Environmental Protection Agency: Major Management Challenges
Published: 2011-03-02T00:00:00

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 the laws intended to improve the quality of the nation's air, water, and lands. 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's work has identified several significant and persistent challenges across a range of EPA programs and activities and has proposed corrective actions to enable the agency to more effectively accomplish its mission. Based on this work, this testimony highlights some of the major management challenges facing EPA today, the agency's efforts to address them, and the work GAO believes remains to be done.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: On the basis of recent GAO work, key management challenges facing EPA include the following: (1) Improving agencywide management. EPA has struggled for years to deploy its staff efficiently and in a manner that would do the most good. It has also sought to improve the reliability of its environmental enforcement and other program data, as well as its coordination among EPA offices and with other agencies to improve efficiency and leverage limited resources. Generally, the agency's initiatives in these areas have yet to achieve their intended goals. In this connection, GAO is currently examining the extent to which EPA is taking a coordinated approach in managing its laboratories. (2) Transforming EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals. EPA has yet to develop sufficient chemical assessment information for limiting public exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks. As a consequence, GAO in February 2011 reaffirmed the need to transform EPA's process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals by continuing it as one if GAO's "high-risk" areas warranting increased attention by Congress and the executive branch. (3) Reducing pollution in the nation's waters. Among the nation's most pressing water quality problems with which EPA and other stakeholders struggle are the contributions of diffuse, or "nonpoint," sources of pollution and the challenges posed by deterioration in the nation's premier watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. Multibillion-dollar liabilities associated with replacing and upgrading the nation's aging water infrastructure are a looming issue that, if not sufficiently addressed, will impact water quality. (4) Addressing the cost and pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. EPA's Superfund program is intended to ensure the cleanup of hazardous waste sites on both private and public lands. Nonetheless, 30 years after the program began, GAO found that cleanup costs for remaining hazardous waste sites will not only be substantial, but that problems with the accuracy and completeness of data on the amount of remaining cleanup work prevent EPA from reliably estimating these costs. (5) Addressing the agency's emerging role in climate change issues. As a highly interdisciplinary issue, climate change poses management challenges for the federal government at large. For EPA, particular climate change-related challenges pertain to the legal and administrative barriers facing the agency in its ongoing efforts to reduce carbon emissions, its difficulties in coordinating activities involving numerous other agencies and other levels of government, and its efforts to account for and manage data on greenhouse gas emissions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve EPA's programs by, for example, improving the information upon which key regulatory decisions are based; improving oversight over enforcement and other key program activities; and improving EPA's coordination with other agencies in program delivery. EPA has concurred with most of the recommendations and has taken steps to implement some of them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss management challenges facing the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These challenges are made all  the more important by increased demand for improved government  performance and responsiveness, as well as greater accountability. 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.
As you know, EPA’s responsibilities are carried out under a complex array  of environmental laws, including the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, the  Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and others. The legal framework  within which the agency operates is also shaped by numerous court orders  resulting from lawsuits that have been filed over the years by states,  concerned citizens, special interest groups, and others. Structurally, EPA  comprises headquarters offices largely aligned with its primary authorizing  statutes and 10 regional offices that help to implement these statutes  across the country. The regional offices possess considerable autonomy,  which has sometimes led to questions and concerns about variation from  region to region in enforcement and other aspects of program delivery.  The agency’s budget, while rising in nominal terms from $7.8 billion for  fiscal year 2000 to $10.4 billion for fiscal year 2010, has remained relatively  flat in real terms.  EPA’s fiscal year 2010 budget included about $1.1 billion  for clean air and climate change, $4.9 billion for clean water (which  includes federal funding for both the Clean Water and Drinking Water  state revolving funds), and $1.8 billion for land restoration.
My testimony today updates our 2009 report on EPA’s management  challenges and is drawn largely from our work over the last several years  (see Related GAO Products at the end of this statement). Many of these  reports included 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 and has taken steps to implement some of them. I will  highlight some notable issues arising from our recent work. Some are  long-standing issues involving the agency’s core programs; others are  emerging challenges for which we believe the agency will need to become  better prepared. With this in mind, I would like to focus my remarks today  on the need to (1) improve key aspects of the agency’s overall  management, (2) transform EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling  toxic chemicals, (3) reduce pollution in the nation’s waters, (4) address  the cost and pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous waste  sites, and (5) address the agency’s emerging role in climate change issues.
subsections: section_title: Improving Agencywide Management
paragraphs: EPA’s size, geographical dispersion, reliance on its partnership with state  and local governments, and broad and complex mission all combine to  make management of the agency a formidable challenge. Our recent work  has identified several particular management challenges at EPA, including  the need to address workload and workforce planning, to ensure  consistent environmental enforcement and compliance data, and to better  coordinate with other agencies to more effectively leverage limited  resources.
