Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: Chemicals

    10 publications with a total of 22 open recommendations including 10 priority recommendations
    Director: Chris Currie
    Phone: (404) 679-1875

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that whistleblower retaliation reports are addressed efficiently and effectively, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary of DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD), the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, and the Director of the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) to develop a documented process and procedures to address and investigate whistleblower retaliation reports that could include existing practices, such as the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's recommended practices, in developing the process and procedures.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) officials, in September 2016 they initiated development of a standard operating procedure for addressing and investigating whistleblower retaliation complaints. ISCD expects to complete a final version of the standard operating procedure by June 2017. According to ISCD officials, the procedure will consider OSHA's guidance, once available, when developing this set of procedures. We will update the status of this recommendation after additional information is received from DHS.
    Director: Chris Currie
    Phone: (404) 679-1875

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure the accuracy of the data submitted by chemical facilities, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for NPPD, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Infrastructure Protection, and the Director of ISCD, in the interim, to identify potentially miscategorized facilities with the potential to cause the greatest harm and verify the Distance of Concern these facilities report is accurate.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) officials, as of November 2016 ISCD completed its assessment of all Top-Screens which reported threshold quantities of release-toxic chemicals of interest and identified 158 facilities with the potential to cause the greatest harm. ISCD contacted all 158 facilities and received revised Top-Screens from 101, according to ISCD officials. ISCD halted pursuit of revised Top-Screens from the remaining facilities during summer 2016 in anticipation of the pending release of CSAT 2.0, the Top-Screen application, which both eliminates the Distance of Concern question and will result in all remaining facilities being required to submit a new Top-Screen upon the activation of CSAT 2.0. CSAT 2.0 was activated October 1, 2016, and DHS sent a letter to each of the remaining facilities informing them of their obligation to submit a new top-screen, according to ISCD officials. ISCD is continuing to monitor the resolution of the remaining cases and expects to have assessed updated Top-Screens for all of them within the first or second quarter of 2017. We will update the status of this recommendation after additional information is received from DHS.
    Recommendation: In addition, to better manage compliance among high-risk chemical facilities and demonstrate program results, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for NPPD, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Infrastructure Protection, and the Director of ISCD to develop documented processes and procedures to track noncompliant facilities and ensure they implement planned measures as outlined in their approved site security plans.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) officials, ISCD is nearing finalization of the updated CFATS Inspection Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and has made progress on the new CFATS Enforcement SOP. Once completed, expected in mid-2017, these two documents collectively will formally document the processes and procedures currently being used to track noncompliant facilities and ensure they implement planned measures as outlined in their approved site security plans, according to ISCD officials. We will update the status of this recommendation after additional information is received from DHS.
    Director: Alicia Puente Cackley
    Phone: (202) 512-8678

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, Congress should consider transferring the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation firearms in 15 U.S.C. 5001 from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (within the Department of Commerce) to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. There has been no legislative action identified. The Gun Look-Alike Case Act, H.R. 3224, which was introduced on July 27, 2015, in the 114th Congress, would transfer the authority to regulate the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms in section 5001 of title 15 of the U.S. Code from NIST to CPSC, as GAO suggested in November 2014. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the United States House of Representatives, and did not pass out of committee. As of March 1, 2017, the bill has not been reintroduced in the 115th Congress.
    Recommendation: To improve existing coordination of oversight for consumer product safety, Congress should consider establishing a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap such as communication and coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between agencies. Different types of formal mechanisms could include, for example, creating a memorandum of understanding to formalize relationships and agreements or establishing a task force or interagency work group. As a starting point, Congress may wish to obtain agency input on options for establishing more formal coordination.

    Agency: Congress
    Status: Open

    Comments: This matter is an action identified in GAO's annual Duplication and Cost Savings reports. There has been no legislative action identified. No legislation was introduced as of March 1, 2017, that would establish a collaborative mechanism to facilitate communication across the relevant agencies and to help enable them to collectively address crosscutting issues, as GAO suggested in November 2014. Some of the agencies with direct regulatory oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety reported that they continue to collaborate to address specific consumer product safety topics. However, without a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism, the agencies risk missing opportunities to better leverage resources and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap.
    Director: Brown Barnes, Cindy S
    Phone: (202) 512-9345

    4 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to take steps to identify high risk facilities working with ammonium nitrate and develop options to target them for inspection.

