U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

27–122 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

EPA OVERSIGHT: UNIMPLEMENTED INSPECTOR 

GENERAL AND GAO RECOMMENDATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 

Serial No. 115–52 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Alan S. Larsen, Counsel to the Inspector General, Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 90 

J. Alfredo Go ́mez, Director of Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 97 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Subcommittee memorandum .................................................................................. 84 

(1) 

EPA OVERSIGHT: UNIMPLEMENTED INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GAO RECOMMENDATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Murphy (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Murphy, Griffith, Burgess, 

Brooks, Collins, Barton, Walters, Costello, Carter, Walden (ex officio), Castor, Tonko, Clarke, Ruiz, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment; Lamar Echols, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Paul 

Edattel, Chief Counsel, Health; Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, 

Oversight and Investigations, Digital Commerce and Consumer 

Protection; Alex Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; 

John Ohly, Professional Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Christopher Santini, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; 

Sam Spector, Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations; 

Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Minority Chief Environment Counsel; Chris Knauer, Minority Oversight Staff Director; Miles Lichtman, Minority Policy Analyst; Jon Monger, Minority 

Counsel; Dino Papanastasiou, Minority GAO Detailee; and C.J. 

Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine 

unimplemented recommendations by the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Office of Inspector General and Government Accountability Office. Acting on these recommendations would improve 

EPA’s ability to carry out its core mission, protecting human health 

and the environment. This mission is never more important than 

during times of natural disaster like the one the Gulf Coast is exVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Oct 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X52EPAXRECS\115X52EPAXRECSXWORKING WAYNE
2 

periencing right now in Hurricane Harvey, and we are about to be 

hit with another hurricane on the Florida coast. 

First of all, on behalf of the committee, I want to express my sincere sorrow to everyone impacted by the storm. Hurricane Harvey 

is one of the worst natural disasters the United States has ever 

faced, and it is still too early to tell the full extent of the devastation that has displaced thousands of people. Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle represent constituents experiencing loss and destruction from the storm, and our thoughts and 

prayers are with these families as they begin to rebuild their lives 

from this national tragedy. 

During the storm and in the aftermath, EPA continues to play 

a critical role in the Federal response to Hurricane Harvey. While 

EPA is still in the midst of initial response efforts, its work has 

only just begun. We look forward to monitoring the Agency’s response to the disaster and learn the full extent of the environmental impact and the challenges that lie ahead. 

The loss and destruction of Hurricane Harvey make today’s hearing even more important. The committee has the opportunity to 

learn about ways to strengthen the EPA, including highlighting 

unimplemented recommendations that may improve the EPA’s 

ability to protect the environment and human health during recovery efforts or future natural disasters. And I go back and reflect on 

what we are about to face in Florida and Puerto Rico and the disasters that are looming there. 

Now the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to 

conduct oversight of the Executive Branch, and in partnership with 

the Government Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General, we work together to root out waste, fraud, and abuse at Federal agencies such as the EPA. Through investigations and audits, 

both GAO and OIG often make recommendations on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of EPA. And after these recommendations are issued, GAO and OIG work with the Agency to 

ensure that EPA acts on their findings. 

Today the committee will learn that, even when EPA agrees with 

the recommendations, it may take years to implement them, and 

some are never fully adopted by the Agency. As a result, many of 

the open recommendations span multiple administrations, some 

dating as far back as the Bush administration. While EPA adopts 

recommendations at a rate around the Federal Government average, there are still unimplemented recommendations in many critical areas of the Agency. 

According to the OIG’s most recent semiannual report to Congress, released in May 2017, the EPA has the potential to save 

$103.3 million by implementing OIG’s open recommendations. The 

semiannual report showed 43 open recommendations with past due 

completion dates and 56 with due dates set in the future. 

The GAO will testify that EPA has implemented 191 of the 318 

recommendations made since 2007, with 127 recommendations still 

unimplemented. OIG and GAO have both highlighted deficiencies 

in EPA’s management and operations, including concerns about 

EPA’s information security posture, workforce management, and 

grant administration. 

3 

For example, EPA OIG recently conducted an audit focusing on 

flaws relating to EPA’s information security posture during fiscal 

years 2015 and 2016. The OIG reported that the Agency lacks an 

understanding of which contractors of the EPA have significant information security responsibilities, raising questions about the 

Agency’s network integrity. The OIG recommended that EPA develop a process for identifying these contractors. The EPA is not expected to implement this recommendation until December 31st of 

2018. 

GAO and OIG have also uncovered waste and mismanagement 

in EPA’s grant programs. This is particularly troubling because 

grants comprise almost half of the EPA’s budget, about $4 billion 

annually. In 2016, GAO found that EPA’s grant-monitoring practice may impact the Agency’s ability to efficiently monitor results 

and increase administrative costs. 

Additionally, in 2017, GAO reported that the EPA did not have 

the information it needed to allocate grant management resources 

effectively. GAO recommendations range from standardizing the 

format of grant recipient progress reports to developing a process 

to analyze workloads. All 12 recommendations in these two reports 

remain unimplemented. 

These are just some of the many reports and audits conducted 

by the OIG and GAO. We will discuss more of them today. Both 

the EPA OIG and GAO have done excellent work to highlight the 

problems within EPA and find solutions to solve these issues. So, 

I am grateful for your work and look forward to hearing more 

about your findings. 

I want to add here, with things looming in Florida and with the 

tragedies in Texas, I can probably speak for the committee that we 

better not find out that EPA has dawdled on anything that is causing harm. We know there is a great deal of water pollution that 

is out there because of overwhelming of sewer systems. We are concerned about the increase in Zika mosquitoes in Texas. We don’t 

know if some of that has to do with some issues with water management and other things within the jurisdiction of EPA. We will 

keep a close watch on all of those and see if there are any errors 

that have occurred related to weaknesses in the Agency’s implementing things that are causing these problems. 

So, I thank our witnesses today for your dedication and work to 

ensure that EPA is carrying out its mission. I want to especially 

recognize Alfredo Go ́mez, our witness from GAO. He is a Houston 

native who has two nephews serving in the fire department there. 

Are they doing OK? They are doing OK. Mr. Go ́mez says they are. 

We appreciate their service and sacrifice during Hurricane Harvey 

and its aftermath. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY

The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine unimplemented recommendations by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General 

and the Government Accountability Office. 

Acting on these recommendations would improve EPA’s ability to carry out its 

core mission-protecting human health and the environment. This mission is never 

more important than during times of natural disaster like the people of the Gulf 

Coast are now experiencing in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. 

4 

On behalf of the committee, I want to express my sincere sorrow to everyone impacted by this storm. Hurricane Harvey is one of the worst natural disasters the 

United States has ever faced and it’s still too early to tell the full extent of the devastation that has displaced thousands of people. 

Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle represent constituents experiencing loss and destruction from the storm. Our thoughts and prayers are with 

these families as they begin to rebuild their lives from this national tragedy. 

During the storm and in the aftermath, EPA continues to play a critical role in 

the Federal response to Hurricane Harvey. While EPA is still in the midst of initial 

response efforts, its work has only just begun. We look forward to monitoring the 

Agency’s response to the disaster and learning the full extent of the environmental 

impact and challenges that lie ahead. 

The loss and destruction of Hurricane Harvey makes today’s hearing even more 

important. The committee has the opportunity to learn about ways to strengthen 

the EPA, including highlighting unimplemented recommendations that may improve 

EPA’s ability to protect the environment and human health during recovery efforts 

or future natural disasters. 

The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to conduct oversight of the 

Executive Branch. In partnership with the Government Accountability Office and 

Office of Inspector General, we work together to root out waste, fraud, and abuse 

at Federal agencies such as the EPA. 

Through investigations and audits, both GAO and OIG often make recommendations on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of EPA. After these recommendations are issued, GAO and OIG work with the Agency to ensure that the 

EPA acts on their findings. 

Today, the committee will learn that even when EPA agrees with recommendations, it may take years to implement them and some are never fully adopted by 

the Agency. As a result, many of the open recommendations span multiple administrations, some dating as far back as the Bush administration. 

While EPA adopts recommendations at a rate around the Federal Government average, there are still unimplemented recommendations in many critical areas of the 

Agency. 

According to the OIG’s most recent semiannual report to Congress, released in May 2017, EPA has the potential to save $103.3 million by implementing OIG’s 

open recommendations. The semiannual report showed 43 open recommendations 

with past due completion dates and 56 with due dates set in the future. The GAO 

will testify that EPA has implemented 191 of the 318 recommendations made since 

2007, with 127 recommendations still unimplemented. 

OIG and GAO have both highlighted deficiencies in EPA’s management and operations, including concerns about EPA’s information security posture, workforce management, and grant administration. 

For example, EPA OIG recently conducted an audit focusing on flaws relating to 

EPA’s information security posture during fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The OIG reported that the Agency lacks an understanding of which contractors at the EPA 

have significant information security responsibilities, raising questions about the 

Agency’s network integrity. The OIG recommended that EPA develop a process for 

identifying these contractors. The EPA is not expected to implement this recommendation until December 31, 2018. 

GAO and OIG have also uncovered waste and mismanagement in EPA’s grant 

programs. This is particularly troubling because grants comprise almost half of 

EPA’s budget, about $4 billion annually. In 2016, GAO found that EPA’s grant monitoring practices may impact the Agency’s ability to efficiently monitor results and 

increase administrative costs. 

Additionally, in 2017, GAO reported that the EPA did not have the information 

it needed to allocate grant management resources effectively. GAO recommendations range from standardizing the format of grant recipient progress reports to developing a process to analyze workloads. All 12 recommendations in these two reports remain unimplemented. 

These are just some of the many reports and audits conducted by the OIG and 

GAO -We will discuss more of them here today. 

Both the EPA OIG and GAO have done excellent work to highlight the problems 

within EPA and find solutions to solve these issues. 

I am grateful for your work and look forward to hearing more about your findings. 

Thank you to our witnesses today for your dedication and great work to ensure 

that EPA is effectively carrying out its mission. 

I especially want to recognize Alfredo Gomez, our witness from GAO. He is a 

Houston native who has two nephews serving on the fire department there. We appreciate their service and sacrifice during Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath. 

5 

Mr. MURPHY. Now I turn to my colleague from Florida and recognize her for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today, and thank you to our witnesses for their work. 

The hearing subject, while important, pales in comparison of the 

true oversight needed of the Trump Environmental Protection 

Agency. EPA is, and always has been, a critical partner to our 

States and communities back home. Most of what EPA does is to 

support our communities back in cleaning up polluted sites, helping 

protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. And I thank 

the professionals and scientists at the Environmental Protection 

Agency for their work. 

But President Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt have a very 

different vision, unfortunately, and they have been acting to weaken support for our communities back home that comes through the 

EPA. And it is particularly troubling that EPA Administrator Pruitt has not appeared before the Energy and Commerce Committee 

to date. This committee has direct oversight of the EPA, and it is 

simply unprecedented and unacceptable that the Administrator has 

not appeared before the committee. 

Now the importance of the EPA is particularly clear as Texas 

learns more about the scope and extent of the destruction caused 

by Hurricane Harvey. There is nothing like a disaster response 

that demonstrates how critical toxic chemical, Superfund, and 

other EPA local initiatives are to the health and safety of our 

neighbors. 

As a Floridian, I know all to well the devastation that massive 

hurricanes can bring to homes, businesses, and communities, and 

the recovery from such a storm is long, expensive, and challenging. 

And our thoughts are with the residents of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 

Islands, and Floridians as they are in the path of another extremely dangerous storm in Hurricane Irma. 

Hurricane Harvey slammed into the Gulf Coast as a Category 4. 

So far, it has left at least 60 people dead and billions of dollars in 

damage, and a death total and estimated cost of recovery is likely 

to continue to rise in the coming weeks. 

Ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Representative 

Gene Green—I just saw him at the other subcommittee meeting— 

represents the city of Houston and has seen much of his district 

flooded. And our thoughts are with him and his constituents at this 

time. 

And, Mr. Go ́mez, I want to thank, recognize you for being here 

today in what is surely a difficult time for you and your family. 

The EPA has been a key Agency responding to Harvey. And for 

this reason, this hearing should be a timely and important step in 

exploring how to strengthen the Agency as it supports local responders and begins to assess the possible environmental impact of 

the flooding, toxic releases. 

But this hearing, unfortunately, is devoted to a much less significant topic. The scope of potential environmental risk caused by this 

ongoing crisis, while still coming into focus, is considerable. People 

6 

are evacuating through dirty and contaminated floodwaters that 

may contain bacteria and toxic substances. There have also been 

reports of fires at chemical facilities which may involve the release 

of toxic pollutants. Additional reports have also suggested possible 

damage to leaking gas tanks at fuel facilities which, if true, may 

pose environmental concerns that the EPA will need to address. 

And I am particularly concerned about reports of flooding Superfund sites and what damage they may have caused. For example, 

according to EPA, 13 of the 41 former and current toxic waste sites 

in Harvey-impacted areas have flooded and may have experienced 

some damage. 

Additionally, the city of Houston contains approximately 450 petrochemical plants. News reports indicate these plants have contributed to 74 instances of excess air pollution since Harvey hit, 

emitting more than 1 million pounds of hazardous substances into 

the air. 

See, our local communities need the expertise of the EPA to prevent and mitigate such releases, but the Trump administration has 

been working overtime to weaken EPA’s ability to help back home. 

And now, it is really showing at a time of disaster. 

The storm also raises ongoing concerns of drinking water safety. 

According to EPA, 4,500 drinking water systems are potentially 

threatened by floodwaters, disrupted sewage systems. 

Now, after Hurricane Katrina, Energy and Commerce professional staff were on the ground to help, and this committee should 

consider oversight hearings in Texas in the near term. But today’s 

hearing, rather than focusing on the big picture, examines 

unimplemented recommendations for EPA, at a time when the real 

issue is the decimation of the EPA professional workforce proposed 

by President Trump and Administrator Pruitt. And yet, we respond 

to the grave environmental and human health risk of Hurricane 

Harvey and other catastrophes at this time, but the overall EPA 

has never been more important. 

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by the direction of the Agency under the Trump administration, and I implore you and my Republican colleagues to conduct true oversight of the damage being 

done to our bedrock environmental protections built through decades of bipartisan work. And we need to do it before deep and lasting damage is inflicted across America. 

The Trump EPA is waging an aggressive rollback of environmental and human health protections through politicization of the 

Agency, extreme proposed budget and staffing cuts, repealing or 

delaying rulemaking, and attacking fundamental science. The 

Trump administration proposed extreme budget cuts that cut to 

the heart of our local communities and threaten the health and environment of Americans in every State. 

The Trump budget would slash EPA’s budget by nearly $2.6 billion, reduce the professional workforce there by over 3,000 employees, and the damage will be done to our air quality, diesel emission 

reductions, lead safety, and it goes on and on. Already there is evidence of conflicts of interest, favoritism towards certain businesses, 

and grants changed to exact political revenge. This is not acceptable and this is what needs oversight. The ongoing crisis unfolding 

7 

on the Gulf Coast demonstrates the dangers of the Trump administration’s extreme assault on environmental protection. 

Mr. Chairman, we want to work with you to make sure the EPA 

implements the workforce and contractor recommendations. But, if 

we are serious about ensuring that the Agency is able to protect 

human health and the environment, then we must work together 

to conduct true oversight of the fundamental damage being done to 

this Agency and our neighbors back home. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, 

Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. 

Just in response to my friend from Florida, our committee staff, 

the Oversight Committee has worked diligently throughout the last 

several weeks in clear communication with the various agencies involved in the hurricane. This hearing was put together before Harvey had a name. So, we will do our oversight and continue to. At 

the appropriate time, I anticipate there will be a delegation that 

will go and hold hearings or do appropriate review. 

I am one, when there is an emergency going on, who tries to stay 

out of the way of the first responders and let them do their job. 

And so, at the right time we will do that, and we will have Administrator Pruitt before our committee sooner rather than later. I 

share frustration that there has been a long delay in getting some 

of these positions filled, partly by our friends in the Senate, but the 

time has come for these Agency heads to come before our committee, and they will. 

Now, as to this hearing, I appreciate Subcommittee Chairman 

Murphy having this and his opening comments. We care deeply 

about what has happened in Texas. We care deeply about what is 

about to happen in Florida. My own district is on fire, and much 

destruction is going on there. All these things matter. 

You want to talk about air quality. We could use your support 

on some of our forestry legislation to reduce the fuel loads, so we 

don’t poison people with fires and destroy watersheds. 

Now we know that these recovery efforts will continue for years. 

Recovering from any disaster, whether it is Hurricane Harvey or 

Irma or the destructive wildfires burning out of control throughout 

the West, requires coordination at every level of the Government, 

and the EPA is a critical part of that. The challenges facing the 

EPA that pertain to Harvey are significant, but I hope the Agency 

seizes upon the lessons learned in responses to previous natural 

disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. 

Today’s hearing represents the first opportunity to hear from the 

EPA Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office regarding any outstanding recommendations that, if 

implemented, could enable the Agency to better achieve or do its 

job better. 

We will also examine some of the areas of concern that have 

been identified and commented upon by the OIG and the GAO, but 

8 

whose recommendations remain unimplemented by the EPA. We 

should be mindful, however, that many of the OIG and GAO’s 

unimplemented recommendations span multiple administrations 

and, therefore, represent longstanding challenges for the Agency. 

For example, we have learned the EPA has failed to complete an 

Agency-wide workload analysis in more than 20 years. 

Similarly, both OIG and GAO have consistently identified issues 

that generate serious concerns as to whether EPA has knowledge 

of, or adequately monitors, the activities of its contractors and 

grant recipients, despite the significant portion of the Agency’s annual budget that is awarded to third parties. Addressing these 

issues will increase transparency and accountability to EPA in addition to enabling the Agency to make better-informed budgetary 

decisions. I believe that all Americans want a healthy environment 

for themselves, their families, and their communities. 

And I would like to thank Alan Larsen from the EPA OIG and 

Alfredo Go ́mez from the GAO for joining us today to provide testimony and to expand upon their organizations’ findings and recommendations. 

I would also like to recognize and thank Mr. Go ́mez’s nephews, 

who I understand are serving the Houston Fire Department. Thank 

you for their work as first responders who bravely have assisted so 

many of their fellow citizens during Hurricane Harvey. 

I am looking forward to productive discussion this morning regarding actions EPA can take which will enable the Agency to better accomplish its core mission of protecting human health and the 

environment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

As Chairman Murphy referenced in his opening remarks, today’s hearing comes 

at a particularly important time as we have all witnessed the devastation wrought 

by Hurricane Harvey. Indeed, members of this committee, on both sides of the aisle, 

represent districts that were directly impacted by the hurricane and our hearts go 

out to all those who were affected by this disaster. 

We know that the recovery efforts are just beginning and will continue for years 

to come. Recovering from any disaster, whether its Hurricanes Harvey or Irma or 

the destructive wildfires burning out of control all across the West, requires coordination at every level of Government, and one of the Federal agencies that will play 

a key role in the overall recovery effort is the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The challenges facing the EPA that pertain to Harvey are significant, but I hope 

that the Agency seizes upon the lessons it learned in its responses to previous natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Today’s hearing represents 

the first opportunity to hear from EPA’s Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office regarding any outstanding recommendations that, if implemented, could enable the Agency to better achieve do its job better. 

We will also examine some of the areas of concern that have been identified and 

commented upon by the OIG and GAO, but whose recommendations remain 

unimplemented by EPA. We should be mindful, however, that many of OIG’s and 

GAO’s unimplemented recommendations span multiple administrations and therefore represent longstanding challenges for the Agency. For example, we have 

learned that EPA has failed to complete an Agency-wide workload analysis in more 

than 20 years. 

Similarly, both OIG and GAO have consistently identified issues that generate serious concerns as to whether EPA has knowledge of, or adequately monitors, the activities of its contractors and grant recipients despite the significant portion of the 

Agency’s annual budget that is awarded to third parties. Addressing these issues 

will increase transparency and accountability at EPA in addition to enabling the 

Agency to make better informed budgetary decisions. 

9 

I believe that all Americans want a healthy environment for themselves, their 

families, and their communities. I would like to thank Alan Larsen from the EPA 

OIG and Alfredo Gomez from the GAO for joining us today to provide testimony and 

expand upon their organizations’ findings and recommendations. I would also like 

to recognize and thank Mr. Gomez’s nephews who are serving in the Houston Fire 

Department, as well as all first responders who bravely assisted so many of their 

fellow citizens during Hurricane Harvey. 

I am looking forward to a productive discussion this morning regarding actions 

EPA can take which will enable the Agency to better accomplish its core mission 

of protecting human health and the environment. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate the gentleman’s yielding back, and I 

recognize the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It has been a week and a half since Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, 

and as the scope of the environmental disaster only begins to become known, thousands remain displaced, their homes and businesses flooded. And I know firsthand the immense devastation 

caused by such natural disasters. In 2012, my district was hit hard 

by Hurricane Sandy, and I had never seen worse storm damage in 

our area in my lifetime. For many, this storm was the worst-case 

scenario, lives lots, homes flooded, businesses lost. Our Nation is 

now experiencing historic levels of destruction and loss on the Gulf 

Coast in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. 

Our fellow Members of Congress, including five members of the 

Texas delegation on this committee, are working hard with Federal, State, and local officials, and first responders to help those affected by the storm. And as the cleanup continues, many grave environmental and human health risks exist. In the days since Hurricane Harvey came to shore we have seen chemical plants on fire, 

fuel tanks leaking, mass releases of toxic pollutants into the air, 

and flooded Federal Superfund sites. I am deeply concerned of the 

potential risk to human health and the environment caused by exposure to the hazardous materials kept at these sites, and this 

committee must work to understand the impact some of these facilities may have on public health. 

The Trump administration recently delayed amendments to the 

Risk Management Program which included safety requirements for 

companies that store large quantities of dangerous chemicals. 

