Showing posts with label
Government Accountability Office.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
Government Accountability Office.
Show all posts
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Observations on States' Role, Liabilities at DOD and Hardrock Mining Sites, and Litigation Issues GAO-13-633T (May 22, 2013). The details of the 24-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
According to EPA, the agency that manages the nation's principal hazardous waste cleanup program, one in four Americans lives within 3 miles of a hazardous waste site. Many such sites pose health and other risks, and their cleanup can be lengthy and expensive. EPA's Superfund program, established under [Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ] CERCLA, provides a process to address contaminated sites. Under CERCLA, parties that contributed to the contamination of a site are generally liable for cleanup and related costs. These parties may include federal agencies, such as DOD, and companies. Based on the risk a site poses, EPA may place the site on the [National Priorities List] NPL, a list that includes some of the nation's most seriously contaminated sites. As of April 2013, the NPL included about 1,300 sites, and states and federal agencies may address additional contaminated sites outside of EPA's Superfund program. GAO's prior work has identified challenges cleaning up DOD's NPL sites and abandoned mining sites and has assessed litigation related to the Superfund program.
In this testimony, GAO summarizes its work from March 2008 to April 2013 on (1) the role of states in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, (2) DOD's management of its sites on the NPL, (3) federal liabilities from contaminated hardrock mining sites, and (4) litigation under CERCLA and other statutes.
GAO is not making new recommendations but has made numerous recommendations to DOD, EPA, and Interior to better address hazardous waste sites. As described in this statement, the responses to these recommendations have varied.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Natural Resources and Environment: Funding for 10 States' Programs Supported by Four Environmental Protection Agency Categorical Grants GAO-13-504R (May 6, 2013). The details of the 73-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
In the last 10 years, appropriations for EPA's categorical grants have generally decreased from a high of $1.17 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $1.09 billion in fiscal year 2012 (in current dollars). Members of Congress and state stakeholders have expressed concerns about the adequacy of EPA categorical grant funding in light of recent economic conditions and the effects on state budgets.
GAO reviewed four of these grants--the Water Pollutant Control, Nonpoint Source, Air Quality, and Underground Injection Control grants--that made up 60 percent of the total budget for categorical grants in fiscal year 2012. GAO also reviewed funding for state programs that use these grants in 10 states, including Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO is not making any recommendations. GAO provided a draft to the agency for comment. EPA provided technical comments by e-mail, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate. GAO also provided relevant sections of the report to agency officials in the 10 states reviewed. The state agencies provided technical comments, which were incorporated into the report as appropriate.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Oil and Gas Management: Continued Attention to Interior's Revenue Collection and Human Capital Challenges Is Needed GAO-13-647T (May 16, 2013). The details of the 12-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Interior issues permits for the development of new oil and gas wells on federal lands and waters; inspects wells to ensure compliance with environmental, safety, and other regulations; and collects royalties from companies that sell the oil and gas produced from those wells. In recent years, onshore and offshore federal leases produced a substantial portion of the oil and gas produced in the United States. In fiscal year 2012, Interior collected almost $12 billion in mineral revenues including those from oil and gas development, making it one of the largest nontax sources of federal government funds. Previous GAO work has raised concerns about Interior's management and oversight of federal oil and gas resources.
This testimony focuses on (1) Interior's oversight of offshore oil and gas resources, (2) Interior's collection of oil and gas revenues, and (3) Interior's progress to address concerns that resulted in its inclusion on GAO's High Risk List in 2011. This statement is based on prior GAO reports issued from September 2008 through February 2013.
GAO is making no new recommendations. Interior continues to act on the recommendations that GAO has made to improve the management of oil and gas resources. GAO continues to monitor Interior's implementation of these recommendations.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers GAO-13-242 (Apr. 12, 2013). The details of the 99-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal government invests billions of dollars annually in infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, facing increasing risks from climate change. Adaptation--defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change-- can help manage these risks by making infrastructure more resilient.
GAO was asked to examine issues related to infrastructure decision making and climate change. This report examines (1) the impacts of climate change on roads and bridges, wastewater systems, and NASA centers; (2) the extent to which climate change is incorporated into infrastructure planning; (3) factors that enabled some decision makers to implement adaptive measures; and (4) federal efforts to address local adaptation needs, as well as potential opportunities for improvement.