    Agency: Department of Labor
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In 2016, OSHA officials reported that implementation of their planned local emphasis programs focused on safe use and storage of ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia at fertilizer facilities was delayed due to litigation regarding process safety management enforcement in the fertilizer industry. As of July 2017, OSHA officials stated that with the recent conclusion of that litigation, OSHA is considering initiation of local emphasis programs focused on the storage and handling of ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonia at fertilizer facilities. Once initiated, a local emphasis program requires a focused inspection program with facilities chosen at random from the list of facilities in appropriate industry codes. OSHA previously (December 3, 2014) issued guidance to Regional Administrators to assist OSHA officials in enforcing the ammonium nitrate storage requirements in the Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard. We will close this recommendation when the local emphasis programs are initiated.
    Recommendation: To strengthen federal oversight of facilities with ammonium nitrate, the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA should direct OSHA and EPA, respectively, to consider revising their related regulations to cover ammonium nitrate and jointly develop a plan to require high risk facilities with ammonium nitrate to assess the risks and implement safeguards to prevent accidents involving this chemical.

    Agency: Department of Labor
    Status: Open

    Comments: On December 9, 2013, OSHA issued a Request for Information seeking, among other things, comments on potential revisions to its Process Safety Management standard and its Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard. The Request for Information specifically invited comments on safe work practices for storing, handling, and managing ammonium nitrate and on regulatory requirements to improve its approach to preventing the hazards associated with ammonium nitrate. As of July 2017, OSHA reports it has completed a Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Review Act panel to gather feedback from small businesses on updating its Process Safety Management (PSM) regulation. During the panel, the agency discussed the option of adding ammonium nitrate to the list of chemicals covered by PSM and collected comments. Currently, the PSM rulemaking is on the regulatory agenda under Long Term Action. According to OSHA officials, the agency will continue to collect comments on the option of adding ammonium nitrate to the list of highly hazardous chemicals covered by the PSM regulations as dictated by the rulemaking process. We will close this recommendation when OSHA decides what action to take as a result of the requests for information.
    Recommendation: To strengthen federal oversight of facilities with ammonium nitrate, the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA should direct OSHA and EPA, respectively, to consider revising their related regulations to cover ammonium nitrate and jointly develop a plan to require high risk facilities with ammonium nitrate to assess the risks and implement safeguards to prevent accidents involving this chemical.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In January 2017, EPA issued a final rule to modify its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations. The agency decided not to propose any revisions to the list of regulated substances and therefore, did not address ammonium nitrate in the revised regulations. In a June 2016 update from EPA, EPA stated that OSHA is considering whether ammonium nitrate should be added to the list of chemicals subject to OSHA Process Safety Management regulations. According to the June 2016 update, EPA stated that while the agency is not presently proposing that ammonium nitrate be added to the list of substances subject to the RMP rule, the agency may elect to propose such a listing at a later date.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to consider updating regulations for the storage of ammonium nitrate taking into consideration, as appropriate, other related standards and current practices.

