Environmental Information: EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve Information
Management, but Challenges Remain (Letter Report, 09/17/1999,
GAO/RCED-99-261).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) information management systems, focusing on:
(1) recent initiatives designed to help EPA improve the accuracy,
completeness, and compatibility of its data; (2) the impact of data gaps
and inconsistencies on EPA's ability to evaluate and report on the
results of its programs under the Government Performance and Results
Act; and (3) the major management challenges facing EPA's new central
information office.

GAO noted that: (1) EPA has several data improvement initiatives to
obtain the environmental information needed to effectively set
priorities, assess progress in achieving goals and objectives, and
report on accomplishments in a credible way; (2) these initiatives are
specifically aimed at identifying critical gaps in EPA's environmental
data, developing data standards to enable separately designed databases
to operate compatibly with one another, and identifying and correcting
inaccuracies; (3) while these initiatives are steps in the right
direction, they are limited in scope and do not provide the overall
strategy needed to ensure the completeness, compatibility, and accuracy
of EPA's environmental data; (4) EPA's ability to evaluate the outcomes
of its programs in terms of changes in the environment is limited by
gaps and inconsistencies in the quality of its data; (5) of the 357
measures of performance that EPA has developed for use during fiscal
year 2000 to report its accomplishments under the Results Act, the
agency reports that only 71 will reflect environmental outcomes; the
other measures will reflect program activities, such as the number of
actions taken to enforce environmental laws; (6) EPA program managers
acknowledge that additional measures of environmental outcomes are
needed and that the agency's forthcoming information plan will encourage
such measures in all program offices and establish milestones for
creating them; (7) to meet these milestones, EPA's program offices will
have to overcome: (a) difficulties in establishing cause-and-effect
relationships between program activities and environmental outcomes; (b)
a lack of reliable baseline data against which to measure progress and a
more generalized lack of reliable data about the environment; and (c)
constraints on the resources for gathering and analyzing the data; (8)
creating a successful central information office from disparate parts of
EPA will help the agency to address obstacles to obtaining the data it
needs to manage for results; (9) however, establishing a successful
office will require appropriate resources and the commitment of senior
management; and (10) one of the office's most pressing challenges will
be to develop a plan that identifies clear priorities for the office and
the resources it will need to successfully lead the agency's efforts to
make significant improvements in information management.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-261
     TITLE:  Environmental Information: EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve
	     Information Management, but Challenges Remain
      DATE:  09/17/1999
   SUBJECT:  Environmental policies
	     Performance measures
	     Information resources management
	     Management information systems
	     Data collection
	     Reporting requirements
	     Data integrity
	     Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Environmental Performance Partnership System
	     EPA Integrated Risk Information System

******************************************************************
** 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

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1999

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION - EPA IS
TAKING STEPS TO IMPROVE
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, BUT
CHALLENGES REMAIN

GAO/RCED-99-261

EPA Information Management

(160461)

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

  ECOS - Environmental Council of the States
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  NEPPS - National Environmental Performance Partnership System
  REI - Reinventing Environmental Information
  VA - Department of Veterans Affairs

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-283313

September 17, 1999

The Honorable Christopher S.  Bond
Chairman
The Honorable Barbara A.  Mikulski
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on VA, HUD,
 and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable James T.  Walsh
Chairman
The Honorable Alan B.  Mollohan
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on VA, HUD,
 and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The need to manage its programs for environmental results
substantially increases the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
demand for high-quality environmental information.  Such information
is also needed to identify and respond to emerging problems before
significant damage is done to the environment.  Various studies have
shown that although much scientific and environmental data have
already been collected, many gaps exist, and the data are often
difficult to compile because different collection methods have been
used.  Likewise, much effort is still needed to identify, develop,
and reach agreement on a comprehensive set of environmental measures
to link EPA's activities to changes in human health and environmental
conditions. 

Recognizing the long-standing and serious shortcomings in the
environmental information needed to manage for results, the EPA
Administrator announced plans in October 1998 to create an office
with central responsibility for information management, policy, and
technology.  The efforts to improve information management that
preceded the new office, and that are to be absorbed by it, include
several agencywide initiatives directed at improving the quality of
EPA's data and the agency's ability to share data internally and
externally.  Reflecting congressional interest in EPA's data
management activities, the conference report accompanying the VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies fiscal year 1997 appropriations act\1
and subsequent discussions with your offices directed us to review
(1) recent initiatives designed to help EPA improve the accuracy,
completeness, and compatibility of its data; (2) the impact of data
gaps and inconsistencies on EPA's ability to evaluate and report on
the results of its programs under the Government Performance and
Results Act (the Results Act); and (3) the major management
challenges facing EPA's new central information office. 

--------------------
\1 H.R.  Rep.  No.  104-812, at 70-71 (1996). 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

EPA has several data improvement initiatives to obtain the
environmental information needed to effectively set priorities,
assess progress in achieving goals and objectives, and report on
accomplishments in a credible way.  These initiatives are
specifically aimed at identifying critical gaps in EPA's
environmental data, developing data standards to enable separately
designed databases to operate compatibly with one another, and
identifying and correcting inaccuracies.  While these initiatives are
steps in the right direction, they are limited in scope and do not
provide the overall strategy needed to ensure the completeness,
compatibility, and accuracy of EPA's environmental data.  For
example, EPA has not yet identified or evaluated options for filling
the agency's data gaps, has not yet developed a plan detailing how it
will standardize the data in many of the agency's key databases, and
has not yet identified the specific actions that the agency and its
state partners need to take to ensure the accuracy of environmental
data. 

EPA's ability to evaluate the outcomes of its programs in terms of
changes in the environment is limited by gaps and inconsistencies in
the quality of its data.  Of the 357 measures of performance that EPA
has developed for use during fiscal year 2000 to report its
accomplishments under the Results Act, the agency reports that only
71 will reflect environmental outcomes; the other measures will
reflect program activities, such as the number of actions taken to
enforce environmental laws.  EPA program managers acknowledge that
additional measures of environmental outcomes are needed and that the
agency's forthcoming information plan will encourage such measures in
all program offices and establish milestones for creating them.  To
meet these milestones, EPA's program offices will have to overcome
(1) difficulties in establishing cause-and-effect relationships
between program activities and environmental outcomes, (2) a lack of
reliable baseline data against which to measure progress and a more
generalized lack of reliable data about the environment, and (3)
constraints on the resources for gathering and analyzing the data. 

Creating a successful central information office from disparate parts
of EPA will help the agency to address obstacles to obtaining the
data it needs to manage for results.  However, establishing a
successful office will require appropriate resources and the
commitment of senior management.  One of the office's most pressing
challenges will be to develop a plan that identifies clear priorities
for the office and the resources it will need to successfully lead
the agency's efforts to make significant improvements in information
management.  Other key challenges for the new office, which have
thwarted EPA's earlier efforts to improve its information management
activities, will be (1) obtaining sufficient authority and resources
within EPA to address the complex information management issues
facing the agency and (2) working more effectively with the states
and regulated industries to balance the demand for more data with
efforts to reduce the reporting burden.  We are recommending that EPA
develop an action plan that details the strategy, milestones, and
resources that the new information office will require to ensure that
EPA's environmental and regulatory data are sufficiently complete,
compatible, and accurate to meet its needs. 

