£
<
January 2013
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JJL \ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
\^/ "
° VK# *
pro^
Be the best in public service and oversight for a better environment tomorrow
FY 2013 Annual Plan
-------
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) Annual Plan is produced by the OIG with input fi'om the EPA Administrator, Deputy Administrator,
Assistant Administrators, and Regional Administrators, as well as congressional stakeholders and the Office of Management and Budget.
This plan is available in hard copy from:
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MC 2491T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
by calling (202) 566-2391
or
via the Internet at: www.epa.gov/oig
Source for picture on cover page: EPA Photo Library
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIG Hotline@epa.gov
phone: 1-888-546-8740
fax: 202-566-2599
online: http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm
write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode 2431T
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Message from the Inspector General
I am pleased to present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Annual Plan for fiscal year (FY)
2013. This document describes how the OIG will achieve its statutory mission of promoting economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity
relating to the programs and operations of EPA and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). This plan reflects the
priority work that the OIG believes is necessary to keep the Administrator and Congress fully informed about problems and deficiencies relating
to the administration of Agency programs and operations, and the necessity for and progress of corrective action.
This OIG Annual Plan identifies mandated and selected assignment topics continuing from FY 2012 and scheduled to be started during
FY 2013. Although this Annual Plan provides a framework for activities we intend to carry out in FY 2013, the OIG is often required to perform
unanticipated work based on legislative mandates, congressional inquiries, hotline requests, or government-wide reviews.
Our plan is implemented through audits, evaluations, investigations, and follow-up reviews in compliance with the Inspector General Act, the
applicable professional standards of the U.S. Comptroller General, and the Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspector General of the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Readers are encouraged to consult our website, www.epa.gov/oig. for the most
current listing of recently issued reports relating to our implementation of the plan.
Primary sources of input for the assignments listed in this plan included risk assessments across Agency programs and operations based upon
prior OIG work, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) high-risk assessments, congressional interest, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) priorities, Agency vulnerability/internal control assessments under OMB Circular A-123 and the Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA), and identification of key Agency challenges and strategic planning priorities. Our current planning also reflects direct
outreach and solicitation of topics and assignment suggestions from EPA's leadership and external stakeholders (see appendix B). Other
assignments are required or are self-initiated based upon our strategic themes, which are focused on providing the greatest value and risk
reduction to the Agency, and the greatest benefit to public health.
We want to thank each member of the Agency leadership as well as external stakeholders and our staff for their direct participation in this
process. We look forward to continuing an open dialogue for receiving their ideas, suggestions, and feedback. We welcome input into our
planning process and feedback on the quality and value of OIG products and services from all customers, clients, stakeholders, and the public
via webcomments.oig@epa.gov.
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
-------
Table of Contents
1 EPA's Mission Statement - The Foundation of the OIG's Planning Objectives
2 EPA Office of Inspector General - Strategic Plan Outline
3 Identifying the Risks
3 Top EPA Management Challenges - Reported by the OIG for FY 2012
EPA Internal Control Risks and Weaknesses Identified by the OIG for 2012
4 Risks, Priorities, and Issues Identified by EPA Through OIG Outreach Interviews
5 The Strategy
4 5 Risk and Customer-Driven Themes for Greater Performance and Efficiency
7 Making ChoicesA Customer-Driven Process
§ The Plan: Continuing and New Assignments
8 Office of Audit
9 Assistance Agreements and Contract Audits
10 Forensic Audits
11 Efficiency Audits
Financial Audits
13 Risk Assessment and Program Performance Audits
14 Information Resources Management Audits
15 Office of Program Evaluation
12 16 Air and Research
17 Water and Enforcement
18 Land and Superfund
19 Cross Media
20 Special Reviews
21 Office of Investigations
24 Office of the Chief of Staff
25 OIG Assignments Planned for CSB
26 Performance Measures and Targets
27 Appendix ALimitations on Advisory Services
29 Appendix BRisks, Priorities, and Issues Identified by OIG
During EPA Outreach Interviews With Agency Management
-------
EPA's Mission Statement - To Protect Human Health and the Environment
The Foundation of the OIG's Planning Objectives
EPA Goals: A Five-Goal Structure Focuses on Environmental Results and Links to OIG Goals
The OIG Strategic and Annual Plans are specifically designed to connect implementation of the Inspector General Act with EPA's
mission for the most economical, efficient, and effective achievement of EPA's performance goals. The table below identifies EPA's
strategic goals and cross-cutting fundamental strategies that we take into account when planning audits, evaluations, and investigations.
EPA's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Goals and Cross-Cutting Strategies
EPA's Strategic Goals
1. Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality: Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe, and
risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies
to address climate change.
2. Protecting America's Waters: Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain our oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic
ecosystems to protect human health, sustain fish, plants, and wildlife, and economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.
3. Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development: Promote sustainable, healthier communities and
protect vulnerable populations and tribal communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances and clean up and restore
contaminated areas.
4. Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution: Ensure the safety of chemicals that are used in consumer
products, the workplace, and the environment. Strengthen EPA's chemicals management and risk-assessment programs
through novel chemicals-management plans.
5. Enforcing Environmental Laws: Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and
criminal enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws.
EPA's Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategies
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism
Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health
Advancing Science, Research, and Technological Innovation
Strengthening State, Tribal, and International Partnerships
Strengthening EPA's Workforce and Capabilities
I
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General - Strategic Plan Outline
Vision
Be the best in public service and oversight for a better environment tomorrow.