    Agency: Department of Labor
    Status: Open

    Comments: OSHA previously (December 3, 2014) issued guidance to Regional Administrators to assist OSHA officials in enforcing the ammonium nitrate storage requirements in the Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard. In addition, on December 9, 2013, OSHA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking, among other things, comments on potential revisions to the Explosives and Blasting Agents Standard, which includes ammonium nitrate storage requirements. The RFI specifically invited comments on safe work practices for storing, handling, and managing ammonium nitrate and on regulatory requirements to improve its approach to preventing the hazards associated with ammonium nitrate. As of July 2017, this rulemaking is on the regulatory agenda under Long Term Action. We will close this recommendation when the agency decides what action to take as a result of the request for information.
    Director: Gomez, Jose A
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    1 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To ensure that EPA maximizes its limited resources and addresses the statutory, regulatory, and programmatic needs of EPA program offices and regions when IRIS toxicity assessments are not available, and once demand for the IRIS Program is determined, the EPA Administrator should direct the Deputy Administrator, in coordination with EPA's Science Advisor, to develop an agencywide strategy to address the unmet needs of EPA program offices and regions that includes, at a minimum: (1) coordination across EPA offices and with other federal research agencies to help identify and fill data gaps that preclude the agency from conducting IRIS toxicity assessments, and (2) guidance that describes alternative sources of toxicity information and when it would be appropriate to use them when IRIS values are not available, applicable, or current.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of October 2016, EPA indicated that the agency evaluated user needs for toxicity assessments as part of its process for developing the Multi-Year Agenda it issued in December 2015. We will continue to review additional information and documentation on EPA's agencywide strategy to address the unmet needs of EPA program offices and regions, and will update status comments as appropriate.
    Director: Caldwell, Stephen L
    Phone: (202) 512-9610

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better assess risk associated with facilities that use, process, or store chemicals of interest consistent with the NIPP and the CFATS rule, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Assistant Secretary for NIPP's Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), and Director of ISCD to develop a plan, with timeframes and milestones, that incorporates the results of the various efforts to fully address each of the components of risk and take associated actions where appropriate to enhance ISCD's risk assessment approach consistent with the NIPP and the CFATS rule.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) officials, they completed development of an updated tiering methodology, which incorporates improvements based on recommendations from both the external peer review of the tiering methodology and a Sandia National Laboratory (Sandia) report on economic consequences, which was submitted to the Department in the first quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2015. Additionally, according to the officials, DHS continued hosting meetings of an external experts panel consisting of representatives from other Federal agencies and the chemical and oil and natural gas industries, who have met repeatedly to review and provide input on the proposed improvements to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) tiering methodology. As noted in the tiering methodology improvement plan previously provided by the Department to GAO, the ISCD is having external entities validate and verify the updated methodology before deployment. To that end, the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (HSSAI) has reviewed and provided findings and recommendations on all parts of the updated tiering engine. Additionally, Sandia has been conducting component testing of the tiering engine as it is being updated and, beginning in January 2016, Sandia will conduct end-to-end testing of the engine. Concurrent with these efforts, ISCD has been updating the Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) applications which currently support the collection of the data used by the CFATS tiering methodology (i.e., Top-Screen, Security Vulnerability Assessment). According to the officials, deployment of these new applications cannot occur until the DHS's Information Collection Request (ICR) is approved by the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which the Department anticipates submitting to OMB in the third quarter of fiscal year 2016. We will update the status of this recommendation after additional information is received from DHS. Status as of January 20, 2016.
    Recommendation: To better assess risk associated with facilities that use, process, or store chemicals of interest consistent with the NIPP and the CFATS rule, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Under Secretary for NPPD, the Assistant Secretary for IP, and Director of ISCD to conduct an independent peer review, after ISCD completes enhancements to its risk assessment approach, that fully validates and verifies ISCD's risk assessment approach consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council of the National Academies.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security
    Status: Open

