Environmental Protection Agency: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes
and Addressing Major Management Challenges (15-JUN-01,		 
GAO-01-774).							 
								 
This report reviews the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)  
fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002	 
performance plan required by the Government Performance and	 
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency's progress in	 
achieving selected key outcomes, that are important to achieving 
EPA's mission. EPA reported reasonable progress in achieving its 
key outcomes. Specifically, EPA reported (1) attaining air	 
quality standards in more areas of the country and reducing	 
emissions of toxic pollutants, (2) making strides in achieving	 
its goal of safe and clean drinking water, (3) making progress in
cleaning up hazardous waste sites, and (4) making progress in	 
ensuring that food is free from unsafe pesticide residues. While 
EPA made several improvements to its fiscal year 2000 performance
report, it still falls short in providing information on	 
crosscutting goals and measures. EPA's 2002 performance plan's	 
goals and performance measures address some, but not all, major  
management challenges.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-774 					        
    ACCNO:   A01112						        
  TITLE:     Environmental Protection Agency: Status of Achieving Key 
             Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges              
     DATE:   06/15/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Air pollution control				 
	     Food inspection					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Potable water					 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Waste disposal					 
	     Water quality					 
	     Government Performance and Results Act		 
	     Superfund Program					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-774
     
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs

United States General Accounting Office

GAO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges

GAO- 01- 774

Page 1 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

June 15, 2001 The Honorable Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member Committee
on Governmental Affairs United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson: As you requested, we reviewed the Environmental
Protection Agency?s (EPA) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal
year 2002 performance plan required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency?s progress in achieving
selected key outcomes that you identified as important mission areas for the
agency. 1 These are the same outcomes we addressed in our June 2000 review
of the agency?s fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001
performance plan to provide a baseline by which to measure the agency?s
performance from year- to- year. 2 These selected key outcomes are

 the air in every community is safe and healthy to breathe,  water is safe
for drinking and recreation,  hazardous waste (? Superfund?) sites are
cleaned up, and  food supplies are free from unsafe pesticide residues.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for EPA as a framework, we (1)
assessed the progress EPA has made in achieving these outcomes and the
strategies the agency has in place to achieve them and (2) compared the EPA
fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan
with the agency?s prior year performance report and plan for these outcomes.
Additionally, we agreed to analyze how EPA addressed its major management
challenges, including the governmentwide high- risk areas of strategic human
capital management and information security, that we and EPA?s Office of
Inspector General

1 This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial
Officers (CFO) Act agencies? fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal
year 2002 performance plans. 2 See Observations on the Environmental
Protection Agency?s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Plan (GAO/ RCED- 00- 203R, June 30, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

(OIG) identified. (App. I provides detailed information on how EPA addressed
these challenges).

EPA reported reasonable progress in achieving its key outcomes. In general,
EPA?s strategies for achieving these outcomes appear to be clear and
reasonable. Specifically,

 Planned outcome: The air in every community is safe and healthy to
breathe. EPA reported attaining air quality standards in more areas of the
country and reducing emissions of toxic pollutants. However, EPA noted that
the data demonstrating attainment have potential limitations, including
imprecise measurement and recording and inconsistent or nonstandard methods
of data collection and processing. The agency further noted that data to
confirm the toxic emissions reductions will not be available for several
years. EPA?s strategy for achieving its goal of improving air quality
appears clear and reasonable and relies on working with states, tribes, and
local governments to achieve compliance with standards for six principal
pollutants. For other toxic air pollutants, EPA has developed a monitoring
strategy with the assistance of states and local regulators and is beginning
to implement this strategy.

 Planned outcome: Water is safe for drinking and recreation. EPA reported
that it is making strides in achieving its goal of safe and clean drinking
water by achieving the annual performance 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.
However, EPA acknowledged that the data for drinking water are of uncertain
quality, noting discrepancies between state and national databases. 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 on beach contamination; however, this information
may be incomplete because it is reported voluntarily and there are no
rigorous quality checks on data quality. EPA?s strategy for ensuring that
water is safe for drinking and recreation appears reasonable and involves
several approaches, such as providing states with funding for drinking water
revolving funds. These strategies may not be fully successful in achieving
the strategic goal because of factors such as funding constraints that may
impair the states? ability to implement their programs, as we reported.
Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

 Planned outcome: Hazardous waste (? Superfund?) sites are cleaned up. EPA
reported that it made progress in cleaning up hazardous waste sites by
exceeding its fiscal year 2000 goal of completing construction cleanup at 85
Superfund sites by having 87 sites completed. EPA?s measure of completing
construction reflects that a cleanup remedy is in place, and not necessarily
that all cleanup work is completed and the sites can be returned to economic
use. The agency also reported that it nearly attained its goal of securing
cleanup commitments from responsible parties for 70 percent of new
construction sites. For federal Superfund sites, the agency fell short in
reaching inter- agency agreements with other 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. EPA?s strategy of
working in partnership with state and tribal governments to clean up
Superfund sites is reasonable. EPA?s strategy for reaching interagency
agreements for site cleanups with other federal agencies is less clear
without more specific information in its performance report.