   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

EPA and the states collect a wealth of environmental data under
various statutory and regulatory requirements, including reports on
air emissions under the Clean Air Act, wastewater discharges under
the Clean Water Act, and pollutant levels in drinking water under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.  However, EPA's existing approach to data
management is outmoded in many ways.  It continues to rely heavily on
paper-based reporting, and its many separately designed databases are
generally not compatible with each other.  Consequently, EPA has not
been able to aggregate much of the data from the many different
databases to present comprehensive information on chemicals,
industrial sectors, localities, and environmental conditions because
basic data elements are not standardized across these databases. 
Moreover, important gaps in the data exist.  Data obtained from the
detailed monitoring of environmental conditions and of human
exposures to toxic pollutants are limited, and the human health and
ecological effects of many chemical pollutants are not well
understood.  For example, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System,
which is a database of the potential health effects from chronic
exposure to various substances found in the environment, has
toxicological data on only one-third of the known hazardous air
pollutants. 

Since the announcement of its regulatory reinvention program in March
1995 and the issuance of its strategic plan in September 1997, both
of which recognized the need for improvement in the management of
information, EPA has begun several initiatives to improve how it
collects, manages, and disseminates environmental information.  In
addition, in October 1998, the EPA Administrator announced an
organizational change to create a new office responsible for
information management, information policy, and technology
stewardship.  This office would be responsible for developing and
implementing goals, standards, and accountability systems to manage
and improve the quality of data used both within the agency and by
the public.  The office would also have the authority to set and
oversee agencywide standards and policies for managing information
resources.  The new office, which is scheduled to become operational
in early October 1999, will consolidate all or parts of the existing
Office of Information Resources Management, the Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics, and other organizational
components, such as the Toxic Release Inventory program. 

   RECENT INITIATIVES HIGHLIGHT
   OBSTACLES FACING EPA AS IT
   SEEKS TO IMPROVE DATA QUALITY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

EPA's recent major initiatives to improve data quality address (1)
long-standing problems involving gaps in the agency's environmental
data; (2) the need for core, or common, data standards so that data
from various information systems can be pulled together to present
comprehensive information on geographical locations, chemicals,
industrial sectors, and environmental conditions; and (3) the need
for an agencywide approach to ensuring the accuracy of EPA's
dataparticularly a process for correcting errors in the agency's
databases.  While EPA has made progress, each initiative has
encountered obstacles that highlight the difficulties facing the
agency as it attempts to improve its information management
activities. 

      EPA FACES EXTENSIVE GAPS IN
      INFORMATION ABOUT THE
      ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH RISKS,
      AND THE AGENCY'S
      EFFECTIVENESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

For more than 25 years, EPA, the states, and others have collected
data on the health and environmental effects of a variety of
pollutants, environmental conditions, and the compliance of, and
enforcement actions taken against, the regulated community.  Despite
the vast array of data in EPA's information systems, we, the states,
regulated entities, and EPA itself have pointed out that the agency
does not have much of the information it needs pertaining to
environmental conditions and trends (i.e., environmental indicators),
the potential human health risks of various pollutants, and the
environmental results of EPA's activities. 

These extensive data gaps are a result both of a lack of fundamental
scientific knowledge and of inadequate data collection, according to
EPA and others.  EPA evaluations have recognized that the agency has
numerous and significant gaps in its risk and environmental data. 
For example, one EPA review concluded that complete data on health
effects exist for only 7 percent of the 3,000 most widely used
chemicals.  Similarly, EPA found that it lacks basic toxicity data
for more than one-third of the chemicals produced in large volumes as
well as for about two-thirds of the known hazardous air pollutants. 
Moreover, the environmental data that EPA does have are often
fragmented because they were collected under various laws, such as
the Clean Air Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Consequently,
these data are not easily integrated, if they can be integrated at
all, to provide environmental information about specific locations or
the nation as a whole.  One expert outside EPA recently expressed his
concern about environmental data gaps:  We don't have enough
information to tell us where we are or where the trends are going. 
We don't really know whether air quality, and especially water
quality, are really improving or not under current law.  As for solid
waste, the situation is hopeless.  We don't even know where it is,
much less whether it's getting better or worse.\2

EPA does not yet have a strategy in place for prioritizing its needs
for additional data and filling key data gaps.  The agency has,
however, made some initial efforts to assess its data needs and how
it may obtain the needed data.  For example, officials from EPA's
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, which has
responsibility for coordinating the agency's compliance under the
Results Act, said they are conducting an analysis to determine
whether there are gaps in the data needed to measure the agency's
progress in meeting its strategic objectives. 

Another effort dealing with the agency's need for additional data has
been led by EPA's Center for Environmental Information and
Statistics, which will become a part of the new information office. 
In early 1999, the Center completed the first phase of a strategy to
identify and address EPA's data gaps.  During this initial screening
analysis, staff from the Center and EPA's program offices identified
26 key environmental problem areas that the agency has committed
itself to address through its strategic plan, goals, and objectives. 
The Center then screened these problem areas for major gaps in data
concerning health and ecological toxicity, ambient environmental
conditions, and sources of pollution or other environmental
stressors.  The eight environmental problem areas in which EPA has
the most significant data gaps, according to the Center's draft
screening analysis, are

  -- aquatic ecosystem healthbiological stressors (such as the
     impact of nonnative species),

  -- aquatic ecosystem healthphysical alterations (such as erosion),

  -- indoor air,

  -- pesticidesnondietary human health risks (such as exposure of
     the skin to agricultural pesticides),

  -- air toxics,

  -- pesticidesdietary human health risks,

  -- aquatic ecosystem healthtoxics, and

  -- climate change. 

The second phase of the Center's effort was to initially focus on two
or three environmental areas identified in the first phase and
develop recommendations for addressing the highest-priority data gaps
in these areas.  EPA realized, however, that a strategy for filling
data gaps would need to be coordinated with other activities within
the agency, such as efforts to reduce the reporting burden.  As a
result, the Center has not continued its effort to develop this
strategy pending its move into the new information office.  The
creation of a strategy for prioritizing and filling key data gaps
will be a part of the development of EPA's comprehensive information
plan, according to officials responsible for the plan. 

Efforts are under way in EPA to develop the data needed to fill at
least some of these gaps.  One such effort is the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program, which is working with other
federal agencies to develop information that the public, scientists,
and the Congress can use to evaluate the overall health of the
nation's ecological resources.  Another effort, called the High
Production Volume Challenge Program, was developed by EPAin
partnership with industry and environmental groupsto make publicly
available a complete set of baseline data on the health and
environmental effects of each chemical manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States in amounts of 1 million or more pounds per
year.  Companies participating in this program pledge to evaluate the
adequacy of existing data for these chemicals and to conduct tests
where needed to fill data gaps. 

The new information office will be responsible for encouraging EPA's
program offices to reach out to other federal agencies, as well as to
universities, research institutes, and other sources of environmental
information, for data that EPA does not collect but that may exist
elsewhere.  To date, EPA's efforts to share and obtain data from
other agencies, other than the state environmental agencies with
which it shares responsibility for implementing federal environmental
laws, have been limited.  Such efforts have been hampered by
technological limitations imposed by the myriad of incompatible
information systems in use across the government.  The new
information office will be responsible for promoting EPA's efforts to
exchange data with other federal agencies. 