    Comments: According to Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) officials, the updated CFATS risk-based tiering methodology has been developed and portions of it are undergoing independent review from both HSSAI and Sandia. An independent verification and validation of the updated tiering methodology is scheduled to be conducted by Sandia beginning in January 2016. We will update the status of this recommendation after additional information is received from DHS. Status as of January 20, 2016.
    Director: Trimble, David C
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    3 open recommendations
    including 3 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, the Administrator of EPA should consider promulgating a rule under TSCA section 8, or take action under another section, as appropriate, to require chemical companies to report chemical toxicity and exposure-related data they have submitted to the European Chemicals Agency.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, EPA is better positioned to take action to require chemical companies to report chemical toxicity and exposure-related data submitted to the European Chemicals Agency due to passage of the new TSCA law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Since the law was signed by the President on June 22, 2016, EPA finalized a rule to establish the agency's process for evaluating high priority chemicals to determine whether or not they present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and finalized a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the US over the past 10 years. However, EPA has not yet carried out actions consistent with the substance of our recommendation. Once EPA has carried out such actions, we will reassess the status of this open recommendation.
    Recommendation: To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, the Administrator of EPA should consider promulgating a rule under TSCA section 8, or take action under another section, as appropriate, to require chemical companies to report exposure-related data from processors to EPA.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, EPA is better positioned to take action to require chemical companies to report exposure-related data from processors to EPA due to passage of the new TSCA law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Since the law was signed by the President on June 22, 2016, EPA has completed some implementation activities, including finalizing a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the US over the past 10 years. However, EPA has not yet carried out actions consistent with the substance of our open recommendation. Once EPA has carried out such actions, we will reassess the status of this open recommendation.
    Recommendation: To better position EPA to collect chemical toxicity and exposure-related data and ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, while balancing its workload, and to better position EPA to ensure chemical safety under existing TSCA authority, the Administrator of EPA should direct the appropriate offices to develop strategies for addressing challenges that impede the agency's ability to meet its goal of ensuring chemical safety. At a minimum, the strategies should address challenges associated with: (1) obtaining toxicity and exposure data needed to conduct ongoing and future TSCA Work Plan risk assessments, (2) gaining access to toxicity and exposure data provided to the European Chemicals Agency, (3) working with processors and processor associations to obtain exposure-related data, (4) banning or limiting the use of chemicals under section 6 of TSCA and planned actions for overcoming these challenges--including a description of other actions the agency plans to pursue in lieu of banning or limiting the use of chemicals, and (5) identifying the resources needed to conduct risk assessments and implement risk management decisions in order to meet its goal of ensuring chemical safety.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: As of July 2017, EPA is better positioned to take action to require chemical companies to report chemical toxicity and exposure data, analyze the data, take necessary actions, and identify the resources needed for evaluating and managing risk to ensure chemical safety due to passage of the new TSCA law, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Since the new law was signed by the President on June 22, 2016, EPA finalized a rule to establish the agency's process for evaluating high priority chemicals to determine whether or not they present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment and finalized a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S. over the past 10 years. However, EPA has not yet carried out actions consistent with the substance of our recommendation, including actually obtaining the data necessary to make risk-informed regulatory decisions, and then making those decisions as appropriate. Once EPA has carried out such actions, we will reassess the status of this open recommendation.
    Director: Trimble, David C
    Phone: 202-512-9338

