Environmental Protection Issue Area Plan--Fiscal Years 1995-97 (Letter
Report, 09/01/95, GAO/IAP-95-23).

GAO presented its Environmental Protection issue area plan for fiscal
years 1995 through 1997.

GAO plans to: (1) provide information to aid Congress in reauthorizing
and allocating funds to Superfund; (2) identify ways to improve the
design and management of waste programs; (3) aid Congress in its
oversight of control measures adopted under the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990; (4) assess states' progress in implementing the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; (5) identify new approaches to control pesticides
and toxic substances; (6) identify ways to reduce the cost of complying
with water quality requirements; (7) assess the Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Acts; (8) identify ways that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) could improve the use of alternatives to traditional
regulatory approaches; (9) assess the adequacy of EPA risk analyses,
cost benefit analyses, budget requests, and controls against fraud,
waste, and abuse; (10) provide Congress with information to help in its
budget decisions affecting EPA federal facility cleanup efforts; and
(11) identify ways to better coordinate cleanup efforts among agencies.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  IAP-95-23
     TITLE:  Environmental Protection Issue Area Plan--Fiscal Years 
             1995-97
      DATE:  09/01/95
   SUBJECT:  Pollution control
             Waste management
             Waste disposal
             Federal facilities
             Interagency relations
             Environmental monitoring
             Environmental policies
             Environmental law
             Pesticides
             Toxic substances
IDENTIFIER:  Superfund Program
             NAFTA
             North American Free Trade Agreement
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division

September 1995

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUE
AREA PLAN

FISCAL YEARS 1995-97

GAO/IAP-95-23



Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  TEST - Test

FOREWORD
============================================================ Chapter 0

As the investigative arm of Congress and the nation's auditor, the
General Accounting Office is charged with following the federal
dollar wherever it goes.  Reflecting stringent standards of
objectivity and independence, GAO's audits, evaluations, and
investigations promote a more efficient and cost-effective
government; expose fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in federal
programs; help Congress target budget reductions; assess financial
information management; and alert Congress to developing trends that
may have significant fiscal or budgetary consequences.  In fulfilling
its responsibilities, GAO performs extensive research and uses
hundreds of databases or creates its own to compile and analyze
information. 

To focus GAO's resources on the most important issues facing
Congress, each of GAO's 35 issue areas develops a strategic plan that
describes its key issues and their significance, how those issues
influence audit objectives and the focus of its work, and the planned
major job starts.  Each issue area relies heavily on input from
congressional committees, agency officials, and subject-matter
experts in developing its strategic plan. 

With annual environmental compliance costs reaching $115 billion,
federal facility cleanup costs projected at $1 trillion, and
environmental issues permeating almost every facet of our lives,
interest in environmental protection programs remains at the
forefront of the public and congressional agenda.  In light of these
huge costs, GAO's evaluations in this issue area generally focus on
increasing the cost-effectiveness of environmental programs.  By
doing so, scarce public and private resources can be best used to
protect human health and the environment.  The principal issues in
the environmental protection area are

  -- the generation and management of hazardous and solid waste;

  -- air quality measures required by the 1990 Clean Air Act
     Amendments;

  -- regulations for pesticides and other toxic substances;

  -- surface water, groundwater, and drinking water protection;

  -- the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) organization,
     management, and budget; and

  -- hazardous waste cleanups at federal facilities. 

In the following pages, we describe our key planned work on these
nationally significant issues.  Because events may significantly
affect this plan, our planning process calls for updating this plan
and responding quickly to emerging issues.  If you have any questions
or suggestions about this plan, please call me at (202) 512-6111 or
Larry Dyckman, Associate Director, at (202) 512-3645. 

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director
Environmental Protection Issues


CONTENTS
============================================================ Chapter 1


   FOREWORD
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

1


   TABLE I:  KEY ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

4


   TABLE II:  PLANNED MAJOR WORK
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

8


TABLE 1:  KEY ISSUES
============================================================ Chapter 2

Issue                    Significance
-----------------------  -------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous and solid      Although EPA acknowledges that it is far more cost-
waste: Is the            effective to minimize the generation of waste rather
government managing      than treat and dispose it, Resource Conservation and
hazardous and solid      Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations are primarily directed
waste programs cost-     at treatment and disposal. Further, these regulations
effectively?             do not necessarily address those wastes that present
                         the greatest risk to human health and the environment.
                         Finally, the Superfund program is a high priority for
                         reform legislation. Specific concerns center around the
                         public and private sectors' liability, the role of risk
                         in decision-making, and the appropriate responsibility
                         of states in cleanup efforts.