GAO reviewed climate change assessments; analyzed relevant reports; interviewed stakeholders from professional associations and federal agencies; and visited infrastructure projects and interviewed local decision makers at seven sites where adaptive measures have been implemented.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that a federal entity designated by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) work with agencies to identify for local infrastructure decision makers the best available climaterelated information for planning, and also to update this information over time. Relevant EOP entities did not provide official comments, but instead provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Agricultural Research: Two USDA Agencies Can Enhance Safeguards against Project Duplication and Strengthen Collaborative Planning GAO-13-255 (Apr. 12, 2013). The details of the 54-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
The USDA's principal research agencies, ARS and NIFA, play a key role in supporting agricultural science, and questions have been raised about the extent to which the two agencies may be performing duplicative research and whether the agencies collaborate in planning research. Research duplication is the inadvertent repetition of research that does not confirm or verify conclusions from prior studies. Collaborative planning involves bringing together research agencies and stakeholders to discuss priorities and roles and responsibilities. In this context, GAO was asked to assess how these agencies ensure the efficient use of their resources for research. This report examines (1) the topics ARS and NIFA focus on and the safeguards the agencies use to prevent duplication of research projects, along with any shortcomings in those safeguards, and (2) collaborative planning ARS and NIFA engaged in and how, if at all, such planning could be enhanced. GAO reviewed USDA safeguards against duplication within and between ARS and NIFA; reviewed 20 randomly selected projects; analyzed information on collaborative planning; and interviewed officials from USDA, universities, and industry.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that ARS issue guidance that project information be provided to CRIS on a quarterly basis and that ARS and NIFA enhance collaborative planning. USDA generally agreed with GAO's findings, and cited benefits for three of the four recommendations.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Superfund: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management of Alternatives to Placing Sites on the National Priorities List GAO-13-252 (Apr. 9, 2013). The details of the 59-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Under the Superfund program, EPA may address the long-term cleanup of certain hazardous waste sites by placing them on the NPL and overseeing the cleanup. To be eligible for the [National Priorities List ] NPL, a site must be sufficiently contaminated, among other things. EPA regions have discretion to choose among several other approaches to address sites eligible for the NPL. For example, under the Superfund program, EPA regions may enter into agreements with PRPs using the [Superfund Alternative] SA approach. EPA may also defer the oversight of cleanup at eligible sites to approaches outside of the Superfund program. GAO was asked to review EPA's implementation of the SA approach and how it compares with the NPL approach. This report examines (1) how EPA addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the NPL, (2) how the processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches compare, and (3) how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites in completing the cleanup process. GAO reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed program data as of December 2012; interviewed EPA officials; and compared SA agreement sites with 74 NPL sites selected based on their similarity to SA agreement sites.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA issue guidance to define and clarify documentation requirements for OCA deferrals and clarify its policies on SA agreement sites. EPA agreed with the report's recommendations.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Toxic Substances: EPA Has Increased Efforts to Assess and Control Chemicals but Could Strengthen Its Approach GAO-13-249 (Mar. 22, 2013). The details of the 49-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
In 1976, Congress passed TSCA to provide EPA with the authority to obtain more information on chemicals and to regulate those chemicals that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks of injury to human health or the environment. GAO has reported that EPA has found much of TSCA difficult to implement--hampering the agency's ability to obtain certain chemical data or place limits on chemicals. Of the thousands of chemicals listed for commercial use in the United States, EPA has used its authority to limit or ban five chemicals since TSCA was enacted. In 2009, EPA announced TSCA reform principles to inform ongoing efforts in Congress to strengthen the act. At that time, EPA also initiated a new approach for managing toxic chemicals with the goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals using its existing authorities.
