GAO Report Released: Inspectors General: USDA Office of Inspector General Resources, Accomplishments, Coverage, and Quality

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.

CRS Report Released: Federal Regulation of Chemicals in Commerce: An Overview of Issues forthe 113th Congress

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Federal Regulation of Chemicals in Commerce: An Overview of Issues forthe 113th Congress (Jan. 3, 2013). The 12-page report authored by Linda-Jo Schierow discusses the following:

Summary

The useful properties of chemicals provide many benefits to consumers and bolster the U.S. economy, but these benefits may come with a price, as exposure to certain chemicals can lead to adverse effects on human health or the environment. This report briefly describes selected issues related to regulation of chemicals in commerce by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are of potential interest to the 113th Congress.

Concerns about the complexity, cost, and delays in regulating chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have prompted proposals (such as S. 847 in the 112th Congress) to amend the 1976 statute. Some would provide EPA with specific authority and mandates to ensure adequate management of chemical risks. Others would amend particular provisions, leaving most of the law intact. TSCA reform is a high priority for some in the 113th Congress.

Another issue is whether to expand or restrict EPA’s authority to require public disclosure of chemical information under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) or TSCA. Bills in the 112th Congress (H.R. 1084 and S. 587) would have required oil and gas producers to disclose identities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Other administrative and legislative initiatives also would have mandated more public disclosure.

The integrity of scientific advice provided to EPA may be another salient issue. Some in the 112th Congress expressed concern about the composition of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB). H.R. 6564 would have required a rebalancing of “the scientific and technical points of view represented.” EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) has been criticized by some for being out of date and incomplete, while the process of conducting chemical risk assessments is said to be slow. The National Research Council (NRC) made recommendations to improve IRIS reports in 2011, and Congress directed EPA to “incorporate, as appropriate,” NRC recommendations and to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct several reviews of IRIS assessments, including one for inorganic arsenic.

Pesticides issues generally are resolved under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which directs EPA to regulate the sale and use of pesticides through registration of products. The 112th Congress was interested in apparent overlap between FIFRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA). At issue is whether FIFRA is sufficient alone to ensure protection of water quality or whether certain pesticide applications require a CWA permit. In response to a court order, EPA issued a general permit requiring applicators to minimize pesticide discharges to waters. House-passed H.R. 872 would have exempted aerial pesticide application activities from water permit requirements. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry approved the bill in June 2011.

Another issue of potential interest is whether to amend both TSCA and FIFRA to accommodate certain international agreements intended to reduce production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) globally. S. 847, as reported in the 112th Congress, would have added a new section to TSCA authorizing actions allowing U.S. implementation of the three international agreements.

Finally, as it considers appropriations, Congress may actively consider what amount of federal grant money should be made available to address lead-based paint hazards in older homes.

EPA Releases Annual Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2012

Yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Enforcement Annual Results for Fiscal Year 2012.  According to the interactive web portal available here, 

EPA enforcement accomplishments in FY 2012, include:

• $251 million in criminal fines and civil penalties assessed to deter pollution

• 6.6 billion pounds of pollution and hazardous waste reduced, eliminated, properly disposed of or treated

•  $44 million in additional investments for supplemental environmental projects that benefit communities

• Improving compliance with drinking water regulations by 60%: Sustained and focused enforcement attention on serious violators of clean drinking water standards has resulted in dramatic improvements in compliance.

• Progress cleaning up raw sewage and stormwater: 67% of large municipalities with combined sewer overflows are now on track to address their local water issues, many using innovations like green infrastructure to help reduce stormwater flows. 

• Bringing criminal prosecutions where criminal activity threatens public health: EPA is taking criminal enforcement action against companies or individuals who fail to use required pollution control equipment, knowingly violate pollution rules, resulting in death or serious harm, or falsify pollution information. See a case example in Louisiana

• Advancing environmental justice: EPA incorporated fenceline monitoring into settlements, ensuring that local residents have access to critical information about pollution that may be affecting their community. See an oil refinery case example.

