# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Justice40: Additional Efforts Needed to Improve Tribal Applicants' Access to Federal Programs   Under Environmental Justice Initiative What GAO FoundThe Justice40 Initiative is the administration's goal for 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments to flow to disadvantaged communities. GAO reviewed six Justice40 programs in three selected agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). GAO found that each agency adjusted program mechanisms to increase access to funding for underserved communities, including Tribes and eligible Indigenous communities (tribal applicants), in response to the Justice40 Initiative as well as other agency initiatives.However, certain program characteristics create barriers to tribal applicants' ability to access selected covered Justice40 programs, including cost shares, administrative burdens, and certain statutory and regulatory requirements. For example, EPA has a mechanism to reduce administrative burdens for recipients by combining funds from multiple grants into a single budget. Agency officials told GAO that grants funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act are not eligible for this mechanism. Agencies have taken actions to identify statutory and regulatory barriers to access for tribal recipients. Additional actions to document and discuss these barriers with affected stakeholders to determine any additional statutory and regulatory changes needed could help tribal applicants more readily access covered programs, consistent with the Justice40 goal and executive orders.Examples of Historic Barriers to Tribes' Access to Federal ProgramsSelected agencies consulted with Tribes on new programs, funding opportunities, and related topics, such as equity assessments. However, the extent to which these efforts informed agency implementation of Justice40 is unclear because the agencies generally did not make related consultation results publicly available. Consistent with executive orders and presidential memoranda, considering publicly sharing high-level consultation summaries could help ensure Tribes have access to information about prior tribal input on federal programs. In turn, this information could inform Tribes' future input on Justice40 and reduce their administrative burdens. Additionally, GAO's review of the selected agencies' online consultation tracking systems and interviews with agency officials found that the agencies did not consult with Tribes specifically about the Justice40 Initiative. Interim implementation guidance directs agencies to consult with stakeholders, including Tribes, when determining Justice40 covered program benefits. Agencies have additional opportunities to consult with Tribes and conduct outreach on Justice40 implementation to ensure meaningful input.Why GAO Did This StudyUnderserved communities—including federally recognized Tribes and other historically marginalized people—experience a disproportionate share of adverse socioeconomic and environmental conditions, according to GAO's prior work. Executive Order 14008 established the Justice40 Initiative with the goal of delivering to disadvantaged communities 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments. In determining Justice40 benefits, guidance directed agencies to consult with Tribes and other stakeholders to ensure meaningful involvement.GAO was asked to review agencies' implementation of the Justice40 Initiative with respect to tribal applicants. This report reviews the actions selected agencies took to (1) adjust programs to direct funding to tribal recipients, and (2) consult with Tribes and conduct outreach to Indigenous communities regarding the initiative. GAO examined laws, executive orders, presidential memoranda, guidance, and policies; and interviewed officials from three selected agencies, leadership from six Tribes, and representatives from seven tribal organizations. GAO selected a mix of agencies and programs based on tribal participation, funding mechanisms, and types of programs.
- Nuclear Power Plants: NRC Should Take Actions to Fully Consider the Potential Effects of Climate Change What GAO FoundClimate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea level rise. In addition, climate change may affect extreme cold weather events. Risks to nuclear power plants from these hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns.Examples of Natural Hazards that May Pose Risks to Nuclear Power Plants&nbsp;The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) addresses risks to the safety of nuclear power plants, including risks from natural hazards, in its licensing and oversight processes. Following the tsunami that led to the 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, NRC took additional actions to address risks from natural hazards. These include requiring safety margins in reactor designs, measures to prevent radioactive releases should a natural hazard event exceed what a plant was designed to withstand, and maintenance of backup equipment related to safety functions.However, NRC's actions to address risks from natural hazards do not fully consider potential climate change effects. For example, NRC primarily uses historical data in its licensing and oversight processes rather than climate projections data. NRC officials GAO interviewed said they believe their current processes provide an adequate margin of safety to address climate risks. However, NRC has not conducted an assessment to demonstrate that this is the case. Assessing its processes to determine whether they adequately address the potential for increased risks from climate change would help ensure NRC fully considers risks to existing and proposed plants. Specifically, identifying any gaps in its processes and developing a plan to address them, including by using climate projections data, would help ensure that NRC adopts a more comprehensive approach for assessing risks and is better able to fulfill its mission to protect public health and safety.Why GAO Did This StudyNRC licenses and regulates the use of nuclear energy to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. Like all energy infrastructure, nuclear power plants can be affected by disruptions from natural hazards, some of which are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Most commercial nuclear plants in the United States were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and weather patterns and climate-related risks to these plants have changed since their construction.GAO was asked to review the climate resilience of energy infrastructure. This report examines (1) how climate change is expected to affect nuclear power plants and (2) NRC actions to address risks to nuclear power plants from climate change. GAO analyzed available federal data and reviewed regulations, agency documents, and relevant literature. GAO interviewed officials from federal agencies, including NRC, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and knowledgeable stakeholders from industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. GAO also conducted site visits to two plants.
- Air Quality Sensors: Policy Options to Help Address Implementation Challenges What GAO FoundLower-cost air quality sensors (sensors) are portable devices that can measure local air quality in real time. Although these sensors are generally less accurate than more expensive instruments, they can be deployed in large number to supplement information provided by the national air quality monitoring system. Among their many uses are identifying pollution hot spots, monitoring industrial sites and nearby neighborhoods, and conducting scientific research. Sensors can be more accurate for some pollutants, such as fine particulate matter, than others. They are as of yet unavailable for certain air toxics such as benzene and metals.Air Quality SensorsGAO identified several challenges users face in implementing sensor technologies. For example, some users have struggled to:Access expertise and resources. Some users may lack the knowledge or funding to select the right sensors or deploy them in a way that best fits their goals. Potential sources of expertise—such as universities or state and local agencies responsible for air quality management—may lack incentives or resources to partner with those users.Understand sensor capabilities. Some vendors are not transparent about sensor performance. For example, some stakeholders told GAO that some vendors claim capabilities that are questionable. In the absence of reliable information on performance, users may struggle to choose appropriate sensors.Compile and compare sensor data. Sensors produce data in many formats, and there are currently no widely accepted standards for reporting data from these different formats. In addition, some users do not report metadata that describe information such as environmental conditions or correction factors. Both issues can make it difficult for users to compile or compare data.Spur action. Some users collect sensor data to spur action. But users and decision-makers may have different expectations about the level of quality assurance required. For example, some users seek evidence of pollutants that could trigger regulators to investigate a pollution source. However, these users may not realize that their data are not of sufficient quality for that purpose due to unclear guidance on the level of quality assurance needed.GAO identified seven policy options that could help address challenges to developing and using air sensors. The options identify possible actions by policymakers, including legislative bodies, government entities, academia, industry, and other groups. See tables 5–11 in the report for a full list of the policy options, potential implementation approaches, and opportunities and considerations.Policy Options to Address Challenges to Developing and Using Air SensorsPolicy Option			Opportunities			Considerations		Maintain status quo&nbsp;			(report p. 31)						Current efforts may address some challenges without additional resources.				Resources that would be allocated to additional interventions could be used for other opportunities.									Current efforts are not likely to address all challenges described in this report.					Enhance sensor performance transparency (report p. 32)For example, government entities or standards-setting organizations could establish additional standardized performance testing protocols and targets.						Standardized testing could increase transparency and build trust among users.				Performance targets could help ensure sensors work adequately for specific uses.									Reaching consensus on standards can take considerable time.				Standardized testing could increase costs.				Industry could choose not to adopt voluntary performance testing protocols and targets.					Support innovation in sensor technologies (report p. 33)For example, the sensor industry could choose to invest in additional research and development to improve existing sensors or develop new sensor technologies.						Could enable detection of additional pollutants or existing pollutants at lower levels.									Time frames for research and development are unclear.				Could require substantial funding and other resources.					Facilitate access to expertise&nbsp;			(report p. 34)For example, universities could collaborate with others to establish technical assistance mechanisms that connect users with experts.						Could help users identify and collaborate with experts to ensure optimal use of sensors.				Could alleviate the burden on government entities or provide additional resources to carry out this work.									Some government entities and other experts may require additional resources to fully collaborate with communities.				Participating experts may be overwhelmed by inquiries or requests for help.					Improve access to guidance&nbsp;			(report p. 35)For example, nonprofit organizations and other policymakers could collaborate with others to maintain a website with links to or copies of existing guidance.						Could help users locate guidance more easily, helping them improve sensor use.				Could enable users to compare guidance more easily, allowing them to select guidance that best aligns with their needs.									Could be time and resource intensive and may need frequent updates.				Users may not know such a resource exists or trust it without endorsement and advertisement by a trusted entity.				Storing guidance in a repository may require consent from authors and owners.					Improve data management and sharing (report p. 36)For example, standards-setting organizations could collaborate with others to develop data and metadata standards.&nbsp;						Data standards could help facilitate data aggregation, comparison, and sharing.&nbsp;				Metadata standards could help users ascertain whether data are comparable.&nbsp;									Standards require consensus, which takes time and resources to build.				Organizations may not adopt voluntary data standards, especially if they were created without their input.				May be time and resource intensive.					Clarify level of quality assurance needed to spur action&nbsp;			(report p.37)For example, government entities could collaborate with others to develop guidance on the level of quality assurance required for various applications. &nbsp;						Clarity on the level of quality assurance required could help users collect data that are appropriate for their specific purposes.&nbsp;									Given the number of current and potential sensor applications, it may be difficult to clarify the level of quality assurance for each one.					Source: GAO. &nbsp;| &nbsp;GAO-24-106393Why GAO Did This StudyU.S. ambient air quality is monitored by federal, state, and local agencies through the national ambient air quality monitoring system. However, that system is unable to provide some of the information that users may need to better manage health risks from air pollution. Lower-cost air quality sensors have the potential to help meet some of the monitoring information needs that require pollution measurements in additional locations or more real-time data.This report describes (1) sensor technologies for monitoring air quality, (2) their benefits and uses, (3) how well they perform and factors that affect their performance, (4) challenges to their use, and (5) options policymakers could consider to help address these challenges.GAO reviewed key reports and scientific literature; interviewed federal and state agency officials and other stakeholders from academia, industry, and nongovernmental organizations; attended a workshop on issues related to lower-cost air quality sensors; and convened a 2-day meeting of 12 experts. These experts included those who conduct research on sensor technologies and their uses, develop or manufacture sensor technologies, or use or consider using sensor technologies and data. GAO is identifying policy options in this report.For more information, contact Karen L. Howard at (202) 512-6888 or howardk@gao.gov or J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841, GomezJ@gao.gov.