Air quality: Is the      With annual implementation costs exceeding $25 billion
government adopting      for clean air rules already issued and more rules
cost-effective air       mandated for fiscal years 1995 to 1997, many current
quality control          and projected regulations are likely to be scrutinized
measures?                to help ensure that the most cost-effective approaches
                         to controlling air pollution are used, including
                         alternatives to traditional approaches, such as
                         emissions trading, pollution prevention, and increased
                         regulatory flexibility.




Pesticides and toxic     The process for regulating pesticides and other toxic
substances: Is the       substances has become costly, slow, and of questionable
federal government       benefit. While some believe the programs are overly
appropriately            protective, others believe they do not adequately
protecting the public    protect infants, children, and/or workers. Because of
from pesticides and      the general dissatisfaction with these programs and the
other toxic substances?  increased attention paid to regulatory costs and
                         benefits, totally new approaches will likely be
                         considered as pesticide and toxic statutes are
                         reauthorized.


Water quality: Is the    Significant progress has been made in cleaning up the
government cost-         nation's surface water and drinking water supplies.
effectively protecting   However, the costs of complying with current and
surface water,           projected requirements (estimated at over $4 billion
groundwater, and         annually for cities alone) have led to water programs
drinking water?          being labeled as "unfunded mandates." As the two major
                         water quality statutes go through reauthorization,
                         attention will be focused on whether compliance costs
                         bring commensurate benefits.



Management and budget:   Alternatives to traditional regulatory approaches are
Do EPA's management and  increasingly being pursued to help meet environmental
budget systems           objectives more cost-effectively. However, EPA's
effectively target its   organization and management systems, for the most part,
resources and expend     continue to reflect traditional regulatory approaches.
them for their intended  In addition, although EPA needs to target and use its
purposes?                resources effectively, the agency has long been
                         hindered by problems in its contracting, financial, and
                         management control systems. Similarly, the United
                         States needs assurances that funds it dedicates to
                         implementing international environmental agreements are
                         spent in a cost-effective manner.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objectives                    Focus of work
----------------------------  --------------------------------------------------
ï¿½Provide Congress with        ï¿½Appropriateness of regulations' coverage and
information to aid in its     definitions of wastes
reauthorizing RCRA and        ï¿½Opportunities for government and industry to
Superfund and in allocating   reduce waste generation, increase recycling, and
funds to these programs.      reduce risks associated with waste management
ï¿½Recommend ways to improve    ï¿½Opportunities to streamline and improve the cost-
the design and management of  effectiveness of RCRA
waste programs so they are    ï¿½Federal budget implications of completing
more cost-efficient, reduce   cleanups
waste, increase recycling     ï¿½Appropriateness of federal and state
and reuse, and promote safer  responsibilities for cleanups
waste management.             ï¿½Role of risk in determining cleanup goals and
                              priorities
                              ï¿½Financial impacts on parties responsible for
                              cleaning up sites

ï¿½Provide Congress with        ï¿½Adequacy of EPA's cost-benefit and regulatory
information to aid in its     impact analyses used to support selected clean air
planned oversight of control  rules
measures adopted under the    ï¿½Progress made in adopting flexible regulatory
Clean Air Act Amendments of   approaches provided under the 1990 act
1990.                         ï¿½The pace of EPA's implementation of the Clean Air
ï¿½Assess states' progress in   Act Amendments of 1990, the problems associated
implementing the Clean Air    with the approaches chosen, and the opportunities
Act Amendments of 1990.       to achieve program goals more cost-effectively


ï¿½Provide Congress with        ï¿½Progress in protecting the public from the
information to aid in its     adverse effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals
reauthorizing legislation on  ï¿½Adequacy of EPA's chemical exposure data
pesticides and toxic          collection and analysis efforts
substances.                   ï¿½Opportunities to reduce risks more cost-
ï¿½Identify alternative         effectively by setting better testing and
approaches to control         regulatory priorities
pesticides and toxic
substances.


ï¿½Identify ways to reduce the  ï¿½Barriers to the use of existing regulatory
public and private sectors'   flexibility to reduce compliance costs
cost of complying with water  ï¿½Legislative and regulatory options to achieve
quality requirements.         water quality goals more cost-effectively
ï¿½Provide Congress with
information and options to
assess in reauthorizing the
Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water acts.


