[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA OVERSIGHT: UNIMPLEMENTED INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-52
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-122 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
7_____
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
Chairman
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana PAUL TONKO, New York
CHRIS COLLINS, New York YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
TIM WALBERG, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
MIMI WALTERS, California SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia officio)
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, opening statement..................................... 5
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Alan S. Larsen, Counsel to the Inspector General, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 90
J. Alfredo Gomez, Director of Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office............................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Answers to submitted questions............................... 97
Submitted Material
Subcommittee memorandum.......................................... 84
EPA OVERSIGHT: UNIMPLEMENTED INSPECTOR GENERAL AND GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Murphy
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Murphy, Griffith, Burgess,
Brooks, Collins, Barton, Walters, Costello, Carter, Walden (ex
officio), Castor, Tonko, Clarke, Ruiz, and Pallone (ex
officio).
Staff present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist,
Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Environment; Lamar Echols, Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Paul Edattel, Chief Counsel, Health; Ali
Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Oversight and Investigations,
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Alex Miller, Video
Production Aide and Press Assistant; John Ohly, Professional
Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Christopher
Santini, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Sam Spector,
Policy Coordinator, Oversight and Investigations; Peter
Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Jeff
Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Minority
Chief Environment Counsel; Chris Knauer, Minority Oversight
Staff Director; Miles Lichtman, Minority Policy Analyst; Jon
Monger, Minority Counsel; Dino Papanastasiou, Minority GAO
Detailee; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Murphy. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our
hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on
Energy and Commerce.
The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine
unimplemented recommendations by the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Inspector General and Government
Accountability Office. Acting on these recommendations would
improve EPA's ability to carry out its core mission, protecting
human health and the environment. This mission is never more
important than during times of natural disaster like the one
the Gulf Coast is experiencing right now in Hurricane Harvey,
and we are about to be hit with another hurricane on the
Florida coast.
First of all, on behalf of the committee, I want to express
my sincere sorrow to everyone impacted by the storm. Hurricane
Harvey is one of the worst natural disasters the United States
has ever faced, and it is still too early to tell the full
extent of the devastation that has displaced thousands of
people. Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle
represent constituents experiencing loss and destruction from
the storm, and our thoughts and prayers are with these families
as they begin to rebuild their lives from this national
tragedy.
During the storm and in the aftermath, EPA continues to
play a critical role in the Federal response to Hurricane
Harvey. While EPA is still in the midst of initial response
efforts, its work has only just begun. We look forward to
monitoring the Agency's response to the disaster and learn the
full extent of the environmental impact and the challenges that
lie ahead.
The loss and destruction of Hurricane Harvey make today's
hearing even more important. The committee has the opportunity
to learn about ways to strengthen the EPA, including
highlighting unimplemented recommendations that may improve the
EPA's ability to protect the environment and human health
during recovery efforts or future natural disasters. And I go
back and reflect on what we are about to face in Florida and
Puerto Rico and the disasters that are looming there.
Now the Constitution provides Congress with the authority
to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch, and in
partnership with the Government Accountability Office and
Office of Inspector General, we work together to root out
waste, fraud, and abuse at Federal agencies such as the EPA.
Through investigations and audits, both GAO and OIG often make
recommendations on ways to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of EPA. And after these recommendations are
issued, GAO and OIG work with the Agency to ensure that EPA
acts on their findings.
Today the committee will learn that, even when EPA agrees
with the recommendations, it may take years to implement them,
and some are never fully adopted by the Agency. As a result,
many of the open recommendations span multiple administrations,
some dating as far back as the Bush administration. While EPA
adopts recommendations at a rate around the Federal Government
average, there are still unimplemented recommendations in many
critical areas of the Agency.
According to the OIG's most recent semiannual report to
Congress, released in May 2017, the EPA has the potential to
save $103.3 million by implementing OIG's open recommendations.
The semiannual report showed 43 open recommendations with past
due completion dates and 56 with due dates set in the future.
The GAO will testify that EPA has implemented 191 of the
318 recommendations made since 2007, with 127 recommendations
still unimplemented. OIG and GAO have both highlighted
deficiencies in EPA's management and operations, including
concerns about EPA's information security posture, workforce
management, and grant administration.
For example, EPA OIG recently conducted an audit focusing
on flaws relating to EPA's information security posture during
fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The OIG reported that the Agency
lacks an understanding of which contractors of the EPA have
significant information security responsibilities, raising
questions about the Agency's network integrity. The OIG
recommended that EPA develop a process for identifying these
contractors. The EPA is not expected to implement this
recommendation until December 31st of 2018.
GAO and OIG have also uncovered waste and mismanagement in
EPA's grant programs. This is particularly troubling because
grants comprise almost half of the EPA's budget, about $4
billion annually. In 2016, GAO found that EPA's grant-
monitoring practice may impact the Agency's ability to
efficiently monitor results and increase administrative costs.
Additionally, in 2017, GAO reported that the EPA did not
have the information it needed to allocate grant management
resources effectively. GAO recommendations range from
standardizing the format of grant recipient progress reports to
developing a process to analyze workloads. All 12
recommendations in these two reports remain unimplemented.
These are just some of the many reports and audits
conducted by the OIG and GAO. We will discuss more of them
today. Both the EPA OIG and GAO have done excellent work to
highlight the problems within EPA and find solutions to solve
these issues. So, I am grateful for your work and look forward
to hearing more about your findings.
I want to add here, with things looming in Florida and with
the tragedies in Texas, I can probably speak for the committee
that we better not find out that EPA has dawdled on anything
that is causing harm. We know there is a great deal of water
pollution that is out there because of overwhelming of sewer
systems. We are concerned about the increase in Zika mosquitoes
in Texas. We don't know if some of that has to do with some
issues with water management and other things within the
jurisdiction of EPA. We will keep a close watch on all of those
and see if there are any errors that have occurred related to
weaknesses in the Agency's implementing things that are causing
these problems.
So, I thank our witnesses today for your dedication and
work to ensure that EPA is carrying out its mission. I want to
especially recognize Alfredo Gomez, our witness from GAO. He is
a Houston native who has two nephews serving in the fire
department there. Are they doing OK? They are doing OK. Mr.
Gomez says they are. We appreciate their service and sacrifice
during Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Tim Murphy
The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine
unimplemented recommendations by the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Inspector General and the Government
Accountability Office.
Acting on these recommendations would improve EPA's ability
to carry out its core mission-protecting human health and the
environment. This mission is never more important than during
times of natural disaster like the people of the Gulf Coast are
now experiencing in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
On behalf of the committee, I want to express my sincere
sorrow to everyone impacted by this storm. Hurricane Harvey is
one of the worst natural disasters the United States has ever
faced and it's still too early to tell the full extent of the
devastation that has displaced thousands of people.
Members of this committee on both sides of the aisle
represent constituents experiencing loss and destruction from
the storm. Our thoughts and prayers are with these families as
they begin to rebuild their lives from this national tragedy.
During the storm and in the aftermath, EPA continues to
play a critical role in the Federal response to Hurricane
Harvey. While EPA is still in the midst of initial response
efforts, its work has only just begun. We look forward to
monitoring the Agency's response to the disaster and learning
the full extent of the environmental impact and challenges that
lie ahead.
The loss and destruction of Hurricane Harvey makes today's
hearing even more important. The committee has the opportunity
to learn about ways to strengthen the EPA, including
highlighting unimplemented recommendations that may improve
EPA's ability to protect the environment and human health
during recovery efforts or future natural disasters.
The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to
conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. In partnership with
the Government Accountability Office and Office of Inspector
General, we work together to root out waste, fraud, and abuse
at Federal agencies such as the EPA.
Through investigations and audits, both GAO and OIG often
make recommendations on ways to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of EPA. After these recommendations are issued,
GAO and OIG work with the Agency to ensure that the EPA acts on
their findings.
Today, the committee will learn that even when EPA agrees
with recommendations, it may take years to implement them and
some are never fully adopted by the Agency. As a result, many
of the open recommendations span multiple administrations, some
dating as far back as the Bush administration.
While EPA adopts recommendations at a rate around the
Federal Government average, there are still unimplemented
recommendations in many critical areas of the Agency.
According to the OIG's most recent semiannual report to
Congress, released in May 2017, EPA has the potential to save
$103.3 million by implementing OIG's open recommendations. The
semiannual report showed 43 open recommendations with past due
completion dates and 56 with due dates set in the future. The
GAO will testify that EPA has implemented 191 of the 318
recommendations made since 2007, with 127 recommendations still
unimplemented.
OIG and GAO have both highlighted deficiencies in EPA's
management and operations, including concerns about EPA's
information security posture, workforce management, and grant
administration.
For example, EPA OIG recently conducted an audit focusing
on flaws relating to EPA's information security posture during
fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The OIG reported that the Agency
lacks an understanding of which contractors at the EPA have
significant information security responsibilities, raising
questions about the Agency's network integrity. The OIG
recommended that EPA develop a process for identifying these
contractors. The EPA is not expected to implement this
recommendation until December 31, 2018.
GAO and OIG have also uncovered waste and mismanagement in
EPA's grant programs. This is particularly troubling because
grants comprise almost half of EPA's budget, about $4 billion
annually. In 2016, GAO found that EPA's grant monitoring
practices may impact the Agency's ability to efficiently
monitor results and increase administrative costs.