- Wildfire Disasters: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response, Recovery, and Mitigation Efforts What GAO FoundGAO's ongoing and prior work identified challenges that federal agencies face:Wildfire response and recovery.  GAO has previously reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) faces challenges in assisting state, local, and tribal governments after wildfire events. For example, securing temporary housing for survivors is difficult because disasters exacerbate pre-disaster shortages of affordable housing. Further, wildfires generally destroy entire structures and leave contaminated debris and soil that require lengthy clean-up before property is safe for habitation. FEMA is taking steps to address these post-disaster housing challenges and GAO will continue to assess these efforts in its ongoing work.Residential Wildfire Debris, Lahaina, Hawaii, September 2023Recruitment and retention of wildland firefighters.  GAO's prior work identified barriers to the recruitment and retention of federal wildland firefighters, including low pay and opportunities for career advancement. Congress has authorized pay increases through fiscal year 2026, but longer-term solutions are needed, according to agency officials.	Interagency coordination.  GAO's prior work identified opportunities for improved interagency coordination in managing risks from wildfire smoke and in federal disaster recovery efforts. In March 2023, GAO made recommendations to help strengthen federal coordination between the Environmental Protection Agency and land management agencies in reducing risks to air quality and public health from wildfire smoke. As of March 2024, four of the six recommendations were partially addressed. Additionally, in November 2022, GAO reported that the federal approach to disaster recovery is fragmented across more than 30 federal agencies and departments and at least 32 congressional committees. GAO recommended that agencies identify and take steps to better manage this fragmentation and that Congress consider establishing an independent commission to recommend reforms to the federal government's approach to disaster recovery. As of March 2024, a commission has not been established.Why GAO Did This StudyIn recent decades, the nation has witnessed an increase in the size and severity of wildfires as well as longer wildfire seasons. Demand for federal resources to prepare for, respond to, or recover from these wildfires is expected to increase.This testimony discusses GAO's ongoing and prior work and recommendations on challenges related to (1) wildfire response and recovery, (2) recruitment and retention of wildland firefighters, and (3) interagency coordination.This statement is based on GAO's ongoing work on FEMA's wildfire prevention and recovery efforts and prior reports, published from November 2022 through March 2023. For its ongoing work, GAO reviewed relevant FEMA policies, procedures, and guidance related to wildfires; conducted a site visit to Hawaii to observe response and recovery efforts; and interviewed relevant FEMA officials. Details about the scope and methodology for published GAO reports are included in those products.
- Federal Real Property: More Consistent Monitoring of Asbestos Could Improve Oversight What GAO FoundThe General Services Administration (GSA) may be legally responsible for the cleanup of environmental contaminants on federal properties it manages before it disposes of those properties via sale or other means. GSA annually reports its environmental liabilities across three categories: asbestos, non-asbestos (e.g., lead paint), and hazardous releases (e.g., petroleum). GSA uses a formula to estimate the costs to address asbestos and non-asbestos contamination, which together account for 95 percent of its annually reported liabilities. GSA bases its liability estimates for hazardous releases on site-specific information gathered by GSA's regional environmental managers. GSA's estimated environmental liabilities were largely stable between fiscal years 2018 and 2022, ranging from $1.8 to $2.0 billion.GSA manages asbestos and non-asbestos contamination in place—as these materials pose little health risk when not damaged or disturbed—and GSA officials said they take immediate action on hazardous releases. To manage asbestos in place, GSA policy requires buildings that could contain asbestos materials be inspected every 5 years. However, according to GSA data, approximately two-thirds of buildings (638 of 955) were out of compliance with this inspection policy. Buildings out of compliance include hundreds in which GSA has not conducted an inspection in more than a decade or does not know when the most recent inspection occurred.Buildings Out of Compliance with General Services Administration's 5-Year Asbestos Inspection Policy, as of September 2023GSA officials provided several reasons these buildings are out of compliance with GSA's asbestos inspection policy, including funding and staffing challenges, incomplete records, and limitations with the database used to track asbestos inspections. GSA officials said they are developing a comprehensive plan for completing required inspections and considering changes to the asbestos policy to follow a more risk-based approach. These officials said they have not yet identified specifics of this plan, including timelines for completing required inspections or for modifying the policy. As a result, GSA does not have key data needed to monitor asbestos and protect health and safety.Why GAO Did This StudyGSA's cleanup of environmental liabilities on federal properties represents a fiscal exposure for the federal government. The federal government's growing environmental liabilities and federal real property management are on GAO's High-Risk list, partly due to these challenges.GAO was asked to review how GSA estimates and manages its environmental liabilities. This report examines, among other objectives: (1) how GSA estimates environmental liabilities and (2) how GSA manages environmental contaminants and the extent to which GSA follows its asbestos management policy.GAO reviewed GSA's asbestos management policy, annual financial reports, cost estimation formulas, budget and expenditure information, real property data, and conducted three site visits. GAO also interviewed GSA officials, contractors, and subject matter experts.
- Justice40: Use of Leading Practices Would Strengthen Efforts to Guide Environmental Justice Initiative What GAO FoundThe Justice40 Initiative's goal is for 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments to flow to disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened. To develop guidance and tools for implementing the initiative, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) took steps to collaborate with federal and nonfederal entities. EOP worked with the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council, an advisory council, 21 Justice40 pilot programs at nine agencies, and others to develop interim guidance, a tool to identify disadvantaged communities, and a scorecard to track progress. EOP's efforts partially reflected leading practices for collaboration. For example, EOP included relevant entities in its collaboration efforts but has not clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Interagency Council.Seven Investment Areas of the Justice40 InitiativeAdditionally, over half of the Justice40 pilot programs that GAO surveyed answered that the guidance and tools in place at the time were useful. However, some programs faced challenges, such as unclear guidance. According to GAO's analysis, EOP did not systematically gather feedback on programs' experience with the guidance and tools. By more fully incorporating leading practices for collaboration, such as by systematically gathering feedback and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Interagency Council, EOP can better ensure that its guidance and tools provide an effective, timely, and consistent framework for Justice40 implementation.EOP took initial steps to collect some data on agencies' Justice40 actions and published the first annual scorecard. However, EOP has not established a process for assessing implementation of the Justice40 Initiative. By incorporating key practices for effectively managing and assessing the results of federal efforts as it establishes such a process, EOP can better ensure accountability, transparency, and progress toward achieving the goal of the initiative.Why GAO Did This StudyIn February 2021, Executive Order 14008 directed federal agencies to take action to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related, and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities. As part of this effort, the executive order established the Justice40 Initiative. The initiative is led by EOP, specifically the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Office of Management and Budget, and Climate Policy Office. It currently covers more than 500 federal programs at 19 agencies, which involve billions of taxpayer dollars.GAO was asked to review implementation of the Justice40 Initiative. This report examines the extent to which (1) EOP collaborated with federal and nonfederal entities to develop guidance and tools for implementing the initiative; (2) pilot programs found EOP's guidance and tools useful; and (3) EOP established a process for assessing federal efforts to achieve the goal of the initiative.GAO reviewed executive orders and EOP documents; interviewed EOP staff, agency officials, and nonfederal entities; analyzed survey responses from 20 of 21 Justice40 pilot programs; and compared EOP efforts with leading practices.
- Offshore Oil and Gas: Interior Needs to Improve Decommissioning Enforcement and Mitigate Related Risks What GAO FoundThe Department of the Interior's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) does not effectively ensure that industry operators meet decommissioning deadlines for offshore wells and platforms at the end of their useful lives. BSEE's administrative enforcement tools and its use of them are ineffective at incentivizing noncompliant operators—for example, citations for regulatory violations and orders to comply are essentially warnings. BSEE rarely takes more punitive actions such as issuing civil penalty fines, which can take years, or disqualifying operators, which has unclear trigger criteria. Long-standing uncertainties in the enforceability of some deadlines also undermine BSEE's effectiveness for idle infrastructure on active leases and end-of-lease infrastructure in the Pacific. These enforcement issues have contributed to widespread decommissioning delays that have grown into a substantial backlog. For example, for Gulf leases that ended in 2010 through 2022, operators missed BSEE's 1-year decommissioning deadline for more than 40 percent of wells and 50 percent of platforms—many of which still have not been decommissioned. Over 75 percent of end-of-lease and idle infrastructure in the Gulf was overdue under BSEE's deadlines as of June 2023—over 2,700 wells and 500 platforms.End-of-Lease and Idle Offshore Wells and Platforms Overdue for Decommissioning in the Gulf of Mexico Moreover, Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) does not effectively assure that operators have the financial and technical capacity to meet decommissioning obligations in advance of potential delays, bankruptcies, or other defaults. Specifically, BOEM held about $3.5 billion in supplemental bonds to cover between $40 billion and $70 billion in total estimated decommissioning costs as of June 2023. As a result, the federal government remains exposed to billions of dollars in financial risks from decommissioning liabilities if operators do not meet their obligations. BOEM has been working for over a decade on proposals to better address these risks but has not finalized changes in its approach. Additionally, BOEM has limited operator qualification standards that do not address decommissioning capacity or consider any past issues with meeting these obligations safely and timely.Interior could better enforce decommissioning deadlines and mitigate the safety, environmental, and financial risks that unmet decommissioning obligations pose by ensuring BSEE and BOEM prioritize completing planned actions. Additionally, given the extended duration and magnitude of these issues and insufficient progress in Interior's efforts to address them, congressional oversight or direction may be warranted to better limit the growing scale of related risks.Why GAO Did This StudySince the 1940s, the offshore oil and gas industry has installed more than 55,000 wells and 7,000 platforms on the outer continental shelf, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior is responsible for enforcing requirements for industry operators to safely decommission this infrastructure at the end of its useful life within deadlines set by regulations.Delayed decommissioning increases environmental, safety, and financial risks. Over time, infrastructure becomes increasingly vulnerable to damage and deterioration from storms and corrosion, which can topple platforms, cause oil spills, and make decommissioning more expensive and dangerous. The federal government may become liable for these costs if industry defaults on its obligations.GAO was asked to review Interior's oversight of offshore decommissioning. This report examines Interior's effectiveness in (1) enforcing decommissioning deadlines and (2) assuring industry capacity to meet them. GAO reviewed decommissioning regulations, procedures, guidance, and data; interviewed agency officials; and obtained perspectives from industry and environmental groups.
- Oil and Gas Pipelines: Agencies Should Improve Oversight of Decommissioning What GAO FoundGathering pipelines carry natural gas, crude oil, and other hazardous liquids from production wells to processing facilities, refineries, and transmission pipelines. Pipeline operators should decommission gathering lines after oil and gas production has ended to ensure any remaining gathering lines are safe and to restore the land to its natural state. If operators do not decommission gathering lines properly or in a timely manner, they could pose various safety and environmental risks, including spills, emissions, and explosions. For example, in 2017, homeowners accidentally struck an improperly decommissioned gathering line on their property, causing an explosion that killed two people and injured two others.Examples of Gathering Lines and Associated InfrastructureAgency efforts to ensure proper decommissioning may be hindered by insufficient bonding, data limitations, and ambiguous requirements. For example, the Bureau of Land Management has detailed data for the more than 95,000 wells on federal leases, but its databases do not include any data for the gathering lines associated with those wells.While agencies have taken steps to improve the data they have on gathering lines, those steps have been ad hoc. None of the agencies has a documented plan to ensure they are collecting and maintaining the data needed to oversee decommissioning activities. Developing a plan with a timeline for implementing data improvement efforts would provide management the assurance that officials are collecting and maintaining the data needed to oversee decommissioning. Specifically, a documented plan would identify what data are needed, potential sources for the data, timelines to collect or acquire the data, and how best to maintain the data over time, ensuring that they remain current and accessible.The federal government has previously stepped in to decommission orphaned gathering lines—lines without an identifiable responsible party. However, agencies have limited resources. While the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided additional funding, agencies told us that the act's funding will not be sufficient to decommission all orphaned infrastructure. For example, Forest Service officials said that even if all of the $250 million in the act were provided solely to Forest Service, those funds would allow for decommissioning of only 5 percent to 10 percent of the known and expected orphaned infrastructure on Forest Service lands.Agencies need to analyze the risks associated with gathering lines they oversee. For the four agencies, we found that only the National Park Service has assessed the potential risks of gathering lines it oversees. Assessing risks would allow agencies to adequately prioritize those gathering lines that pose the greatest safety, environmental, or fiscal risks for either oversight attention if lines are active, or decommissioning if lines are orphaned.Why GAO Did This StudyOil and gas pipeline operators have installed at least 384,000 miles of onshore gathering lines across the United States. We were asked to review issues related to decommissioning oil and gas gathering lines on federal lands. This report examines the risks associated with gathering lines that are not decommissioned properly or in a timely manner and how agencies oversee decommissioning of gathering lines on federal lands.We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies, and guidance related to overseeing decommissioning pipelines. We also conducted a literature search to assess risks associated with improper decommissioning. We interviewed agency headquarters and field office officials, as well as state agency officials, representatives from the oil and gas industry, environmental advocacy groups, and pipeline safety organizations.