subsections: section_title: Addressing Workload and Workforce Planning Needs
paragraphs: EPA has struggled for years to identify its human resource needs and to  deploy its staff throughout the agency in a manner that would do the most  good. In 2008, we reported that rather than establishing a process for  budgeting and allocating human resources that fully considers the  agency’s current workload, EPA makes requests for funding and staffing  by making incremental adjustments, largely based on historical  precedent. We noted that the agency has not comprehensively analyzed  its workload and workforce since the late 1980s to determine the optimal  numbers and distribution of staff agencywide. Moreover, EPA’s human  capital management systems have not kept pace with changing legis 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 piecemeal methods for determining workload and staff  allocation, we recommended that EPA improve its workforce planning by  identifying the factors driving its workload and developing more accurate  allocation systems for deploying staff with the requisite skills and  capabilities to areas where they are most needed. The agency has taken  some recent steps to improve its workforce planning. For example, in 2009  it hired a contractor to provide information about the agency’s workload  in several key areas, such as staffing levels and workload shifts. In  addition, the agency asked one of its advisory councils to help in  developing its next strategic workforce plan to supersede the last plan  established in 2006, which delegated responsibilities to the various offices.  We have not evaluated whether EPA has made meaningful progress in  these efforts.
section_title: Ensuring Consistent Environmental Enforcement and Compliance Data
paragraphs: EPA has authorized states to carry out many of the day-to-day  responsibilities for timely and appropriate enforcement of environmental  laws and regulations. We have noted instances in the past where 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, or (3) assessed the  performance of EPA’s regional offices in carrying out their state oversight  responsibilities—performance that has generally proven to be inconsistent  over the years.
EPA has been slow to improve long-standing problems with often  incomplete and unreliable enforcement data. Among other things,  enforcement data are needed to accurately identify and characterize  regulated entities to improve the transparency and accuracy of the  agency’s reports to Congress and the public when reporting on the  effectiveness of the enforcement programs. Furthermore, we have  reported problems in how EPA calculates and reports on measures of  program effectiveness, such as penalties, the value of injunctive relief, and  any resulting reduction in pollution. These problems may undermine the  transparency and accuracy of EPA’s reported outcomes and cause the  agency to either over- or underreport its enforcement achievements.
In recent years, we have recommended ways for EPA to enhance its  oversight of regional and state enforcement activities so as to implement  environmental programs consistent with the requirements of federal  statutes and regulations. In particular, we 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. We also suggested that EPA (1) routinely  assess the performance of regional and state enforcement programs and  communicate the results of these assessments to the public and the  regulated industry and (2) 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. Still,  implementation of the framework is clearly a work in progress. During its  fiscal year 2008 evaluation of the framework, for example, EPA identified  significant noncompliance with water permitting requirements and an  unacceptably low level of enforcement activity. In response, in 2009 the  agency issued its Clean Water Act Enforcement Action Plan, which  described efforts to (1) raise the bar for EPA and state enforcement  performance; (2) inform the public clearly and fully about serious Clean  Water Act violations and actions to address them; and (3) use the latest  technology to transform the collection, use, and availability of EPA data.  In addition, EPA now publishes its State Review Framework reports and  data on enforcement performance on its Web site and has developed new  Web-based tools to help the public search and analyze the performance  data.
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. For example,  in 2010, EPA began reporting penalties in a manner that clearly indicates  that penalties are reported as assessed, rather than as collected, and began  properly presenting time-series data that are adjusted for inflation. Overall,  the agency’s efforts in this area are still in their early stages, and their  success is uncertain. Much will depend on the continued commitment of  senior management, along with sufficient priority and resources.
section_title: Coordinating with Other Agencies to More Effectively Leverage Limited Resources
paragraphs: EPA relies on other federal and state agencies to help implement its  programs. Given the federal deficit and the government’s long-term fiscal  challenges, it is imperative that EPA improve coordination with its federal  and state partners to reduce administrative burdens, redundant activities,  and inefficient uses of federal resources. For example, EPA and other  federal agencies may work together to fund water infrastructure projects.  In 2009, we reported that EPA and six federal agencies obligated $1.4  billion for drinking water and wastewater projects to assist communities  in the U.S.-Mexico border region from fiscal years 2000 through 2008.  Nevertheless, we found that the agencies’ efforts to fund these projects  were ineffective because the agencies, with the exception of the Indian  Health Service, had not comprehensively assessed the region’s needs and  lacked coordinated policies and processes for selecting and building  projects. As a result, we suggested that Congress may wish to consider  establishing an interagency task force to develop a plan for coordinating  funding to address the region’s most pressing needs.
