Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. 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. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
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.
Results:
Subject Term: "Environmental monitoring"
GAO-19-436R, Sep 18, 2019
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2020, BLM officials stated that they will revise the LR2000 Bond Review Report to identify all instances in which a state office needs to develop a corrective action plan in accordance with BLM policy. They estimate this will be completed by June 2021.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, the agency has made progress in implementing this recommendation. Specifically, the agency has modified the bonding portion of the Natural Resource Manager data system to include required data fields to record the initial bond received, adjustments made to required bonding amount, and date of last annual review when a needed adjustment was determined. The agency has also added a remarks field to record any increase or decrease in the estimated cost of reclamation that resulted in the revised required bond amount. The agency is currently working to update its internal guidance so that staff are aware of the requirement and process to document these items. We agreed to check back on the status of that guidance in early 2021 and will update the recommendation status at that time.
GAO-17-546, Sep 26, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: In a July 2018 update, DOE stated that it believes that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the appropriate entity to lead interagency collaboration and coordinate science and technology policy. According to DOE, OSTP intends to charter an interagency working group under the NSTC on a government-wide strategy related to research on the health effects of low-dose radiation. As of December 2019, OSTP had begun to address a related requirement under the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act to coordinate federal efforts related to radiation biology research and planned to release a report on this topic in early 2020. When we confirm what actions OSTP has taken to establish this working group, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-306, May 3, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress is continuing to consider whether to implement this Matter.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of January 2020, DOE is taking steps to implement GAO's May 2017 recommendation. In 2017, DOE's Office of River Protection contracted with Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally funded research and development center, to evaluate viable treatment options for supplemental low-activity waste. According to DOE, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a peer review of that laboratory's evaluation. The laboratory issued a final report in October 2019, and the National Academies issued a final report in late March 2020. According to DOE officials, both reports include information DOE may be able to use in making a decision about treating supplemental low-activity waste. DOE told GAO that they plan to use the studies as scoping documents as they move forward with the decision process. According to DOE officials, as of January 2020, DOE plans to decide how it will treat supplemental low-activity waste by 2026. In addition, in response to GAO's May 2017 recommendation, DOE said it successfully completed the first phase of a project--called the Test Bed Initiative--in December 2017 to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of three gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at an alternate disposal site in Andrews, Texas. As of November 2018, DOE was beginning a second phase to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of 2,000 gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at the same site in Texas. However, DOE stopped the demonstration project in spring 2019 when it withdrew its permit application for the Test Bed Initiative. According to DOE officials, this was because the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposed that DOE and Ecology engage in negotiations to develop a "holistic and realistic" approach to the retrieval and treatment of Hanford's tank waste. Congressional appropriations committees directed that DOE could spend up to $10 million to continue the Test Bed Initiative in fiscal year 2020, but DOE officials do not have specific plans for resuming the initiative. In October 2018, DOE requested public comment on a new interpretation of the statutory term "high level waste," which if the agency adopts it, could facilitate the use of alternate treatment and disposal methods. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibits DOE from spending its fiscal year 2020 funds on applying this high-level radioactive waste interpretation at Hanford, and as a result, DOE officials stated that DOE does not have near-term plans to use this high-level waste interpretation for supplemental low-activity waste at Hanford. Until DOE develops information that reflects what is now known about the performance of alternate treatment and disposal methods, such as immobilizing tank waste in grout, congressional and agency decision makers will not have access to current scientific information as they decide how to best allocate limited financial resources among many competing needs. Moreover, having updated information on the effectiveness of alternate methods for treating supplemental low-activity waste will help to inform DOE's discussions with the state of Washington.