- Climate Change: Options to Enhance the Resilience of Federally Funded Flood Risk Management Infrastructure What GAO FoundThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is responsible for planning, designing, and constructing much of the nation's federally funded flood risk management infrastructure—for example, levees, dams, floodwalls, floodgates, and hurricane barriers—that help protect communities from coastal storms and floods. Corps' flood risk management infrastructure, such as levees, can be breached by flooding exacerbated by changes in the climate (see fig.).Breached Levee along the Missouri River, June 2011The Corps has taken, and plans to take, actions to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded flood risk management infrastructure. The Corps has also taken steps to develop climate policies and plans, conduct research, and provide climate-related information and guidance for planning flood risk management infrastructure projects.On the basis of a review of relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders and Corps officials, GAO identified 14 options to further enhance the climate resilience of federally funded flood risk management infrastructure (see table).Options to Further Enhance the Climate Resilience of Federally Funded Flood Risk Management Infrastructure			1.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Create clear institutional authority to mainstream climate resilience.								2.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Research the feasibility of innovative approaches.								3.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Expand technical assistance for planning.								4.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Update climate information for planning.								5.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Update planning guidance.								6.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Integrate climate resilience into project-level benefit cost analysis.								7.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Expand the use of adaptive management in projects.								8.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Update engineering standards and regulations.								9.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Conduct climate screening assessment of authorized but unfunded projects.								10.&nbsp; &nbsp;Prioritize projects that incorporate climate resilience.								11.&nbsp; &nbsp;Update manuals for operation and maintenance.								12.&nbsp; &nbsp;Expand technical assistance to nonfederal sponsors for operations and maintenance.								13.&nbsp; &nbsp;Conduct climate vulnerability assessments of existing infrastructure.								14.&nbsp; &nbsp;Establish process for retrofitting existing infrastructure to account for climate change.					Source: GAO analysis of relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders. | GAO-24-105496Each option has strengths and limitations. For example, updating planning guidance to require that climate resilience be incorporated into all flood risk management infrastructure studies and projects could increase the extent to which projects adopt resilience measures but might require additional capacity or result in additional costs to implement effectively.Determining which options to implement to enhance the climate resilience of federally funded flood risk management infrastructure requires detailed analyses of complex issues. Making such determinations may also require difficult decisions involving trade-offs related to the costs and benefits of different options. Nevertheless, conducting a comprehensive analysis of the options identified in this report could help the Corps determine which options to prioritize in future climate resilience planning efforts. Such an analysis would also help the Corps seek congressional approval, as appropriate, for statutory authorities and resources necessary to implement the selected options to reduce federal fiscal exposure.Implementing multiple options could better leverage the strengths and address the limitations of the different options and offers the greatest potential to improve the climate resilience of federally funded flood risk management infrastructure, according to knowledgeable stakeholders and GAO's  Disaster Resilience Framework. Corps officials told GAO that they likely would need additional direction or authority from Congress to act on some, or a combination of, options.Congress is expected to pass a new Water Resources Development Act in 2024, thus presenting Congress with an opportunity to seek and consider any analyses or proposals from the Corps and to provide direction or authority to the agency to take additional actions to implement one or more options for enhancing the climate resilience of federally funded flood risk management infrastructure. Doing so would help the Corps better ensure that such infrastructure can withstand and recover from extreme weather events and natural disasters expected to be exacerbated by climate change.Why GAO Did This StudyMore frequent extreme weather events and rising sea levels associated with climate change pose risks to the nation's flood management infrastructure, according to the 2023  Fifth National Climate Assessment.From 2014 through 2023, the Corps dedicated at least $19 billion in annual appropriations to flood risk management activities, according to GAO's analysis. During that same period, Congress provided at least $46.1 billion in supplemental appropriations to the Corps for repairs to damaged flood risk management infrastructure, construction of such infrastructure in areas affected by disasters, and other activities.In 2013, GAO added  Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks  to its High Risk List. Enhancing climate resilience—by planning for climate hazards and acting to reduce potential losses—can help manage the federal government's fiscal exposure.GAO was asked to review the climate resilience of the federally funded flood risk management infrastructure. This report examines (1) the Corps' actions in this area and (2) the strengths and limitations of options available to the Corps to further enhance those efforts. GAO reviewed Corps documents, interviewed Corps officials and 21 knowledgeable stakeholders, and used GAO's  Disaster Resilience Framework  to evaluate the Corps' efforts and potential options to further enhance the climate resilience of such infrastructure.
- Environmental Cleanup: DOD Should Communicate Future Costs for Red Hill Remediation and Closure What GAO FoundThe Department of Defense (DOD) responded to fuel and other releases that accidentally occurred from 2014 through 2022 at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Facility on O‘ahu, Hawaii, by containing pollutants and taking abatement measures. Since then, DOD has developed and begun implementing a defueling plan and developed an initial closure plan for the tank system. However, as of August 2023, DOD had not finished a site investigation or remediation plan. DOD plans to close the tanks in place and complete its site investigation by the end of fiscal year 2027, but comprehensive remediation of the site could take decades.Timeline of Major Releases during 2014 through 2022DOD faces three key challenges in its efforts to defuel, remediate, and close Red Hill: (1) obtaining regulatory approval from the Hawaii Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2) assessing contamination amid the site's unique geologic complexity, and (3) gaining trust and working with community stakeholders. Red Hill's proximity to several drinking water wells in the Honolulu Hawaii area compounds the unique geologic complexity.Map of Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, Nearby Navy Drinking Water Wells (Shafts), and the Surrounding AreaIn response to challenges, DOD has taken several actions, including developing a joint integrated master schedule to prioritize key deliverables for defueling tasks and align them with state officials' priorities and working with EPA to make groundwater well monitoring data more easily available to the public.DOD and its components stated that the accidental 2021 Red Hill fuel release affected their fiscal year 2022 financial statements in a variety of ways. DOD concluded that while the future outflow of resources to clean up and close Red Hill was probable, an amount was not reasonably estimable given the lack of a completed remedial investigation and experience with a similar site. Accounting standards require that if a future outflow or other sacrifice of resources is probable but not reasonably estimable, an entity should not record an environmental liability in the financial statements. In such cases, an entity should disclose certain information about the event within the notes of its financial statements. Accordingly, DOD and relevant DOD components disclosed information in their fiscal year 2022 financial statements, including a description of the Red Hill event and its effect.While federal accounting standards require certain environmental liabilities and contingencies to be reported or disclosed in federal agencies' financial statements, other future costs not included in financial statements can be communicated to Congress in budget materials. The financial statement estimates do not represent the total federal fiscal exposure or the total amount that the federal government may have to pay. In addition to the liabilities and contingencies in financial statements, there are other components that, when combined, account for total federal fiscal exposure. These include costs to clean up and close known sites that are not currently reasonably estimable, and unknown cleanup and closure costs that may be identified in the future as remedial investigations are completed and closure plans are approved.DOD had not, as of the end of fiscal year 2023, communicated information to Congress about total fiscal exposures for anticipated Red Hill remediation activities for fiscal years 2025 and beyond. Specifically, DOD is aware of millions of dollars of costs that it is likely to incur as part of the Red Hill remediation and closure. It is also aware of numerous other costs for significant tasks that it cannot estimate at this time. Congress has appropriated at least $1.2 billion to DOD for activities related to improvement of infrastructure and defueling at Red Hill, and DOD has spent or plans to spend these funds. However, DOD's reports to Congress have not included projected cost estimates for fiscal year 2025 and beyond, which is the time frame during which DOD will likely incur substantial costs. Because these projected cost estimates have not been conveyed, Congress does not have information on total estimated remediation and closure costs in budget materials. With this financial exposure information, Congress would be better equipped to make decisions regarding funding remediation and closure activities.Why GAO Did This StudyIn November 2021, approximately 21,000 gallons of fuel was accidentally released from Red Hill, part of a fuel storage system the Navy manages. The Navy was unable to recover about 5,500 gallons, which ultimately contaminated portions of the surrounding area and a nearby well that supplied drinking water to about 93,000 service members and civilians. The November 2021 spill was not the first accidental release at Red Hill. Over the last decade, this facility, which supplied various types of fuel to DOD resources in the Pacific, experienced several other spills that DOD could not fully recover. In March 2022, the Secretary of Defense announced that DOD planned to defuel and permanently close the facility and remediate the site.House Report 117-397 includes a provision for GAO to review DOD's efforts to remediate Red Hill and report on liabilities and costs to clean up and close the facility. This report (1) describes actions DOD is taking to defuel and close the Red Hill facility, including remediating the site, and the challenges it faces in doing so; (2) assesses to what extent DOD estimated and recorded environmental and contingent liabilities for the November 2021 Red Hill fuel release in its financial statements; and (3) assesses to what extent DOD estimated and reported to Congress on the total fiscal exposure to defuel and close Red Hill. GAO visited the Red Hill site, interviewed DOD regulatory and other officials, and evaluated financial and regulatory documentation. Specifically, GAO met with officials from EPA, the Hawaii Department of Health, the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, the Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management, and five selected community groups.
- Coral Reef Conservation Program: Opportunities Exist to Better Track Expenditures and Share Information What GAO FoundThe Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) brings together expertise from several offices across NOAA that carry out projects related to coral reefs. The CRCP supports research and restoration in two states and five territories with jurisdiction over coral reef ecosystems—Florida, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.To identify priorities for the program, the CRCP holds workshops or individual meetings with points of contact in each of the seven jurisdictions to identify jurisdictional priorities. After these jurisdictional workshops, the CRCP holds a national workshop with NOAA staff. The workshops inform the CRCP budget, which the program develops in 3-year cycles.The CRCP tracks obligations and expenditures in the Commerce Business System, a Department of Commerce financial system. This system delineates obligations and expenditures by various codes, such as fiscal year and object class (e.g., contractual services or grants). Senior CRCP and budget officials told us they regularly use obligation data to monitor progress in obligating funds but do not typically access or use expenditure data for management of the program as a whole. These officials said that in managing the CRCP, they focus on obligating CRCP funds rather than on ensuring they are expended.Even if CRCP officials regularly access expenditure data for the whole program, they cannot (1) determine project-specific expenditures for all CRCP projects from NOAA's financial system, or (2) compare expenditures to obligations for all projects in the CRCP's annual spend plans, according to our analysis of CRCP documents. This limitation is due in part to the CRCP not assigning task codes to identify its projects in the Commerce Business System.Federal standards for internal control state that management should use quality information to achieve the entity's objectives. By regularly tracking and accessing expenditure data on CRCP projects from the Commerce Business System, the CRCP will be better informed about actual expenditures and be able to compare expenditures to obligations in its annual spend plans and respond to requests for this information.The CRCP has policies and guidance and shares information to promote transparency and accountability within NOAA and with outside entities such as Congress and the public. However, GAO identified some information that the CRCP has not communicated. For example, the program has not communicated information about obligations or expenditures on specific internal CRCP projects with outside entities. In addition, the program has not made its performance results available to outside entities.GAO's key practices for evidence-based policymaking and federal standards for internal control state that federal organizations should externally communicate relevant key information on their learning and results to key stakeholders. By communicating information related to its performance results and internal expenditures to outside entities, the CRCP can increase its transparency and accountability in administering the program.Why GAO Did This StudyThe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to examine several aspects of the CRCP, including the CRCP's budget and accounting practices. This report discusses how the CRCP identifies priorities and develops its budget, tracks obligations and expenditures, and promotes transparency and accountability.To do this work, GAO reviewed and analyzed relevant laws, policies, and guidance related to the CRCP and its budget and accounting practices. GAO also reviewed NOAA's system for tracking obligations and expenditures, data generated from this system, and audit documentation. GAO also interviewed NOAA officials and CRCP grant recipients, including representatives from all seven jurisdictions.