EPA also faces concerns about the reporting burden it may place on
states and the regulated community as it seeks to fill data gaps. 
There is concern within the regulated community and among EPA's state
partners about the possibility that EPA will expand its reporting
requirementswhich it may have to do to obtain the data it needs. 
The states are calling for any such expansion to be balanced with a
reduction in existing reporting requirements.  Moreover, much of the
data needed, such as environmental monitoring information, will be
expensive to obtain.  It will thus be important for EPA to prioritize
its needs for additional data, to work with the states and industry
to reduce the reporting burden, and to encourage efforts to use data
that may already have been collected by other federal agencies or
other entities. 

--------------------
\2 Terry Davies, Director, Center for Risk Management, Resources for
the Future, quoted in Mary H.  Cooper, The Cleanup's Next Phase: 
Setting Environmental Priorities for the 21\st Century, CQ Outlook
(June 5, 1999). 

      EPA AND THE STATES HAVE
      TAKEN INITIAL STEPS TO
      INCREASE DATA COMPATIBILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Because most of the information systems that EPA has developed over
the years are not compatible with each other, the agency has not been
able to integrate important data it has collected about the
environment and regulated facilities.  EPA has been criticized from
both outside and within the agency for having developed and
maintained stovepiped data systems that cannot share the enormous
amounts of data gathered.  In recent years, EPA has tried to make its
data more compatible, and in 1998, the Administrator committed the
agency to begin working toward full data integration across programs
and across environmental media. 

Essential to the effort to integrate data from various EPA databases
are common data definitions and formats, known as data standards. 
EPA has indicated that it needs such standards not only to make its
data compatible, but also to facilitate some of its other information
initiatives.  For example, EPA considers data standards as key to
reducing the reporting burden on industry and the states because it
would permit integrated reporting of information to EPA. 

In recent years, EPA has undertaken several efforts to develop
standards for some of the data items in its information systems, most
recently as part of the 1998 action plan for the Reinventing
Environmental Information (REI) initiative.  As part of this
initiative, EPA and the states are developing six data standards to
be used in 13 of EPA's major databases.  (See app.  II for a list of
these databases.) The standards being developed will apply common
definitions and formats for describing the following items in each
database:  (1) date, (2) facility identification, (3) industrial
classification, (4) location (latitude/longitude), (5) identification
of chemical names, and (6) biological taxonomy (i.e., categories for
describing plants and animals, such as class, family, and species). 
EPA considers these standards as a key step in moving to full
integration of EPA's data across its major systems.  According to the
REI action plan, these six standards will be developed, approved by
EPA in partnership with the states, and in use in the 13 designated
databases by the end of fiscal year 2003. 

The current effort to develop data standards is attempting to avoid
the limitations of previous efforts, which encountered both technical
difficulties in determining what appropriate standards should be and
the unwillingness of program offices to adopt the standards.  To
overcome such problems, the REI effort involves a cooperative
interchange among the EPA officials responsible for developing the
standards, the EPA program offices that will use the data, and the
state environmental agencies to reach consensus.  While responsible
officials believe that getting buy-in from the key collectors and
users of the data is essential for the eventual successful adoption
of the standards, it has contributed to the time required to launch
the standards. 

According to EPA, as of August 1999, two of the six standardsthe
common definitions and formats for describing the date and the
industrial classificationwere ready for implementation pending
review by the states.  Definitions and formats have been proposed for
the other standards, which are in varying stages of development and
approval by EPA and review by the states.  After agreeing on each
standard, the states and EPA will need to agree on the rules for how
each standard will be used.  Only then will each standard be ready to
be used for data being entered in the databases. 

To meet the implementation date of fiscal year 2003, EPA has set
milestones that call for the approval of the definitions and formats
for all six standards by the end of 1999.  Both EPA officials and
representatives from the Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS),\3 which is spearheading the states' involvement in this
effort, have indicated that the fiscal year 2003 milestone for
implementing the six standards may be met despite schedule slippages
and the complexities of the task.  ECOS officials also believe that
as long as the states remain full partners in the development of the
standards, there is a much greater likelihood that the states as well
as EPA will find the standards useful and appropriate and that the
initiative will ultimately be successful. 

The current initiative is limited in terms of the number of standards
being developed (six), the number of EPA databases in which the
standards will initially be used (13), and the amount of data in
those databases (only the new data being entered) that will
incorporate the standards.  EPA recognizes that its current effort is
only a first step toward its goal of full data integration.  ECOS
officials believe that EPA's focusing on the six data standards and
13 databases is an appropriate way to begin.  ECOS officials also
believe, based on the states' experiences in this area, that the
effort should be limited to new data being entered into the
databases.  According to ECOS officials, previous efforts by states
to conform existing data in their systems to new requirements such as
data standards have required a prohibitive expenditure of time,
expertise, and other resources. 

The focus of the current standards development effort is primarily on
the compatibility of data among EPA's information systems and those
of state environmental agencies, rather than also emphasizing the
compatibility of EPA's data with the data of other federal agencies
and nongovernmental sources.  EPA's Science Advisory Board has
recommended that EPA do more to link the agency's databases with
federal or other external databases, noting that answering many
health-related questions frequently requires linking environmental
data with census, cancer or birth registry data, or other data
systems (such as water distribution maps) to determine whether there
is a relationship between the environmental measures and health.\4
While EPA officials told us that they recognize the importance of
linking EPA's databases with those of other federal agencies,
resource constraints and the lack of statutory coordination
requirements have limited their actions in this area to participation
in interagency forums and coalitions.  They said that they have no
specific plans or target dates to initiate more formal efforts.  For
at least one standard, however, the current initiative is providing
EPA with an opportunity to encourage compatibility with outside data
sources.  In developing a standard for describing the biological
categories of plants and animals, EPA has participated in a joint
effort by U.S.  and Canadian federal agencies, the states, academic
institutions, museums, and nongovernmental organizations to develop
and maintain standard informationknown as the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System. 

--------------------
\3 ECOS is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit association of state and
territorial environmental commissioners. 

\4 The EPA Science Advisory Board provides advice to EPA from
scientists outside the agency.  Science Advisory Board, Review of the
Agency-Wide Quality Management Program, EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003
(Washington, D.C.:  EPA, July 24, 1998). 

   LONG-STANDING CONCERNS PERSIST
   ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF EPA'S
   DATA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Data accuracy, or the extent to which data are free from significant
error, has long been a serious challenge facing EPA.  Various reviews
that we, EPA, and others have done have revealed persistent concerns
about the accuracy of data in many of EPA's information systems.  EPA
has not conducted an agencywide assessment of the accuracy of its
information systems.  However, in 1998, agency staff reviewed
numerous studies of EPA's data systems and found that these studies
suggested variable error rates, with some systems and types of data
more prone to error than others.  Data used for some purposes may
need to be more accurate than in other instances, which is, in part,
why EPA has not set an across-the-board target rate for data
accuracy.  While EPA acknowledges that data errors exist in many of
its systems, the agency believes that, in the aggregate, its data are
of sufficient quality to support its programmatic and regulatory
decisions. 

Preventing data errors and correcting errors once they have been
identified, essential to data accuracy, have proved to be daunting
tasks for EPA.  For example, in January 1998, an EPA advisory council
on information management issues described the difficulty of
correcting errors in EPA's databases:  Once an error is stored in
one or more of the Agency's systems, making corrections to all those
systems is an exercise in frustration and futility.  There is no
simple way to ensure corrections are made to all possible systems.\5
Moreover, efforts to improve the accuracy of EPA's information
systems will need the cooperation of a complicated network of
individuals and entities who provide, collect, manage, or use the
data.  Among such individuals and entities are EPA employees, staff
from stateand, in some instances, localgovernments, the regulated
community, contractors, and private citizens who use data from these
systems. 