• Increasing transparency: EPA’s enforcement and compliance online history tools, including the map of enforcement cases in 2012, state dashboards, and Clean Water Act pollutant loadings tool, provide the public with critical access to environmental information.

Prior results are available here:
2011
2010
2009
2008


 

Environmental Integrity Project Report: The Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Enforcement’s Critical Role in Restoring the Bay

Yesterday, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a "nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for more effective enforcement of environmental laws" just issued a report titled, The Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Enforcement’s Critical Role in Restoring the Bay (2012). According to the press release for the 50-page report available here,

[t]here have been some impressive gains in reducing nitrogen pollution of the Chesapeake Bay by municipal and industrial sources, but achieving further reductions will require tougher state permitting and improved oversight of the results, according to a new report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).

EIP found that nitrogen discharges from industrial and municipal sewage treatment plants to the Chesapeake Bay watershed declined significantly in Maryland and Virginia in 2011, thanks to a big public investment in sewage treatment upgrades in both states. Pennsylvania nitrogen loadings from these point sources actually increased 4 percent in 2011, moving that state further from achieving Bay water quality goals that begin to take effect in 2017.

. . .  

The EIP report focuses on industrial and municipal point sources – the public sewage systems and industrial plants that account for about 20 percent of the nitrogen and nearly a quarter of the phosphorus that ends up in the Bay. These pollutants promote algae growth and rob the Bay of the oxygen needed to sustain fish and other aquatic life. The Bay clean-up plan adopted by EPA sets targets for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus from these point sources based on "wasteload allocations" that limit annual discharges from the biggest plants.

Congressional Research Service Report Released: EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, just issued the report

EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? (Oct. 5, 2012).  The 46 page report authored by James E. McCarthy and Claudia Copeland,

provides background information on recent EPA regulatory activity . . . [i]t [also]examines 45 major or controversial regulatory actions taken by or under development at EPA since January 2009, providing details on the regulatory action itself, presenting an estimated timeline for completion of the rule (including identification of related court or statutory deadlines), and, in general, providing EPA’s estimates of costs and benefits, where available. The report includes tables that show which rules have been finalized and which remain under development.
 
The report also discusses factors that affect the timeframe in which regulations take effect, including statutory and judicial deadlines, public comment periods, judicial review, and permitting procedures, the net results of which are that existing facilities are likely to have several years before being required to comply with most of the regulatory actions under discussion. Unable to account for such factors, which will vary from case to case, timelines that show dates for proposal and promulgation of EPA standards effectively underestimate the complexities of the regulatory process and overstate the near-term impact of many of the regulatory actions.

Outer Continental Shelf Safety Oversight Board: Report to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

This report of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Outer Continental Shelf Safety Oversight Board Report to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, dated September 1, 2010, presents a complex of issues and recommendations ranging from improved consistency and communication of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement's (BOEMRE) operational policies to technology improvements and day-to-day management in the field.

Inspections and enforcement—from personnel training to the deterrent effect of fines and civil penalties—also need attention. In addition, BOEMRE must be diligent to achieve the stewardship balance between development and environmental responsibilities envisioned in its statutes.

BOEMRE responsibilities have expanded in scope and complexity to such an extent that BOEMRE must increase and develop its staff to meet new challenges. Above all, BOEMRE must pursue, and industry must engage in, a new culture of safety in which protecting human life and preventing environmental disasters are the highest priority, with the goal of making leasing and production safer and more sustainable.

Forging a new safety culture cannot be achieved by government alone. The Board recognizes that the federal agency for offshore management must carry the flag for safety culture, through its own actions, through its rules and enforcement, and through its establishment of priorities.

However, the Board believes that industry, as the lead player in offshore oil and gas development, has a pivotal role to play as well. Indeed, industry must make a widespread, forceful and long-term commitment to cultivating a serious approach to safety that sets the highest safety standards and consistently meets them.