- Nuclear Waste: Changing Conditions May Affect Future Management of Contamination Deposited Abroad During U.S. Cold War Activities What GAO FoundU.S. Cold War activities resulted in radioactive contamination in three locations: Greenland (part of the Kingdom of Denmark), Spain, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) (see fig.). In Greenland, radioactive liquid—generated by a small nuclear reactor that powered the U.S. Camp Century base—remains entombed under ice. In Spain, a mid-air collision resulted in radioactive contamination around Palomares. The United States and Spain cleaned up much of the radioactive material and have monitored the remaining material since. In RMI, contamination from nuclear weapons tests and the resulting fallout remains measurable on several atolls, some of which are still uninhabitable.Figure: Locations of Radioactive Contamination from U.S. Cold War Activities AbroadConditions have changed in all three locations since the original contamination. Most affected are the environment and inhabitants of RMI, where the Department of Energy (DOE) has ongoing responsibilities. Specifically:Greenland. At Camp Century, Denmark instituted permanent ice sheet monitoring to address concerns that climate change could release contamination. However, a 2021 study reported that contamination likely would remain immobile through 2100.	Spain. In Palomares, Spanish officials reevaluated the radioactive contamination in the 1990s and found it exceeded European Union standards. In 2015, U.S. and Spanish authorities signed a statement of intent to further remediate Palomares but have not reached a final agreement.	RMI. In RMI, people are concerned that climate change could mobilize radiological contamination, posing risks to fresh water and food sources. DOE assesses human radiation exposure and monitors environmental contamination in RMI. DOE considers human health risk to be low, but RMI officials believe DOE has downplayed the risk. This and other disagreements fuel distrust of DOE's information. By implementing a sustainable communication strategy in RMI, DOE could improve the Marshallese people's access to, and trust in, information on contamination as environmental conditions change.Why GAO Did This StudyThe United States conducted defense activities in many countries during the Cold War. These activities resulted in radioactive contamination in three countries: Greenland, Spain, and RMI. During the 1960s, the United States buried radioactive liquid in Greenland's ice while operating the experimental Camp Century base to study the feasibility of installing nuclear missiles there. In 1966, in Spain, two U.S. defense aircraft collided, dispersing radioactive debris over the town of Palomares. From 1946 to 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear weapons tests in RMI, and the resulting radioactive fallout contaminated several atolls.This report examines (1) the amount and type of radioactive contamination in Greenland, Spain, and RMI; and (2) how conditions have changed at these sites, and the extent to which the environment and inhabitants have been affected by these changed conditions. GAO reviewed key literature on the contamination and interviewed U.S. and foreign government officials.
- Deferred Maintenance: Agencies' Project Selection and Challenges What GAO FoundWhen available funding does not cover the costs of all needed maintenance, a backlog develops, referred to as deferred maintenance. From fiscal years 2019 through 2022, reported deferred maintenance of assets, such as campgrounds and roads on public lands, increased for all five federal agencies that were eligible for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF). It increased the most for National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in part due to changes in how agencies reported their data, such as adding a markup to account for project execution costs. For fiscal year 2022, roads and other transportation assets accounted for the most deferred maintenance at BLM and Forest Service.Road Repair Project at BLM's Las Cruces District in New MexicoThe LRF provides up to and including $1.9 billion per year for fiscal years 2021 through 2025. The agencies' processes to select LRF projects considered factors such as whether they would be too costly to fund using annual appropriations. For example, Bureau of Indian Education had a project with a cost estimate of approximately $70.9 million. This would have amounted to most of the agency's non-LRF funding of $95.3 million for facility improvement and repair in the same year. GAO compared agency processes for selecting projects for LRF funding with six leading practices for managing deferred maintenance and found that these agencies generally followed all six. For example, all agencies identified as part of their processes for selecting projects the risks of not addressing deferred maintenance in a timely manner, such as threats to safety.Agencies reported they faced challenges to reducing deferred maintenance, such as construction supply chain issues and inflation, which raised costs and delayed projects. However, aspects of LRF program design helped address some challenges. For example, agency officials said contingency funds available for LRF projects allow for more flexibility for agencies to deal with inflation.Why GAO Did This StudyThis testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's January 2024 report, entitled Deferred Maintenance: Agencies Generally Followed Leading Practices in Selections but Faced Challenges (GAO-24-106495).For more information, contact Cardell Johnson at (202) 512-3841 or JohnsonCD1@gao.gov.
- Deferred Maintenance: Agencies Generally Followed Leading Practices in Selections but Faced Challenges What GAO FoundWhen available funding does not cover the costs of all needed maintenance, a backlog develops, referred to as deferred maintenance. From fiscal years 2019 through 2022, reported deferred maintenance of assets, such as campgrounds and roads on public lands, increased for all five federal agencies that were eligible for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF). It increased the most for National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in part due to changes in how agencies reported their data, such as adding a markup to account for project execution costs. For fiscal year 2022, roads and other transportation assets accounted for the most deferred maintenance at BLM and Forest Service.Road Repair Project at BLM's Las Cruces District in New MexicoThe LRF provides up to and including $1.9 billion per year for fiscal years 2021 through 2025. The agencies' processes to select LRF projects considered factors such as whether they would be too costly to fund using annual appropriations. For example, Bureau of Indian Education had a project with a cost estimate of approximately $70.9 million. This would have amounted to most of the agency's non-LRF funding of $95.3 million for facility improvement and repair in the same year. GAO compared agency processes for selecting projects for LRF funding with six leading practices for managing deferred maintenance and found that these agencies generally followed all six. For example, all agencies identified as part of their processes for selecting projects the risks of not addressing deferred maintenance in a timely manner, such as threats to safety.Agencies reported they faced challenges to reducing deferred maintenance, such as construction supply chain issues and inflation, which raised costs and delayed projects. However, aspects of LRF program design helped address some challenges. For example, agency officials said contingency funds available for LRF projects allow for more flexibility for agencies to deal with inflation.Why GAO Did This StudyThe federal government manages public lands and assets, such as buildings and roads, that require billions of dollars annually to maintain and operate. Deferred maintenance can diminish the quality of an asset and pose safety hazards, such as unsafe dams and structural deterioration of buildings.In 2020, the Great American Outdoors Act established the LRF, which provides additional funding to address deferred maintenance during fiscal years 2021 through 2025.The act includes a provision for GAO to review the implementation of the LRF. This report describes (1) how the amounts and compositions of deferred maintenance for the agencies changed from fiscal year 2019 through 2022, (2) how the agencies selected projects for LRF funding and the extent to which the selection approaches followed leading practices for managing deferred maintenance, and (3) challenges the agencies reported facing in reducing deferred maintenance and how the LRF program design helps to address any challenges.GAO examined agency data on deferred maintenance and LRF projects and interviewed agency officials. The leading practices GAO used to examine agencies' processes for selecting LRF projects were derived from research by the National Research Council.For more information, contact Cardell Johnson at (202) 512-3841 or JohnsonCD1@gao.gov.
- Artificial Intelligence in Natural Hazard Modeling: Severe Storms, Hurricanes, Floods, and Wildfires What GAO FoundGAO found that machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that uses algorithms to identify patterns in information, is being applied to forecasting models for natural hazards such as severe storms, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, which can lead to natural disasters. A few machine learning models are used operationally—in routine forecasting—such as one that may improve the warning time for severe storms. Some uses of machine learning are considered close to operational, while others require years of development and testing.GAO identified potential benefits of applying machine learning to this field, including:Reducing the time required to make forecasts by replacing components of models that are slow and that increase the cost of modeling.	Increasing model accuracy by more fully exploiting available data, using other data that traditional models cannot, and creating synthetic data to fill gaps.	Reducing the uncertainty of model output by improving ensemble modeling—the processes of generating combined predictions from numerous models—and making better use of historical data.Forecasting natural disasters using machine learningGAO also identified challenges to the use of machine learning. For example:Data limitations hamper the training of machine learning models and can reduce accuracy in some regions, such as rural areas where weather observations are sparse.	A lack of trust and understanding of the algorithms as well as concerns about bias can make forecasters and other users hesitant to use machine learning models.	Limited coordination and collaboration create challenges for fully developing some machine learning models. For example, some forecasters told us they lack opportunities to interact with researchers and convey their needs.	Workforce and resource gaps also create challenges. For example, the upfront costs to develop and run machine learning models are high, and some companies working on these models do not fully understand the data and phenomena they are modeling, according to academic researchers.GAO identified five policy options that could help address these challenges. These options are intended to inform policymakers, including Congress, federal and state agencies, academic and research institutions, and industry of potential policy implementations. The status quo option illustrates a scenario in which government policymakers take no additional actions beyond current ongoing efforts.Policy Options to Help Address Challenges to the Use of Machine Learning in Natural Hazard ModelingPolicy Option			Opportunities			Considerations		Facilitate improved data collection, sharing, and use (report p. 37).			Government policymakers could expand use of existing observational data and infrastructure to close gaps, expand access to certain data, and (in conjunction with other policymakers) establish guidelines for making data AI-ready.						Efforts to address gaps in data sets can improve machine learning model performance.				&nbsp;Expanded access to existing data would improve the ability of researchers and groups to develop and test machine learning technologies.				Adopting standards for AI-ready data could reduce resources needed to curate data and facilitate more efficient modeling.									Expanding observational infrastructure can be expensive and could divert limited resources from other efforts.				Agencies need to weigh the benefits of greater data sharing against any increase in risks related to data security and privacy.				Strict data standards may slow research and innovation if they burden or constrain machine learning researchers.					Expand education and training (report p. 38).			Government policymakers could update education requirements to include machine learning-related coursework and expand learning and support centers, while academic policymakers could adjust physical science curricula to include more machine learning coursework.						Updating education requirements would better prepare students to use machine learning in government.				More robust education can better prepare both researchers and end users in fields like meteorology and climatology to develop and use machine learning.									Education and training reforms may need to be repeatedly adjusted, as technological change in this space can be rapid and unpredictable.				Establishing and expanding professional development and training opportunities throughout government may require substantial investment.					Address hiring and retention barriers and certain resource shortfalls (report p. 39).			Government policymakers could address pay scale limitations for positions that include machine learning expertise and work with private sector policymakers to expand the use of public-private partnerships (PPP).						Providing workforce incentives to government employees for machine learning development could allow agencies to bolster workforce capacities.				Expanding PPPs might help agencies overcome computational resource shortfalls and help industry draw on government expertise.									Increasing salary limits for some employees would require agency budget increases or cuts to other budget items.				Expanding the use of PPPs could magnify resource disparities between government and private industry.				PPPs that entail hosting government data on collaborator systems may pose security risks that would need to be considered and addressed.					Take steps to mitigate bias and foster trust in data and machine learning models (report p. 40).			Policymakers could establish efforts to better understand and mitigate various forms of bias, support inclusion of diverse stakeholders for machine learning models, and develop guidelines or best practices for reporting methodological choices.						Sustained efforts to address bias in data sets can reduce the likelihood of models negatively affecting certain communities.				Acquiring diverse stakeholder perspectives throughout machine learning models’ life cycles can help reduce certain types of bias in data and models.				Fostering machine learning model transparency could improve end-user and decision-maker trust.									Embedding efforts to address bias throughout the model life cycle may increase model costs and slow model development.					Maintain status quo efforts (report p. 41).			Government policymakers could maintain existing policy efforts and organizational structures, along with existing strategic plans and agency commitments.						Some agency efforts are underway to address the challenges described.									The extent to which agencies will meet their commitments under status quo efforts is unclear. Status quo efforts may not address challenges specific to the use of AI in natural hazard modeling.					Source: GAO. | GAO-24-106213Why GAO Did This StudyNatural disasters cause on average hundreds of deaths and billions of dollars in damage in the U.S. each year. Forecasting natural disasters relies on computer modeling and is important for preparedness and response, which can in turn save lives and protect property. AI is a powerful tool that can automate processes, rapidly analyze massive data sets, enable modelers to gain new insights, and boost efficiency.This report on the use of machine learning in natural hazard modeling discusses (1) the emerging and current use of machine learning for modeling severe storms, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, and the potential benefits of this use; (2) challenges surrounding the use of machine learning; and (3) policy options to address challenges or enhance benefits of the use of machine learning.GAO reviewed the use of machine learning to model severe storms, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires across development and operational stages; interviewed a range of stakeholder groups, including government, industry, academia, and professional organizations; convened a meeting of experts in conjunction with the National Academies; and reviewed key reports and scientific literature. GAO is identifying policy options in this report.For more information, contact Brian Bothwell at (202) 512-6888 or bothwellb@gao.gov.