Mission J
Promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse
through independent oversight of the programs and operations of the Environmental Protection
Agency and Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
Contribute to
improved human health,
safety, and the
environment
Goals
Contribute to
improved EPA and CSB
business practices and
accountability
Be responsible
stewards of taxpayer
dollars
A
5e ^e best in public
service
Objectives
Influence programmatic and
systemic changes and
actions that contribute to
improved human health,
safety, and environmental
quality
Add to and apply knowledge
that contributes to reducing
or eliminating environmental
and infrastructure security
risks and challenges
Make recommendations to
improve EPA and CSB
programs
Influence actions that
improve operational
efficiency and
accountability, and achieve
monetary savings
Improve operational integrity
and reduce risk of loss by
detecting and preventing
fraud, waste, abuse, or
breach of security
Identify best practices, risks,
weaknesses, and monetary
benefits to make
recommendations for
operational improvements
Promote and maintain an
accountable, results-
oriented culture
Ensure our products and
services are timely,
responsive, and relevant,
and provide value to our
customers and stakeholders
Align and apply our
resources to maximize
return on investment
Ensure our processes and
actions are cost effective
and transparent
Maintain the highest ethical
standards
Promote and maintain a
diverse workforce that is
valued, appreciated, and
respected
Enhance constructive
relationships and foster
collaborative solutions
Provide leadership, training,
and technology to develop
an innovative and
accomplished workforce
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: Identifying the Risks
The Criteria for Developing and Selecting Assignments
As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the OIG reviewed the major risks, challenges, and planning priorities across EPA
and solicited first-hand input from Agency leadership to identify and select OIG products and topics that would be of greatest benefit to
the Agency and the American public it serves. This section summarizes and applies the key FY 2012 Agency-wide risks, issues, and
management challenges that help guide the general direction and focus of OIG audits, evaluations, and investigative work.
Top EPA Management ChallengesReported by the OIG for FY 2012
1. Oversight of Delegations to States: Due to differences between state and federal policies, interpretations, strategies, and priorities,
EPA needs to more consistently and effectively oversee its delegation of programs to the states, assuring that delegated programs
are achieving their intended goals.
2. Safe Reuse of Contaminated Sites: EPA's duty is to ensure that reused contaminated sites are safe for humans and the
environment. EPA must strengthen oversight of the long-term safety of sites, particularly within a regulatory structure in which
non-EPA parties have key responsibilities, site risks change over time, and all sources of contamination may not be removed.
3. Limited Capability to Respond to Cyber Security Attacks: EPA is highly vulnerable to existing external network threats, despite
reports from security experts that Advanced Persistent Threats, designed to steal or modify information without detection, are
becoming more prevalent throughout the government.
4. EPA's Framework for Assessing and Managing Chemical Risks: EPA's effectiveness in assessing and managing chemical risks
is limited by its authority to regulate chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chemicals manufactured before 1976 were
not required to develop and produce data on toxicity and exposure, which are needed to properly and fully assess potential risks.
5. Workforce Planning: EPA's human capital is an internal control weakness in part due to requirements released under the
President's Management Agenda. EPA has not developed analytical methods, and does not collect data needed to measure its
workload and the corresponding workforce levels necessary to carry out that workload.
3
-------
EPA Internal Control Risks and Weaknesses Identified by the OIG for 2012
The following information identifies EPA's internal control weaknesses as part of FMFIA activities.
Agency Audit Follow-Up Process: Revising EPA Manual 2750
Efficient Use of Available Funds
Tribal Environmental Capacity Building
Processing Hiring Actions
Recovery of Funds
Management of Emergency Response Equipment
Information Technology Systems Development and Implementation
Risks, Priorities, and Issues Identified by EPA Through OIG Outreach Interviews
The following information identifies cross-cutting risks identified through outreach solicitations and meetings with EPA leadership.
In appendix B, we provide further details.
1. Emergency Preparedness/Homeland Security
2. Better Collaboration/Coordination with States and Other Federal Agencies
3. Consistent and Reliable Data and Performance Measurement
4. Improving EPA Organizational Design and Coordination of Resources to Eliminate Duplication
5. Monitoring of States, Grants Management, Compliance and Enforcement (How Much Delegation? Federal vs. State Roles?)
6. Human Capital ManagementSkill Gaps/Alignment With Functions
7. Better Use of Technology, Information, and Research
8. EPA's Regulatory Process (Better and Faster Analysis of Costs, Science, and Benefits)
9. Cross-Media Risk Assessment, Planning, and Priority Setting for Better Application of Resources
10. Water Infrastructure, Financing, and Water Availability
11. Climate Change and Air
4
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: The Strategy
Annual planning is a dynamic process and requires adjustments throughout the year to meet priorities and to anticipate and respond to
emerging issues with the resources available. The OIG examines the cross-Agency risk assessment, Agency challenges, prior work, future
priorities, and customer input to develop and prioritize its FY 2013 work by using the following strategic themes to outline the OIG's focus
for each project. These eight themes generally represent cross-Agency weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and opportunities for significant Agency
improvement through greater savings, efficiency, and risk reduction.
Risk and Customer-Driven Themes for Greater Performance and Efficiency
Integrity of Agency Resources: Managing and ensuring the integrity of the Agency's resources is of critical importance. The delegation
of proper management to each office and region increases the likelihood of differential applications of internal controls over processes and
assets. The risk of resource waste or loss, environmental danger to the public, or failure to accomplish mission objectives due to a lack of
controls or fraud increases as internal monitoring and accountability, as well as contractor and grantee monitoring and accountability, is
diminished.
Oversight and Monitoring
Planning: Without goal setting based on consistent criteria, operations and efforts are fragmented and competing.
Organization: Without coordination and collaboration, there is risk of duplication, conflicting forces, inconsistencies, and gaps across
organizational units.
Policies and procedures: Without effective policies or procedures, no basis exists for consistency, criteria, or control to guide actions
within or across EPA.
Performance measurement: Without clear and consistent measurement, the Agency cannot recognize priorities, nor can it assess
progress or accountability.
Monitoring: Without oversight, deviations from the plan cannot be identified and corrected.
Accountability: Without accountability, no commitment, obligation, recourse, or enforceability exists.
Workforce Allocation: The nature of the Agency's work continues to evolve as more programs are delegated and have integrated
relationships. As the role of the Agency changes in relation to its partners, laws, and goals, EPA should accurately assess workforce allocation
within its organizational structure to determine the correct number, location, and skills inventory of staff.