Preventing data errors is an issue of both whether accurate data are
being generated and whether the integrity of the reported data is
maintained as the data flow through the states' and EPA's information
systems.  EPA has an agencywide quality system that was revised in
1998 to expand and clarify requirements for how environmental data
are collected and managed.\6 All EPA organizational units involved in
the use of environmental data are subject to the quality
requirements, which include provisions to define and meet data
quality needs. 

EPA's quality program requires that each entity document its quality
system in a quality management plan.  Among other things, the quality
management plans must discuss the criteria for measuring data
quality, describe how the acquired data will be validated and
verified, and identify any constraints on data collection. 
Currently, about 40 EPA organizational units are required to develop
and implement quality management plans.  In addition, the quality
program's requirements, including the quality management plan, apply
to others outside of EPA, such as states, local and tribal
governments, and contractors who generate and collect environmental
data on behalf of EPA. 

Although EPA's Science Advisory Board recently commended the agency
for its development of a quality system and for the efforts of EPA's
quality assurance division to champion the need for quality assurance
and quality control, the Board has also found that the system's
implementation has been uneven within the agency, increasing the
likelihood of problems with data quality and the decisions made based
on the data.\7

Moreover, the Board reported that more than 75 percent of the states
authorized to implement EPA's environmental programs lack approved
quality management plans for all or some of these programs and thus
are likely to be generating data of unknown quality.  The Board found
the situation worrisome as it implied that compliance with EPA's
quality system is unimportant to these states.  According to the
Board, Such a state is exposing itself, the reliability of its
decisions, and its credibility, to criticisms due to its reliance
upon data of unknown quality.  The same is true for those agency
programs that depend upon those data. The Board recommended that EPA
place its quality system at a higher level within the agency
structure to bring more attention and priority to quality assurance
and quality control issues. 

EPA's Inspector General has also examined EPA's quality assurance
program in terms of its ability to ensure data quality.  In a 1998
review of the quality system developed by EPA's Superfund program,
the Inspector General found that EPA managers had not always fully
developed and effectively implemented their quality assurance
programs to the extent that they could ensure that they obtained data
of known and adequate quality.\8 The Inspector General raised
concerns that similar weaknesses may exist in other EPA program
offices.  As the Science Advisory Board did, the Inspector General
recommended that EPA elevate the responsibility for quality assurance
for the agency as a whole to a level at which its manager could be an
effective and independent advocate for quality assurance.  In
addition, the Inspector General recommended that the agency develop a
strategy to institutionalize the quality assurance program, improve
oversight of the program, develop minimum quality assurance
requirements, and report annually on the program's effectiveness. 

In April 1998, EPA's Deputy Administrator called for a strategic
action plan for implementing an agencywide approach to ensuring data
quality.  This plan contained recommendations for preventing and
correcting errors.  To encourage error prevention, the plan
recommended that EPA develop a baseline review of each of its major
data systems and establish milestones for improving accuracy over
time.  It also recommended that EPA develop data standards that would
be used both by the states and EPA, arguing that the states would be
more diligent in maintaining high-quality data for EPA if they used
the same data in the course of running their own programs.  To
encourage error correction, the plan's recommendations called for EPA
to rely on data users to alert the agency to inaccurate data. 
Specifically, the plan called for EPA to establish an
easy-to-understand guidance system so that users who noticed errors
could report discrepancies to EPA. 

Although the data quality strategic plan was submitted to EPA's
Acting Deputy Administrator in December 1998, the plan has not been
adopted, and thus its recommendations have not been implemented. 
However, EPA's Acting Deputy Administrator has indicated that the
plan will be useful to the new information office.  For example, he
said that developing an error correction system would be an
important early effort of the new information office and that this
system would build on some of the thinking that went into the 1998
plan.  The system would rely on data providers and others to bring
errors to EPA's attention and then would ensure the prompt correction
of the reported errors.  The agency has allocated funds to develop an
error correction process, and staff have developed a proposal;
however, the proposal has not yet been discussed with program and
regional offices and has not been approved by management of the new
information office. 

The Acting Deputy Administrator has also indicated that data quality
covers a broader array of issues than those addressed in the 1998
data quality strategic plan and that the new information office will
be tasked with addressing these issues.  As we pointed out in April
1999, EPA does not yet have a common understanding of what data
quality means and how the agency and its state partners can most
effectively ensure that the data used for decision-making or
disseminated to the public are of high quality.\9 To address this,
EPA plans to elevate data quality issues in the new information
office and to address both how data quality should be defined and how
the quality of the agency's data can be improved.  As part of this
effort, the agency plans to create a Quality and Information Council,
comprising senior executives from across the agency, that will
provide strategic direction and advice to the director of the new
information office on data quality, information technology
investments, and other issues.  The information office will also
include a quality staff that will focus on the design, policy
development, and oversight of the agency's quality program. 

--------------------
\5 National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology,
Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:  Final Report and
Recommendations of the Information Impacts Committee, EPA
100-R-98-002 (Washington, D.C.:  EPA, Jan.  1998). 

\6 EPA defines environmental data as any measurements or information
that describe environmental processes or conditions or the
performance of environmental technology.  For EPA, environmental data
include information collected directly from measurements, such as
environmental monitoring; produced from models; and compiled from
other sources such as databases or the scientific literature. 

\7 Science Advisory Board, Review of the Implementation of the
Agency-Wide Quality System, EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-99-002 (Washington, D.C.: 
EPA, Feb.  25, 1999). 

\8 EPA, Superfund:  EPA Had Not Effectively Implemented Its Superfund
Quality Assurance Program, Office of Inspector General,
E1SKF7-08-0011-8100240 (Washington, D.C.:  EPA, Sept.  30, 1998). 

\9 Environmental Protection:  Status of EPA's Efforts to Create a
Central Information Office (GAO/T-RCED-99-147, Apr.  13, 1999). 

   EPA'S SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING
   ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES WILL BE
   DEPENDENT ON DATA IMPROVEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Much of the current effort by EPA and its state partners to improve
information management is tied to their initiatives to assess the
results of their programs.  Spurred by the requirements of the
Results Act, EPA has begun to set goals and measures of its
performance that are intended to help the agency, as well as the
Congress and the public, assess the environmental results of the
agency's activities.  Under the Results Act, EPA is required to set
long-term and annual goals as well as to measure the results of its
programs in an annual report to the Congress.  The first such report,
due by the end of March 2000, will cover the agency's performance in
fiscal year 1999. 

The states and EPA have also been working together to develop
mutually agreeable environmental goals and a set of results-oriented
core performance measures to use in measuring the effectiveness and
success of the states' implementation of national environmental
programs.  The core performance measures are a central component of
an initiative called the National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS).\10 The goals and measures are to be used
to evaluate state programs with a focus on outcomes, such as
improvements in water quality, rather than activity measures, such as
the number of inspections performed at manufacturing facilities.  To
date, EPA and the states have made limited progress in developing
outcome-oriented performance measures under both the Results Act and
NEPPS. 