In addition to funding water infrastructure projects, EPA has coordinated  with numerous federal and state agencies as the lead agency in a multi- billion dollar effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. We found, however,  that key commitments and plans were inconsistent with one another, and  some were viewed to be unachievable by some partners. In 2008, we  reported that the Chesapeake Bay Program (a partnership among EPA,  several states, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) had taken several  actions in response to our findings, such as developing a strategic  framework to unify planning documents and identify how it will pursue its  goals. While these actions are positive steps, we found that additional  actions are needed before the program has the comprehensive,  coordinated implementation strategy we recommended.
section_title: Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals
paragraphs: As we reported in March 2009, 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, including  TSCA. EPA assesses chemicals under its Integrated Risk Information  System (IRIS) program and is authorized under TSCA to obtain  information on the risks of chemicals and to control those it determines  pose an unreasonable risk. Because EPA had not developed sufficient  chemical assessment information under these programs to limit public  exposure to many chemicals that may pose substantial health risks, in  2009 we added this issue to our list of areas at high risk for waste, fraud,  abuse, and mismanagement or in need of broad-based transformation. In  a number of reports, we have also made recommendations to (1) improve  the timeliness and credibility of EPA’s IRIS program, which provides  EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of more  than 540 chemicals, and (2) enhance EPA’s ability under TSCA to, among  other things, obtain health and safety information from the chemical  industry. We also recently addressed nanotechnology as an emerging area  of toxic substance regulation.
subsections: section_title: Addressing IRIS’ Timeliness, Transparency, and Credibility
paragraphs: EPA’s IRIS database provides the basic information the agency needs to  determine whether it should establish controls to protect the public from  exposure to toxic chemicals in the air, in water, and at hazardous waste  sites. In March 2008, we reported that IRIS’ viability was at risk because  EPA had been unable to complete timely and credible chemical  assessments—including those for chemicals of greatest concern, such as  formaldehyde and dioxin. Assessments of these two chemicals have been  in progress for 13 and 19 years, respectively. In addition, EPA had been  unable to decrease its long-standing backlog of ongoing assessments or to  keep its existing assessments current.
In May 2009, EPA revised its IRIS assessment process. If implemented  effectively, these assessment reforms will be largely responsive to our  2008 recommendations. Among other things, they will restore EPA’s  control of the process and increase its transparency. Specifically, under  the prior process, interagency reviews were required and managed by the  Office of Management and Budget, and EPA was not allowed to proceed  with assessments at various stages until the office agreed that EPA had  sufficiently responded to interagency comments. In contrast, under the  reforms, EPA is to manage the entire assessment process, and all written  comments on draft assessments provided during the interagency process  are to be part of the public record. It is too soon to determine whether the  reforms will be effective, but EPA reports it has made some progress in  addressing its assessment backlog. We are currently reviewing EPA’s  implementation of the revised process.
section_title: Addressing EPA’s Ability to Obtain Chemical Health and Safety Information
paragraphs: We have also reported that EPA’s assessments of industrial chemicals  under TSCA provide limited information on health and environmental  risks. In contrast to the approach taken by the European Union—which  generally places the burden on companies to provide data on the  chemicals they produce and to address the risks posed by these chemicals  to human health and the environment—TSCA generally places the burden  on EPA to obtain information about the roughly 80,000 chemicals in the  agency’s TSCA inventory. For example, the act requires EPA to  demonstrate certain health or environmental risks before it can require  companies to further test their chemicals. Consequently, EPA does not  routinely assess the risks of the industrial chemicals already in use.
For the approximately 700 new chemicals introduced into commerce  annually, chemical companies are required to provide EPA with certain  information in premanufacture notices, and EPA can ban or limit the  chemicals’ use if the information is inadequate. Nevertheless, although 85  percent of the notices lack any health or safety test data, EPA does not  often use its authority to obtain more information. After our reports, EPA  began taking steps to address some of these issues. For example, under its  existing authorities, EPA has initiated actions on such chemicals as  mercury and lead to, for example, ban or phase out their use in certain  products. Most of these actions are in their early stages of development.
As we reported in our February 2011 High-Risk Update, EPA needs to  continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to and support of the IRIS  program and its TSCA initiatives. Specifically, we stated that EPA needs to  ensure that its 2009 IRIS reforms are implemented effectively and that the  program can routinely provide timely and credible assessments. Regarding  TSCA, we have recommended both statutory and regulatory changes to,  among other things, provide EPA with additional authorities to obtain  health and safety information from the chemical industry and to shift more  of the burden to chemical companies for demonstrating the safety of their  chemicals. The EPA Administrator has expressed support for TSCA  reforms and in 2010 developed principles for addressing them.
section_title: Addressing Nanotechnology as an Emerging TSCA Issue
paragraphs: Finally, one emerging area of toxic substance regulation on which we  recently reported, and for which EPA faces challenges, is the area of  nanotechnology. Nanotechnology involves the ability to control matter at  the scale of a nanometer—one billionth of a meter. The world market for  products containing nanomaterials is expected to reach $2.6 trillion by  2015. EPA has taken some regulatory action under TSCA to address  potential risks to human health and the environment related to  nanotechnology, but other planned actions have not yet gone into effect.  Overall, EPA has issued four regulations characterizing the manufacture of  four different nanomaterials as significant new uses of existing chemicals  under TSCA.
In our May 2010 report, we recommended, among other things, that EPA  finalize a number of regulatory actions it had planned to pursue.  Specifically, according to EPA, the agency plans to propose a new rule  that would regulate, in a single rule, a range of nanoscale versions of  existing chemicals as significant new uses of those chemicals. EPA also  plans to require companies to provide certain information on  nanomaterials—including production volume, methods of manufacture  and processing, exposure and release, and available health and safety  studies—and plans to require companies to generate test data on the  health effects of different nanomaterials. At the time our report was  released, EPA reported that it planned to propose these rules by  December 2010, but has not yet done so. While EPA continues to work on  these rules, however, products may be entering the market without EPA  review of available information on their potential risk. In addition,  although EPA requires chemical companies to periodically provide certain  information on many of the chemicals currently in commerce, it has not  extended this requirement to nanomaterials.