5
-------
Program Effectiveness: The Agency's regulatory process is extremely complex, and opportunities may exist to streamline the process
without compromising required integrity. Enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, for example, can be inconsistent, as it is carried
out differently among various federal, state, tribal, and local government entities. Questions related to jurisdiction, interpretation, and
coordination can undermine program effectiveness.
Data Quality: Through Agency programs, EPA should determine relative risk and demonstrate outcome results in terms of environmental
conditions and human health for the funds that are spent. These determinations require valid and reliable data linked to the resources applied,
the processes used, and the actions taken within EPA and by its federal, state, and grantee partners. Accessing such data is a difficult challenge,
as there are no standards or universal agreements among stakeholders on which to base consistent measures of environmental risk and
outcomes. Data are sometimes used without independent verification of their accuracy, making them vulnerable to manipulation or misuse to
influence decisions.
Operational Efficiency: As operational budgets are reduced, environmental issues become more complex and costly, and EPA has greater
oversight responsibilities over more grant and contract funds, EPA should determine whether it has the correct skills in the correct places,
along with the appropriate systems of accountability, to manage efficiently and effectively. EPA must improve its operational efficiency by
reducing the cost of operations, eliminating unnecessary spending and duplication, collecting receivables, and leveraging resources to apply a
greater percentage of available funds to directly solving the greatest environmental problems.
Superfund/Hazardous Waste: EPA should encourage the appropriate reuse and revitalization of brownfields, underground storage tank
fields, Superfund sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sites, Base Realignment and Closure sites, and other federal properties
through voluntary action and economic incentives, as well as through appropriate compliance and enforcement tools.
Recovery Act: EPA received over $7.22 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or Recovery Act) to
be used during FYs 2009 through 2011 as part of the federal government's stimulus spending effort to help rebuild America's infrastructure.
The purpose of the Recovery Act was to create and save jobs, jumpstart the U.S. economy, and build the foundation for long-term economic
growth. One of the major features of ARRA is specific statutory responsibility for transparency, accountability, and direct oversight by the
OIG. The urgency to achieve the economic goals of ARRA through grantees at the state, tribal, and local levels created a unique combination
of opportunities, challenges, and risks for both the Agency and the OIG. Although ARRA funding for the OIG expired in September 2012, the
OIG will continue to audit and investigative the integrity, propriety, and accountability in application of ARRA funds by EPA's recipients and
sub-recipients.
6
-------
Making ChoicesA Customer-Driven Process
OIG work that is not otherwise mandated is proposed, considered, and selected through a rigorous process using the criteria listed below to
develop a portfolio of assignments that represents the best possible return on investment in terms of monetary or public value and
responsiveness in addressing the needs, risks, challenges, priorities, and opportunities of OIG customers, clients, and stakeholders. We
conducted considerable outreach to Agency leaders and stakeholders on environmental and management risks, challenges, and opportunities.
We conducted a risk assessment based upon previously identified risks and challenges. We invited our entire staff to formulate assignment
suggestions from their immediate knowledge of EPA operations and the consideration of stakeholder input and risks.
Criteria Considered in Identifying and Selecting Audit and Evaluation Assignments for FY 2013:
Environmental/Human Health/Business Risks Addressed, Including:
What is the known extent of the issue (i.e., sensitive or other populations impacted, area involved, environmental justice)?
What is the potential environmental or human health benefits (return on investment) to be derived and the reduction or prevention of
environmental, human health, or business risks?
Potential Risk of Fraud, Waste, or Abuse:
What resources and data, physical or cyber security equipment, and program integrity and violations of laws/regulations are involved?
Opportunity for Improved Business Systems/Accountability, Including:
How does the project align with EPA's strategic goals/objectives?
What is the expected return on investment (for example, potential questioned costs, funds put to better use or other potential monetary
benefits, improved decision-making, improved data quality/reliability, reduced vulnerabilities, and strengthened internal controls)?
EPA Dollar/FTE Investment/Financial Impact (in relation to EPA's overall resource level):
What headquarters and regional resources are committed to the program, including FTEs?
What resources are used including contracts, grants, state programs, or other mechanisms, such as state funding, to accomplish the
goals? How might this impact the program's implementation? What percentage of the program's funding is coming from state, other
federal, or private partnership resources?
Prior Audit/Evaluation Results:
What are the conditions or changes since prior review by EPA OIG, GAO, or other auditing body?
What new information or indications of auditable issues are available?
Stakeholder/Public Interest:
Is the topic of the project generating interest from Congress, the public, and news organizations? What is the interest and why?
Who are the expected users of the project's product? How would it be used?
7
-------
The Plan: Continuing and New Assignments
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: Office of Audit
Office of Audit. OIG audit work focuses on six areas, with emphasis on identifying opportunities for cost savings and reducing risk of
resource loss. Funds awarded for assistance agreements and contracts account for approximately two-thirds of EPA's budget. Producing
timely and reliable financial statements remains a priority across the federal government. Equally important is the need to gather, protect,
and use financial and program performance information to improve EPA's accountability and program operations. The Office of Audit's
six product lines are:
Assistance Agreements and Contract Audits
Forensic Audits
Efficiency Audits
Financial Audits
Risk Assessment and Program Performance Audits
Information Resources Management Audits
Specific assignments are listed on the following pages; ARRA-related assignments are denoted with an asterisk. Planned work will
emphasize:
Direct testing for fraud in grants, contracts, and operational activities
Cost savings resulting from audits of grantee and contractor claims
Continued improvements in assistance agreements and contract administration
EPA's preparation of timely, informative financial statements
EPA's use of financial and program performance information, including efficiency measures, to identify cost savings and
potential cost recoveries, reduce risks, and maximize results achieved from its environmental programs
Reviews of EPA's internal controls, including its risk assessment processes and allocation/application of human resources
EPA's integrity of data and system controls, as well as compliance with a variety of federal information security laws and
requirements, to ensure system and data integrity
-------
Is EPA using assistance agreements and contracts to efficiently and effectively accomplish its mission?
