directly affect the achievement of many of the agency’s strategic goals.

Over the past few years, we have identified weaknesses and made a

number of recommendations designed to improve EPA’s working

relationships with the states.5

This section discusses our analysis of the EPA’s performance in achieving

its selected key outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place,

particularly strategic human capital management6

 and information

technology, for achieving these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes,

we have also provided information drawn from our prior work on the

extent to which the agency provided assurance that the performance

information that it is reporting is credible.

 4

The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these annual reports under

GPRA.

5

For example, see EPA and the States: Environmental Challenges Require a Better Working

Relationship (GAO/RCED-95-64, Apr. 3, 1995); Superfund: Stronger EPA-State Relationship

Can Improve Cleanups and Reduce Costs (GAO/RCED-97-77, Apr. 24, 1997); and

Environmental Protection: Collaborative EPA-State Effort Needed to Improve New

Performance Partnership System (GAO/RCED-99-171, June 21, 1999).

6

Key elements of modern human capital management include strategic human capital

planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and

creating results-oriented organizational cultures.

Assessment of EPA’s

Progress and

Strategies in

Achieving Selected

Key Outcomes
Page 6 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

EPA reported making progress toward achieving its long-term goal of safe

and healthy air in communities. Specifically, the agency reported achieving

its goals of improving air quality in areas that do not meet the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA under the

Clean Air Act. For example, the number of areas attaining air quality

standards for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead

pollutants increased from 46 to 56, affecting 27.7 to 31.1 million people,

respectively. EPA reported progress in reducing airborne toxic emissions

that pose serious adverse health effects, including cancer, and expected to

exceed its goal for fiscal year 2000. The agency also reported that it was on

schedule to reach its goals for reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen

oxide emissions from utility sources under the Acid Rain Program.

The performance report acknowledges that there are some data

limitations with the Aerometric Information Retrieval System for reporting

NAAQS progress. For example, the report states that data demonstrating

improvement in national ambient air quality standards may be limited by

inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement and recording and

inconsistent or nonstandard methods of data collection and processing.

On the other hand, the report states that monitoring stations providing

data must meet certain requirements for accurate data gathering and

reporting, and reviews are conducted to ensure requirements are met. (In

commenting on a draft of this report, an official of EPA’s Office of Air and

Radiation stressed that the agency has quality assurance and control

procedures so that legal determinations can be made about areas’

attainment status.) Further, EPA’s reported progress for its annual

performance goal related to toxic air pollutant emissions relies on

calculations and estimates. The performance report notes that the data to

confirm reductions in toxic emissions will not be available until 2004

because of time lags associated with reporting and analysis. Similarly, for

reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from utility sources, the

data to confirm the reported progress will not be available until the end of

calendar year 2001. Speeding the collection and verification of emissions

data would enhance the agency’s ability to report its actual performance

and to support its claims of progress toward these goals by the required

date for annual reports. However, according to EPA, the time taken to

perform data quality assurance for both the toxic air pollutants and Acid

Rain Program will result in continued data-reporting lags.

EPA’s strategy for achieving its goal of improving air quality is to work

with states, tribes, and local governments to achieve compliance with

NAAQS for six principal pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen

dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, EPA

Safe and Healthy Air for

Communities
Page 7 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

required selected states to develop implementation plans to reduce

nitrogen oxide emissions and is working with states to collect information

on particulate matter. For toxic air pollutants, EPA has developed a

monitoring strategy with the assistance of states and local regulators and

is beginning to implement this strategy. The agency is also conducting a

national assessment focusing on 33 air toxics that present the greatest

threat to human health in urban areas, and is planning to establish a

monitoring network for toxic pollutants similar to the network for the

NAAQS pollutants. EPA’s strategy for achieving its goal of improving air

quality appears clear and reasonable.

One of the agency’s strategies for clean air is the continued

implementation of the Acid Rain Program, which is focused on reducing

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions at the highest-emitting power

plants in the nation. In a March 2000 report, we observed that trends in

nitrate levels in lakes affected by acid rain highlighted the significance of

nitrogen oxide emissions and that because the Acid Rain Program (as

authorized by the Clean Air Act) requires relatively little reduction in

nitrogen oxide emissions, the prospects are uncertain for the recovery of

already acidified lakes and for preventing further acidification.7

 As noted

above, EPA has taken other action, outside of the Acid Rain Program, to

reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

EPA reported that it is making strides in achieving its goal of safe and

clean drinking water. The agency reported that it achieved its goal of

having 91 percent of the population, served by community drinking water

systems, receiving drinking water that meets all health-based standards

that were in effect as of 1994. The agency further reported that it achieved

its goal of reducing exposure to contaminated recreational waters by

increasing information available to the public and decisionmakers. For

example, the agency made electronic information available on the

condition of 1,981 beaches, which enabled the public to locate beach

closings and reduce its exposure to contaminated recreational waters.