 Planned outcome: Food supplies are free from unsafe pesticide residues.
EPA reported making progress in ensuring that food is free from unsafe
pesticide residues, especially where children are concerned. It reported
that it met its goals in registering new pesticides for use that are safe
for human health and the environment. However, the agency reported that it
fell short in its efforts to reassess the safety of existing pesticide
residue levels to ensure that they meet the statutory standard, primarily
because of the continued development of a policy on addressing cumulative
risk. EPA?s strategies to accomplish its goals involve evaluating test data
on pesticide ingredients before it registers a product for sale and
developing and evaluating improved methods to estimate human exposure risk
from pesticides. These reported strategies appear clear and reasonable.

EPA made a number of improvements to its fiscal year 2000 performance
report. For example, the report (1) presents tables of performance results
by individual strategic goal, rather than a consolidated table for all
goals; (2) presents more information on the actions taken to identify or
validate the quality of information included in the report; and (3)
addresses, in a separate section, the major management challenges that we
and the OIG raised as well as agency- identified internal weaknesses.
Several of these changes are in direct response to the concerns we raised
regarding the prior year?s report. The performance report still falls short,
however, in providing information on crosscutting goals and measures, such
as how other federal agencies? goals supplement or complement EPA?s goals.

Page 4 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

EPA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan is similar- in format, clarity, and
amount of information presented- to the prior year?s plan. However, the 2002
plan is based on EPA?s revised (in fiscal year 2000) Strategic Plan, while
the fiscal year 2001 performance plan was based on the previous Strategic
Plan; accordingly, the goals and the objectives differ somewhat. For
example, the focus of the safe food goal has been modified, and the number
of objectives has been changed.

EPA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report addressed all of the major
management challenges that we raised. For example, the report presents
information on the agency?s implementation of a human capital strategy and
sets forth the agency?s corrective action strategy, which calls for
identifying program skills needed in the future and the gap with existing
skills. EPA?s 2002 performance plan?s goals and performance measures address
some, but not all, major management challenges. Of the four major management
challenges we identified, EPA?s performance plan has four goals and seven
measures that are directly related to three of the challenges- strategic
human capital management, information security, and environmental and
performance information management. We provided copies of a draft of this
report to EPA for its review and comment. The agency generally agreed with
our findings and provided several technical clarifications, which we
incorporated, as appropriate, into the report.

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. 3 Annual performance reports are to
subsequently report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The
issuance of the agencies? performance

3 The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual plans
under GPRA. Background

Page 5 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. 4

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. 5

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 6 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.

4 The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these annual
reports under GPRA. 5 For example, see EPA and the States: Environmental
Challenges Require a Better Working Relationship (GAO/ RCED- 95- 64, Apr. 3,
1995); Superfund: Stronger EPA- State Relationship Can Improve Cleanups and
Reduce Costs (GAO/ RCED- 97- 77, Apr. 24, 1997); and Environmental
Protection: Collaborative EPA- State Effort Needed to Improve New
Performance Partnership System (GAO/ RCED- 99- 171, June 21, 1999).

6 Key elements of modern human capital management include strategic human
capital planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and
succession planning; acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and
deployment meet agency needs; and creating results- oriented organizational
cultures. Assessment of EPA?s

Progress and Strategies in Achieving Selected Key Outcomes

Page 6 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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 Safe and
Healthy Air for

Communities

Page 7 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. 7 As noted above, EPA has taken other
action, outside of the Acid Rain Program, to reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions.

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

7 See Acid Rain: Emissions Trends and Effects in the Eastern United States
(GAO/ RCED- 00- 47, Mar. 9, 2000). Safe Water for Drinking and

Recreation

Page 8 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. 8

 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

8 See Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and
Resources (GAO/ RCED- 99- 273, Sept. 24, 1999).

Page 9 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. 9

 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. 10

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. 11 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

9 See Drinking Water: Spending Constraints Could Affect States? Ability to
Implement Increasing Program Requirements (GAO/ RCED- 00- 199, Aug. 31,
2000). 10 See Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, (GAO/ RCED- 00- 54, Mar. 15, 2000). 11 See
Superfund: Extent to Which Most Reforms Have Improved the Program Is
Unknown, (GAO/ RCED- 00- 118, May 12, 2000). Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste

(? Superfund?) Sites

Page 10 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. 12

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.