Is EPA effectively managing contracts to ensure services and products are received from qualified contractors at a reasonable price in a timely manner?
886-3059
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Oversight and Monitoring
Superfund Remedial Action Contracting
Workforce Allocation
Review of Science to Achieve Results Grants
Operational Efficiency
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Program Effectiveness
Puget Sound Action Agenda
Data Quality
Audit of Emergency and Rapid Response Service Contracts
Integrity of Agency Resources
State Revolving Fund - Pace of Expenditures
Superfund/Hazardous Waste
EPA's Implementation of the "Do Not Pay" Requirements
Required Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act Compliance - FY 2013
9
-------
Forensic Audits
Is EPA sufficiently protected against the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in its grants, contacts, and internal operations?
Is EPA carefully controlling and monitoring the application and accountability of Recovery Act funds to subgrantees and contractors?
(415) 947-4537
Oversight and Monitoring
Integrity of Agency Resources
Operational Efficiency
Recovery Act (projects denoted with *)
Superfund/Hazardous Waste
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
ARRA Diesel Elimination Reduction Act - Grant to the Chelsea Collaborative*
ARRA Diesel Elimination Reduction Act - Grace Hill Settlement House*
ARRA Diesel Elimination Reduction Act - Tennessee Department of Transportation*
ARRA Diesel Elimination Reduction Act - Railroad Research Foundation*
ARRA Hotline Review - Goshen, Indiana*
ARRA Site Visit - Yauco, Puerto Rico*
New Mexico Environment Department - Timekeeping Practices and Procedures
ARRA Superfund - Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Contracted)*
ARRA Superfund - Colorado Department of Health (Contracted)*
ARRA Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (Contracted)*
ARRA Diesel Elimination Reduction Act - Greater Lansing Area Clean Cities
(Contracted)*
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Audits of Various Contractors and Grantees
Forensic Reviews of Hotline Complaints
Forensic Reviews of Contractor Proposals
Required Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Single Audit Processing
10
-------
Efficiency Audits
Are EPA programs and operations performing with the greatest efficiency in regard to allocation and application of resources?
13) 487-2363
Program Effectiveness
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
EPA Facility Space Management to Optimize Occupancy
Review of EPA Customer Service Help Desk, Hotlines, and Clearinghouses
Working Capital Fund Contracts
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Disposal of Used/Excess Computers
Controls for Travel of EPA Employees
11
-------
Financial Audits
Does EPA have the people, processes, and systems to efficiently provide timely, accurate, complete, and useful financial information for
decision-making, including resource management and accountability?
Contact: Paul Curtis (202) 566-2523
OIG Themes Covered
Operational Efficiency
Data Quality
Superfund/Hazardous Waste
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Agreed-Upon Procedures for EPA's Quarterly Financial Statements for FY 2012
FY 2012 EPA Financial Statements
Lead Accreditation and Certification Fees
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
EPA's Accounts Receivable Internal Controls
EPA's Biennial User Fee Reviews
Appropriated Funds Not Obligated
Agreed-Upon Procedures - First and Second Quarters FY 2013
Required Assignments Planned for FY 2013
FY 2012 Financial Statements: Pesticides Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Fund
(FIFRA)
FY 2012 Financial Statements: Pesticide Registration Fund (PRIA)
FY 2013 EPA Financial Statements
12
-------
Risk Assessment and Program Performance Audits
Does EPA have the control systems in place to identify and prevent the misuse of resources, assess its human capital needs, and determine whether its
program processes are efficient and goals are being achieved?
(303) 312-6969
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Program Effectiveness
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Hotline - Fort Belknap Indian Community Drinking Water System
Review of Emergency Response Contingency Plans
Follow-Up Audit - Tribal Capacity Building
Review of EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Implementation of the Smart Card Program
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Internal Controls over Renewable Fuel Credits
Review of EPA's Controls Over Development and Use of Quality Assurance Project Plan
Follow-Up Review - EPA Actions to Address OIG Recommendations for Conducting
Workload and Workforce Analysis
Government Performance and Results Modernization Act Implementation
Required Assignments Planned for FY 2013
FY 2013 Management Challenges and Internal Control Weaknesses
13
-------
Information Resources Management Audits
Information Technology Investment Management: Has EPA implemented well-structured and effective processes to ensure that investments in
information technology resources achieve the desired results?
Information Security and Privacy: Are EPA's computer security and privacy programs comprehensive and actively implemented throughout the
Agency to balance risk and mission requirements?
CHifiamitodiDKBb^ig&cfard (202) 566-0893
Oversight and Monitoring
Operational Efficiency
Program Effectiveness
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Audit of Preaward Activities for Multiple-A ward Contracts at National Computer Center
FY 2012 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Audit
Implementation of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
Assessment of Information Security Practices at Key EPA Locations
EPA's Use of Service Organization for Financial Management
Assessment of Qualifications of EPA Personnel With Significant Security Responsibilities
(Contracted)
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Audit of EPA's Controls Over Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information
Audit of EPA's Non-Major IT Investments (Capital Planning and Investment
Control - Lite)
Audit of EPA's Cloud Computer Initiative
Audit of Certain EPA's Electronic Records Management Practices
Required Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Audit of EPA's Implementation of New Human Resources Management System
Audit of Integrity of Data Within the Compass Data Warehouse
FY 2013 FISMA Audit
14
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Program Evaluation. OIG program evaluations examine root causes, effects, and opportunities leading to conclusions and
recommendations that influence systemic changes and contribute to the accomplishment of the Agency's mission. Program evaluations
answer questions about how well a program or activity is designed, implemented, or operating in achieving EPA goals. Program
evaluations may produce conclusions about the value, merits, or worth of programs or activities. The results of program evaluations can
be used to improve the operations of EPA programs and activities, sustain best practices and effective operations, and facilitate
accomplishment of EPA goals. Evaluations by the Office of Program Evaluation are performed by staff with diverse backgrounds,
including accounting, economics, environmental management, and the sciences, and they comply with Government Auditing
Standards.
