Environmental Protection Agency: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges
Released: 2001-07-16T00:00:00

Letter

Background

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after transmittal of the president’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an agency’s longer-term goals and mission and day-to-day activities. Annual performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed to improve performance, and reduce costs in the future.

With over 18,000 employees and an annual budget of approximately $7 billion, EPA funds diverse regulatory, research, enforcement, and technical assistance programs and activities that are directed toward controlling pollution of the air, land, and water. The nation’s annual costs to comply with environmental regulations are substantial and have been growing, and costs were estimated at about $148 billion in 2000. A key aspect of EPA’s performance management involves working cooperatively with its state partners in managing environmental programs. As authorized by environmental statutes, the agency has delegated to the states the responsibility for day-to-day implementation of most federal environmental programs; thus, EPA’s working relationships with the states can directly affect the achievement of many of the agency’s strategic goals. Over the past few years, we have identified weaknesses and made a number of recommendations designed to improve EPA’s working relationships with the states.

Assessment of EPA’s Progress and Strategies in Achieving Selected Key Outcomes

This section discusses our analysis of the EPA’s performance in achieving its selected key outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place, particularly strategic human capital management and information technology, for achieving these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes, we have also provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to which the agency provided assurance that the performance information that it is reporting is credible.

Safe and Healthy Air for Communities

EPA reported making progress toward achieving its long-term goal of safe and healthy air in communities. Specifically, the agency reported achieving its goals of improving air quality in areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA under the Clean Air Act. For example, the number of areas attaining air quality standards for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead pollutants increased from 46 to 56, affecting 27.7 to 31.1 million people, respectively. EPA reported progress in reducing airborne toxic emissions that pose serious adverse health effects, including cancer, and expected to exceed its goal for fiscal year 2000. The agency also reported that it was on schedule to reach its goals for reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from utility sources under the Acid Rain Program.

The performance report acknowledges that there are some data limitations with the Aerometric Information Retrieval System for reporting NAAQS progress. For example, the report states that data demonstrating improvement in national ambient air quality standards may be limited by inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement and recording and inconsistent or nonstandard methods of data collection and processing. On the other hand, the report states that monitoring stations providing data must meet certain requirements for accurate data gathering and reporting, and reviews are conducted to ensure requirements are met. (In commenting on a draft of this report, an official of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation stressed that the agency has quality assurance and control procedures so that legal determinations can be made about areas’ attainment status.) Further, EPA’s reported progress for its annual performance goal related to toxic air pollutant emissions relies on calculations and estimates. The performance report notes that the data to confirm reductions in toxic emissions will not be available until 2004 because of time lags associated with reporting and analysis. Similarly, for reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from utility sources, the data to confirm the reported progress will not be available until the end of calendar year 2001. Speeding the collection and verification of emissions data would enhance the agency’s ability to report its actual performance and to support its claims of progress toward these goals by the required date for annual reports. However, according to EPA, the time taken to perform data quality assurance for both the toxic air pollutants and Acid Rain Program will result in continued data-reporting lags.

EPA’s strategy for achieving its goal of improving air quality is to work with states, tribes, and local governments to achieve compliance with NAAQS for six principal pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, EPA required selected states to develop implementation plans to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions and is working with states to collect information on particulate matter. For toxic air pollutants, EPA has developed a monitoring strategy with the assistance of states and local regulators and is beginning to implement this strategy. The agency is also conducting a national assessment focusing on 33 air toxics that present the greatest threat to human health in urban areas, and is planning to establish a monitoring network for toxic pollutants similar to the network for the NAAQS pollutants. EPA’s strategy for achieving its goal of improving air quality appears clear and reasonable.

One of the agency’s strategies for clean air is the continued implementation of the Acid Rain Program, which is focused on reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions at the highest-emitting power plants in the nation. In a March 2000 report, we observed that trends in nitrate levels in lakes affected by acid rain highlighted the significance of nitrogen oxide emissions and that because the Acid Rain Program (as authorized by the Clean Air Act) requires relatively little reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, the prospects are uncertain for the recovery of already acidified lakes and for preventing further acidification. As noted above, EPA has taken other action, outside of the Acid Rain Program, to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

Safe Water for Drinking and Recreation

EPA reported that it is making strides in achieving its goal of safe and clean drinking water. The agency reported that it achieved its goal of having 91 percent of the population, served by community drinking water systems, receiving drinking water that meets all health-based standards that were in effect as of 1994. The agency further reported that it achieved its goal of reducing exposure to contaminated recreational waters by increasing information available to the public and decisionmakers. For example, the agency made electronic information available on the condition of 1,981 beaches, which enabled the public to locate beach closings and reduce its exposure to contaminated recreational waters.