Additionally, in 2017, GAO reported that the EPA did not
have the information it needed to allocate grant management
resources effectively. GAO recommendations range from
standardizing the format of grant recipient progress reports to
developing a process to analyze workloads. All 12
recommendations in these two reports remain unimplemented.
These are just some of the many reports and audits
conducted by the OIG and GAO -We will discuss more of them here
today.
Both the EPA OIG and GAO have done excellent work to
highlight the problems within EPA and find solutions to solve
these issues.
I am grateful for your work and look forward to hearing
more about your findings.
Thank you to our witnesses today for your dedication and
great work to ensure that EPA is effectively carrying out its
mission.
I especially want to recognize Alfredo Gomez, our witness
from GAO. He is a Houston native who has two nephews serving on
the fire department there. We appreciate their service and
sacrifice during Hurricane Harvey and its aftermath.
Mr. Murphy. Now I turn to my colleague from Florida and
recognize her for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Castor. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this
hearing today, and thank you to our witnesses for their work.
The hearing subject, while important, pales in comparison
of the true oversight needed of the Trump Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA is, and always has been, a critical
partner to our States and communities back home. Most of what
EPA does is to support our communities back in cleaning up
polluted sites, helping protect the air we breathe and the
water we drink. And I thank the professionals and scientists at
the Environmental Protection Agency for their work.
But President Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt have a
very different vision, unfortunately, and they have been acting
to weaken support for our communities back home that comes
through the EPA. And it is particularly troubling that EPA
Administrator Pruitt has not appeared before the Energy and
Commerce Committee to date. This committee has direct oversight
of the EPA, and it is simply unprecedented and unacceptable
that the Administrator has not appeared before the committee.
Now the importance of the EPA is particularly clear as
Texas learns more about the scope and extent of the destruction
caused by Hurricane Harvey. There is nothing like a disaster
response that demonstrates how critical toxic chemical,
Superfund, and other EPA local initiatives are to the health
and safety of our neighbors.
As a Floridian, I know all to well the devastation that
massive hurricanes can bring to homes, businesses, and
communities, and the recovery from such a storm is long,
expensive, and challenging. And our thoughts are with the
residents of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Floridians as
they are in the path of another extremely dangerous storm in
Hurricane Irma.
Hurricane Harvey slammed into the Gulf Coast as a Category
4. So far, it has left at least 60 people dead and billions of
dollars in damage, and a death total and estimated cost of
recovery is likely to continue to rise in the coming weeks.
Ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health,
Representative Gene Green--I just saw him at the other
subcommittee meeting--represents the city of Houston and has
seen much of his district flooded. And our thoughts are with
him and his constituents at this time.
And, Mr. Gomez, I want to thank, recognize you for being
here today in what is surely a difficult time for you and your
family.
The EPA has been a key Agency responding to Harvey. And for
this reason, this hearing should be a timely and important step
in exploring how to strengthen the Agency as it supports local
responders and begins to assess the possible environmental
impact of the flooding, toxic releases.
But this hearing, unfortunately, is devoted to a much less
significant topic. The scope of potential environmental risk
caused by this ongoing crisis, while still coming into focus,
is considerable. People are evacuating through dirty and
contaminated floodwaters that may contain bacteria and toxic
substances. There have also been reports of fires at chemical
facilities which may involve the release of toxic pollutants.
Additional reports have also suggested possible damage to
leaking gas tanks at fuel facilities which, if true, may pose
environmental concerns that the EPA will need to address.
And I am particularly concerned about reports of flooding
Superfund sites and what damage they may have caused. For
example, according to EPA, 13 of the 41 former and current
toxic waste sites in Harvey-impacted areas have flooded and may
have experienced some damage.
Additionally, the city of Houston contains approximately
450 petrochemical plants. News reports indicate these plants
have contributed to 74 instances of excess air pollution since
Harvey hit, emitting more than 1 million pounds of hazardous
substances into the air.
See, our local communities need the expertise of the EPA to
prevent and mitigate such releases, but the Trump
administration has been working overtime to weaken EPA's
ability to help back home. And now, it is really showing at a
time of disaster.
The storm also raises ongoing concerns of drinking water
safety. According to EPA, 4,500 drinking water systems are
potentially threatened by floodwaters, disrupted sewage
systems.
Now, after Hurricane Katrina, Energy and Commerce
professional staff were on the ground to help, and this
committee should consider oversight hearings in Texas in the
near term. But today's hearing, rather than focusing on the big
picture, examines unimplemented recommendations for EPA, at a
time when the real issue is the decimation of the EPA
professional workforce proposed by President Trump and
Administrator Pruitt. And yet, we respond to the grave
environmental and human health risk of Hurricane Harvey and
other catastrophes at this time, but the overall EPA has never
been more important.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply troubled by the direction of the
Agency under the Trump administration, and I implore you and my
Republican colleagues to conduct true oversight of the damage
being done to our bedrock environmental protections built
through decades of bipartisan work. And we need to do it before
deep and lasting damage is inflicted across America.
The Trump EPA is waging an aggressive rollback of
environmental and human health protections through
politicization of the Agency, extreme proposed budget and
staffing cuts, repealing or delaying rulemaking, and attacking
fundamental science. The Trump administration proposed extreme
budget cuts that cut to the heart of our local communities and
threaten the health and environment of Americans in every
State.
The Trump budget would slash EPA's budget by nearly $2.6
billion, reduce the professional workforce there by over 3,000
employees, and the damage will be done to our air quality,
diesel emission reductions, lead safety, and it goes on and on.
Already there is evidence of conflicts of interest, favoritism
towards certain businesses, and grants changed to exact
political revenge. This is not acceptable and this is what
needs oversight. The ongoing crisis unfolding on the Gulf Coast
demonstrates the dangers of the Trump administration's extreme
assault on environmental protection.
Mr. Chairman, we want to work with you to make sure the EPA
implements the workforce and contractor recommendations. But,
if we are serious about ensuring that the Agency is able to
protect human health and the environment, then we must work
together to conduct true oversight of the fundamental damage
being done to this Agency and our neighbors back home.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman.
Just in response to my friend from Florida, our committee
staff, the Oversight Committee has worked diligently throughout
the last several weeks in clear communication with the various
agencies involved in the hurricane. This hearing was put
together before Harvey had a name. So, we will do our oversight
and continue to. At the appropriate time, I anticipate there
will be a delegation that will go and hold hearings or do
appropriate review.
I am one, when there is an emergency going on, who tries to
stay out of the way of the first responders and let them do
their job. And so, at the right time we will do that, and we
will have Administrator Pruitt before our committee sooner
rather than later. I share frustration that there has been a
long delay in getting some of these positions filled, partly by
our friends in the Senate, but the time has come for these
Agency heads to come before our committee, and they will.
Now, as to this hearing, I appreciate Subcommittee Chairman
Murphy having this and his opening comments. We care deeply
about what has happened in Texas. We care deeply about what is
about to happen in Florida. My own district is on fire, and
much destruction is going on there. All these things matter.
You want to talk about air quality. We could use your
support on some of our forestry legislation to reduce the fuel
loads, so we don't poison people with fires and destroy
watersheds.
Now we know that these recovery efforts will continue for
years. Recovering from any disaster, whether it is Hurricane
Harvey or Irma or the destructive wildfires burning out of
control throughout the West, requires coordination at every
level of the Government, and the EPA is a critical part of
that. The challenges facing the EPA that pertain to Harvey are
significant, but I hope the Agency seizes upon the lessons
learned in responses to previous natural disasters such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.
Today's hearing represents the first opportunity to hear
from the EPA Office of Inspector General and the Government
Accountability Office regarding any outstanding recommendations
that, if implemented, could enable the Agency to better achieve
or do its job better.
We will also examine some of the areas of concern that have
been identified and commented upon by the OIG and the GAO, but
whose recommendations remain unimplemented by the EPA. We
should be mindful, however, that many of the OIG and GAO's
unimplemented recommendations span multiple administrations
and, therefore, represent longstanding challenges for the
Agency. For example, we have learned the EPA has failed to
complete an Agency-wide workload analysis in more than 20
years.
Similarly, both OIG and GAO have consistently identified
issues that generate serious concerns as to whether EPA has
knowledge of, or adequately monitors, the activities of its
contractors and grant recipients, despite the significant
portion of the Agency's annual budget that is awarded to third
parties. Addressing these issues will increase transparency and
accountability to EPA in addition to enabling the Agency to
make better-informed budgetary decisions. I believe that all
Americans want a healthy environment for themselves, their
families, and their communities.
And I would like to thank Alan Larsen from the EPA OIG and
Alfredo Gomez from the GAO for joining us today to provide
testimony and to expand upon their organizations' findings and
recommendations.
I would also like to recognize and thank Mr. Gomez's
nephews, who I understand are serving the Houston Fire
Department. Thank you for their work as first responders who
bravely have assisted so many of their fellow citizens during
Hurricane Harvey.
I am looking forward to productive discussion this morning
regarding actions EPA can take which will enable the Agency to
better accomplish its core mission of protecting human health
and the environment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
As Chairman Murphy referenced in his opening remarks,
today's hearing comes at a particularly important time as we
have all witnessed the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey.
Indeed, members of this committee, on both sides of the aisle,
represent districts that were directly impacted by the
hurricane and our hearts go out to all those who were affected
by this disaster.