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. Since its enactment, much progress has been  achieved under the act to control pollution from wastewater treatment  plants and other specific “point sources” of discharge. Since that time,  however, other challenges have emerged and continue to confront EPA  and other levels of government in their efforts to ensure safe and abundant  water supplies for the American people. These challenges include (1) the  need to focus more attention on diffuse, or “nonpoint,” sources of  pollution to address the most significant of the nation’s remaining water  quality problems; (2) the unique challenges posed by deterioration in the  nation’s premier watersheds including, among others, the Chesapeake Bay  and Great Lakes; and (3) daunting challenges posed by the multibillion  dollar liabilities associated with replacing, maintaining, and building new  water infrastructure.
subsections: section_title: Controlling Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
paragraphs: The Clean Water Act’s effectiveness has become increasingly challenged  by a recognition that the largest share of the nation’s remaining water  quality problems are more decentralized and diffuse in nature—and  therefore more difficult to monitor and regulate. One such nonpoint  pollution source, for example, 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. Polluted storm water runoff can also make fish and  shellfish unsafe to eat and can adversely affect people using fresh- and  saltwater areas for recreation. In 2007, we reported that while many  communities were still implementing their first permits for controlling  storm water runoff, several factors influence the extent to which EPA’s  storm water program burdens a community, such as prior storm water  management experience. We recommended that EPA evaluate the  implementation of its storm water program, issue additional program  guidance, and consider regulatory changes to improve the quality and  consistency of activity reporting by communities. EPA agreed with our  recommendations to develop guidance to help the agency obtain better  data to evaluate the program and provided additional program guidance to  states and regions on such items as storm water pollution prevention  plans. In 2009, the agency issued a guide to assist permit writers in  strengthening storm water permits in 2010.
The agricultural sector accounts for a large share of water problems  stemming from nonpoint sources and therefore much of the effort to  control such pollution lies within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department  of Agriculture. Crop production, for example, impairs water quality as  pesticides, fertilizer, and sediment run off fields and into nearby water  bodies. Of particular note, a 10-year, nationwide study published in 2006  by the U.S. Geological Survey detected pesticides in 97 percent of streams  in agricultural and urban watersheds. In 2009, we reported that many  experts believe that the increased use of pesticides (insecticides and  herbicides) related in particular to increased crop production for biofuels,  will likely further degrade surface and ground water quality.
Another major source of agriculture-related pollution stems from  discharges associated with large-scale animal feeding operations. 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. Excessive  amounts of these nutrients can deplete oxygen in water, which could  result in fish deaths, reduced aquatic diversity, and illness in infants. Our  2008 report on the subject found that 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 discharge they release. As a  result, EPA has neither the information it needs to assess the extent to  which these concentrated animal-feeding operations may be contributing  to water pollution, nor the information it needs to ensure compliance with  the Clean Water Act.
The question of how well EPA is coordinating its own efforts to control  agricultural pollution with Agriculture is an important part of our ongoing  review of the agency’s Nonpoint Source Management Program, established  under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. This program supports state  nonpoint source management programs, providing funds to states to  implement projects directed toward resolving nonpoint source pollution  problems. Among the key issues being addressed in this broad program  review are the extent to which EPA coordinates the implementation of its  section 319 program with similar efforts to control agricultural nonpoint  sources of pollution undertaken by Agriculture, as well as with other  federally funded efforts to control nonpoint sources of pollution (including  efforts funded through EPA’s own Clean Water State Revolving Fund).
section_title: Emphasizing a Watershed- Based Approach
paragraphs: EPA has increasingly emphasized a “watershed-based approach” that  attempts to restore and protect the nation’s water resources by taking into  account the full range of stresses emanating from all pollution sources.  Under this holistic approach, EPA and its partners seek to identify the  priority threats to large, often multistate watersheds like the Great Lakes  and Chesapeake Bay. EPA partners with federal, state, and local agencies  and nongovernmental organizations to develop and implement approaches  that reduce pollution in our nation’s significant water bodies.
