Environment and Public Works; Authority: Clean Air Act. Water Pollution Control Act. Safe Drinking Environmental Response, Compensation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine how EPA can: (1) make and sustain management improvements to strengthen policy development; (2) better achieve program initiatives; (3) improve the integrity of management support systems; and (4) enhance planning for future environmental issues. Findings/Conclusions: GAO found that EPA actions to increase managerial and operational effectiveness included: (1) managing programs and activities with emphasis on achieving measurable environmental results; (2) establishing more effective working arrangements with states; and (3) obtaining improved financial, management and programmatic information to better set priorities, administer programs, and assess programs. GAO also found that EPA: (1) lacked clearly defined goals for managing for measurable environmental results; (2) has not ranked program priorities or made essential links between actions and desired results; (3) has made only limited progress in developing measures of environmental quality and linking them to program activities; (4) has numerous design and implementation problems and information gaps which limit its research effectiveness; (5) has achieved some success in balancing its oversight needs with states' needs for flexibility and autonomy; and (6) lacked fully developed data standards and data requirements and definitions across programs. Recommendation To Congress: Congress should clarify how EPA and the states are to share accountability for: (1) meeting national goals and objectives; (2) achievement of environmental results, efficient use of federal funds, and compliance with federal regulations within the individual delegated state programs; and (3) the consistency of programs and activities nationwide. Congress may need to make adjustments in the environmental statutes or the resources provided EPA and the states to carry out their respective roles and meet congressional expectations as to program accountability. Recommendation To Agencies: To enhance and facilitate EPA efforts to manage for measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should: (1) develop a clear and cohesive statement of the policy goal to guide all parts of the agency in moving toward managing for measurable environmental results; (2) make clear the relationships between this policy goal and other agency goals and management themes and link them clearly to the annual priority list to establish a basis for tracking their progress in the agency's planning and budgeting systems; and (3) set and communicate clear concepts on how the policy goal relates to current legislation and proposed changes and to agency efforts in addressing environmental problems that cut across several environmental media, using risk assessment and management tools, and developing and using environmental measures and indicators of progress. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include beginning the planning to undertake a second Comparative Risk Study in 2 or 3 years, when some of the data and analytical gaps have been filled. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include articulating decision rules for balancing efforts directed at human health and those aimed at preserving and maintaining the environment. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include undertaking risk studies in all 10 regions to build the analytical base for regional office participation in the development of the priority list and the Agency Operating Guidance. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include ensuring that, as priorities are refined through additional analysis, they are linked to proposals for legislative changes and reflected in budget formulation, the Agency Operating Guidance, allocation of resources to the regions, and accountability measures. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include using the waste system flow chart developed by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in its Strategic Planning Initiative as a technique to include more pollution sources and their pathways and receptors to permit wider consideration of cross-media transfers and possible solutions. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include utilizing the experience of the Near Coastal Waters Strategic Planning Initiative in developing strategies in other program areas. Specifically, the problem definition, consideration of options, and ranking system used to classify estuaries and near coastal waters by severity of problems can be adapted to better focus attention on sites with the most environmentally significant problems. To better identify the most significant issues to be addressed in order to achieve an integrated, cross-media program for accomplishing measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should better utilize and build on the results of the Comparative Risk Project, Strategic Planning Initiatives, and initiatives for greater participation by regional offices and the states. This should include involving the regions more effectively in the development of agency priorities by having them develop and rank their own priorities and give a regional presentation at the annual planning meeting. To provide better guidance for developing resource requirements and making trade-offs during budget formulation, developing operational plans and budgets, and selecting appropriate accountability measures, the Administrator, EPA, should revise the priority list to: (1) state priorities in measurable short- and long-term statements to provide the missing link between policy guidance in the priority list, the Agency Operating Guidance, and managerial accountability; and (2) provide a way to determine relative importance by ranking the priority list. To provide an operational link between work done and results to be achieved, as indicated by measurable priority statements, the Administrator, EPA, should refine planning system accountability measures by stating measures and objectives in terms that are both operational and measurable. To provide an operational link between work done and results to be achieved, as indicated by measurable priority statements, the Administrator, EPA, should refine planning system accountability measures by including productivity goals in the measures as a way of assessing quality, timeliness, and efficiency of service delivery. To better link decisions on what areas are of greatest importance to the agency, as indicated in the priority list, with the formulation of the future-year budget, the Administrator, EPA, should make greater use of existing flexibility to shift resources to higher priority issues by consulting regularly with Congress to identify areas of flexibility under current law and gain congressional support where changes are needed. To