We know that the recovery efforts are just beginning and
will continue for years to come. Recovering from any disaster,
whether its Hurricanes Harvey or Irma or the destructive
wildfires burning out of control all across the West, requires
coordination at every level of Government, and one of the
Federal agencies that will play a key role in the overall
recovery effort is the Environmental Protection Agency.
The challenges facing the EPA that pertain to Harvey are
significant, but I hope that the Agency seizes upon the lessons
it learned in its responses to previous natural disasters, such
as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Today's hearing represents the
first opportunity to hear from EPA's Office of Inspector
General and the Government Accountability Office regarding any
outstanding recommendations that, if implemented, could enable
the Agency to better achieve do its job better.
We will also examine some of the areas of concern that have
been identified and commented upon by the OIG and GAO, but
whose recommendations remain unimplemented by EPA. We should be
mindful, however, that many of OIG's and GAO's unimplemented
recommendations span multiple administrations and therefore
represent longstanding challenges for the Agency. For example,
we have learned that EPA has failed to complete an Agency-wide
workload analysis in more than 20 years.
Similarly, both OIG and GAO have consistently identified
issues that generate serious concerns as to whether EPA has
knowledge of, or adequately monitors, the activities of its
contractors and grant recipients despite the significant
portion of the Agency's annual budget that is awarded to third
parties. Addressing these issues will increase transparency and
accountability at EPA in addition to enabling the Agency to
make better informed budgetary decisions.
I believe that all Americans want a healthy environment for
themselves, their families, and their communities. I would like
to thank Alan Larsen from the EPA OIG and Alfredo Gomez from
the GAO for joining us today to provide testimony and expand
upon their organizations' findings and recommendations. I would
also like to recognize and thank Mr. Gomez's nephews who are
serving in the Houston Fire Department, as well as all first
responders who bravely assisted so many of their fellow
citizens during Hurricane Harvey.
I am looking forward to a productive discussion this
morning regarding actions EPA can take which will enable the
Agency to better accomplish its core mission of protecting
human health and the environment.
Mr. Walden. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Murphy. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding back, and
I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has been a week and a half since Hurricane Harvey hit
Texas, and as the scope of the environmental disaster only
begins to become known, thousands remain displaced, their homes
and businesses flooded. And I know firsthand the immense
devastation caused by such natural disasters. In 2012, my
district was hit hard by Hurricane Sandy, and I had never seen
worse storm damage in our area in my lifetime. For many, this
storm was the worst-case scenario, lives lots, homes flooded,
businesses lost. Our Nation is now experiencing historic levels
of destruction and loss on the Gulf Coast in the wake of
Hurricane Harvey.
Our fellow Members of Congress, including five members of
the Texas delegation on this committee, are working hard with
Federal, State, and local officials, and first responders to
help those affected by the storm. And as the cleanup continues,
many grave environmental and human health risks exist. In the
days since Hurricane Harvey came to shore we have seen chemical
plants on fire, fuel tanks leaking, mass releases of toxic
pollutants into the air, and flooded Federal Superfund sites. I
am deeply concerned of the potential risk to human health and
the environment caused by exposure to the hazardous materials
kept at these sites, and this committee must work to understand
the impact some of these facilities may have on public health.
The Trump administration recently delayed amendments to the
Risk Management Program which included safety requirements for
companies that store large quantities of dangerous chemicals.
Moreover, the environmental issues resulting from the hurricane
also underscore the need for robust implementation of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or EPCRA.
Communities have the right to know important details about the
type and amount of harmful chemicals released in their
neighborhoods. All of these risks underscore the need for a
strong and capable EPA.
Today we are discussing recommendations by the EPA
Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office
regarding the EPA, and I want to thank our witnesses for their
testimony and work on these recommendations. However, I would
argue that recommendations for improving EPA's performance are
part of a much wider need to ensure that the Agency is high-
performing, efficient, and effective in accomplishing the
Agency's mission of protecting human health and the
environment. Over the last six months EPA has been doing
everything possible to operate in secrecy. Administrator Pruitt
has no interest in transparency, and that should be
unacceptable to every member of this committee. Administrator
Pruitt repeatedly disregards oversight inquiries from the
Democrats on this committee, and that should be unacceptable to
anyone who believes we have an oversight responsibility.
And the Trump EPA has proposed aggressive cuts to
environment and human health protections, dismissed scientists
from important advisory boards, and proposed severe budget and
staffing reductions at EPA. These actions taken in totality
serve to directly undermine the Agency's ability to effectively
protect human health and the environment.
A robust and effective EPA is key in responding to natural
disasters like Hurricane Harvey, and EPA currently has 143
personnel supporting the response efforts for Hurricane Harvey
and has established a unified command with State and local
partners, but that number is going to increase dramatically in
the coming weeks. At its peak after Hurricane Katrina, about
1600 EPA staff and contractors worked in the Gulf Coast region
assisting with response and cleanup activities, in addition to
thousands of additional EPA employees supporting response
efforts from EPA headquarters and regional offices around the
country. With the employee cuts and buyouts that the
administration has proposed, we need to ensure that EPA will
actually have the employees in place to conduct this critical
work.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you to make sure we
have a robust and effective EPA. The committee must conduct
active oversight of the Agency, particularly drinking water,
infrastructure, and regulation, clean air protections, and the
impacts of climate change. We must also conduct ongoing
oversight over EPA and other agencies' efforts to assist the
Gulf Coast rebuild.
And the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to weaken
environmental health protections, attack fundamental science,
and also to propose extreme budget and staff reductions will do
nothing, in my opinion, but undermine EPA's efforts to protect
human health and the environment not only with regard to
Hurricane Harvey, but in so many other areas. So, I am
concerned and I hope that we can work together.
And again, thanks to everyone.
I yield back.
Looking forward to your comments to the panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, it's been a week and a half since Hurricane
Harvey hit Texas. As the scope of the environmental disaster
only begins to become known, thousands remain displaced, their
homes and businesses flooded.
I know firsthand of the immense devastation caused by such
natural disasters. In 2012, my district was hit hard by
Hurricane Sandy. I had never seen worse storm damage in our
area in my lifetime. For many, the storm was a worst case
scenario: lives lost, homes flooded, and businesses lost. Our
Nation is now experiencing historic levels of destruction and
loss on the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
Our fellow members of Congress, including five members of
the Texas delegation on this committee, are working hard with
Federal, State, and local officials and first responders to
help those affected by the storm. As the cleanup continues,
many grave environmental and human health risks exist.
In the days since Hurricane Harvey came ashore, we have
seen chemical plants on fire, fuel tanks leaking, mass releases
of toxic pollutants into the air, and flooded Federal Superfund
sites.
I am deeply concerned of the potential risks to human
health and the environment caused by exposure to the hazardous
materials kept at these sites. This committee must work to
understand the impacts some of these facilities may have on
public health. The Trump administration recently delayed
amendments to the Risk Management Program, which included
safety requirements for companies to store large quantities of
dangerous chemicals. Moreover, the environmental issues
resulting from the hurricane also underscore the need for
robust implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act (EPCRA). Communities have a right to know
important details about the type and amount of harmful
chemicals released in their neighborhoods.
All of these risks underscore the need for a strong and
capable Environmental Protection Agency.
Today we are discussing recommendations by the EPA
Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) regarding the EPA. I want to thank our witnesses for
their testimony and work on these recommendations.
However, I would argue that recommendations for improving
EPA's performance are part of a much wider need to ensure that
the Agency is high-performing, efficient, and effective in
accomplishing the Agency's mission of protecting human health
and the environment.
Over the last six months, EPA has been doing everything
possible to operate in secrecy. Administrator Pruitt has no
interest in transparency--and that should be unacceptable to
every member of this committee. Administrator Pruitt repeatedly
disregards oversight inquiries from the Democrats on this
committee--and that should be unacceptable to anyone who
believes we have an oversight responsibility.
The Trump EPA has proposed aggressive cuts to environment
and human health protections, dismissed scientists from
important advisory boards, and proposed severe budget and
staffing reductions at EPA.
These actions, taken in totality, serve to directly
undermine the Agency's ability to effectively protect human
health and the environment. A robust and effective EPA is key
in responding to natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey. EPA
currently has 143 personnel supporting the response efforts for
Hurricane Harvey and has established a Unified Command with
State and local partners. That number is going to increase
dramatically in the coming weeks. At its peak, after Hurricane
Katrina, about 1,600 EPA staff and contractors worked in the
Gulf Coast region assisting with response and cleanup
activities, in addition to thousands of additional EPA
employees supporting response efforts from EPA headquarters and
regional offices around the country. With the employee cuts and
buyouts that the Administrator has proposed, we need to ensure
that EPA will actually have the employees in place to conduct
this critical work.
Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you to make sure we have
a robust and effective EPA. The committee must conduct active
oversight of the Agency, particularly drinking water
infrastructure and regulation, clean air protections, and the
impacts of climate change. We must also conduct ongoing
oversight over EPA and other Agencies' efforts to assist the
Gulf coast rebuild.
The Trump administration's ongoing efforts to weaken
environmental health protections, attack fundamental science,
and propose extreme budget and staff reductions will do nothing
but undermine EPA's efforts to protect human health and the
environment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I ask unanimous consent that the Members' written opening
statements be introduced into the record and, without
objection, the documents will be entered into the record.