Nonetheless, after decades of effort and expense by EPA and its partners  to spearhead restoration efforts for these watersheds, we reported that  these efforts have been impeded by a lack of targeted strategies; poor  coordination among federal, state, and local stakeholders; and unrealistic  goals for ensuring that limited restoration resources are being used for the  most effective restoration activities. In 2006, for example, we  recommended that EPA ensure that the Chesapeake Bay Program develop  a coordinated implementation strategy unifying its various planning  documents and establishing a means to better target its limited resources  to the most cost-effective restoration activities. Along similar lines, in  2008 we recommended that EPA develop for its Great Lakes Initiative 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 has taken some actions in response to our recommendations. In  addition, in May 2009, the President issued an executive order establishing  a Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay to oversee the  development and coordination of programs and activities of agencies  participating in protection and restoration of the bay. Chaired by EPA, the  committee includes six other federal agencies. Part of its responsibilities  included developing a strategy for coordinated implementation of existing  programs and projects to guide efforts to protect and restore Chesapeake  Bay. The resulting strategy was issued in May 2010. We are currently  assessing this strategy. Additionally, EPA has indicated that it plans to  work with the Great Lakes states in assessing approaches for reducing  mercury in lieu of developing a mercury permitting strategy.
section_title: Rebuilding the Nation’s Aging Water Infrastructure
paragraphs: Some of the most daunting water pollution control problems will be those  faced by EPA and the nation’s water utilities in addressing the multibillion- dollar costs of upgrading aging and deteriorating water infrastructure and  building new infrastructure to serve a growing population. The investment  made throughout the 1970s and 1980s to build and upgrade the nation’s  water infrastructure accounted for much of the progress in past years to  deal with what were, at that time, the pressing water issues of high  bacterial contamination and toxic water pollution. Many of the wastewater  treatment plants and other water infrastructure built in those years,  however, have since reached, or will soon reach, the end of their design  lives. Frequent and highly publicized incidents of combined sewer  overflows into rivers and streams, as well as water main breaks in the  nation’s largest cities, have been perhaps the most visible manifestations  that the problem is growing.
EPA provides funding to the states for water infrastructure upgrades and  construction through the Clean Water and the Drinking Water state  revolving funds, authorized by Congress in 1987 and 1996, respectively.
Congress provided $2.1 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, for each  program in fiscal year 2010. These funds supplement other revenue—from  water rates or other taxes—raised by local utilities to pay for their  infrastructure projects. While EPA also received and distributed about $6  billion in additional water infrastructure funding under the American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the total cost to meet water  infrastructure needs across the country through 2029 has been estimated  to be from $485 billion to $1.2 trillion.
EPA faces a challenge in working with the states and utilities to address  this issue. We have 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. 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. However, additional funds—or revenue from rate  increases—will still likely be needed to address future needs.
To address options for alternative funding sources for these infrastructure  needs, we have issued reports providing information on various proposals  to develop alternative funding sources and mechanisms to address current  and projected water infrastructure needs. In 2009, we reviewed one  proposal to establish a Clean Water Trust Fund, which would provide a  dedicated source of federal funding for wastewater infrastructure.  Stakeholders we interviewed disagreed over whether EPA should  administer such a trust fund as part of the Clean Water State Revolving  Fund. These stakeholders also disagreed over whether funding should be  provided as loans or grants to recipients, although a majority did agree  that funds should pay for capital projects. We also discussed potential  revenue sources for funding a Clean Water Trust Fund and obstacles to  generating revenue from these sources.
In 2010, we examined two other proposed alternative funding sources for  water infrastructure projects: a national infrastructure bank and public- private partnerships. Concerning an infrastructure bank, stakeholders  disagreed over whether an infrastructure bank should be administered by  a federal agency or structured as a government corporation or other entity  and over which types of projects—such as large infrastructure projects or  small ones—should be eligible for bank financing. Stakeholders did agree,  however, that federal funds should be used to finance a bank initially but  that other mechanisms could be used to generate funds for financing  projects over the long term. Regarding public-private partnerships,  officials for the 7 municipalities that had experience with such  arrangements said that advantages of public-private partnerships include  access to nontraditional funding sources, creating potential efficiency  through economies of scale, and completing projects more quickly. These  officials also identified challenges to public-private partnerships, such as  local opposition to potential or perceived rate increases, higher interest  rates charged by private entities involved in the partnership, and increased  project costs because of complex contracts and arrangements.
As a related matter, in 2010, we reviewed 14 states’ spending of Recovery  Act funding on water infrastructure projects. The Recovery Act provided  $6 billion in additional funding for states, $2 billion for the Drinking Water  State Revolving Fund and $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving  Fund. We found that these states allocated the funding to 504 drinking  water projects and 890 clean water projects. We also found that the states  met Recovery Act requirements for providing Clean Water revolving fund  assistance for “green” projects (projects that included environmentally  friendly infrastructure, provided water- or energy-efficiency  improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities). We found,  however, that attention and monitoring by EPA and the states of Recovery  Act projects could be strengthened. As a result, we recommended that  EPA work with the states to implement specific oversight procedures to  monitor and ensure Recovery Act compliance. EPA issued new guidance  in June 2010. We are continuing our review of EPA’s implementation of  Recovery Act funds and how the funds will help address states’ water  quality problems. As part of this work, we will continue to assess EPA’s  and the states’ monitoring of Recovery Act projects.
