Key Reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Inspector General

Name: Key Reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Inspector General | Politics / American Government and Politics
Brand: Nova Science Publishers
Price: 376.99 EUR
Availability: OnlineOnly

Politics / American Government and Politics

Debroah Ledoux(Herausgeber*in)

Nova Science Publishers

Erschienen am 1. August 2018

408 Seiten

E-Book

PDF mit Adobe-DRM

Systemvoraussetzungen

978-1-5361-4183-2 (ISBN)

376,99 €inkl. 7% MwSt.

Systemvoraussetzungen

für PDF mit Adobe-DRM

E-Book Einzellizenz

Als Download verfügbar

Beschreibung

Weitere Details

Weitere Ausgaben

Inhalt

Intro
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1
Eleven Years after Agreement, EPA Has Not Developed Reliable Emission Estimation Methods to Determine Whether Animal Feeding Operations Comply with Clean Air Act and Other Statutes*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Air Emissions from AFOs
National Academy of Sciences Report on AFO Air Emissions
Air Compliance Agreement with AFO Industries
Monitoring Study Methodology
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
Prior Report
EPA Plans for Finalizing EEMs Were Not Accomplished and Potential Air Quality Impacts Continue
Development of EEMs Is Years behind Schedule
Responding to SAB Concerns and a Lack of Resources Slowed Development of EEMs
SAB Review of Draft EEMs and EPA Response
Prior Stakeholder Feedback Questioned the NAEMS Monitoring Approach
EPA's EEM Development Activities Since 2013 Have Been Limited
AFO Air Emissions Remain Largely Uncharacterized and Important Agency Actions Are on Hold
CAA Permit and CERCLA/EPCRA Reporting Determinations Have Not Been Made
Agency Actions on Hold
Conclusion
EPA Needs to Implement Systematic Planning to Assure That EEMs Have Sufficient Quality
EPA Quality System
EPA Has Not Fully Implemented a Systematic Planning Process to Assure a Desired Level of Quality for EEMs
Planning for Draft Development of EEMs Was Not Systematic
Plans for Completing Development of EEMs Can Be Strengthened
Conclusion
Recommendations
EPA Has Not Updated Some Stakeholders and Public on Current Status of EEM Efforts
EPA Provided Extensive Public Outreach during Early Stages
EPA Has Not Publicly Communicated on EEM Development Efforts Since 2013
Conclusion
Recommendation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Appendix A. Office of Air and Radiation Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Appendix B. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
OECA Response to Recommendation Number 4 - Concur
Chapter 2
Differences in Processing Practices Could Decrease the Reliability of Ozone Data Used for Assessing Air Quality to Protect Public Health*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Monitoring Databases
EPA Data Processing Requirements and Guidance
Validation Criteria
Data Adjustments
EPA Oversight
Responsible Office
Scope and Methodology
Prior Coverage
Varying Ozone Data Processing Practices Pose Risk to Data Reliability
EPA's Data Validation Requirements and Guidance
EPA's Recommended Critical Validation Criteria Not Used Consistently
Ozone Data Adjusted in Manner Inconsistent with EPA's QA Handbook
Varying Shelter Temperature Criteria Used to Validate Ozone Data
Different Data Processing Practices Could Decrease Data Reliability
Risk That Other Air Monitoring Agencies Apply Different Data Processing Practices and Have Outdated QAPPs
EPA Has Taken Actions to Assess AQS Data Quality
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
EPA Oversight Should Be Strengthened to Improve Ozone Data Quality
EPA Oversight of Ambient Air Monitoring Programs
Annual QAPP Reviews
Annual Data Certification Reviews
TSAs
EPA Did Not Verify That QAPPs Were Revised in Timely Manner
Data Certification Reviews Could Be Used to Better Identify Inconsistent Data Processing Practices
TSAs Did Not Identify Data Processing Practices That Were Inconsistent with EPA Guidance
EPA Has Improved Oversight, but Further Steps Are Needed
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Recommendations
Appendix A. Agency Comments on Draft Report and OIG Evaluation
Memorandum
Technical Comments Attachment
Chapter 3
Management Alert: Certain State, Local and Tribal Data Processing Practices Could Impact Suitability of Data for 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality Determinations*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Memorandum
Purpose
Background
Air Monitoring Databases