I would now like to introduce our panel of Federal
witnesses for today's hearing. First, we have Mr. Alan Larsen.
He is the Counsel to the Inspector General for the
Environmental Protection Agency. We also have Mr. Alfredo
Gomez, who serves as the Director of Natural Resources and
Environment for the Government Accountability Office.
And we thank you for being here today and providing
testimony. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss open
and unimplemented recommendations made to the EPA.
You are aware the committee is holding an investigative
hearing and, when doing so, has the practice of taking
testimony under oath. Do you have any objections to taking
testimony under oath?
Seeing none, then, the Chair advises you under the rules of
the House and rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
advised by counsel. Do either of you desire to be advised by
counsel during the testimony today?
Neither one has asked for that. So, in that case, will you
please rise and raise your right hand, and I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Well, you have answered in the affirmative, and you are now
under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in Title 18,
Section 1001, of the United States Code.
I will ask that each of you give a 5-minute summary of your
written statement. We will being with you, Mr. Larsen.
STATEMENT OF ALAN S. LARSEN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND J. ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR
OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
STATEMENT OF ALAN S. LARSEN
Mr. Larsen. Good morning, Chairman Murphy, Representative
Castor, and members of the subcommittee. I am Alan Larsen,
counsel to the Inspector General for both the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board.
I thank this committee for highlighting the importance of
acting on unimplemented OIG recommendations. As you know, an
Office of Inspector General cannot direct an Agency's actions.
Our influence is through our recommendations, which can result
in substantial cost savings and major improvements in Agency
programs, but only if an Agency chooses to implement them.
Our OIG undertakes a risk-based work planning process to
determine which issues we will review during the coming year.
Our plan, however, is always subject to change, as we
inevitably receive hotline requests and congressional requests.
We conduct those reviews and issue final reports, which
generally will include one or more recommendations to address
our findings.
As required by the Inspector General Act, the EPA OIG
publishes a cumulative list of unimplemented recommendations in
our semiannual reports to Congress. Our most recent report
cited 43 open recommendations with past due completion dates
and 56 with future dates. Notably, potential cost savings for
the unimplemented recommendations listed amount to over $100
million.
Now I will briefly discuss some of the OIG's
recommendations to the EPA that remain unimplemented. You will
see that some are quite recent. I highlight them because of
their potential impact.
In July 2017, we completed a review of the processes the
EPA uses to verify that Agency contractors have the training
needed to protect the Agency from cyberattacks. We found that
the EPA is unaware of the number of contractors who require
specialized training. The OIG recommended that the EPA
implement a process to maintain a listing of contractors who
require the specialized training and that the Agency report
this information to its Chief Information Security Officer.
While the Agency has committed to implement a process for
verifying that Agency contractors are appropriately trained,
our recommendation remains unimplemented, posing a continuing
risk to the Agency's information, data, and network.
Through another audit completed in August of 2014, we
looked at the Agency's oversight of cloud computing
initiatives. We found that the EPA's lack of oversight over
vendors resulted in missed opportunities for significant
savings. The EPA paid over $2 million for services that were
not fully rendered or did not comply with Federal requirements.
We recommended several corrective actions to the Agency, such
as improving its policies and performing documented cost-
benefit analyses. To date, the Agency has not fully implemented
all of our recommendations.
In April of 2017, we completed a review of Puerto Rico's
State revolving funds based on a hotline complaint from the
EPA. The EPA reported that the Puerto Rico Government
Development Bank did not have funds to honor a combined balance
of approximately $188 million. The OIG determined that over
$774 million is at risk due to Puerto Rico's financial crisis
and that the restoration of funds in the near future is highly
unlikely. The OIG recommended that the EPA evaluate options to
restore the viability of the revolving funds or implement new
strategies better suited to the needs of Puerto Rico. While the
Agency has committed to considering future approaches to grant
funding, the OIG's recommendation is as yet unimplemented.
These are just a few of the examples of OIG's
recommendations to the Agency. We will continue to work
actively with the EPA and keep Congress fully advised regarding
actions to address our recommendations.
Accomplishing our work requires sufficient appropriated
funds from Congress. Our funding clearly represents a fruitful
investment for the American taxpayer, as the OIG returned $22
for every $1 given to us in fiscal year 2016. While I'm aware
that this is not an appropriations committee, I respectfully
ask for any help you can provide us in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I'm
happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Gomez, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF J. ALFREDO GOMEZ
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Chairman Murphy, Congresswoman Castor, and members of the
subcommittee, good morning, and I'm pleased to be here today to
talk to you about the status of recommendations GAO has made to
the Environmental Protection Agency.
As you know, the mission of the EPA is to protect human
health and the environment. We have conducted reviews focused
on various aspects of EPA's operations, such as managing grants
and workforce planning, and its programs. And through these
reviews, we have made numerous recommendations to improve EPA's
performance and the efficiency and effectiveness of its
operations and programs.
My statement today will focus on two main areas. First, the
status of EPA's implementation of GAO's recommendations since
fiscal year 2007 and how these recommendations relate to EPA's
operations and programs. And, two, examples of benefits
realized by EPA and others based on our work.
As part of our process, we follow up on recommendations we
have made and report on their status to Congress. Agencies also
have a responsibility to monitor and maintain accurate records
on the status of our recommendations. We now follow up with EPA
twice a year to determine the extent to which our
recommendations have been implemented and the benefits that
have been realized. We consider a recommendation implemented
when the Agency has taken actions to address the issue or
deficiency that we have identified.
With regard to the first area on the status of GAO's
recommendations, we have found that, of the 318 recommendations
we made to EPA, they had implemented 191. The remaining 127
recommendations remain open or not implemented.
And just to give you some more information, for
recommendations that we made over 4 years ago, that is,
recommendations from fiscal year 2007 to 2012, EPA has
implemented 77 percent. For recommendations we made within the
last 4 years, that is, since fiscal year 2013, the EPA has
implemented 34 percent.
Experience has shown that it takes time for some
recommendations to be implemented. For this reason, we actively
track each unaddressed or open recommendation for 4 years. The
318 recommendations we have made fall into six broad
categories, such as management and operations, water-related
issues, and environmental contamination and cleanup.
For example, in January 2017, we reported on EPA's
management of grants to States, local governments, and others
which make up almost 50 percent of the Agency's budget. We
found that EPA does not have sufficient information about the
workload associated with these grants. Consequently, the Agency
is not able to effectively and efficiently allocate staff
across its offices and regions to manage these grants.
Because the Agency did not know its grants workload, it
sometimes had to shift staff from other mission areas to
address the work. We recommended that EPA collect and analyze
data about grants management workloads and use these data to
inform staff allocations. EPA agreed with this recommendation
and has initiated steps to address it, and we will continue to
monitor EPA's actions to figure out what the status of the recs
are.
We have also identified many benefits such as programmatic
and process improvements based on EPA taking actions on our
recommendations. For example, we issued several reports on
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure issues. In
particular, we reported on drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of rural and small communities. We found
that some communities faced potentially duplicative application
requirements such as separate environmental analyses for each
program that they applied for, resulting in delays and
increased cost to communities. We recommended that EPA and the
Department of Agriculture work together with State and other
officials to develop guidelines to assist States in developing
uniform environmental analyses, and they have done so.
In summary, our recommendations provide a good opportunity
to improve the Government's fiscal position, better serve the
public, and make Government programs more effective and
efficient. The EPA's implementation of our recommendations will
help the Agency continue to improve its performance and the
efficiency and effectiveness of its operations, and we will
continue to work with Congress to monitor and draw attention to
these important issues.
Chairman Murphy, Congresswoman Castor, members of the
subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
And I also just wanted to add a thank you for your words of
support to my family in Texas and my nephews, but also all the
other families in Texas. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Larsen and Mr. Gomez.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes here for questions.
First of all, your organizations have consistently
highlighted EPA's failures to perform adequate workforce and
workload analysis as being an area of concern warranting some
corrective action by the Agency, which has not occurred. So,
Mr. Gomez, I will start with you. Could you explain how EPA's
failure to assess its workforce and workload, grants, whatever,
hinders its ability to respond in natural disasters like
Hurricane Harvey and Irma?
Mr. Gomez. So, what we've talked about in our work looking
at workforce planning and grants management is that it's really
important for the Agency, as you said, to have good information
on workload. So, data on workload is important because the
Agency doesn't really ensure that it has the right people in
the right places with the right skills and competencies to
accomplish the mission of the Agency, whether that is to focus
on areas that are short term or long term. We want to make sure
that the Agency has that information. It is something that the
Agency has struggled with for decades. So, we continue to make
those recommendations. I know the IG has made recommendations
in the past. So, we think that's really important, again, to
ensure that it has the right people in the right places with
the right skill sets in the right locations.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Larsen, could you comment on that, how it
affects our ability to respond to these hurricanes?
Mr. Larsen. The IG's work I think is directly aligned with
the GAO's work in this area. We've issued reports with
recommendations. As of July of this year, the Agency has
responded to and acted on the last of the open recommendations.
However, for the last several years, including the current
management challenges report that we gave to the Agency, we
continue to highlight workforce planning as a challenge that
the Agency needs to address.