GAO was asked to evaluate EPA's efforts to strengthen its management of chemicals. This report determines the extent to which (1) EPA has made progress implementing its new approach and (2) EPA's new approach positions it to achieve its goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals. GAO examined agency documents and TSCA rulemaking and interviewed agency officials and stakeholders from industry and environmental organizations.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA develop strategies that address challenges impeding its ability to ensure chemical safety and identify the resources needed to so. EPA neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO’s recommendations.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Energy: Federal Support for Renewable and Advanced Energy Technologies GAO-13-514T (Apr. 16, 2013). The details of the 15-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
This testimony discusses federal support for renewable and advanced energy technologies. Americans' daily lives, as well as the economic productivity of the United States, depend on the availability of energy, the majority of which comes from fossil fuels. However, faced with concerns over the nation's reliance on imported oil, volatile energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions, federal policymakers have increased support for deployment of renewable and advanced energy technologies to help meet our nation's energy needs. Federal agencies including the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), and the Treasury, among others, provide support for these technologies through tax expenditures, grants, loans, and loan guarantees. This support helps finance production of electricity from wind and solar farms, manufacturing of electric and hybrid vehicles, and construction of advanced nuclear power plants, among other things. Energy produced from nonfossil fuel sources has increased over the last several decades, growing to about 22 percent of total U.S. energy production in 2012, according to projections by DOE's Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical and analytical agency. At the same time, the increase in federal support for renewable and advanced energy technologies and the involvement of multiple agencies in supporting such technologies have raised questions about the effectiveness of this support. In the current fiscally constrained environment, it is especially important to allocate scarce government resources where they can be most effective. GAO has issued a number of reports related to federal support of renewable and advanced energy technologies including, most recently, the following two reports:
(1) a broad review of federal initiatives that promote wind energy, including the extent to which initiatives may provide duplicative support and the extent to which agencies assess applicant need for the initiatives' support, and
(2) a review of the status of DOE's efforts to use its loan and loan guarantee authorities and remaining credit subsidy appropriations to support projects under its Title XVII Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program (LGP), which guarantees loans for projects that, among other things, use new or significantly improved technologies, and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program, which provides loans for projects to produce more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles and their components.
This statement presents highlights from these two reports.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel: Observations on the Key Attributes and Challenges of Storage and Disposal Options GAO-13-532T (Apr. 11, 2013). The details of the 17-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Spent nuclear fuel, the used fuel removed from commercial nuclear power reactors, is one of the most hazardous substances created by humans. Commercial reactors have generated nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel, which is currently stored at 75 reactor sites in 33 states, and this inventory is expected to more than double by 2055. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, directs DOE to investigate the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada--100 miles northwest of Las Vegas--to determine if the site is suitable for a permanent repository for this and other nuclear waste. DOE submitted a license application for the Yucca Mountain site to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, but in 2010 DOE suspended its licensing efforts and instead established a blue ribbon commission to study other options. The commission issued a report in January 2012 recommending a new strategy for managing nuclear waste, and DOE issued a new nuclear waste disposal strategy in 2013.
This testimony is primarily based on prior work GAO issued from November 2009 to August 2012 and updated with information from DOE. It discusses the key attributes and challenges of options that have been considered for storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
GAO is making no new recommendations at this time.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Emergency Preparedness: NRC Needs to Better Understand Likely Public Response to Radiological Incidents at Nuclear Power Plants GAO-13-243 (Mar. 11, 2013). The details of the 37-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
On March 11, 2011, a tsunami severely damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan and led to the largest release of radiation since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Japanese authorities evacuated citizens within 19 miles of the plant. GAO was asked to examine issues related to emergency preparedness at nuclear power plants. This report examines (1) federal, licensees’, and local and state authorities’ responsibilities in radiological emergency preparedness, (2) the activities NRC and FEMA take to oversee licensee and local and state radiological emergency preparedness, and (3) NRC and FEMA requirements for informing the public on preparedness and NRC’s understanding of public awareness. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance; examined emergency plans from licensees and local and state authorities; visited four nuclear power plants; and interviewed federal, local and state, and industry officials.