ï¿½Identify ways EPA could      ï¿½EPA, state, and industry experiments with
improve the use of            integrated environmental management as a way to
alternatives to traditional   reduce compliance costs
regulatory approaches.        ï¿½EPA's process for estimating costs and benefits
ï¿½Assess how EPA uses tools,   of environmental regulations
such as risk analysis and     ï¿½EPA's budget and financial management practices
cost-benefit analysis, to     ï¿½EPA' s progress in implementing the Chief
provide adequate protection   Financial Officers Act, the Government Performance
to human health and the       and Results Act, and the Federal Managers'
environment at an affordable  Financial Integrity Act
cost.                         ï¿½Funds that are being spent to support U.S.
ï¿½Assess the adequacy of       obligations under international environmental
EPA's budget requests,        treaties
procedures, and practices.
ï¿½Determine if EPA's controls
are adequate to guard
against fraud, waste, and
abuse.
ï¿½Examine how U.S. funds are
spent to support U.S.
international environmental
obligations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues                   Significance
-----------------------  -------------------------------------------------------
Federal facilities: Is   With costs of up to $1 trillion, the cleanup of
the cleanup of           hazardous waste sites at federal facilities is expected
federally owned          to be the largest public works project the government
hazardous waste sites    has ever undertaken. Although federal agencies have
well-managed and cost-   already spent tens of billions of dollars, cleanup
effective?               progress has been slow and virtually none of the sites
                         have been fully remediated. Budget pressures are now
                         making it impossible for the program to meet its
                         original expectations and are forcing a reassessment of
                         how it should be organized and run.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objectives                    Focus of work
----------------------------  --------------------------------------------------
ï¿½Provide Congress with        ï¿½Priority setting based on risk
information to help in its    ï¿½Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the cleanup
budget decisions affecting    process
efforts to clean up federal   ï¿½Federal contracting for hazardous waste cleanup
facilities. This information  services
includes ways to improve the  ï¿½Research and development for new cost-saving
cleanup process through       technologies
better (1) priority setting,  ï¿½Roles and responsibilities of agencies for
(2) contract management, and  various cleanup functions
(3) development and use of
cost-saving technologies.
ï¿½Advise the Office of
Management and Budget and
EPA on ways to better
coordinate cleanup efforts
across agency lines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE II:  PLANNED MAJOR WORK
============================================================ Chapter 3

Issue               Planned major job starts
==================  ------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous and       ï¿½Review hazardous waste regulations to determine if they
solid waste         address waste that present the greatest risk to human health
                    and the environment.
                    ï¿½Assess the opportunities for government and industry to
                    reduce waste, increase recycling, and reduce risks related
                    to waste management.
                    ï¿½Review federal and state responsibilities in the Superfund
                    program.
                    ï¿½Review the role of risk in allocating cleanup resources.
                    ï¿½Assess the potential financial impact of proposed changes
                    to the Superfund liability system.

Air quality         ï¿½Conduct mandated studies on costs and benefits of the Clean
                    Air Act Amendments.
                    ï¿½Assess EPA's progress in developing rules that promote
                    regulatory flexibility, including market-based approaches.
                    ï¿½Review states' implementation of Clean Air Act provisions.

Pesticides and      ï¿½Assess progress made in protecting infants, children,
toxic substances    workers, and other highly exposed individuals from the
                    adverse effects of harmful chemicals.
                    ï¿½Evaluate federal efforts to obtain and analyze toxic
                    chemical exposure data.
                    ï¿½Assess cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to
                    controlling toxic substances.


Water quality       ï¿½Assess the flexibility EPA has provided to the states in
                    implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act.
                    ï¿½Evaluate state implementation of and capacity to run Clean
                    Water Act programs.
                    ï¿½Evaluate alternative methods to reduce the costs of
                    protecting water quality.

Management and      ï¿½Review EPA, state, and industry experiences with integrated
budget              environmental management.
                    ï¿½Assess EPA's process for estimating costs and benefits of
                    environmental regulations.
                    ï¿½Review EPA's budget to identify potential savings.
                    ï¿½Evaluate EPA's progress in implementing the Chief Financial
                    Officers Act, the Government Performance Act, and the
                    Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
                    ï¿½Review progress made in implementing environmental
                    requirements of the North American Free Trade Agreement
                    (NAFTA).

Federal             ï¿½Assess cost-effectiveness of priority setting, program
facilities          procedures, and cleanup strategies.
                    ï¿½Evaluate federal agencies' contracting to clean up
                    hazardous waste.
                    ï¿½Review effectiveness and coordination of agency research
                    and development programs for cleanup technology.
                    ï¿½Assess and compare federal and private sector management of
                    site cleanup programs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** End of document. ***