I guess the simple answer to your question, Mr. Chairman,
is that if the Agency doesn't know what its work requirements
are, it cannot assign and align people to those requirements.
And we are urging them to, as Mr. Gomez says, identify the data
that allows them to make those comparisons and align their work
with their workforce.
Mr. Murphy. And will you oftentimes find weaknesses when it
is a time of challenge, which we are facing now? Now every year
since 2015 the GAO has sent a letter to the EPA highlighting
high-priority recommendations, and GAO considers these
recommendations to be critical to EPA's mission of protecting
human health and the environment.
So, Mr. Gomez, as EPA responds to Hurricane Harvey, as it
prepares to respond to Hurricane Irma, are there any high-
priority recommendations that, if implemented, could have
impacted EPA's response to the hurricane? I mean, what are
their high priorities right now that need to be done?
Mr. Gomez. So, this high-priority letter that we've sent to
EPA, we've done that since 2015. And what we've done is really
look at the recommendations that GAO has made and identify
those areas that we saw as high priority, either areas that GAO
has identified as high risk--we have a number of
recommendations that are focusing on water infrastructure.
So, I think one of the priority recommendations that we
think does have relevance to Harvey and other future disasters
is the area of water infrastructure. So, for example, we've
done work looking at how small and rural utilities use asset
management, which is a really important tool to understand what
infrastructure these utilities have, perhaps where the areas
are in that infrastructure that are vulnerable or at high risk.
So that, when a disaster does take place, they're better
prepared, both to respond to it, but also, if they have to
rebuild, they can rebuild with resilience in mind.
So, we've made a number of recommendations to EPA, getting
EPA to work with the Department of Agriculture to come up with
better guidelines and information and to encourage the States
and the utilities to use asset management. Small utilities are
challenged because they don't have the technical expertise
necessarily. But we should do whatever we can in the Federal
family and others to help these communities better prepare for
these disasters.
Mr. Murphy. Finally, in June of 2007, GAO released a report
on Hurricane Katrina that made several recommendations related
to enhancing disaster response. One of these recommendations is
still open after 10 years. Mr. Gomez, why is that
recommendation still open? What was it, and is going to affect
how things are in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and Puerto Rico?
Mr. Gomez. Sure. So, what we did in that report from 2007
is we were looking at EPA's response to Katrina and, also, to
the subsequent cleanup. One of the recommendations that we kept
open over the years was we had recommended that EPA work with
other Federal land management agencies, DHS, and FEMA to better
coordinate responses to cleanup. And the reason we did that is
because we found in the work that National Wildlife Refuges,
which there are several in Louisiana, had been contaminated and
the contamination lasted over a year. And so, there was not
really good planning to come together and clean up that
contamination. Some of the refuges were closed for over a year.
So now, what's happened since then is Congress passed the
Post-Katrina Act which put in place better national
preparedness and, also, put in place the National Response
Framework, of which EPA has a key role now in responding to
hazardous waste and oil spills. So, in theory, we expect that
EPA is putting in place, for example, in Florida any response
that's needed as the hurricane may come to that region. So,
we're going to look at that recommendation based on what's
happened now and potentially close it because we think it might
address what we had been talking about.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
And I see my time has expired. Ms. Castor, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks again, gentlemen.
As the Agency goes forward to implement what has not been
implemented to date, it would seem that the Trump
administration's kind of assault on the professional staff
there and personnel would have a real impact on the ability to
follow through with your recommendations. The Trump
administration has still failed to provide nominees for almost
all Senate-confirmed leadership positions at EPA. Most Regional
Administrator positions are also without political leadership,
including EPA Region 6 in Dallas responding to Hurricane
Harvey.
The Trump administration, a lot of this, we blame a lot on
the Senate, but you can't put too much blame on the Senate here
because the Trump administration has not nominated people for
Deputy Administrator, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Air and Radiation, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the Chief Financial
Officer, the Assistant Administrator for Environmental
Information, International and Tribal Affairs, Land and
Emergency Management, Research and Development, and Water.
Do you all agree that when you don't have folks in charge
that it complicates the ability of the Agency to follow through
with your recommendations?
Mr. Larsen. Well, the short answer is yes. The longer
answer is we have career people who remain in place who do
carry out the work of the Agency. But, as you indicate, the
statutory mandates remain in place, and it's up to the Agency
to figure out a way to carry out those mandates. And it is more
difficult if you don't have the leadership.
Ms. Castor. Yes?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, I would agree that it's important to have
all the staff that you need at all levels of the Agency to
carry out its mission.
Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Gomez, you said that GAO meets with
folks at EPA every six months. Have you met with Administrator
Pruitt? Is it typical that you would meet with the
Administrator or leadership to go over recommendations from
GAO?
Mr. Gomez. So, what our Comptroller General likes to do is
he likes to meet with all of the new Cabinet Secretaries and
leaders of other offices. So, GAO is in the process of
scheduling a meeting with Administrator Pruitt, and I would go
to that meeting as well with----
Ms. Castor. But that has not been done here in the first
nine-month----
Mr. Gomez. We have not scheduled it, yes.
Ms. Castor. You are just like the Energy and Commerce
Committee that has yet to see the EPA Administrator.
Gentlemen, there is a very disturbing press report that
came out just a few days ago that the EPA has taken the unusual
step of putting a political operative in charge of vetting
hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that the EPA
distributes annually, assigning the funding decisions to a
former Trump campaign aide with little environmental policy
experience, who has already canceled close to $2 million in
competitively awarded grants to university and nonprofit
organizations. It really does appear like this is being
politicized.
It says--this is from The Washington Post on September
4th--``Earlier this summer, on the same day that Senator Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska joined with two other Republicans in voting
down a GOP healthcare bill, EPA staffers were instructed,
without any explanation, to halt all grants to the regional
office that covers Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Ohio. That
hole was quickly narrowed to just Alaska and remained in place
for nearly two weeks.''
The former Bush EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman,
said, ``This is out of the ordinary. We didn't do a political
screening on every grant because many of them were based on
science, and political appointees don't have that kind of
background.''
Have you all opened any kind of investigation into what is
happening here yet?
Mr. Larsen. We've read those reports. We've not received
complaints from Congress so far or from members of the public
or from organizations about this.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Mr. Larsen. If you could or if you would, I'd offer a
general and a specific answer to your question.
Ms. Castor. Quickly, because I have one more question.
Mr. Larsen. OK. The general answer is EPA has always been a
lightning rod. We get complaints, on the one hand, that EPA is
ignoring its statutory obligations and allowing----
Ms. Castor. Let me ask--I thank you for that. You have, I
believe, opened an investigation last week into Administrator
Pruitt's travel because it is so out of the ordinary. It says,
``Officials in the EPA's Office of Inspector General notified
Agency leadership last week that Pruitt was in Oklahoma, or en
route there, for nearly half of his first three months in
office.'' Maybe that is why GAO can't get a meeting and he
can't appear before the Energy and Commerce Committee. But the
problem is that it looks like he has been using taxpayer funds
for this excessive travel.
How long will it take for the OIG to get to the bottom of
this investigation?
Mr. Larsen. Ma'am, in our world we distinguish between
investigations and audits, and it's probably a distinction most
people don't care about. But we are doing an audit. They tend
to take longer. We're going to look not only at the specifics
of Mr. Pruitt's travel, but the robustness of the controls that
govern travel generally and whether they're sufficient.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Let me follow up on that real quick. And
correct me if I am wrong, but an investigation means you are
looking into something that might have wrongdoing, and an audit
means you are checking into the money to see whether or not we
need to put different parameters around it? Would that be a
fair assessment or something along those lines?
Mr. Larsen. That, generally, yes. Investigations tend to
look at criminality. They can look at administrative
violations. This is not either of those.
Mr. Griffith. This is just an audit to see what we can do
better?
Mr. Larsen. Well, it's also going to look at whether there
were violations of Agency requirements.
Mr. Griffith. OK. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Let me get down to where I was going to go initially, and
that would be that I am concerned about the workforce and the
workload questions. EPA's Office of Inspector General--that
would be you all--reported, ``EPA has not conducted workload
analysis in over 20 years, making it difficult for EPA to
implement corrective actions and allocate its budget
effectively.''
And I guess what I am looking at there is that we have
heard talk today about a few months where certain positions
aren't filled, but here we are looking at 20 years, both
Republican and Democrat administrations that have not at the
EPA gone in and looked at their workload analysis. And then, we
see with Hurricane Harvey that we had 13 Superfund sites that
were affected. Am I not correct that, if we had performed a
workload analysis over time, I am not saying all 13 of them
would have been cleaned up, but that we might have more of
these Superfunds being cleaned up?
And I also referenced, because we are talking about Harvey
so much now, but I remember testimony in a previous hearing in
a different subcommittee where they were talking about a site
in St. Louis that hadn't been acted on--or in the St. Louis
vicinity that had not been acted on--in decades as well that
was a Superfund site.
So, can you help me out? Of those things that would have
helped both before a disaster and just in general, if we had a
workload analysis, so we could say these were the worst ones,
let's put most of our people there? And I am happy to take
answers from either of you.
Mr. Larsen. Sure. I'll give my short answer, and, then, Mr.