Concluding that both of these goals have been achieved, however, relies on information from sources with data limitations acknowledged by EPA. For example, the Safe Drinking Water Information System is the main data source for states’ implementation of and compliance with drinking water regulations. EPA notes that there are recurrent reports of discrepancies between national and state databases and misidentifications, resulting in EPA designating the system data as an agency weakness in 1999 under the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act. To help correct these discrepancies, EPA developed and implemented state-specific training for data entry and developed transaction processing and tracking reports. Similarly, beach condition information is voluntarily reported into a database for public access. EPA notes that there are no rigorous quality checks on data quality and, because reporting is voluntary, data are incomplete. However, EPA officials stated that data are checked for completeness and questions about missing data are resolved with state or local officials.

EPA’s strategy for ensuring that water is safe for drinking involves several approaches, and relies heavily on actions by the states. (Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, the states are responsible for implementing programs to help ensure that drinking water systems have the financial, technical, and managerial ability to comply with regulations and for overseeing water systems’ compliance with regulations on specific contaminants.) While these are reasonable strategies to accomplish EPA’s goals, we have identified opportunities for the agency to implement them more effectively. For example: First, the agency uses a regulatory approach by issuing standards that address acceptable levels of contaminants in drinking water. For example, within the past year the agency established a new standard for arsenic in drinking water. (The agency recently delayed the effective date of the arsenic standard until February 2002.) EPA conducts research to support these standards. We have recommended, and EPA subsequently concurred, that the agency improve its planning for this research to ensure that it will be adequately funded and research results will be available when needed.

Second, the agency provides funding to states for drinking water revolving funds. While the state revolving funds are primarily directed at financing local infrastructure, the states, at their option, may reserve up to 31 percent of their annual allotments for related program activities, such as training water system operators. In an August 2000 report, we observed that, even with the funding available from EPA, state-level spending constraints could impair the states’ ability to meet future program requirements, and concluded that it will become imperative to address the factors that have thus far affected the states’ ability to implement their programs.

Finally, the agency addresses state drinking water sources through the Source Water Assessment and Prevention Program. Under this program states conduct assessments of public water supplies in helping to determine the susceptibility of contamination. While we have not specifically evaluated the source water assessment program, we have identified difficulties EPA and the states have faced in assessing the quality of surface waters.

Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste (“Superfund”) Sites

EPA reported that it made progress in cleaning up hazardous waste sites and that most long-term commitments for the Superfund program were on track or ahead of schedule. The agency reported that it exceeded its fiscal year 2000 goal of completing construction cleanup at 85 Superfund sites by having 87 sites with construction cleanup complete, which the agency defines as the point at which a cleanup remedy is in place. While reaching this point may take many years, more time may be needed before all cleanup standards are achieved and some remaining long-term threats are addressed at the site. Therefore, we have reported that “construction complete” should not be construed as an indicator that all cleanup work is completed and the sites can be returned to economic use. Accordingly, while EPA attained its goal, this should not be construed that the sites are cleaned up and no further actions are necessary.

The agency fell short of its annual performance goal for reaching interagency agreements with other federal agencies that are responsible for site contamination and clean up. Of the six agreements targeted for completion in fiscal year 2000, only two were completed but the agency reported that two more were completed since the beginning of fiscal year 2001. For nonfederal sites, the agency reported that it nearly attained its goal for securing cleanup commitments from responsible parties for 70 percent of the new construction starts and for recovering costs from responsible parties when EPA spends $200,000 or more for site cleanups.

EPA works in partnership with state and tribal governments to clean up Superfund sites and ensure that parties responsible for the site contamination pay a fair share of the cleanup costs. EPA may compel parties responsible for the contamination to perform the cleanup, or it may pay for the cleanup and attempt to recover the costs. EPA may also enter into settlements with responsible parties to clean up sites or recover costs. The agency must initiate cost recovery actions within time periods specified in the statute of limitations, and EPA’s goal is to take action on all cases with cleanup costs of $200,000 or more within those timeframes. We previously found that EPA had excluded certain indirect cost items in recovering amounts from responsible parties; however, in October 2000, EPA adopted a new indirect cost rate that should increase recoveries and make more funds available for the program.

EPA’s strategy for reaching interagency agreements for site cleanups with other federal agencies is less clear without more specific information in the performance report. The agency reported that it will continue to compel federal parties to complete the agreements but did not elaborate on a strategy for achieving this goal in the performance report. Without more specific information on interagency activities it is unclear how EPA will accomplish this performance goal.