Moreover, the environmental issues resulting from the hurricane 

also underscore the need for robust implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA. 

Communities have the right to know important details about the 

type and amount of harmful chemicals released in their neighborhoods. All of these risks underscore the need for a strong and capable EPA. 

Today we are discussing recommendations by the EPA Inspector 

General and the Government Accountability Office regarding the 

EPA, and I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and 

work on these recommendations. However, I would argue that recVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Oct 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X52EPAXRECS\115X52EPAXRECSXWORKING WAYNE
10 

ommendations for improving EPA’s performance are part of a much 

wider need to ensure that the Agency is high-performing, efficient, 

and effective in accomplishing the Agency’s mission of protecting 

human health and the environment. Over the last six months EPA 

has been doing everything possible to operate in secrecy. Administrator Pruitt has no interest in transparency, and that should be 

unacceptable to every member of this committee. Administrator 

Pruitt repeatedly disregards oversight inquiries from the Democrats on this committee, and that should be unacceptable to anyone 

who believes we have an oversight responsibility. 

And the Trump EPA has proposed aggressive cuts to environment and human health protections, dismissed scientists from important advisory boards, and proposed severe budget and staffing 

reductions at EPA. These actions taken in totality serve to directly 

undermine the Agency’s ability to effectively protect human health 

and the environment. 

A robust and effective EPA is key in responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey, and EPA currently has 143 personnel 

supporting the response efforts for Hurricane Harvey and has established a unified command with State and local partners, but 

that number is going to increase dramatically in the coming weeks. 

At its peak after Hurricane Katrina, about 1600 EPA staff and contractors worked in the Gulf Coast region assisting with response 

and cleanup activities, in addition to thousands of additional EPA 

employees supporting response efforts from EPA headquarters and 

regional offices around the country. With the employee cuts and 

buyouts that the administration has proposed, we need to ensure 

that EPA will actually have the employees in place to conduct this 

critical work. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you to make sure we 

have a robust and effective EPA. The committee must conduct active oversight of the Agency, particularly drinking water, infrastructure, and regulation, clean air protections, and the impacts of 

climate change. We must also conduct ongoing oversight over EPA 

and other agencies’ efforts to assist the Gulf Coast rebuild. 

And the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to weaken environmental health protections, attack fundamental science, and also 

to propose extreme budget and staff reductions will do nothing, in 

my opinion, but undermine EPA’s efforts to protect human health 

and the environment not only with regard to Hurricane Harvey, 

but in so many other areas. So, I am concerned and I hope that 

we can work together. 

And again, thanks to everyone. 

I yield back. 

Looking forward to your comments to the panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s been a week and a half since Hurricane Harvey hit Texas. As 

the scope of the environmental disaster only begins to become known, thousands remain displaced, their homes and businesses flooded. 

I know firsthand of the immense devastation caused by such natural disasters. 

In 2012, my district was hit hard by Hurricane Sandy. I had never seen worse storm 

damage in our area in my lifetime. For many, the storm was a worst case scenario: 

11 

lives lost, homes flooded, and businesses lost. Our Nation is now experiencing historic levels of destruction and loss on the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. 

Our fellow members of Congress, including five members of the Texas delegation 

on this committee, are working hard with Federal, State, and local officials and first 

responders to help those affected by the storm. As the cleanup continues, many 

grave environmental and human health risks exist. 

In the days since Hurricane Harvey came ashore, we have seen chemical plants 

on fire, fuel tanks leaking, mass releases of toxic pollutants into the air, and flooded 

Federal Superfund sites. 

I am deeply concerned of the potential risks to human health and the environment caused by exposure to the hazardous materials kept at these sites. This committee must work to understand the impacts some of these facilities may have on 

public health. The Trump administration recently delayed amendments to the Risk 

Management Program, which included safety requirements for companies to store 

large quantities of dangerous chemicals. Moreover, the environmental issues resulting from the hurricane also underscore the need for robust implementation of the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). Communities 

have a right to know important details about the type and amount of harmful 

chemicals released in their neighborhoods. 

All of these risks underscore the need for a strong and capable Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Today we are discussing recommendations by the EPA Inspector General and the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the EPA. I want to thank our 

witnesses for their testimony and work on these recommendations. 

However, I would argue that recommendations for improving EPA’s performance 

are part of a much wider need to ensure that the Agency is high-performing, efficient, and effective in accomplishing the Agency’s mission of protecting human 

health and the environment. 

Over the last six months, EPA has been doing everything possible to operate in 

secrecy. Administrator Pruitt has no interest in transparency—and that should be 

unacceptable to every member of this committee. Administrator Pruitt repeatedly 

disregards oversight inquiries from the Democrats on this committee—and that 

should be unacceptable to anyone who believes we have an oversight responsibility. 

The Trump EPA has proposed aggressive cuts to environment and human health 

protections, dismissed scientists from important advisory boards, and proposed severe budget and staffing reductions at EPA. 

These actions, taken in totality, serve to directly undermine the Agency’s ability 

to effectively protect human health and the environment. A robust and effective 

EPA is key in responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey. EPA currently 

has 143 personnel supporting the response efforts for Hurricane Harvey and has established a Unified Command with State and local partners. That number is going 

to increase dramatically in the coming weeks. At its peak, after Hurricane Katrina, 

about 1,600 EPA staff and contractors worked in the Gulf Coast region assisting 

with response and cleanup activities, in addition to thousands of additional EPA employees supporting response efforts from EPA headquarters and regional offices 

around the country. With the employee cuts and buyouts that the Administrator has 

proposed, we need to ensure that EPA will actually have the employees in place to 

conduct this critical work. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you to make sure we have a robust and effective EPA. The committee must conduct active oversight of the Agency, particularly 

drinking water infrastructure and regulation, clean air protections, and the impacts 

of climate change. We must also conduct ongoing oversight over EPA and other 

Agencies’ efforts to assist the Gulf coast rebuild. 

The Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to weaken environmental health protections, attack fundamental science, and propose extreme budget and staff reductions will do nothing but undermine EPA’s efforts to protect human health and the 

environment. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

I ask unanimous consent that the Members’ written opening 

statements be introduced into the record and, without objection, 

the documents will be entered into the record. 

I would now like to introduce our panel of Federal witnesses for 

today’s hearing. First, we have Mr. Alan Larsen. He is the Counsel 

12 

to the Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We also have Mr. Alfredo Go ́mez, who serves as the Director of 

Natural Resources and Environment for the Government Accountability Office. 

And we thank you for being here today and providing testimony. 

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss open and 

unimplemented recommendations made to the EPA. 

You are aware the committee is holding an investigative hearing 

and, when doing so, has the practice of taking testimony under 

oath. Do you have any objections to taking testimony under oath? 

Seeing none, then, the Chair advises you under the rules of the 

House and rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised 

by counsel. Do either of you desire to be advised by counsel during 

the testimony today? 

Neither one has asked for that. So, in that case, will you please 

rise and raise your right hand, and I will swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Well, you have answered in the affirmative, and you are now 

under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in Title 18, Section 1001, of the United States Code. 

I will ask that each of you give a 5-minute summary of your written statement. We will being with you, Mr. Larsen. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN S. LARSEN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

AND J. ALFREDO GO ́ MEZ, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF ALAN S. LARSEN 

Mr. LARSEN. Good morning, Chairman Murphy, Representative 

Castor, and members of the subcommittee. I am Alan Larsen, counsel to the Inspector General for both the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. 

I thank this committee for highlighting the importance of acting 

on unimplemented OIG recommendations. As you know, an Office 

of Inspector General cannot direct an Agency’s actions. Our influence is through our recommendations, which can result in substantial cost savings and major improvements in Agency programs, but 

only if an Agency chooses to implement them. 

Our OIG undertakes a risk-based work planning process to determine which issues we will review during the coming year. Our 

plan, however, is always subject to change, as we inevitably receive 

hotline requests and congressional requests. We conduct those reviews and issue final reports, which generally will include one or 

more recommendations to address our findings. 

As required by the Inspector General Act, the EPA OIG publishes a cumulative list of unimplemented recommendations in our 

semiannual reports to Congress. Our most recent report cited 43 

open recommendations with past due completion dates and 56 with 

future dates. Notably, potential cost savings for the unimplemented 

recommendations listed amount to over $100 million. 

13 

Now I will briefly discuss some of the OIG’s recommendations to 

the EPA that remain unimplemented. You will see that some are 

quite recent. I highlight them because of their potential impact. 

In July 2017, we completed a review of the processes the EPA 

uses to verify that Agency contractors have the training needed to 

protect the Agency from cyberattacks. We found that the EPA is 

unaware of the number of contractors who require specialized 

training. The OIG recommended that the EPA implement a process 

to maintain a listing of contractors who require the specialized 

training and that the Agency report this information to its Chief 

Information Security Officer. While the Agency has committed to 

implement a process for verifying that Agency contractors are appropriately trained, our recommendation remains unimplemented, 

posing a continuing risk to the Agency’s information, data, and network. 

Through another audit completed in August of 2014, we looked 

at the Agency’s oversight of cloud computing initiatives. We found 

that the EPA’s lack of oversight over vendors resulted in missed 

opportunities for significant savings. The EPA paid over $2 million 

for services that were not fully rendered or did not comply with 

Federal requirements. We recommended several corrective actions 

to the Agency, such as improving its policies and performing documented cost-benefit analyses. To date, the Agency has not fully implemented all of our recommendations. 

In April of 2017, we completed a review of Puerto Rico’s State 

revolving funds based on a hotline complaint from the EPA. The 

EPA reported that the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank 

did not have funds to honor a combined balance of approximately 

$188 million. The OIG determined that over $774 million is at risk 

due to Puerto Rico’s financial crisis and that the restoration of 

funds in the near future is highly unlikely. The OIG recommended 

that the EPA evaluate options to restore the viability of the revolving funds or implement new strategies better suited to the needs 

of Puerto Rico. While the Agency has committed to considering future approaches to grant funding, the OIG’s recommendation is as 

yet unimplemented. 

These are just a few of the examples of OIG’s recommendations 

to the Agency. We will continue to work actively with the EPA and 

keep Congress fully advised regarding actions to address our recommendations. 

Accomplishing our work requires sufficient appropriated funds 

from Congress. Our funding clearly represents a fruitful investment for the American taxpayer, as the OIG returned $22 for every 

$1 given to us in fiscal year 2016. While I’m aware that this is not 

an appropriations committee, I respectfully ask for any help you 

can provide us in this regard. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I’m happy 

to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:] 

14 


27122.001

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

EPA Oversight: Unimplemented Inspector General 

and GAO Recommendations 

Statement of Alan S. Larsen 

Counsel to the Inspector General 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

September 6, 2017 
15 


27122.002

Statement of 

Alan S. Larsen 

Counsel to the Inspector General 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

September 6, 2017 

Good morning Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Alan Larsen, Counsel to the Inspector General (!G) for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. I would like to 

convey my appreciation to this committee for highlighting the importance of addressing 

unimplemented recommendations. Today I will provide you with an overview of some of the 

Office oflnspector General's (OIG's) recommendations to the EPA that remain unimplemented. 

As you know, making recommendations is a critical role for every OIG in carrying out our 

oversight mandate. Recommendations can result in substantial cost savings and major 

improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of agency programs-but only when an agency 

chooses to implement them or if Congress chooses to take legislative action or other measures to 

address them. 

Background on Unimplemented Recommendations at the EPA 

The IG Act of 1978 provides for OIGs to conduct independent reviews of agency programs and 

operations. The EPA OlG's Offices of Audit and Program Evaluation perform the majority of 

their work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS). 

During the course of audits and program evaluations, the OJG analyzes the data on a specific 
16 


27122.003

program, policy or procedure. Following comprehensive research and review, the 010 develops 

and issues recommendations as part of a final report. These audit and evaluation 

recommendations to the EPA--excluding those from any non-OAOAS projects-are the subject 

of my testimony. 0!0 investigative reports, which do not contain recommendations, will not be 

included in my presentation. However, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have 

about completed investigations that involve EPA management matters. 

The impact of an 010 recommendation may be direct cost savings for the EPA. Potential cost 

savings for the unimplemented recommendations listed in our most recent Semiannual Report to 

Congress were $103.3 million. A recommendation may also result in other benefits that are not 

readily translated into a dollar savings amount, such as improvements in program efficiency and 

effectiveness that ensure the integrity of an agency program. The OIG publishes a list of 

unimplemented recommendations in our Semiannual Report to Congress, fulfilling the reporting 

requirement stated in Section5(a)(3) of the 10 Act of 1978, as amended. This list represents a 

cumulative tally of recommendations previously issued in our audit and program evaluation 

reports for which corrective actions have not yet been completed. Further, our semiannual rep01t 

lends transparency to the recommendation resolution process. 

Our audit and evaluation work provides recommendations for improvements to the EPA's 

program offices and regions. The benefits of our audits and evaluations are the improvements 

realized. To maintain emphasis on unimplemented recommendations-which sometimes remain 

unresolved years after the repott is issued-and to encourage progress, we are developing a 

status report for open recommendations, in which we will highlight the effect of incomplete EPA 

2 
17 


27122.004

actions and the EPA operations and programs that are affected. To help organize and prioritize 

the EPA's open recommendations, this report will classify them based on their organizational or 

environmental scope; as of now, we have developed six categories for this purpose: Management 

and Operations; Water Issues; Environmental Contamination and Cleanup; Toxics, Chemical 

Safety and Pesticides; Air Quality; and Research and Laboratories. 

We will show how the management actions being proposed by the EPA will or could facilitate 

the implementation of the recommendations, which will resolve the conditions we reported. 

Finally, for each open recommendation, we plan to specify which of the following benefits will 

be realized once corrective actions arc completed: (I) the improvement of human health and the 

environment, (2) the provision of more effective and efficient operations and (3) the reduction of 

costs. 

The semiannual report dated March 31, 2017, showed the EPA had 43 open recommendations 

with past due completion dates and 56 with future dates. Of those, the number of days from report 

issuance for the open recommendations that are past due ranged from less than 1 year to 9 years. 

In particular: 

• 33 were more than I year old. 

• 10 were under I year old. 

3 
18 


27122.005

Tracking and Resolving OIG Recommendations to the Agency 

Implementation of the OIG's recommendations is vital to the effectiveness and efficiency of 

agency programs and operations. The OIG shares this subcommittee's interest in the agency's 

accountability for acting upon the recommendations. Office of Management and Budget Circular 

A-123 specifically defines management's responsibility for internal control in federal agencies as 

follows: 

Agency managers arc responsible for taking timely and etTective action to correct 

deficiencies identified by the variety of sources discussed in Section IV, 

Assessing Internal Control. Correcting deficiencies is an integral part of 

management accountability and must be considered a priority by the agency. 

Before an OIG report is finalized, the OIG is required by GAG AS standards to obtain the views 

of the responsible agency official regarding the findings, conclusions and recommendations. If 

the agency agrees with our recommendations, it must provide intended corrective actions and 

estimated completion dates that will address the deficiencies identified in the OIG's report. The 

OIG project team assesses the agency's proposed corrective actions and determines if the 

proposed actions sufficiently meet the intent ofOIG recommendations. 

In most cases, the OIG and agency agree on report recommendations. When there are 

disagreements, we follow a specified dispute resolution process. If an agreement on a 

recommendation cannot be reached between the Assistant Inspector General and the EPA Action 

4 
19 


27122.006

Official, the issue is elevated to the EPA Chief Financial Officer and the JG for resolution. If 

there is still disagreement, the matter is then elevated to the Deputy Administrator (or in some 

cases the Administrator), who makes the final decision. 

Once a final OIG report is issued, OIG staff tracks each recommendation until it is fully 

implemented. The OIG does not remove a recommendation based on a refusal to act or because 

time has passed. If the recommendation takes 3 or more years to complete and conditions change 

notably from when the OIG originally issued a recommendation (e.g., agency resources change, 

new legislation is implemented, a crisis occurs, etc.), circumstances may call for a reassessment 

of the recommendation and any actions the agency agreed to take. 

Revisiting a Topic With Another Audit or Evaluation 

Promptly reaching agreement on actions to resolve OIG recommendations to the EPA and, 

subsequently, assessing progress on those agreed-to actions are integral to the OIG's 

contributions to effective management at the EPA. The OIG and the EPA Chief Financial Officer 

assess and report on the agency's progress in resolving OIG recommendations. Monitoring, 

reviewing and verifying the completion of corrective actions is an essential control for promoting 

economy, efficiency and effectiveness within the agency's operations. Having an effective postresolution follow-up process encourages the agency to take needed actions to improve business 

practices and accountability and to enhance protection of public health and the environment. 

5 
20 


27122.007

The Assistant Inspectors General for our Offices of Audit and Program Evaluation annually 

select certain topics for follow-up audits. Assignments are based on the complexity and 

significance of the issues and recommendations in an original report. Generally, though, any 

recommendation included in a prior Semiannual Report to Congress will be considered for a 

follow-up audit. 

As requested, I will now highlight a few examples of unimplemented recommendations that 

indicate significant management opportunities at the EPA. 

Examples of OTG Recommendations Made to the EPA That Remain Unimplemented 

l. The O!G issued a report titled Improved Management of the Brownfields Revolving Loan 

Fund (RLF) Program Is Required to Maximize Cleanups, No. 17-P-0368, on August 23, 

2017. We conducted this audit to determine whether recipients of Brownfields RLF are 

using program income to capitalize an RLF and to loan and grant money for Brownfields 

remediation after cooperative agreements are closed. The EPA's Office ofBrownfields 

and Land Revitalization (OBLR), within the agency's Office of Land and Emergency 

Management, oversees this program. The O!G recommended that the EPA develop a 

policy to reduce balances of available program income within the Brown fields RLF being 

held by recipients. The policy should establish a timeframe for recipients to use or return 

the funds to the EPA. Potential cost savings amount to $10.9 million. This 

recommendation is, as yet, unimplemented. However, OBLR has committed to working 

with the agency's regional offices to develop a policy regarding the monitoring of 

6 
21 


27122.008

accumulated program income in the cooperative agreements at certain points in the life of 

a cooperative agreement. The agency's planned completion date is March 31, 2018. 

2. The OIG issued a report titled EPA Lacks Processes /o Validate ·whether Contractors 

Receive Specialized Role-Based Training for Network and Data Protection, No. 17-P0344, on July 31, 2017. We conducted this audit to determine what processes the EPA 

uses to verify that agency contractors with significant information system security 

responsibilities meet established specialized training requirements. The EPA's Office of 

Environmental Information (OEI) oversees the agency's information security program. 

The OIG recommended that the EPA work with the Assistant Administrator for 

Administration and Resources Management to implement a process that requires 

appropriate agency personnel to maintain a listing of contractor personnel who have 

significant information security responsibilities and are required to take role-based 

training. This process should require appropriate agency personnel to validate and report 

to the Chicf!nformation Security Officer that all relevant contractor personnel have 

completed role-based training. This recommendation is, as yet, unimplemented. To 

implement the process, OEI has committed to working work with the Contracting 

Officer's Representatives and the Office of Administration and Resources Management. 

OEI also said that it will require that the agency personnel attest to the Chief Information 

Security Officer, not the Senior Agency Information Security Officer, that all relevant 

contractor personnel have completed role-based training. The agency's planned 

completion date is December 31, 2018. 

7 
22 


27122.009

3. The OIG issued a report titled Over $774 Million of Puerto Rico State Revolving Funds 

at Risk, No. 17-P-0186, on April26, 2017. We conducted this audit to accomplish the 

following objectives: (1) identify the source of funds that make up the $188 million in 

question; (2) determine the current status of the $188 million and the potential for 

recovery; (3) identify causes for the alleged financial irregularities (other than the bank 

failure); (4) determine when the agencies responsible for administering the Puerto Rico 

revolving funds knew or should have known about the financial crisis and the bank's 

failure, and determine what actions or measures, if any, these agencies could have taken 

to secure the funds in question; and (5) determine if the EPA performed adequate 

oversight. The EPA's Office of Wastewater Management administers the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program and the EPA's Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water administers the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 

program; both of these offices are in the EPA's Office of Water (OW). EPA Region 2's 

Caribbean Environmental Protection Division provides oversight of both the CWSRF and 

DWSRF in Puerto Rico. The OIG recommended that the EPA evaluate options to restore 

the viability of Puerto Rico's CWSRF and DWSRF or implement new strategies better 

suited to the financial, programmatic, public health and environmental needs of the 

government of Puerto Rico. Potential cost savings amount to $774 million. This 

recommendation is, as yet, unimplemented. After a number of interim actions scheduled 

to take effect between June 2017 and September 2018, Region 2 has committed to 

considering future approaches to grant funding-including, but not limited to, future 

federal fund allocations-and to assessing the effectiveness and potential of transitioning 

8 
23 


27122.010

the program to a direct grant program. The agency's planned completion date is 

September 30, 2018. 

4. The OIG issued a report titled Cloud Oversight Resulted in Unsubstantiated and Missed 

Opportunitiesfi:Jr Savings, Unused and Undelivered Services, and Incomplete Policies, 

No. 14-P-0332, on August 15, 2014. We sought to determine whether the EPA had 

performed the following two actions: (I) implemented its cloud initiatives in accordance 

with the Federal Cloud Computing Strategy and associated requirements and 

(2) developed formal processes to monitor cloud vendors. Two EPA offices-OEI and 

OARM-have key responsibilities regarding the EPA's migration to the cloud. The OIG 

recommended that prior to entering into any future Infrastructure-as-a-Service contracts, 

the EPA perform a formal documented analysis to determine whether such contracts are 

in the EPA's best interest. The analysis should include the investments the EPA would 

have to make to address the integration requirements, obstacles and gaps identified as a 

result of the current Infrastructure-as-a-Service contract. This recommendation is, as yet, 

unimplemented. OEI agrees with the OIG's recommendation and is preparing an action 

plan accordingly. The agency committed to developing a plan to address three key 

aspects of our preparation for future Infrastructure-as-a-Service contracts. First, the 

agency said it would refine and communicate EPA's Cloud Computing Strategy. Second, 

the agency will design a Concept of Operations for OEI's National Computer Center to 

become the agency's Cloud Service Broker and undertake the necessary transforrnative 

activities. Third, OEI/Office of Technical Operations and Planning will define an 

agencywidc approach for acquiring new Infrastructure-as-a-Service contracts. This 

9 
24 


27122.011

approach will incorporate a repeatable methodology that allows the EPA to identify any 

needed investments to address integration requirements, obstacles and gaps so that the 

agency will adhere to applicable federal cloud or information technology requirements. 