EPA has relatively few environmental outcome measures among the
annual performance measures it developed for fiscal year 2000
reporting under the Results Act.\11 A large majority of the
performance measures for fiscal year 2000 reflect the level of
program activities, or outputs, such as the number of regulations
issued or enforcement actions taken.  According to EPA's
categorization, of 357 performance measures associated with these
goals, only 71, or about 20 percent, measure program outcomes. 
According to EPA program managers, the agency has long used activity,
or output, measures to manage its programs and will continue to need
some such measures even as it incorporates more results-based goals
and measures.  For example, EPA program managers said that some
program activity measures are required by statute and others are
necessary for managing the programs.  However, in other cases, EPA
officials said that they chose their annual goals and measures based
on what data they had available. 

                                Table 1
                
                EPA's Analysis of the Number and Type of
                  Annual Performance Measures for Its
                  Strategic Goals for Fiscal Year 2000

                                                Number of annual
                                              performance measures
                                          ----------------------------
EPA's strategic goal                        Output   Outcome     Total
----------------------------------------  --------  --------  --------
Goal 1: Clean air                               16        17        33
Goal 2: Clean and safe water                    74        11        85
Goal 3: Safe food                               16         1        17
Goal 4: Preventing pollution and                29        13        42
 reducing risk in communities, homes,
 workplaces, and ecosystems
Goal 5: Better waste management,                39         3        42
 restoration of contaminated sites, and
 emergency response
Goal 6: Reduction of global and cross-          27         9        36
 border environmental risks
Goal 7: Expansion of Americans' right to        25         6        31
 know about their environment
Goal 8: Sound science, improved                 29         3        32
 understanding of environmental risk and
 greater innovation to address
 environmental problems
Goal 9: A credible deterrent to                 10         8        18
 pollution and greater compliance with
 the law
Goal 10: Effective management                   21         0        21
======================================================================
Total                                          286        71       357
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  EPA, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability. 

As indicated by the relatively few environmental outcome measures
developed to date, the development of performance measures is proving
to be a difficult task for EPA.  The challenges of developing outcome
measures include (1) the difficulty of linking program activities to
environmental outcomes, (2) a lack of baseline data against which to
measure progress and a more generalized lack of reliable data about
the environment, and (3) resource constraints for gathering and
analyzing environmental data.\12

Linking program activities to environmental outcomes presents a major
technical challenge, as we noted in a 1997 report on the analytical
challenges in measuring performance.\13 Changes in environmental
conditions come about as a result of a complex web of factors,
including such variables as the weather or economic activity, many of
which are out of the control of EPA and its state partners. 
Likewise, it may take years for some environmental outcomes to occur. 
Officials from EPA's Office of Air and Radiation told us, for
example, that the outcomes, or environmental results, of air quality
programs may not be seen for many years, making it particularly
difficult to develop measures that assess annual performance results. 
Some EPA officials raised concerns about being held accountable under
the Results Act for environmental outcomes that are largely out of
their control and indicated that they would rather be held
accountable for program outputs, over which they have more control. 

The lack of appropriate environmental data for developing outcome
measures is tied to resource limitations and reporting burden. 
Environmental measures can be costly to develop and use.  Moreover,
some state officials mentioned that it is difficult to commit
resources to the development and implementation of new
results-oriented performance measures while still being held
responsible for meeting other program requirements.  Also, the states
have indicated to EPA that they are not willing to collect more data
for EPA's needs if the data are not also needed for managing their
own programs and assessing environmental conditions in their states. 
The states and EPA recently committed themselves to a joint effort to
look for opportunities to reduce reporting burden.  They also agreed
to the principle that the data collected should support their ability
to measure programs' success in a manner that increasingly is based
on environmental results. 

The development of meaningful measures of environmental results is
intrinsically linked to the rest of EPA's key information management
concernsboth the data quality issues (such as the need to improve
data accuracy, to increase data compatibility, and to reduce data
gaps) and the overarching issues facing the new information office
(such as the call for a reduction in the reporting burden and the
need for effective partnerships with the states).  To date, EPA has
made only limited progress toward developing outcome measures. 
However, agency officials responsible for designing EPA's new
information office have stated that developing information on
environmental results will be a part of the agency's major initiative
to overhaul how it collects, manages, and disseminates information. 
EPA has indicated that its forthcoming information plan will
articulate the central role that measures of results will play in
helping the agency meet its strategic goals and how efforts to
develop such measures will be fostered and encouraged.  The magnitude
of the difficulties involved in developing environmental outcome
measures makes it likely that EPA will continue to struggle with this
issue for a long time and will need to devote a great deal of
attention to this effort if it is to make major progress. 

--------------------
\10 NEPPS was intended, among other things, to give states with
strong environmental performance greater flexibility and autonomy in
running environmental programs that EPA has delegated to the states. 
We recently reported on the experiences to date in developing these
measures and in implementing the performance partnership
agreements. Environmental Protection:  Collaborative EPA-State
Effort Needed to Improve New Performance Partnership System
(GAO/RCED-99-171, June 21, 1999). 

\11 Outcome measures are those expressed in terms of program impacts
or human health and environmental changes, rather than the projects
to be completed or the number of activities to be performed, which
are referred to as outputs. 

\12 Such difficulties are similar to those we identified in a recent
report on the efforts of EPA and the states to develop core
performance measures under NEPPS.  Environmental Protection: 
Collaborative EPA-State Effort Needed to Improve New Performance
Partnership System (GAO/RCED-99-171, June 21, 1999). 

\13 Managing for Results:  Analytic Challenges in Measuring
Performance (GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997). 

   EPA'S NEW INFORMATION OFFICE
   FACES SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT
   CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

EPA's information office will be responsible for improving the
quality of data used within EPA and provided to the public and for
developing and implementing the goals, standards, and accountability
systems needed to bring about these improvements.  To this end, the
information office would (1) ensure that the quality of data
collected and used by EPA is known and appropriate for its intended
uses, (2) reduce the burden on the states and regulated industries of
collecting and reporting data, (3) fill significant data gaps, and
(4) provide the public with integrated information and statistics on
environmental and public health issues.  The office will also have
the authority to set and oversee agencywide standards and policies
for managing information resources, including those governing the
purchase and operation of information technology systems.  EPA
estimates that the new office will be operational in early October
1999. 

Although the establishment of this office is an important step in
improving how EPA collects, manages, and disseminates information,
the office will face many challenges.  As we reported in April 1999,
developing a plan to show how the agency intends to achieve its
vision and goals is a pressing need for the new office.\14 Among
other challenges facing the office are two that have thwarted
previous efforts by EPA to improve its information management
activities:  (1) obtaining sufficient authority and resources to
address the complex information management issues facing the agency
and (2) working effectively with the states and regulated industries
to balance the demand for more data with the efforts to reduce the
reporting burden. 

--------------------
\14 Environmental Protection:  Status of EPA's Efforts to Create a
Central Information Office (GAO/T-RCED-99-147, Apr.  13, 1999). 