Concluding that both of these goals have been achieved, however, relies

on information from sources with data limitations acknowledged by EPA.

For example, the Safe Drinking Water Information System is the main data

source for states’ implementation of and compliance with drinking water

 7

See Acid Rain: Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States

(GAO/RCED-00-47, Mar. 9, 2000).

Safe Water for Drinking and

Recreation
Page 8 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

regulations. EPA notes that there are recurrent reports of discrepancies

between national and state databases and misidentifications, resulting in

EPA designating the system data as an agency weakness in 1999 under the

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act. To help correct these

discrepancies, EPA developed and implemented state-specific training for

data entry and developed transaction processing and tracking reports.

Similarly, beach condition information is voluntarily reported into a

database for public access. EPA notes that there are no rigorous quality

checks on data quality and, because reporting is voluntary, data are

incomplete. However, EPA officials stated that data are checked for

completeness and questions about missing data are resolved with state or

local officials.

EPA’s strategy for ensuring that water is safe for drinking involves several

approaches, and relies heavily on actions by the states. (Under the Safe

Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, the states are responsible for

implementing programs to help ensure that drinking water systems have

the financial, technical, and managerial ability to comply with regulations

and for overseeing water systems’ compliance with regulations on specific

contaminants.) While these are reasonable strategies to accomplish EPA’s

goals, we have identified opportunities for the agency to implement them

more effectively. For example:

• First, the agency uses a regulatory approach by issuing standards that

address acceptable levels of contaminants in drinking water. For

example, within the past year the agency established a new standard

for arsenic in drinking water. (The agency recently delayed the

effective date of the arsenic standard until February 2002.) EPA

conducts research to support these standards. We have recommended,

and EPA subsequently concurred, that the agency improve its planning

for this research to ensure that it will be adequately funded and

research results will be available when needed.8

• Second, the agency provides funding to states for drinking water

revolving funds. While the state revolving funds are primarily directed

at financing local infrastructure, the states, at their option, may reserve

up to 31 percent of their annual allotments for related program

activities, such as training water system operators. In an August 2000

 8

 See Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and Resources

(GAO/RCED-99-273, Sept. 24, 1999).
Page 9 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

report, we observed that, even with the funding available from EPA,

state-level spending constraints could impair the states’ ability to meet

future program requirements, and concluded that it will become

imperative to address the factors that have thus far affected the states’

ability to implement their programs.9

• Finally, the agency addresses state drinking water sources through the

Source Water Assessment and Prevention Program. Under this

program states conduct assessments of public water supplies in

helping to determine the susceptibility of contamination. While we

have not specifically evaluated the source water assessment program,

we have identified difficulties EPA and the states have faced in

assessing the quality of surface waters.10

EPA reported that it made progress in cleaning up hazardous waste sites

and that most long-term commitments for the Superfund program were on

track or ahead of schedule. The agency reported that it exceeded its fiscal

year 2000 goal of completing construction cleanup at 85 Superfund sites by

having 87 sites with construction cleanup complete, which the agency

defines as the point at which a cleanup remedy is in place. While reaching

this point may take many years, more time may be needed before all

cleanup standards are achieved and some remaining long-term threats are

addressed at the site. Therefore, we have reported that “construction

complete” should not be construed as an indicator that all cleanup work is

completed and the sites can be returned to economic use.11 Accordingly,

while EPA attained its goal, this should not be construed that the sites are

cleaned up and no further actions are necessary.

The agency fell short of its annual performance goal for reaching

interagency agreements with other federal agencies that are responsible

for site contamination and clean up. Of the six agreements targeted for

completion in fiscal year 2000, only two were completed but the agency

reported that two more were completed since the beginning of fiscal year

2001. For nonfederal sites, the agency reported that it nearly attained its

 9

 See Drinking Water: Spending Constraints Could Affect States’ Ability to Implement

Increasing Program Requirements (GAO/RCED-00-199, Aug. 31, 2000).

10 See Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete

Data, (GAO/RCED-00-54, Mar. 15, 2000).

11 See Superfund: Extent to Which Most Reforms Have Improved the Program Is Unknown,

(GAO/RCED-00-118, May 12, 2000).

Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste

(“Superfund”) Sites
Page 10 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

goal for securing cleanup commitments from responsible parties for 70

percent of the new construction starts and for recovering costs from

responsible parties when EPA spends $200,000 or more for site cleanups.

EPA works in partnership with state and tribal governments to clean up

Superfund sites and ensure that parties responsible for the site

contamination pay a fair share of the cleanup costs. EPA may compel

parties responsible for the contamination to perform the cleanup, or it

may pay for the cleanup and attempt to recover the costs. EPA may also

enter into settlements with responsible parties to clean up sites or recover

costs. The agency must initiate cost recovery actions within time periods

specified in the statute of limitations, and EPA’s goal is to take action on

all cases with cleanup costs of $200,000 or more within those timeframes.