What GAO Recommends
To better inform radiological emergency preparedness efforts, GAO recommends that NRC obtain information on public awareness and likely public response outside the 10- mile zone, and incorporate insights into guidance, as appropriate. NRC generally disagreed with GAO's finding, stating that its research shows public response outside the zone would generally have no significant impact on evacuations. GAO continues to believe that its recommendation could improve radiological emergency preparedness efforts and is consistent with NRC guidance.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Energy Efficiency: Better Coordination among Federal Programs Needed to Allocate Testing Resources GAO-13-125 (Mar. 28, 2013). The details of the 26-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal government has established three key programs to encourage energy efficiency in household appliances and consumer electronics sold in the United States: (1) federal minimum efficiency standards, led by DOE; (2) EnergyGuide, which requires product labeling and is led by the FTC; and (3) Energy Star, a voluntary labeling program led by EPA.
Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to annually identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. In response to this mandate, the objectives for this report are to: (1) examine these three programs' approaches to improving the energy efficiency of household appliances and consumer electronics and the scope of products they cover, and (2) determine to what extent, if any, federal programs to foster energy efficiency for these products are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. GAO reviewed relevant legislation and program documents and spoke with staff at the agencies about each of the programs, and to stakeholders, including manufacturers.
What GAO Recommends
To limit the potential for duplication in the current Energy Star verification testing activities, GAO recommends that EPA take steps to better communicate to DOE the models selected for testing so DOE can avoid testing the same ones. DOE and EPA acknowledged the importance of coordination, but EPA disagreed with the draft recommendation, citing concerns it could be labor intensive to implement. GAO revised the recommendation to clarify EPA’s flexibility in implementing it.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Inspectors General: USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality GAO-13-245 (Mar. 22, 2013). The details of the 32-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
The USDA OIG plays a critical role in addressing issues of economy, efficiency, and potential fraud involving scarce taxpayer dollars allocated to USDA.
GAO was asked to review a number of issues related to the OIG's operations in comparison to other cabinet-level OIGs. The objectives of this report were to provide information on the USDA OIG's (1) budget and staffing levels, (2) reported accomplishments, (3) reported oversight coverage, (4) reported quality of work, and (5) oversight of USDA's reported causes of estimated improper payments. To address these objectives, GAO obtained information over the 3-year period covering fiscal years 2009 through 2011 on the OIG's budget and staff levels and the reported monetary and nonmonetary accomplishments from this work. GAO obtained similar information reported by the OIGs in all cabinet-level departments. In addition, GAO summarized information on the USDA OIG's oversight coverage reported by audits and investigations, and the quality of the OIG's work as reported by peer reviews performed by other OIGs. Also, GAO obtained information on the OIG's audit of USDA's reporting on improper payments.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is not making specific recommendations in this report. The USDA Inspector General commented that the draft of this report provided an objective and comprehensive review of the OIG.
Why GAO Did This Study
DOE relies primarily on contractors to carry out its diverse missions and operate its laboratories and other facilities, with about 90 percent of its annual budget spent on contracts and capital asset projects. Since 1990, GAO has reported that DOE has suffered from substantial and continual weaknesses in effectively overseeing contractors and managing large, expensive, and technically complex projects. As of February 2013, EM and NNSA remained on GAO's list of areas at high risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement for major contract and project management.
This testimony, which is primarily based on GAO reports issued from March 2009 to December 2012, focuses on (1) prior GAO findings on DOE major projects and the impact of recent DOE steps to address project management weaknesses and (2) preliminary observations from GAO's ongoing work on the reasons behind the planned increase in the performance baseline--a project's cost, schedule, and scope--for two projects being constructed as part of NNSA's Plutonium Disposition Program--the MOX facility and the Waste Solidification Building.
GAO is making no new recommendations. DOE and NNSA continue to act on the numerous recommendations GAO has made to improve management of the nuclear security enterprise. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's and NNSA's implementation of these recommendations.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Water Infrastructure: Approaches and Issues for Financing Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure GAO-13-151T (Mar. 13, 2013). The details of the 23-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
The nation faces costly upgrades to aging and deteriorating drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Frequent and highly publicized incidents of combined sewer overflows into rivers and streams, as well as water main breaks in the nation's largest cities, are the most visible manifestations of this problem.