      EPA IS BEGINNING TO DEVELOP
      AN INFORMATION STRATEGIC
      PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

EPA has begun work to develop an information strategic plan that it
hopes will guide the agency's information technology management and
investments on a multiyear basis.  The new information office will
have leadership responsibility for creating this plan.  As we, EPA's
Inspector General, and others have pointed out, EPA has long
neededand long lackedsuch a plan for guiding its use of and
investments in information technology.  Moreover, the Clinger-Cohen
Act requires that agencies set goals for improving the effectiveness
of their operations through the use of information technology and
establish performance indicators to measure how well information
technology supports their programs.  As we recently reported, despite
the agency's having acknowledged the need to improve data management
as a mission-critical problem in its fiscal year 2000 performance
plan, EPA did not set goals or timeframes for implementing the
information technology management requirements of the Clinger-Cohen
Act.\15

The primary purpose of EPA's information strategic plan will be to
ensure that the agency's information technology will support the
agency's efforts to meet its strategic goals as articulated in the
strategic plan prepared under the Results Act.  As part of this
effort, EPA will conduct various analyses to determine its
information needs and corresponding investments in the information
technology essential to carrying out its mission and achieving its
strategic goals.  EPA officials responsible for coordinating the
development of the information plan recently set preliminary
milestones calling for startup planning and team organization to
begin in August 1999, with the bulk of fiscal year 2000 (beginning in
October 1999) being used for assessing the current state of
information in the agency and deciding on information priorities for
future action. 

In addition to or as part of this long-range plan to guide EPA's
information priorities and investments, the information office will
need a strategy and an action plan that articulates the office's
priorities and the resources needed to accomplish them.  In
particular, the office will need to articulate its strategy to
address the data quality problemsaccuracy concerns, lack of data
compatibility, and data gapsdiscussed in this report.  Although such
a strategy or action plan is not yet in place, the Administrator has
identified 13 projects for the office that will receive early
attention.  Among these projects, some of which are new while others
are ongoing initiatives, are the development of the data standards
and the development of the strategic information plan. 

--------------------
\15 Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year
2000 Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-99-237R, July 31, 1999). 

      EPA'S NEW INFORMATION OFFICE
      WILL NEED SUFFICIENT
      AUTHORITY AND RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2

The EPA Administrator and the senior-level officials charged with
creating the information office acknowledge that the reorganization
will raise a variety of complex information policy and technology
issues.  To date, the focus has largely been on determining which
organizational components and staff members should be transferred
into the office.  While such decisions are clearly important, EPA
will also need to ensure that the office has sufficient authority and
resources to overcome organizational obstacles that hindered previous
attempts to adopt agencywide information policies and a strategy for
information resources management.  As EPA's Chief Information
Officer, the head of the information office will be expected to
provide accountability at a senior management level for information
technology issues agencywide and to ensure greater accountability for
delivering effective information technology systems and services. 

As we reported in September 1998, EPA has not developed agencywide
policies and procedures to govern key aspects of its projects to
disseminate information, nor has it developed standards to assess the
information's accuracy and mechanisms to identify and correct
errors.\16 EPA recognizes the need for such agencywide policies
governing information collection, management, and dissemination, and
the new office will be responsible for developing them.  However, EPA
has a nearly 30-year history of operating in a decentralized fashion,
with strong program offices that are responsible for implementing
different statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act, with differing sets of reporting requirements.  Moreover, EPA's
program offices have historically developed and managed their own
information systems and made their own decisions about disseminating
information.  For example, program offices have been making their
own, sometimes conflicting, decisions about the types of information
to be released and the extent of the explanations needed about how
information should be interpreted.  The new office will need to have
the clear authority to develop such procedures and policies and
ensure that they are adhered to by the program offices. 

The office will also need significant resources and expertise to
address the information management challenges facing EPA.  While the
new organizational structure will offer EPA an opportunity to better
coordinate and prioritize its information initiatives, the agency
will also need to determine whether its current information
management resources, including staff expertise, are sufficient for
the office to achieve its goals. 

--------------------
\16 Environmental Information:  Agencywide Policies and Procedures
Are Needed for EPA's Information Dissemination (GAO/RCED-98-245,
Sept.  24, 1998). 

      EPA HAS BEGUN WORKING WITH
      THE STATES AND REGULATED
      INDUSTRIES TO BALANCE THE
      NEED FOR MORE DATA WITH THE
      EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN
      OF DATA MANAGEMENT AND
      REPORTING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3

In implementing environmental programs, EPA and the states have
collected a wealth of environmental data under various statutory and
regulatory authorities.  However, EPA needs additional information on
environmental conditions and changes over time if it is to identify
problem areas that are emerging or that need additional regulatory
action or other attention.  In contrast to the need for more and
better data is a call from states and regulated industries to reduce
the paperwork burden associated with managing and reporting data. 

Overall reductions in the reporting burden have typically proven
difficult for EPA to achieve.  For example, in March 1996, we
reported that while EPA was pursuing a paperwork reduction of 20
million hours, its overall paperwork burden was actually increasing
because of changes in programs and other factors.\17 EPA has
continued to undertake a number of activities to reduce the reporting
and record keeping burden on regulated entities.  However, the Office
of Management and Budget has reported that these reductions have not
yet been able to offset the growth in the reporting burden resulting
from new collections, which are frequently associated with new rules
needed to meet EPA's statutory requirements.\18

For fiscal year 1999, EPA has reported that the information
collection burden it imposed on the public would be about 120 million
hours, a slight increase over fiscal year 1998.  The states and
regulated industries have indicated that they will look to EPA's new
information office to reduce the burden of reporting requirements. 

EPA has recently initiated some efforts to reduce the reporting
burden.  For example, an EPA-state information management work group
looking into this issue has proposed an approach to assess
environmental data and reporting requirements based on the data's
value compared with the cost of collecting, managing, and reporting
it.  EPA has announced that in the coming months, its regional
offices and the states will be exploring possibilities for reducing
paperwork requirements, testing initiatives in consultation with
EPA's program offices, and establishing a clearinghouse of successful
initiatives and pilot projects. 

Given that EPA depends on state regulatory agencies to collect much
of the data it needs and to help ensure the quality of that data, EPA
acknowledges the need to work in a close partnership with the states
on a wide variety of information management activities, including the
creation of its information office.  Some partnerships have already
been created, such as the effort discussed previously on reducing the
reporting burden.  Similarly, EPA and its state partners in the NEPPS
program are determining what the appropriate data would be for
developing environmental goals and measures.  Representatives of
state environmental agencies and ECOS have expressed their ideas and
concerns about the role of the new information office and have
frequently reminded EPA that they expect to share the responsibility
for setting that office's goals, priorities, and strategies. 
According to an ECOS official, the states have had more input in the
development of the new EPA office than they typically have had in
other major policy issues, and the states view this change as an
improvement in their relationship with EPA. 

--------------------
\17 Environmental Protection:  Assessing EPA's Progress in Paperwork
Reduction (GAO/T-RCED-96-107, Mar.  21, 1996). 

\18 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Information
Collection Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999,
Office of Management and Budget (Washington, D.C.:  OMB, Apr.  16,
1999), pp.  4, 14, and 147. 

   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The EPA Administrator's decision to implement fundamental
improvements in the agency's environmental information is an
important step in the right direction.  However, additional actions
are needed to resolve the complex information management problems
that have beset EPA since its inception.  To finish the job, EPA will
need to follow up and expand its data improvement initiatives to fill
what the agency considers to be the key gaps in its data, take
advantage of opportunities to develop and implement data standards to
achieve compatibility among environmental databases, and ensure the
accuracy of its data.  Such actions, which will require several years
to complete, are complex and will involve considerable difficulties
in obtaining the scientific and environmental data that are needed,
reaching agreements with key internal and external stakeholders and
EPA's state regulatory partners on the appropriate environmental
measures of EPA's programs, and ensuring that key databases are
accurate and compatible.  Given these difficulties and the multiyear
commitment that will be needed to overcome them, an action plan
detailing the strategies, resources, benchmarks, and milestones for
completing specific actions would be useful to ensure that EPA's
information improvement actions continue to receive appropriate
attention within the agency and that these actions can be monitored
by the Congress and others. 