Unsafe Pesticide Residues in Food Supplies

EPA reported making progress in ensuring that food is free from unsafe pesticide residues, especially where children are concerned. The agency continues to register new pesticides for use that pose lower risk to human health and the environment than some older pesticides. For example, the agency reported that it met its goal of approving 6 new chemicals that are safe for use in pesticides; exceeded its goal for reduced risk chemicals by approving 16; and approved 427 new uses in fiscal year 2000. EPA also reported on its efforts to reassess the safety of existing allowable pesticide residue levels (tolerances) to ensure that they are safe as required in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. EPA reassessed 121 tolerances, well short of its goal of 1,250 for fiscal year 2000. As of September 2000, the agency reported that it had completed reassessments for 3,551 tolerances and that it was on track to complete 6,415 tolerances by August 2002, and 9,721 by August 2006, as mandated by the act. As we noted in a September 2000 report, however, the only tolerances that EPA counted as “reassessed” for the high-risk organophosphate pesticides—which account for more than half of all food crop insecticides used in this country—were ones that were canceled voluntarily by the manufacturers, without the need for extensive EPA work.

EPA’s reported strategies to accomplish the agency’s goal that food does not have unsafe pesticide residues appear clear and reasonable, and involve EPA evaluating test data on pesticide ingredients before it registers a product for sale and use. The test data include studies on the effects products will have on humans, animals, and plants. The agency is also developing and evaluating improved methods to estimate human exposure risk from pesticides. For example, the agency sought public comment on 14 guidelines or policy papers on evaluating pesticide topics and consulted with stakeholders through the Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee. To reassess tolerances as required under the Food Quality Protection Act, the agency has focused on tolerance assessments involving high-risk organophosphate pesticides. EPA views this activity as a major step in risk reduction and we believe this is a reasonable approach. Because this class of chemical has a common method of toxicity, EPA must also perform a cumulative risk assessment as required by the Food Quality and Protection Act. EPA reports that when a cumulative risk policy is issued by the end of fiscal year 2001, the number of completed reassessments will surge. The agency’s report mentions, but does not elaborate on, difficulties in developing a cumulative risk policy as planned and steps that are needed to attain completion of the policy by the end of fiscal year 2001. While the agency reports that it is making progress in attaining the future reassessment goals, the uncertainty surrounding the development of a cumulative risk policy raises questions as to whether the goals will be ultimately achieved.

Comparison of EPA’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan With the Prior Year Report and Plan for Selected Key Outcomes

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements or remaining weaknesses in EPA’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002 performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also discusses the degree to which the agency’s fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan addresses concerns and recommendations by the Congress, GAO, the EPA’s OIG, and others.

Comparison of Performance Reports for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000

EPA has made several improvements to its fiscal year 2000 report from the prior year. Some of these changes are in direct response to concerns that we raised in our June 2000 report on EPA’s fiscal year 1999 performance report. These concerns included the need for the performance report to discuss the prior fiscal year’s performance, actions taken by other organizations to attain goals, and actions taken to validate data on performance. In its fiscal year 2000 report, EPA made the following improvements: Included relevant information on actual performance under the fiscal year 1999 plan, in addition to performance relative to the goals for fiscal year 2000. Identified actions by other federal, state, and local agencies that affect attainment of its goals, as well as the type of automated systems and databases that were used to capture information and measure performance towards meeting the stated goals. Identified actions taken to identify or validate the quality of data being provided by the agency along with data limitations, and audits or reviews of the data.

Presented tables of results by individual strategic goal, rather than a consolidated table for all goals.

The 2000 performance report could also be easily compared to the fiscal year 2002 performance plan because the report was organized by goal and objective.

EPA’s performance report states that in setting future annual performance goals and targets, it will focus on developing outcome-based program goals where possible. The agency has heretofore relied more on output- oriented performance measures, rather than end outcome measures directly related to environmental conditions. In analyzing EPA’s performance plan for fiscal year 2000, for example, we found that 16 percent of the agency’s performance goals and measures focused on end- outcomes.

Comparison of Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

EPA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan reflects numerous changes to the performance goals and the related objectives from the 2001 performance plan. EPA notes in the fiscal year 2002 plan that strategic goals and objectives are based on the strategic plan as revised in fiscal year 2000 and may differ from those associated with the previous strategic plan. While the agency has maintained the titles of goals for the key outcomes we reviewed, the definition of the safe food goal was changed in the fiscal year 2002 plan by emphasizing all subpopulations that are particularly susceptible to pesticides (the fiscal year 2001 plan emphasized only children even though the program addressed the vulnerability of all susceptible subpopulations). “By 2005, EPA and its partners will reduce or control the risk to human health and the environment at over 375,000 contaminated Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Underground Storage Tank (UST), and brownfield sites.” “By 2005, EPA and its federal, state, tribal, and local partners will reduce or control the risk to human health and the environment at more than 374,000 contaminated Superfund, RCRA, and UST and brownfields sites and have the planning and preparedness capabilities to respond successfully to all known emergencies to reduce the risk to human health and the environment.”