Gomez can respond. My short answer is it's difficult to draw a
direct line between the lack of a workforce plan and a specific
failure to be able to cover something. I think we can all say,
if you knew more precisely where your requirements are and how
many people, and what kinds of people you need to address
those, you would probably have a better result. But I can't
draw a direct one-to-one correlation.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. And I'll just pivot from that last comment. And
I think that our point on our work on workforce planning has
been exactly that point, is to understand, again, from data
where your people are, what skill sets you need, the locations
you need them in. So that you have a better sense of how to
meet that mission. And that mission could be that you focus on
cleaning up hazardous waste sites. But doing a workforce
analysis I think would help you, hopefully, do that better.
Mr. Griffith. Well, and a workforce analysis would help us,
as legislators, as well. Although this is not an appropriating
committee, we hear all the time that folks need more money.
Well, if I know that you need more money because you are going
to help rural communities--and I appreciated, as you mentioned,
rural communities with water and wastewater--help those
communities instead of just send edicts down from the alabaster
towers in Washington, ``Here's what you've got to do,'' without
helping those folks figure out how they are going to do with
the money that they have. That creates big problems.
If you had a workload analysis, we might be able to figure
out where we could appropriate the money more advantageously to
prevent problems before they happen, whether it be after a
hurricane or when you have got a serious problem like we had in
Flint, Michigan, or issues in my very rural, mountainous
district where there are problems we don't know how to solve
and we are afraid to ask, for fear that, instead of coming in
to help us, they will just come in and try to punish folks who
are trying to do the best they can under limited circumstances
in a rural areas. So, I do appreciate that as well.
So, thank you, and thank you for putting that in both your
oral and your written testimony.
Mr. Larsen. Sir, I have one more comment----
Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir?
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. That's responsive to your
question. That is, our OIG Office of Program Evaluations,
similar to audits, has a current project underway looking at
Superfund workforce planning. And we'll keep you and your staff
informed on the progress of that effort.
Mr. Griffith. Well, I greatly appreciate that very much.
You know, we are just beginning the Hurricane Harvey
efforts, and that will continue for years, and the
environmental impacts that are already occurring and yet to be
seen. And we talked about the Superfund sites there. Is there
anything that you see that is not being done by the EPA
currently--and I know it is really early--in the Hurricane
Harvey area that we ought to be concerned about?
Mr. Larsen. Again, I'll give my answer. It's always a
dilemma for us. As Chairman Walden said, you don't want to wade
into the middle of the cleanup effort. On the other hand, you
don't want to wait so long that your efforts are valueless. So,
we're always trying to figure out when it is that we get into
it.
I guess what I fall back on is the National Response
Framework that Mr. Gomez alluded to, and it does give certain
responsibilities to the EPA. We cannot mandate that EPA take
any specific steps. After the fact, I think we would evaluate
whether they took the appropriate steps under the Framework.
But I don't see a role for the OIG jumping in right now in the
middle of a cleanup effort.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. And unfortunately, my time is up,
and I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to remind my colleagues, I heard my colleague
from Virginia talk about Superfund or Superfund cleanup in
action. I mean, in reality, there is no Superfund. I have had a
bill for years to try to get the Superfund, the trust fund, if
you will. There is a Superfund Program, but there is,
essentially, no Superfund trust fund anymore to pay for
anything.
And that, you know, back when the Republicans first took
the Congress--I know it is ancient history now--with Newt
Gingrich as the Speaker, it expired. And I begged him and
Democrats begged him at the time to renew, and he refused.
I still have the bill out there, and I would ask at anytime
if our chairman or the Speaker would allow us to reauthorize
the Superfund trust fund, because, then, we would have the
money to do these cleanups. On an annual basis, I go before the
appropriators, because that is the only way to get the money
now, through general revenue, unfortunately, and ask for more
funding. And we always get less, significantly less, than what
we ask for.
So, it is nice to talk about Superfund cleanup, but the
reality is it was essentially stopped by the Republican
Congress, but not to say that they are totally to blame, but
they certainly were the ones. And you could bring it up anytime
and I will support you, passing it in committee or on the
floor.
I just wanted to say, I wanted to thank the EPA OIG for
recently accepting the committee's request to review the
propriety of Administrator Pruitt's use of taxpayer funds for
travel to and from his home State of Oklahoma. I know that we
have already mentioned that.
But, unfortunately, the Trump administration has launched a
continuous assault against fundamental science and proposed
significant cuts to EPA's budget and staff that threaten to
undermine the Agency's ongoing efforts to protect human health
and the environment.
Mr. Gomez, in your testimony you state that GAO has made
318 recommendations to EPA since fiscal year 2007, including 49
recommendations focused on environmental contamination and
cleanup. And these include taking actions for improving cleanup
management of hazardous waste sites, enhancing responses to
disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. My question is, is that
correct, and how might GAO's recommendations regarding
enhancing EPA's response to disasters inform the Agency's
ongoing response to Hurricane Harvey?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, that is correct. And again, I think, as I
mentioned earlier, one of the areas where we see EPA's
recommendations contributing to the response to Harvey and
other future disasters is in the area of water infrastructure,
where we have recommended that EPA work with States and others
to really assist the small communities.
We have all heard that in Texas there were many water
systems that were under boiled water notices and, then, over 50
systems, I believe, were actually shut down. So, we think that
it's really important in the area of asset management, which is
a really important tool for these utilities to use, to
understand, again, what they have, what are the areas that are
vulnerable, so they can address them and they can use funds to,
then, build them or restore them, and, again, building in
resilience, so that they're better prepared. So, I think that's
the one area where I would sort of call attention, based on our
recommendations, where there's some immediate benefit.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
I don't want to keep repeating all the budget cuts that the
Trump administration has proposed to the EPA, buyouts, all
kinds of things that would result in fewer employees. And that
could include hundreds of positions in EPA's Region 6
headquarters in Dallas, where employees are currently
responding to Hurricane Harvey.
So, let me ask you about these proposed cuts to your
office, to Mr. Larsen. How are current and expected budget
limitations impacting staffing levels and the ability of EPA's
Office of Inspector General? Specifically, how are they
impacting your ability to conduct audits, evaluations, and
investigations, if you will.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you for that question. It's a serious
challenge to us. We have had to cut our workforce year by year
by year, and we are down from 360 or so, down to 270, and we
anticipate having to go fewer than that, based on the most
likely budget scenarios.
If the original President's budget proposal were to be
adopted by Congress, we'd have to cut very substantially the
amount of work we did. As you know, we gave you a fairly
detailed explanation of where those cuts would occur, which
offices, which kinds of projects.
What we do is, on an annual basis, plan for the work that
we would hope to do based on how much value the project would
bring in terms of cost savings or changes in how EPA does
business. We will have to do many fewer such projects in any
given year, based on the likely budget outcomes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Collins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Maybe I am going to go down a little bit different road,
but really talking about, Mr. Gomez, if I look back over 10
years, and I am looking right now just in the environmental
area. I am looking at the suggestions you made for spill
prevention, none of which have been implemented.
So, I guess the question is this: you are doing these
audits, making these recommendations. Do you prioritize them in
some way with any kind of ranking system, like one star to five
stars? And when you see something like this, and now 10 years
have gone by, could I assume these would have been considered
perhaps lower priority? And then, at some point do you go
revisit that with someone, and who is that someone, to say,
``Hey, it's been 10 years. You haven't done any of these
things.''? Or are these just thrown into the hopper and, then,
kind of catch as catch can, they work on these; they don't work
on those?
I am trying to just kind of wrap my mind around the day-by-
day, year-by-year interaction between your Agency and those
folks that are supposed to implement it, to make sure high-
priority things are done and, you know, squeaky wheel, that you
are kind of jabbing at them, ``Why didn't you get this done?'',
and so forth. Could you maybe just help us all a little better
understand how that all works, the interaction?
Mr. Gomez. Sure. So, first of all, I just want to say that
we take recommendations to EPA very seriously. And so, what we
do is we have a process in place where we're actively following
recommendations that we've made in the last 4 years.
What can happen to some of the older recommendations is, if
we learn from the Agency that either they're not going to
implement it or that we make an assessment that things have
changed or it's no longer a priority, we'll go ahead and close
it. It's not implemented.
Now there are recommendations, though, that are old, older
than 4 years, that we're still keeping track of because we have
an indication that EPA is still working and we hope that they
actually do take action. We can go back at anytime and open up
any old recommendation that was not implemented if we think
it's important or if others have brought it to our attention.
Our recommendations and the status of the recommendations
are public. So, you can go to any of our reports. You can click
on the recommendation status. You can see what the rec was and
what the status was.
So, we do have this separate letter that we mentioned
earlier, which is a priority rec letter that our Comptroller
General sends to all of the Cabinet agencies and other offices
calling attention to recommendations that we see as a high
priority.
And for EPA, we've identified those recommendations that
deal with the high-risk area of managing toxic chemicals and,
then, some of the recommendations that deal with water
infrastructure and also pollution of our waters.
So, that letter can also change year to year if we go
through the history and identify other recs that we think are
important. So, we do that process as well.
Now I also mentioned that we work with EPA sort of on an
ongoing basis as we are doing audits, but, formally, we go to
them twice a year with a long list of all our recommendations
to say, ``Here they are; they're still open. Let us know what's
happening. Let us know which we can close.'' So, we do that
twice a year formally, but we're in contact with them
throughout the year.