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

12 See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency, (GAO- 01- 257, Jan. 2001). Unsafe Pesticide Residues in

Food Supplies

Page 11 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. 13

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.

13 See Children and Pesticides: New Approach to Considering Risk Is Partly
in Place, (GAO/ HEHS- 00- 175, Sept. 11, 2000).

Page 12 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving 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.

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
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

Comparison of Performance Reports for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000

Page 13 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

goals where possible. The agency has heretofore relied more on
outputoriented 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 endoutcomes. 14

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).

The number and definition of selected objectives under the strategic goals
also changed in the fiscal year 2002 plan. For example, the goal for clean
air in the 2002 plan has three objectives, whereas the 2001 plan had four.
This change resulted from combining objectives related to attainment of air
quality standards. In addition, the definition of some objectives changed in
the 2002 plan. For example, in the 2001 plan under the goal of waste
management, the first objective stated that:

?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.?

In the 2002 plan the objective has been expanded, and its focus and expected
accomplishments modified to state that:

?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

14 See Managing for Results: EPA Faces Challenges in Developing Results-
Oriented Performance Goals and Measures (GAO/ RCED- 00- 77, Apr. 28, 2000).
Comparison of Performance

Plans for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

Page 14 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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.

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. 15 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

15 See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Environmental
Protection Agency (GAO- 01- 257, Jan. 2001). EPA?s Efforts to

Address Its Major Management Challenges Identified by GAO

Page 15 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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.

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.

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 Agency Comments

Scope and Methodology

Page 16 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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.

Sincerely yours, David G. Wood Director, Natural Resources and Environment

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

Page 17 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

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. Appendix I: Observations on the

Environmental Protection Agency?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges

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

Page 18 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 1: Major Management Challenges Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management challenge as discussed in the fiscal
year 2000 performance report Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO- designated governmentwide high- risk

Strategic Human Capital Management: GAO has identified shortcomings at
multiple agencies involving key elements of modern strategic human capital
management, including strategic human capital planning and organizational
alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning; acquiring and
developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and
creating results- oriented organizational cultures.

(GAO also identified human capital as a management challenge for EPA,
specifically that EPA needs to better link its human capital efforts with
its strategic plan and needs to implement a workforce strategy.)

(The OIG also recognized that EPA is challenged with developing a workforce
planning strategy that focuses its attention and resources on employee
development. Illustratively, training is lacking for EPA employees
implementing the National Environmental Performance Partnership System.)

EPA acknowledged in its performance report the importance of managing its
human capital more strategically and that it had declared human capital
strategy implementation an internal agency weakness in fiscal year 2000. EPA
discussed the issuance of its new human capital strategy and its development
of a corrective action plan that identifies activities slated for completion
by fiscal year 2003.

EPA discussed various workforce planning efforts related to employee
competencies, including piloting five competency training courses for mid-
level managers; identifying future skills needs; and determining gaps
between those needs and the current workforce. EPA stated that in fiscal
year 2000 it had implemented or was designing several staff developmental
programs, including starting the first SES candidate program in more than 10
years in spring 2001. No further details were included on these activities,
nor was information provided on when specific actions would be completed.

Under its ?Effective Management? goal, EPA has a specific performance goal
on workforce improvement focused on the agency?s Senior Executive Service
(SES) Candidate Program and continuing to hire talented and diverse
individuals. The performance plan specifies 2 outputoriented performance
measures: (1) having 40 participants in the SES Candidate Program and (2)
hiring 120 interns.

EPA also acknowledges in the ?Special Analysis? section of its plan that it
will continue focusing on human capital as significant challenges remain in
its efforts to maintain a workforce with the highly specialized skills and
knowledge required to help the agency accomplish its environmental mission.

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

Page 19 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Information Security: Our January 2001 high- risk update noted that the
agencies? and governmentwide efforts to strengthen information security have
gained momentum and expanded. Nevertheless, recent audits continue to show
federal computer systems are riddled with weaknesses that make them highly
vulnerable to computer- based attacks and place a broad range of critical
operations and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, and disruption.