We previously found that EPA had excluded certain indirect cost items in

recovering amounts from responsible parties; however, in October 2000,

EPA adopted a new indirect cost rate that should increase recoveries and

make more funds available for the program.12

EPA’s strategy for reaching interagency agreements for site cleanups with

other federal agencies is less clear without more specific information in

the performance report. The agency reported that it will continue to

compel federal parties to complete the agreements but did not elaborate

on a strategy for achieving this goal in the performance report. Without

more specific information on interagency activities it is unclear how EPA

will accomplish this performance goal.

EPA reported making progress in ensuring that food is free from unsafe

pesticide residues, especially where children are concerned. The agency

continues to register new pesticides for use that pose lower risk to human

health and the environment than some older pesticides. For example, the

agency reported that it met its goal of approving 6 new chemicals that are

safe for use in pesticides; exceeded its goal for reduced risk chemicals by

approving 16; and approved 427 new uses in fiscal year 2000. EPA also

reported on its efforts to reassess the safety of existing allowable pesticide

residue levels (tolerances) to ensure that they are safe as required in the

1996 Food Quality Protection Act. EPA reassessed 121 tolerances, well

short of its goal of 1,250 for fiscal year 2000. As of September 2000, the

agency reported that it had completed reassessments for 3,551 tolerances

 12See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection Agency,

(GAO-01-257, Jan. 2001).

Unsafe Pesticide Residues in

Food Supplies
Page 11 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

and that it was on track to complete 6,415 tolerances by August 2002, and

9,721 by August 2006, as mandated by the act. As we noted in a September

2000 report, however, the only tolerances that EPA counted as

“reassessed” for the high-risk organophosphate pesticides—which account

for more than half of all food crop insecticides used in this country—were

ones that were canceled voluntarily by the manufacturers, without the

need for extensive EPA work.13

EPA’s reported strategies to accomplish the agency’s goal that food does

not have unsafe pesticide residues appear clear and reasonable, and

involve EPA evaluating test data on pesticide ingredients before it

registers a product for sale and use. The test data include studies on the

effects products will have on humans, animals, and plants. The agency is

also developing and evaluating improved methods to estimate human

exposure risk from pesticides. For example, the agency sought public

comment on 14 guidelines or policy papers on evaluating pesticide topics

and consulted with stakeholders through the Tolerance Reassessment

Advisory Committee. To reassess tolerances as required under the Food

Quality Protection Act, the agency has focused on tolerance assessments

involving high-risk organophosphate pesticides. EPA views this activity as

a major step in risk reduction and we believe this is a reasonable

approach. Because this class of chemical has a common method of

toxicity, EPA must also perform a cumulative risk assessment as required

by the Food Quality and Protection Act. EPA reports that when a

cumulative risk policy is issued by the end of fiscal year 2001, the number

of completed reassessments will surge. The agency’s report mentions, but

does not elaborate on, difficulties in developing a cumulative risk policy as

planned and steps that are needed to attain completion of the policy by the

end of fiscal year 2001. While the agency reports that it is making progress

in attaining the future reassessment goals, the uncertainty surrounding the

development of a cumulative risk policy raises questions as to whether the

goals will be ultimately achieved.

 13See Children and Pesticides: New Approach to Considering Risk Is Partly in Place,

(GAO/HEHS-00-175, Sept. 11, 2000).
Page 12 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements

or remaining weaknesses in EPA’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report

in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002

performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also

discusses the degree to which the agency’s fiscal year 2000 report and

fiscal year 2002 plan addresses concerns and recommendations by the

Congress, GAO, the EPA’s OIG, and others.

EPA has made several improvements to its fiscal year 2000 report from the

prior year. Some of these changes are in direct response to concerns that

we raised in our June 2000 report on EPA’s fiscal year 1999 performance

report. These concerns included the need for the performance report to

discuss the prior fiscal year’s performance, actions taken by other

organizations to attain goals, and actions taken to validate data on

performance. In its fiscal year 2000 report, EPA made the following

improvements:

• Included relevant information on actual performance under the fiscal

year 1999 plan, in addition to performance relative to the goals for

fiscal year 2000.

• Identified actions by other federal, state, and local agencies that affect

attainment of its goals, as well as the type of automated systems and

databases that were used to capture information and measure

performance towards meeting the stated goals.

• Identified actions taken to identify or validate the quality of data being

provided by the agency along with data limitations, and audits or

reviews of the data.

• Presented tables of results by individual strategic goal, rather than a

consolidated table for all goals.