better link decisions on what areas are of greatest importance to the agency, as indicated in the priority list, with the formulation of the future-year budget, the Administrator, EPA, should make greater use of existing flexibility to shift resources to higher priority issues by utilizing the Statutory Review Project to document existing areas of legislative flexibility, inform executives and managers, identify legislative barriers to be addressed, and prepare proposals for legislative changes required. To better link decisions on what areas are of greatest importance to the agency, as indicated in the priority list, with the formulation of the future-year budget, the Administrator, EPA, should make greater use of existing flexibility to shift resources to higher priority issues by using flexibility consistent with current and proposed legislation to shift a percentage of the total agency budget annually from issues of lower priority to those of higher priority. To better link decisions on what areas are of greatest importance to the agency, as indicated in the priority list, with the formulation of the future-year budget, the Administrator, EPA, should make greater use of existing flexibility to shift resources to higher priority issues by increasing the Administrator's options for shifting resources across media and program offices by modifying the budget guidance to ask assistant administrators to submit, with their proposed budgets, information on how they would accomplish their work within a percent range of fewer resources in lowerpriority activities and how additional resources could achieve greater measurable results in higher-priority activities. To better link decisions on what areas are of greatest importance to the agency, as indicated in the priority list, with the formulation of the futureyear budget, the Administrator, EPA, should make greater use of existing flexibility to shift resources to higher priority issues by refocusing the lead region approach to reflect cross-media planning and budgeting and to enhance regional participation in budgeting. To ensure that operational planning drives the development of operating budgets and to improve linkages between agency planning and budget systems so that resource allocation supports accomplishment of the Administrator's priorities, the Administrator, EPA, should correct the timing of the development of operating budgets, including the use of work-load models for allocating regional resources, so that the development of operational plans to carry out the Agency Operating Guidance precedes allocation of resources. To ensure that operational planning drives the development of operating budgets and to improve linkages between agency planning and budget systems so that resource allocation supports accomplishment of the Administrator's priorities, the Administrator, EPA, should build institutional mechanisms between the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and the Office of Administration and Resources Management by: (1) combining annual guidance for operational planning and developing operating budgets into a single document that clearly links the two; and (2) instituting joint reviews of proposed plans and budgets by the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and the Comptroller's Office to ensure that the two processes are serving their appropriate roles in supporting the priority list. To ensure that operational planning drives the development of operating budgets and to improve linkages between agency planning and budget systems so that resource allocation supports accomplishment of the Administrator's priorities, the Administrator, EPA, should correct the current lack of integration of planning and budgeting in the Resource Planning and Budgeting Manual and the Strategic Planning and Management System Reference Paper by issuing a joint, comprehensive, consistent document or correcting and more adequately reflecting both systems in separate documents on each. To more fully utilize its reprogramming authority to shift resources to priority issues during the execution phase of the management cycle and better link oversight activities regarding the achievement of planned goals, including planning system targets, and the use of resources, the Administrator, EPA, should provide guidance on available reprogramming flexibility and, through meetings and training sessions, inform program and regional office officials about the conditions for using this flexibility. To more fully utilize its reprogramming authority to shift resources to priority issues during the execution phase of the management cycle and better link oversight activities regarding the achievement of planned goals, including planning system targets, and the use of resources, the Administrator, EPA, should revise the Resource Planning and Budgeting Manual to stress the use of reprogramming as a method of responding to agency priorities. For example, the section on reprogramming, as it applies to budget execution, needs to emphasize its use as a way to shift funds to priority list areas. To more fully utilize its reprogramming authority to shift resources to priority issues during the execution phase of the management cycle and better link oversight activities regarding the achievement of planned goals, including planning system targets, and the use of resources, the Administrator, EPA, should use the quarterly planning system reviews as a combined progress review on performance targets and review of resource utilization to identify opportunities to reprogram funds from lower to higher priorities. This could include: (1) considering issues in the priority list for the operating year, as well as for the future fiscal year, as candidates for resource shifts in quarterly reviews with national program managers and review sessions with regional offices; and (2) reviewing the extent to which various levels of management are using reprogramming to move resources from lower priority areas to higher priority issues. To revitalize and better direct EPA efforts to identify environmental measures, as a way of achieving its goal of managing for measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should adopt the framework for organizing and collecting management and environmental data and concentrate agency efforts on identifying and testing the best available measures. The process should include assigning specific responsibility for the effort and establishing time frames for completion, allocation of resources, and peer review or oversight. To revitalize and better direct EPA efforts to identify environmental measures, as a way of achieving its goal of managing for measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should adopt the framework for organizing and collecting management and environmental data and concentrate agency efforts on identifying and testing the best available measures. The process should