   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To help EPA obtain the data it needs to effectively set priorities,
assess progress in achieving goals and objectives, and report on
accomplishments in a credible way, we recommend that the EPA
Administrator direct the program manager of the new information
office to develop an action plan that details the key steps that the
agency needs to take to ensure that EPA's environmental and
regulatory data are sufficiently complete, compatible, and accurate
to meet its needs.  This action plan should include the office's
strategy, milestones, and resource needs to (1) fill key gaps that
have been identified in the agency's information on environmental
conditions; (2) identify and develop all needed data standards and
implement them in all major databases; (3) coordinate EPA's data
standardization efforts with the states, federal agencies, and other
organizations that maintain major environmental databases; (4)
improve the collection of accurate data by implementing its quality
assurance program throughout the agency as well as in the states; and
(5) identify procedures needed so that data errors detected in one
EPA information system can be corrected agencywide. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for review and
comment.  We also met with representatives of the EPA offices
responsible for the activities discussed in this report and with the
agency's Associate Deputy Administrator.  EPA said that the report
accurately describes both the agency's problems with and efforts to
improve information management.  EPA concurred with our
recommendation and said that it is consistent with the agency's
intentions concerning information management.  EPA also pointed out
that its forthcoming information strategic plan should provide the
overall strategy needed to ensure the completeness, compatibility,
and accuracy of EPA's environmental data.  The agency also offered
several technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated
as appropriate. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

The scope and methodology for our work are discussed in appendix I. 
We performed our work from December 1998 through August 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We will send copies of this report to the Honorable Carol Browner,
EPA Administrator, and to other interested parties.  We will also
make copies available to others on request.  Please call me at (202)
512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions.  Key contributors
to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To identify the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) initiatives
to improve information management within the agency and between EPA
and its various stakeholders, we held discussions with officials of
the following EPA offices:  the Office of Information Transition and
Organizational Planning, which has responsibility for establishing a
central information office to improve EPA's data management and
information sharing activities; the Office of Information Resources
Management; the Center for Environmental Information and Statistics;
the Reinvention Office; the Office of Planning, Analysis, and
Accountability; and the Office of Research and Development.  To
determine the status of these initiatives, we conducted interviews
and reviewed documents obtained from officials responsible for
carrying out the projects.  We also reviewed reports and written
comments on the projects and needed improvements by EPA's Science
Advisory Board, National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and
Technology, and Office of Inspector General; the National Academy of
Public Administration; the Center for Strategic and International
Studies; Resources for the Future; and by other public interest and
environmental organizations. 

We also discussed the projects and EPA's overall efforts to improve
environmental information management with officials of the
Environmental Council of the States, a national nonpartisan,
nonprofit association of state and territorial environmental
commissioners that monitors and provides input on EPA's improvement
efforts and is working in partnership with EPA to improve their data
sharing.  In addition, we attended EPA-sponsored workshops and
stakeholder meetings used to share information and solicit input on
the agency's new information office and on various efforts to improve
the accuracy, compatibility, and completeness of EPA's environmental
data.  We also attended a May 1999 conference of environmental data
users and held discussions with agency representatives involved in
managing EPA's data quality reforms and in making environmental
information available to the public. 

To determine the status of EPA's new central information office,
including its organization, resources, duties, and responsibilities,
we interviewed the director of the task force for the office's
information transition, operations, and planning, and task force
members.  We also interviewed the new office's deputy national
program manager designee; the director designees for its office of
information technology services and office of planning, resources,
and outreach; and the director and deputy director designees for its
office of information collection.  The new office's national program
manager had not been designated at the time of our review. 

We conducted our work from December 1998 through August 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

MAJOR DATABASES COVERED BY EPA'S
REI ACTION PLAN
========================================================== Appendix II

Database                                  Function
----------------------------------------  ----------------------------
Air programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerometric Information Retrieval System/  Contains monitoring data on
Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS/AQS)          ambient air quality from
                                          about 10,000 stations around
                                          the country

AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS)             Contains data on emissions,
                                          compliance, and permits for
                                          nearly 150,000 stationary
                                          air pollution sources

Risk Management Plan Information System   Scheduled to become
(RMP*Info)                                operational in 1999; will
                                          contain all Risk Management
                                          Program data (excluding off-
                                          site consequence analysis)
                                          for facilities

Water programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit Compliance System (PCS)            Contains National Pollutant
                                          Discharge Elimination System
                                          data; tracks permits and
                                          monitoring data for more
                                          than 64,000 facilities

Safe Drinking Water Information System    Contains information on the
(SDWIS)                                   nation's drinking water,
                                          including sampling data and
                                          information on noncompliance
                                          with regulatory standards

Water Quality Information System          Contains monitoring data on
(STORET X)                                ambient water quality and
                                          biological samples from over
                                          850,000 stations across the
                                          nation

Land disposal programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RCRA Information System (RCRIS)           Contains identification and
                                          location data for all
                                          hazardous waste handlers and
                                          tracks permits, site closure
                                          status, compliance, and
                                          cleanup activities

Biennial Reporting System (BRS)           Contains data on the
                                          generation of hazardous
                                          waste from large-quantity
                                          generators and data on waste
                                          management practices from
                                          treatment, storage, and
                                          disposal facilities

CERCLIS Information System (CERCLIS 3)    Contains information on
                                          hazardous waste sites,
                                          including data on site
                                          inspections, preliminary
                                          assessments, and remediation

Public awareness programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)     Contains data from industry
                                          on the release of over 300
                                          toxic chemicals into the
                                          air, water, and land

Envirofacts Data Warehouse (EF)           Provides a single point of
                                          access to data from seven
                                          major EPA databases

Enforcement programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OECA Docket (Docket)                      Tracks and reports
                                          information on civil
                                          judicial and administrative
                                          enforcement cases brought
                                          under the authority of
                                          environmental statutes

National Compliance Database (NCDB)       Tracks compliance monitoring
                                          and enforcement activities
                                          for the Pesticides and Toxic
                                          Substances Compliance and
                                          Enforcement Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Based on Burden Reduction and State Environmental
Agencies, Environmental Council of the States, 1999. 

GAO CONTACT AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix III

CONTACT

Edward A.  Kratzer, (202) 512-6553

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to the individual named above, Susan E.  Swearingen, J. 
Kenneth McDowell, Donald E.  Pless, and John A.  Crossen made key
contributions to this report. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
============================================================ Chapter 0

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. 
Managing Information as a Strategic Resource:  Final Report and
Recommendations of the Information Impacts Committee.  EPA
100-R-98-002.  Washington, D.C.:  Jan.  1998. 

_____.  Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and
the Environment:  Recommendations for Comprehensive Information
Resources Management.  IRM Strategic Planning Task Force. 
Environmental Information and Assessment Committee.  EPA
270-K-94-002.  Washington, D.C.:  Aug.  1994. 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  Information Collection
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999.  Office of
Management and Budget.  Washington, D.C.:  Apr.  16, 1999. 