The 2000 performance report could also be easily compared to the fiscal

year 2002 performance plan because the report was organized by goal and

objective.

EPA’s performance report states that in setting future annual performance

goals and targets, it will focus on developing outcome-based program

Comparison of EPA’s

Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report

and Fiscal Year 2002

Performance Plan

With the Prior Year

Report and Plan for

Selected Key

Outcomes

Comparison of Performance

Reports for Fiscal Years 1999

and 2000
Page 13 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

goals where possible. The agency has heretofore relied more on outputoriented performance measures, rather than end outcome measures

directly related to environmental conditions. In analyzing EPA’s

performance plan for fiscal year 2000, for example, we found that 16

percent of the agency’s performance goals and measures focused on endoutcomes.14

EPA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan reflects numerous changes to the

performance goals and the related objectives from the 2001 performance

plan. EPA notes in the fiscal year 2002 plan that strategic goals and

objectives are based on the strategic plan as revised in fiscal year 2000 and

may differ from those associated with the previous strategic plan. While

the agency has maintained the titles of goals for the key outcomes we

reviewed, the definition of the safe food goal was changed in the fiscal

year 2002 plan by emphasizing all subpopulations that are particularly

susceptible to pesticides (the fiscal year 2001 plan emphasized only

children even though the program addressed the vulnerability of all

susceptible subpopulations).

The number and definition of selected objectives under the strategic goals

also changed in the fiscal year 2002 plan. For example, the goal for clean

air in the 2002 plan has three objectives, whereas the 2001 plan had four.

This change resulted from combining objectives related to attainment of

air quality standards. In addition, the definition of some objectives

changed in the 2002 plan. For example, in the 2001 plan under the goal of

waste management, the first objective stated that:

“By 2005, EPA and its partners will reduce or control the risk to human health and the

environment at over 375,000 contaminated Superfund, Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), Underground Storage Tank (UST), and brownfield sites.”

In the 2002 plan the objective has been expanded, and its focus and

expected accomplishments modified to state that:

“By 2005, EPA and its federal, state, tribal, and local partners will reduce or control the risk

to human health and the environment at more than 374,000 contaminated Superfund,

RCRA, and UST and brownfields sites and have the planning and preparedness capabilities

 14See Managing for Results: EPA Faces Challenges in Developing Results-Oriented

Performance Goals and Measures (GAO/RCED-00-77, Apr. 28, 2000).

Comparison of Performance

Plans for Fiscal Years 2001 and

2002
Page 14 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

to respond successfully to all known emergencies to reduce the risk to human health and

the environment.”

EPA’s revised strategic plan does not indicate why changes were made to

various goals and objectives.

In our report on EPA’s fiscal year 2001 performance plan, we concluded

that the plan fell short on providing specifics on crosscutting goals and

measures. For example, we reported that EPA did not describe how other

federal agencies’ goals complement or supplement EPA’s goals. The

agency’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also falls short in this regard.

For example, the section of the plan describing coordination with other

agencies on safe drinking water is virtually the same as in the prior year’s

plan and does not discuss other federal agency goals that complement or

supplement EPA’s goals.

GAO has identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human

capital management and information security. Regarding strategic human

capital management, we found that the agency’s performance report did

describe its progress in resolving human capital challenges and EPA’s

performance plan did have a goal and measures related to human capital.

For example, the report identifies human capital strategy implementation

as a management challenge and states that it has a blueprint in place for

initial and long-term steps needed to address the weakness. However, we

found in a January 2001 report that the strategy did not contain

information on specific steps to address human capital issues related to

each of EPA’s 10 strategic goals.15 We also reported that while the agency

has developed a strategy for assessing its human capital needs, it has not

yet implemented the strategy. EPA’s performance plan sets forth human

capital performance measures, but does not clearly convey the rationale

for specific measures or relate them to program-related goals such as

those for clean air or safe drinking water. For example, one performance

measure is to have 40 participants in the SES Candidate Program, but it is

unclear how this measure relates to the growing number of individuals

eligible for retirement or to the needs of any particular program area. With

respect to information security, we found that the agency’s performance

report does describe its progress in resolving its information security

 15See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental Protection Agency

(GAO-01-257, Jan. 2001).

EPA’s Efforts to

Address Its Major

Management

Challenges Identified

by GAO
Page 15 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

challenges and EPA’s performance plan does have goals and measures

related to information security.