The agency's planned completion date is October 16,2017. 

5. The OIG issued a report titled EPA Did Not Conduct Thorough Biennial User Fee 

Reviews, No. 14-P-0 129, on March 4, 2014. W c performed this audit to evaluate the 

EPA's biennial user fee reviews. The objectives of our audit were to determine whether 

the EPA (I) conducts biennial reviews of the EPA's user fees and royalties programs, and 

(2) reviews all agency programs to determine whether fees should be assessed for the 

services they provide. The Office of Financial Management within the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer (OCFO) and the Office of Wastewater Management within OW have 

primary jurisdiction over the audit issues. The OIG recommended that the EPA apply the 

federal user fee policy in determining whether to (a) charge fees for issuing federal 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits in which the EPA is the 

permitting authority or (b) request an exception from the Office of Management and 

Budget to charging fees. Potential cost savings amount to $17.8 million. This 

recommendation is, as yet, unimplemented. This recommendation due date was revised to 

October I, 2017, to allow the OW to continue 'Yorking with OCFO to request an 

exception from a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System user fee. The 

agency's planned completion date was December 31, 2014. 

10 
25 


27122.012

6. The 010 issued a report titled Making Better Use of Stringfellow Superfund Special 

Accounts, No. 08-P-0 196, on July 9, 2008. The 010 conducted this audit to evaluate 

(I) the EPA regions' utilization of special account funds for Superfund accounts with 

high available balances, and (2) the EPA regions' utilization of special account funds for 

Superfund accounts that are at least 10 years old. Region 9 (the Pacific Southwest) 

manages several Superfund special accounts. The 010 recommended that the agency 

reclassify or transfer to the Superfund Trust Fund, as appropriate, $27.8 million (plus any 

earned interest less oversight costs) of the Stringfellow special accounts in annual 

reviews, and at other milestones including the end of Fiscal Year 2010, when the record 

of decision is signed and the final settlement is achieved. Potential cost savings amount to 

$27.8 million. This recommendation is, as yet, unimplemented. In 2012, a new area of 

groundwater contamination was identified that is commingling with-and will directly 

impact the cleanup of-existing Stringfellow contamination, requiring further 

investigations. Due to the additional investigations at the site, the anticipated date to 

complete the sitewide record of decision became December 31, 2015. In July 2016, 

Region 9 issued a memo to the 10, notifying us that the estimated completion date was 

further extended to September 30, 2023, due to additional work that the state has 

committed to complete in support of the final record of decision. The agency's planned 

completion date was December 31, 2012. 

7. The 010 issued a report titled Nutrient Pollution: EPA Needs to Work with States to 

Develop Strategies for Monitoring the Impact of State Activities on the Gu(f of Mexico 

Hypoxic Zone, No. 14-P-0348, on September 03,2014. The 010 conducted this audit to 

11 
26 


27122.013

determine the steps that the EPA and states in the Mississippi River Watershed were 

taking to reduce nutrients that contribute to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. The EPA's 

OW is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA). The OIG 

recommended that the EPA work with the state and federal task force members in the 

Mississippi River Watershed to develop and enhance monitoring and assessment systems 

that will track the environmental results of state nutrient reduction activities, including 

their contribution to reducing the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. This 

recommendation is, as yet, unimplemented. The EPA says the Nonpoint Source Measure 

Workgroup has continued to make progress assessing available and achievable common 

measures that all states participating in the Hypoxia Task Force can use to track progress. 

In addition, the EPA has assembled information on the conservation practices funded by 

the agency's 319 grant program for states and territories, while states have compiled data 

on state-funded practices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Resource 

Conservation service is also expected to release a national data sharing policy that 

describes a process for states to access U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation 

practice implementation information. As a result, the Nonpoint Source Measure 

Workgroup expects that a Nonpoint Source Measures Report can be completed this 

calendar year. The task force will also continue its work to collect information on 

privately funded conservation investments. A revised expected completion date is still 

under review. The Hypoxia Task Force continues to work on its first nonpoint source 

measures report and anticipates issuing a first report describing progress to date by June 

I, 2017. However, the corrective action is still not complete. The agency's initial 

planned completion date was June 30,2015. 

12 
27 


27122.014

8. The OJG issued a report titled EPA Needs to Further improve How It Manages its Oil 

Pollution Prevention Program, No. 12-P-0253, on February 6, 2012. The OIG performed 

this evaluation in response to a request from the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure. We addressed the following two questions: (I) What steps has the EPA 

taken to ensure the quality and consistency of Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plans (otherwise known as SPCC Plans) and Facility Response Plans 

(otherwise known as FRPs )? and (2) How does the EPA track CW A Section 311 

violations and violators in order to manage its oil pollution program? The EPA's Office 

of Land and Emergency Management oversees the program. The OIG recommended that 

the agency improve oversight of facilities regulated by the EPA's oil pollution prevention 

program by producing a biennial public assessment of the quality and consistency of 

SPCC Plans and FRPs based on inspected facilities. For corrective action, the agency said 

that it would develop a summary of assessment findings concerning SPCC plans. These 

findings would help to identify areas where additional guidance and outreach are needed 

to improve the quality and consistency of SPCC Plans. The planned completion date was 

October 31, 2013. The agency said that it would use the model developed for the SPCC 

program to develop a review protocol for FRPs by September 30, 2013, to examine FRP 

inspections conducted during the FY 2013 inspection cycle. The agency said that it would 

develop a summary of findings from these FY 2013 inspections by October 31, 2014. 

These findings would help to identify areas where additional guidance and external 

outreach are needed to improve the quality and consistency of FRPs. These 

recommendations are, as yet, unimplemented. The agency revised this milestone date to 

June 30, 2020. 

13 
28 


27122.015

9. The OIG issued a report titled EPA Needs a Risk-Based Strategy to Assure Continued 

Effectiveness of Hospital-Level Disinfectants, No.I6-P-03 I 6, on September 19, 2016. We 

conducted this review of the EPA's Antimicrobial Testing Program to (I) determine 

whether the program ensures the efficacy of EPA-registered hospital sterilants, 

disinfectants and tuberculocides and (2) evaluate options for improving the program. The 

EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has primary responsibility for 

the efficacy testing of antimicrobial pesticides. The OIG recommended that the agency 

suspend administering the current Antimicrobial Testing Program until completion of the 

one-time re-registration process. The agency's planned completion date for this 

recommendation is November 30, 2017. The OIG also recommended that the agency 

develop a risk-based antimicrobial testing strategy to assure the effectiveness of public 

health pesticides used in hospital settings. At a minimum, the strategy should (a) include 

a framework for periodic testing to assure products continue to be effective after 

resignation, (b) define a program scope that is flexible and responsive to current and 

relevant public health risks, (c) identify risk factors for selecting products to test, 

(d) identify the method to be used for obtaining samples for testing and (e) designate a 

date to commence risk-based post-registration testing. The agency's planned completion 

date for this recommendation is November 30, 2018. Both recommendations are, as yet, 

unimplemented. 

I 0. The OIG issued a report titled Management Alert: Drinking Water Contamination in 

Flint, Michigan, Demons/rates a Need to ClarifY EPA Authority to Issue Emergency 

Orders lo Protect the Public, No. 17-P-0004, on October 20, 2016. The OIG is 

14 
29 


27122.016

conducting an ongoing review to examine the circumstances of, and the EPA's response 

to, the contamination in the city of Flint, Michigan's, community water system, including 

the EPA's exercise of its oversight authority. The purpose of our issuing this initial report 

was to expeditiously alert the EPA of key factors that delayed its intervention in Flint 

using its emergency authority granted under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 

Section 1431. When our review is complete, we plan to issue a subsequent report. In this 

initial report, the OIG recommended that the agency update its Final Guidance on 

Emergency Authority under Section 1431 (!f'the SDWA (1991) to clarify how and when it 

should intervene in emergency situations. Specifically, we recommended that the agency 

should (I) include the most relevant examples of SDWA Act Section 1431 orders 

nationwide and examples of state actions that would be considered timely and protective, 

(2) reflect the current delegations of authority to both the Regional Administrators and 

the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and 

(3) establish checklists for when both the Regional Administrators and the Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance should consider emergency 

action under the SDWA Section 1431. The agency's planned completion date for this 

recommendation is November 30,2017. The OIG also recommended that the agency 

train, in cooperation with the Assistant Administrator for Water, all relevant EPA 

drinking water and water enforcement program management and staff on the Section 

1431 authority and updated guidance. The agency's planned completion date for this 

recommendation is November 30, 2017. Both recommendations are, as yet, 

unimplemented. 

15 
30 


27122.017

Conclusion 

I commend the subcommittee's interest in our work and ensuring that EPA management take the 

necessary steps to address recommendations that the OIG and the agency have agreed will 

remediate identified problems. The support of Congress is absolutely essential in our ability to 

work with the EPA to address these recommendations. We will continue to work actively with 

the EPA and to keep Congress fully advised on the status of our recommendations. 

Accomplishing the tasks that we have discussed at this hearing requires sufficient appropriated 

funds from Congress. The EPA OIG returned $22 for every dollar given to us in FY 2016. When 

the 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 this is not an 

appropriations subcommittee, I respectfully ask for any help you can provide us in this regard. 

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGcttc and members of the subcommittee, this concludes 

my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the subcommittee 

members may have. 

16 
31 


27122.018

One-Page Summary of the EPA OIG's Written Testimony 

Impact of 0/G Recommendations: Making recommendations is a critical role for every OIG in 

carrying out our oversight mandate. Recommendations can greatly benefit agency programsbut only when an agency chooses to implement them or if Congress chooses to take legislative 

action or other measures to address them. The impact of an 0 IG recommendation may be cost 

savings or an improvement in program efficiency and/or effectiveness. 

Background: The IG Act of 1978 provides for O!Gs to conduct independent reviews of agency 

programs and operations. The EPA OIG's recommendations are developed in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards and are issued as part of a final report. The 

OIG publishes summaries of unimplemented recommendations in our Semiannual Report to 

Congress, as required by Section 5(a)(3) of the IG Act of 1978, as amended. This list lends 

transparency to the recommendation resolution process. 

Number of Unimplemented Recommendations: The average number of recommendations 

unimplemented by the EPA as reported in each of the semiannual reporting periods between 

March 2013 and March 2017 was 48. The OIG's most recent semiannual report, covering 

October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, cited 43 unimplemented recommendations. Of those, 

the number of days from report issuance to the date of the semiannual report ranged from less 

than 1 year to 9 years. Thirty-three were more than I year old and I 0 were under I year old. 

Tracking Recommendations: In most cases, the OIG and agency agree on report 

recommendations. When there are disagreements, we follow a specified dispute resolution 

process. If an agreement on a recommendation cannot be reached between the Assistant 

Inspector General and the EPA Action Official, the issue is elevated to the EPA Chief Financial 

Officer and the IG for resolution. If there is still disagreement, the matter is then elevated to the 

Deputy Administrator (or in some cases the Administrator), who makes the final decision. 

The following reports have unimplemented recommendations that indicate significant management 

opportunities at the EPA: (I) Improved Management oft he Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Program 

Is Required to Maximize Cleanups; (2) EPA Lacks Processes to Validate Whether Contractors Receive 

Specialized Role-Based Training for Network and Data Protection; (3) Over $774 Million of Puerto Rico 

State Revolving Funds at Risk; (4) Cloud Oversight Resulted in Unsubstantiated and Missed 

OpportunitiesjiJr Savings, Unused and Undelivered Services, and Incomplete Policies; (5) EPA Did Not 

Conduct Thorough Biennial User Fee Reviews; (6) Making Better Use of Stringfellow Superfund Special 

Accounts; (7) Nutrient Pollution: EPA Needs to Work with States to Develop Strategies for Monitoring 

the Impact of State Activities on the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone; (8) EPA Needs to Further Improve 

flow It Manages Its Oil Pollution Prevention Program; (9) EPA Needs a Risk-Based Strategy to Assure 

Continued Effectiveness of Hospital-Level Disinfectants; and (I 0) Management Alert: Drinking Water 

Contamination in Flint, Michigan, Demonstrates a Need to ClarifY EPA Authority to Issue Emergency 

Orders to Protect the Public. These reports are described in detail in the written testimony. 

17 
32 


27122.019

Biography of Counsel to the Inspector General Alan S. Larsen 

Alan S. Larsen became Counsel to the Inspector General of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August of2012. In 2013 he took 

on the additional role of Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and 

Public Affairs, and currently holds both positions. Before his appointment, Mr. 

Larsen served as Counsel to the Inspector General for the National 

Reconnaissance Office, and before that, Deputy Counsel and then acting 

Counsel to the Inspector General at the Central Intelligence Agency. 

Previously, Mr. Larsen was Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel 

for a wind energy development company, doing domestic and international 

projects. Prior to that, he was a partner in private law practice, in Portland, 

Oregon, later becoming Managing Partner of the firm's Washington, D.C., 

office. 

Mr. Larsen earned a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from 

Bucknell University. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from Northwestern 

School of Law of the Lewis & Clark College. 

He is a member of the bar of the state of Oregon and the District of Columbia, and multiple U.S. District Courts 

and Circuit Courts of Appeal. 

Mr. Larsen is the recipient of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) 

Leadership Award, CIGIE awards for Excellence in Law and Legislation, and Excellence in Investigations, and 

the Intelligence Community Inspector General Leadership Award. He was United States Delegate to 

International Intelligence Review Agencies in 2002, 2004 and 2006. 
33 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. Go ́mez, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF J. ALFREDO GO ́ MEZ 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Thank you. 

Chairman Murphy, Congresswoman Castor, and members of the 

subcommittee, good morning, and I’m pleased to be here today to 

talk to you about the status of recommendations GAO has made to 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

As you know, the mission of the EPA is to protect human health 

and the environment. We have conducted reviews focused on various aspects of EPA’s operations, such as managing grants and 

workforce planning, and its programs. And through these reviews, 

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

programs. 

My statement today will focus on two main areas. First, the status of EPA’s implementation of GAO’s recommendations since fiscal 

year 2007 and how these recommendations relate to EPA’s operations and programs. And, two, examples of benefits realized by 

EPA and others based on our work. 

As part of our process, we follow up on recommendations we 

have made and report on their status to Congress. Agencies also 

have a responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records on 

the status of our recommendations. We now follow up with EPA 

twice 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 the Agency has 

taken actions to address the issue or deficiency that we have identified. 

With regard to the first area on the status of GAO’s recommendations, we have found that, of the 318 recommendations 

we made to EPA, they had implemented 191. The remaining 127 

recommendations remain open or not implemented. 

And just to give you some more information, for recommendations that we made over 4 years ago, that is, recommendations 

from fiscal year 2007 to 2012, EPA has implemented 77 percent. 

For recommendations we made within the last 4 years, that is, 

since fiscal year 2013, the EPA has implemented 34 percent. 

Experience has shown that it takes time for some recommendations to be implemented. For this reason, we actively track each 

unaddressed or open recommendation for 4 years. The 318 recommendations we have made fall into six broad categories, such as 

management and operations, water-related issues, and environmental contamination and cleanup. 

For example, in January 2017, we reported on EPA’s management of grants to States, local governments, and others which 

make up almost 50 percent of the Agency’s budget. We found that 

EPA does not have sufficient information about the workload associated with these grants. Consequently, the Agency is not able to 

effectively and efficiently allocate staff across its offices and regions 

to manage these grants. 

Because the Agency did not know its grants workload, it sometimes had to shift staff from other mission areas to address the 

34 

work. We recommended that EPA collect and analyze data about 

grants management workloads and use these data to inform staff 

allocations. EPA agreed with this recommendation and has initiated steps to address it, and we will continue to monitor EPA’s actions to figure out what the status of the recs are. 

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 drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs of 

rural and small communities. We found that some communities 

faced potentially duplicative application requirements such as separate environmental analyses for each program that they applied 

for, resulting in delays and increased cost to communities. We recommended that EPA and the Department of Agriculture work together with State and other officials to develop guidelines to assist 

States in developing uniform environmental analyses, 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 effective and efficient. The 

EPA’s implementation of our recommendations will help the Agency continue to improve its performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations, and we will continue to work with Congress to monitor and draw attention to these important issues. 

Chairman Murphy, Congresswoman Castor, members of the subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I’d be happy to answer 

any questions. 

And I also just wanted to add a thank you for your words of support to my family in Texas and my nephews, but also all the other 

families in Texas. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Go ́mez follows:] 

35 


27122.020

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:15 a.m. ET 

Wednesday, September 6, 

2017 

GA0-17-801T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations, Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, House of 

Representatives 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION 

Status of GAO 

Recommendations Made 

to EPA since Fiscal Year 

2007 

Statement of J. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural 

Resources and Environment 
36 


27122.021

'' ' '' 

Htg~ljghts ofGA0~11--s~1!, ~ tesumony, beforeJhe Su~~tnlftee: oq:OverSlg~unq 

!nVestiga~lons, committee"ol1 ~ef9Y. aQd Commetce, H5>use 'OfB-epreSentatlves 

Why GAO Did :this ~tudy 

E'PA's>missiol) Is to prot~ct human 

healthanst the envlronr11ent To 

accomplish tliis mission; EPA develops 

and enforces environmental . • 

regulations; awards grants; and studies 

en~ironm~nta.llss!Je~, .among o~her 

things. QAO.l\a1> qonquct!>d reviews 

f<lcuseq ()n various·aspects b~ EPA:s 

oper~tions and .pl9l)Tarlls. ThroUgh this 

wori<,,GAO M.s mad!> numerous 

recommenQationsto lmprov!li EPA •s 

pertormance .and the. effici~ncy and 

effectiveness ?tits operations. 

GAO.foil?ws up With executive l>rarlch 

agenci~ l<f qetermine !he .extent to 

whichlll.ey.l\~veirrml.emente<fits 

re<::ommendalions. In tlscalyear2015, 

GAO l>e,gan S!>hding .fetters annua(IY to 

the• heads of ~ey eXS!lulive branch 

agenoles,lncluding EPA, identifying 

unimplemented recommendations that 

warrant prtdril)i attention. 

This stat~m!i(ll disc\.lsse$ (1) the Status 

of EP~'s lmJ11ementation otGAO 

re.:omm~hd<l,tions mage since fiscal 

year 2007 arjd how these,. 

recom(nendat!onsreti\te to EPA's 

operalfons ~nd proQrams and .(2/ 

exall\ples df beheilts te;>llzed ~Y !:ll'A 

;met otners b:M~d on qAo's wor~, 

including.th!'Qugh the agency's 

implementation (!f these 

recornmenctatiO:ns:: This s111tenient is 

.based on .GAO's woO< s~fiscalyear 

2007·atid on. an analysis of . 

recommendi\tlons GAO has made tri 

EPA. duri0g this Period. 

View G'A0~17-:_80.1"f, For tnPte ihformanoo\ cont?ct 1\llredo ()Mie? at·(202.) 5t2-3841or. gomezj~gao,gOv: 

DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Status of GAO Recommendations Made to EPA since 

Fiscal Year 2007 

What GAO Found 

As of August 23, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had 

implemented 191 of the 318 recommendations GAO made since fiscal year 

2007. EPA had not yet implemented the remaining 127 recommendations. The 

figure below shows the status of the 318 recommendations. The 

recommendations fall into six broad categories that relate to EPA programs and 

operations: (1) management and operations; (2) water issues; (3) environmental 

contamination and cleanup; (4) toxics, chemical safety, and pesticides; (5) public 

health and environmental justice; and (6) air quality, climate change, and energy 

efficiency. Almost three-fourths of the recommendations fall into the first three 

categories and include actions for EPA to better manage grants, improve the 

regulation of drinking water contaminants, and better manage hazardous waste 

cleanup. Most of the recommendations that have not yet been implemented 

concern EPA management and operations and water issues. For example, 

regarding management and operations, EPA has not yet implemented GAO's 

recommendation to link its workforce plan with its strategic plan to help ensure 

EPA has an appropriately skilled workforce to achieve its mission. Similarly, for 

water issues, EPA has not fully implemented GAO's recommendation to provide 

guidance to regional offices on overseeing state water quality programs. 

Number of recommendations 

Source: GAO. I GA0·17~01T 

GAO has identified many benefits-that is, process and programmatic 

improvements and financial benefits-based on EPA taking actions on GAO's 

recommendations and related work. For example, in October 2012, GAO 

recommended that EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) develop 

guidelines to assist states in developing uniform environmental analyses to meet 

state and federal requirements for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. 

EPA and USDA issued a joint memorandum in February 2017 that. among other 

things, highlighted best practices to eliminate duplicative environmental reviews. 

In addition, GAO has identified financial benefits from the implementation of its 

recommendations and related work. For example, during the course of work 

related to a July 2008 report, GAO identified an error in EPA's calculation of 

recoverable indirect costs for hazardous waste cleanup. EPA acknowledged the 

error and published revised indirect costs rates. As a result, GAO estimated in 

2010 that EPA had recovered or would recover $42.2 million. 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 

DRAFT 
37 


27122.022

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the status of recommendations 

GAO has made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As 

you know, the mission of EPA is to protect human health and the 

environment, with the purpose of protecting all Americans from significant 

risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn, and 

work, among other things. To accomplish this mission, EPA develops and 

enforces environmental regulations; awards grants to state environmental 

programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and others; studies 

environmental issues; and sponsors partnerships, among other things. 