section_title: Costs and Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and Other Hazardous Waste Sites
paragraphs: To protect human health and the environment from the effects of  hazardous substances, Congress enacted the Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980, which  established the Superfund program. Since 1980, EPA has identified more  than 47,000 hazardous waste sites potentially requiring cleanup. As of the  beginning of fiscal year 2010, 1,269 of the most seriously contaminated  sites were included on EPA’s National Priorities List: 1,111 nonfederal  sites and 158 federal facilities. Among the key findings of our recent work  are that (1) cleanup costs are likely to be substantial, (2) problems with  the accuracy and completeness of data prevent the agency from estimating  future cleanup costs, and (3) several key obstacles have delayed cleanup  progress at Department of Defense (DOD) installations. Our recent work  provides an indication of the challenges that lie ahead for this important  program.
subsections: section_title: Addressing Substantial Cleanup Costs
paragraphs: We and other organizations have cited the growing gap between the costs  associated with cleaning up sites remaining on the National Priorities List  and funds available to do so. Cleanup efforts at listed sites are typically  expensive and can take many years. While responsible parties are liable  for conducting or paying for site cleanup of hazardous substances—and  EPA can seek reimbursement for its cleanup costs from these parties—the  parties in some cases cannot be identified or may be unwilling or  financially unable to perform the cleanup. To fund EPA-led cleanups at  nonfederal National Priorities sites, EPA uses the Hazardous Substance  Superfund (trust fund) from which EPA receives annual appropriations.  Historically, the trust fund was financed primarily by taxes on crude oil  and certain chemicals, as well as an environmental tax on corporations  based on their taxable income. The authority for these taxes expired in  1995, however, and shortly thereafter the balance in the trust fund started  to diminish. Since 2001, appropriations from general revenues have been  the largest source of funding for the trust fund. At the start of fiscal year  2009, the trust fund had a balance of $137 million. Superfund program  appropriations have averaged about $1.2 billion annually since 1981,  although the annual level of these appropriated funds has generally  declined in recent years when adjusted for inflation.
In June 2010 we reported that EPA’s cost to remediate existing and future  National Priorities sites will likely exceed current funding levels.
Considerable work remains at most nonfederal sites on the list with  unknown or unacceptable human exposures, and some site cleanups have  not been funded at a level that is sufficient to ensure meaningful results.  Moreover, site costs are likely to increase because, according to EPA, in  the program’s early years the agency focused resources on sites that  needed less construction work and were farther along in the cleanup  process. Consequently, the sites that have been on the National Priorities  List the longest without completing construction of cleanup remedies are  likely to face more complex and costly future cleanup work.
section_title: Resolving Data Limitations Hindering Estimates of Program Costs
paragraphs: While remedial actions have been implemented or are under way at most  sites on the National Priorities List, the amount of work remaining is  unclear because, as we reported in July 2009, data on whether  construction is complete at sites do not provide a clear picture of the  amount of work that actually remains at sites, and the progress of cleanup  is even less clear for sites where construction is not complete. EPA  program status reports do not provide information on the number and  cleanup status of megasites—sites with actual or expected total cleanup  costs, including removal and remedial action costs, that are expected to  amount to $50 million or more (especially mining and sediment sites). This  information could help indicate the types of conditions driving EPA’s  remedy decisions at sites that were listed more recently, as well as the  impediments to cleanup progress at older sites. Additionally, these reports  do not provide information on the number of sites where responsible  parties are financially unable to help pay for cleanup activities or on the  potential impact on EPA’s ability to carry out cleanup activities when it  cannot obtain reimbursement from responsible parties for agency cleanup  costs. Such information could help indicate the factors that are driving  program expenditures and potential future costs.
Accordingly, we recommended that EPA assess the comprehensiveness  and reliability of the data the agency collects and, where necessary,  improve the data to provide aggregated information on (1) the status and  cost of cleanups at individual sites, particularly complex and expensive  sites; (2) the extent to which there are viable responsible parties at sites  on the National Priorities List; and (3) the potential financial impacts from  EPA’s inability to obtain reimbursement for agency cleanup costs from  nonviable responsible parties. EPA agreed to assess data reported on  program status and costs but did not agree to assess and report data on  the extent to which there are viable responsible parties, nor on the  financial impacts if such parties cannot be identified. We believe these  data are essential to assess EPA’s future funding needs.
As we reported in May 2010, most EPA regional offices expect an increase  in the number of sites added to the National Priorities List over the next 5  years but cannot estimate the associated cleanup costs. One factor that  could increase the number of sites eligible for the list is whether EPA  begins to assess the risks of subsurface hazardous substances leaking  upward into homes and businesses (vapor intrusion). As a result, we  recommended that EPA determine the extent to which EPA will consider  vapor intrusion as part of the listing process for the National Priorities List  and how this phenomenon will affect the number of sites listed in the  future. EPA agreed with our recommendation.