We have identified four major management challenges facing EPA. Two of

these involved the governmentwide high-risk areas of human capital and

information security. The third challenge involves EPA-state working

relationships and the fourth challenge involves environmental and

performance information management. EPA’s performance report

discusses the agency’s progress in resolving all of these challenges. For

example, the report discusses EPA’s working relationships with the states

and the need to establish a central authority for its National

Environmental Performance Partnership System. Of the four major

management challenges that we identified, EPA’s performance plan has

four goals and seven measures that are directly related to three of the

challenges—human capital, information security, and environmental and

performance information management. For example, in the area of

information security, the agency has a goal for improving the quality of

environmental information and under that goal is an objective to improve

agency information infrastructure and security. The performance measure

for this objective is directed at completion of risk assessments for

information systems. There are no specific goals or measures related to

the major management challenge of improving working relationships with

the states.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and

comment. The agency generally agreed with the findings in the report and

suggested several technical clarifications, which we incorporated, as

appropriate, into the report. These comments were provided by EPA

officials from the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Pollution Prevention,

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and Office of the Chief Financial

Officer.

Our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA, the

Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to agencies from the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for developing performance plans and

reports (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2), previous reports and evaluations by

us and others, our knowledge of EPA’s operations and programs, our

identification of best practices concerning performance planning and

reporting, and our observations on EPA’s other GPRA-related efforts. We

also discussed our review with agency officials in various EPA

headquarters offices. The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for

our review were identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate

Agency Comments

Scope and

Methodology
Page 16 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Governmental Affairs Committee as important mission areas for the

agency. The major management challenges confronting EPA, including the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security, were identified by GAO in our January 2001

performance and accountability series and high risk update, and were

identified by EPA’s Office of Inspector General in December 2000. We did

not independently verify the information contained in the performance

report and plan, although we did draw from other GAO work in assessing

the validity, reliability, and timeliness of EPA’s performance data. We

conducted our review from April 2001 through June 2001 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate

congressional committees; the Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will

also be made available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.

Key contributors to this report were Willie Bailey, Bernice Dawson, Alice

London, Ron Parker, Colleen Phillips, John Wanska, and Greg Wilshusen.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Wood

Director, Natural Resources and

Environment
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 17 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

The following table identifies the major management challenges

confronting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which includes

the governmentwide high-risk areas of human capital and information

security. The first column of the table lists the management challenges

that we and/or EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) have identified.

The second column discusses what progress, as discussed in its fiscal year

2000 performance report, EPA made in resolving its challenges. The third

column discusses the extent to which EPA’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan includes performance goals and measures to address the challenges

that we and the EPA’s OIG identified. We found that EPA’s performance

report discussed the agency’s progress in resolving its challenges. Of the

agency’s nine major management challenges, its performance plan had (1)

four that were directly related to goals and measures, (2) three that were

indirectly applicable to goals and measures, and (3) two that had no

related goals and measure but discussed strategies to address them.

Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 18 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 1: Major Management Challenges

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

GAO-designated governmentwide

high-risk

Strategic Human Capital

Management: GAO has identified

shortcomings at multiple agencies

involving key elements of modern

strategic human capital

management, including strategic

human capital planning and

organizational alignment; leadership

continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staffs

whose size, skills, and deployment

meet agency needs; and creating

results-oriented organizational

cultures.

(GAO also identified human capital

as a management challenge for

EPA, specifically that EPA needs to

better link its human capital efforts

with its strategic plan and needs to

implement a workforce strategy.)

(The OIG also recognized that EPA

is challenged with developing a

workforce planning strategy that

focuses its attention and resources

on employee development.

Illustratively, training is lacking for

EPA employees implementing the

National Environmental Performance

Partnership System.)

EPA acknowledged in its performance report the

importance of managing its human capital more

strategically and that it had declared human

capital strategy implementation an internal

agency weakness in fiscal year 2000. EPA

discussed the issuance of its new human capital

strategy and its development of a corrective

action plan that identifies activities slated for

completion by fiscal year 2003.

EPA discussed various workforce planning

efforts related to employee competencies,

including piloting five competency training

courses for mid-level managers; identifying

future skills needs; and determining gaps

between those needs and the current workforce.

EPA stated that in fiscal year 2000 it had

implemented or was designing several staff

developmental programs, including starting the

first SES candidate program in more than 10

years in spring 2001. No further details were

included on these activities, nor was information

provided on when specific actions would be

completed.

Under its “Effective Management” goal,

EPA has a specific performance goal on

workforce improvement focused on the

agency’s Senior Executive Service (SES)

Candidate Program and continuing to hire

talented and diverse individuals. The

performance plan specifies 2 outputoriented performance measures: (1) having

40 participants in the SES Candidate

Program and (2) hiring 120 interns.

EPA also acknowledges in the “Special

Analysis” section of its plan that it will

continue focusing on human capital as

significant challenges remain in its efforts to

maintain a workforce with the highly

specialized skills and knowledge required to

help the agency accomplish its

environmental mission.
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 19 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Information Security: Our January

2001 high-risk update noted that the

agencies’ and governmentwide

efforts to strengthen information

security have gained momentum and

expanded. Nevertheless, recent

audits continue to show federal

computer systems are riddled with

weaknesses that make them highly

vulnerable to computer-based

attacks and place a broad range of

critical operations and assets at risk

of fraud, misuse, and disruption.