We have conducted reviews focused on various aspects of EPA's 

operations and programs. For example, we have conducted reviews 

focused on aspects of EPA's operations, such as managing grants, 

workforce planning, and processes for developing and enforcing 

regulations. We have also conducted reviews on EPA's programs to 

manage toxic chemicals, improve water infrastructure, and clean up 

hazardous waste sites. Through these reviews, we have made numerous 

recommendations to improve EPA's performance and the efficiency and 

effectiveness of its operations and programs. Today I will discuss (1) the 

status of EPA's implementation of recommendations we have made since 

fiscal year 2007 and how these recommendations relate to EPA's 

operations and programs and (2) examples of benefits realized by EPA 

and others based on our work, including through the agency's 

implementation of our recommendations. 

This statement is based on our reports issued since fiscal year 2007, 

including reports issued from October 1, 2006, through May 31, 2017. 1 To 

determine the number and status of recommendations we made to EPA 

during this period, we reviewed data from our internal database that 

maintains information on the status of recommendations we have made 

to all agencies. To determine how these recommendations relate to EPA 

operations and programs, we developed categories based on areas of 

EPA's work and its organizational structure. Two analysts then 

independently categorized each of the recommendations and resolved 

any differences. To identify benefits realized by EPA in implementing our 

recommendations, we also relied on our internal database for information 

Page 1 

statement is based as well as the status of 

reports. 
38 


27122.023

Background 

on financial and non-financial benefits. In addition, we asked EPA to 

review the information provided in this statement for completeness and 

accuracy. Detailed information about the scope and methodology used to 

conduct our prior work can be found in each of our issued reports. 

We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

Many of our reports and testimonies include recommendations that, if 

acted upon, may result in tangible benefits for the U.S. taxpayer by 

improving the federal government's efficiency, effectiveness, and 

accountability. Implemented recommendations can result in financial or 

nonfinancial benefits for the federal government. 2 An estimated financial 

benefit is based on agency actions taken in response to our 

recommendations; such benefits can result in reduced government 

expenditures, increased revenues, or a reallocation of funds to other 

areas. For example, in fiscal year 2016, our work across the federal 

government resulted in $63.4 billion in financial benefits. 3 Other benefits 

that result from our work cannot be measured in dollar terms, and we 

refer to them as nonfinancial or other benefits. During fiscal year 2016, 

we recorded a total of 1 ,234 other benefits from our work that cannot be 

measured in dollars, but that led to program and operational 

improvements to the federal government 4 These benefits are linked to 

specific recommendations or other work that we completed over several 

years and could include improvements to agency programs, processes, 

and policies. In some cases, benefits are realized based on the actions of 

Congress. For example, since 1994, we have found that EPA faces 

challenges in its ability to assess and control toxic chemicals under the 

2

For the purpose of this testimony, we consider financial benefits to be net benefits-that 

is, estimates of financial benefits that have been reduced by the costs associated with 

taking the action that we recommended. 

3

GAO, Performance and AccountabHity Report Fiscal Year 2016, GA0-17-1SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2016). 

4GA0-17-1SP. 

Page 2 GA0-17-801T 
39 


27122.024

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976-largely due to issues of statutory 

choice, regulatory control, data, confidentiality, workload, and resources. 

In response to our work and the work of others, Congress passed the 

Lautenberg Act in 2016, giving EPA greater authority to implement 

several of our outstanding recommendations related to these six areas 

and positioning the agency to better protect public health and the 

environment from the risks posed by toxic chemicals. 

As part of our responsibilities under generally accepted government 

auditing standards, we periodically follow up on recommendations we 

have made to agencies and report their status to Congress. Agencies 

also have a responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records on 

their progress made toward addressing our recommendations. 5 After 

issuing a report, we follow up with audited agencies at least once a year 

to determine the extent to which they have implemented our 

recommendations and the benefits that they have realized. 6 During these 

follow-up contacts, we identify for agencies what additional actions, if any, 

they would need to take to address our recommendations. A 

recommendation is considered implemented when agencies have taken 

actions that, consistent with our recommendation, address the issue or 

deficiency we identified and upon which the recommendation is based. 

Experience has shown that it takes time for agencies to implement some 

recommendations. For this reason, we actively track unaddressed (i.e., 

open) recommendations for 4 years and review them to determine 

responsibilities are detailed in both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circulars A-50 and A-123. For example, OMS Circular A-50 provides the policies and 

procedures for use by executive agencies when considering reports issued by GAO and 

inspectors general, other executive branch audit organizations, and nonfederal auditors 

where follow-up is necessary. OMB Circular A-123 addresses internal management 

control systems and requires that agencies track GAO recommendations and provide a 

response to Congress on actions taken on the recommendations. Specifically, among the 

requirements of Circular A-123 are that the agency (1) appoint a top-level audit follow-up 

official, (2) maintain accurate records on the status of recommendations, and (3) assign a 

high priority to following up on audit recommendations. !n addition, when we issue a report 

containing recommendations to an agency, the agency head is required to submit a 

written statement of the actions taken in response to the recommendations to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives not later than 60 

days after the date of the report. 31 U.S. C.§ 720(b) (providing further that the statement 

shall be submitted to the Committees of Appropriations of both Houses of Congress in the 

first request for appropriations submitted more than 60 days after the date of the report) 

6

We work with agencies to establish processes for recommendation follow-up. In fiscal 

year 2016, we worked with EPA to increase the frequency of follow-up from annua!!y to 

semiannually. 

Page3 GA0-17-801T 
40 


27122.025

whether implementation can be reasonably expected. The review 

includes consideration of alternative strategies an agency may have for 

implementing recommendations. Our experience has shown that 

recommendations remaining open after 4 years are generally not 

implemented in subsequent years. We will close a recommendation as 

not implemented if an agency has indicated that it was not planning to 

take action or if we have determined that it is unlikely that the agency will 

take action to address the recommendation. Figure 1 shows our process 

for monitoring and reporting on recommendations. 

Figure 1: GAO's Process for Monitoring and Reporting on Recommendations 

Souroo: GAO. I GA0-17-801T 

Page4 GA0·17·801T 
41 


27122.026

EPA Has 

Implemented 191 of 

318 GAO 

Recommendations, 

Which Relate to a 

Variety of EPA 

Operations and 

Programs 

We maintain a publicly available database with information on the current 

status of most open recommendations. 7 The database allows searches 

by agency, congressional committee, or key words and is available at 

http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html. 

In addition to our process for monitoring and reporting on 

recommendations, we use other mechanisms to encourage agencies to 

implement our recommendations in a timely manner. For example, we 

initiated an effort in fiscal year 2015 to call attention to unimplemented 

recommendations that we believe warrant priority attention by the 

Secretary or agency heads at key departments and agencies. We sent 

letters to the heads of key executive branch agencies, including EPA, in 

fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 identifying these high-priority 

recommendations and urging the agency head to continue to provide 

attention to these issues. 

As of August 23, 2017, EPA had implemented 191 of the 318 

recommendations we made since fiscal year 2007, and the 

recommendations fall into six broad categories that relate to EPA 

operations and programs. EPA had not yet fully implemented the 

remaining 127 recommendations. 8 Figure 2 shows the status of the 318 

recommendations. For recommendations that we made over 4 years ago 

(i.e., fiscal years 2007 to 2012), EPA had implemented 77 percent. For 

recommendations made since fiscal year 2013, EPA had implemented 34 

percent. 

of the sensitive or classified nature of certain recommendations, we are unable 

to them in our publlcly accessible database. 

8

GAO continually works with EPA to verify implementation of recommendations and close 

them out in our database, so the number of implemented recommendations can change 

on a daily basis. Also, some of these recommendations were addressed to other agencies 

in addition to EPA. Finat!y, the numbers of recommendations reported here do not include 

any recommendations to EPA that were sensitive or classified in nature_ 

Page 5 GA0-17-801T 
42 


27122.027

Figure 2: Status of GAO Recommendations Made to EPA since Fiscal Year 2007, as of August 23,2017 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

35 30 25 20 

Number of recommendations 

15 10 10 

We actively track each open recommendation for 

4 years and review it to determine whether 

implementation can be reasonably expected. We 

will track the open recommendations made in 

fiscal year 2013 through the end of fiscal year 2017. 

15 20 25 30 35 

The 318 recommendations we made to EPA since fiscal year 2007 fall 

into six broad categories that relate to EPA operations and programs and 

generally align with many of the goals and strategies identified in EPA's 

Fiscal Year 2014-2018 Strategic Plan' These six broad categories are: 

( 1) management and operations; (2) water issues, which includes water 

infrastructure, drinking water, water quality, and ecosystem restoration; 

(3) environmental contamination and cleanup, which includes 

environmental cleanup, pollution prevention, hazardous and other waste 

programs, and emergency management; (4) taxies, chemical safety, and 

pesticides; (5) public health and environmental justice; and (6) air quality, 

climate change, and energy efficiency. The percentage of 

recommendations implemented within each category ranged from 80 

percent for the environmental contamination and cleanup category to 48 

percent in the management and operations category. 10 Figure 3 shows 

the number of recommendations we identified in each of these categories 

9EPA, Fiscal Year 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C .. Apr. 10, 2014). 

10The percentages of implemented and not implemented recommendations include 

recommendations that EPA is in the process of implementing, including many made within 

the last 4 years. 

Page6 GA0-17·8011 
43 


27122.028

and the percentage of recommendations within each category that had 

been implemented and not implemented, 

Figure 3: Categories of GAO Recommendations Made to EPA Since Fiscal Year 2007 and Percentage Implemented and Not 

Implemented, as of August 23, 2017 

Total Recommendations: 318 

Air quality, climate change, 

and energy efficiency -~~~~-~----, 

Public health and environmental justice 

22 recommendations 

!77% implemented I 23% not implemented I 

Taxies, chemical safety, and pesticides 

40 recommendations 

58% impl~mented i 43% not impiemen.ted · 

Environmental contamination and cleanup 

49 recommendations 

jso% implemented ! 20% not Implemented I 

Management and operations 

Water issues 

Environmental contamination, and cleanup 

Toxics, chemical safety, and pesticides 

Public health and environmental justice 

Air -quality, climate chsnge. snd energy efficiency 

Recommendations not implemented 

Source: GAO. I GA0-17-801T 

The percentages of not implemented recommen~ations include 

recommendations that the Env1rOnmenta1 Protection Agency is in the 

process -of impfe'menting, including many made within the last 4 years. 

Note: The percentages of Implemented and not implemented recommendations for each category 

may not add up to 100 due to rounding 

Almost three-fourths of the recommendations we made since fiscal year 

2007 fall into three categories: management and operations, water 

issues, and environmental contamination and cleanup. The 

recommendations to EPA relating to management and operations 

included actions for better managing its grants, better coordinating 

management of its laboratories, and improving the agency's information 

security, Recommendations on water issues included actions targeted at 

Page 7 
44 


27122.029

Management and Operations 

improving the regulation of contaminants in drinking water, improving 

water quality and ecosystem health in regions such as the Great Lakes 

and Chesapeake Bay, and better managing water pollution from both 

point and nonpoint sources. 11 Recommendations related to environmental 

contamination and cleanup included: taking actions for better managing 

cleanup at hazardous waste sites; enhancing responses to disasters, 

such as the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, 

and Hurricane Katrina in August 2005; and promoting proper disposal and 

recycling of electronic waste. The remaining quarter of the 

recommendations fell into the other three categories of taxies, chemical 

safety, and pesticides; air quality, climate change, and energy efficiency; 

and public health and environmental justice. Appendix I lists, by category, 

our reports with recommendations to EPA since fiscal year 2007, and for 

each report lists the numbers of implemented, not implemented, and total 

recommendations, as of August 23, 2017. 

Of the 127 recommendations that EPA has not implemented, we made 

82, or 65 percent, since fiscal year 2013 and 45, or 35 percent, earlier 

(i.e., fiscal years 2007 to 2012). 12 Most of these recommendations 

concern EPA management and operations and water issues. Some 

examples of recommendations that have not yet been implemented in 

these categories are described below. 

In January 2017, we made recommendations to EPA related to their 

management of grants." In 2015, EPA awarded roughly $3.9 billion, 

about 49 percent of its budget, in grants to states, local governments, 

tribes, and other recipients. These grants supported activities such as 

repairing aging water infrastructure, cleaning up hazardous waste sites, 

improving air quality, and preventing pollution. In our January 2017 report, 

we concluded that EPA's ability to manage this portfolio depended 

point source is any discemabte, confined and discrete conveyance from which 

pollutants are or may be discharged, such as a pipe carrying effluent from a wastewater 

treatment plant or an industrial facility. Nonpoint source pollution is water pollution from 

diffuse sources, such as runoff from farms or construction sites. 

12!n genera!, we continue to believe that our prior recommendations are valid and should 

be addressed. While we recognize that agencies need time to act on our 

recommendations, in our experience, recommendations that have not been implemented 

after 4 years are generally not implemented in subsequent years. 

13GAO, Grants Management: EPA Partially Follows Leading Practices of Strategic 

Workforce Planning and Could Take Additional Steps, GA0~17~144 (Washington, D.C .. 

Jan. 9, 2017). 

Page 8 
45 


27122.030

primarily on grant specialists and project officers, but the agency did not 

have the information it needed to allocate grants management resources 

in an effective and efficient manner. In addition, EPA had not identified 

project officer critical skills and competencies or monitored its recruitment 

and retention efforts for grant specialists. We recommended that EPA, 

among other things, develop documented processes that could be 

consistently applied by EPA offices to collect and analyze data about 

grants management workloads and use these data to inform staff 

allocation. We also recommended that EPA review project officer critical 

skills and competencies and determine training needs to address gaps 

and develop recruitment and retention performance measures and collect 

performance data for these measures. According to a May 2017 letter, 

EPA agreed with the five recommendations we made in the report and 

identified steps it was initiating to address them. We will continue to 

monitor EPA's actions to implement these recommendations. 

In August 2014, we made recommendations to EPA related to information 

security. 14 Federal agencies rely on contractors to operate computer 

systems and process information on their behalf. Federal law and policy 

require that agencies ensure that contractors adequately protect these 

systems and information. In our August 2014 report, we evaluated how 

six agencies, including EPA, oversaw contractor-operated systems. With 

regard to EPA, we found that the agency generally established security 

and privacy requirements for contractors to follow and prepared for 

assessments to determine the effectiveness of contractors' 

implementation of controls but was inconsistent in overseeing the 

execution and review of those assessments. We recommended that EPA 

develop, document, and implement oversight procedures for ensuring 

that, for each contractor-operated system: (1) a system test is fully 

executed and (2) plans of action and milestones with estimated 

completion dates and resources assigned for resolution are maintained. 

In comments on the report, EPA generally agreed with our 

recommendations and has recently told us that it has taken steps to 

implement these recommendations. We will evaluate whether these steps 

meet the intent of the recommendations. 

Page9 

Information Security: Agencies Need to Improve Oversight of Contractor Controls. 

(Washington, D.C .. Aug. 8, 2014). 

GA0-17-801T 
46 


27122.031

Water Issues 

In March 2010, we made recommendations to EPA related to workforce 

planning. 15 The ability of federal agencies to achieve their mission and 

carry out their responsibilities depends in large part on whether they can 

sustain a workforce that possesses the necessary education, knowledge, 

skills, and other competencies. We and others have shown that 

successful organizations use strategic workforce planning to help meet 

present and future mission requirements. In our March 2010 report on 

workforce planning at EPA and other agencies, we found that EPA's 

workforce plan was not clearly aligned with its strategic plan or budget 

formulation, consistent with leading workforce planning principles. For 

example, EPA's workforce plan did not show how full-time equivalent 

employees, skills, and locations would be aligned with the strategic plan 

or budget. Without alignment to the strategic plan, we concluded that EPA 

was at risk of not having the appropriately skilled workforce it needs to 

effectively achieve its mission. We recommended, among other things, 

that EPA incorporate into its workforce plan clear and explicit links 

between the workforce plan and the strategic plan, and describe how the 

workforce plan will help the agency achieve its strategic goals. In 

comments on our report, EPA generally agreed with our recommendation. 

According to EPA, the agency has taken some positive steps toward 

better workforce planning, such as developing workforce planning gap 

analyses. However, EPA has not fully implemented this recommendation. 

In May 2012, we made recommendations to EPA related to a key 

program under section 319 of the Clean Water Act to address water 

pollution from nonpoint sources. 16 Under this program, EPA provides 

grants to states to implement programs and fund projects that address 

nonpoint source pollution. We found that EPA's regional offices had 

varied widely in the extent of their oversight and the amount of influence 

they had exerted over states' nonpoint source pollution management 

programs. In addition, EPA's primary measures of effectiveness of states' 

management programs did not always demonstrate the achievement of 

program goals, which are to eliminate remaining water quality problems 

and prevent new threats from creating future water quality problems in 

water bodies currently of high quality. To help protect water quality, we 

recommended that EPA (1) provide guidance to its regional offices on 

Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest SefVice Should Strengthen 

Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation, GA0-10-413 (Washington, 

31, 2010). 

16GAO, Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: Greater Oversight and Additional Data Needed 

for Key EPA Water Program, GA0-12-335 (Washington. D.C .. May 31, 2012). 

Page 10 
47 


27122.032

overseeing state programs and, (2) in its revised reporting guidelines to 

states, emphasize measures that more accurately reflect the overall 

health of targeted water bodies and demonstrate states' focus on 

protecting high-quality water bodies, where appropriate. 17 EPA agreed 

with these recommendations in its comments on the report. In 2013, EPA 

issued final guidelines laying out expectations for EPA's regional 

oversight and issued a memorandum to its regional managers 

highlighting their oversight responsibilities. However, in a subsequent 

report issued in July 2016, we found that EPA's 2013 guidance did not 

completely address our recommendation to provide sufficient guidance to 

states to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. 18 We also found that 

according to EPA officials, the agency planned to make changes to some 

of the program's measures of effectiveness. Although EPA has taken 

some action, these recommendations remain open pending EPA's (1) 

ensuring that the guidelines to states incorporate specific instructions on 

how to review states' plans and criteria for ensuring funded projects 

reflect characteristics of effective implementation and tangible results, 

and (2) improving its measures of program effectiveness. 

included these recommendations in our 2015, 2016, and 2017 !etters to EPA 

highlighting recommendations warranting priority attention_ 

18GAO, Environmental Protection Agency: Status of Efforts to Address Nonpoint Source 

Water Pollution through the Section 319 Program, GA0-16-697R (Washington, D.C .. July 

14, 2016). 

Page 11 GA0-17-801T 
48 


27122.033

EPA's Implementation 

of GAO 

Recommendations 

and Related Work 

Has Resulted in 

Process and 

Programmatic 

Improvements and 

Financial Benefits 

Process Improvements 

Management and Operations 

We have identified many benefits-process and programmatic 

improvements and financial benefits-based on EPA taking actions on 

our recommendations and related work. Since fiscal year 2007, we have 

identified improvements to EPA's operations and programs in categories 

such as management and operations, water issues, and public health and 

environmental justice. In addition, we have identified financial benefits 

resulting from the implementation of our recommendations and our 

related work. 19 

The following are examples of process improvements we have identified 

based on actions EPA has taken in response to our recommendations. 

In August 2015, we reviewed EPA's grant management program, 

including the extent to which its grants management plan followed leading 

practices for federal strategic planning. 20 We found that EPA could better 

ensure the effectiveness of its planning framework for meeting grants 

management goals. We recommended that EPA incorporate all leading 

practices in federal strategic planning relevant to grants management as 

it finalized its draft 2016-2020 grants management plan, such as defining 

strategies that address management challenges and identifying the 

resources, actions, and time frames needed to meet EPA's goals. In 

response to our recommendation, EPA fully incorporated each of the 

relevant leading practices for federal strategic planning in its final2016-

2020 grants management plan, issued in February 2016. Specifically, 

EPA included an annual priority-setting process to identify strategies to 

190ur findings and recommendations can produce measurable financial benefits for the 

federal government after Congress or agencies act on them and government expenditures 

are reduced or funds are reallocated to other areas. To calculate our financial benefits we 

rely on estimates from non-GAO sources. These sources are typically the agency that 

acted on our work, a congressional committee, or the Congressional Budget Office. 

21 GAO, Environmental Protection Agency: To Better Fulfill Its Mission, EPA Needs a More 

Coordinated Approach to Managing its Laborator;es, GA0-11-347 (Washington, D. C July 

25, 2011). 

Page 12 GA0-17-801T 
49 


27122.034

Water Issues 

address management challenges and the resources needed to achieve 

its goals. EPA also incorporated mechanisms to ensure leadership 

accountability for achieving results, including numeric targets and time 

frames for each action identified in performance measures. 

Consequently, EPA has better assurance that its 2016-2020 grants 

management plan is an effective framework to guide and assess its 

efforts to meet its grants management goals. 

In August 2011, we found that EPA operated 37 laboratories across the 

nation to provide the scientific research, technical support, and analytical 

service to support its mission. 21 In that report, we also found that EPA did 

not use a comprehensive process for managing its laboratories' workforce 

and lacked basic information on its laboratory workload and workforce. 

Without such information, we found that EPA could not undertake 

succession planning and management to help the organization adapt to 

meet emerging and future needs. We recommended that EPA for all of its 

laboratories develop a comprehensive workforce planning process that is 

based on reliable workforce data and reflects the agency's current and 

future needs in the overall number of federal and contract employees, 

skills, and deployment across all laboratory facilities. EPA generally 

agreed with our recommendation and, in 2015, developed a 

comprehensive workforce planning process for all of its laboratories and, 

according to the agency, collected, verified, and analyzed, from all of its 

laboratories, workforce data that included personnel's organization, 

location, grade levels, and area of expertise. 