- Nuclear Materials: DOE Plans for Savannah River Site's H-Canyon Facility What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy (DOE) uses Savannah River Site's H-Canyon facility primarily to process a significant amount of nuclear materials not readily disposable in their existing forms. DOE's Office of Environmental Management manages H-Canyon, and a contractor operates it.H-Canyon processes spent nuclear fuel—used fuel removed from nuclear reactors—and other materials from DOE and other federal programs. The resulting waste solution enters Savannah River Site's liquid waste system for further processing and disposal or storage. As part of its environmental cleanup plans, the Office of Environmental Management plans to close parts of the site's liquid waste system in the late 2030s.Streamlined Processing of Nuclear Materials in the Savannah River Site’s H-Canyon  DOE has memorandums of agreement or similar written agreements to help facilitate collaboration between the Office of Environmental Management and some of the federal programs that rely on H-Canyon, such as DOE's Office of Science. However, it does not have agreements with DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology for ongoing mission needs. Documenting the Office of Environmental Management's agreements with all programs that rely on H-Canyon in written agreements would help ensure that all roles, responsibilities, and time frames are understood. It would also better align all components of H-Canyon's work and provide a solid basis on which to plan next steps for mid- and long-term operation of the facility. DOE has already begun these planning efforts.Key nuclear and facility safety requirements for H-Canyon are intended to protect workers, the public, and the environment from consequences associated with an accident at the facility. The contractor operating H-Canyon implements safety requirements. The Office of Environmental Management assesses safety implementation through planned and unplanned safety assessments. The office engages with independent entities that also assess safety at H-Canyon.Annual contractor costs to operate H-Canyon averaged just over $154 million, adjusted for inflation, from fiscal years 2013 through 2023. Factors affecting costs include the amount of nuclear material processed. The Office of Environmental Management officials and contractor representatives at the Savannah River Site said they plan to keep future costs relatively stable through fiscal year 2034. They expect decreased cost estimates during fiscal years 2035 to 2037 due to concluding H-Canyon's missions. DOE has two ongoing planning efforts for processing and managing spent nuclear fuel and other materials after H-Canyon's current missions end.Why GAO Did This StudySavannah River Site's H-Canyon is the sole chemical separations facility in the U.S. H-Canyon is integral to DOE's disposition of nuclear materials sourced from across the DOE complex that are unstable and pose risks to safety, health, and the environment. In April 2022, DOE announced plans to accelerate processing nuclear materials in H-Canyon to better align with some of the Office of Environmental Management's environmental cleanup plans for the Savannah River Site that are set to conclude in the late 2030s.Senate Report 117-130 includes a provision for GAO to assess aspects of H-Canyon. This report provides information on H-Canyon's current missions, integration of plans to support these missions, key safety requirements, and operating costs.GAO assessed documents and data related to the integration of plans for H-Canyon operations, as well as the safety and cost of H-Canyon. GAO visited the Savannah River Site to better understand H-Canyon's role in nuclear materials and spent fuel disposition. GAO interviewed federal officials—such as from DOE programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology—and contractor representatives.
- Low-Dose Radiation: Agency Leadership and Collaboration Are Needed to Set the Direction of Future Research What GAO FoundIn 2018, Congress directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to carry out a research program on low-dose radiation and in 2020, directed DOE to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) to develop a research agenda for that program. The National Academies issued a report in June 2022 with recommendations and priorities for a research program to better assess health effects of low-dose radiation (see figure).DOE and three selected agencies involved in low-dose radiation research have some ongoing and planned efforts that can help address the findings and recommendations of the June 2022 report. DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety, and Security has long supported research on the health of people exposed to low-dose radiation. In addition, DOE's Office of Science resumed some low-dose radiation research activities in 2020 after ending its previous research program in 2016. The new research is focused on using artificial intelligence (AI) to better understand low-dose radiation biology. DOE invested $22.3 million in this research in fiscal years 2020 through 2023. One of the funded projects uses AI to build a framework for estimating cancer risk based on long-term exposure to radiation. Other selected agencies continue to support and conduct research that generally aligns with agency specific missions, such as understanding cancer risk in people exposed to radiation and promoting occupational safety and health.Figure: Human Health Effects of Low-Dose Exposure to Ionizing RadiationNote: Low-dose radiation is a dose of less than 100 millisieverts (mSv). For details see fig. 1 in GAO-24-106317.DOE's Office of Science—the sponsor of the National Academies report—has taken some steps in response to the report. According to DOE, its efforts—including plans to apply AI—are relevant to three of the 11 research priorities from the National Academies report. Currently, DOE does not have plans to expand its research to address the other priorities. However, DOE is seeking input from its advisory committee by spring 2024 on the potential scope of a program. Nevertheless, Office of Science officials told GAO that a low-dose radiation research program is not a priority because, among other reasons, the research might not reduce knowledge gaps enough to lead to changes in radiation protection regulations.In 2020, Congress directed DOE to engage with other federal agencies as part of its low-dose radiation research program. Additionally, the National Academies called for coordination across federal agencies that carry out low-dose radiation research. However, DOE's Office of Science has not led a coordinated response to the National Academies report or worked with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) or another agency to do so. By taking a leadership role for an interagency low-dose radiation research program or taking steps to initiate efforts with another agency, DOE could help to resolve uncertainty with low-dose radiation research in the United States.Why GAO Did This StudyIonizing radiation comes from both natural sources and medical, commercial, and industrial activities. Prior research has not clearly identified how low doses of such radiation affect the health of millions of people exposed in various settings. The 2022 National Academies report found that a coordinated, multidisciplinary low-dose radiation research program could enable a better assessment of current risk estimates.Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review the activities of DOE's low-dose radiation research program. This report addresses the extent to which (1) DOE and selected agencies have efforts that can help address the findings and recommendations of the National Academies report and (2) DOE has developed a plan for addressing the findings and implementing the recommendations of the report.GAO analyzed documents from DOE and three other agencies that fund or conduct low-dose radiation research and interviewed agency officials involved in low-dose radiation research, as well as officials from OSTP. GAO compared DOE's efforts to leading practices on interagency collaboration.