(GAO also designated information

security as a high-risk area

specifically for EPA in GAO's

January 2001 high-risk series

update.)

 (The OIG also found that

weaknesses in EPA's financial

systems and various regional

operations require a centralized

security program with strong

oversight processes.)

EPA reported that it had made substantial

progress toward improving the security of its

information assets. The agency noted that it had

(1) taken steps to separate and protect its

network from the Internet, (2) conducted reviews

of information security plans, (3) updated

policies and procedures governing the handling

of confidential and privacy information, and (4)

increased efforts to create a more security

conscious workforce. EPA also reported that it

established a special Technical Information

Security Staff as a focal point for protecting the

agency’s information. The agency also reported

that it had developed a security action plan that

would take 2 years to implement.

As part of its strategic goal “Quality

Environmental Information,” EPA has a

specific goal to improve agency information

infrastructure and security. Three

performance measures are to complete and

document risk assessment findings for 12

critical infrastructure systems, 13 critical

financial systems, and 5 mission-critical

environmental systems. The agency plans

to use the results of these assessments to

guide future investment decisions focused

on improving information technology

security and services.

Although these efforts represent a step in

the right direction, GAO continues to believe

that sustained improvements will require

ongoing vigilance and top EPA

management support and leadership

attention. EPA acknowledges that the

agency must institute fundamental changes

in the way it manages security, or current

and planned efforts may not have a lasting

effect.
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 20 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

GAO- and OIG- designated major

management challenge

Environmental and Performance

Information Management to Set

Priorities and Measure Program

Results: GAO identified that

significant gaps exist in

environmental data; incompatible

data systems limit the usefulness of

environmental data; data limitations

hinder the development of

performance measures; and the

agency's information security

program needs strengthening.

(The OIG concluded that EPA is not

adequately planning its information

technology infrastructure and raises

concerns about the agency's ability

to track technology development and

implementation effectively.)

(The OIG identified that several

aspects of EPA's environmental data

need to be addressed, including data

architecture, data standards, and

implementation of revised policies

and procedures.)

EPA’s performance report discusses progress

made towards working internally and in

partnership with the states to improve data

management, comprehensiveness, consistency,

reliability, and accuracy for achieving better

performance measurement and environmental

results. EPA reported undertaking actions to

address this broad challenge. For example,

EPA reported it established a senior

management-level Quality and Information

Council to promote development and

implementation of key data standards. As part

of its data integration effort, the report notes that

EPA developed a 5-year Integration

Management Plan with specific actions and

milestones and a one-stop electronic reporting

initiative involving a fledging EPA-state data

exchange network. EPA also said that it worked

with its state partners to establish an

Environmental Data Standards Council to help

identify and develop further data standards for

collecting, storing, and retrieving environmental

data.

Although EPA does describe progress towards

meeting this challenge, the report does not

provide detailed information on the completion

milestones for many of its initiatives. Although

EPA has concurred with a recommendation

GAO made in 1999 that it develop a

comprehensive information management

strategy to ensure the completeness,

compatibility, and accuracy of data, EPA has

made slow progress in developing and

implementing such a strategy and the

performance report did not discuss the status of

agency efforts to comprehensively address its

long-standing and continuing information

management challenges. EPA's efforts to

improve information security are discussed

under the governmentwide high-risk area.

There are 2 performance goals and 2

performance measures relating to selected

aspects of this broad management

challenge. First, there is a goal and

associated measure concerning the new

National Environmental Information

Exchange Network. The goal is for the

Central Data Exchange, a key component

of the Exchange Network and EPA’s node

on the Exchange Network, is to become

fully operational for 15 states to send data

to EPA and thus improve data consistency

with participating states; the performance

measure is that 15 states will use the

exchange to send data to EPA. Second,

the data quality goal specified in the plan is

that in fiscal year 2002, publicly available

facility data in EPA’s national data systems

that are accessible on its web site will be

incorporated into the agency’s Integrated

Error Correction Progress in order to detect

errors. The performance measure is that

100 percent of such data will be part of this

integrated error correction process.
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 21 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Working Relationships With States:

GAO identified the need for EPA to

strengthen its working relationships

with the states.

(The OIG found that EPA's program

implementation of the National

Environmental Performance

Partnership System (NEPPS) and

performance partnership grants are

not well integrated into EPA. The

agency could increase the success

of these efforts by establishing goals,

providing training, overseeing

accomplishments, and ensuring

accountability.)