(GAO also designated information security as a high- risk area specifically
for EPA in GAO's January 2001 high- risk series update.)

(The OIG also found that weaknesses in EPA's financial systems and various
regional operations require a centralized security program with strong
oversight processes.)

EPA reported that it had made substantial progress toward improving the
security of its information assets. The agency noted that it had (1) taken
steps to separate and protect its network from the Internet, (2) conducted
reviews of information security plans, (3) updated policies and procedures
governing the handling of confidential and privacy information, and (4)
increased efforts to create a more security conscious workforce. EPA also
reported that it established a special Technical Information Security Staff
as a focal point for protecting the agency?s information. The agency also
reported that it had developed a security action plan that would take 2
years to implement.

As part of its strategic goal ?Quality Environmental Information,? EPA has a
specific goal to improve agency information infrastructure and security.
Three performance measures are to complete and document risk assessment
findings for 12 critical infrastructure systems, 13 critical financial
systems, and 5 mission- critical environmental systems. The agency plans to
use the results of these assessments to guide future investment decisions
focused on improving information technology security and services.

Although these efforts represent a step in the right direction, GAO
continues to believe that sustained improvements will require ongoing
vigilance and top EPA management support and leadership attention. EPA
acknowledges that the agency must institute fundamental changes in the way
it manages security, or current and planned efforts may not have a lasting
effect.

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

Page 20 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO- and OIG- designated major management
challenge

Environmental and Performance Information Management to Set Priorities and
Measure Program Results: GAO identified that significant gaps exist in
environmental data; incompatible data systems limit the usefulness of
environmental data; data limitations hinder the development of performance
measures; and the agency's information security program needs strengthening.

(The OIG concluded that EPA is not adequately planning its information
technology infrastructure and raises concerns about the agency's ability to
track technology development and implementation effectively.)

(The OIG identified that several aspects of EPA's environmental data need to
be addressed, including data architecture, data standards, and
implementation of revised policies and procedures.)

EPA?s performance report discusses progress made towards working internally
and in partnership with the states to improve data management,
comprehensiveness, consistency, reliability, and accuracy for achieving
better performance measurement and environmental results. EPA reported
undertaking actions to address this broad challenge. For example, EPA
reported it established a senior management- level Quality and Information
Council to promote development and implementation of key data standards. As
part of its data integration effort, the report notes that EPA developed a
5- year Integration Management Plan with specific actions and milestones and
a one- stop electronic reporting initiative involving a fledging EPA- state
data exchange network. EPA also said that it worked with its state partners
to establish an Environmental Data Standards Council to help identify and
develop further data standards for collecting, storing, and retrieving
environmental data.

Although EPA does describe progress towards meeting this challenge, the
report does not provide detailed information on the completion milestones
for many of its initiatives. Although EPA has concurred with a
recommendation GAO made in 1999 that it develop a comprehensive information
management strategy to ensure the completeness, compatibility, and accuracy
of data, EPA has made slow progress in developing and implementing such a
strategy and the performance report did not discuss the status of agency
efforts to comprehensively address its long- standing and continuing
information management challenges. EPA's efforts to improve information
security are discussed under the governmentwide high- risk area.

There are 2 performance goals and 2 performance measures relating to
selected aspects of this broad management challenge. First, there is a goal
and associated measure concerning the new National Environmental Information
Exchange Network. The goal is for the Central Data Exchange, a key component
of the Exchange Network and EPA?s node on the Exchange Network, is to become
fully operational for 15 states to send data to EPA and thus improve data
consistency with participating states; the performance measure is that 15
states will use the exchange to send data to EPA. Second, the data quality
goal specified in the plan is that in fiscal year 2002, publicly available
facility data in EPA?s national data systems that are accessible on its web
site will be incorporated into the agency?s Integrated Error Correction
Progress in order to detect errors. The performance measure is that 100
percent of such data will be part of this integrated error correction
process.

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

Page 21 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Working Relationships With States: GAO identified the need for EPA to
strengthen its working relationships with the states.

(The OIG found that EPA's program implementation of the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) and performance
partnership grants are not well integrated into EPA. The agency could
increase the success of these efforts by establishing goals, providing
training, overseeing accomplishments, and ensuring accountability.)

EPA?s relationship with its state partners has been characterized by
fundamental disagreements over roles, priorities, and the extent of federal
oversight. Under NEPPS, the states and EPA agree on environmental priorities
in performance partnership agreements. EPA acknowledges that efforts to
improve NEPPS must continue, but believes the partnership system has been
strengthened through progress in several areas, including coordinating and
integrating systems and programs and by mutually agreed upon ?core?
performance measures to gauge environmental progress.