Evaluation topics and priorities in our FY 2013 plan are driven by our assessment of organizational risk in relation to available
resources and based on input from EPA's leadership, Congress, and stakeholders. Program evaluations are conducted by the following
five product lines:
Air and Research
Water and Enforcement
Land and Superfund
Cross Media
Special Reviews
Assignments concentrate on all of the OIG themes, reflecting our attention to the Agency's mission and operational and systemic risks.
Specific assignment titles are listed on the following pages.
15
-------
Air and Research
Research: Is EPA effectively and efficiently planning, managing, conducting, and overseeing research to address the Agency's current and future
needs?
Air Pollution: Is EPA assessing and managing risks to provide reasonable assurance of progress toward goals and adequate protection to the
public?
Clean Air Partnerships: Are partnerships, voluntary programs, and other nonregulatory initiatives achieving clean air goals efficiently and
effectively?
<{9 19) 541-5747
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
EPA Inspector Capability to Conduct Risk Management Program Inspection
Use of Remote Sensing Data to Assess Contamination2nd Phase,
Sampling/Analysis Under Existing Interagency Agreements With U.S. Geological Survey
EPA Oversight of Clean Air Act Title V Fees
EPA Management of Selected Clean Air Advisory Committees
Hotline Assignment: EPA's Review of American Society for Testing and Materials D7575
as an Alternative Test Method for Measuring Oil and Grease
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Flare Emissions and Control
Assessment of EPA Efforts to Reduce Methane Product Emissions From Leaking Pipes
Efficiency and Effectiveness of EPA's Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Evaluation of EPA's Research on Human Subjects
16
-------
Water and Enforcement
Protecting Human Health: How successfully have the Safe Drinking Water Act and other activities protected human health?
Health of Aquatic Systems: How can EPA effectively protect and restore sustainable, healthy aquatic communities and ensure waters that sustain
human health?
Enforcement: How effective is EPA's enforcement program at ensuring compliance with environmental laws?
mGaTliqroesiteffiettj (202) 566-0830
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Carryover Assignment from FY 2012
EPA Oversight of State Approvals of Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Thermal Variances
and 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures
EPA's Ability to Safeguard the Nation's Water Supply in the Event of an Attack or
Natural Disaster
Region 7 Compliance and Enforcement Actions
Review of Region 6 Emergency Administrative Order Against Range Resources
Adequacy of Enforcement Monitoring and the Discontinuation of Recidivism Rate
Measurement
National Petroleum Refinery Initiative
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
EPA's Watch List for Targeting Noncompliance with Environmental Regulations
Feasibility of EPA Achieving Its Goal of Reducing the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone
by Two-Thirds by FY 2015
Effectiveness of Wetlands Mitigation Guidelines
Effectiveness of EPA's Small Drinking Water System Strategy
17
-------
Land and Superfund
Cleanup of Contaminated Sites: Is EPA ensuring that requirements are met and guidance is followed in conducting Superfund cleanups?
Is EPA recovering the government's costs to clean up Superfund sites?
Land Preservation, Reuse, and Revitalization: Are controls in place to provide long-term protection to human health and the environment from
contaminated sites designated as ready for reuse? Is EPA ensuring proper management of waste streams?
OtfiaEhcffitadfl&nehdbe (312) 886-6530
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Superfund/Hazardous Waste
Operational Efficiency
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Superfund Removal Program Results
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Cross-Program Revitalization
Measures
Hotline Complaint: National Zinc Smelter Site in Cherryvale, Kansas
Hotline Complaint: Enbridge Oil Spill
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Human Exposure from Lead Smelters
EPA Inaction on Proposed Superfund Sites Awaiting Final Listing
Hazardous Waste Discharge by Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Process Related to Resolving Superfund Disputed Costs at Sites Not Required to
Established Escrow Accounts
18
-------
Cross Media
Energy Efficiency and Climate Change: Evaluations on EPA's efforts to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions as part of the
Administrator's priority to take action on climate change.
At-Risk and Vulnerable Populations: Evaluations in support of the Administrator's priority on environmental justice and EPA's cross-cutting
fundamental strategy working for environmental justice and children's health.
Chronic and Emerging Environmental Health Threats: Evaluations in support of the EPA management challenge to assess and manage
chemical risks; the Administrator's priority to assure the safety of chemicals; and EPA's cross-cutting fundamental strategy to advance science,
research, and innovation.
Contact: Jerri Dorsey (919) 541-3601
OIG Themes Covered
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Program Effectiveness
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Penalties for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and Toxic Substances
Control Act Violations
EPA's Children's Health Evaluation Agenda
EPA's Action Development Process
Electronic Waste Management
Evaluation of EPA's Laboratory Fraud Prevention
Hotline Complaint Regarding the Region 4 Environmental Justice Program
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Evaluation of EPA's National Environmental Policy Act Reviews
Evaluation of EPA's International Partnerships
EPA's Greener Product Programs - Conventional Reduced Risk Pesticide Program
19
-------
Special Reviews
Evaluations of Agency Programs: Special Reviews performs evaluations of Agency programs and functions to determine whether sufficient
controls are in place to reduce the Agency's risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in its operations. Special Reviews assignments also examine Agency
programs and activities to determine impediments or challenges to meeting environmental or human health protection goals. In FY 2013, Special
Reviews is adding focus on conducting follow-up evaluations to determine EPA progress in implementing OIG recommendations for
improvement.
Eric Lewis (202) 566-2664
BJfiaTI?emes Covc' cl1
Oversight and Monitoring
Data Quality
Operational Efficiency
Carryover Assignments from FY 2012
Review of Time and Material Contracts
Review of Time and Material Contract Controls
Integrated Risk Information System Utilization Survey
Libby Toxicity Assessment Follow-Up
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Grant Hotline
Alternative Asbestos Control Method Special Review
New Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Follow-Up on Agency Actions in Response to Selected OIG Reports
Required Assignments Planned for FY 2013
Review of EPA's Classification of National Security Information
20
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: Office of Investigations
Office of Investigations (OI). 01 primarily employs criminal investigators (Special Agents), as well as computer specialists and support staff.