EPA’s relationship with its state partners has

been characterized by fundamental

disagreements over roles, priorities, and the

extent of federal oversight. Under NEPPS, the

states and EPA agree on environmental

priorities in performance partnership

agreements. EPA acknowledges that efforts to

improve NEPPS must continue, but believes the

partnership system has been strengthened

through progress in several areas, including

coordinating and integrating systems and

programs and by mutually agreed upon “core”

performance measures to gauge environmental

progress.

The performance report noted that EPA and

states are making progress working

collaboratively in managing national

environmental programs. Under the agency’s

“Clean and Safe Drinking Water” strategic goal,

for example, EPA reports meeting a NEPPS

core performance measure that in fiscal year

2000, 91 percent of the population served by

community drinking water systems would receive

drinking water that met all health-based

standards in effect as of 1994.

EPA’s performance plan did not include

specific goals and measures directly related

to this management challenge. The need

for strong positive relationships with its state

partners is critical for EPA to meet its

environmental mission and thus the

challenge crosscuts all of the agency’s 10

strategic goals. And, in fact, strategies for

improving EPA’s working relationships with

its state partners are discussed throughout

the plan. For example, under its “Clean and

Safe Water” goal, EPA said that clean water

goals associated with reduction of pollution

discharges from point sources through the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permitting program rely

heavily on EPA’s partnership with the

states. The agency intends to continue

partnering with the states to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of the NPDES

program by, among other things, developing

strategies that target permitting activities

toward those facilities posing the greatest

risk to the environment.

OIG-designated major

management challenges

Accountability: The Inspector

General found that EPA needs to

take further action to develop

accountability systems that tie

performance to the agency's

organizational goals.

EPA’s report states the agency has made

progress toward strengthening results-based

management, including the development of a

goal-based budget and supporting planning and

accountability functions. However, no specific

corrective action strategies were cited clearly

attributable to addressing the various

components of this broad management

challenge. The plan noted that EPA’s recently

revised Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2000-2005

included improved performance measures to

better reflect programmatic and environmental

outcomes. It also stated that it had strengthened

its cost accounting to better link budgetary

resources to the achievement of environmental

results.

There are no specific goals and measures

for this management challenge, as they are

inherent in the various management

improvements proposed by EPA and are

thus covered throughout its performance

plan. Nonetheless, the means and strategy

section of the agency’s “Effective

Management” strategic goal cites some

strategies that are key to performing the

agency’s mission and promoting

responsible and accountable management.

Among other things, the agency intends to

increase accountability for results-based

management processes by committing to a

2 percent increase in outcome-oriented

annual performance goals and performance

measures over fiscal year 2001 levels.
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 22 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Managerial Accounting: The OIG has

identified this as a new management

challenge. Current and past audits

revealed that improvements are

needed in EPA’s cost accounting

system and processes, including

those designed to increase the

timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and

usefulness of the financial

information used in carrying out the

agency’s environmental activities.

Also, improvements are still needed

in EPA’s process for preparing

agency financial statements.

EPA reported that it had substantially complied

with the Managerial Cost Accounting Standards,

but recognized that improvements and

enhancements would necessarily continue to

evolve. EPA cited several cost accounting

corrective actions, stating for example that it had

linked resources in the Annual Plan and Budget

with its GPRA goals; provided policy guidance

and training on budget restructuring and cost

accounting; and issued a Superfund indirect cost

rate complying with Managerial Cost Accounting

Standards. Few details were provided on the

ongoing and planned corrective action

strategies, including targeted completion dates.

In addition, EPA describes actions that it said

would help the agency deliver timely financial

statements and obtain clean audit opinions by

March 1, 2001, and each year thereafter.

Actions taken already included issuing policies

and procedures on the financial statement

preparation process and providing training for

staff preparing financial statements.

Under the “Effective Management” strategic

goal, the GPRA implementation

performance goal includes a component

that is related to this challenge. It states

that EPA’s goal will be to strengthen goalbased decision making by developing and

issuing timely planning and resource

management products that meet customer

needs. There are 2 related performance

measures pertaining to EPA’s preparation

of its audited financial statements: (1) EPA’s

audited financial statements and annual

report will be submitted on time by 3/01/02

and (2) EPA’s audited financial statements

will receive an unqualified opinion and

provide information that is useful and

relevant to the agency and external parties.

EPA’s Use of Assistance

Agreements to Accomplish Its

Mission: Assistance agreements

(grants) are the primary

administrative vehicles through

which EPA helps protect human

health and the environment.

Historically, these agreements

constituted a significant proportion of

EPA’s budget. Over the years, many

of the Inspector General’s audits

disclosed problems in EPA’s

management of assistance

agreements. Problems have

persisted, including inadequate

contract management controls to

ensure proper management of

federal funds.

The report showed progress as EPA closed all

but 26 of the estimated backlog of 19,000 that

had been reported to Congress in July 1996.