In October 2012, we found that funding for rural water and wastewater 

infrastructure was fragmented across the three largest federal 

programs-EPA's Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities 

Service Waste and Waste Disposal program-leading to program overlap 

and possible duplication of effort when communities applied for these 

programs. 22 For example, we found that some communities had to 

prepare separate environmental analyses for each program, resulting in 

delays and increased costs to communities applying to the programs. We 

recommended that EPA and USDA work together and with state and 

Environmental Protection Agency: To Better FuifHI!ts Mission, EPA Needs a More 

cn.om<nm~nAm>rN>nh to Manag;ng its Laboratories, GA0-11~347 (Washington, D.C,. July 

25, 2011). 

22GAO, Rural Water Infrastructure: Additional Coordination Can Help Avoid Potentially 

Duplicative Application Requirements, GA0-13-111 (Washington, D.C.: Oct 16, 2012) 

Page 13 GA0-17-801T 
50 


27122.035

Programmatic 

Improvements 

Water Issues 

community officials to develop guidelines to assist states in developing 

uniform environmental analyses that could be used, to the extent 

appropriate, to meet state and federal requirements for water and 

wastewater infrastructure projects. In February 2017, EPA and USDA 

issued a joint memorandum to address concerns identified in our report 

and highlighted best practices currently employed in some states to 

eliminate duplicative environmental reviews. In particular, the 

memorandum highlighted a uniform environmental review document 

developed by the state of Pennsylvania. To eliminate potential duplication 

of effort during the environmental review process, the memorandum 

encouraged state programs to evaluate the best practices and 

incorporate the practices into their own operations where applicable. 

The following are examples of programmatic improvements we have 

identified based on actions EPA has taken in response to our 

recommendations. 

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA currently regulates 58 industrial 

categories of wastewater pollution-such as petroleum refining, fertilizer 

manufacturing, and coal mining-with technology-based regulations 

called "effluent guidelines." Such guidelines are applied in permits to limit 

the pollutants that facilities may discharge. The Clean Water Act also 

calls for EPA to revise the guidelines when appropriate. EPA has done 

so, for example, to reflect advances in treatment technology or changes 

in industries. EPA uses a two-phase process to identify industrial 

categories needing new or revised effluent guidelines, including an initial 

"screening" phase in which EPA ranks industrial categories according to 

the total toxicity of their wastewater. 23 In September 2012, we concluded 

that limitations in EPA's screening phase may have led the agency to 

overlook some industrial categories that warrant further review for new or 

revised effluent guidelines. 24 For example, during the screening phase, 

23EPA's 2002 draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations was the 

foundation for EPA's process. In the first, or "screening," phase, EPA uses data from two EPA databases to rank Industria! categories according to the total toxicity of their 

wastewater. Using this ranking, public comments, and other considerations, EPA has 

identified relatively few industria! categories posing the highest hazard for the next, or 

''further review,» phase. In this further review phase, EPA evaluates the categories to 

identify those that are appropriate for new or revised guidelines because treatment 

technologies are available to reduce pollutant discharges 

24GAO, Water Pollution: EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could 

Benefit from More Information on Treatment Technologies, GA0-12-845 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012). 

Page 14 
51 


27122.036

Public Health and 

Environmental Justice 

EPA had not considered the availability of advanced treatment 

technologies for most industrial categories. We recommended that EPA 

modify the screening phase of its review process to include a thorough 

consideration of information on the treatment technologies available to 

industrial categories as it considered revisions to its screening and review 

process. In comments on the report, EPA agreed that factoring treatment 

technology information into its reviews would be valuable. In September 

2014, EPA published a combined Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 

Effluent Guidelines Program report that discussed revisions to its 

screening process in response to our report. Specifically, EPA stated that 

it recognized the need to consider the availability of treatment 

technologies, process, changes, or pollution-prevention practices in the 

screening phase of its process and said that it was targeting new data 

sources to provide such information. In July 2015, EPA published its 

"Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program" with a diagram showing the 

change to EPA's screening process to include screening of treatment 

technologies. 

EPA established a 1995 Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children to 

ensure that the agency consistently considers children in its actions, since 

children can be more vulnerable than adults to certain environmental 

hazards. In August 2013, we found that EPA did not have a specific 

process for program offices that led regulatory workgroups to document 

how the agency considers children's health risks in rulemakings and other 

actions or how the agency's analyses comply with the 1995 policy." We 

recommended that EPA require lead program offices to document their 

decisions in rulemakings and other actions regarding how health risks to 

children were considered and that their decisions be consistent with 

EPA's children's health policy. In comments on our report, EPA generally 

agreed with the recommendation and stated that the Office of Children's 

Health Protection worked with the Office of Policy and the program offices 

to assure a consistent approach for documenting these decisions as part 

of EPA's process to develop rules, regulations, and other agency actions. 

Subsequently, in October of 2014, EPA finalized a template for all EPA 

employees to use that outlined how to address EPA's 1995 policy and 

other requirements under various situations. The template instructs lead 

program offices to document their decisions in rulemaking and other 

Environmental Health: EPA Has Made Substantial Progress but Could Improve 

Processes forCons;dering Children's Health, GA0~13~254 (Washington, D.C: Aug. 12, 

2013). 

Page 15 GA0-17-801T 
52 


27122.037

Environmental Contamination 

and Cleanup 

actions regarding how they considered health risks to children (e.g., 

conducting a children's health risk assessment), or provide a rationale for 

why such an evaluation was not necessary. 

The following are examples of financial benefits we have identified based 

on actions EPA has taken in response to our prior reviews. 

During the course of work related to a July 2008 report on the funding and 

reported costs of Superfund enforcement and administrative activities, 26 

we reviewed EPA's methodology for calculating the indirect costs-or 

administrative costs for managing the Superfund program-that EPA 

charged responsible parties in fiscal year 2006. In conducting this work, 

we identified two spending codes for which associated administrative 

costs had not been carried over into EPA's calculations of the indirect 

cost rate applicable to each region for fiscal year 2006. 27 As a result of 

this error, we determined that the percentage that EPA was charging 

responsible parties for indirect costs associated with fiscal year 2006 

spending was lower than it should have been. In response to our finding, 

EPA published revised indirect cost rates for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 

in May 2008 to correct the error. EPA acknowledged that correcting this 

error would result in more money being potentially recoverable from 

responsible parties. In 2010, we estimated that the additional amount 

EPA has recovered (or would recover) had a present value worth about 

$42.2 million. 28 

26GAO, Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and Administrative 

Activities, GA0-08-841R (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2008). 

27We identified this error and EPA corrected it during the course of our work Therefore, 

we did not report on it in GA0-08~841 R 

28Precise data were not available on the exact amount of the additional fiscal year 2005 

and 2006 indirect costs that EPA had recovered (or would recover) as a result of 

correcting the error we identified. 

Page 16 
53 


27122.038

Management and Operations Since fiscal year 2000, we have issued a body of work aimed at raising 

the level of attention given to improper payments across government. 29 

Our work demonstrated that improper payments have been a longstanding, widespread, and significant problem in the federal government 

and as a result, contributed to Congress passing the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002 (I PIA). This act, as amended, requires, among 

other things, that all agencies annually identify and review programs and 

activities that may be susceptible to significant improper payments, 

provisions that coincide with recommendations we have made that 

agencies estimate, reduce, and publicly report improper payments. 30 

Subsequently, in 2005, EPA began reporting on the improper payment 

rate for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. 31 By 

2009, the most recent year for which we identified financial benefits from 

the agency addressing improper payments, EPA reported that its total 

improper payment error rates for the State Revolving Funds declined by 

0.16 percent since it first reported on this issue. This resulted in about a 

$4.5 million decrease in improper payments from the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 32 

29GAO, Improper Payments: Progress Made but Challenges Remain in Estimating and 

Reducing Improper Payments, GA0-09-628T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2009); GAO 

Improper Payments: Status of Agencies' Efforts to Address Improper Payment and 

Recovery Auditing Requirements, GA0-08-438T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2008); GAO, 

Improper Payments: Agencies' Fiscal Year 2005 Reporting under the Improper Payments 

Information Act Remains Incomplete, GA0-07-92 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2006); 

GAO, Financial Management: Coordinated Approach Needed to Address the 

Government's Improper Payments Problems, GA0-02-749 (Washington, D.C .. Aug. 9, 

2002); GAO, Financial Management: Increased Attention Needed to Prevent Billions in 

Improper Payments, GAO/AIMD-00-10 (Oct. 29, 1999). 

30See, for example, GA0-02-749. 

31The federal government provides some financial support to communities for their 

drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. Under the Clean Water Act and 

Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal government contributes some funding to states 

though EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs. States 

use this funding to make low- or no-interest loans to communities to build water and 

wastewater infrastructure, in addition to other assistance. 

32We confirmed wlth EPA officials that there were no offsetting implementation costs 

associated with this program. Data used to calculate these benefits were derived from 

EPA's reported independent estimates of improper payments. 

Page 17 GA0-17-8011 
54 


27122.039

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

In conclusion, as the fiscal pressures facing the government continue, so 

too does the need for executive branch agencies to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of government programs and activities. Our 

recommendations provide a significant opportunity to improve the 

government's fiscal position, better serve the public, and make 

government programs more efficient and effective. We believe that EPA's 

implementation of our outstanding recommendations will enable the 

agency to 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 these important issues. 

Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer questions that you may have at this time. 

If you or your staff members have any future questions about this 

testimony, please contact Alfredo G6mez at (202) 512-3841 or 

gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement. Key contributors to this testimony include Barb Patterson, 

Assistant Director; Cindy Gilbert; Anne Hobson; Richard Johnson; Dan C. 

Royer; and Kiki Theodoropoulos. 

Page 18 GA0-17-801T 
55 


27122.040

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Table 1: GAO Reports Containing Recommendations to EPA, by Category, and Status of Recommendations as of August 23, 

2017 

Category and report 

Em<iror1memtal Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has Improved, but 

Needs Further Enhancement 

Federal Records: National Archives and Selected Agencies Need to Strengthen E~Mall 

Establish Comprehensive Policies to 

and Performance Goals 

Federal Rulemaking: Improvements Needed to Monitoring and Evaluation of Rules 

Development as We!! as to the Transparency of OMS Regulatory Reviews 

GA0-09-446 

Btofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and 

Use 

EPA, and the Forest Service Should Strengthen Linkages 

Evaluation 

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Needs to Complete a Strategy for Its Library 

Network to Meet Users' Needs 

To Better Fulfil! lts Mission, EPA Needs a More 

Its Laboratories 

Page 19 

Number of recommendations made since 

fiscal year 2007 

Implemented Not Total 
56 


27122.041

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA. by 

Category 

Mentor-Protege Programs Have Policies That Aim to Benefit Participants but Do Not 

Require Postagreement Tracking 

Need Po!lcies and Procedures for Managing and 

and Disseminate 

Information Technology Cost Estimation: Agencies Need to Address Significant 

Weaknesses in Policies and Practices 

EPA Regulations and Electricity: Better Monitoring by Agencies Could Strengthen 

Efforts to Address Potential Challenges 

GA0-12-692 

Human Capital: HHS and EPA Can Improve Practices Under Special Hiring Authorities 

GA0-12-696 

Information Security: Environmental Protection Agency Needs to Resolve Weaknesses 

EPA Should Develop a Strategic Plan for Its New 

EPA Should Improve Adherence to Guidance for Selected 

Page 20 

10 12 

GA0-17-8011 
57 


27122.042

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Information Security: Agencies Need to Improve Oversight of Contractor Controls 

GA0-14-713 

Center Consolidation: Reporting Can Be Improved to Reflect Substantial Planned 

Telecommunications: Agencies Need Better Controls to Achieve Significant Savings on 

Mobile Devices and Services 

Board: Improved Procedures Needed to Process 

for Scientific Advice 

Information Technology Reform: Billions of Dollars in Savings Have Been Realized, but 

Agencies Need to Complete Reinvestment Plans 

GA0-15-618 

Grants Management: EPA Has Opportunities to Improve Planning and Compliance 

rntrasr,·uoture Protection: Sector~Specific Agencies Need to Better Measure 

Cvt>e,,eor>~i!v 

but Planned Savings Goals 

IT Dashboard: Agencies Need to Fully Consider Risks When Rating Their Major 

Investments 

Government Purchase Cards: Opportunities Exist to Leverage Buying Power 

GA0-16-530 

Grants Management EPA Could Improve Certain Monitoring Practices 

Page 21 GA0-17-801T 
58 


27122.043

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Officers: Opportunities Exist to Improve Roles and 

Leading Practices of Strategic Workforce 

for Discretionary 

Small Business Research Programs: Most Agencies Met Spending Requirements, but 

DOD and EPA Need to Improve Data Reporting 

lm~>lennentation and Better Cost Data Needed to Determine 

on Communities 

and Actions Needed to Address 

Environmental Health: Action Needed to Sustain Agencies' Collaboration on 

Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water 

Page 22 
59 


27122.044

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Category and report 

Drinking Water: Unreliable State Data Limit EPA's Ability to Target Enforcement 

Priorities and Communicate Water Systems' Performance 

Greater Oversight and Additional Data Needed for 

Water Quality: EPA Faces Challenges in Addressing Damage Caused by Airborne 

Pollutants 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More Useful 

Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress 

Changes Needed If Key EPA Program Is to Help Fulfill the Nation's 

Drinking Water: EPA Has Improved lts Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program, 

but Additional Action !s Needed 

GA0-14-555 

Drinking Water: EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids 

Associated With Oil and Gas Production Needs lmprovemen 

Funds: Improved Financial Indicators Could Strengthen EPA 

mm;srrucnJre· EPA and USDA Are Helping Small Water Utilities with Asset 

Exist to Better Track Results 

Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Collect Information and Consistently Conduct Activ1t1es 

to Protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water 

Page 23 

4 

4 
60 


27122.045

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling 

Hurricane Katrina: EPA's Current and Future Environmental Protection Efforts Could 

Be Enhanced by Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast 

Observations on EPA's Economic Analyses of 

Control, and Countermeasure Rule 

World Trade Center: EPA's Most Recent Test and Clean Program Raises Concerns 

That Need to Be Addressed to Better Prepare for Indoor Contamination Following 

Disasters 

GA0-08-71 

Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving AsbestosContaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public Notification 

Process 

Facility Data Could Improve 

Electronic Waste: EPA Needs to Better Control Harmful U.S. Exports through Stronger 

Enforcement and More 

Superfund: Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Cleanup 

at DOD Sites 

GA0-09-656 

Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information on Site 

Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program Funding Requirements 

GA0-10-348 

Superfund: Interagency Agreements and Improved Project Management Needed to 

Achieve Cleanup Progress at Key Defense Installations 

GA0-10-380 

Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remedlate Existing Sites Exceed Current 

Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities 

List 

Page 24 
61 


27122.046

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Category and report 

Electronic Waste: Considerations for Promoting Environmentally Sound Reuse and 

Biofuels: Challenges to the Transportation, Sale, and Use of Intermediate Ethanol 

Blends 

Electronic Waste: Actions Needed to Provide Assurance That Used Federal 

Electronics Are Disposed of in an Environmentally Responsible Manner 

GA0-12-488 

Anthrax: DHS Faces Challenges in Validating Methods for Sample Collection and 

Phosphate Mining: Oversight Has Strengthened, but Financial Assurances and 

Coordination Still Need 

Uranium Mining: Opportunities Exist to Improve Oversight of Financial Assurances 

Additional Research Needed, Particularly on Subsurface and Arctic 

EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management of Alternatives to 

the National Priorities Ust 

Uranium Contamination: Overall Scope, Time Frame, and Cost Information Is Needed 

for Contamination Cleanup on the Navajo Reservation 

GA0-15-35 

Hazardous Waste: Agencies Should Take Steps to Improve Information on USDA's 

and Interior's Potentially Contaminated Sites 

Page 25 GA0-17-801T 
62 


27122.047

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Biomonitoring: EPA Needs to Coordinate Its Research Strategy and Clarify Its 

Authority to Obtain Biomonitoring Data 

Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces 

Chemical Safety: Actions Needed to Improve Federal Oversight of Facilities with 

Ammonium Nitrate 

Improvements Needed in EPA's Good Laboratory Practices 

Environmental Health: EPA Efforts to Address Children's Health Issues Need Greater 

Focus, Direction, and Commitment 

Are Proposing Changes to Improve 

to Enhance Coordination and 

Page 26 GA0-17-801T 
63 


27122.048

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Strategy and Leadership Needed to Continue 

from Environmental Threats 

Environmental Justice: EPA Needs to Take Additional Actions to Help Ensure Effective 

High-Containment Laboratories: Comprehensive and Up-to-Date Policies and Stronger 

Oversight Mechanisms Needed to Improve Safety 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More Information and a Clearly 

Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water Quality from Pollutants of Concern 

GA0-08-980 

Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent 

Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts 

Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture 

Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and 

Use 

Setting Fuel Economy and 

Should Be Maintained 

Green Bul!ding: Federal Initiatives for the Nonfederal Sector Could Benefit from More 

Collaboration 

Federal Programs That Reduce Mobile Source 

Page 27 
64 


27122.049

Category and report 

Appendix 1: GAO Reports since Fiscal Year 

2007 with Recommendations to EPA, by 

Category 

Air Pollution: EPA Needs Better Information on New Source Review Permits 

Cllmate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local 

Infrastructure Decision Makers 

(102280) Page 28 GA0-17-8011 
65 


27122.050

This is a work of the U.S, government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
66 


27122.051

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commrtment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov 

and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Linkedln, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnetlfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

James-Christian Blackwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

0 Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
67 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Larsen and Mr. Go ́mez. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes here for questions. 

First of all, your organizations have consistently highlighted 

EPA’s failures to perform adequate workforce and workload analysis as being an area of concern warranting some corrective action 

by the Agency, which has not occurred. So, Mr. Go ́mez, I will start 

with you. Could you explain how EPA’s failure to assess its workforce and workload, grants, whatever, hinders its ability to respond 

in natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and Irma? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, what we’ve talked about in our work looking at 

workforce planning and grants management is that it’s really important for the Agency, as you said, to have good information on 

workload. So, data on workload is important because the Agency 

doesn’t really ensure that it has the right people in the right places 

with the right skills and competencies to accomplish the mission of 

the Agency, whether that is to focus on areas that are short term 

or long term. We want to make sure that the Agency has that information. It is something that the Agency has struggled with for 

decades. So, we continue to make those recommendations. I know 

the IG has made recommendations in the past. So, we think that’s 

really important, again, to ensure that it has the right people in 

the right places with the right skill sets in the right locations. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Larsen, could you comment on that, how it affects our ability to respond to these hurricanes? 

Mr. LARSEN. The IG’s work I think is directly aligned with the 

GAO’s work in this area. We’ve issued reports with recommendations. As of July of this year, the Agency has responded to and 

acted on the last of the open recommendations. However, for the 

last several years, including the current management challenges 

report that we gave to the Agency, we continue to highlight workforce planning as a challenge that the Agency needs to address. 

I guess the simple answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, is 

that if the Agency doesn’t know what its work requirements are, 

it cannot assign and align people to those requirements. And we 

are urging them to, as Mr. Go ́mez says, identify the data that allows them to make those comparisons and align their work with 

their workforce. 

Mr. MURPHY. And will you oftentimes find weaknesses when it 

is a time of challenge, which we are facing now? Now every year 

since 2015 the GAO has sent a letter to the EPA highlighting highpriority recommendations, and GAO considers these recommendations to be critical to EPA’s mission of protecting human health 

and the environment. 

So, Mr. Go ́mez, as EPA responds to Hurricane Harvey, as it prepares to respond to Hurricane Irma, are there any high-priority 

recommendations that, if implemented, could have impacted EPA’s 

response to the hurricane? I mean, what are their high priorities 

right now that need to be done? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, this high-priority letter that we’ve sent to EPA, 

we’ve done that since 2015. And what we’ve done is really look at 

the recommendations that GAO has made and identify those areas 

that we saw as high priority, either areas that GAO has identified 

as high risk—we have a number of recommendations that are focusing on water infrastructure. 

68 

So, I think one of the priority recommendations that we think 

does have relevance to Harvey and other future disasters is the 

area of water infrastructure. So, for example, we’ve done work looking at how small and rural utilities use asset management, which 

is a really important tool to understand what infrastructure these 

utilities have, perhaps where the areas are in that infrastructure 

that are vulnerable or at high risk. So that, when a disaster does 

take place, they’re better prepared, both to respond to it, but also, 

if they have to rebuild, they can rebuild with resilience in mind. 

So, we’ve made a number of recommendations to EPA, getting 

EPA to work with the Department of Agriculture to come up with 

better guidelines and information and to encourage the States and 

the utilities to use asset management. Small utilities are challenged because they don’t have the technical expertise necessarily. 

But we should do whatever we can in the Federal family and others to help these communities better prepare for these disasters. 

Mr. MURPHY. Finally, in June of 2007, GAO released a report on 

Hurricane Katrina that made several recommendations related to 

enhancing disaster response. One of these recommendations is still 

open after 10 years. Mr. Go ́mez, why is that recommendation still 

open? What was it, and is going to affect how things are in Texas, 

Louisiana, Florida, and Puerto Rico? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Sure. So, what we did in that report from 2007 is 

we were looking at EPA’s response to Katrina and, also, to the subsequent cleanup. One of the recommendations that we kept open 

over the years was we had recommended that EPA work with other 

Federal land management agencies, DHS, and FEMA to better coordinate responses to cleanup. And the reason we did that is because we found in the work that National Wildlife Refuges, which 

there are several in Louisiana, had been contaminated and the contamination lasted over a year. And so, there was not really good 

planning to come together and clean up that contamination. Some 

of the refuges were closed for over a year. 