Science Advisory Board.  Review of the Center for Environmental
Information and Statistics' (CEIS) Draft Data Suitability Assessment
of Major EPA Databases.  EPA-SAB-EC-99-010.  Washington, D.C.:  Feb. 
19, 1999. 

Cooper, Mary H.  The Cleanup's Next Phase:  Setting Environmental
Priorities for the 21\st Century. CQ Outlook, June 5, 1999. 

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Information Resources
Management:  Office of Water Data Integration Efforts.  Office of
Inspector General.  E1NWG6-15-0001-8100177.  Washington, D.C.:  June
22, 1998. 

_____.  Special Review of EPA's Information Systems Program.  Vol. 
1.  Office of Inspector General.  E1SKG3-15-0098-4400038. 
Washington, D.C.:  Mar.  24, 1994. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  Environmental Enforcement:  EPA
Needs a Better Strategy to Manage Its Cross-Media Information. 
GAO/IMTEC-92-14.  Apr.  2, 1992. 

_____.  Environmental Information:  Agencywide Policies and
Procedures Are Needed for EPA's Information Dissemination. 
GAO/RCED-98-245.  Sept.  24, 1998. 

_____.  Environmental Information:  EPA Could Better Address Concerns
About Disseminating Sensitive Business Information.  GAO/RCED-99-156. 
June 25, 1999. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA Faces Formidable Challenges
Managing Water Quality Data.  GAO/T-AIMD-93-2.  Aug.  5, 1993. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA's Actions to Improve
Long-Standing Information Management Weaknesses.  GAO/T-IMTEC-93-4. 
Mar.  29, 1993. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA's Plans to Improve
Long-Standing Information Resources Management Problems. 
GAO/AIMD-93-8.  Sept.  16, 1993. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA's Problems With Collection and
Management of Scientific Data and Its Efforts to Address Them. 
GAO/T-RCED-95-174.  May 12, 1995. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  Status of EPA's Efforts to Create
a Central Information Office.  GAO/T-RCED-99-147.  Apr.  13, 1999. 

_____.  EPA Toxic Substances Program:  Long-Standing Information
Planning Problems Must Be Addressed.  GAO/AIMD-94-25.  Nov.  17,
1993. 

_____.  Hazardous Waste:  Benefits of EPA's Information System Are
Limited.  GAO/AIMD-95-167.  Aug.  22, 1995. 

_____.  Pesticides:  EPA's Efforts to Collect and Take Action on
Exposure Incident Data.  GAO/RCED-95-163.  July 12, 1995. 

_____.  Pesticides:  Information Systems Improvements Essential for
EPA's Reregistration Efforts.  GAO/IMTEC-93-5.  Nov.  23, 1992. 

_____.  Toxic Substances Control Act:  Legislative Changes Could Make
the Act More Effective.  GAO/RCED-94-103.  Sept.  26, 1994. 

_____.  Toxic Substances:  EPA Needs More Reliable Source Reduction
Data and Progress Measures.  GAO/RCED-94-93.  Sept.  23, 1994. 

_____.  Toxic Substances:  EPA Should Focus Its Chemical Use
Inventory on Suspected Harmful Substances.  GAO/RCED-95-165.  July 7,
1995. 

_____.  Waste Minimization:  Major Problems of Data Reliability and
Validity Identified.  GAO/PEMD-92-16.  Mar.  23, 1992. 

EPA MANAGEMENT

Center for Strategic and International Studies.  The Environmental
Protection System in Transition:  Toward a More Desirable Future. 
Final report of Enterprise for the Environment.  Washington, D.C.: 
Jan.  1998. 

National Academy of Public Administration.  Resolving the Paradox of
Environmental Protection:  An Agenda for Congress, EPA, and the
States.  Washington, D.C.:  Sept.  1997. 

_____.  Setting Priorities, Getting Results:  A New Direction for
EPA.  Washington, D.C.:  Apr.  1995. 

National Performance Review.  Reinventing Environmental Regulation. 
Washington, D.C.:  Mar.  16, 1995. 

Resources for the Future.  Regulating Pollution:  Does the U.S. 
System Work?  Washington, D.C.:  1997. 

Science Advisory Board.  Review of the Agency-Wide Quality Management
Program.  EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-98-003.  Washington, D.C.:  July 24, 1998. 

_____.  Review of the Implementation of the Agency-Wide Quality
System.  EPA-SAB-EEC-LTR-99-002.  Washington, D.C.:  Feb.  25, 1999. 

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Superfund:  EPA Had Not
Effectively Implemented Its Superfund Quality Assurance Program. 
Office of Inspector General.  E1SKF7-08-0011-8100240.  Washington,
D.C.:  Sept.  30, 1998. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  Environmental Protection Agency: 
Protecting Human Health and the Environment Through Improved
Management.  GAO/RCED-88-101.  Aug.  16, 1988. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  Assessing EPA's Progress in
Paperwork Reduction.  GAO/T-RCED-96-107.  Mar.  21, 1996. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  Key Management Issues Facing EPA. 
GAO/RCED-98-153R.  Apr.  23, 1998. 

_____.  Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:  Environmental
Protection Agency.  GAO/OCG-99-17.  Jan.  1999. 

_____.  Managing for Results:  Analytic Challenges in Measuring
Performance.  GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138.  May 30, 1997. 

_____.  Managing for Results:  EPA's Efforts to Implement Needed
Management Systems and Processes.  GAO/T-RCED-97-116.  Apr.  8, 1997. 

_____.  Managing for Results:  EPA's Efforts to Implement Needed
Management Systems and Processes.  GAO/RCED-97-156.  June 18, 1997. 

_____.  Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal
Year 2000 Performance Plan.  GAO/RCED-99-237R.  July 31, 1999. 

_____.  Paperwork Reduction:  Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to Be
Met.  GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-186.  June 5, 1996. 

_____.  Paperwork Reduction:  Government Goals Unlikely to Be Met. 
GAO/T-GGD-97-114.  June 4, 1997. 

_____.  Performance Plans:  Selected Approaches for Verification and
Validation of Agency Performance Information.  GAO/GGD-99-139.  July
30, 1999. 

_____.  Results Act:  Observations on EPA's Draft Strategic Plan. 
GAO/RCED-97-209R.  July 30, 1997. 

EPA-STATE WORKING RELATIONSHIP

Environmental Council of the States.  Burden Reduction and State
Environmental Agencies.  Washington, D.C.:  1999. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  Environmental Protection: 
Collaborative EPA-State Effort Needed to Improve New Performance
Partnership System.  GAO/RCED-99-171.  June 21, 1999. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA's and States' Efforts to Focus
State Enforcement Program on Results.  GAO/RCED-98-113.  May 27,
1998. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA's and States' Efforts to Focus
State Enforcement Programs on Results.  GAO/T-RCED-98-233.  June 23,
1998. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  EPA's and States' Efforts to
Reinvent Environmental Regulation.  GAO/T-RCED-98-33.  Nov.  4,
1997. 

_____.  Environmental Protection:  Status of EPA's Initiatives to
Create a New Partnership With States.  GAO/T-RCED-96-87.  Feb.  29,
1996. 

_____.  EPA and the States:  Environmental Challenges Require a
Better Working Relationship.  GAO/RCED-95-64.  Apr.  3, 1995. 

*** End of document. ***