01 maintains a presence in most EPA regions and at selected EPA laboratories, other facilities, and headquarters. The majority of investigative
work is reactive in nature. 01 receives hundreds of allegations of criminal activity and serious misconduct in EPA programs and operations
that may undermine the integrity of, or confidence in, programs, and create imminent environmental risks. To prioritize its work, 01 evaluates
allegations to determine which investigations may have the greatest impact on Agency resources and on the integrity of an EPA program and
operation, and produce the greatest deterrent effect. 01 contributes to EPA's strategic goals by ensuring that the Agency's resources are not
pilfered by criminal activity or criminals. 01 has identified the following major areas on which to focus their work activity: financial fraud
(contracts and assistance agreements); investigation and mitigation of threats directed against EPA employees, facilities, and assets; and
investigations of alleged criminal conduct or serious administrative misconduct by EPA employees. 01 supports the Agency and conducts OIG
oversight and assistance, as directed by statute and OMB, by providing fraud awareness, detection, and prevention training to federal, state,
tribal, and local officials. 01 manages the EPA OIG Hotline Program, which receives hundreds of complaints, referrals, and allegations of
abuse and misconduct. Additionally, this office is responsible for identifying and investigating attacks against EPA's computer and network
systems to protect resources, infrastructure, and intellectual property.
21
-------
Investigations
Office of Investigations conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations into allegations of fraud and serious misconduct that could
create imminent risks or undermine the integrity of EPA or the public's confidence in EPA's key environmental work.
Contact: Patrick Sullivan (202) 566-0308
OIG Themes Covered
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Operational Efficiency
Program Effectiveness
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Recovery Act (projects denoted with *)
Superfund/Hazardous Waste
Investigations begun prior to FY 2013 and new investigations will examine:
Criminal activities in the award, performance, and payment of funds under EPA contracts,
grants, and other assistance agreements to individuals, companies, and organizations
Contract laboratory fraud relating to water quality and Superfund data, as well as payments
made by EPA for erroneous environmental testing data and results, that could undermine the
bases for EPA decision-making, regulatory compliance, and enforcement actions
Criminal activity or serious misconduct affecting the integrity of EPA programs that could
erode the public trust such as misuse of the Agency seal or fraudulent EPA endorsement of a
commercial product
Investigation and mitigation of threats directed against EPA employees, facilities, and assets
Intrusions into and attacks against EPA's network, as well as incidents of hijacking EPA
computers and/or systems in furtherance of criminal activities, and use of outside
computers to commit fraud against EPA
Investigations of alleged criminal conduct or serious administrative misconduct by
EPA employees
Recovery Act Spending and Deep Water Horizon Taskforce participation*
Investigative support to EPA and new initiatives:
Continue fraud awareness briefings and training of key EPA officials and other stakeholders
to increase their awareness of the indicators of contract and grant fraud and to identify and
report funds at risk, as well as recognize and refer cyber threat issues and indicators of
vulnerabilities
Completion of Recovery Act investigations started by the ARRA Fraud Taskforce
Disaster relief spending, including participating with other federal OIGs and the Office of
Audit on the Hurricane Sandy Fraud Taskforce
Small Business Innovative Research grant fraud proactive investigative projects
Work with the Office of Audit to seek out fraud indicators at a Superfund site in New York
City
22
-------
Seek assistance from the Office of Audit to provide forensic audit support for investigations
of contracts, grants, and program integrity
Provide information and cyber forensic analysis in support of investigations of intrusions into
Agency computer networks and evaluations of threats targeting EPA's network infrastructure
Enhance hotline reporting capabilities
Liaison with other federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement concerning violations of
laws investigated by the EPA OIG
Proactive investigations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and the U.S. Department of Interior OIG into the fraudulent use of EPA funds by tribal
entities
23
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: Office of the Chief of Staff
Office of the Chief of Staff (OCOS). OCOS, in the immediate office of the inspector general, is the organization-wide corporate focal point that
promotes the efficient use of, and accountability for, OIG resources, ensuring that the OIG effectively achieves its mission and strategic goals.
Specifically, the chief of staff is responsible for the following OIG-wide functions: strategic and annual planning; financial controllership and budget
formulation and execution; performance, results, and financial reporting; policies and procedures; audit follow-up and OIG internal control assessment;
workforce analysis, human capital, and facilities management; procurement and acquisition administration; and the continuity of operations program.
The chief of staff serves as the management, administrative, and resource advisor to the inspector general, and serves as the primary resource
management point of contact between the inspector general and the OIG's internal customers and external stakeholders. The chief of staff comprises
the following two subcomponents: (1) Human Resources Directorate, and (2) Budget, Planning, and Results Directorate.
Human Resources Directorate
The Human Resources Directorate is responsible for all aspects of OIG human resources operations and workforce planning and management.
Contact: John Mondragon (202) 566-0403
Budget, Planning, and Results Directorate
The Budget, Planning, and Results Directorate manages the OIG's budget process and coordinates OIG strategic planning, policies and procedures, and
organizational performance measurement, as well as all functions related to audit follow-up.
Contact: Crystal Barrett (202) 566-2060
OIG Themes Covered
Oversight and Monitoring
Workforce Allocation
Operational Efficiency
Data Quality
Integrity of Agency Resources
Assignments and Functions Planned for FY 2013
Internal Policy Coordination; External Policy, Exposure Draft and Regulation Review
OIG Follow-Up Coordination and Semiannual Compendium of Unimplemented
Recommendations
OIG Annual FMFIA Assessment and Report to the Administrator
OIG Budgeting, Controllership, and Financial Management
OIG Contracting and Acquisitions, Continuity of Operations
OIG Human Resources and Human Capital Management/Training
OIG Annual Performance Reporting, Strategic and Annual Planning
OIG Integrated System Business Application Feature Design and Reporting
Internal Financial and Operational Accountability Reporting
Quality Assurance Oversight and Coordination
24
-------
OIG Assignments Planned for CSB
About CSB and Its
Office of Inspector General
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) was created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
CSB's mission is to investigate accidental chemical releases at facilities, report to the public on the root causes, and recommend
measures to prevent future occurrences.