The performance report noted that EPA and states are making progress working
collaboratively in managing national environmental programs. Under the
agency?s ?Clean and Safe Drinking Water? strategic goal, for example, EPA
reports meeting a NEPPS core performance measure that in fiscal year 2000,
91 percent of the population served by community drinking water systems
would receive drinking water that met all health- based standards in effect
as of 1994.

EPA?s performance plan did not include specific goals and measures directly
related to this management challenge. The need for strong positive
relationships with its state partners is critical for EPA to meet its
environmental mission and thus the challenge crosscuts all of the agency?s
10 strategic goals. And, in fact, strategies for improving EPA?s working
relationships with its state partners are discussed throughout the plan. For
example, under its ?Clean and Safe Water? goal, EPA said that clean water
goals associated with reduction of pollution discharges from point sources
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting program rely heavily on EPA?s partnership with the states. The
agency intends to continue partnering with the states to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the NPDES program by, among other things,
developing strategies that target permitting activities toward those
facilities posing the greatest risk to the environment.

OIG- designated major management challenges

Accountability: The Inspector General found that EPA needs to take further
action to develop accountability systems that tie performance to the
agency's organizational goals.

EPA?s report states the agency has made progress toward strengthening
results- based management, including the development of a goal- based budget
and supporting planning and accountability functions. However, no specific
corrective action strategies were cited clearly attributable to addressing
the various components of this broad management challenge. The plan noted
that EPA?s recently revised Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2000- 2005
included improved performance measures to better reflect programmatic and
environmental outcomes. It also stated that it had strengthened its cost
accounting to better link budgetary resources to the achievement of
environmental results.

There are no specific goals and measures for this management challenge, as
they are inherent in the various management improvements proposed by EPA and
are thus covered throughout its performance plan. Nonetheless, the means and
strategy section of the agency?s ?Effective Management? strategic goal cites
some strategies that are key to performing the agency?s mission and
promoting responsible and accountable management. Among other things, the
agency intends to increase accountability for results- based management
processes by committing to a 2 percent increase in outcome- oriented annual
performance goals and performance measures over fiscal year 2001 levels.

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

Page 22 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Managerial Accounting: The OIG has identified this as a new management
challenge. Current and past audits revealed that improvements are needed in
EPA?s cost accounting system and processes, including those designed to
increase the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of the
financial information used in carrying out the agency?s environmental
activities. Also, improvements are still needed in EPA?s process for
preparing agency financial statements.

EPA reported that it had substantially complied with the Managerial Cost
Accounting Standards, but recognized that improvements and enhancements
would necessarily continue to evolve. EPA cited several cost accounting
corrective actions, stating for example that it had linked resources in the
Annual Plan and Budget with its GPRA goals; provided policy guidance and
training on budget restructuring and cost accounting; and issued a Superfund
indirect cost rate complying with Managerial Cost Accounting Standards. Few
details were provided on the ongoing and planned corrective action
strategies, including targeted completion dates.

In addition, EPA describes actions that it said would help the agency
deliver timely financial statements and obtain clean audit opinions by March
1, 2001, and each year thereafter. Actions taken already included issuing
policies and procedures on the financial statement preparation process and
providing training for staff preparing financial statements.

Under the ?Effective Management? strategic goal, the GPRA implementation
performance goal includes a component that is related to this challenge. It
states that EPA?s goal will be to strengthen goalbased decision making by
developing and issuing timely planning and resource management products that
meet customer needs. There are 2 related performance measures pertaining to
EPA?s preparation of its audited financial statements: (1) EPA?s audited
financial statements and annual report will be submitted on time by 3/ 01/
02 and (2) EPA?s audited financial statements will receive an unqualified
opinion and provide information that is useful and relevant to the agency
and external parties.

EPA?s Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish Its Mission: Assistance
agreements (grants) are the primary administrative vehicles through which
EPA helps protect human health and the environment. Historically, these
agreements constituted a significant proportion of EPA?s budget. Over the
years, many of the Inspector General?s audits disclosed problems in EPA?s
management of assistance agreements. Problems have persisted, including
inadequate contract management controls to ensure proper management of
federal funds.

The report showed progress as EPA closed all but 26 of the estimated backlog
of 19, 000 that had been reported to Congress in July 1996. Other planned
actions included closing 24 of the remaining 26 grants after resolving an
outstanding indirect cost rate issue, and closing 2 remaining grants after
the completion of the audit resolution process.