include assessing the progress being made in Region 10, on the Conservation Foundation project, and the work at Corvallis Laboratory to determine how they can contribute to measurement identification and implementation. To revitalize and better direct EPA efforts to identify environmental measures, as a way of achieving its goal of managing for measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should adopt the framework for organizing and collecting management and environmental data and concentrate agency efforts on identifying and testing the best available measures. The process should include revisiting its past surveys and data collected as part of its operating and monitoring activities, as well as similar data collected by states and other federal agencies, to determine if these data might be appropriate for use in assessing program results. To revitalize and better direct EPA efforts to identify environmental measures, as a way of achieving its goal of managing for measurable environmental results, the Administrator, EPA, should adopt the framework for organizing and collecting management and environmental data and concentrate agency efforts on identifying and testing the best available measures. The process should include recognizing the vulnerability of monitoring and survey activities to budget reductions when making decisions relating to the expansion, termination, or reduction of these activities. A necessary step in evaluating program effectiveness is to link program activities to measures of environmental quality and to decisions on allocation and targeting of resources. The Administrator, EPA, should begin taking the steps necessary to link program and monitoring activities to environmental indicators. Efforts underway in Region 4 appear to provide a good starting point. To ensure the continued strengthening of a sound analytic base needed for assessing and managing environmental risks, the Administrator, EPA, should identify the critical research needs for implementing the initiative of managing for measurable environmental results and establish a process or structure to ensure that these needs are met. To ensure the continued strengthening of a sound analytic base needed for assessing and managing environmental risks, the Administrator, EPA, should assess the status of methods and activities for determining exposure, particularly human exposure, to pollutants, to provide a basis for deciding the additional research needed to develop and use effective methods. To ensure the continued strengthening of a sound analytic base needed for assessing and managing environmental risks, the Administrator, EPA, should establish a long-range research planning process for addressing research needs. As part of this effort, the Administrator should evaluate the present Research Committee process of developing the agency's research agenda with a view toward determining how it can be revised to ensure a proper balance between the agency's short- and longterm research needs. To more effectively accomplish the objectives of the demonstration projects, the Administrator, EPA, should review the results of the Integrated Environmental Management Program geographic studies to identify achievements, limitations, problems, and lessons learned that are common to the projects so that the results are effectively disseminated and used to improve future geographic studies. To more effectively accomplish the objectives of the demonstration projects, the Administrator, EPA, should review the results of the Integrated Environmental Management Program geographic studies to identify changes that need to be made in the management of demonstration projects in general. To ensure that the goal and initiatives of managing for measurable environmental results are being implemented, monitored, and accomplished and to implement the previous recommendations, the Administrator, EPA, should establish an organizational focus as a way for providing the leadership to ensure the successful implementation and achievement of the initiative. A focal point could be an individual, a group, or an office designated as responsible for seeing that the necessary policies, procedures, processes, and systems are developed, implemented, monitored, and revised to ensure that progress is being made in effectively achieving the initiative. To help sustain and advance current EPA efforts to establish a more effective federal/state relationship in carrying out national environmental programs, the Administrator, EPA, should identify cases of individual state transaction review by EPA and reassess whether such procedures are essential. If the procedures are not essential or can be substituted for with other monitoring techniques, they should be eliminated. To help sustain and advance current EPA efforts to establish a more effective federal/state relationship in carrying out national environmental programs, the Administrator, EPA, should, to the extent feasible, provide multiyear, instead of the current annual, guidance to the states and work with Congress to consider providing multiyear financial assistance. To help sustain and advance current EPA efforts to establish a more effective federal/state relationship in carrying out national environmental programs, the Administrator, EPA, should improve evaluations of state program performance, especially with regard to incorporating the measurement of environmental results. In communicating and addressing performance problems, the Administrator should stress the type and amount of improvement needed and options available to the states to take corrective action. To help sustain and advance current EPA efforts to establish a more effective federal/state relationship in carrying out national environmental programs, the Administrator, EPA, should establish specific guidelines as to when and under what circumstances EPA will begin action to take back delegated program authority. These guidelines should be communicated to both agency staff and the states for use in cases where evaluations find that state performance is poor. The Administrator, EPA, should take the lead in working with Congress and the states to reassess the current federal/state relationship and to determine whether a more comprehensive approach is needed to accomplish EPA, state, and congressional objectives and expectations for the partnership. The Administrator, EPA, should take appropriate steps to develop a long-range, mission-based plan that focuses on the actual use and value of information in achieving EPA goals. Specifically, the plan should define the framework for developing a modern information resources management infrastructure, which will: (1) establish high-level management authority for planning, directing, and implementing information resources management activities; (2) establish a data architecture that identifies the agency's data flows and relates its data assets to operational needs; and (3) further improve data and voice networks needed for the conduct of business at operational locations across the nation. In modernizing and improving EPA financial activities, the Administrator, EPA, should continue to provide the support and priority needed for financial systems developmental efforts. In modernizing and improving EPA financial activities, the Administrator, EPA, should institute an annual audit of EPA financial statements. 