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, DOE is taking steps to implement GAO's May 2017 recommendation. In 2017, DOE's Office of River Protection contracted with Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally funded research and development center, to evaluate viable treatment options for supplemental low-activity waste. According to DOE, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a peer review of that laboratory's evaluation. The laboratory issued a final report in October 2019, and the National Academies issued a final report in late March 2020. According to DOE officials, both reports include information DOE may be able to use in making a decision about treating supplemental low-activity waste. DOE told GAO that they plan to use the studies as scoping documents as they move forward with the decision process. According to DOE officials, as of January 2020, DOE plans to decide how it will treat supplemental low-activity waste by 2026. In addition, in response to GAO's May 2017 recommendation, DOE said it successfully completed the first phase of a project--called the Test Bed Initiative--in December 2017 to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of three gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at an alternate disposal site in Andrews, Texas. As of November 2018, DOE was beginning a second phase to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of 2,000 gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at the same site in Texas. However, DOE stopped the demonstration project in spring 2019 when it withdrew its permit application for the Test Bed Initiative. According to DOE officials, this was because the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposed that DOE and Ecology engage in negotiations to develop a "holistic and realistic" approach to the retrieval and treatment of Hanford's tank waste. Congressional appropriations committees directed that DOE could spend up to $10 million to continue the Test Bed Initiative in fiscal year 2020, but DOE officials do not have specific plans for resuming the initiative. In October 2018, DOE requested public comment on a new interpretation of the statutory term "high level waste," which if the agency adopts it, could facilitate the use of alternate treatment and disposal methods. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibits DOE from spending its fiscal year 2020 funds at Hanford on this high-level radioactive waste interpretation, and as a result, DOE officials stated that DOE does not have near-term plans to use this high-level waste interpretation for supplemental low-activity waste at Hanford. Until DOE develops information that reflects what is now known about the costs of alternate treatment and disposal methods, such as immobilizing tank waste in grout, congressional and agency decision makers will not have access to current cost information as they decide how to best allocate limited financial resources among many competing needs.
GAO-17-307, Apr 25, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, BLM issued a memo called "Documentation and Tracking Requirements for Waiver, Exceptions, and Modifications for Fluid Mineral Exploration and Development Activities." The memo states that BLM is updating its guidance for tracking waivers, exceptions, and modifications of fluid minerals stipulations and Conditions of Approval (COA) to ensure that these requests are consistently processed and documented until BLM completes database enhancements to its Automated Fluid Minerals Support System 2 to perform this function. To ensure consistent documentation, BLM has developed an "Exceptions Tracking Sheet" that BLM staff are to use when making decisions. Information captured on the tracking sheet include: field office, state, U.S. well number, exception decision date, COA or lease stipulation (LS) , category of COA or LS (e.g. air, community, wildlife), and the specific COA or LS involved. Additionally, the associated environmental analyses, documents, and authorized officer's decision must be consistent with guidance found in Chapter IV of BLM's Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources Handbook (H-1624-1). In August 2019, GAO requested additional information to support the implementation of the recommendation. In December 2019, Interior officials stated that it would implement the recommendation by August 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In June 2019, BLM issued a memo called "Documentation and Tracking Requirements for Waiver, Exceptions, and Modifications for Fluid Mineral Exploration and Development Activities." The memo states that BLM is updating its guidance for tracking waivers, exceptions, and modifications of fluid minerals stipulations and Conditions of Approval (COA) to ensure that these requests are consistently processed and documented until BLM completes database enhancements to its Automated Fluid Minerals Support System 2 to perform this function. To ensure consistent documentation, BLM has developed an "Exceptions Tracking Sheet" that BLM staff are to use when making decisions. Information captured on the tracking sheet include: field office, state, U.S. well number, exception decision date, COA or lease stipulation (LS) , category of COA or LS (e.g. air, community, wildlife), and the specific COA or LS involved. Additionally, the associated environmental analyses, documents, and authorized officer's decision must be consistent with guidance found in Chapter IV of BLM's Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources Handbook (H-1624-1). In August 2019, GAO requested additional information to support the implementation of the recommendation. In December 2019, Interior officials stated that it would implement the recommendation by August 2020.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In July 2019, Interior officials stated that the BLM does not intend to make an exception tracking spreadsheet available to the public. According to Interior officials, the regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-4 do not require it, and public posting is only applicable to waivers and modifications, not exceptions. Interior's position has been that the public can ask for this information in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Interior officials explained that the main concern in making an exception tracking spreadsheet available to the public is that a single consolidated tracking spreadsheet would require constant updates and posting to Interior's website. Since the numbers can change daily, any posted updates would only provide a brief snap shot which will not be meaningful. Interior officials stated that the BLM will aim to address this item in future database design enhancements in order to obtain a permanent tracking solution. We will update this recommendation when we have additional information from BLM.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2016, Interior officials stated that three of six corrective actions are substantially complete and that efforts are ongoing to clarify guidance related to documentation of environmental inspections with a target date for implementation of December 31, 2018. In May 2020, Interior officials stated the revised target date for implementation is September 30, 2020, at which time BLM will issue updated policies and procedures.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2018, Interior officials stated that efforts to provide guidance to field offices on how to collect and use date are ongoing with correction actions 10 percent complete. In May 2020, officials stated that they have a target date for implementation of December 31, 2020.