To more efficiently manage assistance agreements, corrective actions
included developing and implementing policies to ensure effective post-
award management and establishing interim closeout goals for each year. EPA
said that it planned additional corrective action strategies in fiscal year
2001 to assess its management of grants, including conducting evaluations of
Management Effectiveness Reviews. Although the report said that all
corrective actions would be completed by fiscal year 2002, no specific
targets were cited.

There were no specific goals and measures related to this management
challenge. However, this challenge relates to the ?Effective Management?
strategic goal with its overall focus on effective internal management and
fiscal responsibility to ensure a high level of integrity and accountability
in the management of grants and contracts, including continuing efforts to
strengthen pre- award and post- award management of assistance agreements.
In the ?Special Analysis? section of the performance plan, EPA acknowledged
the importance of gaining improvements in this area and had designated
grants closeout and oversight of assistance agreements an internal agency
weakness in fiscal year 1999.

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

Page 23 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Backlog of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits: The
permit backlog remains a nationwide environmental threat because, among
other things, many entities that discharge pollutants have permits tied to
older, less stringent discharge requirements, resulting in the discharge of
higher levels of pollutants into surface waters that could adversely affect
human health and the aquatic environment.

The performance report stated each EPA region was directed to prepare an
updated permit backlog reduction plan for every state and territory that
reaffirms commitments to meet backlog reduction targets. EPA also says that
it was on track to meet its goal of substantially reducing the backlog of
major and minor permits by fiscal year 2005. During fiscal year 2000, EPA
reports that the backlog of EPA issued permits was reduced from 46 percent
to 30 percent.

EPA states that the permits program remains a key element in its effort to
achieve clean and safe water by reducing pollutant discharges from point and
nonpoint sources. Under EPA?s ?Clean and Safe Water? goal, the agency has
established a performance goal and 5 broad performance measures which
directly relate to the NPDES permit program. The agency says that along with
its progress toward eliminating its backlog problem, several states had
already reduced their permits backlog to below the 10 percent nationwide
target and that EPA anticipated another 18 states would meet that target by
December 31, 2001. EPA states that it has developed and is implementing a
plan to address the backlog which includes providing technical support and
training for states and EPA regions.

Specific programmatic results owing to NPDES improvements were also
discussed under the ?Clean and Safe Water? strategic goal. It included a
fiscal year 2000 performance goal that industrial discharges of pollutants
to the nation?s waters would be significantly reduced through the
implementation of effluent guidelines under the permit program, and
performance measures for each polluting source covered by the permits. The
goal was exceeded, with EPA reporting that the actual number of permits
issued in different industrial sectors resulted in greater than expected
reductions in conventional pollutants- 473 million pounds versus the stated
goal of 385 million pounds.

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

Page 24 GAO- 01- 774 EPA's Status of Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report Applicable
goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Quality of Laboratory Data: High quality scientific analysis is critical to
accomplishing EPA?s mission of protecting human health and the environment.
The Inspector General reported management control weaknesses and some
instances of fraud and misconduct in laboratory practices. Data quality and
integrity problems associated with laboratory data could impact
environmental and enforcement decisions.

In acknowledging the importance of having highquality data to help it carry
out its mission, the agency points out that along with the Inspector
General?s designation of laboratory data as a major management challenge in
fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the agency itself declared this area to be an
internal agency weakness in fiscal year 2000. The performance report cites
several corrective actions, including EPA?s completion of independent
technical reviews of its regional laboratories to assess their ability to
produce data of known and documented quality. Reviews of all remaining
laboratories are targeted by the end of fiscal year 2001.

Additional corrective actions are either ongoing or planned and EPA expects
to complete these activities by December 2003. Ongoing actions include
establishing a workgroup to, among other things, identify weaknesses in
laboratory data quality systems and establish methods to detect and deter
misconduct in labs. EPA said the effort would include monitoring and
oversight of the agency- approved quality systems by third parties. No
completion targets were included for specific ongoing and planned corrective
action strategies.

There were no specific goals and measures cited for this challenge. However,
EPA?s ?Quality Environmental Information? includes components that are
applicable to this challenge, especially since the agency needs to ensure
that it has access to highquality scientific data to inform the agency?s
environmental and regulatory decision making. Under this goal, EPA discusses
various initiatives, which are intended to ensure that environmental data
collection are of appropriate quality for their intended use, including
developing agencywide policies and procedures for planning, documenting,
implementing, and assessing data collection and use in agency decisions.

(360073)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

 Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

 E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***