- Science & Tech Spotlight: Ocean Warming Why This MattersThe ocean is critical to human society and life on Earth. Its currents help shape the weather and regulate the climate. Its fisheries feed billions of people and accounted for 1.7 million jobs and $253 billion in sales in the U.S. in 2020. But the ocean is warming, which could lead to flooding, declining fisheries, more severe weather, and other negative consequences.The ScienceWhat is it?  According to NASA, 2022 was the ocean's warmest year since modern record keeping began in 1955. Estimates indicate that the oceans account for more than 90 percent of the Earth's warming since at least 1971, mostly near the surface between 0 and 700 meters deep. To measure how much the oceans have warmed, researchers use various temperature sensing instruments in the water as well as satellites that measure sea level. Researchers then use these measurements to calculate the average heat gained in the oceans worldwide.When sunlight reaches the Earth’s surface, the oceans absorb most of this energy and store it as heat. Water has a much higher heat capacity than air, so the oceans absorb larger amounts of heat energy with only a slight increase in temperature. The oceans’ ability to store heat is a crucial factor in moderating the pace of atmospheric warming. This heat is initially absorbed at the surface, but some of it eventually spreads to deeper waters. Increased heat absorption can change ocean currents that are driven by differences in temperature. Currents move heat around the world, influencing climate patterns and ecosystems.What are some concerns?  Ocean warming causes sea level rise through thermal expansion and by melting glaciers and ice sheets. Sea level rise can damage infrastructure and make coastal communities more vulnerable to storm surges and flooding. Global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880. In places such as Norfolk, Virginia; Miami Beach, Florida; and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, substantial investments are being made to cope with frequent coastal flooding that disrupts daily life and business operations.Warmer ocean water also provides more energy for storms to develop and intensify. From 2000-2021, tropical cyclones in the U.S. caused $1 trillion in damages and 6,200 deaths. Ocean warming could result in even greater damage to property, infrastructure, and human health and safety.Marine heatwaves—periods of abnormally warm ocean temperatures—can be caused by natural variability, but studies report that ocean warming is making them more frequent, intense, and prolonged. Marine heatwaves can stress and kill marine life and disrupt ecosystems. For example, they can cause coral bleaching, which can lead to the death of coral reefs and the ecosystems that depend on them.As the ocean warms, some marine species move to cooler waters because they can only tolerate certain temperatures. Such changes can disrupt food chains and ecosystems. This can lead to a decline in fish populations and have cascading impacts on other marine life and the industries and communities that rely on them. For example, higher temperatures in the Bering Sea have been linked to a population collapse of snow crabs, with 10 billion crabs disappearing between 2018 and 2021.Ocean warming can lead to more harmful algal blooms, which can produce toxins that can sicken people who eat seafood. These toxins can cause a range of health problems, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and neurological problems.Figure 1. Process of ocean warmingWhat are the knowledge gaps? Global ocean heat inventory.  Due to insufficient reliable measurements, there is limited knowledge about current and historical temperatures and warming across different oceans and depths. This leads to large uncertainties related to weather forecasts and prediction of extreme weather events, long-term impacts of ocean warming and adaptation capacity on ecosystems and species, and related management and governance issues.Marine ecosystem impacts.  The impact of ocean warming on marine ecosystems is not fully understood. This includes the effects of warming on marine biodiversity and food webs.Ocean currents and circulation.  The effects of ocean warming on ocean currents and circulation patterns are not well understood. Changes in these patterns could have significant impacts on global climate and weather patterns. Ocean currents play a critical role in regulating Earth's climate by transporting heat from one part of the world to another.ChallengesUnderstanding, predicting, and communicating complex systems.   Scientists attempting to understand ocean warming are faced with complex systems with many interdependent parts, making it challenging to understand and predict how these systems will change over time. In addition, natural variability in the global climate, limitations of climate models, and measurement errors from imprecise instruments add to the complexity and limitations of predicting ocean warming.   Communicating these complexities and uncertainties   is also difficult.	Tipping points.  Some   researchers predict that there are several potential tipping points, or thresholds, beyond which changes could become irreversible. Examples include the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, tropical coral reef die-off, and permafrost thawing. Studies of Earth's history, using tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores, show tipping points occurring through large, rapid changes over the course of decades or as little as a few years. One such tipping point may have been reached about 12,000 years ago, abruptly ending a 1,000 year long, dry, cold period, and is associated with the extinction of over 70 percent of large mammals in North America. Understanding, predicting, and preventing these tipping points is complex.	Effects on federal and military facilities and operations.  Sea level rise and extreme weather events threaten some government property. These events, as well as changes to shipping routes due to changes in ice sheet formation, also affect military and rescue operations and could pose new security risks.OpportunitiesResearch.  Scientists may be able to improve our understanding of these complex systems by improving monitoring and strengthening research to address knowledge gaps.	Coordination.  Governmental and nongovernmental entities could coordinate to better understand and adapt to ocean warming and to mitigate its effects.	Nature-based solutions.  Protecting and restoring marine and coastal ecosystems,   such as planting kelp and seaweed forests, could help enhance the ocean's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases that contribute to atmospheric and ocean warming. Restoring mangroves and other coastal habitats can also sequester carbon and act as a barrier against storm surges and coastal erosion.Figure 2. Nature-based solutions to adapt to ocean warming Policy Context and QuestionsHow can research initiatives improve data collection, modeling, and simulation related to ocean warming?	What strategies could be employed to improve intergovernmental and international coordination to address the causes and effects of ocean warming?	What policies, programs, or strategies could be used to help communities adapt to the effects of ocean warming?For more information, contact Brian Bothwell at (202) 512-6888 or bothwellb@gao.gov.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Use of Other Transaction Agreements in Water Development Projects What GAO FoundThe Water Resource Development Act of 2022 (Act) authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to use other transaction agreements to carry out certain projects to support research activities for its Civil Works program. Other transaction agreements are those other than procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. Other transaction agreements are generally not subject to the same federal laws and regulations applicable to federal contracts or financial assistance. This allows agencies to customize their other transaction agreements to help meet project requirements and mission needs.Corps officials told GAO that they have drafted guidance for the use of other transaction agreements and that this guidance is under review by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. According to these officials, the draft guidance relevant to Civil Works projects is similar to existing guidance that pertains to the Corps' military program. These officials further said that an Army-wide review of the department's authorities for other transaction agreements is in progress and must be completed before the Corps can finalize its guidance.According to an official from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement, this Army-wide review is expected to be completed in November 2023. Corps and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works officials said they plan to issue their guidance for use of other transaction agreements for Civil Works projects as early as the end of 2023, subject to the completion of the Army-wide review.Once guidance is in place, Corps officials said that the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center will oversee the implementation of other transaction agreements. According to Corps officials, such agreements could be used to, for example, study how automation could allow one operator to remotely operate multiple canal locks, presenting potentially significant cost savings. In another example, these agreements could be used to study different concrete mixes that produce fewer adverse environmental effects than existing materials.Why GAO Did This StudyLocated within the Department of Defense, the Corps has both military and civilian responsibilities. The Act authorized the Corps to use other transaction agreements to carry out prototype projects and follow-on production transactions to support the basic, applied, and advanced research activities of its civilian Civil Works mission. These research efforts can aid the Corps' management of water resources infrastructure including dams, levees, hurricane barriers, and floodgates across the U.S.The Act also includes a provision for GAO to report on the Corps' use of its other transaction agreement authority for its Civil Works program. This report examines the status of the Corps' efforts to implement and use its other transaction agreement authority for its Civil Works program. To determine this information, GAO reviewed relevant Department of Defense documents and GAO reports and conducted interviews with Corps and Department of Defense officials about the status of guidance and implementation efforts.For more information, contact Brian Bothwell at (202) 512-6888 or BothwellB@gao.gov.
- Puget Sound: Further Actions Could Improve Efforts to Address Impaired Water Quality That Threatens Salmon What GAO FoundWater quality impairments—such as elevated water temperatures and toxic chemicals—have a variety of harmful effects on Puget Sound salmon. For example, scientists have discovered that a chemical in tire dust that enters water bodies via stormwater runoff is extremely toxic to some salmon species (see fig.).Puget Sound Coho Salmon That Died Following Exposure to Stormwater RunoffThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees the Washington State Department of Ecology's efforts to develop statewide lists of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. The Clean Water Act and EPA regulations require states to develop these lists—known as impaired waters lists—every 2 years. Ecology has developed two such lists since 2012, but it completed these lists several years after the deadlines for doing so and has missed subsequent deadlines. EPA also has not met deadlines for reviewing and approving the lists. Because of the agencies' missed deadlines, the most recent list covered the 2014, 2016, and 2018 assessment cycles but was not finalized until 2022.Missed deadlines can hamper entities working to improve water quality in the Puget Sound region by preventing them from having updated information to support their decision-making. However, EPA and Ecology have not yet developed a written plan to prevent further missed deadlines. By working with Ecology to develop such a plan, EPA could better ensure that timely water quality information will be available to Congress, other decision makers, and the public.EPA and Ecology have taken various actions to improve water quality in Puget Sound but face challenges. For example, nonpoint source pollution from diffuse sources such as agricultural runoff contributes to impaired water quality. However, under the Clean Water Act, EPA does not have direct authority to require landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. Supported in part by EPA funding, Ecology primarily relies on voluntary actions to address nonpoint source pollution. However, officials said there are limits to the progress that can be made through voluntary actions alone. In 2013, GAO recommended that Congress consider revising the act's approach to restoring waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution, but Congress has not yet acted on this recommendation.Why GAO Did This StudySalmon in Washington State's Puget Sound region provide food and jobs for many people and hold particular cultural significance for Tribes in the region. However, Puget Sound salmon populations have declined, in part due to the degradation of water quality.GAO was asked to review efforts to improve water quality to help recover salmon populations in Puget Sound. This report examines (1) how impaired water quality affects the health of Puget Sound salmon; (2) the extent to which EPA has worked with Ecology to develop impaired waters lists for the Puget Sound region since 2012; and (3) the actions EPA and Ecology have taken under the Clean Water Act to address impaired water quality in the region, and the challenges they face.GAO examined federal, state, and other documents; interviewed officials and representatives from federal and nonfederal entities; and analyzed data from Washington's most recent impaired waters list.
- Army Corps of Engineers: Better Data and Planning Needed to Combat Aquatic Invasive Species What GAO FoundThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sponsors watercraft inspection and decontamination stations through a 50-50 cost share agreement with states participating in its Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Program. The Corps itself does not build, operate, or oversee these stations, many of which were built before the program was authorized in 2014, according to some state officials. State entities principally perform these functions.Corps program officials told GAO that watercraft inspection and decontamination stations have been effective in helping prevent the introduction of quagga and zebra mussels into the Columbia River Basin. While these stations may have had some effect on reducing the mussels' spread, the extent of their effectiveness is unclear largely because of unreliable data. For example, the Corps does not have readily available data on the exact locations of these stations, nor does it systematically collect inspection-related data such as the number of interceptions of watercrafts infested with quagga or zebra mussels. Without a system to collect timely, accurate, and consistent data, the Corps is limited in its ability to assess the effectiveness of its program.GAO found that the Corps faces several major challenges in its program, including inadequate strategic planning. For example, the Corps does not have a strategic approach for managing the program or for expanding it across all river basins and waterways it is to protect under the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA), as amended. Specifically, the Corps has not defined goals for all activities, identified long-term outcomes and near-term measurable results, and aligned goals across organizational levels. A more strategic approach in program planning would improve the Corps' ability to successfully expand the program.Why GAO Did This StudyQuagga and zebra mussels have spread rapidly across the country since they were first discovered in the late 1980s and, according to Corps officials, have spread to every major river basin in the U.S. except the Columbia River Basin in the northwest. The mussels typically are spread by recreational watercraft such as boats, canoes, and Jet Skis that have been in infested waters. Once established in a water body, the mussel species are extremely difficult to eradicate because they have no natural predators in the U.S. and rapidly reproduce.GAO was asked to examine efforts the Corps has undertaken to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species into the Columbia River Basin by recreational watercrafts. This report provides information on the Corps' Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination Program and its role in helping to prevent the introduction or spread of quagga and zebra mussels—the aquatic invasive species of greatest concern to the Corps—as well as program challenges and opportunities for improvement.
- Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Army Corps Could Benefit from Following Leading Practices for Program Management for Contaminated Sites What GAO FoundThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reported $2.6 billion in environmental liabilities in fiscal year 2022 for the estimated future costs to investigate and clean up contamination under its Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Of the 19 active sites in the program, four sites with complicated cleanup remedies or large amounts of contamination make up about three-quarters of this estimate. However, Corps officials said that FUSRAP's environmental liability has the potential to be affected by uncertainties, such as the discovery of additional contamination after completing a cost estimate for remediation. Since 2016, FUSRAP's environmental liability has risen by nearly $1 billion, an increase that officials attribute to uncertainties, along with inflation.Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Sites in St. Louis, Missouri, and Lockport, New York, Being Cleaned up by the U.S. Army Corps of EngineersGAO's review of FUSRAP documents found that the Corps minimally met selected leading practices for program management related to risk management and cost estimating, among other things. For example:Programs should identify risks and opportunities, document their characteristics, and prepare to manage them.  The Corps does not have a documented program-level risk management process for FUSRAP. A program-level risk management process could help officials identify and manage risks that can affect multiple projects, such as limited staffing in areas like procurement, which officials said can extend some projects' timelines.	Programs should have an integrated life cycle cost estimate that is comprehensive.  Corps officials said that they consider FUSRAP's environmental liability estimate to be the program's life cycle cost estimate. However, the environmental liability estimate does not include all costs and does not track costs from previous years. Having an integrated life cycle cost estimate that includes all program costs could enhance FUSRAP management's ability to make risk-informed decisions on how to manage and allocate its resources.Corps officials said that the agency's standard business practices do not require FUSRAP to adhere to some of the leading practices at the program level. Although not required, following these and other leading practices would better position the Corps to oversee and manage FUSRAP.Why GAO Did This StudyAtomic energy activities supported by the federal government generated large amounts of radioactive and hazardous waste over several decades of nuclear weapons production and energy research following World War II. This waste has contaminated soil, groundwater, and structures at sites across the country, posing potential risks to human health and the environment. The Corps is responsible for cleaning up or controlling contamination at some of these sites through FUSRAP.GAO was asked to provide information about the Corps' efforts to clean up contamination under FUSRAP. This report, among other things, (1) describes the reported environmental liabilities associated with active FUSRAP sites and uncertainties around those estimates and (2) examines the extent to which FUSRAP meets leading practices for program management.GAO reviewed legal requirements, federal accounting standards, agency documents, and leading program management practices; analyzed data on the Corps' cleanup expenditures and total cost estimates; and interviewed agency officials.
