Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should lead the development of a mechanism for interagency collaboration to determine roles and responsibilities for addressing priorities related to research on the health effects of low-dose radiation.

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.

Recommendation: To ensure the reliability of OEHS data, the Secretary of Defense should establish clear policies and procedures for performing quality assurance reviews of the OEHS data collected during deployment, to include verifying the completeness and the reasonableness of these data, and require that all other related military-service-specific policies be amended and implemented to ensure consistency.

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.

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. 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. This bill was not reintroduced in the 115th Congress and, as of March 2020, has not been reintroduced by the 116th Congress. Continued regulation of the marking of toy and imitation firearms by NIST rather than CPSC does not leverage each agency's expertise and therefore may not be the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.

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. As of March 2020, no legislation was identified 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.

Recommendation: To develop an estimate of the scope of work remaining to address uranium contamination on or near the Navajo reservation, Congress should consider requiring that the Environmental Protection Agency take the lead and work with the other federal agencies to develop an overall estimate of the remaining scope of the work, time frames, and costs.

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.

Recommendation: In light of the problems BIA has encountered in managing the cleanup at the Tuba City Dump site, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to employ best practices in creating the schedule and cost estimates for the remedial action cleanup phase.

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.

Recommendation: In light of the problems BIA has encountered in managing the cleanup at the Tuba City Dump site, the Secretary of the Interior should direct the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to identify and examine any lessons learned from managing the remedial investigation and feasibility study contract and consider these lessons as part of the acquisition planning process for the remedial action contract.

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.

Recommendation: To take advantage of opportunities to collect UCMR data on additional unregulated contaminants, Congress should consider amending SDWA to give EPA the flexibility to select more than 30 contaminants for monitoring under the UCMR program if high-priority contaminants, such as those on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) or contaminants of emerging concern, can be included at minimal cost, with minimal additional burden on public water systems, and while using analytical methods that EPA is already employing.

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.

Recommendation: To optimize the ability of the UCMR data to support regulatory determinations, Congress should consider adjusting the statutory time frames for the UCMR and regulatory determinations cycles so that EPA can use the UCMR data to support regulatory determinations in the same cycle.

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.

Recommendation: To improve CTP's ability to operate efficiently, achieve effective results, and plan appropriately, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to monitor FDA's performance relative to those time frames, such as evaluating whether staff are performing reviews of these submissions efficiently and effectively.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: FDA has established and monitored performance measures that include time frames for reviewing and acting on regular SE submissions, Exemption from SE requests, and Modified Risk Tobacco Product applications for fiscal years 2015 through 2018. However, we are leaving this recommendation open until FDA begins monitoring its performance relative to timeframes for provisional SE submissions, which the agency plans to do at the end of fiscal year 2019.

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 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.

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: As of March 2020, we have not seen a formal written memo from the IRIS program laying out this information - in detail - publicly, or how timelines for assessments are influenced by various criteria. While IRIS program staff have discussed this issue, no written guidance has been created. Such communication from the IRIS Program, as well as more frequent updates of the timelines for chemicals currently in assessment and projected starting dates for every chemical listed as "under assessment" is needed.

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: As of March 2020, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has established the priority chemicals it is working on, and has published some timelines via the IRIS Program Outlook document. However, this information has not been published as an agenda in the Federal Register.

Recommendation: Because EPA alone cannot address the complexities of the nation's challenges in addressing environmental health risks for children, Congress may wish to consider re-establishing a government-wide task force on children's environmental health risks, similar to the one previously established by Executive Order 13045 and co-chaired by the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Congress may wish to consider charging it with identifying the principal environmental health threats to children and developing national strategies for addressing them. Congress may also wish to consider establishing in law the Executive Order's requirement for periodic reports about federal research findings and research needs regarding children's environmental health.

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.

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: As of February 2020, EPA officials indicated that the IRIS Program had almost completed internal review of a "Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments," intended to guide staff through the sequential stages of the IRIS assessment process and ensure consistency across assessments. The Handbook, when finalized and used by staff, codifies the agency's effort to reevaluate their assessment process, but doesn't address the resources that should be dedicated to the IRIS Program. A workforce plan that includes both staff and budget resources consistent with user needs is necessary. As we reported in March 2019, the program has made strides utilizing project management software and project management techniques that enable the IRIS Program to better plan assessment schedules and utilize staff. However, we also reported in March 2019 that the President's budget requests since fiscal year 2018 have repeatedly cut the budget by as much as 40 percent for the Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) area, of which IRIS is a part. While these cuts were not enacted by Congress, the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request again cuts the HERA program by 34 percent, or approximately $12.7 million dollars. These cuts could have an impact on the IRIS program's ability to meet EPA program and regional office needs, if enacted by Congress.

Recommendation: The Administrator, EPA, should take a number of steps to further protect the American public from elevated lead levels in drinking water. Specifically, to improve EPA's ability to oversee implementation of the lead rule and assess compliance and enforcement activities, EPA should ensure that data on water systems' test results, corrective action milestones, and violations are current, accurate, and complete.

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.

Recommendation: To provide more efficient, consistent, and effective federal oversight of the nation's food supply, Congress should consider commissioning the National Academy of Sciences or a blue ribbon panel to conduct a detailed analysis of alternative organizational food safety structures and report the results of such an analysis to Congress.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (2002 Farm Bill) established a national Food Safety Commission charged with making specific recommendations for drafting legislative language. Among other things, the Commission was to make recommendations on how to improve the food safety system, create a harmonized, central framework for managing federal food safety programs, and enhance the effectiveness of federal food safety resources. However, as of January 2017, as far as current staff can ascertain, the Commission was never formed, and no recommendations were ever produced. Thus, although Congress acted to create a food safety commission through legislation, the substance of our matter--recommendations for analyzing alternative food safety structures--was not implemented. GAO subsequently made the same matter for congressional consideration in several later products, and the matter also appeared in the annual GAO Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation Report. As of March 2020, it remained unaddressed.