So now, what’s happened since then is Congress passed the PostKatrina Act which put in place better national preparedness and, 

also, put in place the National Response Framework, of which EPA 

has a key role now in responding to hazardous waste and oil spills. 

So, in theory, we expect that EPA is putting in place, for example, 

in Florida any response that’s needed as the hurricane may come 

to that region. So, we’re going to look at that recommendation 

based on what’s happened now and potentially close it because we 

think it might address what we had been talking about. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

And I see my time has expired. Ms. Castor, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks again, gentlemen. 

As the Agency goes forward to implement what has not been implemented to date, it would seem that the Trump administration’s 

kind of assault on the professional staff there and personnel would 

have a real impact on the ability to follow through with your recommendations. The Trump administration has still failed to provide nominees for almost all Senate-confirmed leadership positions 

at EPA. Most Regional Administrator positions are also without poVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Oct 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X52EPAXRECS\115X52EPAXRECSXWORKING WAYNE
69 

litical leadership, including EPA Region 6 in Dallas responding to 

Hurricane Harvey. 

The Trump administration, a lot of this, we blame a lot on the 

Senate, but you can’t put too much blame on the Senate here because the Trump administration has not nominated people for Deputy Administrator, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air 

and Radiation, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention, the Chief Financial Officer, the 

Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information, International and Tribal Affairs, Land and Emergency Management, Research and Development, and Water. 

Do you all agree that when you don’t have folks in charge that 

it complicates the ability of the Agency to follow through with your 

recommendations? 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, the short answer is yes. The longer answer is 

we have career people who remain in place who do carry out the 

work of the Agency. But, as you indicate, the statutory mandates 

remain in place, and it’s up to the Agency to figure out a way to 

carry out those mandates. And it is more difficult if you don’t have 

the leadership. 

Ms. CASTOR. Yes? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes, I would agree that it’s important to have all the 

staff that you need at all levels of the Agency to carry out its mission. 

Ms. CASTOR. And, Mr. Go ́mez, you said that GAO meets with 

folks at EPA every six months. Have you met with Administrator 

Pruitt? Is it typical that you would meet with the Administrator or 

leadership to go over recommendations from GAO? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, what our Comptroller General likes to do is he 

likes to meet with all of the new Cabinet Secretaries and leaders 

of other offices. So, GAO is in the process of scheduling a meeting 

with Administrator Pruitt, and I would go to that meeting as well 

with—— 

Ms. CASTOR. But that has not been done here in the first ninemonth—— 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. We have not scheduled it, yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. You are just like the Energy and Commerce Committee that has yet to see the EPA Administrator. 

Gentlemen, there is a very disturbing press report that came out 

just a few days ago that the EPA has taken the unusual step of 

putting a political operative in charge of vetting hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that the EPA distributes annually, assigning the funding decisions to a former Trump campaign aide with 

little environmental policy experience, who has already canceled 

close to $2 million in competitively awarded grants to university 

and nonprofit organizations. It really does appear like this is being 

politicized. 

It says—this is from The Washington Post on September 4th— 

‘‘Earlier this summer, on the same day that Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined with two other Republicans in voting down 

a GOP healthcare bill, EPA staffers were instructed, without any 

explanation, to halt all grants to the regional office that covers 

Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Ohio. That hole was quickly narrowed to just Alaska and remained in place for nearly two weeks.’’ 

70 

The former Bush EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, 

said, ‘‘This is out of the ordinary. We didn’t do a political screening 

on every grant because many of them were based on science, and 

political appointees don’t have that kind of background.’’ 

Have you all opened any kind of investigation into what is happening here yet? 

Mr. LARSEN. We’ve read those reports. We’ve not received complaints from Congress so far or from members of the public or from 

organizations about this. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. 

Mr. LARSEN. If you could or if you would, I’d offer a general and 

a specific answer to your question. 

Ms. CASTOR. Quickly, because I have one more question. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. The general answer is EPA has always been a 

lightning rod. We get complaints, on the one hand, that EPA is ignoring its statutory obligations and allowing—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Let me ask—I thank you for that. You have, I believe, opened an investigation last week into Administrator Pruitt’s 

travel because it is so out of the ordinary. It says, ‘‘Officials in the 

EPA’s Office of Inspector General notified Agency leadership last 

week that Pruitt was in Oklahoma, or en route there, for nearly 

half of his first three months in office.’’ Maybe that is why GAO 

can’t get a meeting and he can’t appear before the Energy and 

Commerce Committee. But the problem is that it looks like he has 

been using taxpayer funds for this excessive travel. 

How long will it take for the OIG to get to the bottom of this investigation? 

Mr. LARSEN. Ma’am, in our world we distinguish between investigations and audits, and it’s probably a distinction most people 

don’t care about. But we are doing an audit. They tend to take 

longer. We’re going to look not only at the specifics of Mr. Pruitt’s 

travel, but the robustness of the controls that govern travel generally and whether they’re sufficient. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Let me follow up on that real quick. And correct 

me if I am wrong, but an investigation means you are looking into 

something that might have wrongdoing, and an audit means you 

are checking into the money to see whether or not we need to put 

different parameters around it? Would that be a fair assessment or 

something along those lines? 

Mr. LARSEN. That, generally, yes. Investigations tend to look at 

criminality. They can look at administrative violations. This is not 

either of those. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. This is just an audit to see what we can do better? 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, it’s also going to look at whether there were 

violations of Agency requirements. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Let me get down to where I was going to go initially, and that 

would be that I am concerned about the workforce and the workload questions. EPA’s Office of Inspector General—that would be 

you all—reported, ‘‘EPA has not conducted workload analysis in 

71 

over 20 years, making it difficult for EPA to implement corrective 

actions and allocate its budget effectively.’’ 

And I guess what I am looking at there is that we have heard 

talk today about a few months where certain positions aren’t filled, 

but here we are looking at 20 years, both Republican and Democrat 

administrations that have not at the EPA gone in and looked at 

their workload analysis. And then, we see with Hurricane Harvey 

that we had 13 Superfund sites that were affected. Am I not correct that, if we had performed a workload analysis over time, I am 

not saying all 13 of them would have been cleaned up, but that we 

might have more of these Superfunds being cleaned up? 

And I also referenced, because we are talking about Harvey so 

much now, but I remember testimony in a previous hearing in a 

different subcommittee where they were talking about a site in St. 

Louis that hadn’t been acted on—or in the St. Louis vicinity that 

had not been acted on—in decades as well that was a Superfund 

site. 

So, can you help me out? Of those things that would have helped 

both before a disaster and just in general, if we had a workload 

analysis, so we could say these were the worst ones, let’s put most 

of our people there? And I am happy to take answers from either 

of you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. I’ll give my short answer, and, then, Mr. 

Go ́mez can respond. My short answer is it’s difficult to draw a direct line between the lack of a workforce plan and a specific failure 

to be able to cover something. I think we can all say, if you knew 

more precisely where your requirements are and how many people, 

and what kinds of people you need to address those, you would 

probably have a better result. But I can’t draw a direct one-to-one 

correlation. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Go ́mez? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. And I’ll just pivot from that last comment. And I 

think that our point on our work on workforce planning has been 

exactly that point, is to understand, again, from data where your 

people are, what skill sets you need, the locations you need them 

in. So that you have a better sense of how to meet that mission. 

And that mission could be that you focus on cleaning up hazardous 

waste sites. But doing a workforce analysis I think would help you, 

hopefully, do that better. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, and a workforce analysis would help us, as 

legislators, as well. Although this is not an appropriating committee, we hear all the time that folks need more money. Well, if 

I know that you need more money because you are going to help 

rural communities—and I appreciated, as you mentioned, rural 

communities with water and wastewater—help those communities 

instead of just send edicts down from the alabaster towers in 

Washington, ‘‘Here’s what you’ve got to do,’’ without helping those 

folks figure out how they are going to do with the money that they 

have. That creates big problems. 

If you had a workload analysis, we might be able to figure out 

where we could appropriate the money more advantageously to prevent problems before they happen, whether it be after a hurricane 

or when you have got a serious problem like we had in Flint, 

Michigan, or issues in my very rural, mountainous district where 

72 

there are problems we don’t know how to solve and we are afraid 

to ask, for fear that, instead of coming in to help us, they will just 

come in and try to punish folks who are trying to do the best they 

can under limited circumstances in a rural areas. So, I do appreciate that as well. 

So, thank you, and thank you for putting that in both your oral 

and your written testimony. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sir, I have one more comment—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir? 

Mr. LARSEN [continuing]. That’s responsive to your question. 

That is, our OIG Office of Program Evaluations, similar to audits, 

has a current project underway looking at Superfund workforce 

planning. And we’ll keep you and your staff informed on the 

progress of that effort. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, I greatly appreciate that very much. 

You know, we are just beginning the Hurricane Harvey efforts, 

and that will continue for years, and the environmental impacts 

that are already occurring and yet to be seen. And we talked about 

the Superfund sites there. Is there anything that you see that is 

not being done by the EPA currently—and I know it is really 

early—in the Hurricane Harvey area that we ought to be concerned 

about? 

Mr. LARSEN. Again, I’ll give my answer. It’s always a dilemma 

for us. As Chairman Walden said, you don’t want to wade into the 

middle of the cleanup effort. On the other hand, you don’t want to 

wait so long that your efforts are valueless. So, we’re always trying 

to figure out when it is that we get into it. 

I guess what I fall back on is the National Response Framework 

that Mr. Go ́mez alluded to, and it does give certain responsibilities 

to the EPA. We cannot mandate that EPA take any specific steps. 

After the fact, I think we would evaluate whether they took the appropriate steps under the Framework. But I don’t see a role for the 

OIG jumping in right now in the middle of a cleanup effort. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. And unfortunately, my time is up, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to remind my colleagues, I heard my colleague from 

Virginia talk about Superfund or Superfund cleanup in action. I 

mean, in reality, there is no Superfund. I have had a bill for years 

to try to get the Superfund, the trust fund, if you will. There is a 

Superfund Program, but there is, essentially, no Superfund trust 

fund anymore to pay for anything. 

And that, you know, back when the Republicans first took the 

Congress—I know it is ancient history now—with Newt Gingrich as 

the Speaker, it expired. And I begged him and Democrats begged 

him at the time to renew, and he refused. 

I still have the bill out there, and I would ask at anytime if our 

chairman or the Speaker would allow us to reauthorize the Superfund trust fund, because, then, we would have the money to do 

these cleanups. On an annual basis, I go before the appropriators, 

because that is the only way to get the money now, through genVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Oct 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X52EPAXRECS\115X52EPAXRECSXWORKING WAYNE
73 

eral revenue, unfortunately, and ask for more funding. And we always get less, significantly less, than what we ask for. 

So, it is nice to talk about Superfund cleanup, but the reality is 

it was essentially stopped by the Republican Congress, but not to 

say that they are totally to blame, but they certainly were the ones. 

And you could bring it up anytime and I will support you, passing 

it in committee or on the floor. 

I just wanted to say, I wanted to thank the EPA OIG for recently 

accepting the committee’s request to review the propriety of Administrator Pruitt’s use of taxpayer funds for travel to and from his 

home State of Oklahoma. I know that we have already mentioned 

that. 

But, unfortunately, the Trump administration has launched a 

continuous assault against fundamental science and proposed significant cuts to EPA’s budget and staff that threaten to undermine 

the Agency’s ongoing efforts to protect human health and the environment. 

Mr. Go ́mez, in your testimony you state that GAO has made 318 

recommendations to EPA since fiscal year 2007, including 49 recommendations focused on environmental contamination and cleanup. And these include taking actions for improving cleanup management of hazardous waste sites, enhancing responses to disasters 

such as Hurricane Katrina. My question is, is that correct, and how 

might GAO’s recommendations regarding enhancing EPA’s response to disasters inform the Agency’s ongoing response to Hurricane Harvey? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes, that is correct. And again, I think, as I mentioned earlier, one of the areas where we see EPA’s recommendations contributing to the response to Harvey and other future disasters is in the area of water infrastructure, where we have recommended that EPA work with States and others to really assist 

the small communities. 

We have all heard that in Texas there were many water systems 

that were under boiled water notices and, then, over 50 systems, 

I believe, were actually shut down. So, we think that it’s really important in the area of asset management, which is a really important tool for these utilities to use, to understand, again, what they 

have, what are the areas that are vulnerable, so they can address 

them and they can use funds to, then, build them or restore them, 

and, again, building in resilience, so that they’re better prepared. 

So, I think that’s the one area where I would sort of call attention, 

based on our recommendations, where there’s some immediate benefit. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. 

I don’t want to keep repeating all the budget cuts that the 

Trump administration has proposed to the EPA, buyouts, all kinds 

of things that would result in fewer employees. And that could include hundreds of positions in EPA’s Region 6 headquarters in Dallas, where employees are currently responding to Hurricane Harvey. 

So, let me ask you about these proposed cuts to your office, to 

Mr. Larsen. How are current and expected budget limitations impacting staffing levels and the ability of EPA’s Office of Inspector 

74 

General? Specifically, how are they impacting your ability to conduct audits, evaluations, and investigations, if you will. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you for that question. It’s a serious challenge 

to us. We have had to cut our workforce year by year by year, and 

we are down from 360 or so, down to 270, and we anticipate having 

to go fewer than that, based on the most likely budget scenarios. 

If the original President’s budget proposal were to be adopted by 

Congress, we’d have to cut very substantially the amount of work 

we did. As you know, we gave you a fairly detailed explanation of 

where those cuts would occur, which offices, which kinds of 

projects. 

What we do is, on an annual basis, plan for the work that we 

would hope to do based on how much value the project would bring 

in terms of cost savings or changes in how EPA does business. We 

will have to do many fewer such projects in any given year, based 

on the likely budget outcomes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Collins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Maybe I am going to go down a little bit different road, but really 

talking about, Mr. Go ́mez, if I look back over 10 years, and I am 

looking right now just in the environmental area. I am looking at 

the suggestions you made for spill prevention, none of which have 

been implemented. 

So, I guess the question is this: you are doing these audits, making these recommendations. Do you prioritize them in some way 

with any kind of ranking system, like one star to five stars? And 

when you see something like this, and now 10 years have gone by, 

could I assume these would have been considered perhaps lower 

priority? And then, at some point do you go revisit that with someone, and who is that someone, to say, ‘‘Hey, it’s been 10 years. You 

haven’t done any of these things.’’? Or are these just thrown into 

the hopper and, then, kind of catch as catch can, they work on 

these; they don’t work on those? 

I am trying to just kind of wrap my mind around the day-by-day, 

year-by-year interaction between your Agency and those folks that 

are supposed to implement it, to make sure high-priority things are 

done and, you know, squeaky wheel, that you are kind of jabbing 

at them, ‘‘Why didn’t you get this done?’’, and so forth. Could you 

maybe just help us all a little better understand how that all 

works, the interaction? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Sure. So, first of all, I just want to say that we take 

recommendations to EPA very seriously. And so, what we do is we 

have a process in place where we’re actively following recommendations that we’ve made in the last 4 years. 

What can happen to some of the older recommendations is, if we 

learn from the Agency that either they’re not going to implement 

it or that we make an assessment that things have changed or it’s 

no longer a priority, we’ll go ahead and close it. It’s not implemented. 

Now there are recommendations, though, that are old, older than 

4 years, that we’re still keeping track of because we have an indication that EPA is still working and we hope that they actually do 

take action. We can go back at anytime and open up any old recVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:59 Oct 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\115THCONGRESS\115X52EPAXRECS\115X52EPAXRECSXWORKING WAYNE
75 

ommendation that was not implemented if we think it’s important 

or if others have brought it to our attention. 

Our recommendations and the status of the recommendations are 

public. So, you can go to any of our reports. You can click on the 

recommendation status. You can see what the rec was and what 

the status was. 

So, we do have this separate letter that we mentioned earlier, 

which is a priority rec letter that our Comptroller General sends 

to all of the Cabinet agencies and other offices calling attention to 

recommendations that we see as a high priority. 

And for EPA, we’ve identified those recommendations that deal 

with the high-risk area of managing toxic chemicals and, then, 

some of the recommendations that deal with water infrastructure 

and also pollution of our waters. 

So, that letter can also change year to year if we go through the 

history and identify other recs that we think are important. So, we 

do that process as well. 

Now I also mentioned that we work with EPA sort of on an ongoing basis as we are doing audits, but, formally, we go to them twice 

a year with a long list of all our recommendations to say, ‘‘Here 

they are; they’re still open. Let us know what’s happening. Let us 

know which we can close.’’ So, we do that twice a year formally, 

but we’re in contact with them throughout the year. 

Mr. COLLINS. That is really helpful because I think sometimes 

we may not understand how that all works and think you just 

throw it in and go on about your business. And I think it is actually reassuring to me, certainly for one, that you have got it sounds 

like pretty good interaction. Would you say that? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. That you are making them aware; they are listening. It is back and forth? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Right. I mean, there are some recommendations 

where the agency will disagree with us. And so, we may be at a 

point where they disagree. We disagree. We still think it’s a good 

recommendation. And so, there’s some like that, and those might 

be closed as not implemented. 

But EPA has taken our recommendations seriously and they 

want to close them out. They want to do what we’re saying. It’s just 

in some cases some of our recommendations might take a little 

longer to do. For example, if we’re recommending that an IT system, for example, be revised or a new IT system be put in place, 

that may take a while longer than if we just recommend that the 

Agency use existing web tools, for example, to provide better information to the public. We don’t see that as taking a long time or 

it shouldn’t take a long time. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I appreciate that overview. That was very 

helpful for me. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MURPHY. I now recognize Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our ranking member, Ms. Castor, and I thank our witnesses for joining us 

today. 

Like Mr. Pallone, my district in New York sustained very substantial damage as a result of Superstorm Sandy. So, I am very 

76 

sensitive to the conditions on the ground in Houston as well as concerned about the rest of hurricane season, quite frankly. And so, 

standing up a robust operation with the EPA I know is critical at 

this time. 

There have been a number of reports about unfolding environmental concerns stemming from Harvey right now. And so, Mr. 

Larsen, I recognize that your role at EPA may not directly involve 

you in emergency response efforts. However, to the extent that you 

are able, could you please inform us of the EPA’s role in responding 

to unfolding environmental threats? 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. As Mr. Go ́mez alluded to earlier, I think the 

primary set of responsibilities that EPA has here stem from the 

National Response Framework, which came after some of the earlier natural disasters. And that means that EPA has responsibility 

as a support agency for certain functions, and it’s got a primary responsibility for certain functions. And the areas where we would 

expect to see EPA involved are assessing and addressing fuel shortages, monitoring public water systems, securing Superfund sites, 

and assessing conditions at major industrial facilities. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. And, Mr. Go ́mez, how will GAO evaluate 

the EPA’s efforts to respond to the environmental threats posed by 

hurricane season, Hurricane Harvey being the most recent example? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, GAO in the past, you know, we looked at the 

Katrina recovery efforts. So, that was something that we did. We’re 

happy to assist Congress in any reviews or oversight that you 

would like us to do as a result of Hurricane Harvey. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Larsen, addressing the numerous cleanup 

issues related to Harvey’s flooding will likely be very costly to both 

local and the Federal Government. What roles do you envision your 

office will be playing to ensure that Federal money the EPA uses 

to contract for Harvey cleanup will be safeguarded from fraud and 

abuse? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Thank you. 

We’re going to do two things. One is EPA OIG specific work. The 

other thing I wanted to mention is that the organization of IGs 

across the Federal Government, the CIGIE, has learned from the 

past and in the past had a Disaster Assistance Working Group 

which is basically the IGs from the various agencies that are going 

to have to play a role here. And so, EPA will be participating in 

that effort, this Agency-wide IG or Government-wide OIG effort to 

make sure that everybody’s doing what they need to do and not duplicating each other. 

For ourselves, we’ll probably, as you allude to, be looking at contracting issues, whether there was fraud involved. That could take 

the form of audits or investigations, as we distinguished earlier. 

That is, was there criminal activity going on or was there sloppy 

practice with regard to contracting? So, those are the areas that we 

would see fairly early on getting involved in. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

And, Mr. Go ́mez, given that post-Harvey cleanup will be lengthy 

and costly, and I am assuming if we are hit with Irma and any 

other hurricanes coming down the pike, what areas do you anticipate your GAO team will be interested in examining? 

77 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Well, again, you know, we’re here to assist Congress. 

So, whatever Congress asks us to do, as we’ve seen from at least 

what’s becoming clear in Texas with the Superfund sites and all 

the water infrastructure systems that are down, that maybe those 

are areas where potentially we could look at. But, again, we can 

have discussions with anyone in Congress who’s interested in having GAO look at the response efforts. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. I cannot emphasize enough that we need 

to address any environmental threats posed to the residents of the 

Harvey-affected region and perhaps even Florida coming down the 

pike. My thoughts are with the people of Houston, the responders 

assisting on the scene, and let’s be sure to get these folks what 

they need to help them get back on their feet. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentlelady yields back, and I now recognize the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Costello, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony here today. 

Mr. Go ́mez, I would like to start with you. Your written testimony mentions that in 2015 the EPA awarded approximately $3.9 

billion, or nearly half of its budget, in grants to State and local governments for important projects such as repairing aging water infrastructure, preventing pollution, improving air quality, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites. However, GAO found weaknesses in 

EPA’s ability to manage these grants efficiently and effectively. 

My question is, would you please elaborate on the weaknesses 

GAO identified in EPA’s grant management procedures? Second, 

how have these grant management inefficiencies and weaknesses 

impacted grant recipients? I think that is a very important question. And then, finally, have these inefficiencies contributed to the 

wasting of grant money or made it more difficult for recipients to 

use grant funding for its intended purposes? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Sure. Thank you for those questions. 