Mr. Collins. That is really helpful because I think
sometimes we may not understand how that all works and think
you just throw it in and go on about your business. And I think
it is actually reassuring to me, certainly for one, that you
have got it sounds like pretty good interaction. Would you say
that?
Mr. Gomez. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Collins. That you are making them aware; they are
listening. It is back and forth?
Mr. Gomez. Right. I mean, there are some recommendations
where the agency will disagree with us. And so, we may be at a
point where they disagree. We disagree. We still think it's a
good recommendation. And so, there's some like that, and those
might be closed as not implemented.
But EPA has taken our recommendations seriously and they
want to close them out. They want to do what we're saying. It's
just in some cases some of our recommendations might take a
little longer to do. For example, if we're recommending that an
IT system, for example, be revised or a new IT system be put in
place, that may take a while longer than if we just recommend
that the Agency use existing web tools, for example, to provide
better information to the public. We don't see that as taking a
long time or it shouldn't take a long time.
Mr. Collins. Well, I appreciate that overview. That was
very helpful for me.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Murphy. I now recognize Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
ranking member, Ms. Castor, and I thank our witnesses for
joining us today.
Like Mr. Pallone, my district in New York sustained very
substantial damage as a result of Superstorm Sandy. So, I am
very sensitive to the conditions on the ground in Houston as
well as concerned about the rest of hurricane season, quite
frankly. And so, standing up a robust operation with the EPA I
know is critical at this time.
There have been a number of reports about unfolding
environmental concerns stemming from Harvey right now. And so,
Mr. Larsen, I recognize that your role at EPA may not directly
involve you in emergency response efforts. However, to the
extent that you are able, could you please inform us of the
EPA's role in responding to unfolding environmental threats?
Mr. Larsen. Sure. As Mr. Gomez alluded to earlier, I think
the primary set of responsibilities that EPA has here stem from
the National Response Framework, which came after some of the
earlier natural disasters. And that means that EPA has
responsibility as a support agency for certain functions, and
it's got a primary responsibility for certain functions. And
the areas where we would expect to see EPA involved are
assessing and addressing fuel shortages, monitoring public
water systems, securing Superfund sites, and assessing
conditions at major industrial facilities.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. And, Mr. Gomez, how will GAO
evaluate the EPA's efforts to respond to the environmental
threats posed by hurricane season, Hurricane Harvey being the
most recent example?
Mr. Gomez. So, GAO in the past, you know, we looked at the
Katrina recovery efforts. So, that was something that we did.
We're happy to assist Congress in any reviews or oversight that
you would like us to do as a result of Hurricane Harvey.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Larsen, addressing the numerous cleanup
issues related to Harvey's flooding will likely be very costly
to both local and the Federal Government. What roles do you
envision your office will be playing to ensure that Federal
money the EPA uses to contract for Harvey cleanup will be
safeguarded from fraud and abuse?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Thank you.
We're going to do two things. One is EPA OIG specific work.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that the organization of
IGs across the Federal Government, the CIGIE, has learned from
the past and in the past had a Disaster Assistance Working
Group which is basically the IGs from the various agencies that
are going to have to play a role here. And so, EPA will be
participating in that effort, this Agency-wide IG or
Government-wide OIG effort to make sure that everybody's doing
what they need to do and not duplicating each other.
For ourselves, we'll probably, as you allude to, be looking
at contracting issues, whether there was fraud involved. That
could take the form of audits or investigations, as we
distinguished earlier. That is, was there criminal activity
going on or was there sloppy practice with regard to
contracting? So, those are the areas that we would see fairly
early on getting involved in.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
And, Mr. Gomez, given that post-Harvey cleanup will be
lengthy and costly, and I am assuming if we are hit with Irma
and any other hurricanes coming down the pike, what areas do
you anticipate your GAO team will be interested in examining?
Mr. Gomez. Well, again, you know, we're here to assist
Congress. So, whatever Congress asks us to do, as we've seen
from at least what's becoming clear in Texas with the Superfund
sites and all the water infrastructure systems that are down,
that maybe those are areas where potentially we could look at.
But, again, we can have discussions with anyone in Congress
who's interested in having GAO look at the response efforts.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. I cannot emphasize enough that we
need to address any environmental threats posed to the
residents of the Harvey-affected region and perhaps even
Florida coming down the pike. My thoughts are with the people
of Houston, the responders assisting on the scene, and let's be
sure to get these folks what they need to help them get back on
their feet.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. The gentlelady yields back, and I now recognize
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Costello, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony here today.
Mr. Gomez, I would like to start with you. Your written
testimony mentions that in 2015 the EPA awarded approximately
$3.9 billion, or nearly half of its budget, in grants to State
and local governments for important projects such as repairing
aging water infrastructure, preventing pollution, improving air
quality, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites. However, GAO
found weaknesses in EPA's ability to manage these grants
efficiently and effectively.
My question is, would you please elaborate on the
weaknesses GAO identified in EPA's grant management procedures?
Second, how have these grant management inefficiencies and
weaknesses impacted grant recipients? I think that is a very
important question. And then, finally, have these
inefficiencies contributed to the wasting of grant money or
made it more difficult for recipients to use grant funding for
its intended purposes?
Mr. Gomez. Sure. Thank you for those questions.
So, we have done a body of work on grants management. And
that particular report, well, we looked at also, we are looking
to see for recipients, for example, where they were doing
duplicative reporting. So, currently, under the grants
management at EPA, recipients, grant recipients, have to
provide performance reports and, then, they also have to
provide more information and data when EPA asks for it.
So, we identified a number of places where there was
duplicative reporting by the recipients. And so, we've
recommended that EPA identify all of those places and try to do
away with the duplication, so that recipients aren't having to
spend additional time and resources in doing the reporting. So,
that's one area where we called attention to it.
And really for EPA also to streamline, and EPA does have a
streamline initiative in place in its grants management. But we
were calling attention to those places where they can do away
with duplication, so that the recipients can carry on with the
grants and not have to do a lot of reporting.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Larsen, the OIG made similar findings
with respect to areas for improvement in EPA's management of
grants. Do you have anything to add to the line of questioning
that I have posed to Mr. Gomez relative to the management of
grants?
Mr. Larsen. I wish I did. As Representative Clarke noted,
I'm an expert in some areas, not so much in others.
Mr. Costello. I often say that myself.
Mr. Larsen. But what I would be happy to do is organize and
get back to you and your staff with the primary findings that
we've had in those areas.
Mr. Costello. Thank you. I will yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Murphy. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Dr. Ruiz of California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for taking the time in joining
us this morning.
We have heard about the EPA's role in the emergency
response programs for natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey
and your coordinating efforts with FEMA, State, local. I am
interested in your efforts to coordinate with tribes. And what
have you done to reach out and engage tribes with your efforts
in Hurricane Harvey?
Mr. Larsen. So far, we've not reached out to anybody. As I
said, at this point we don't want to wander onto the
battlefield while the battle is underway.
The CIGIE--that is the IG community-wide effort that I
alluded to earlier--is, among other things, going to coordinate
among the various IGs and also with the Tribes and the States.
Mr. Ruiz. Well, I think that is important to take back to
this group not to neglect the sovereignty of Tribes and the
role that Tribes have in order to maintain their environment
during natural disasters as well. And so, reaching out to them
and coordinating. Some Tribes actually have equipment and the
technology that can help the disaster response, like we have
seen in my district with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians utilizing helicopters and other surveillance technology
in coordination with the fire departments to put out some
wildfires. So, I would highly recommend that you take it back
and you start coordinating, also, with Tribes as a sovereign
nation and a governmental entity themselves. They can be very,
very helpful for the region.
Given the OIG's review of the EPA's response to
environmental threats, what are some of the lessons learned
that we might see for future storm threats in an area where the
IG might consider additional audit work?
Mr. Larsen. Sure. We've, unfortunately, had Katrina. We've
had Superstorm Sandy. We've learned from both. Among the things
that we learned were that the coordination between EPA and the
Corps of Engineers wasn't necessarily what it could have been
or should have been. Coordination with State and local
officials probably could have been done better.
We've addressed those to the Agency. Presumably, this time
around you'll see better coordination. Most likely, we'll be
coming in and seeing whether, in fact, that occurred.
Mr. Ruiz. Are you, then, prepared to assess that?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Ruiz. And the difference on whether or not those
recommendations were followed?
Mr. Larsen. I can't commit that we're going to; I expect
that we will. To Mr. Pallone's question earlier, we're
resources-constrained, but that would be a high priority for
us.
Mr. Ruiz. So, if you were to pick--and this is a question
for both of you--if you were to pick a No. 1 barrier for you to
do your jobs, is EPA involved either in coordination or
protecting Superfund sites or protecting water infrastructure,
et cetera, so that they're not contaminated, what would that
barrier be? If you were to pick the biggest barrier, what would
it be, Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound dense, but are
you talking about EPA's response or the OIG's evaluation of the
EPA's response?
Mr. Ruiz. Well, the EPA's response.
Mr. Larsen. OK.
Mr. Ruiz. You evaluate the EPA. So, what would you say
would be the EPA's barrier in doing its job in these----
Mr. Larsen. Boy, you're putting me in the position of
speaking for them, but I would think it's the resources, people
and money.