EPA Data Processing Requirements and Guidance
Scope and Methodology
Ozone Data Were Not Always Processed According to EPA-Recommended Practices
Data Adjustments
Data Validations
Risk That Other Air-Monitoring Agencies Are Not Following EPA-Recommended Practices
Agency Actions Prompted by OIG Work
Conclusion
Chapter 4
Improved Data and EPA Oversight Are Needed to Assure Compliance with the Standards for Benzene Content in Gasoline*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Health-Related Impacts of Benzene Exposure
Gasoline Benzene Requirements
Required Reporting
Attest Engagements
Responsible Offices
Noteworthy Achievements
Scope and Methodology
Prior Report
Missing Reports and Data Quality Limitations Hamper EPA's Ability to Assess Compliance
Benzene Program Reporting and Oversight Process
Some Required Facility Reports Were Missing
Reports Contained Errors and Other Data Quality Limitations
Reported Annual Average Benzene Concentrations and Total Volumes Were Not Supported by Batch Data
Reported Benzene Credits and Deficits Do Not Match Those Calculated from Batch Reports for Large Number of Facilities
Facility Reports Contained Other Data Quality and Reporting Errors
EPA Lacks Adequate Controls to Assure Complete and Accurate Data
Independent Reviews Do Not Verify Supporting Data Used to Calculate Credits
Credit Balances in EPA's Credit Tracking System Have Not Been Verified
EPA Lacks an Automated Reporting System That Flags Missing Reports and Data Quality Limitations
Data Quality Limitations Create Inefficiencies
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
Improvements Needed to More Comprehensively Identify Noncompliance and Take Timely Enforcement Actions
OECA Oversight Includes Facility Report Review, On-Site Audits and Enforcement Activity
Not All Potential Noncompliers Have Been Identified and Addressed
Not All Potential Noncompliers Reviewed and Identified
Additional Actions Not Yet Taken for Some Identified Potential Noncompliance
OIG and EPA Results Differ
Several Factors Limit OECA's Oversight
Availability of Staff
Data Quality and Other Reporting Limitations
Current Year Credit Deficit Information Is Not Required on Annual Benzene Reports
Lack of Direct Access to Company Reports
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Recommendations
Appendix A. Details on Scope and Methodology for Data Analyses
Analysis to Identify Missing Annual Benzene Reports
Analysis to Identify Missing Batch Reports
Analysis to Verify Annual Total Volumes and Annual Average Benzene Concentrations
Analysis to Assess Compliance with the Maximum Average Benzene Concentration Standard of 1.30 Volume Percent
Analysis to Calculate Credit Balances and Assess Compliance with Annual Average Benzene Concentration Standard of 0.62 Volume Percent
Appendix B. Office of Air and Radiation Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Technical Comments Attachment
OAR Comments - Pending
Missing Reports and Data Quality Limitations (formerly Section 2 Data Quality)
Facility Reports Contained Other Data Quality and Reporting Errors
Technical Correction
Appendix C. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Summary
Response to Recommendations
Technical Comments
Chapter 5
EPA Is Taking Steps to Improve State Drinking Water Program Reviews and Public Water Systems Compliance Data*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Memorandum
Purpose
Background
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
Results of Evaluation
EPA Is Working to Improve Program Reviews
EPA Is Working to Improve the Accuracy and Reliability of Data
Conclusion
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
Appendix A. Agency Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Agency's Overall Position
Agency's Response to Report Recommendations
Chapter 6
EPA's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program Is Delivering Timely and Relevant Data to the Office of Water*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Project
What We Found
Memorandum
Purpose
Background
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
Results
ORD Provides Timely Research for OW
OW Indicates That ORD Provides It with Relevant Research
OW Reports That It Is Using SSWR Products
Conclusion
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
Appendix A. OIG Selected Sample of SSWR Products
Chapter 7
EPA's Voluntary WaterSense Program Demonstrated Success*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Actions
Memorandum
Purpose
Background
EPA's WaterSense Program