EPA’s revised strategic plan does not indicate why changes were made to various goals and objectives.

In our report on EPA’s fiscal year 2001 performance plan, we concluded that the plan fell short on providing specifics on crosscutting goals and measures. For example, we reported that EPA did not describe how other federal agencies’ goals complement or supplement EPA’s goals. The agency’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also falls short in this regard. For example, the section of the plan describing coordination with other agencies on safe drinking water is virtually the same as in the prior year’s plan and does not discuss other federal agency goals that complement or supplement EPA’s goals.

EPA’s Efforts to Address Its Major Management Challenges Identified by GAO

GAO has identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human capital management and information security. Regarding strategic human capital management, we found that the agency’s performance report did describe its progress in resolving human capital challenges and EPA’s performance plan did have a goal and measures related to human capital. For example, the report identifies human capital strategy implementation as a management challenge and states that it has a blueprint in place for initial and long-term steps needed to address the weakness. However, we found in a January 2001 report that the strategy did not contain information on specific steps to address human capital issues related to each of EPA’s 10 strategic goals. We also reported that while the agency has developed a strategy for assessing its human capital needs, it has not yet implemented the strategy. EPA’s performance plan sets forth human capital performance measures, but does not clearly convey the rationale for specific measures or relate them to program-related goals such as those for clean air or safe drinking water. For example, one performance measure is to have 40 participants in the SES Candidate Program, but it is unclear how this measure relates to the growing number of individuals eligible for retirement or to the needs of any particular program area. With respect to information security, we found that the agency’s performance report does describe its progress in resolving its information security challenges and EPA’s performance plan does have goals and measures related to information security.

We have identified four major management challenges facing EPA. Two of these involved the governmentwide high-risk areas of human capital and information security. The third challenge involves EPA-state working relationships and the fourth challenge involves environmental and performance information management. EPA’s performance report discusses the agency’s progress in resolving all of these challenges. For example, the report discusses EPA’s working relationships with the states and the need to establish a central authority for its National Environmental Performance Partnership System. Of the four major management challenges that we identified, EPA’s performance plan has four goals and seven measures that are directly related to three of the challenges—human capital, information security, and environmental and performance information management. For example, in the area of information security, the agency has a goal for improving the quality of environmental information and under that goal is an objective to improve agency information infrastructure and security. The performance measure for this objective is directed at completion of risk assessments for information systems. There are no specific goals or measures related to the major management challenge of improving working relationships with the states.

Agency Comments

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and comment. The agency generally agreed with the findings in the report and suggested several technical clarifications, which we incorporated, as appropriate, into the report. These comments were provided by EPA officials from the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

Scope and Methodology

Our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA, the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to agencies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2), previous reports and evaluations by us and others, our knowledge of EPA’s operations and programs, our identification of best practices concerning performance planning and reporting, and our observations on EPA’s other GPRA-related efforts. We also discussed our review with agency officials in various EPA headquarters offices. The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as important mission areas for the agency. The major management challenges confronting EPA, including the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management and information security, were identified by GAO in our January 2001 performance and accountability series and high risk update, and were identified by EPA’s Office of Inspector General in December 2000. We did not independently verify the information contained in the performance report and plan, although we did draw from other GAO work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of EPA’s performance data. We conducted our review from April 2001 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report were Willie Bailey, Bernice Dawson, Alice London, Ron Parker, Colleen Phillips, John Wanska, and Greg Wilshusen.

Appendix I: Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to Address Its Major Management Challenges

The following table identifies the major management challenges confronting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which includes the governmentwide high-risk areas of human capital and information security. The first column of the table lists the management challenges that we and/or EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) have identified. The second column discusses what progress, as discussed in its fiscal year 2000 performance report, EPA made in resolving its challenges. The third column discusses the extent to which EPA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes performance goals and measures to address the challenges that we and the EPA’s OIG identified. We found that EPA’s performance report discussed the agency’s progress in resolving its challenges. Of the agency’s nine major management challenges, its performance plan had (1) four that were directly related to goals and measures, (2) three that were indirectly applicable to goals and measures, and (3) two that had no related goals and measure but discussed strategies to address them.