Mr. Ruiz. People and money.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. So, I would say, in the areas that we're seeing
unfolding, right, which is in water infrastructure and in the
Superfund sites, at least in Texas, that are flooded, it is
making sure that they have enough people there on the ground to
respond to those two immediate areas where potentially there
are risks involved. So, I would say that that would be, if that
is a barrier, that they should have enough folks there to
address it right now.
Mr. Ruiz. And so, what can Congress do to address that
barrier? Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Well, in my view, you've already got the
substantive requirements in place. You've got the Clean Air
Act. You've got the Clean Water Act. And it's up to EPA to
execute on that. They need the people, and they need the policy
determination to carry forward.
Mr. Gomez. I think it's what you're doing now. It's the
oversight, right, of looking to see how that's being done, and
even after the fact, how was it done and could something be
done better.
Mr. Ruiz. So, the oversight is the diagnostic workup,
right? And you're telling us that the diagnosis is lack of
funding, lack of people. So, the treatment is the next step.
So, you can't just diagnose a problem and walk away. You have
to act on it and give the treatment to the patient. And so, the
treatment is the funding and policies that will help bring more
people onsite to manage the situation, not only in the short,
acute disaster, but in the long-term public health
recuperation.
I have disaster training in my background. I did a
fellowship at Harvard in the humanitarian disaster response.
So, that is where I am speaking from.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, and I recognize Ms. Brooks for 5
minutes.
Ms. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank our panelists for being here today and
for your work to improve the EPA.
We have been very focused on the people, and agencies
aren't just agencies; they are people. And as my colleagues
have noted, it is about the people. But I am concerned that
this Agency for a long period of time has not accepted your
recommendations when it comes to people and when it comes to
their workforce.
In 2010, GAO issued a report recommending the EPA establish
mechanisms to evaluate workforce planning, which are people,
placement of people, but the recommendation is currently closed
and unimplemented.
So, Mr. Gomez, why was this recommendation closed before
EPA was able to implement it, if you know?
Mr. Gomez. So, again, we track recommendations for 4 years.
And if we have an indication that the Agency is not going to do
it, we close it as not implemented. Obviously, we've done some
recent work that's focused on grants management, but also
looking at workforce issues, in particular, which is a large
part of EPA.
So, EPA has told us that, currently, they are giving
workforce planning a priority. So, we are going to look to see
how much of a priority that is and, in fact, what they're going
to do.
You know, we've been talking about that it's basically
about data. They don't have good workforce data. They don't
have good information on the types of work that each of their
staff is doing across offices and across regions. So, if you
don't have that data, then you, again, don't ensure that you
have the right people in the right places with the right skill
sets to accomplish the mission that's needed.
Ms. Brooks. Those are the management challenges that you
are dealing with them and have dealt with them for years. It
sounds like this is not new. Is that correct?
Mr. Gomez. That is correct.
Ms. Brooks. And do you have any sense what percentage of
EPA's funding goes to private sector contract work versus the
public sector work?
Mr. Gomez. So, in our 2010 report we did look at
contractors, and at the time there were 6,000 contractors at
EPA. And so, I'm not sure exactly what that translates to in
terms of budget, but I think it's a considerable chunk of their
budget.
And so, what we also found in that report was that
contractors were not part of EPA's planning, either, were not
incorporated. And we learned from EPA recently that they're
still not incorporated in their planning, and we think that
that should be something that they should do.
Ms. Brooks. When they employ 6,000 contractors, they're not
taken into consideration in their strategic plans?
Mr. Gomez. Correct.
Ms. Brooks. And have they agreed recently to take all of
those thousands of contractors into account in their plans?
Mr. Gomez. So far, what we've learned is that they haven't
done it yet. So, I'm not sure if they're agreeing or
disagreeing. The explanation they gave us was that OMB didn't
require them in their planning to include contractors. And so,
that's why they didn't do it.
Ms. Brooks. Is it fair to say--and I am going to ask you,
Mr. Larsen--relative to I have also been very concerned about
information security issues. And for the IG, that is what you
focus on as well. And there are a number of contractors, as I
understand, and if some bad actors were wrong, you know,
wrongdoers want to wreak a bit of havoc in systems, they could
certainly do it through information technology. Can you talk
with us about the lack of understanding at EPA relative to
sensitive data, the access to sensitive data, and what you have
found about the information, or lack of information, about the
knowledge of EPA and the access to sensitive data?
Mr. Larsen. Sure. I think what we talk about is risk as
opposed to actual problems that have manifested. That is, we
have not investigated an insider threat where an individual
breached his obligations and created a vulnerability.
What we're talking about is, if we don't address the
vulnerabilities, then the potential is out there. So, that's
what we've been looking at, and we find that the Agency doesn't
know how serious a problem that is and they haven't taken the
steps to mitigate the potential risks that we've identified.
Ms. Brooks. And that was just in your July of 2017 report
that the Agency just issued?
Mr. Larsen. That's correct.
Ms. Brooks. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. The gentlelady yields back.
I recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to express my deepest condolences to our
fellow Americans who are suffering from the devastation of
Hurricane Harvey. Everyone has witnessed this day-by-day
reporting with just deep concern and sadness for the folks who
are enduring.
EPA has, therefore, an important role to play in disaster
response and recovery, ensuring the environmental monitoring
and remediation needed to protect public health. And these
storms, these natural disasters don't know for Republican or
Democrat. So, it ought to be a universally agreed-to approach
that we take here in Washington.
But that can only be done if EPA has the resources and
personnel to do so. This weekend the EPA released statements
highlighting just some of the work they will need to do in the
days, weeks, and months ahead. That includes assessing 13
existing Superfund sites that were flooded and could be
damaged, addressing the many drinking and wastewater systems
that remain shut down or damaged or are dealing with health
advisories, assisting with testing for private wells, and
supporting local first responders with monitoring and cleanup
following chemical fires at the Arkema facility in Crosby,
Texas.
The need for a strong, robust EPA is outstandingly clear,
and massive budget and workforce cuts, and proposals to weaken
understaffed or even eliminate regional offices are not the
answer. Beyond that, I have to believe it is tremendously
demoralizing to the professional staff of the Agency, many of
whom offer their lifetime career to the Agency and to the
betterment of Americans across the country.
So, I want to thank you, Mr. Gomez and Mr. Larsen, for
being here this morning. The recommendations proposed by GAO
and the IG's office can continue to make EPA a more efficient
and successful Agency.
Sadly, this administration, the Trump administration, is
aggressively working to dismantle the EPA through regulatory
rollbacks, extreme budget cuts, and staff eliminations, and
ongoing assault on science. These are foolish cuts, proven to
be very foolish when we see disasters displayed right before
our very eyes.
Mr. Gomez, GAO released a report on EPA, Interior, and
Forest Service workforce planning in March of 2010 which
concluded that the agencies' efforts have, I quote,
``particularly fallen short in aligning the Agency's workforce
plans with their strategic plans.'' The report concludes that
agencies are at risk of not having the appropriately skilled
workforce they need to effectively achieve their missions.
So, are you generally familiar with that report of 2010?
Mr. Gomez. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Gomez, did EPA take action to address that?
Mr. Gomez. They have not yet.
Mr. Tonko. What about further actions? Will they be doing
anything that you know of in respect to workforce planning to
correct the numbers that they require?
Mr. Gomez. No. That's still an outstanding recommendation,
again, to properly align its workforce plan with its strategic
plan and its budget.
Mr. Tonko. And the Trump administration proposed cutting
funding to the Agency by nearly $2.6 billion--that's about a
31-percent reduction--and proposed reducing the workforce by
some 3800 employees. Nearly 50 programs to protect our air and
water, address climate change, and strengthen chemical safety
were highlighted for elimination. Just unbelievable cuts. This
included the Chemical Safety Board, the independent Federal
Agency tasked with investigating chemical accidents such as the
recent fires at the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas.
Mr. Gomez, in your testimony today you note that the March
2010 report found that, I quote, ``The ability of Federal
agencies to achieve their mission and carry out their
responsibilities depends in large part on whether they can
sustain a workforce that possesses the necessary education,
knowledge, skills, and other competencies.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chair.
We should all be concerned about how extreme the budget
cuts proposed are and that the staffing reductions proposed
would undermine EPA's ability to accomplish its mission,
especially in the face of disasters. These are troubling cuts
and proven day by day now with these disasters to be the most
foolish approach to an Agency that was envisioned by President
Nixon to address safe water that we drink, clean air that we
breathe, and all the environmental benefits that should be
associated with our rights as Americans to enjoy that
environment as fully as possible.
So, I do appreciate the work you are doing to draw the
attention of the American public to these cuts and to the
essential elements that these agencies require in order to
respond fully and effectively to their mission.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Murphy. The gentleman yields back.
And seeing we have no more Members here, we will conclude
this hearing.
I would like to thank all the witnesses and Members who
have participated in today's hearing.
I realize a lot of this was along the lines of what else
are we going to be doing. We felt that very important to get it
on the record for EPA to hear. We expect them to take care of
these issues, to fill those positions that are needed, to take
some accounting of what is going on, because we will be asking
more questions about what has happened in terms of preparedness
and response here. None of us want to see any loss of life or
property caused by some problems with an Agency fulfilling
their duties as you have outlined them for us.
So, we thank you for your observations and your comments
today.
I remind Members they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record. I ask that the witnesses all agree to
respond promptly to the questions.
With that, this committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]