In FY 2004, Congress designated the EPA inspector general to serve as the inspector general for CSB. The OIG has the responsibility
to audit, evaluate, inspect, and investigate CSB's programs, and to review proposed laws and regulations to determine their potential
impact on CSB's programs and operations. During FY 2013, the OIG plans to assess the following for CSB:
Does CSB provide timely, accurate, complete, and useful financial information for decision-making?
Are CSB programs and operations performing with the greatest efficiency and effectiveness in regards to allocation and
application of resources?
Are CSB's computer security and privacy programs comprehensive and actively implemented throughout the Agency to
balance risk and mission requirements?
Assignments Planned for FY 2013
CSB Investigation Process
CSB Audit Follow-Up Process
CSB Contracts
CSB Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act Compliance
OIG Follow-Up on Prior Reviews of CSB
CSB FY 2013 FISMA Audit (Contracted)
CSB FY 2012 Financial Statement Audit (Contracted)
CSB FY 2013 Financial Statement Audit (Contracted)
25
-------
EPA Office of Inspector General FY 2013 Annual Plan: Performance Measures and Targets
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires federal agencies to develop goal-based budgets supported by annual
performance plans that link the organization's mission and strategic goals to its annual performance goals. The annual performance goals
are quantifiable targets supported by measures and indicators representing the expected outputs and outcomes. The Agency's annual
Performance Accountability Report includes actual results compared to targets to inform OMB, Congress, and the public about the value
they are receiving for funds invested and how well the OIG is achieving its goals.
This annual plan explains how the OIG will convert its resources into results and benefits of its work through required and priority
assignments. Outcome results and benefits from OIG work reflect measurable actions and impacts, but there is typically a time lag
between the completion of OIG work and recognition of such results and benefits. Therefore, results and benefits from OIG audits,
evaluations, investigations, and reviews are recorded in the year they are recognized regardless of when the work was performed.
Through current-year outputs and long-term outcomes, OIG targets and seeks to measure and demonstrate the many ways the OIG
promotes economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and prevents and detects fraud, waste, and abuse.
The FY 2013 President's Budget for the OIG is $59,137 million, which includes Superfund and CSB. The following are the OIG annual
performance goals that this plan is designed to achieve, pending final budget agreements:
Annual performance measures
Supporting indicators
FY 2013 targets
(based upon Pres.
Budget funding level)
Environmental and business actions taken for
improved performance and reduction of risk from
or influenced by OIG work
o Policy, process, practice, or control changes implemented
o Environmental or operational risks reduced or eliminated
o Critical congressional or public concerns resolved
o Certifications, verification, or analysis for decision or assurance
334 total
Environmental and business recommendations or
risks identified for corrective action by OIG work
o Recommendations or best practices identified for implementation
o Risks or new management challenges identified for action
o Critical congressional/public actions addressed or referred for action
o Outreach/technical advisory briefings
903 total
Potential monetary return on investment (ROI) in
the OIG, as a percentage of the OIG budget
o Recommended questioned costs
o Recommended cost efficiencies and savings
o Fines, penalties, settlements, restitutions
120% ROI total
($65.05 million)
Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud
prevention actions taken from OIG work
o Criminal convictions
o Indictments/informations
o Civil judgments
o Administrative actions (staff actions and suspension or debarments)
85 total
26
-------
Appendix ALimitations on Advisory Services
The OIG provides certain advisory services to the Agency as part of the value it adds in promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
However, to protect inspector general independence, the Inspector General Act explicitly restricts the inspector general from making or
deciding on Agency policies. The generally accepted government auditing standards provide specific criteria delineating what advisory
services, defined as nonaudit services, OIG staff can perform, and what constitutes a personal or organizational impairment of independence
in fact or appearance. Several of the standards limitations are cited below and explain why the OIG may not be able to assist the Agency in
ways that may be requested.
Overarching Independence Principles When Performing Nonaudit Services
The following overarching principle applies to auditor independence when assessing the impact of performing a nonaudit service for audited
entities:
Auditors may be able to provide nonaudit services without impairing independence if (1) the nonaudit services are not expressly
prohibited, (2) the auditor has determined that the requirements for performing nonaudit services have been met, and (3) any significant
threats to independence have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level through the application of safeguards.
In considering whether audits performed by the audit organization can be significantly or materially affected by the nonaudit service, audit
organizations should evaluate (1) ongoing audits; (2) planned audits; (3) requirements and commitments for providing audits, which include
laws, regulations, rules, contracts, and other agreements; and (4) policies placing responsibilities on the audit organization for providing audit
services. If requested to perform nonaudit services that would impair the audit organization's ability to meet either or both of the overarching
independence principles for certain types of audit work, the audit organization should inform the requestor and the audited entity that
performing the nonaudit service would impair the auditor's independence with regard to subsequent audit or attestation engagements.
27
-------
Nonaudit Services That Impair Independence
By their nature, certain nonaudit services directly support the entity's operations and impair the audit organization's ability to meet either or
both of the overarching independence principles for certain types of audit work. Examples of the types of services under this category include
the following:
> Maintaining or preparing the audited entity's basic accounting records or maintaining or taking responsibility for basic financial or other
records that the audit organization will audit.
> Designing, developing, installing, or operating the entity's accounting system or other information system that is material or significant to
the subject matter of the audit.
> Recommending a single individual for a specific position that is key to the entity or program under audit, or otherwise ranking or
influencing management's selection of the candidate; or conducting an executive search or a recruiting program for the audited entity.
> Developing an entity's performance measurement system when that system is material or significant to the subject matter of the audit.