A variety of approaches have been proposed to help bridge the potential gap between projected infrastructure needs--estimated by EPA as almost $335 billion for drinking water infrastructure and $298 billion for wastewater infrastructure--and current funding. GAO has conducted recent work on three of these approaches. In addition, GAO's recent work has addressed rural water infrastructure funding and economic recovery, as well as utilities' use of asset management, an approach to planning for and managing infrastructure costs.
This testimony is based on a body of work from August 2002 through October 2012 and focuses on (1) EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs; (2) stakeholders' views on creating a clean water trust fund, a national wastewater infrastructure bank, and public-private partnerships for wastewater infrastructure; and (3) issues in financing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. GAO's testimony summarizes the results of issued reports.
GAO made recommendations in past reports to strengthen utilities' use of asset management and coordination of rural water infrastructure funding. EPA generally concurred with the recommendations, taking action on some and beginning action on others.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Renewable Energy: Agencies Have Taken Steps Aimed at Improving the Permitting Process for Development on Federal Lands GAO-13-189 (Jan. 18, 2013). The details of the 56-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Concerns over reliance on imported oil and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use have led to increased interest in producing electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, and geothermal energy. Because federal lands, including those managed by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, encompass areas with high renewable energy potential, interest has increased in permitting such activity on those lands. EPAct 2005 includes several provisions intended to increase renewable energy development on federal lands, including goals for approving renewable energy projects. GAO was asked to look at (1) the status of renewable energy permitting on federal land, including time frames for processing permits applied for since EPAct 2005; (2) actions federal land management agencies have taken to facilitate renewable energy development on federal land, particularly since the passage of EPAct 2005; and (3) factors affecting renewable energy development on federal land. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies; interviewed agency and industry officials; and surveyed BLM staff responsible for processing applications for renewable energy permits on federal lands.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Agriculture concurred with its findings, while the Departments of Energy and the Interior had no comments.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees: Major Changes Needed to Align Fee Revenues with Program Costs GAO-13-268 (Mar. 1, 2013). The details of the 56-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
The AQI program guards against agriculture threats by inspecting international passengers and cargo at U.S. ports of entry, seizing prohibited material, and intercepting foreign agricultural pests. The program, which cost $861 million in 2011, is funded from annual appropriations and user fees. GAO has reported several times on the need to revise the fees to cover program costs as authorized. In 2010, [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)] initiated a review of AQI costs and fee design options. APHIS and CBP are considering options for a new fee structure. Pending departmental approval, APHIS expects to issue a proposed rule in fall 2013. GAO was asked to examine issues related to the AQI fees. This report examines 1) the fees currently charged and proposed revisions; 2) how fee revenues are allocated between the agencies; and 3) the extent to which fee collection processes provide reasonable assurance that all AQI fees due are collected. To do this, GAO reviewed AQI fee and cost data, and relevant laws, regulations, and policies; observed inspections at ports of entry; and interviewed APHIS and CBP officials.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making a number of recommendations aimed at more fully aligning fees with program costs, aligning the division of fees between APHIS and CBP with their respective costs, and ensuring that fees are collected when due. Further, GAO suggests Congress amend the AQI fee authority to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to set fee rates to recover the full costs of the AQI program. USDA and DHS generally agreed with the recommendations.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Pipeline Permitting: Interstate and Intrastate Natural Gas Permitting Processes Include Multiple Steps, and Time Frames Vary GAO-13-221 (Feb. 15, 2013). The details of the 44-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Recent growth in domestic natural gas production, particularly due to increased production from shale, is resulting in an increase in the pipelines needed to transport that gas. Constructing natural gas pipelines requires clearing and maintaining rights-of-way, which may disturb habitat and historical and cultural resources. These resources are protected under a variety of federal, state, and local regulations implemented by multiple agencies. The laws, regulations and stakeholders involved in the permitting process depend on where the pipeline is constructed. FERC is the lead federal agency in approving interstate pipelines, coordinating with federal, state, and local agencies, but FERC is not involved in the approval of intrastate pipelines.
In response to the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, GAO determined (1) the processes necessary to acquire permits to construct interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines, (2) information available on the time frames associated with the natural gas pipeline permitting process, and (3) stakeholder-identified management practices that may improve the permitting process. GAO reviewed relevant laws and regulations and interviewed federal officials, state officials from a nonprobability sample of 11 states, and representatives from natural gas industry associations and public interest groups.