Program Structure
Third-Party Certification of WaterSense-Labeled Products
Annual Reporting
Water-Savings Models
Energy and Monetary Savings
Authority for Program
Components of Internal Control
Federal Program Management
Responsible Office
Scope and Methodology
Results of Review
Program Accomplishments
Controls on Water and Energy Savings Are in Place
Control over the Number of Program Partners Is Needed
WaterSense Program Is Well Designed and Managed
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Recommendations
Appendix A. Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation
Memorandum
Agency's Overall Position
Agency's Response to Report Recommendations
Summary of Agreements
Chapter 8
EPA Has Not Reported to Congress on BEACH Act Progress as Statutorily Required or Fully Documented Budget Decisions*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Noteworthy Achievements
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Requirements under the BEACH Act
EPA Grants for Beach Monitoring and Public Notification
State Beach Monitoring and Public Notification Programs
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
Responsible Offices
Noteworthy Achievements
Scope and Methodology
Prior Audits
Grantees Use BEACH Act Funds for Routine Monitoring and Notification Activities
BEACH Act Grants Assist in Monitoring and Notification Programs
Grantees' Monitoring and Notification Activities Assist EPA in Tracking BEACH Act Program Performance
Conclusion
EPA Has Not Fulfilled BEACH Act Reporting Requirement to Congress
Disagreements and Lack of Appeal Process Led to a Reporting Breach for Reports to Congress
EPA Decided Not to Draft or Submit Another Report to Congress
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
EPA Has Not Documented Its Supporting Analysis for Eliminating the BEACH Act Grant Program
EPA Has Not Kept Records to Document Budget Decisions about BEACH Act Grant Program
Despite EPA's Proposal to Cut BEACH Act Grants, Congress Continues to Provide Funding
Lack of BEACH Act Grant Funding Could Negatively Impact Grantee Beach Monitoring and Notification Programs
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Appendix A. EPA Beach Program Logic Model
Appendix B. Prior Reports
Appendix C. Agency Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Agency's Overall Position
Agency's Response to Report Recommendations
Agreements
Disagreements
Chapter 9
EPA Needs to Provide Leadership and Better Guidance to Improve Fish Advisory Risk Communications*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Why We Did This Review
Background
Human Health Effects from Mercury
EPA's Role in Developing Fish Advisories
Clean Water Act
PA Responsibilities under Federal Indian Policy
EPA Supports States and Tribes That Develop Fish Advisories
Responsible Offices
Noteworthy Achievements
Scope and Methodology
Results
Advisory Information Does Not Reach Many Subsistence Fishers
Fish Advisory Information Is Not Posted
Some Tribes Do Not Receive State Advisory Information
Advisories Provide Conflicting, Confusing and Complex Advice
Conflicting and Confusing Advisory Information
State-to-State Advisories Conflict
Some Fish Advisories Are Complex and Difficult to Understand
Minimal Information on Advisory Effectiveness
Ensuring That Consumption Advice Uses up-to-Date Science
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Appendix A. Mercury Fish Advisory for Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe
Appendix B. Literature Review of Methylmercury Epidemiological Studies
Appendix C. Agency Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Agency's Overall Position
Agency's Response to Report Recommendations
Agreements
Technical Comments Attachment
Chapter 10
EPA Needs to Evaluate the Impact of the Revised Agricultural Worker Protection Standard on Pesticide Exposure Incidents*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendation and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Revised WPS
EPA and State Management of WPS
Requests to Delay WPS Implementation
Request to Collect Pesticide Exposure Incident Data
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
Prior Report
EPA Did Not Have Adequate Management Controls to Implement, nor a Methodology to Determine Impact of, the Revised WPS Rule
EPA Had Processes and Procedures to Implement the Revised WPS, but Essential Materials Were Not Provided in a Timely Manner
Enforcement Guidance, Training Resources and Educational Materials Were Not Available in a Timely Manner