section_title: Confronting Difficulties in the Cleanup of DOD Superfund Sites
paragraphs: Our July 2010 report on DOD-related Superfund sites identified several  obstacles—including poor coordination, lack of interagency agreements,  contract management, and legal limitations—that have delayed cleanups.  First, poor coordination with regulators and incomplete record reviews  have resulted in poor decision making, such as placing military personnel  in housing at risk of contamination, ultimately leading to their evacuation.  Second, because DOD had not signed interagency agreements at some of  its National Priorities List sites, EPA lacked the mechanisms to ensure that  cleanup proceeds expeditiously, is properly done, and has public input as  required by law. Third, DOD’s use of performance-based contracts to clean  up installations has affected how the cleanup work was scoped and  conducted and has created pressure on contractors to operate within price  caps and meet deadlines, which may conflict with regulatory review times  and encourage the department to take shortcuts. Finally, EPA has virtually  no enforcement tools available to compel agency compliance with the law  at installations without an interagency agreement, unless EPA has  concurrence from the Department of Justice, whose policy generally  precludes one agency from bringing suit against another.
section_title: Addressing EPA’s Emerging Role in Climate Change
paragraphs: As one of the most complicated interdisciplinary environmental issues  currently facing the federal government, climate change poses particular  management challenges for EPA. We have previously reported that, in  addition to its environmental implications, 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. We have also analyzed and reported  on recent legislative and regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas  emissions. Recent GAO work has also identified a range of climate change  management challenges for the federal government at large, including a  broad array of departments with diverse missions. For EPA, particular  challenges relate to the agency’s ongoing efforts to reduce carbon  emissions; to coordinate activities with other agencies; and to account for  and manage data on greenhouse gas emissions.
subsections: section_title: Legislative and Regulatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Efforts
paragraphs: Several bills that would have established comprehensive emissions  reduction programs were introduced and debated during the 111th  Congress, although none became law. To provide the Congress with  relevant information during these deliberations, however, we reported on  the economic implications of different policy options and on lessons  learned from the European Union’s own efforts to implement mandatory  carbon reductions. We found, for example, that the European Union set its  overall emissions limit, or “cap,” too high (i.e., at a level that was higher  than actual emissions) because of uncertainty surrounding the emissions  data used to set the cap. We also reported on carbon offsets—reductions  of greenhouse gas emissions from an activity on one place to compensate  for emissions elsewhere—noting that the credibility of offsets could  compromise the environmental integrity of a system to reduce emissions.
In the absence of a law establishing a cap-and-trade program in the United  States, EPA is implementing a regulatory program to reduce greenhouse  gas emissions that is facing an array of legal challenges. Specifically, in  2009 EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor  vehicles are contributing to air pollution that is endangering public health  and welfare. This finding, known as the Endangerment Finding, is the  foundation for all of EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the  Clean Air Act. Twenty-six lawsuits have been filed challenging the  endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, the EPA rule  establishing emissions standards for light-duty motor vehicles went into  effect on January 2, 2011. Additional rules subjecting certain stationary  sources to regulation under the Clean Air Act as of January 2, 2011, have  also been challenged. All of these lawsuits are to be heard together by the  same panel of judges. Moreover, to date, five bills that would preclude  EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act have been  introduced in the 112th Congress.
section_title: Coordinating Climate Change Activities with Other Agencies
paragraphs: Climate change has the potential to affect every sector and level of  government operations. Consequently, there are areas in which EPA will  need to work closely with other agencies and to clarify its own role within  broader, governmentwide efforts. One example arose during our 2008  work on the federal government’s examination of carbon capture and  storage as a means of reducing carbon emissions from the electric utility  sector. Carbon capture and storage involves capturing carbon dioxide  from a power plant’s emissions, transporting it to an underground storage  location, and then injecting it into a geologic formation for long-term  storage. In addition to its formidable technological challenges, we noted  that carbon capture and storage faces significant legal and regulatory  uncertainties. We noted that EPA was addressing some of these  uncertainties (specifically by issuing a rule to govern underground  injection of carbon dioxide for geologic sequestration), but that “many of  them fall within the domain of the Departments of Energy, the Interior,  Transportation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other  agencies in a manner that would require collaboration between agencies  and, in many cases, coordination with state governments and other  entities.”
We recommended that EPA more comprehensively examine barriers to  the development of carbon capture and storage by identifying key issues  that fall outside the agency’s Safe Drinking Water Act authority. EPA’s  Office of Water responded to GAO that it is committed to work both with  other offices within the agency as well as other “partner federal agencies”  to assess the implications of various statutes on the development of  carbon capture and storage. As a related matter, the White House  established an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage on  February 3, 2010, to develop a comprehensive and coordinated federal  strategy to speed the commercial development and deployment of clean  coal technologies. Among other things, the Task Force’s August 2010  report recommended that EPA and other relevant agencies work to  quickly and collaboratively propose, finalize, and implement a regulatory  framework to ensure safe and effective carbon capture and storage  deployment.
section_title: Developing and Managing Data on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
paragraphs: High-quality data on greenhouse gas emissions are critical to the  development and implementation of domestic and international efforts to  address climate change. As we recently reported, for example, a European  Union program designed to control carbon emissions has run into  difficulties due to a lack of facility-specific data on baseline emissions.