GAO makes no recommendations in this report. The Departments of Agriculture and Defense generally agreed with the findings, and the other agencies had no comments
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Water Quality: EPA Faces Challenges in Addressing Damage Caused by Airborne Pollutants GAO-13-39 (Jan. 24, 2013). The details of the 59-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Atmospheric deposition, a process that transfers pollutants, including NOx, SO2, and mercury, from the air to the earth’s surface, can significantly impair the quality of the nation’s waters. EPA can potentially address atmospheric deposition through the CWA and the CAA, but concerns have been raised about its ability to do so. GAO was asked to examine EPA’s efforts to address atmospheric deposition of pollutants that impair waterbodies. This report examines (1) the extent to which atmospheric deposition of NOx, SO2, and mercury contributes to the impairment of the nation’s waters and identify the key sources of these pollutants; (2) the regulatory tools that EPA uses under the CWA to address the effects of atmospheric deposition, and the challenges, if any, that it faces in doing so; and (3) the regulatory tools that EPA uses under the CAA to address the effects of atmospheric deposition, and the challenges, if any, that it faces in doing so. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed EPA data, reports, and activities and interviewed agency officials and other experts.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that EPA determine whether EPA can obtain in a timely manner the data it needs to establish secondary NAAQS adequate to protect against the effects of acid rain and, if not, identify alternative strategies to do so. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendation.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond to Public Comments GAO-13-21 (Dec. 20, 2012). The details of the 118-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
Agencies publish thousands of rules each year, with significant benefits and costs. Before issuing a final rule, agencies are generally required to publish an NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking] in the Federal Register. Agencies must then respond to public comments when issuing final rules. Agencies may use exceptions in certain circumstances to forgo this NPRM process to expedite rulemaking. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has authority to provide guidance on regulatory issues. GAO was asked to provide information on the rulemaking process. This report addresses (1) how often agencies issued final rules without an NPRM; (2) which exceptions agencies used to do this; and (3) whether agencies took certain actions when issuing major rules without an NPRM, including voluntarily requesting and responding to public comments. GAO reviewed a generalizable random sample of 1,338 final rules published during calendar years 2003 through 2010. The sample contained rules by 52 agencies, including all cabinet departments issuing regulations. GAO completed more detailed analyses of 123 major rules without an NPRM, including every such rule published from 2007 through 2010, to obtain additional information to answer the objectives.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that OMB issue guidance to encourage agencies to respond to comments on final major rules, for which the agency has discretion, that are issued without a prior NPRM. OMB disagreed that guidance would offer substantial benefits. GAO believes the recommendation remains valid, as further discussed in the report.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Hanford Waste Treatment Plant: DOE Needs to Take Action to Resolve Technical and Management Challenges GAO-13-38 (Dec. 19, 2012). The details of the 60-page report, available here, are discussed below:
Why GAO Did This Study
In December 2000, DOE awarded Bechtel a contract to design and construct the WTP project at DOE's Hanford Site in Washington State. This project--one of the largest nuclear waste cleanup facilities in the world-- was originally scheduled for completion in 2011 at an estimated cost of $4.3 billion. Technical challenges and other issues, however, have contributed to cost increases and schedule delays. GAO was asked to examine (1) remaining technical challenges, if any, the WTP faces; (2) the cost and schedule estimates for the WTP; and (3) steps DOE is taking, if any, to improve the management and oversight of the WTP project. GAO reviewed DOE and contractor data and documents, external review reports, and spoke with officials from DOE and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and with contractors at the WTP site and test facilities.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DOE (1) not resume construction on WTP’s pretreatment and high-level waste facilities until, among other things, the facilities’ design has been completed to the level established by nuclear industry guidelines; (2) ensure the department’s contractor performance evaluation process does not prematurely reward contractors for resolving technical issues later found to be unresolved; and (3) take appropriate steps to determine whether any incentive payments were made erroneously and, if so, take actions to recover them. DOE generally agreed with the report and its recommendations.