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation. EPA also stated that its vision for grants management includes having grant recipients submit performance reports and other information to the agency through a web-based portal. The portal would incorporate capabilities such as key word searches to allow for easier access to performance report information. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will apply it, where appropriate and cost effective, to program-specific databases, not only the Office of Water databases. EPA noted that not all data from program-specific databases may be appropriate for direct electronic transfer to the national performance system; some individual grant data may need to be analyzed before being rolled up into national data. As of December 2018, EPA officials said that continued work on this recommendation is dependent upon EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer's deployment of a new performance tracking system and individual program funds for developing systems that interact with it. As of April 2020, GAO is following up with EPA on the status of this recommendation.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to the implementation guidance for the Environmental Results Order (directive). In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing environmental results directive may be superseded or incorporated into a different policy as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its agreement with this recommendation and stated that it will make conforming changes to existing policy. In December 2018, EPA stated that its existing policies may be superseded or incorporated into different policies as part of the agency's migration to a new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). EPA stated that it would incorporate the recommendation into its new policy. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: In correspondence to GAO, EPA reiterated its general agreement with this recommendation. However, EPA emphasized that identifying and deploying appropriate data quality controls is a long-term effort subject to budgetary considerations, completion of its new grants management system, and extensive collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. EPA officials said that the agency expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
GAO-16-241, Mar 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In its August 2016 Statement of Action on our report, USDA did not provide any new information on actions it has taken, if any, to implement this recommendation. For example, there was no indication whether stakeholders internal to the department had continued to meet to discuss the 2014 Organic Survey results and how to move forward with future survey questions to obtain additional data, such as data needed to better understand the economic impacts of unintended mixing with GE crops. As of September 2020, USDA did not have an update regarding the implementation of this recommendation. We will continue to follow up on USDA's efforts.
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: In its August 2016 Statement of Action on our report, USDA did not provide any new information on actions it has taken, if any, to implement this recommendation. We continue to believe that USDA should survey producers growing identity-preserved crops regarding their potential economic losses from unintended GE presence, as is being done for organic producers. As we previously reported, U.S. acreage planted to identity-preserved crops is significantly greater than that planted to organic crops; yet, little is known about the economic costs to identity-preserved farmers of unintended mixing. As of September 2020, USDA did not have an update regarding the implementation of this recommendation. We will continue to follow up on USDA's efforts.
GAO-16-220, Feb 10, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, USDA had taken relevant and positive actions but had not yet fully implemented GAO's February 2016 recommendation for monitoring wild, native bees. According to a senior USDA official, a Native Bee Monitoring Steering Committee composed of representatives from four USDA agencies is developing a response to the recommendation. According to the official, the steering committee has taken or plans to take several steps regarding a monitoring plan. First, the steering committee held a stakeholder listening session in June 2017 to obtain public opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring program is important, (2) the type of information and data needed to adequately conduct monitoring, and (3) how the public would like to see the monitoring data used. Highlights of the input received at the listening session and the goals of the national monitoring plan were discussed in a symposium held in November 2017 at the National Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. USDA gathered additional recommendations from symposium participants based on monitoring programs for other declining species of concern, such as birds, bats, and butterflies. Second, the steering committee drafted a prospectus that will delineate activities being conducted by relevant federal agencies with responsibilities for surveying species of concern, including plans to coordinate activities and outline individual roles and responsibilities towards facilitating a national monitoring plan. According to the senior official, the committee worked with USDA officials to ask other federal agencies associated with the Pollinator Task Force to summarize their current and future activities in support of monitoring native bee populations. The committee completed its report entitled The Current State of Federal Agency Coordination in Monitoring Native Bee Health in January 2019. Third, the steering committee held a "Scientists' Summit" in April 2018 at the National Conservation Training Center. The purpose was to obtain scientific expert opinion regarding (1) why a native bee monitoring strategy is needed; (2) what such a monitoring strategy would measure and be used for; (3) standard minimum protocols that would improve data quality and sharing; and (4) databases that could be used to house data from a monitoring strategy. Participants included university and governmental experts on bees, statisticians, modelers and ecologists, and conservation biologists assessing other species in decline. Workshop discussion leaders subsequently drafted for publication in a scientific journal a whitepaper with recommendations on a U.S. national native bee monitoring strategy. However, as of October 2019, according to senior USDA officials, the white paper had not yet been accepted for publication. We support the agencies' efforts to date to implement the recommendation. However, we believe that the agencies must take additional steps to improve the effectiveness of federal efforts to monitor wild, native bee populations and will continue to monitor their actions. In 2020, according to a senior USDA official, a National Native Bee Monitoring Research Coordination Network is being formed to address GAO's recommendation to develop a federal monitoring plan for wild, native bees, with the project expected to begin in spring 2020. Some USDA officials told us that without a team to coordinate a monitoring plan, individual agency efforts may be ineffective in providing the needed information in trends on wild, native bees in the United States. The project is scheduled to be completed in 3 years.