Other planned actions included closing 24 of the

remaining 26 grants after resolving an

outstanding indirect cost rate issue, and closing

2 remaining grants after the completion of the

audit resolution process.

To more efficiently manage assistance

agreements, corrective actions included

developing and implementing policies to ensure

effective post-award management and

establishing interim closeout goals for each year.

EPA said that it planned additional corrective

action strategies in fiscal year 2001 to assess its

management of grants, including conducting

evaluations of Management Effectiveness

Reviews. Although the report said that all

corrective actions would be completed by fiscal

year 2002, no specific targets were cited.

There were no specific goals and measures

related to this management challenge.

However, this challenge relates to the

“Effective Management” strategic goal with

its overall focus on effective internal

management and fiscal responsibility to

ensure a high level of integrity and

accountability in the management of grants

and contracts, including continuing efforts to

strengthen pre-award and post-award

management of assistance agreements. In

the “Special Analysis” section of the

performance plan, EPA acknowledged the

importance of gaining improvements in this

area and had designated grants closeout

and oversight of assistance agreements an

internal agency weakness in fiscal year

1999.
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 23 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Backlog of National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System

Permits: The permit backlog remains

a nationwide environmental threat

because, among other things, many

entities that discharge pollutants

have permits tied to older, less

stringent discharge requirements,

resulting in the discharge of higher

levels of pollutants into surface

waters that could adversely affect

human health and the aquatic

environment.

The performance report stated each EPA region

was directed to prepare an updated permit

backlog reduction plan for every state and

territory that reaffirms commitments to meet

backlog reduction targets. EPA also says that it

was on track to meet its goal of substantially

reducing the backlog of major and minor permits

by fiscal year 2005. During fiscal year 2000,

EPA reports that the backlog of EPA issued

permits was reduced from 46 percent to 30

percent.

EPA states that the permits program

remains a key element in its effort to

achieve clean and safe water by reducing

pollutant discharges from point and

nonpoint sources. Under EPA’s “Clean and

Safe Water” goal, the agency has

established a performance goal and 5 broad

performance measures which directly relate

to the NPDES permit program. The agency

says that along with its progress toward

eliminating its backlog problem, several

states had already reduced their permits

backlog to below the 10 percent nationwide

target and that EPA anticipated another 18

states would meet that target by December

31, 2001. EPA states that it has developed

and is implementing a plan to address the

backlog which includes providing technical

support and training for states and EPA

regions.

Specific programmatic results owing to

NPDES improvements were also discussed

under the “Clean and Safe Water” strategic

goal. It included a fiscal year 2000

performance goal that industrial discharges

of pollutants to the nation’s waters would be

significantly reduced through the

implementation of effluent guidelines under

the permit program, and performance

measures for each polluting source covered

by the permits. The goal was exceeded,

with EPA reporting that the actual number

of permits issued in different industrial

sectors resulted in greater than expected

reductions in conventional pollutants—473

million pounds versus the stated goal of 385

million pounds.
Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges

Page 24 GAO-01-774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year

2000 performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Quality of Laboratory Data: High

quality scientific analysis is critical to

accomplishing EPA’s mission of

protecting human health and the

environment. The Inspector General

reported management control

weaknesses and some instances of

fraud and misconduct in laboratory

practices. Data quality and integrity

problems associated with laboratory

data could impact environmental and

enforcement decisions.

In acknowledging the importance of having highquality data to help it carry out its mission, the

agency points out that along with the Inspector

General’s designation of laboratory data as a

major management challenge in fiscal years

1999 and 2000, the agency itself declared this

area to be an internal agency weakness in fiscal

year 2000. The performance report cites several

corrective actions, including EPA’s completion of

independent technical reviews of its regional

laboratories to assess their ability to produce

data of known and documented quality.

Reviews of all remaining laboratories are

targeted by the end of fiscal year 2001.

Additional corrective actions are either ongoing

or planned and EPA expects to complete these

activities by December 2003. Ongoing actions

include establishing a workgroup to, among

other things, identify weaknesses in laboratory

data quality systems and establish methods to

detect and deter misconduct in labs. EPA said

the effort would include monitoring and oversight

of the agency-approved quality systems by third

parties. No completion targets were included for

specific ongoing and planned corrective action

strategies.

There were no specific goals and measures

cited for this challenge. However, EPA’s

“Quality Environmental Information”

includes components that are applicable to

this challenge, especially since the agency

needs to ensure that it has access to highquality scientific data to inform the agency’s

environmental and regulatory decision

making. Under this goal, EPA discusses

various initiatives, which are intended to

ensure that environmental data collection

are of appropriate quality for their intended

use, including developing agencywide

policies and procedures for planning,

documenting, implementing, and assessing

data collection and use in agency decisions.

(360073)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs