Environmental Protection Agency: Major Management Challenges
Published: 2009-03-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) overarching mission is to protect human health and the environment by implementing and enforcing environmental laws intended to improve the quality of the nation's air and water and to protect its land. EPA's policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the economy, society, and government. As such, it operates in a highly complex and controversial regulatory arena. In recent years, GAO has identified several key challenges EPA faces and corrective actions that would enable the agency to more effectively accomplish its mission. GAO was asked to identify challenges at EPA that hinder its ability to implement its programs effectively, based on prior GAO work. These challenges include (1) improving agencywide management, (2) transforming EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals, (3) improving implementation of the Clean Air Act, (4) reducing pollution in the nation's waters, (5) speeding the pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites, and (6) addressing emerging climate change issues.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EPA faces the following challenges that hinder its ability to implement its programs effectively: (1) improving agencywide management, (2) transforming EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals, (3) improving implementation of the Clean Air Act, (4) reducing pollution in the nation's waters, (5) speeding the pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites, and (6) addressing emerging climate change issues. EPA has launched various initiatives to address crosscutting general management issues, including environmental enforcement and compliance, human capital management, and the development and use of environmental information. However, these initiatives have generally fallen considerably short of their intended results. EPA has failed to develop sufficient chemical assessment information to limit public exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks. In January 2009, GAO added a new issue--the need to transform EPA's process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals--to its list of high-risk areas warranting increased attention by Congress and the executive branch. EPA faces many important challenges related to implementation of the Clean Air Act, including those highlighted by GAO regarding its coordination with other federal agencies, analyses of health impacts from air pollution, and delays in regulating mercury and other air toxics. EPA also faces challenges relating to numerous regulatory proposals that have been overturned or remanded by the courts. EPA partners with federal, state, and local agencies and others to reduce pollution in the nation's waters. Among the most daunting water pollution control problems, the nation's water utilities face billions of dollars in upgrades to aging and deteriorating infrastructures that left unaddressed can affect the quality of our water. EPA will receive $6 billion in additional water infrastructure funding from the recently passed stimulus bill. Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as Superfund, in 1980, giving the federal government the authority to ensure the cleanup of hazardous waste sites both on private and public lands. Nonetheless, several key management problems have not been resolved since that time. For example, citing competing priorities and lack of funds, EPA has not implemented a 1980 statutory mandate under Superfund to require businesses handling hazardous substances to provide financial assurances to pay for potential environmental cleanups. In GAO's view, the federal government's approach to climate change has been ad hoc and is not well coordinated across government agencies. For example, the federal government lacks a comprehensive approach for targeting federal research dollars toward the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates in a highly complex  and controversial regulatory arena, and its policies and programs affect  virtually all segments of the economy, society, and government. EPA’s  overarching mission is to protect human health and the environment by  implementing and enforcing environmental laws intended to improve the  quality of our air and water and to protect our land. As you know, EPA’s  responsibilities are carried out under a complex set of environmental laws,  such as the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The agency is composed of major offices aligned with environmental laws  and 10 regional offices. The agency’s budget has been declining in recent  years from $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $7.1 billion requested for fiscal  year 2009––a decline of about 28 percent in real terms. EPA’s 2009 budget  included about $939 million for clean air and climate change, $2.6 billion  for clean water, and $1.7 billion for land restoration. The just-released  President’s fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $ 10.5 billion for EPA.  EPA will also receive an additional $7.2 billion in stimulus funding from  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, primarily for water  infrastructure projects and Superfund.
Charged initially with cleaning up pollution of the environment, EPA’s  tasks have become increasingly complicated as we understand more about  the dangers and pervasiveness of toxic substances. The emergence of  issues such as stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change suggest  that the agency’s responsibilities will continue to grow. Furthermore,  enforcement activities primarily occur in EPA’s 10 regions, which possess  considerable autonomy––causing significant variations in enforcement  activities from region to region. EPA also implements regulations to  benefit public health and the environment while balancing, as appropriate,  the cost to industry and others—a particularly controversial issue—and  implements laws, such as the Clean Air Act, while complying with  numerous court orders resulting from the myriad lawsuits brought against  the agency by states, concerned citizens, special interest groups, and  others.
Considering EPA’s evolving roles and responsibilities, we were asked to  identify the major management challenges and program risks that EPA  faces as it works to accomplish its mission of protecting human health and  the environment. These challenges include (1) improving agencywide  management, (2) transforming EPA’s processes for assessing and  controlling toxic chemicals, (3) improving implementation of the Clean Air  Act, (4) reducing pollution in the nation’s waters, (5) speeding the pace of  cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites, and (6) addressing  emerging climate change issues. All of the material in this report is drawn  from our work over the last few years. (See Related GAO Products at the  end of this report). In these reports, GAO has made a number of  recommendations intended to improve EPA’s programs by enhancing the  information it uses to manage its programs and strengthening internal  controls. EPA has generally concurred with our recommendations, but has  been slow to implement some of them.
subsections: section_title: Improving Agencywide Management
paragraphs: Our past work has identified several major management challenges at  EPA, including ensuring consistent environmental enforcement and  compliance, addressing human capital issues, and improving the  development and use of environmental information.
Ensuring consistent environmental enforcement and compliance. EPA  has authorized states to carry out much of the day-to-day responsibilities  for timely, appropriate enforcement of environmental laws; however, we  found that EPA does not effectively oversee how well the states are  carrying out these responsibilities. Specifically, we found that EPA has not  (1) identified the causes of poorly performing state enforcement programs,  (2) informed the public about how well the states are implementing their  enforcement responsibilities, and (3) assessed the performance of EPA’s  regional offices in carrying out their state oversight responsibilities— performance that has been inconsistent over the years. EPA has also been  slow to improve long-standing problems in its enforcement data, which,  among other things, hampers its ability to accurately determine the  universe and characteristics of entities needing regulation to ensure that  (1) the public is afforded equal protection under environmental laws and  (2) regulated parties, taxpayers, and ratepayers are not subjected to widely  varying costs of environmental compliance among regions. Further, we  have reported that how EPA calculates and reports penalties, the value of  injunctive relief, and the amount of resulting pollution reduction may  undermine the transparency and accuracy of its reported outcomes and  cause EPA to both over- and underreport its enforcement achievements.
We have recommended that EPA enhance its oversight of regional and  state enforcement activities to implement environmental programs  consistent with the requirements of federal statutes and regulations. We  also recommended that EPA develop an action plan for addressing  enforcement problems identified in state programs; ensure that states have  sufficient resources to implement and enforce programs, as authorized by  EPA; and help the states improve their capacity for enforcement. EPA  should also routinely conduct performance assessments of regional and  state enforcement programs and communicate the results of the  assessments to the public and the regulated industry. We also  recommended that the EPA Administrator take a number of actions to  disclose more information when reporting penalties and estimates of the  value of injunctive relief and pollution reduction.
EPA has generally agreed with our recommendations and is in the process  of implementing them. In particular, the agency has developed an initiative  known as the State Review Framework that it believes will (1) address  many of the long-term problems related to providing fair, consistent, and  transparent enforcement throughout the country and (2) obtain accurate  data that can be used to determine the extent of state compliance with  enforcement standards and the need for corrective actions. However, such  efforts are still in the early stages, and their success is uncertain and will  depend on continued commitment of senior management along with  sufficient priority and resources. EPA also stated that it would take  actions to disclose more information when reporting estimates of  injunctive relief and pollution reductions and consider our  recommendation to report collected penalties.
Addressing human capital issues. EPA has struggled for several years to  identify its needs for human resources and to deploy its staff throughout  the country in a manner that would do the most good. We found that  EPA’s process for budgeting and allocating resources does not fully  consider the agency’s current workload, and that in preparing requests for  funding and staffing, EPA makes incremental adjustments, largely based  on an antiquated workforce planning system that does not reflect a  bottom-up review of the nature or distribution of the current workload.  Moreover, EPA’s human capital management systems have not kept pace  with changes that have occurred over the years as a result of changing  legislative requirements and priorities, changes in environmental  conditions in different regions of the country, and the much more active  role that states now play in carrying out day-to-day-activities of federal  environmental programs.
To remedy its antiquated and unscientific methods for determining  workload and allocating staff resources, we recommended that EPA  substantially improve its resource planning by identifying the factors that  derive the national and regional workload and develop more realistic  allocation systems for deploying staff with the requisite skills and  capabilities to areas of the country where they are most needed to address  the highest-priority needs.
EPA has not paid sufficient attention to human capital issues over the  years. During the past several years, EPA has taken a number of actions to  improve its workforce management. For example, the agency has  developed a strategic approach to ensure that it has, and will continue to  have, the requisite competencies to carry out its programs effectively.  Nonetheless, the number of regional staff at individual offices and their  skills and competencies continue to be driven primarily by historical  staffing patterns rather than a fresh assessment of regional needs, given  the regional workload and the role that states play in the enforcement  process, which varies greatly from region to region.
Improving development and use of environmental information. Critical,  reliable environmental information is needed to provide better scientific  understanding of environmental trends and conditions and to better  inform the public about environmental progress in their locales. We found  substantial gaps between what is known and the goal of full, reliable, and  insightful representation of environmental conditions and trends to  provide direction for future research and monitoring efforts. EPA has  struggled with providing a focus and the necessary resources for  environmental information since its inception in 1970. While many data  have been collected over the years, most water, air, and land programs  lack the detailed environmental trend information to address the well- being of Americans. EPA program areas have also been hampered by  deficiencies in their environmental data systems. For example, the quality  of environmental data constrains EPA’s ability to assess the effectiveness  of its enforcement policies and programs throughout the country and to  inform the public about the health and environmental hazards of  dangerous chemicals.
We recommended that EPA better emphasize the development and use of  environmental indicators and information, not only in its strategic plan but  also as a mechanism for prioritizing its allocation of limited resources and  measuring the success of environmental policies and programs. GAO and  policymakers in the executive and legislative branches have proposed the  establishment of a Bureau of Environmental Statistics to provide the focus  and resources needed to address the nation’s current and long-term  environmental conditions and trends. Such a bureau would ensure top- level commitment, interagency coordination, and clear responsibility for  ensuring the comprehensiveness and credibility of environmental  information. In addition, we recommended that EPA develop a consistent  approach to ensure the transparency and accuracy of measures to  determine its program effectiveness. Finally, we also recommended that  EPA ensure that information on environmental health risks and on  companies that manufacture and use toxic chemicals is effectively  collected and communicated to the public.
EPA has generally agreed with our recommendations, and has made some  progress in trying to obtain and use improved environmental information  over the past several years. However, the agency’s efforts have been  sporadic and spread among the various EPA offices. As such, the  environmental information initiatives at EPA have been incomplete and  lack a high-priority, coordinated, strategic approach that is necessary to  link limited resources with the most critical data needs.
section_title: Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals
paragraphs: EPA’s ability to effectively implement its mission of protecting public  health and the environment depends on credible and timely assessment of  the risks posed by toxic chemicals. Such assessments are the cornerstone  of scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations  under a variety of statutes, such as TSCA. However, EPA has failed to  develop sufficient chemical assessment information to determine whether  it should establish controls to limit public exposure to many chemicals  that may pose substantial health risks. As discussed below, in a number of  reports, we have identified actions that are needed to (1) enhance EPA’s  ability under TSCA, among other things, to obtain health and safety  information from the chemical industry and (2) streamline and increase  the transparency of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) that  provides EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of  more than 540 chemicals.
TSCA generally places the burden of obtaining data on chemicals used in  commerce on EPA, rather than on the companies that produce the  chemicals. For example, TSCA requires EPA to demonstrate certain health  or environmental risks before it can require companies to further test their  chemicals. As a result, EPA does not routinely assess the risks of the  roughly 80,000 industrial chemicals in use. Moreover, TSCA does not  require chemical companies to test the approximately 700 new chemicals  introduced into commerce annually for their toxicity, and companies  generally do not voluntarily perform such testing. Further, the procedures  EPA must follow in obtaining test data from companies can take years to  complete. In contrast, the European Union’s chemical control legislation  generally places the burden on companies to provide health effects data  on the chemicals they produce. In previous reports on TSCA, we have  suggested that Congress consider statutory changes to strengthen EPA’s  authority to obtain information from the chemical industry. We continue  to believe that giving EPA more authority to obtain data from the  companies producing chemicals would improve the effectiveness of TSCA  and thereby enhance EPA’s ability to protect public health and the  environment.
In addition, while TSCA authorizes EPA to issue regulations that may,  among other things, ban existing toxic chemicals or place limits on their  production or use, the statutory requirements EPA must meet present a  legal threshold that has proven difficult for EPA and discourages the  agency from using these authorities. For example, EPA must demonstrate  “unreasonable risk,” which EPA believes requires it to conduct extensive  cost-benefit analyses, to ban or limit chemical production. Since 1976, EPA  has issued regulations to control only five existing chemicals determined  to present an unreasonable risk. Further, its 1989 regulation phasing out  most uses of asbestos was vacated by a federal appeals court in 1991  because it was not based on “substantial evidence.” In contrast, the  European Union and a number of other countries have largely banned  asbestos, a known human carcinogen that can cause lung cancer and other  diseases. We have previously suggested that Congress consider amending  TSCA to reduce the evidentiary burden EPA must meet to control toxic  substances and continue to believe such change warrants serious  consideration.
Also, under TSCA, EPA has a limited ability to provide the public with  information on chemical production and risk because of the act’s  prohibitions on the disclosure of confidential business information. About  95 percent of the notices companies have provided to EPA on new  chemicals contain some information claimed as confidential. While EPA  believes that some claims of confidential business information may be  unwarranted, challenging the claims is time- and resource-intensive, and  EPA does not challenge most claims. Importantly, state environmental  agencies and others have said that information claimed as confidential  would help them in such activities as developing contingency plans to alert  emergency response personnel to the presence of highly toxic substances  at manufacturing facilities. The European Union’s chemical control  legislation generally provides greater public access to the chemical  information it receives. We previously suggested that Congress (1)  consider authorizing EPA to share with the states and foreign governments  the confidential business information that chemical companies provide to  EPA, subject to regulations to be established by EPA that would set forth  the procedures to be followed by all recipients of the information in order  to protect the information from unauthorized disclosures, and (2) consider  limiting the length of time for which information may be claimed as  confidential without resubstantiation of the need for confidentiality.
We have also identified significant problems with EPA’s process for  developing chemical assessments under EPA’s IRIS program. Created in  1985 to provide EPA with consensus opinions within the agency on the  health effects of chronic exposure to chemicals, the IRIS database  provides the basic information EPA needs to determine whether it should  establish controls, for example, to protect the public from exposure to  toxic chemicals in the air and water and at hazardous waste sites. In 2008,  we reported that the IRIS database, which contains assessments of more  than 540 toxic chemicals, is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because  EPA has not been able to keep its existing assessments current or to  complete assessments of the most important chemicals of concern.  Factors contributing to EPA’s inability to complete assessments in a timely  manner—including reviews required by the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) of IRIS assessments; certain management decisions, such  as delaying some assessments to await new research; and the  compounding effect of delays—can force EPA to essentially restart  assessments to incorporate changing science and methods.
In fact, a number of key chemicals have been caught in a seemingly  endless review cycle, limiting EPA’s ability to protect the public health  from ubiquitous chemicals that are likely to cause cancer or other serious  health effects. For example, EPA’s formaldehyde and dioxin assessments  have been in progress for about 12 and 18 years, respectively. Overall, EPA  has finalized a total of only 9 assessments in the past 3 fiscal years; as of  December 2007, most of the 70 ongoing assessments had been in progress  for more than 5 years; and more than half of all current assessments may  be outdated. Moreover, the OMB-required reviews, which are not publicly  available, limit the credibility of the assessments because they involve  federal agencies that may be affected by the assessments should they lead  to regulatory actions. We recommended that EPA adopt a streamlined,  more transparent assessment process. In its response, EPA estimated that  under its proposed changes to the assessment process, most assessments  would take from 3 to 4-1/2 years and mission-critical assessments would  take up to 6 years. However, we believe that an IRIS assessment process  built around such time frames is problematic. As we stated in our reports,  when assessments take longer than 2 years, they can become subject to  substantial delays stemming from the need to redo key analyses to take  into account changing science and assessment methodologies.
Some of our prior recommendations on IRIS and TSCA, aimed at providing  EPA with information needed to support its assessment of toxic  chemicals, have not been implemented. For example, when EPA  implemented a new IRIS assessment process in 2008, it did not incorporate  our recommendations to streamline and increase the transparency of the  process. In fact, the new IRIS assessment process exacerbates the  productivity and credibility concerns GAO identified. Further, our  recommendations aimed at providing EPA with the information needed to  support its assessments of industrial chemicals under TSCA have not been  implemented. Without greater attention to EPA’s efforts to assess toxic  chemicals, the nation lacks assurance that human health and the  environment are adequately protected. Because of the importance of this  issue, and the lack of progress in implementing much-needed change to  TSCA, in January 2009 we added transforming EPA’s processes for  assessing and controlling toxic chemicals to our list of high-risk areas  needing added attention by Congress and the executive branch.
section_title: Improve Implementation of the Clean Air Act
paragraphs: The Clean Air Act, a comprehensive federal law that regulates air pollution  from stationary and mobile sources, was passed in 1963 to improve and  protect the quality of the nation’s air. The act was substantially overhauled  in 1970 when Congress required EPA to establish national ambient air  quality standards for pollutants at levels that are necessary to protect  public health with an adequate margin of safety and to protect public  welfare from adverse effects. EPA has set such standards for ozone,  carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, and  lead. In addition, the act directed the states to specify how they would  achieve and maintain compliance with the national standard for each  pollutant. Congress amended the act again in 1977 and 1990. The 1977  amendments were passed primarily to set new goals and dates for  attaining the standards because many areas of the country had failed to  meet the deadlines set previously. The act was amended again in 1990  when several new themes were incorporated into it, including encouraging  the use of market-based approaches to reduce emissions, such as cap-and- trade programs.
In recent years, our work has identified several key challenges in  implementing the Clean Air Act, and made recommendations to EPA  intended to enhance the effectiveness of its clean air programs. First, we  have identified areas where EPA could improve its coordination with the  Department of Transportation in making planning decisions. Second, we  have found that while EPA had taken steps to strengthen its estimates of  health benefits from rules reducing particulate matter air pollution, the  agency needed to ensure continued resources toward improving analysis  of the uncertainty underlying its estimates. Third, we have identified  delays and shortcomings with EPA’s development of rules intended to  limit emissions of toxic air pollutants and recommended that the agency  develop a plan to improve its management of the air toxics program. In  fact, when addressing EPA’s air quality standards in a recent hearing on  children’s health, we noted that EPA largely disregarded recommendations  from its advisory committee, and recommended that the agency examine  ways to use its advisors to reinvigorate its focus on the health of children,  who are often disproportionately affected by air pollution. Fourth, we  identified major shortcomings with EPA’s economic justification for a  proposed rule to limit mercury emissions from power plants and  recommended, among other things, that the agency conduct its analysis  consistent with OMB guidance for economic analysis and better document  its findings. EPA stated that it would address the recommendations by,  for example, conducting additional analysis on the rule.
EPA also faces a number of challenges related to clean air regulatory  decisions that have been vacated or remanded to the agency by the courts.  These include regulatory proposals or agency decisions related to (1)  mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants; (2) long-range transport  of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides—pollutants that contribute to acid  rain and other air quality problems—emitted by power plants; (3) the New  Source Review program, a permitting program that among other goals  seeks to prevent air quality degradation from the addition of new and  modified factories, industrial boilers, and power plants; and (4) whether  EPA and the states can use existing authority under the Clean Air Act to  regulate greenhouse gases. Each of these issues, along with those  identified in our prior work, will require substantial management attention  in the near term.
section_title: Reducing Pollution in the Nation’s Waters
paragraphs: The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating  discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating  the quality of surface waters. However, the law’s effectiveness has been  challenged by the fact that many pollution sources are decentralized and  diffuse in nature, and therefore difficult to monitor and regulate. One such  source is urban storm water runoff. Pollutants and sediment carried by  storm water, as well as the volume and temperature of runoff, can alter  aquatic habitats and make it hard for fish and other organisms to survive.
Some pollutants can also make fish and shellfish unsafe to eat. Moreover,  polluted storm water runoff can negatively affect those who use fresh- and  saltwater areas for swimming and boating. For example, swimmers in  water with high levels of bacteria have a greater risk of contracting  gastrointestinal or respiratory illnesses. However, EPA still has not  developed rapid water-testing methods and current water quality  standards.
The safety of our nation’s water is also threatened by other factors, such  as pollutants discharged from large-scale animal feeding operations that  enter water bodies. More than a dozen government-sponsored or peer- reviewed studies since 2002 on water pollutants emitted by concentrated  animal-feeding operations found increased levels of phosphorus, nitrogen,  or hormones in surface water and groundwater near animal-feeding  operations. According to EPA, excessive amounts of these nutrients can  deplete oxygen in water, which could result in fish deaths, reduced aquatic  diversity, and illness in infants. Despite its long-term regulation of  concentrated animal-feeding operations, EPA still lacks comprehensive  and reliable data on the number, location, and size of the operations that  have been issued permits and the amounts of discharges they release. As a  result, EPA has neither the information it needs to assess the extent to  which concentrated animal-feeding operations may be contributing to  water pollution, nor the information it needs to ensure compliance with  the Clean Water Act.
EPA partners with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as  nongovernmental organizations, to develop and implement approaches  that can reduce pollution in our nation’s significant water bodies.  However, after decades of EPA and its partners spearheading restoration  efforts in areas such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay,  improvements in these water bodies remain elusive. Lack of targeted  strategies; coordination among federal, state, and local stakeholders; and  realistic goals to ensure that limited restoration resources are being used  for the most effective restoration activities appear to be long-standing  issues impeding such efforts.
In recent years, we have made many recommendations to help EPA  address these problems. To more effectively regulate the discharges from  large-scale animal-feeding operations, EPA should complete its efforts to  develop an inventory of permitted operations. In addition, we  recommended that EPA evaluate the implementation of the storm water  program and issue additional program guidance and consider regulatory  changes to improve the quality and consistency of activity reporting by  communities. To better protect the safety of our nation’s beaches, EPA  needs to publish new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens and  pathogen indicators and develop specific guidance on monitoring  frequency and methods of public notification. In addition, we  recommended that EPA ensure that the Chesapeake Bay Program––a  partnership between EPA, several states, and the Chesapeake Bay  Commission––develops a coordinated implementation strategy that unifies  its various planning documents and establishes a means to better target its  limited resources to the most cost-effective restoration activities. We also  recommended that for its Great Lakes Initiative, EPA develop a more  consistent permitting strategy for controlling mercury and gather more  information to help it develop water quality standards and assess the  effect of programs intended to minimize pollutants that are exceeding  standards.
EPA agreed with our recommendations in these areas. For example, while  EPA expected to take several years to fully implement a national data  system, EPA and states are currently working to develop and implement a  national data system to collect and record facility-specific information on  concentrated animal-feeding operations and other facilities through its  Integrated Compliance Information System, and has initiated an effort to  develop a rule to establish required data elements and reporting  frequencies. Likewise, for the storm water program, EPA has taken steps  to improve the quality and consistency of program data reported by  communities and is currently developing guidance, including a reporting  form that it believes will help the agency obtain better data for evaluating  the program. Finally, EPA agreed with our recommendations regarding the  Chesapeake Bay Program, and plans to work with the Great Lakes states  in assessing approaches for reducing mercury in lieu of developing a  mercury permitting strategy.
In addition, in coming years among the most daunting water pollution  control problems will be those faced by the nation’s water utilities in  grappling with the multibillion-dollar costs of upgrading aging and  deteriorating infrastructures and building new ones to serve a growing  population. Frequent and highly publicized incidences of combined sewer  overflows into rivers and streams as well as water main breaks in the  nation’s largest cities are the most visible manifestation of this mounting  problem. Overall, water infrastructure needs across the country have been  estimated to cost from $485 billion to nearly $1.2 trillion over the next 20  years. Even before the current financial crisis, many water utilities had  difficulty raising funds to repair, replace, or upgrade aging capital assets;  comply with regulatory requirements; and expand capacity to meet  increased demand. For example, based on a nationwide survey of several  thousand drinking water and wastewater utilities, we reported several  years ago that about one-third of the utilities (1) deferred maintenance  because of insufficient funds, (2) had 20 percent or more of their pipelines  nearing the end of their useful life, and (3) lacked basic plans for managing  their capital assets.
We noted in the past that better management techniques can, at least to  some extent, help utilities make the best use of available dollars in their  struggle to meet their infrastructure needs. For example, we  recommended comprehensive asset management—a technique whereby  water systems systematically identify their needs, set priorities, and better  target their investments—as a tool for helping utilities make better use of  available funds. Additional funds, however, will ultimately be needed to  narrow the enormous gap between water infrastructure needs and  available resources. Of note, EPA will receive $6 billion in additional water  infrastructure funding from the recently passed stimulus bill. EPA agreed  with our recommendations, and while it has undertaken a number of  approaches to encourage asset management, such as implementing a  sustainable infrastructure initiative and offering training sessions on best  practices, there is further work needed to encourage comprehensive asset  management across the nation.
section_title: Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and Other Hazardous Waste Sites
paragraphs: In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act, establishing the Superfund program and  giving the federal government the authority to respond to chemical  emergencies and to clean up hazardous waste sites on private and public  lands. The Superfund program addresses both short- and long-term risks  from toxic chemicals. The act established a trust fund financed primarily  by taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals to pay for EPA’s cleanup  activities. The authority for these taxes expired in 1995; EPA must now  primarily rely on annual appropriations from the general fund to fund  cleanups. These appropriations, when adjusted for inflation, have been  declining and the pace of cleanups has slowed. Furthermore, citing  competing priorities and lack of funds, EPA has not implemented a 1980  statutory mandate under Superfund to require businesses handling  hazardous substances to demonstrate their ability to pay for potential  environmental cleanups—that is, to provide financial assurances.  Because of this inaction, EPA has exposed the Superfund program and  U.S. taxpayers to potentially enormous cleanup costs at gold, lead, and  other mining sites and other industrial operations. In addition, we found  that EPA faces challenges in ensuring that institutional controls—legal or  administrative restrictions on land or resource use to protect against  exposure to residual contamination at hazardous waste sites—are  adequately implemented, monitored, and enforced.
In 1984, Congress required EPA to devise regulations for the design and  operation of underground tanks. In response, in 1985, EPA began  developing the Underground Storage Tank program to prevent releases of  petroleum and hazardous substances into the environment, detect releases  when they occur, and clean up any contamination resulting from a release.  To support the program and provide public funding to states to ensure that  releases from tanks are cleaned up, in 1986 Congress established the  Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, funded primarily through  an excise tax on gasoline and other motor fuels. The fund has since grown  to an estimated $3.2 billion at the end of fiscal year 2008, yet the pace of  cleanup remains slow. Under the program, tank owners and operators are  primarily responsible for paying to clean up releases from their tanks.  They can demonstrate their financial responsibility by using, among other  options, state financial assurance funds. However, we found that tank  owners sometimes fail to maintain adequate financial responsibility  coverage and that several states’ assurance funds may lack sufficient  resources to ensure timely cleanups.
Finally, in 2005 we found that federal and state agencies had identified  perchlorate—a component of rocket fuel known to affect human health— in groundwater, soil, or public drinking water systems at almost 400 sites  across the country. Nevertheless, there is no federal drinking water  standard or specific requirement to clean up perchlorate and the National  Academy of Sciences called for additional research on the effects of  perchlorate exposure.
We have made several recommendations to help EPA more quickly clean  up hazardous waste sites. Specifically, we recommended that EPA (1)  ensure that financial assurances are in place for sites that manufacture or  use toxic chemicals; (2) improve the institutional controls at contaminated  sites to ensure better protection of the public from inappropriate use of  such sites; (3) ensure that the owners of underground storage tanks  maintain access to adequate financial resources for cleaning up leaks and  that state insurance funds provide reliable coverage for cleaning up  leaking tanks; and (4) establish a formal structure to centrally track and  monitor perchlorate detections and the status of cleanup efforts.
EPA has generally agreed with our recommendations in these areas, but  has not yet implemented any of them. EPA disagreed with our  recommendation regarding establishing a perchlorate tracking structure  because the agency believes that it already has sufficient capability to  track and monitor perchlorate detection and cleanup efforts. Nevertheless,  we continue to believe that such a system would better inform the public  and others about perchlorate’s presence in their communities.
section_title: Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues
paragraphs: In addition to the challenges with which EPA has struggled for years, new  challenges are emerging, chief among them, climate change. Changes in  the earth’s climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse  gases may have significant environmental and economic impacts in the  United States and internationally. Among other potential impacts, climate  change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, alter  agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of  floods and tropical storms. Furthermore, climate change has implications  for the fiscal health of the federal government, affecting federal crop and  flood insurance programs, and placing new stresses on infrastructure and  natural resources. Accordingly, there are numerous legislative proposals  for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the nation’s use and  dependence on fossil fuels. EPA will be at the center of the federal  government’s strategy for addressing this monumental challenge.
We have previously reported that the federal government’s approach to  climate change has been ad hoc, not comprehensive, and not well  coordinated across government agencies. Specifically, the federal  government lacks a comprehensive approach for targeting federal  research dollars at the development and deployment of low-carbon  technologies. Federal land management agencies are behind in their  efforts to develop strategies and guidance for adapting to climate change,  and federal crop insurance and flood insurance have not yet embraced the  implications of climate change on their portfolios. Moreover, the technical  challenges of carbon capture and storage; biofuels development,  production, and distribution; and alternative sources of energy have not  been fully researched. Finally, energy conservation efforts have remained  stagnant over the past decade.
To inform Congress as it considers various legislative proposals for  addressing climate change, we reported on the economic implications of  different policy options, lessons learned from the European Union’s  efforts to implement mandatory carbon reductions, and the Clean  Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol. We also reported on  the challenges in carbon capture and storage—another key component of  most climate change legislative proposals—and identified problems that  must be resolved. We have also issued information on the carbon offset  market, and identified challenges that must be resolved before this can be  a part of climate change legislation.
We have made several recommendations to help various federal agencies  better address climate changes, including recommending that EPA and the  Department of Energy put more rigor into their voluntary emission  reduction programs and track and report results. We also recommended  that federal agencies develop clear written communications to resource  managers that explains how managers are expected to address the effects  of climate change. In addition, we recommended that federal agencies  better coordinate and more comprehensively identify and address  research gaps in alternative fuels, clean coal, and other emission reduction  technologies. Finally, we recommended that federal agencies step up  energy conservation efforts. Agencies responsible for voluntary climate  change programs, including EPA, as well as agencies responsible for  climate change research generally agreed with our recommendations but  have been slow to implement them.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: While EPA has made some progress in improving its operations, many of  the same issues still remain. EPA’s mission is, without question, a difficult  one: its policies and programs affect virtually all segments of the economy,  society, and government, and it is in the unenviable position of enforcing  myriad inherently controversial environmental laws and maintaining a  delicate balance between the benefits to public health and the  environment with the cost to industry and others. Nevertheless, the  repetitive and persistent nature of the shortcomings we have observed  over the years points to serious challenges for EPA to effectively  implement its programs. Until it addresses these long-standing challenges,  EPA is unlikely to be able to respond effectively to much larger emerging  challenges, such as climate change. Facing these challenges head-on will  require a sustained commitment by agency leadership. As a new  administration takes office and begins to chart the agency’s course, it will  be important for Congress and EPA to continue to focus on the issues we  have identified.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Administrator of EPA. The report also is available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix I.
section_title: Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this  report include Kevin Bray, Antoinette Capaccio, Kate Cardamone, Steve  Elstein, Liz Erdmann, Christine Fishkin, Brian Friedman, John Gates,  Melissa Hermes, Michael Hix, Anne Johnson, Rich Johnson, Karen Keegan,  Ed Kratzer, Justin Mausel, Sherry McDonald, Mehrzad Nadji, Emily  Norman, Alison O’Neill, Vincent Price, Diane Raynes, John Smith, Joe  Thompson, and Lisa Vojta.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January  2009.
subsections: section_title: Improving Agencywide Management
paragraphs: EPA’s Execution of Its Fiscal year 2007 New Budget Authority for the  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional  Offices. GAO-08-1109R. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008.
Environmental Enforcement: EPA Needs to Improve the Accuracy and  Transparency of Measures Used to Report on Program Effectiveness.  GAO-08-1111R. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2008.
Environmental Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has  Improved, but EPA’s Oversight Needs Further Enhancement.  GAO-07-883. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2007.
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: EPA’s Effort to Improve  and Make More Consistent Its Compliance and Enforcement Activities.  GAO-06-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006.
EPA’s Execution of Its Fiscal year 2007 New Budget Authority for the  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional  Offices. GAO-08-1109R. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008.
Environmental Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has  Improved, but EPA’s Oversight Needs Further Enhancement.  GAO-07-883. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2007.
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: EPA’s Effort to Improve  and Make More Consistent Its Compliance and Enforcement Activities.  GAO-06-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2006.
Clean Water Act: Improved Resource Planning Would Help EPA Better  Respond to Changing Needs and Fiscal Constraints. GAO-05-721.  Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005.
Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would  Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals. GAO-01-812. Washington, D.C.:  July 31, 2001.
Improving the Development and Use of Environmental information  Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Follow Best Practices and  Procedures When Reorganizing Its Library Network. GAO-08-579T.  Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2008.
Environmental Protection: EPA Needs to Ensure That Best Practices and  Procedures Are Followed When Making Further Changes to Its Library  Network. GAO-08-304. Washington, D.C.: February 29, 2008.
Toxic Chemical Releases: EPA Actions Could Reduce Environmental  Information Available to Many Communities. GAO-08-128. Washington,  D.C.: November 30, 2007.
Measuring Our Nation’s Natural Resources and Environmental  Sustainability: Highlights of a Forum Jointly Convened by the  Comptroller General of the United States and the National Academy of  Science. GAO-08-127SP. Washington, D.C.: October 2007.
Environmental Right-To-Know: EPA’s Recent Rule Could Reduce  Availability of Toxic Chemical Information Used to Assess  Environmental Justice. GAO-08-115T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2007.
Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA  Progress in Correcting Past Problems. GAO-07-1140T. Washington, D.C.:  July 25, 2007.
Environmental Information: EPA Actions Could Reduce the Availability  of Environmental Information to the Public. GAO-07-464T. Washington,  D.C.: February 6, 2007.
Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop  Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions. GAO-05-52.  Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2004.
section_title: Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals
paragraphs: EPA’s Execution of Its Fiscal year 2007 New Budget Authority for the  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional  Offices. GAO-08-1109R. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008.
Environmental Health: EPA Efforts to Address Children’s Health Issues  Need Greater Focus, Direction, and Top-Level Commitment.  GAO-08-1155T. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008.
Chemical Assessments: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Further  Limit the Productivity and Credibility of Its Integrated Risk  Information System. GAO-08-810T. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2008.
Toxic Chemicals: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Increase  Challenges EPA Faces in Evaluating and Regulating Chemicals.  GAO-08-743T. Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2008.
Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review  Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk  Information System. GAO-08-440. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2008.
Chemical Regulation: Comparison of U.S. and Recently Enacted  European Union Approaches to Protect against the Risks of Toxic  Chemicals. GAO-07-825. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2007.
Environmental Contamination: Department of Defense Activities  Related to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging  Contaminants. GAO-07-1042T. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2007.
Perchlorate: EPA Does Not Systematically Track Incidents of  Contamination. GAO-07-797T. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2007.
Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of  EPA’s Chemical Review Program. GAO-06-1032T. Washington, D.C.:  August 2, 2006.
Chemical Regulation: Approaches in the United States, Canada, and the  European Union. Washington, D.C.: GAO-06-217R. November 4, 2005.
Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess  Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program. GAO-05-458.  Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2005.
section_title: Improving Implementation of the Clean Air Act
paragraphs: World Trade Center: EPA’s Most Recent Test and Clean Program Raises  Concerns That Need to Be Addressed to Better Prepare for Indoor  Contamination Following Disasters. GAO-07-1091. Washington, D.C.:  September 5, 2007.
Particulate Matter: EPA Needs to Make More Progress in Addressing the  National Academies’ Recommendations on Estimating Health Benefits.  GAO-06-992T. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2006.
Particulate Matter: EPA Has Started to Address the National Academies’  Recommendations on Estimating Health Benefits, but More Progress Is  Needed. GAO-06-780. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2006.
Clean Air Act: EPA Should Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics  Program. GAO-06-669. Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2006.
Air Pollution: Estimated Emissions from Two New Mexicali Power  Plants Are Low, but Health Impacts Are Unknown. GAO-05-823.  Washington, D.C.: August 12, 2005.
Clean Air Act: Emerging Mercury Control Technologies Have Shown  Promising Results, but Data on Long-Term Performance Are Limited.  GAO-05-612. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2005.
section_title: Reducing Pollution in the Nation’s Waters
paragraphs: Environmental Health: EPA Efforts to Address Children’s Health Issues  Need Greater Focus, Direction, and Top-Level Commitment.  GAO-08-1155T. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2008.
Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps  Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional  Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward  More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort. GAO-08-1033T.  Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2008.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More Information  and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water Quality from  Pollutants of Concern, GAO-08-944. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2008.
Physical Infrastructure: Challenges and Investment Options for the  Nation’s Infrastructure, GAO-08-763T. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008.
International Boundary and Water Commission: Two Alternatives for  Improving Wastewater Treatment at the United States-Mexico Border.  GAO-08-595R. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2008.
Great Lakes Initiative: EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Much  Remains to Be Done If Water Quality Goals Are to Be Achieved.  GAO-08-312T. Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2008.
Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana  Could Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection. GAO-08-130.  Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2007.
South Florida Ecosystem: Some Restoration Progress Has Been Made,  but the Effort Faces Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and  Rising Costs. GAO-07-1250T. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2007.
Maritime Transportation: Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, but Risks  to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain. GAO-07-1085. Washington, D.C.:  September 7, 2007.
The BEACH Act of 2000: EPA and States Have Made Progress  Implementing the Act, but Further Actions Could Increase Public Health  Protection. GAO-07-1073T. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2007.
South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing  Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs.  GAO-07-520. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007.
Clean Water: Further Implementation and Better Cost Data Needed to  Determine Impact of EPA’s Storm Water Program on Communities.  GAO-07-479. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007.
Great Lakes: EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the  BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health  Protection. GAO-07-591. Washington, D.C: May 1, 2007.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Needed to Better Guide  Restoration Efforts. GAO-06-614T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2006.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better  Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, GAO-06-96.  Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005.
Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and  Consistent Implementation of Water Quality Standards. GAO-05-829.  Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2005.
Water Infrastructure: Comprehensive Asset Management Has Potential  to Help Utilities Better Identify Needs and Plan Future Investments,  GAO-04-461. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2004.
section_title: Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and Other Hazardous Waste Sites
paragraphs: Electronic Waste: Harmful U.S. Exports Flow Virtually Unrestricted  Because of Minimal EPA Enforcement and Narrow Regulation.  GAO-08-1166T. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2008.
Hurricane Katrina: Continuing Debris Removal and Disposal Issues.  GAO-08-985R. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2008.
Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and  Administration Activities. GAO-08-841R. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2008.
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: More Complete Facility Data Could  Improve Implementation of EPA’s Spill Prevention Program.  GAO-08-482. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2008.
Hazardous Waste: Information on How DOD and Federal and State  Regulators Oversee the Off-Site Disposal of Waste from DOD  Installations. GAO-08-74. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2007.
Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving  Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve  Its Public Notification Process. GAO-08-71. Washington, D.C.: October 12,  2007.
Aboveground Oil Storage Tanks: Observations on EPA’s Economic  Analyses of Amendments to the Spill Prevention, Control, and  Countermeasure Rule. GAO-07-763. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2007.
Hurricane Katrina: EPA’s Current and Future Environmental  Protection Efforts Could Be Enhanced by Addressing Issues and  Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast. GAO-07-651. Washington, D.C.: June  25, 2007.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better  Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups. GAO-07-152.  Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2007.
Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling.  GAO-07-37. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2006.
Environmental Liabilities: EPA Should Do More to Ensure That Liable  Parties Meet Their Cleanup Obligations, GAO-05-658. Washington, D.C.:  Aug. 17, 2005.
Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup Results Is Needed,  GAO-05-462. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005.
Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites  Could Better Protect the Public, GAO-05-163. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28,  2005.
section_title: Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues
paragraphs: Climate Change: Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of  Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option. GAO-08-1080.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2008.
Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market Is Growing, but Quality  Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants. GAO-08-1048.  Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2008.
Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to  Address Climate Change. GAO-08-605. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2008.
Climate Change Research: Agencies Have Data-Sharing Policies but  Could Do More to Enhance the Availability of Data from Federally  Funded Research. GAO-07-1172. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2007.
Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the  Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. GAO-07-863. Washington,  D.C.: August 7, 2007.
Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing  Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs.  GAO-07-713. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2007.
Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in  Coming Decades are Potentially Significant. GAO-07-820T. Washington,  D.C.: May 3, 2007.
Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in  Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant. GAO-07-285. Washington,  D.C.: March 16, 2007.
Energy Efficiency: Long-standing Problems with DOE’s Program for  Setting Efficiency Standards Continue to Result in Forgone Energy  Savings. GAO-07-42. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2007.
Climate Change: Federal Agencies Should Do More to Make Funding  Reports Clearer and Encourage Progress on Two Voluntary Programs.  GAO-06-1126T. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.
Climate Change: Greater Clarity and Consistency Are Needed in  Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding. GAO-06-1122T.  Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2006.
Climate Change: EPA and DOE Should Do More to Encourage Progress  Under Two Voluntary Programs. GAO-06-97. Washington, D.C.: April 25,  2006.