State Lead WPS Outreach to Stakeholders Incomplete
Agency Does Not Have a Means to Measure WPS Impact on Agricultural Pesticide Exposure Incidents
Significant Barriers Exist to Obtaining Incident Data
The OPP IDS Does Not Capture Occupational Pesticide Exposure Incidents
Observed Best Practice
Conclusion
Recommendation
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Recommendation
Appendix A. Agency Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
OCSPP Responses to OIG's Recommendations
OCSPP Response and Proposed Corrective Action
Timeframe
Timeframe
Conclusion
Chapter 11
EPA Can Better Manage State Pesticide Cooperative Agreements to More Effectively Use Funds and Reduce Risk of Pesticide Misuse*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
State Primacy
Cooperative Agreements
Work Plans and Negotiations
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
Prior Report
Development and Monitoring of Pesticide Program Work Plans Can Be Strengthened
EPA Funds State Grants without Consistently Assessing Planned Inspection Costs
EPA Does Not Use Work Plan Results to Manage, Evaluate Performance
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Recommendations
Appendix A. Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments
Memorandum
Background and Summary Comments
Chapter 12
EPA Can Better Reduce Risks from Illegal Pesticides by Effectively Identifying Imports for Inspection and Sampling*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Enforcement Priority Placed on Imported Pesticides
Annual Commitment System
National Program Manager Guidance
FIFRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Import Inspections and Sampling
Automated Commercial Environment Database
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
EPA Has Not Met Its Inspection Frequency Goal for Imported Pesticides
EPA Regions Have Not Met the CMS Inspection Frequency
Some EPA Regions Are Not Inspecting at High-Traffic Ports
Some Regions Are Not Conducting Neutral Scheme Inspections
EPA Regions Sample Few Imported Pesticides
EPA National Targeting Results in Few Inspections
OECA Lacks Regional Data and Feedback on Its Imports Focus Area
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
EPA Can Better Plan How to Use ACE Capabilities to Inspect and Sample Imported Pesticides
EPA Needs Training and Guidance on How to Use ACE for Targeting
EPA Regions Could Improve Coordination with CBP on Pesticides without Import Notices
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Appendix A. Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation
Memorandum
Background and Summary Comments
Appendix B. Agency Supplemental Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
Chapter 13
EPA Can Strengthen Its Oversight of Herbicide Resistance with Better Management Controls*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
EPA's Herbicide Resistance Activities
Herbicide Resistance Data Collection
Responsible Office
Noteworthy Achievements
Scope and Methodology
Prior Evaluation and Audit Coverage
EPA Can Strengthen Its Management and Oversight of Herbicide Resistance
Opportunities Exist to Better Utilize Labeling to Manage Herbicide Resistance Risks
Additional Data on Synergy Can Help Reduce Uncertainties
EPA Can Improve Herbicide Resistance Data Collection and Use
EPA Action on Resistance Is Hindered by Inconsistent Communication and Stakeholder Collaboration
EPA Does Not Track Success of Its Herbicide Resistance Actions
Conclusion
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Recommendations
Appendix A. Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation
Memorandum
OCSPP Responses to OIG's Recommendations
Chapter 14
EPA Needs to Manage Pesticide Funds More Efficiently*
Abbreviations
Why We Did This Review
What We Found
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
Memorandum
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Statutory Authority
Responsible Offices
Scope and Methodology
EPA Should Manage FIFRA and PRIA Funds More Effectively
EPA Needs a Strategy to Manage Fund Balances
Cash Flow Analysis
EPA Needs to Establish a Target Range for Fund Balances
EPA Did Not Reconcile Fund Balances to Liabilities
Conclusion
Recent Agency Actions Prompted by OIG Work
Recommendations
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits
Appendix A. Details on Scope and Methodology
Prior Reports Reviewed
Appendix B. Agency Response to Draft Report
Memorandum
OCSPP Response
FIFRA Fund
PRIA Fund
OCFO Response
Index
Blank Page

Systemvoraussetzungen

Als PDF speichern Als Link merken