    5 open recommendations
    including 4 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their timeliness and certainty, the EPA Administrator should require the Office of Research and Development to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of the established time frames for each step in the IRIS assessment process and determine whether different time frames should be established, based on complexity or other criteria, for different types of IRIS assessments.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016 we reviewed information provided by EPA related to this recommendation. While in July 2013, the EPA issued "enhancements" to the IRIS process and throughout 2016, EPA provided us with details on its online chemical information. EPA stated that the Program introduced the idea that different timelines are needed for different types of assessments based on criteria such as complexity (i.e., large database, many endpoints, complex questions about dose-response, multiple science issues, and novel approaches), potential public health impact, and the amount of new research that needs to be considered. Consequently, two sets of timelines for the IRIS assessment process were developed, one set for "standard" assessments and one set for "complex" assessments. GAO believes that this is important progress but that EPA needs to continue to determine whether different time frames should be established.
    Recommendation: To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their timeliness and certainty, the EPA Administrator should require the Office of Research and Development, should different time frames be necessary, to establish a written policy that clearly describes the applicability of the time frames for each type of IRIS assessment and ensures that the time frames are realistic and provide greater predictability to stakeholders.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016 we reviewed information provided by EPA related to this recommendation. While in July 2013, EPA issued "enhancements" to the IRIS process and provided us with details on the online information available for each chemical, a written policy that is publicly available is still needed. EPA stated that the Program introduced the idea that different timelines are needed for different types of assessments based on criteria such as complexity (i.e., large database, many endpoints, complex questions about dose-response, multiple science issues, and novel approaches), potential public health impact, and the amount of new research that needs to be considered. Consequently, two sets of timelines for the IRIS assessment process were developed, one set for "standard" assessments and one set for "complex" assessments. GAO believes that EPA has made progress and we will continue to review information provided by EPA as they work to ensure that the time frames are realistic and provide greater predictability to stakeholders.
    Recommendation: To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users--including stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public--the EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Research and Development to annually publish the IRIS agenda in the Federal Register each fiscal year.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In October 2016, EPA provided an update to GAO and said they believe they have met the intent of this GAO recommendation by publishing an IRIS Multi-Year Agenda in December 2015. According to EPA, the Multi-Year Agenda provides detailed information on near-term agency priorities including IRIS assessments that are ongoing and those that will be initiated over the next few years. EPA also told GAO that they are working to update the information provided on the status of each ongoing IRIS assessment. As this important work continues, GAO will monitor EPA's progress and determine if the information provides IRIS users with transparent information about assessments.
    Recommendation: To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users--including stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public--the EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Research and Development to indicate in published IRIS agendas which chemicals EPA is actively assessing and when EPA plans to start assessments of the other listed chemicals.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, EPA provided an update to GAO and said they believe they have met the intent of this GAO recommendation by publishing an IRIS Multi-Year Agenda in December 2015. According to EPA, the Multi-Year Agenda provides detailed information on near-term agency priorities including IRIS assessments that are ongoing and those that will be initiated over the next few years. GAO still believes that annually providing current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through the IRIS program is critical for IRIS users and specifically which chemicals EPA is actively assessing and when EPA plans to start assessments of the other listed chemicals.
    Recommendation: To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users--including stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public--the EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Research and Development to update the IRIS Substance Assessment Tracking System (IRISTrack) to display all current information on the status of assessments of chemicals on the IRIS agenda, including projected and actual start dates, and projected and actual dates for completion of steps in the IRIS process, and keep this information current.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016, EPA provided an update to GAO and said they believe they have met the intent of this GAO recommendation by publishing an IRIS Multi-Year Agenda in December 2015. According to EPA, the Multi-Year Agenda provides detailed information on near-term agency priorities including IRIS assessments that are ongoing and those that will be initiated over the next few years. GAO still believes that annually providing current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through the IRIS program is critical for IRIS users. In addition, The Agenda does not identify projected start dates for new assessments, and therefore is not ensuring that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users.
    Director: Trimble, David C
    Phone: (202)512-6225

    1 open recommendations
    including 1 priority recommendation
    Recommendation: To develop timely chemical risk information that EPA needs to effectively conduct its mission, the Administrator, EPA, should require the Office of Research and Development to re-evaluate its draft proposed changes to the IRIS assessment process in light of the issues raised in this report and ensure that any revised process periodically assesses the level of resources that should be dedicated to this significant program to meet user needs and maintain a viable IRIS database.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In October 2016 we reviewed information provided by EPA related to this recommendation. The issuance of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program Multi-Year Agenda in December 2015 demonstrated progress in responding to this recommendation. While we are currently reviewing additional documentation on how the agenda development process assessed the level of resources needed to meet user demand and to maintain a viable IRIS database, we will reevaluate how EPA continues to document the level of resources dedicated to this program to determine whether updates are occurring periodically.
    Director: Trimble, David C
    Phone: (202)512-6225

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To better enable EPA and its partner agencies to minimize the environmental risks resulting from future disasters, the EPA Administrator should work with potentially affected federal land management agencies, the Coast Guard, DHS, and FEMA to determine what actions are needed to ensure that environmental contamination on federal lands, such as national wildlife refuges, can be expeditiously and efficiently addressed in future disasters. Potential actions include the development of protocols or memorandums of understanding or amendments to the Stafford Act if the agencies determine that amendments are needed to achieve the timely availability of such funding when responding to disasters involving federal lands.

    Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
    Status: Open

    Comments: In July 2016, EPA reported that the National Response Team considered this issue but decided that it was addressed by the Major Disasters, Section 405 of the Stafford Act and that no further action was needed. We will update the status of this recommendation when we complete our review of Section 405 and determine whether additional actions by EPA are needed to respond to disasters involving federal lands.