So, we have done a body of work on grants management. And 

that particular report, well, we looked at also, we are looking to see 

for recipients, for example, where they were doing duplicative reporting. So, currently, under the grants management at EPA, recipients, grant recipients, have to provide performance reports and, 

then, they also have to provide more information and data when 

EPA asks for it. 

So, we identified a number of places where there was duplicative 

reporting by the recipients. And so, we’ve recommended that EPA 

identify all of those places and try to do away with the duplication, 

so that recipients aren’t having to spend additional time and resources in doing the reporting. So, that’s one area where we called 

attention to it. 

And really for EPA also to streamline, and EPA does have a 

streamline initiative in place in its grants management. But we 

were calling attention to those places where they can do away with 

duplication, so that the recipients can carry on with the grants and 

not have to do a lot of reporting. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Larsen, the OIG made similar findings with 

respect to areas for improvement in EPA’s management of grants. 

78 

Do you have anything to add to the line of questioning that I have 

posed to Mr. Go ́mez relative to the management of grants? 

Mr. LARSEN. I wish I did. As Representative Clarke noted, I’m 

an expert in some areas, not so much in others. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I often say that myself. 

Mr. LARSEN. But what I would be happy to do is organize and 

get back to you and your staff with the primary findings that we’ve 

had in those areas. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize Dr. Ruiz of California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our witnesses for taking the time in joining us this 

morning. 

We have heard about the EPA’s role in the emergency response 

programs for natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and your coordinating efforts with FEMA, State, local. I am interested in your 

efforts to coordinate with tribes. And what have you done to reach 

out and engage tribes with your efforts in Hurricane Harvey? 

Mr. LARSEN. So far, we’ve not reached out to anybody. As I said, 

at this point we don’t want to wander onto the battlefield while the 

battle is underway. 

The CIGIE—that is the IG community-wide effort that I alluded 

to earlier—is, among other things, going to coordinate among the 

various IGs and also with the Tribes and the States. 

Mr. RUIZ. Well, I think that is important to take back to this 

group not to neglect the sovereignty of Tribes and the role that 

Tribes have in order to maintain their environment during natural 

disasters as well. And so, reaching out to them and coordinating. 

Some Tribes actually have equipment and the technology that can 

help the disaster response, like we have seen in my district with 

the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians utilizing helicopters 

and other surveillance technology in coordination with the fire departments to put out some wildfires. So, I would highly recommend 

that you take it back and you start coordinating, also, with Tribes 

as a sovereign nation and a governmental entity themselves. They 

can be very, very helpful for the region. 

Given the OIG’s review of the EPA’s response to environmental 

threats, what are some of the lessons learned that we might see 

for future storm threats in an area where the IG might consider 

additional audit work? 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. We’ve, unfortunately, had Katrina. We’ve had 

Superstorm Sandy. We’ve learned from both. Among the things 

that we learned were that the coordination between EPA and the 

Corps of Engineers wasn’t necessarily what it could have been or 

should have been. Coordination with State and local officials probably could have been done better. 

We’ve addressed those to the Agency. Presumably, this time 

around you’ll see better coordination. Most likely, we’ll be coming 

in and seeing whether, in fact, that occurred. 

Mr. RUIZ. Are you, then, prepared to assess that? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

79 

Mr. RUIZ. And the difference on whether or not those recommendations were followed? 

Mr. LARSEN. I can’t commit that we’re going to; I expect that we 

will. To Mr. Pallone’s question earlier, we’re resources-constrained, 

but that would be a high priority for us. 

Mr. RUIZ. So, if you were to pick—and this is a question for both 

of you—if you were to pick a No. 1 barrier for you to do your jobs, 

is EPA involved either in coordination or protecting Superfund 

sites or protecting water infrastructure, et cetera, so that they’re 

not contaminated, what would that barrier be? If you were to pick 

the biggest barrier, what would it be, Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to sound dense, but are you 

talking about EPA’s response or the OIG’s evaluation of the EPA’s 

response? 

Mr. RUIZ. Well, the EPA’s response. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Mr. RUIZ. You evaluate the EPA. So, what would you say would 

be the EPA’s barrier in doing its job in these—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Boy, you’re putting me in the position of speaking 

for them, but I would think it’s the resources, people and money. 

Mr. RUIZ. People and money. 

Mr. Go ́mez? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, I would say, in the areas that we’re seeing unfolding, right, which is in water infrastructure and in the Superfund sites, at least in Texas, that are flooded, it is making sure 

that they have enough people there on the ground to respond to 

those two immediate areas where potentially there are risks involved. So, I would say that that would be, if that is a barrier, that 

they should have enough folks there to address it right now. 

Mr. RUIZ. And so, what can Congress do to address that barrier? 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, in my view, you’ve already got the substantive 

requirements in place. You’ve got the Clean Air Act. You’ve got the 

Clean Water Act. And it’s up to EPA to execute on that. They need 

the people, and they need the policy determination to carry forward. 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. I think it’s what you’re doing now. It’s the oversight, 

right, of looking to see how that’s being done, and even after the 

fact, how was it done and could something be done better. 

Mr. RUIZ. So, the oversight is the diagnostic workup, right? And 

you’re telling us that the diagnosis is lack of funding, lack of people. So, the treatment is the next step. So, you can’t just diagnose 

a problem and walk away. You have to act on it and give the treatment to the patient. And so, the treatment is the funding and policies that will help bring more people onsite to manage the situation, not only in the short, acute disaster, but in the long-term public health recuperation. 

I have disaster training in my background. I did a fellowship at 

Harvard in the humanitarian disaster response. So, that is where 

I am speaking from. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, and I recognize Ms. Brooks for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

80 

And I want to thank our panelists for being here today and for 

your work to improve the EPA. 

We have been very focused on the people, and agencies aren’t 

just agencies; they are people. And as my colleagues have noted, 

it is about the people. But I am concerned that this Agency for a 

long period of time has not accepted your recommendations when 

it comes to people and when it comes to their workforce. 

In 2010, GAO issued a report recommending the EPA establish 

mechanisms to evaluate workforce planning, which are people, 

placement of people, but the recommendation is currently closed 

and unimplemented. 

So, Mr. Go ́mez, why was this recommendation closed before EPA 

was able to implement it, if you know? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, again, we track recommendations for 4 years. 

And if we have an indication that the Agency is not going to do it, 

we close it as not implemented. Obviously, we’ve done some recent 

work that’s focused on grants management, but also looking at 

workforce issues, in particular, which is a large part of EPA. 

So, EPA has told us that, currently, they are giving workforce 

planning a priority. So, we are going to look to see how much of 

a priority that is and, in fact, what they’re going to do. 

You know, we’ve been talking about that it’s basically about 

data. They don’t have good workforce data. They don’t have good 

information on the types of work that each of their staff is doing 

across offices and across regions. So, if you don’t have that data, 

then you, again, don’t ensure that you have the right people in the 

right places with the right skill sets to accomplish the mission 

that’s needed. 

Ms. BROOKS. Those are the management challenges that you are 

dealing with them and have dealt with them for years. It sounds 

like this is not new. Is that correct? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. That is correct. 

Ms. BROOKS. And do you have any sense what percentage of 

EPA’s funding goes to private sector contract work versus the public sector work? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So, in our 2010 report we did look at contractors, 

and at the time there were 6,000 contractors at EPA. And so, I’m 

not sure exactly what that translates to in terms of budget, but I 

think it’s a considerable chunk of their budget. 

And so, what we also found in that report was that contractors 

were not part of EPA’s planning, either, were not incorporated. And 

we learned from EPA recently that they’re still not incorporated in 

their planning, and we think that that should be something that 

they should do. 

Ms. BROOKS. When they employ 6,000 contractors, they’re not 

taken into consideration in their strategic plans? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Correct. 

Ms. BROOKS. And have they agreed recently to take all of those 

thousands of contractors into account in their plans? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. So far, what we’ve learned is that they haven’t done 

it yet. So, I’m not sure if they’re agreeing or disagreeing. The explanation they gave us was that OMB didn’t require them in their 

planning to include contractors. And so, that’s why they didn’t do 

it. 

81 

Ms. BROOKS. Is it fair to say—and I am going to ask you, Mr. 

Larsen—relative to I have also been very concerned about information security issues. And for the IG, that is what you focus on as 

well. And there are a number of contractors, as I understand, and 

if some bad actors were wrong, you know, wrongdoers want to 

wreak a bit of havoc in systems, they could certainly do it through 

information technology. Can you talk with us about the lack of understanding at EPA relative to sensitive data, the access to sensitive data, and what you have found about the information, or lack 

of information, about the knowledge of EPA and the access to sensitive data? 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. I think what we talk about is risk as opposed 

to actual problems that have manifested. That is, we have not investigated an insider threat where an individual breached his obligations and created a vulnerability. 

What we’re talking about is, if we don’t address the 

vulnerabilities, then the potential is out there. So, that’s what 

we’ve been looking at, and we find that the Agency doesn’t know 

how serious a problem that is and they haven’t taken the steps to 

mitigate the potential risks that we’ve identified. 

Ms. BROOKS. And that was just in your July of 2017 report that 

the Agency just issued? 

Mr. LARSEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. BROOKS. OK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentlelady yields back. 

I recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

First, I want to express my deepest condolences to our fellow 

Americans who are suffering from the devastation of Hurricane 

Harvey. Everyone has witnessed this day-by-day reporting with 

just deep concern and sadness for the folks who are enduring. 

EPA has, therefore, an important role to play in disaster response and recovery, ensuring the environmental monitoring and 

remediation needed to protect public health. And these storms, 

these natural disasters don’t know for Republican or Democrat. So, 

it ought to be a universally agreed-to approach that we take here 

in Washington. 

But that can only be done if EPA has the resources and personnel to do so. This weekend the EPA released statements highlighting just some of the work they will need to do in the days, 

weeks, and months ahead. That includes assessing 13 existing 

Superfund sites that were flooded and could be damaged, addressing the many drinking and wastewater systems that remain shut 

down or damaged or are dealing with health advisories, assisting 

with testing for private wells, and supporting local first responders 

with monitoring and cleanup following chemical fires at the 

Arkema facility in Crosby, Texas. 

The need for a strong, robust EPA is outstandingly clear, and 

massive budget and workforce cuts, and proposals to weaken 

understaffed or even eliminate regional offices are not the answer. 

Beyond that, I have to believe it is tremendously demoralizing to 

the professional staff of the Agency, many of whom offer their lifetime career to the Agency and to the betterment of Americans 

across the country. 

82 

So, I want to thank you, Mr. Go ́mez and Mr. Larsen, for being 

here this morning. The recommendations proposed by GAO and the 

IG’s office can continue to make EPA a more efficient and successful Agency. 

Sadly, this administration, the Trump administration, is aggressively working to dismantle the EPA through regulatory rollbacks, 

extreme budget cuts, and staff eliminations, and ongoing assault on 

science. These are foolish cuts, proven to be very foolish when we 

see disasters displayed right before our very eyes. 

Mr. Go ́mez, GAO released a report on EPA, Interior, and Forest 

Service workforce planning in March of 2010 which concluded that 

the agencies’ efforts have, I quote, ‘‘particularly fallen short in 

aligning the Agency’s workforce plans with their strategic plans.’’ 

The report concludes that agencies are at risk of not having the appropriately skilled workforce they need to effectively achieve their 

missions. 

So, are you generally familiar with that report of 2010? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Go ́mez, did EPA take action to address that? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. They have not yet. 

Mr. TONKO. What about further actions? Will they be doing anything that you know of in respect to workforce planning to correct 

the numbers that they require? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. No. That’s still an outstanding recommendation, 

again, to properly align its workforce plan with its strategic plan 

and its budget. 

Mr. TONKO. And the Trump administration proposed cutting funding to the Agency by nearly $2.6 billion—that’s about a 31-percent reduction—and proposed reducing the workforce by some 3800 

employees. Nearly 50 programs to protect our air and water, address climate change, and strengthen chemical safety were highlighted for elimination. Just unbelievable cuts. This included the 

Chemical Safety Board, the independent Federal Agency tasked 

with investigating chemical accidents such as the recent fires at 

the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas. 

Mr. Go ́mez, in your testimony today you note that the March 

2010 report found that, I quote, ‘‘The ability of Federal agencies to 

achieve their mission and carry out their responsibilities depends 

in large part on whether they can sustain a workforce that possesses the necessary education, knowledge, skills, and other competencies.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. GO ́ MEZ. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chair. 

We should all be concerned about how extreme the budget cuts 

proposed are and that the staffing reductions proposed would undermine EPA’s ability to accomplish its mission, especially in the 

face of disasters. These are troubling cuts and proven day by day 

now with these disasters to be the most foolish approach to an 

Agency that was envisioned by President Nixon to address safe 

water that we drink, clean air that we breathe, and all the environmental benefits that should be associated with our rights as Americans to enjoy that environment as fully as possible. 

So, I do appreciate the work you are doing to draw the attention 

of the American public to these cuts and to the essential elements 

83 

that these agencies require in order to respond fully and effectively 

to their mission. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman yields back. 

And seeing we have no more Members here, we will conclude this 

hearing. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses and Members who have 

participated in today’s hearing. 

I realize a lot of this was along the lines of what else are we 

going to be doing. We felt that very important to get it on the 

record for EPA to hear. We expect them to take care of these 

issues, to fill those positions that are needed, to take some accounting of what is going on, because we will be asking more questions 

about what has happened in terms of preparedness and response 

here. None of us want to see any loss of life or property caused by 

some problems with an Agency fulfilling their duties as you have 

outlined them for us. 

So, we thank you for your observations and your comments 

today. 

I remind Members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record. I ask that the witnesses all agree to respond 

promptly to the questions. 

With that, this committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

84 


27122.052

E C U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE EST. 1795 

September 1, 2017 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

FROM: Committee Majority Staff 

RE: Hearing entitled "EPA Oversight: Unimplemented Inspector General and GAO 

Recommendations" 

On September 6, 2017, at l 0:15 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing entitled "EPA Oversight: 

Unimplemented Inspector General and GAO Recommendations." 

This hearing will provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the opportunity to 

highlight open and unimplemented recommendations at the EPA. Acting on these 

recommendations ensures that taxpayer money is spent more efficiently and improves the 

effectiveness of EPA's core mission--protecting human health and the environment. According 

to EPA OIG, the agency could potentially save $103.33 million if the EPA implemented the 

OIG's current open and unimplemented recommendations. 1 While EPA has made improvements 

implementing recommendations, adopting about 77 percent of GAO recommendations from 

2007 to 2012,2 deficiencies exist in key areas, including workforce management, information 

security, and grant management. 

I. WITNESSES 

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

Environmental Protection Agency; and 

• Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government 

Accountability Office. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Over the past several years, EPA has adopted recommendations from EPA OIG and GAO 

at a rate comparable to other agencies across the federal government. While this is a positive 

step, EPA could improve in specific areas. For example, workforce management appears to be a 

longstanding problem, including mismanagement of the agency's contractor workforce resulting 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Semiannual Report to Congress, May 2017, 

available at https:/ /www .epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 17 -05/documents/semiannual_ report_ to_ congressmarch_20 17 .pdf. 

'Email from Staff, Government Accountability Office to Staff, H. Comm. on Energy & Commerce (Aug. 29, 2017). 
85 


27122.053

Majority Memorandum for September 6, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 2 

in a lack of accountability. 3 EPA also needs to improve its information security posture. 

According to a report by the EPA OIG, "EPA is unaware of the number of contractors who have 

significant information security responsibilities" at the agency.4 There are also numerous 

outstanding recommendations related to grants-a program that makes up about half of EPA's 

budget, approximately $4 billion annually.5 

1. Tracking Unimplemented Recommendations 

EPA OIG 

The IG Act of 1978 provides for independent reviews of agency programs and 

operations.6 After an OIG report is released, OIG staff continuously track recommendations 

until it is fully implemented.7 Congress is updated twice a year through the OIG's semiannual 

report. OIG does not close open recommendations because the agency fails to act or significant 

time has passed.8 However, the OIG may reexamine a recommendation if conditions change.9 

After a report is issued, GAO continuously follows up on its recommendations and 

reports the updated status to Congress. 10 At least once a year, GAO reaches out to the audited 

agency to determine what progress has been made on recommendation implementation and what 

benefits have been realized. 11 A recommendation is registered as implemented when actions 

have been taken that address the issue or deficiency raised by GA0. 12 Because it may take 

agencies years to implement recommendations, GAO actively tracks open recommendations for 

3 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office oflnspector General, FY 2017 EPA Management Challenges, 

Report No. 17-N-0219, May 2017, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-

05/documents/_epaoig_20170518-17-n-0219.pdf. 

4 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, EPA Lacks Processes to Validate 

H·hether Contractors Receive Specialized Role-Based Training for Network and Data Protection, Report No. 17-P0344, July 31, 2017, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-

07/documents/_ epaoig_ 20 170731-17-p-0344.pdf. 5 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, EPA Could Improve Certain Monitoring Practices, GA0-16-530, July 2016, 

available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680i678426.pdf. 6 Oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency ·s Progress in Implementing Inspector General and Government 

Accountability Office Recommendations: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Environment & Public Works, June 14, 

2016, (statement of Alan S. Larson, Counsel to the EPA Inspector General). 

7 !d. 

8 !d. 

9 !d. 

10 Oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's Progress in Implementing Inspector General and 

Government Accountability qffice Recommendations: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Environment & Public 

Works, June 14, 2016, (statement of Alfredo Gomez, Director, General Accountability Office, Natural Resources 

and Environment). 11 /d. 12 /d. 
86 


27122.054

Majority Memorandum for September 6, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 3 

four years. 13 GAO closes its recommendations if the agency indicates it will not take action or if 

GAO determines it is unlikely the agency will take action to address the recommendation. 14 

2. Challenges Identified by EPA OIG and GAO 

OIG and GAO have both highlighted deficiencies in EPA's management and operations, 

including concerns about EPA's workforce management, information security posture, and grant 

management. Since 2007, GAO has made 122 recommendations relating to EPA management 

and operations. 15 While some recommendations are recent and may require implementation over 

multiple years, the agency has only implemented 58 of the recommendations--about 48 percent. 16 

Workforce Management 

Aligning agency workforce capabilities with its strategic plans and annual budget 

justifications would optimize EPA's ability to carry out its mission to protect human health and 

the environment. Additionally, conducting agency-wide workforce planning and workload 

analyses would also assist the agency in allocating its resources more strategically when 

awarding external grants and contracts. However, comprehensive workforce planning has been, 

and continues to be, a long-standing challenge for EP A. 17 

According to the OIG, since 2005, the EPA has spent approximately $3 million on 

studies to examine its workload and related issues, but despite this investment, the agency has 

largely failed to adopt any of the studies' recommendations. 18 The EPA has attempted to 

implement workforce and workload analysis systems at the regional and program levels, but still 

lacks an overall plan to analyze its workforce on an agency-wide basis. 19 

In addition to the efforts of its federal civil servant workforce, the EPA also furthers its 

mission through the utilization of private-sector contractors. Between FY 2013 and FY 2017, 

13 !d. 

14 ld. 15 GAO, supra note 2. 

16Jd. 

17See. U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management 

Challenges, GA0-01-774, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/231760.pdf; see also, U.S. Gov't 

Accountability Office, Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic 

Goals, GA0-01-812, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/232037.pdf; U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, 

Major Management Challenges, GA0-09-434, available at, http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/286796.pdf; U.S. Gov't 

Accountability Office, Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans 

and Improve Evaluation, GAO-l 0-413, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/3101302616.pdf. 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office oflnspector General, FY 20I 7 EPA Management Challenges, 

Report No. 17-N-0219, May 2017, available at https:llwww.epa.gov/siteslproduction/files/2017-

05/documcntsl_epaoig_20170518-17-n-0219.pdf. 

19Jd 
87 


27122.055

Majority Memorandum for September 6, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 4 

EPA spent over $6 billion on contracts to carry out various agency functions. 20 Despite this 

significant investment, which generally accounts for approximately a quarter of the agency's 

annual budget, OIG found that "EPA lacks a holistic approach to managing accountability over 

its contractors and ensuring personnel responsible for overseeing contractors are aware of their 

responsibilities."21 Recent investigative work done by the OIG has also revealed a number of 

instances where EPA's failure to conduct adequate oversight over agency contractors resulted in 

the potential squandering of agency resources.22 

Information Security 

The extent to which EPA is aware of its contractor workforce's competencies and 

workload also remains an open question. Previously, GAO found that EPA did not include 

contactor information in the agency's strategic workplan that is used to guide workforce and 

budgetary decisions.23 

In a recent audit to determine whether EPA was fulfilling its reporting requirements 

under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act, OIG noted that in addition to not 

providing the Office of Management and Budget with information on the training status for its 

contractors with significant information security responsibilities, EPA "is unaware of the number 

of contractors who have significant information security responsibilities"24 

In a 2015 report, OIG observed that EPA generally lacked awareness of what agency 

systems utilize cloud services and the Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) did not 

maintain a database of cloud applications.25 Further, OIG found that OAM was unaware that 

EPA's Office of Water utilized a cloud-based service provider to host its Permit Management 

Oversight System (PMOS) which was registered to a domain that was owned by a prior PMOS 

contractor.26 OIG recommended that EPA implement the necessary security safeguards and risk 

200ffice ofMgmt. & Budget, Agency Profile: Environmental Protection Agency, 

https://www.usaspending.gov/transparency/Pages/ AgencySummary.aspx? AgencyCode=6800 (last visited Aug. 28, 

2017). 

21 OIG) supra note 18. 22 See, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, EPA's Background Investigation 

Support Contracts and OPM Billings Need Better Oversight and Internal Controls, Report No. 16-P-0078, Dec. 