> Performing the entity's internal control self-assessment process or developing the internal control system.
> Developing an entity's policies, procedures, and internal controls.
> Providing services used as management's primary basis for making decisions that are significant to the subject matter under audit.
> Providing internal audit functions, when performed by external auditors.
> Serving as voting members of an entity's management committee or board of directors, making policy decisions that affect future direction
and operation of an entity's programs, supervising entity employees, developing programmatic policy, authorizing an entity's transactions,
or maintaining custody of an entity's assets.
> Planning, conducting, or reviewing audit work of the subject matter of the nonaudit by the same person providing the nonaudit services
under the overarching independence principle that auditors must not audit their own work.
28
-------
Appendix BRisks, Priorities, and Issues Identified by OIG During EPA Outreach Interviews
The OIG is highly committed to being a customer-driven organization that provides products and services that address the needs and
concerns of Agency management. Our planning processes are highly dependent upon, and reflective of, the input received through our
outreach to the Agency. A summary of current identified areas of concern from the Agency is provided below. This information is used
by staff as a foundation to lead to the selection of well-supported assignments that answer compelling needs with measurable results.
EPA Cross-Cutting Risks
EPA Outreach Interviews Areas of Concern
Emergency Preparedness/Homeland
Security
Preparedness for emergencies (natural or manmade disasters) is an unknown risk and
needs greater attention.
Protection of drinking water (Water Sentry program) requires a coordinated effort.
Waste management under possible disaster conditions presents a secondary risk that
needs attention.
Data security and protection controls may be vulnerable and should be tested to
guard against cyber attack.
Clarification of roles and responsibilities (within EPA, and between federal agencies
and states) needs to be determined and articulated.
Better Collaboration/Coordination with
States and Other Federal Agencies
EPA implements original authorizing legislation on the basis of specific media
instead of holistically.
The 30 federal agencies with an environmental mission need better coordination in
planning and implementation.
There is a lack of direct lines of authority (coordination) among and between
assistant administrators and regions.
Plans, resources, data, authority, and measures are not aligned with risks and
priorities across EPA.
Better collaboration internally and with stakeholders is needed to align processes,
leverage resources, implement controls, reduce duplication, and align resources with
priorities.
29
-------
EPA Cross-Cutting Risks
EPA Outreach Interviews Areas of Concern
Consistent and Reliable Data and
Performance Measurement
There are gaps and inconsistencies in the information that drives the decision-
making process.
Questions exist as to whether EPA is collecting the right data, of sufficient quality,
and is making that data available.
EPA's information systems are not aligned for efficiency, consistency, accessibility,
and security.
Control of laboratory data, personally identifiable information, and confidential
business information outside of EPA, especially related to registration and
re-registration of pesticides and other formulas regulated by the Toxic Substances
Control Act, all present significant risks.
Improving EPA Organizational Design
and Coordination of Resources to
Eliminate Duplication
EPA and its partners need a clear linkage among goals, resources, processes, actions
taken, and outcomes.
There are no standards or agreements among stakeholders on which to base measures
of environmental risks and outcomes (states vs. national).
Program efficiency, progress, and results are not measured meaningfully.
EPA does not know what activities cost and what efficiency measures are needed.
Differences exist in the ways environmental laws are monitored and enforced
between EPA and states/tribes. Monitoring requirements for grants are underfunded.
Monitoring of States, Grants
Management, Compliance, and
Enforcement (How Much Delegation?
Federal vs. State Roles?)
EPA lacks control of fund management and accountability once the funds for
assistance agreements to grantees are distributed; half of the Agency's budget is
allocated to these agreements.
The highest risk in the grants management process is at the point that funds are spent
by grantees and are sometimes commingled with other sources of grant funds.
Grantees have limited capacity or incentive to account for funds or performance.
EPA lacks resources to adequately monitor grants and lacks uniform reporting and
accountability conditions.
EPA should execute and manage grants for measurable success vis-a-vis their
intended goals.
Human Capital Management - Skill
Gaps/Alignment With Functions
EPA should analyze its workforce to identify and fill skill gaps and to implement its
Human Capital Strategy.
EPA should recruit to close identified competency gaps.
-------
EPA Cross-Cutting Risks
EPA Outreach Interviews Areas of Concern
Better Use of Technology, Information,
and Research
The Agency should manage its resources and the performance of contractors to
optimize their value added.
EPA needs operational controls to protect and account for costs, assets, information,
and performance.
EPA should more strongly implement FMFIA and the OMB Circular A-123 process.
The Working Capital Fund lacks the transparency or accountability necessary to
prove its efficiency.
Agency management should better understand and be accountable for taking
agreed-to actions on OIG recommendations.
EPA's Regulatory Process (Better and
Faster Analysis of Costs, Science, and
Benefits)
The Agency's extremely complex regulatory process should be streamlined without
compromising its required integrity. Competing interests of stakeholders and the
regulated community may lead to overlaps, gaps, and conflicts.
Many policies are out of date or are based on outdated science and technology.
Cross-Media Risk Assessment, Planning,
and Priority Setting for Better
Application of Resources
EPA should use a consistent approach to evaluate actual and relative environmental
and operational risk and program effectiveness, assign resource priorities, make
regulatory decisions, take enforcement actions, and inform its stakeholders.
EPA should ensure the integrity of laboratory data, results, and scientific research;
knowledge and innovative technology should be transferred in a timely manner in
the regulatory and policy process.
Agency programs need a consistent approach for determining relative risk and
demonstrating outcome results.
Water Infrastructure, Financing and
Water Availability
The Agency needs to address failing infrastructure for drinking and storm water
systems. Approximately $20 billion will be needed to stabilize infrastructure across
states.
It is unclear who will pay for needed infrastructure investment.
Climate Change and Air
EPA should determine how to use creative financing and leverage funding through
public-private partnerships.
EPA should utilize a better method for understanding air toxics and their monitoring.
EPA needs a clear and unified strategy, including participation of other federal
agencies and other national governments.
------- |