- Air Pollution: EPA Needs to Develop a Business Case for Replacing Legacy Air Quality Data Systems What GAO FoundThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) primarily uses two legacy IT systems—the Air Quality System (AQS) and AirNow—to manage ambient, that is, outdoor, air quality data collected by the monitoring agencies. These agencies—tribal, state, local, or territorial—design and operate air monitoring sites. EPA developed AQS in 1996 to manage data that are used for regulatory purposes, such as identifying areas that do not meet air quality standards. EPA developed the AirNow system in the late 1990s to provide near real-time information about air pollution levels to the public.The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) AirNow Mobile App Due to their age and design, AQS and AirNow can be difficult to maintain, access, and use, according to GAO's analysis of EPA and stakeholder views. This limits their functionality and poses resource and other challenges for EPA, monitoring agencies, and other data users. For example, EPA officials said it was particularly challenging to find and retain IT staff with experience or knowledge to work with AQS's outdated software. Moreover, the use of multiple systems to manage air quality data results in inefficient use of resources for EPA and monitoring agencies, according to GAO's analysis of EPA and stakeholder views.EPA is considering replacing AQS and AirNow with a new, single system to address the legacy system challenges, but progress has been limited partly due to competing priorities and resource limitations, according to EPA officials. Despite listing AQS as a system in need of modernization in 2017, EPA has not clearly identified AQS and AirNow as candidates for replacement through its recent IT management and oversight processes. According to EPA guidance, the agency should assess mature systems to ascertain their continued effectiveness in supporting mission requirements and consider replacement options. However, EPA's processes do not specify factors for evaluating systems that may be ready for replacement, such as if the system has deteriorated beyond economical repair. Identifying factors for consideration could help ensure that EPA identifies such systems and collects information it needs to optimize its resources. Furthermore, EPA has not developed a business case for a new system, which is a step in EPA's IT management process needed to secure management approval for modernizing IT systems or developing a new one. Developing and documenting a business case for a new system could better position EPA to make decisions about whether to replace AQS and AirNow.Why GAO Did This StudyEPA depends on IT systems to manage air quality data. These data are critical to efforts to reduce air pollution and related public health risks. The data inform regulatory and compliance decisions that have billions of dollars in economic impacts.Prior GAO work has reported concerns about the antiquated nature of AQS. In addition, EPA listed AQS in a 2017 memorandum as one of its top three mission-critical systems in need of modernization.GAO was asked to evaluate EPA's IT systems for air quality data. This report examines (1) how EPA uses IT systems to manage air quality data, (2) any challenges these systems present for EPA and other data providers and users, and (3) the extent to which EPA has addressed challenges.GAO reviewed literature and EPA documents and policies; interviewed EPA officials and six stakeholders from associations of air monitoring agencies and nongovernmental organizations, selected based on their experience providing data to, or using data from, EPA's air quality data systems; and compared EPA efforts with leading practices.
- Persistent Chemicals: Detecting, Limiting Exposure To, and Treating PFAS Contamination The Big PictureThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that most people in the U.S. have been exposed to a potentially harmful class of synthetic chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—PFAS, for short. These chemicals have characteristics that make them useful in products such as nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, and firefighting foams used to extinguish aircraft fires quickly and prevent them from reigniting. Exposure to certain levels of PFAS can cause negative health effects, including cancer.PFAS can find their way into the air, soil, and water through numerous pathways. Moreover, PFAS can persist in the environment for decades or longer.In light of the risks that PFAS pose, Congress has taken a number of actions to address PFAS contamination. These include providing funding for grants to water systems to address emerging contaminants, such as PFAS, in drinking water and prohibiting the Department of Defense (DOD) from buying certain products that contain specific PFAS.However, much about these chemicals remains unknown, including the extent of PFAS contamination across the U.S. and how to safely dispose of or destroy materials containing PFAS—such as the waste byproducts generated when PFAS are removed from drinking water.What GAO’s Work ShowsOur work has identified actions that could be taken to better detect PFAS occurrence in drinking water, limit human exposure to PFAS, and treat PFAS contamination.  Examples of How Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Enter the Environment 1. Detecting PFAS Occurrence   in Water More than 4,000 types of PFAS exist, yet much remains unknown about PFAS in drinking water. In  September 2022   ,   we found  that at least 18 percent of 5,300 water systems in six states (Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Vermont) had concentrations of two PFAS above the levels at which adverse health effects can occur, as identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2022. The water systems served nearly 10 million people in states with drinking water regulations or guidance for various PFAS.In 2023, EPA proposed legally enforceable limits for six PFAS chemicals in drinking water. EPA plans to finalize these regulations in late 2023. If finalized, the regulations would require public water systems to monitor for the six PFAS, notify the public if levels exceed the limits, and reduce the levels in drinking water if they exceed the limits.Drinking Water May Contain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) However, EPA does not currently have nationwide data about the demographic characteristics of communities that have PFAS in their drinking water. Such information could help EPA better understand the extent to which PFAS in drinking water contributes to the cumulative burdens of pollution and ensure adequate protection from PFAS in certain communities.Consequently, we  recommended that EPA  conduct a nationwide analysis using comprehensive data to determine the demographic characteristics of communities with PFAS in their drinking water. EPA agreed, but is still implementing the recommendation.2.&nbsp;Limiting PFAS Exposure In  November 2022, we found  that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had worked with companies to voluntarily phase out certain PFAS in food packaging. We also found that for substances like packaging that come in contact with food, FDA does not have specific legal authority to compel companies to provide information on the safety of the substances and the extent of their use—data FDA needs to prioritize and conduct reviews to ensure the safety of products after they are on the market.Food Packaging May Contain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Consequently, we  recommended that FDA  request specific legal authority from Congress to compel companies to provide information they have about substances already on the market that come in contact with food. As of May 2023, FDA officials said they were actively considering this recommendation.Additionally, Congress directed DOD to stop purchasing certain products—such as rugs and cookware—that contain specific PFAS by April 2023. In  April 2023, we found  that DOD had taken some steps to implement the prohibition. However, DOD had not assessed how to prevent military exchanges from procuring and reselling certain PFAS-containing items. Additionally, DOD had not updated its sustainable procurement guidance to implement PFAS-related policies and legislation. We also found that the information available to guide DOD's actions is limited.Rugs May Contain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Consequently, we  recommended that DOD  (1) develop an approach to implement the prohibition on procuring certain PFAS-containing items, and (2) update its sustainable procurement guidance to implement PFAS-related policies and legislation. DOD agreed but is still implementing the recommendations. Additionally, we recommended that Congress consider aligning prohibitions with available information.3. Treating PFAS Contamination In  July 2022   ,   we examined  technologies for PFAS assessment, detection, and treatment in various media, such as drinking water and soil. We found that current technologies can remove up to 90 percent or more of 30 different PFAS from drinking water, but that in doing so, they create PFAS-contaminated waste materials as byproducts that then need to be managed.For example, certain PFAS can be effectively removed from drinking water through filtration with granular activated carbon—which has a large, porous surface area that attracts and binds a wide range of contaminants. However, such filters then create PFAS-contaminated waste that must be properly disposed of or destroyed.How Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filters Remove Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) It is not yet clear whether existing methods and technologies for destroying PFAS-contaminated materials—such as incineration—are capable of completely converting all PFAS into other, more benign chemical forms.We have ongoing work examining public water systems' implementation of PFAS treatment methods and efforts to safely destroy, dispose of, or store PFAS-contaminated waste.Challenges and OpportunitiesIn addition to our work on specific issues related to detecting PFAS occurrence in drinking water, limiting human exposure to PFAS, and treating PFAS contamination, we also conducted a technology assessment on broader challenges and opportunities for PFAS assessment, detection, and treatment.As part of that assessment,  we developed three   policy options for   policymakers  —Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academia, and industry—to:promote research to address the limited information on health risks for the large number and diversity of PFAS;	expand the development of methods to allow researchers to better identify and quantify the thousands of PFAS known to exist; and	support the development and evaluation of full-scale technologies for disposing of and destroying PFAS.More from GAO's PortfolioTechnologies for PFAS Assessment, Detection, and Treatment (GAO-22-105088) EPA Should Use New Data to Analyze the Demographics of Communities with PFAS in Their Drinking Water (GAO-22-105135) Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Ability to Prevent the Procurement of Items Containing PFAS (GAO-23-105982) FDA Oversight of Substances Used in Manufacturing, Packaging, and Transporting Food Could Be Strengthened (GAO-23-104434) For more information, contact at (202) 512-3841 or GomezJ@gao.gov.
- Tribal Lands: Status of the Navajo Nation's Expanded Leasing Authority What GAO FoundThe Navajo Nation has the authority to lease its tribal lands for certain purposes and term lengths without obtaining approval from the Department of the Interior, if it issues the leases under tribal regulations approved by Interior. Until 2018, this authority excluded leases for the exploration, development, or extraction of mineral resources. In 2018, Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2017 (Tribal Energy Act), which expanded the Navajo Nation's authority to include leases for mineral resource purposes and extended the allowable terms for agricultural and business leases.To assume the expanded authority, the Navajo Nation must first develop tribal regulations governing mineral leasing and providing for longer-term business and agricultural leases and then submit those regulations to Interior for approval. Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for reviewing the regulations to ensure that they meet statutory requirements, and can provide technical assistance to the Navajo Nation on request. The Tribal Energy Act does not require the Navajo Nation to assume the expanded leasing authority, and the law does not specify a deadline by which the Nation must act to take on the authority.As of September 2023, the Navajo Nation had not developed such regulations for Interior's review or approval because of limited tribal capacity—such as limited funding and staffing—as well as concern regarding access to Interior's databases, which contain data the Nation believes it needs to manage mineral leasing, according to Navajo Nation officials. Specifically, the officials said that the various departments that would need to be involved do not have the resources to develop regulations and process and manage mineral leases. The officials noted that if the Navajo Nation takes over final approval of mineral leases from Interior, it would also have to assume responsibility for certain functions that Interior currently manages, such as ensuring compliance with applicable federal regulations. The officials said that they do not believe the Navajo Nation can easily assume some of these functions.BIA officials agreed with Navajo Nation officials that management of certain functions associated with mineral leasing could change, if the Nation assumes the expanded authority. According to the BIA officials, as part of their review of any regulations that the Navajo Nation submits, they would determine whether the Navajo Nation has the capacity to take over these functions.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Tribal Energy Act includes a provision for GAO to review progress made in carrying out the Navajo Nation's expanded leasing authority provided for in the act. This report provides information on that progress. GAO reviewed relevant laws and&nbsp;documents from BIA and the Navajo Nation. GAO also met with officials from Interior and the Navajo Nation.For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-3841 or OrtizA@gao.gov.