136624 Army Vehicles: Procurement of 2- Issue Area: Army: Other Issue Area Contact: National Security and Organization Concerned: Department of the Army; Environmental Protection Agency; Hercules Engines, Inc. Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Energy and Power Subcommittee; Rep. Philip R. Sharp. Authority: Clean Air Act. Abstract: In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Army's purchase of engines for its 2-1/2-ton truck, specifically the: (1) Army's plans for a new family of medium tactical vehicles; (2) Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) position on the Army's adherence to federal pollution standards for the engines; and (3) status of the Army's plans to replace the current engines. Findings/Conclusions: GAO found that the: (1) Army has used the same basic truck engine since 1960 and has awarded contracts to the same engine producer since 1969; (2) engines did not meet 1988 emission standards, since the contractor based the engines on old technical data; (3) Army initiated a plan to acquire new vehicles that would address the aging fleet problem and reduce existing shortages; (4) new vehicles would consist of commercially manufactured trucks modified for military use with engines that would meet EPA emission standards in effect during the first year of engine manufacture; (5) Army requested that EPA approve an exemption from the Clean Air Act for the engines currently under production until implementation of its new plan; and (6) Army decided that it would install new replacement engines as current ones failed and repair the salvageable ones in order to meet an EPA requirement that it not procure the current engine after 1991. 136683 Nuclear Waste: Quarterly Report on Issue Area: Energy: Effectiveness and Nuclear Waste Disposal Policies and Contact: Resources, Community, and Organization Concerned: Department of Management; Nuclear Regulatory Congressional Relevance: Senate Authority: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. P.L. 100-203. Abstract: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed key nuclear waste program activities occurring in the quarter ending June 30, 1988, and related activities occurring in July 1988. Findings/Conclusions: GAO found that: (1) in May 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued final point papers on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain draft site characterization plan, finding that DOE inadequately considered alternative conceptual models and did not provide an adequate quality assurance program; (2) in June 1988, DOE released a draft mission plan amendment to federal agencies, states, and others for comment; and (3) in April 1988, DOE reorganized its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, placing more emphasis on quality assurance, facility licensing, integration of all waste system components, and interactions with affected governments, the public, and other organizations. 136742 [Extent of Problems and Cost to Revitalize the Nation's Nuclear Defense Complex]. T-RCED-88-61. August 23, 1988. 12 pp. Testimony before the National Academy of Sciences: Committee to Provide Interim Oversight of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex; by J. Dexter Peach, Assistant Comptroller General, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. Refer to RCED-88-197 BR, July 6, 1988, Accession Number 136310; RCED-86-192, September 8, 1986, Accession Number 131121; RCED-88137, July 8, 1988, Accession Number 136307; EMD-81-108, August 4, 1981, Accession Number 115979; RCED-86175, June 16, 1986, Accession Number 130260; RCED-88-62, December 16, 1987, Accession Number 134766; and T-RCED-87-4, March 12, 1987, Accession Number 132384. Contact: Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. Organization Concerned: National Academy of Sciences: Committee to Provide Interim Oversight of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex; Department of Energy. Authority: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Department of Energy Organization Act. Executive Order 12088. Abstract: GAO discussed the adequacy of the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to strengthen environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) oversight of its nuclear defense complex. GAO found that: (1) because DOE built much of the nuclear defense complex under less stringent codes and standards than exist now, many facilities have deteriorated to the point where they now have safety or operational problems; (2) many of the plants' processes and equipment items are obsolete, making repair work difficult and spare parts hard to procure; (3) many of the facilities are rated below the industry average; and (4) for over 30 years, DOE facilities have contaminated groundwater and soil in disposing of hazardous wastes. GAO also found that: (1) to upgrade existing facilities, clean up environmental contamination, dispose of radioactive wastes, and decontaminate the facilities would cost about $100 billion to $130 billion; (2) expanded production and the relocation of facilities would add $15 billion to $25 billion to the overall cost; and (3) the DOE advisory committee on safety was not independent and did not have the authority to require DOE to address its findings and recommendations. GAO believes that DOE needs: (1) external, independent oversight of the complex's safety aspects; (2) a strong internal program to ensure safe and environmentally acceptable facility operation; (3) an Assistant Secretary for ES&H; (4) a formal, systematic program for assessing whether its facilities meet current commercial standards; and (5) a modernization plan that sets the projected facility requirements for continued nuclear weapons production. 136748 Water Resources: An In-Depth Look at Overflow Dredging on the Great Lakes. RCED-88-200BR; B231928. August 11, 1988. Released September 12, 1988. 33 pp. plus Issue Area: Natural Resources Contact: Resources, Community, and Organization Concerned: Department of the states' restrictions affected its ability to carry out its dredging responsibilities. 136759 [Status of the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant]. T-RCED-88-63. September 13, 1988. 15 pp. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations: Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee; by Keith O. Fultz, Development Division. Refer to T- Contact: Resources, Community, and Congressional Relevance: House |