GAO-15-682, Sep 15, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2623
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In fiscal year 2019, the 116th Congress' House and Senate introduced bills H.R. 3301 and S. 865, respectively, to extend the per barrel tax expiration dates. In addition, the Senate bill proposes a ceiling to cut off the tax if the fund's balance is above a certain amount and to also restart based on meeting certain thresholds. We will continue to monitor legislation and congressional actions.
GAO-15-618, Aug 17, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: According to EPA officials, the Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD) established an agency-wide electronic grants record workgroup in fiscal year 2016. The workgroup identified the contents of the electronic grant file, technical options, and evaluation criteria. OGD completed its alternatives analysis for scope, general approach, and requirements in fiscal year 2017 and EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions). However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: Implementation efforts are ongoing. According to EPA officials, OGD is conducting a multi-modular project to upgrade the agency's grants management IT system. EPA expected this recommendation to be addressed by its new grants management system (GrantsSolutions), which had been targeted for deployment in March 2020. However, in January 2020, EPA officials told us that EPA had ceased its migration to GrantSolutions after determining the long-term costs were unsustainable and that the system lacked fundamental functionality necessary for core grant operations and to maintain appropriate internal controls. EPA is now migrating towards a modernized grants administration and management cloud solution. EPA expects this recommendation to be addressed when the new grants management system is fully implemented. EPA anticipates deployment of the new cloud solution in December 2020.
GAO-15-487, May 22, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In August 2016, DOD officials told us that a new DOEHRS version was released that contained several system enhancements and defect corrections to improve overall data quality in the system. However, as of July 2020, DOD had not provided specific information on these system enhancements, which would allow us to determine whether our recommendation has been fully addressed.
GAO-14-323, May 5, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, we are not aware of any legislation being enacted to address this matter for congressional consideration.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, BIA and EPA had selected a cleanup option for Tuba City Dump, but BIA had not created schedule or cost estimates for the cleanup action. BIA stated it anticipated completing the cleanup design, which will include cost and schedule estimates, by September 2022. GAO will assess BIA's actions once they are complete.
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, BIA and EPA had selected a cleanup option for Tuba City Dump, but BIA had not initiated the acquisition planning process for the future cleanup contract. BIA stated it anticipated completing the cleanup design work, including the acquisition package, by September 2022. GAO will assess BIA's actions once they are complete.
GAO-14-103, Jan 9, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action to address this matter; we will continue to monitor actions and provide updated information when it becomes available.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020, Congress has not taken action to address this matter; we will continue to monitor actions and provide updated information when it becomes available.
GAO-13-145, Aug 8, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: As of August 2020, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is providing status information on conditional registrations issued from 2000 through 2020 on the web at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/conditional-pesticide-registration. However, because plans are not yet complete for automating data related to conditional registrations to more readily track their status and related information, this recommendation remains open. According to EPA, due to the government shutdown and delays in the award of its mission support IT contract, IT modernization efforts enabling the Office of Pesticide Programs to track conditionally registered products electronically are now targeted for completion in 2021 rather than 2020.
GAO-13-369, May 10, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-3841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of February 2020, IRIS program officials indicated that they are building capacity for applying systematic review in chemical assessments. We reported in March 2019 that staff from the IRIS program were communicating more frequently with EPA program and regional offices about program and regional office needs and the IRIS program's ability to meet those needs. While ORD's newly-implemented survey process helps identify a limited number of the highest priority needs for program and regional offices, we also reported in March 2019 that program and regional officials told us that they still need far more chemical assessments than the IRIS program currently produces, and they do not have EPA-wide guidance on what sources to use when IRIS assessments are not available. One program office has developed its own prioritized list of sources for chemical assessments when IRIS assessments are not available, and other offices follow similar guidelines, though none officially. EPA leadership needs to provide documentation showing an agency-wide strategy that includes identifying data gaps and guidance on alternative sources of toxicity information when IRIS values are not available, applicable, or current.