- Southwest Border: Additional Actions Needed to Address Cultural and Natural Resource Impacts from Barrier Construction What GAO FoundThe Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Defense (DOD) installed about 458&nbsp;miles of border barrier panels across the southwest border from January 2017 through January 2021. Most (81 percent) of the miles of panels replaced existing barriers. The agencies installed over 62 percent of barrier miles on federal lands, including on those managed by the Department of the Interior. Interior and CBP officials, as well as federally recognized Tribes and stakeholders, noted that the barriers led to various impacts, including to cultural resources, water sources, and endangered species, and from erosion.Examples of Natural Resource Impacts from Barrier Construction (May 2022)Since the administration paused border barrier construction in January 2021, CBP has prioritized efforts to address safety hazards left at incomplete project sites, such as removing exposed rebar. In addition, CBP and Interior have worked together to identify actions to mitigate the impacts on federal lands. As the agencies are both involved in addressing these impacts, they could benefit from clearly defining their roles and responsibilities for doing so and jointly identifying the costs and time frames to complete all of the identified mitigation actions, consistent with collaboration leading practices. Documenting a joint strategy that includes these inputs could help CBP and Interior better ensure that key resource impacts of border barrier construction are mitigated and that decision makers have the information needed to allocate resources.Before proceeding with barrier construction from 2017 to 2021, CBP took steps to assess the potential impacts of such construction, while relying on waivers of cultural and natural resource-related laws to expedite construction. For example, CBP solicited input from land management agencies, Tribes, and the public. Interior and tribal officials and stakeholders told GAO that CBP's information was not sufficiently detailed to facilitate meaningful input. They provided suggestions to GAO for improving CBP's assessments. CBP has not evaluated lessons learned from its assessments. Doing so could help the agency better identify potential impacts of any future projects.Why GAO Did This StudyTo help address illegal cross-border activity, the federal government has constructed hundreds of miles of physical barriers along the southwest border. This included federal lands managed by Interior where important cultural and natural resources are located. DHS and DOD used legal authorities to waive various cultural and natural resource-related laws in constructing border barriers from January 2017 through January 2021. A&nbsp;presidential proclamation paused construction in January 2021.GAO was asked to review border barrier impacts to cultural and natural resources. This report reviews (1)&nbsp;border barrier construction from January 2017 through January 2021 and associated impacts, (2) actions taken since January 2021 to address impacts, and (3) CBP and DOD assessments of potential impacts from construction conducted from 2017 to 2021. GAO analyzed CBP data and reviewed CBP and DOD assessments and plans. GAO also interviewed officials from federal agencies, Tribes, and stakeholders selected because of their proximity to, or expertise with, resource protection along the border.
- Alaska Land Management: Resolving Ownership of Submerged Lands What GAO FoundState and federal agencies have different missions, laws, and regulations that govern how they manage lands in Alaska. As a result, who owns submerged lands beneath waterways—the beds and banks of waterways and their associated natural resources, such as minerals— affects a range of land management functions, including collection of fees; decisions about use of resources, such as access to waterways for commercial tour operators; and law enforcement.Two processes can be used for resolving the ownership of submerged lands, depending on the situation: an administrative process or a judicial process. Both processes can be complex and time-consuming.Under the administrative process, since 2003, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has made determinations in 36 instances that Alaska owns specific submerged lands, in response to applications submitted by the state. The state has identified about 150 waterways of interest that it may include in future applications. The administrative process takes an average of 5 years to complete. The variation in processing time depends on several key factors such as the type and amount of available evidence and the complexity of the waterway, according to BLM officials.The state of Alaska has filed at least 10 lawsuits using the judicial process since 1980, according to BLM. For closed cases, there have been a range of outcomes, including the court ruling in favor of either party. BLM officials indicated that the judicial process is expensive and complex and can take years to complete for each case.While ownership of specific submerged lands is being resolved, federal land managers, such as BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service have taken some steps towards management of these lands through an interagency workgroup. However, federal land management agencies have not developed a process for collaborative land management that involves the state. Such a process could reduce intergovernmental conflicts and uncertainties for the public and stakeholders, such as Alaska Native Corporations that own lands adjacent to waterways.Why GAO Did This StudyGAO was asked to examine issues related to the ownership of submerged lands in Alaska. This report provides information on the processes used for resolving ownership of submerged lands in Alaska and actions federal agencies have taken to clarify land management responsibilities between the federal government and the state, while ownership of submerged lands is being resolved.To do this work, GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies, and guidance related to the administrative and judicial processes for resolving ownership of submerged lands in Alaska. GAO also visited several waterways in Alaska with officials from BLM and the State of Alaska to help understand the considerations for making navigability determinations. GAO also held interviews with BLM and state officials, as well as other federal and non-federal stakeholders, to gain their views on the key steps and challenges with the administrative and judicial processes.
- Climate Change: State and Local Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles What GAO FoundAccording to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation (state DOT) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) play a key role in implementing activities to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, including on-road emissions from vehicles. GAO found examples of state DOTs and MPOs engaging in these activities, including estimating emissions, analyzing the effects of transportation investments, and using reduction targets.Estimating emissions.  GAO found examples of state DOTs and MPOs estimating on-road greenhouse gas emissions using different types of data as the basis of those estimates. These entities more commonly used data on vehicle miles traveled (e.g., annual traffic count data), while others used fuel data (gallons of fuel taxed by the state). The selected state DOTs that do not currently estimate on-road greenhouse gas emissions cited a number of reasons. For example, Montana state DOT officials said the majority of roads in the state are rural with no congestion issues. Officials from selected MPOs provided examples of resource challenges they face, such as not having readily available data or staff with the right subject matter expertise.	Analyzing the effects of transportation investments.  GAO found examples of state DOTs and MPOs analyzing the effects of transportation investments on greenhouse gas emissions. For example, officials from an MPO in Massachusetts said that they estimate emissions changes for every project the MPO funds. However, selected state DOTs and MPOs reported challenges to reliably quantifying the effects of specific investments on greenhouse gas emissions.	Using reduction targets.  GAO found a few examples of selected state DOTs and MPOs that have targets for reducing on-road greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the MPO representing the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area set targets to reduce on-road greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050. However, selected state DOT and MPO officials provided examples of challenges to meeting reduction targets, such as having few ways to incentivize consumers to adopt particular fuels or vehicles.Vehicle Traffic Congestion and On-Road EmissionsWhy GAO Did This StudyGreenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change, which numerous studies have shown poses environmental and economic risks. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., with transportation activities accounting for 29 percent of total U.S. emissions in 2021, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The vast majority of these emissions occur on the nation's 4-million-mile network of roads, most of which are owned and operated by state and local governments.The Explanatory Statement on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 included a provision for GAO to examine the extent to which states and MPOs collect performance information on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, among other things. This report describes activities selected state DOTs and MPOs have taken related to estimating, analyzing the effects of   transportation   investments on, and using reduction targets for on-road greenhouse gas emissions.GAO reviewed federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and other information on greenhouse gas emissions. GAO also interviewed federal officials as well as officials from a non-generalizable selection of 10 state DOTs and 10 MPOs. GAO selected states that varied in greenhouse gas emission policies, population, and geographic area, and generally selected the largest MPO from each of these states.For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at (202) 512-2834 or repkoe@gao.gov.
- Hanford Cleanup: DOE Should Consider Including Expedited Nuclear Waste Treatment Alternatives in Upcoming Analysis What GAO FoundThe Department of Energy (DOE) has developed plans for storing, preparing, staging, and transferring a portion of the radioactive liquid waste from decades of nuclear weapons research and production held in tanks at DOE's Hanford site. The plans cover the first phase of waste treatment and disposal at Hanford's Low-Activity Waste (LAW) facility, including means of identifying and managing barriers to the plans' implementation. The plans also identify potential cost and schedule effects to the tank waste management and treatment mission from such barriers, which DOE refers to as risks not addressed. The following table shows some of the most likely (i.e., 90 percent chance or greater) and significant risks DOE identified during the first phase of treatment operations.Selected High Level Risks and Potential Effects on Tank Farms That DOE Considers Very Likely to Occur During the First Phase of Waste Treatment			Facility/system risk									Risk description and potential effect on tank farms									DOE estimated range of costs and schedule impacts								Low-Activity Waste (LAW) facility									The facility might not operate at designed capacity. This risk includes waste processing rates that are lower than expected, facility shutdowns or slowdowns, and other performance-related issues. These issues could delay retrieval of tank waste.									$338.1 million to $1.8 billion			9 to 48 months								LAW Facility and waste treatment startup									The LAW Facility might not be ready to receive tank waste when treatment support projects are ready to start operations. Delays could limit tank waste retrieval and extend the cleanup schedule.									$225.4 million to $1.6 billion			6 to 42 months								Waste transfer lines									Potential extensive corrosion and moisture in the pipes transferring waste between tanks might cause them to fail.									$5.8 million to $10.5 million (per line failure)			3 to 12 months					Source: GAO analysis of Department of Energy (DOE) information. | GAO-23-106151Note: These are rough order of magnitude estimates based on available information and subjective judgment and should not be interpreted as statistical forecasts.DOE is considering alternatives for treating the waste remaining after the first phase of waste treatment starts. However, DOE is not planning to evaluate certain alternatives that may shorten the treatment mission in its upcoming revision to its System Plan. This is a required planning document that models and evaluates different scenarios for tank waste management and treatment. DOE expects to issue a System Plan revision in December 2023. According to DOE officials, the revision will include an updated version of the current planning waste treatment scenario, along with several scenarios that include grouting LAW (i.e., immobilizing the waste in a concrete-like mixture) beginning by 2050. However, in other studies, DOE has been analyzing alternatives that would potentially enable it to begin grouting LAW much sooner, as early as 2027. Given the potential cost and schedule implications for managing tank waste associated with this and other expedited treatment alternatives analyzed in DOE studies, the alternatives may merit inclusion in the next revision of the System Plan.Why GAO Did This StudyDOE is legally required to retrieve and treat approximately 54 million gallons of radioactive waste held in 177 aging and leak-prone underground storage tanks, grouped in tank farms, at the Hanford site in Washington State. Due to delays and escalating costs of starting waste treatment, DOE is negotiating with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Washington on alternatives for treating the waste. The selection of an alternative will likely have significant effects on Hanford tank farms plans and management, including schedule and budget.Senate Report 117-39 includes a provision for GAO to evaluate cleanup efforts at Hanford. This report examines the extent to which DOE has developed specific plans for storing, preparing, staging, and transferring tank waste based on the various waste treatment alternatives DOE is considering and what barriers exist to implementing such plans.GAO reviewed key DOE planning documents and reports and interviewed agency officials. GAO also examined DOE's tank farms risk management program and reviewed certain DOE analyses to identify tank farms barriers associated with waste treatment alternatives.
- Climate Change: Summary of GAO's Work on Federal Climate Resilience Projects What GAO FoundGAO's past work shows how Congress and federal agencies can develop an organizational arrangement to prioritize federal climate resilience investments with the following five elements:Climate change strategic plan	National climate information system	Expanding the use of climate economics	Prioritizing climate resilience investments	Community-driven climate migration pilot programCongress and federal agencies have opportunities to enhance the climate resilience of the nation by making progress on these elements.Why GAO Did This StudyThe federal government faces increasing fiscal exposure to climate change in its role as a provider of disaster assistance and insurance programs and as property owner. GAO was asked to review information on the net economic costs of climate change to the federal government, to recommend how to fill gaps in localized economic cost and benefit data, and to provide specific detail on how Congress could establish an organizational arrangement to prioritize federal climate resilience investments that strategically implements GAO's prior recommendations. As a first step toward a broader effort, this report provides a summary of our published work related to an organizational arrangement and reports on climate resilience and the status of relevant recommendations we made to federal agencies and matters for congressional consideration. We reviewed prior GAO reports and agency documentation and interviewed agency officials on progress made to respond to GAO's recommendations. We have ongoing work to examine the full range of issues we were asked to address.For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or GomezJ@gao.gov.