EPA faces particular challenges in accounting for and managing emissions  data from facilities. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 directed  EPA to issue a regulation requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas  emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy. EPA  issued the regulation under its Clean Air Act authority on October 30,  2009. The regulation includes provisions to ensure the accuracy of  emissions data through monitoring, record-keeping, and verification  requirements. According to EPA, the rule covers approximately 10,000  facilities responsible for an estimated 85 to 90 percent of total U.S.  greenhouse gas emissions. Data collection, monitoring, and verification for  a universe of facilities this large could be expected to pose a formidable  challenge for EPA especially in light of the tight budget environment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact David  Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this  testimony include Steve Elstein, Assistant Director, Nathan Anderson, and  Joseph D. Thompson. Also contributing to this testimony were Liz  Beardsley; Antoinette Capaccio; Ellen Chu; Emily Eischen; Elizabeth  Erdmann; Christine Fishkin; Mike Hix; Richard P. Johnson; James R.  Jones, Jr.; Susan Iott; Barbara Patterson; Vincent Price; Diane Raynes;  Daniel Semick; John C. Smith; and Jeanette Soares.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: High Risk Series
paragraphs: High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.:   February 2011.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.:   January 2009.
section_title: Improving Agencywide Management
paragraphs: Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should  Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation,  GAO-10-413. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010.
Clean Water Act: Longstanding Issues Impact EPA’s and States’  Enforcement Efforts GAO-10-165T. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2009.
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.
Chesapeake Bay Program: Recent Actions Are Positive Steps Toward  More Effectively Guiding Restoration Efforts. GAO-08-1033T.  Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2008.
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 Protection: EPA-State Enforcement Partnership Has  Improved, but EPA’s Oversight Needs Further Enhancement.  GAO-07-883. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 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 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.
Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination Is Needed to Develop  Environmental Indicator Sets That Inform Decisions. GAO-05-52.  Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2004.
Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would  Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals. GAO-01-812. Washington, D.C.:  July 31, 2001.
section_title: Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals
paragraphs: Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA  Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk. GAO-10-549. Washington, D. C:   May 25, 2010.
Chemical Regulation: Observations on Improving the Toxic Substances  Control Act. GAO-10-292T. Washington, D.C.: December 2, 2009.
EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to  Address Key Problems. GAO-09-774T. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2009.
Scientific Integrity: EPA’s Efforts to Enhance the Credibility and  Transparency of Its Scientific Processes. GAO-09-773T. Washington, D.C.:  June 9, 2009.
Chemical Regulation: Options for Enhancing the Effectiveness of the  Toxic Substances Control Act. GAO-09-428T. Washington, D.C.:   February 26, 2009.
High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.:  January, 2009.
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: Reducing Pollution in the Nation’s Waters
paragraphs: Wastewater Infrastructure Financing: Stakeholder Views on a National  Infrastructure Bank and Public-Private Partnerships. GAO-10-728.  Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010.
Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and Efforts  to Ensure Accountability. GAO-10-604. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010.
Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in  Production and Use. GAO-09-446. Washington, D.C.: August 25, 2009.
Clean Water Infrastructure: A Variety of Issues Need to Be Considered  When Designing a Clean Water Trust Fund. GAO-09-657. Washington,  D.C.: May 29, 2009.
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.
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.: September 4, 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.
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.: October 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.: March 19, 2004.
section_title: Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and Other Hazardous Waste Sites
paragraphs: Superfund: Interagency Agreements and Improved Project Management  Needed to Achieve Cleanup Progress at Key Defense Installations.  GAO-10-348. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2010.
Superfund: Costs to Remediate Existing and Future Sites Will Likely  Exceed Current Funding Levels. GAO-10-857T. Washington, D.C.:   June 22, 2010.
Superfund: EPA’s Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed  Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the  National Priorities List. GAO-10-380. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.
Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information  on Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program Funding  Requirements. GAO-09-656. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009.
Superfund: Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to  Enhance Cleanup at DOD Sites. GAO-09-278. Washington, D.C.:   March 13, 2009.
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.:  August 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.:   January 28, 2005.
section_title: Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues
paragraphs: Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal  Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts. GAO-10-903.  September 23, 2010.
Carbon Trading: Current Situation and Oversight Considerations for  Policymakers. GAO-10-851R. Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2010.
Climate Change: The Quality, Comparability, and Review of Emissions  Inventories Vary Between Developed and Developing Nations.  GAO-10-818. July 30, 2010.
Climate Change: Observations on Options for Selling Emissions  Allowances in a Cap-and-Trade Program. GAO-10-377. Washington, D.C.:  February 24, 2010.
Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help  Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-113.  Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2009.
Climate Change Adaptation: Information on Selected Federal Efforts   To Adapt To a Changing Climate (GAO-10-114SP, October 7, 2009), an  E-supplement to GAO-10-113. GAO-10-114SP. Washington, D.C.:   October 7, 2009.
Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but  Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies  Can Help Control Emissions.GAO-09-554. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2009.
Climate Change Science: High Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data  are a Cornerstone of Programs to Address Climate Change. GAO-09-423T.  Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2009.
International Climate Change Programs: Lessons Learned from the  European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol’s  Clean Development Mechanism. GAO-09-151. Washington, D.C.:  November 18, 2008.
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-07-285. Washington,  D.C.: March 16, 2007.
Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be  Clearer and More Complete. GAO-05-461. Washington, D.C.:   August 25, 2005.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.