GAO-13-52, Oct 24, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open
Comments: In March 2017, HUD stated that it has not developed a test to validate the performance of the whole-house ventilation specification. HUD reported that the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) did not agree with the testing validation recommendations. As of March 2018, HUD continues to move forward in updating its standards, including a test for whole house ventilation. However, as part of the overall HUD effort to review regulations, HUD officials stated they are currently conducting a review of current and planned federal regulations for manufactured housing with the goal to facilitate the affordability of manufactured housing and to promote durable, safe, and cost effective construction techniques for manufactured homes. As a result, HUD does not anticipate moving forward with any manufactured housing regulations until it completes its review. We continue to believe that developing such a test will better ensure that air ventilation systems in manufactured homes perform as specified and meet the HUD Code and will continue to monitor HUD's progress in implementing our recommendation.
GAO-13-23, Oct 15, 2012
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in fall 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation phase of cleanup. This policy will become an appendix in DOE's Order 413.3B. EM officials further stated that EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that would classify the remaining types of activities not covered by the Cleanup Project Management Policy, including what EM currently classifies as operations activities. EM plans to implement this policy by the end of fiscal year 2020.
GAO-11-381, Jun 17, 2011
Phone: (202)512-9338
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA, as of September 2019, had not resumed data verification audits to routinely evaluate the quality of the data states provide to the agency. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime and the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) will replace the data verification audits in the future. EPA has made SDWIS Prime available through incremental interim releases to state drinking water agencies for exploring and testing but does not expect to fully release it until mid-2020. However, as of August 2019, SDWIS Prime was unavailable while EPA awaited progress on the SDWIS Modernization Project plan. According to EPA, the CMDP will enable utilities and laboratories to report data electronically to primacy agencies with fewer errors and in a more efficient manner; but it is not clear when it will be fully operational. According to data provided by EPA in September 2019, 10 states were using CMDP to varying degrees. EPA information identified another 6 states that plan to transition to CMDP between September and December 2019, 2 states that plan to transition in 2020, and 12 others that may transition in the future. In the meantime, EPA indicated that the agency will complete nine file reviews in 2019 to verify data in agencies that do not currently use CMDP. EPA's actions may improve its ability to oversee states' implementation of the act and provide more complete and accurate information on compliance, but because EPA's systems to replace data verification audits are not yet fully in place, we are keeping this recommendation open.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. EPA is developing the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, with several efforts underway as of September 2019 as we noted under recommendation 1, but until it is fully operational, EPA will not be able to work with states to establish a national goal for the quality of monitoring violations. EPA noted in 2017 that it expected SDWIS Prime to enable the agency and primacy agencies to better understand the nature of system violations and consider developing goals for monitoring and reporting violations. However, according to EPA, SDWIS Prime will not be released until mid-2020. EPA indicated plans to modify the Annual Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program Review requirements but the agency states that it is dependent on approval by the Office of the Inspector General. Despite the ongoing delays to address the call in the recommendation for establishing new goals, we are keeping this recommendation open while EPA continues its efforts to implement SDWIS Prime.
GAO-10-205, Jan 28, 2010
Phone: (202)512-6225
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, we have not identified actions by the Congress to establish in law requirements such as those in Executive Order 13045.
GAO-06-148, Jan 4, 2006
Phone: (202)512-6225
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Comments: As of July 2020 there has been no change on the status of this recommendation. In June 2019, EPA reported to GAO that its tools for improving data about water systems compliance are not complete, though some states and laboratories have been exploring and testing incremental versions of them. EPA reported in a previous update that the agency had been working with states through face-to-face trainings and webinars on the reporting of milestone data. GAO will continue to monitor these efforts and reevaluate whether water systems' test results, corrective action milestones and violations are current, accurate and complete subsequent to the completion of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal and the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime, described briefly below. However, until these new tools are complete, the status of this recommendation remains open. According to EPA, as of June 2018, SDWIS Prime has been available for exploring and testing, following incremental interim releases, since early 2018. In addition, EPA stated that SDWIS Prime will continue to be available for exploring and testing until the first production release anticipated for mid-2020.The agency has also focused on promoting electronic reporting of drinking water data through the development of the Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP). In June 2019, EPA stated that as of May 31, 2019, 10 states and more than 200 laboratories were using CMDP. According to EPA, as a result of using CMDP, these states reported a 30-70 percent reduction in staff time for data processing and a 90-99 percent reduction in errors for data.