20 15, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15-12/documents/20 l61214-l6-p-0078.pdf; see 

also, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office oflnspector General, Call Center: Contract Management 

Needs Improvement to Reduce the Risk ()[Overbilling, Report No. 15-P-0042, available at 

https:l/www.epa.gov/sites/productionlfiles/20 15-09/documents/20 l41223-15-p-0042.pdf. 23 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Interior, EPA. and the Forest Service Should Strengthen Linkages to Their 

Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation, GAO-l 0-413, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/31 0/302616.pdf. 24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office oflnspector General, EPA Lacks Processes to Validate Whether 

Contractors Receive Specialized Role-Based Training for Network and Data Protection, Report No. 17-P-0344, July 

2017, available at https:l/www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 17 -07/documents/_ epaoig_ 20 170731-17 -p0344.pdf. 

"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, EPA Needs to Improve the Recognition and 

Administration of Cloud Services for the Office of Water's Permit Management Oversight s:vstem, Report No. 15-P0295, Sept. 2015, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15-09/documents/20 150924-15-p0295.pdf 

26 /d 
88 


27122.056

Majority Memorandum for September 6, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 5 

assessments to protect its cloud-based enterprises from outside threats. 27 However, this 

recommendation has remained unimplemented for nearly two years. Failing to adequately 

monitor access to the agency's critical information systems and conduct necessary threat 

assessments represents a significant security concern and has the potential to impede the 

agency's ability fulfill its mission. 

Grant Management 

For the past decade, investigations and reports by GAO and OIG have uncovered waste 

and mismanagement in EPA's grant programs.28 This is particularly troubling because grants 

comprise almost half of EPA's budget, approximately $4 billion annually. 29 In 2016, GAO 

found that EPA's grant monitoring practices may impact the agency's ability to efficiently 

monitor results and increase administrative costs. 30 GAO also found that because grant 

recipients "submit perfonnance reports in a written format, there are no built-in quality controls 

to ensure these reports' consistency with EPA's environmental results directive."31 EPA has not 

implemented any of the six recommendations from the report, including GAO's recommendation 

to standardize the format of grant recipient progress reports. 32 

More recently, a January 2017 GAO report noted that while EPA's ability to manage its 

grants portfolio depended primarily on grant specialists and project officers, the agency did not 

have the information it needed to allocate grants management resources in an effective and 

efficient manner. 33 Among the recommendations EPA has not implemented is the development 

of an agency-wide process to collect and analyze data on grant management workloads and 

reviewing project officer critical skills.34 To date, all six recommendations are still open.35 

III. ISSUES 

The following issues may be examined at the hearing: 

• Could any of the unimplemented recommendations impact EPA's response to a natural 

disaster? 

27 ld 

"See U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of inspector General, When Good ,'vfoney Goes Bad: True 

Stories of Grant Fraud at EPA (2009), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

09/documents/epa __ oiK..zrant)raud __ brochure.pdf; see also U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, F:PA has 

Opportunities to Improve Planning & Compliance lv!onitoring, GA0-15-618, Sept. 2015, available at 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672008.pdf. 

29 GAO, supra note 5. 30 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, EPA Could Improve Certain Monitoring Practices, GA0-16-530, July 2016, 

available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678426.pdf 

llfd. 

"!d. 

33 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, EPA Partially Follows Leading Practices of Strategic Workforce Planning & 

Could Take Additional Steps, GA0-17-144, Jan. 2017, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681988.pdf. 

l4Jd. 

l5Jd. 
89 


27122.057

Majority Memorandum for September 6, 2017, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing 

Page 6 

• What common themes did GAO and OIG find when reviewing EPA programs? 

• How could EPA more quickly implement recommendations that appear easily fixable? 

• Why does it take about four years for most recommendations to be implemented? 

• Why has EPA failed to make improvements managing its workforce? 

IV. STAFF CONTACTS 

If you have any questions regarding this hearing, please contact Lamar Echols or 

Christopher Santini of the Committee staff at (202) 225-2927. 
90 


27122.058

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

4!tongre!5s of tbt Wniteb .i'>tates 

1!JouS'r of l\eptrS'entatil.lrS' 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Mr. Alan Larsen 

Counsel to the Inspector General 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Larsen: 

Majority {202) 225-2927 

Minority \202) 225·,·3641 

September 21,2017 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on 

Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "EPA Oversight: Unimplemented 

Inspector General and GAO Recommendations." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, October 5, 2017. Your responses should be mailed 

to Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to Ali.Fulling@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

~~. Tim Murphy V (j'" 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

cc: The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Attachment 
91 


27122.059

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Tim Murphy 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Diana DeGette 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Murphy and Ranking Member DeGette: 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on September 6, 2017, before your Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations, about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector 

General's (OIG's) recommendations to the EPA that remain unimplemented. I have enclosed for the 

Congressional Record responses to questions that were asked of me by members of your subcommittee. 

We appreciate your interest in the work of the OIG. If you have any questions about this or any other 

matter, please contact me at (202) 566-2391. 

Alan S. Larsen 

Counsel to the Inspector General 

cc: The Honorable Michael C. Burgess 

Enclosure 
92 


27122.060

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Hearing titled "EPA Oversight: Unimplemented Inspeetor General and GAO Reeommendations" 

Questions for the Record, Alan Larsen, Counsel to the Inspector General 

Questions from Chairman Murphy 

l. In its FY 2017 Management Challenges Report OIG highlighted "current audit work 

continues to note that EPA lacks a holistie approach to managing accountability over its 

contractors and ensuring personnel responsible for overseeing contraetors are aware of 

their responsibilities." Could you expand on this fmding and inform the Committee what 

led OIG to include it in its latest Management Challenges Report? 

Response: Since 2013, the OIG bas identified contracts management as an agency-level 

weakness. Audits have routinely found that while the agency has incorporated internal controls 

into its policies and procedures, the policies and procedures are not being followed. This affects 

the agency's ability to ensure it obtains reasonable prices for goods and services and receives the 

goods and services it paid for. In the past month, the OIG issued a report on the EPA's 

management of a contract to support its implementation of alternative dispute resolution and 

public involvement. The OIG found that the monthly progress reports and contractor invoices did 

not contain information required by the contract, which hindered the agency's ability to properly 

oversee the contract. 1 

In October 2016, the OIG issued a report on the EPA's use of purchase orders.2 The report found 

that the EPA could have saved approximately $592,000 annually by using purchase cards rather 

than purchase orders. This condition occurred due to the purchaser's lack of knowledge about 

purchase card alternative methods, not being sufficiently trained, and/or not having clear 

guidance or direction from the contracting officer. 

2. The Committee is interested in the recommendations from OIG's March 2016 report 

entitled: "Drinking Water: EPA Needs to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Small 

Community Water Systems Designated as Serious Violators Achieve Compliance." Our 

committee just reported a Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization that placed some new 

requirements on small water systems. How widespread is EPA's practice, in formal 

enforcement actions, of providing information regarding how noncompliant systems can 

access compliance assistance resources? 

Response: Our March 2016 report examined EPA enforcement in Regions 2, 6 and 7. Only 

Region 6 included compliance assistance information in its orders. For a nationwide perspective, 

the subcommittee may wish to direct this question to the EPA. 

1 EPA's Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Involvement Contract Needs Better Management, Report No. 17-P-038'0, 

issued September 12,2017. 2 EPA 's Purchase Order Process Needs to Improve and Achieve Better Value, Report No. 17-P-000 I, issued October 13, 2016. 

1 
93 


27122.061

a. How much of a hindrance is this to aiding smaller systems in achieving compliance? 

Response: Achieving compliance depends on many factors. Our March 2016 report 

found that the practice of informing systems of compliance assistance resources can help 

achieve compliance. We did not evaluate whether the absence of this practice was a 

hindrance. 

b. What is the status of EPA's work to implement your recommendations? 

Response: The EPA completed corrective actions for all but one of our 

recommendations. The remaining unimplemented recommendation, Recommendation 2, 

is that the agency include in Region 2 formal enforcement orders information about how 

noncompliant systems can access compliance assistance resources available through the 

Puerto Rico coordinating committee established under Recommendation I. Corrective 

actions for Recommendation 2 are scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2017. 

3. One of the recommendations OIG made in July 2016 entitled "EPA Regional Offices Need 

to More Consistently Conduct Required Annual Reviews of Clean Water State Revolving 

Funds" was that EPA should "evaluate regional approaches to conducting the annual 

reviews of Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs, and address issues to ensure 

regions perform consistent reviews in accordance with the annual review guidance." Is this 

same type of review aud coordination needed for the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund 

as well? 

Response: The EPA is required by law to conduct annual reviews of state Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) programs. The 

July 2016 report only focused on annual reviews of the CWSRF program. The OIG has not 

conducted a separate audit of the DWSRF annual review program. Annual reviews for both 

programs are similar and therefore similar issues may exist. 

The agency does use information from the CWSRF and DWSRF annual reviews in preparing its 

annual report on improper payments. As required by law, the OIG does review the EPA's annual 

report on improper payments. OIG reports on improper payments issued in FY s 2014 and 2015 

identified concerns with how regions were reporting improper payments as part of the annual 

reviews of the CWSRl' and DWSRF.3 The two most recent OIG audits of improper payments, 

issued in FY s 2016 and 2017, did not identify concerns with the improper payment portions of 

the annual CWSRF and DWSRF annual reviews.4 However, the OIG only reviews a small 

number of CWSRF and DWSRF annual reviews as part of annual improper payment audits. 

a. What about other EPA programs? 

Response: Even though other EPA programs do not have legal requirements for annual 

reviews, the EPA does conduct less extensive annual reviews, referred to as baseline 

3 EPA Needs to Continue to Improve Controls for Improper Payment Identification. Report No. 14-P-071, issued 

April !0, 20 14; and EPA Complied With Improper Payment Legislation, But Opportunities for Improvement Exist. 

Report No. 15-P-0152, issued May I, 2015. 4 EPA Complied With Improper Payment Legislation, but Stronger Internal Controls are Needed, Report No. 16-P-0167, 

issued May 10, 2016; and EPA Complied With Improper Payment Legislation, but Testing Can Be Improved, Report No. 

17-P-0212, issued May 10,2017. 

2 
94 


27122.062

monitoring, of all EPA grants. InFY 2016, the OIG issued an audit on the baseline 

monitoring of San Francisco Water Quality Improvement Fund grants.5 Similar to the 

CWSRF report, we found EPA Region 9 project officers and grant specialists were not 

always following EPA guidance or accurately completing the baseline monitoring 

reviews. When baseline monitoring is not performed properly, the EPA does not have 

reasonable assurance that funds are being used responsibly and for the intended purpose. 

In addition, the EPA conducts advanced monitoring on a statistical sample of grants each 

year. Advanced monitoring involves an in-depth assessment of a grant recipient's 

progress and management of grants. A June 2015 OIG audit of the EPA's advanced 

monitoring reviews found the reviews were not always effective to ensure grant recipient 

costs were allowable.6 The report included recommendations for improving national 

guidance and the quality of advanced monitoring reviews. The EPA agreed with the 

recommendations and implemented corrective actions. 

b. Are there any updates that the Committee should know about with regard to EPA's 

efforts? 

Response: In response to lhe recommendation, the EPA Office of Water stated it would 

participate with some regions in state annual reviews and share their observations with 

the regional offices. The EPA proposed a corrective action completion date of 

September 30, 2016. The OIG reported in its most recent Semiannual Report to Congress, 

dated May 2017, that the EPA's implementation of the recommendation was delayed. 

The EPA had participated in some annual reviews and planned to continue the practice in 

the future. 

Questions from Representative Burgess 

1. While Title 42 appointments were designed to attract specialists in speeific scientific fields, 

the QIG report points out that 78% of the ORD's Title 42 appointments were in 

management positions. 

a. How does this compare to HHS' use of Title 42? 

Response: The OIG did not compare the EPA Office of Research and Development's 

(ORD's) use of Title 42 with how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

was using the authority. The Government Accountability Office did issue a report in July 

2012 on HHS' and the EPA's use of Title 42 and other special hiring authorities.7 

b. Did the OIG find the ORD's use of Title 42 in these positions to agree with the intent 

ofthe program? 

'EPA Region 9 Needs to Improve Oversiglu of San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grants, Report No. 

16-P-0276, issued August 22,2016. 6 Improved Oversight of EPA's Grant Monitoring Program Will Decrease the Risk of Improper Payments, Report No. 

15-P-0166, issued June II, 2015. 1 Government Accountability Office, HHS and EPA Can Improve Practices Under Special Hiring Authorities, GA0-12-692, 

issued July 2012. 

3 
95 


27122.063

Response: According to 40 CFR § 18.3, Title 42 may be used to secure the services of 

scientists and engineers for a period of limited duration and for research that furthers the 

agency's mission where the nature of the work or the character of the individual's service 

render customary employment methods impracticable or less effective. Based on our 

review of job announcement documentation to fill the 23 ORD positions under Title 42 

authority, there was limited evidence that demonstrated customary employment methods 

were impractical or less effective. 

2. The report alsu states that the EPA had no strategic plan or process tu fill positions in 2015. 

Has the EPA since made efforts to develop such a plan? 

Response: The OIG is not aware of EPA efforts to develop a strategic plan or process to fill 

Title 42 positions. The report did recommend that the EPA be more transparent in its decisions to 

use Title 42 and in demonstrating that other hiring methods were impractical. The OIG met with 

EPA senior managers a number of times to reach agreement on the appropriate action to address 

the recommendation. To make its decision-making process more transparent, the EPA agreed to 

justifY its use of Title 42 authority as part of the recruitment request and to periodically inform 

staff when the Title 42 authority was used. 

3. The report states that the OIG "found that ORD did not always demonstrate the need to 

use Title 42 to recruit or retain staff for these 19 positions to achieve the level of expertise it 

needed." 

a. How often did ORD fail to demonstrate such a need? 

Response: As stated in the report, for 19 of 23 Title 42 positions we reviewed, the 

positions were previously held by Title 5 employees at lower salaries. The EPA Title 42 

Operations Manual states that the authority is a mechanism to be used when individual 

salary needs cannot be met or customary employment methods are impractical or less 

effective. Based on our review of job announcement documentation to fill the 23 ORD 

positions under Title 42 authority, there is limited evidence that demonstrated customary 

employment methods were impractical or less effective. 

b. What is their justification for using Title 42 to hire or retain any individual if there 

was no such need? 

Response: The audit found that the EPA's ORD's justification for using its Title 42 

hiring authority to fill positions was ambiguous. ORD does not have any requirement to 

demonstrate that a position could not be filled under any other authority before recruiting 

under Title 42. 

4. How many current EPA employees are being paid under the Title 42 special pay program? 

a. How many employees, new or existing, does EPA expect to be paid under the 

Title 42 authority during FY 18? 

4 
96 


27122.064

Response: The OIG's report on the EPA's Title 42 hiring authority was issued in 2015. 8 

The OIG does not have any current ongoing reviews of the Title 42 program and 

therefore does not have information on current and future staffing levels. 

8 EPA Needs to JustifY How It Is Using Title 42 Hiring Authority, Report No. 15-P-0109, issued March 5, 2015. 

5 
97 


27122.065

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

Mr. Alfredo Gomez 

Director 

(l[:ongress of tbe ltniteb ~tates 

liJou%r: of .i\r:prr:5entatihr:5 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority ~202) 225-2927 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

September 21, 2017 

Natural Resources and Environment 

Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

Dear Mr. Gomez: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on 

Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to testify at the hearing entitled "EPA Oversight: Unimplemented 

Inspector General and GAO Recommendations." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing ofthc hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Thursday, October 5, 2017. Your responses should be mailed 

to Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to A\iL\Ll!iJl!l@m.<!.iLbousf.J:tQY. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

T.:ll~ Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

cc: The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Attachment 
98 


27122.066

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing entitled "EPA Oversight: 

Unimplemented Inspector General and GAO Recommendations" 

September 6, 2017 

Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Tim Murphy 

1. Given EPA's long-standing failure to conduct satisfactory workforce and workload 

assessments, does the agency know for certain whether it is carrying out all of its 

statutory obligations? 

GAO Response: While we have not looked at the link between EPA's workforce planning and 

its ability to carry out specific statutory obligations, we have reported that strategic workforce 

planning can help an agency meet its mission requirements. With specific regard to EPA, we 

found that its workforce plan was not clearly aligned with its strategic plan or budget. Without 

alignment to the strategic plan, we concluded that EPA was at risk of not having the 

appropriately skilled workforce they need to effectively achieve its mission. 

2. Your written testimony noted that EPA has failed to identify project officer critical 

skills and competencies or monitored its recruitment and retention efforts for grants 

specialists. Are these problems limited to certain regional offices or does it cut 

across the entire agency? 

a. If EPA were to institute greater accountability in its grants program would the 

agency be better suited to accomplish its core mission, and if so, how? 

GAO Response: In January 2017, we reported on the extent to which EPA follows leading 

practices of strategic workforce planning in managing its grants workforce. The scope of this 

work included all10 EPA regional offices and 3 of EPA's 10 national program offices in 

Washington, D.C. that manage grants. We concluded that while EPA partially follows these 

leading practices, it had not identified project officer critical skills and competencies or 

developed strategies, such as training, to address project officer skill and competency gaps. 

The responsibilities of project officers have expanded greatly in the past 10 years. Reviewing 

project officers' critical skills and competencies and determining their training needs to address 

any skill and competency gaps could help ensure that EPA has people with the right skills to 

meet the goals of its 2016-2020 Grants Management Plan. Officials we interviewed from 3 of 

EPA's 10 regional offices told us that, in addition to identifying critical skills and competencies, 

reviewing project officer functions, such as roles and responsibilities, would be helpful. In 

addition, we concluded that the 2016-2020 Grants Management Plan did not contain any 

performance measures to monitor or evaluate EPA's recruitment and retention efforts for its 

grants personnel or show how these efforts contribute toward human capital goals and 

programmatic results. EPA also does not collect performance data on such measures. By 

developing performance measures to track the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention 

efforts for grant specialists and by collecting performance data for these measures, EPA could 

enhance its ability to identify both performance shortfalls and appropriate corrective actions. 
99 


27122.067

3. What benefits could EPA realize if it adopted polices and review processes for its 

grant programs that could be consistently applied and analyzed? 

GAO Response: To help achieve its mission of protecting human health and the environment, 

EPA manages a significant grants portfolio that accounts for almost half of the agency's budget. 

EPA's ability to manage this portfolio depends primarily on grant specialists and project officers, 

but as we concluded in 2017, the agency does not have the information it may need to allocate 

grants management resources in an effective and efficient manner. For example, because EPA 

does not have a process for regional and national program offices to consistently collect and 

analyze information about project officer FTEs, we concluded that the agency could not know 

the level of resources used to manage the agency's sizeable $3.9 billion grants portfolio. By 

developing a documented process for regional and national program offices to collect and 

analyze data about project officer FTEs, EPA could have better assurance that its offices 

consistently collect information on project officers and that the agency and its offices are better 

positioned to assess and, as appropriate, restructure or resize FTE levels to meet the agency's 

significant grant-making responsibilities. In addition, EPA does not have a documented process 

for consistently obtaining workload data for grants management personnel across regional and 

national program offices. Developing such a process may help the agency better track changes 

to grants management workloads and make personnel adjustments as needed. Furthermore, 

EPA does not have a documented process for consistently allocating FTEs to grants 

management positions in regional and national progr·am offices based on analyses of workload 

data. Developing such a process could provide EPA with greater assurance that the agency is 

allocating grants management resources effectively and efficiently. 

4. The number of unimplemented GAO recommendations that relate to management and 

operations is significantly higher than other subject matter areas, could you explain 

the reason for this? 

a. What steps could EPA take to improve its ability to implement management 

and operations recommendations? 

GAO Response: Of the recommendations we made to EPA since fiscal year 2007, as of 

August 23, 2017, EPA had not implemented 52 percent of the recommendations related to 

operations and management. The percentage of unimplemented recommendations in the other 

categories for this time period ranged from 43 percent for taxies, chemical safety, and pesticides 

recommendations to 20 percent of environmental contamination and cleanup recommendations. 

One factor explaining the differences in implementation rates is the timing of the 

recommendations. Experience has shown that it takes time for agencies to implement our 

recommendations. For this reason, we actively track unaddressed recommendations for 4 

years. Of the 64 unimplemented management and operations recommendations made to EPA 

since 2007, we made 50 (78 percent) of them within the last 4 years (i.e., between 2013 and 

2017). Therefore, EPA may have not had sufficient time to implement many of these 

recommendations. 

Continued attention by EPA on open recommendations will help improve its ability to implement 

them. In fiscal year 2016, we worked with EPA to increase the frequency of recommendation 

follow-up from annually to semi-annually. We believe this will help bring attention to open 

recommendations and emphasize the importance of their implementation. 

2 
100 

Æ 


27122.068

The Honorable Michael C. Burgess 

In 2015, the EPA's OIG released its findings related to the EPA's use of Title 42 hiring 

authority to fill specific positions in its Office of Research and Development (ORO). After 

reviewing this report, I'd like to explore its results and any action the EPA has taken in 

the past two years. 

5. While Title 42 appointments were designed to attract specialists in specific scientific 

fields, the OIG report points out that 78% of the ORO's Title 42 appointments were in 

management positions. 

a. How does this compare to HHS' use of Title 42? 

b. Did the OIG find the ORO's use of Title 42 in these positions to agree with the 

intent of the program? 

GAO Response: In our previous work on HHS and EPA use of the hiring authorities under 42 

U.S.C. § 209(f) and (g), we found that most employees appointed at HHS served in one of the 

following general occupations: staff scientist, research fellow, senior investigator, clinical 

research nurse, and fellow. We have not reviewed the OIG report on EPA's use of Title 42 hiring 

authority to fill specific positions in ORO. 

3