Recommendation: The U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC should work with the Mexican Commissioner to formalize a binational rapid response team to address sewage infrastructure failures along the U.S.-Mexico border, including the Nogales and South Bay wastewater treatment plants. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, USIBWC stated that two teams have been established with members, one in the Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora region and one in the San Diego and Tijuana region. IBWC continues to take actions to formalize the binational rapid response teams. We will review the final documents for each team when they are completed and available.

Recommendation: The U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC should direct USIBWC staff to conduct long-term capital planning for the Santa Cruz River Basin and Tijuana River Valley watersheds, following the principles in OMB Circular A-11. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, the U.S. Commissioner of the IBWC stated that it had conducted long-term capital planning for the facilities for which it is responsible. They noted the 5-year plan that USIBWC had developed for the South Bay plant and the 10-year plan that it had developed for the Nogales plant. We noted these plans in our original report and stated that they needed to be broadened to identify needs in the Santa Cruz River Basin and Tijuana River Valley watersheds. The agency only partially concurred with our recommendation in the report and noted that to the extent our report envisions USIBWC undertaking long-term capital planning for (1) nonfederal infrastructure; (2) infrastructure that does not yet exist; and/or (3) infrastructure that the USIBWC is not yet authorized to construct or maintain, it does not concur. The agency is a key player in managing water quality on the border and has the infrastructure and organization that will be part of the solution. Without the information that USIBWC would generate by comprehensively assessing its long-term needs, such as through long-term capital planning efforts, Congress cannot authorize specific work that needs to be done. We recommended that the agency conduct long-term planning, including for infrastructure that does not exist and for infrastructure that is not yet authorized specifically to address this problem. We continue to believe that USIBWC should recognize its role along the border and start planning for it, including by undertaking long-term capital planning for existing and potential future infrastructure and identifying alternatives to address the long-standing water quality problems.

Recommendation: The Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) should document the agency's process for deciding which products to consider for new pathogen standards, including the basis on which such decisions should be made. (Recommendation 1).

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, FSIS is drafting a document that will outline the agency's process for deciding which products to consider for new pathogen standards, including the basis on which such decisions should be made. FSIS estimates the document will be finalized in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. As of October 2020, FSIS has not completed this action.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FSIS should set time frames for determining what pathogen standards or additional policies are needed to address pathogens in beef carcasses, ground beef, pork cuts, and ground pork. (Recommendation 2).

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, FSIS proposed new pathogen reduction performance standards for Salmonella in raw ground beef and beef trimmings. FSIS told us the agency is developing performance standards for some pork products and plans to issue draft standards sometime in fiscal year 2020 but as of October 2020 has not completed this action.

Recommendation: The Administrator of FSIS should include available information on the effectiveness of on-farm practices to reduce the level of pathogens as it finalizes its guidelines for controlling Salmonella in hogs. (Recommendation 3).

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2019, FSIS is revising its draft guidelines for controlling Salmonella in hogs. The agency plans to include in the guidelines available scientific information on the effectiveness of on-farm practices to reduce Salmonella. FSIS estimates it will complete its revision of the guidelines in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020 but as of October 2020 has not completed this action.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should take additional steps to encourage workers to disclose sensitive concerns during OSHA inspections of meat and poultry plants; for example, by considering additional off-site interviews or exploring other options to obtain information anonymously. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA stated that it agrees that workers should be able to report injuries, illnesses, and hazards free of intimidation. OSHA noted that its Field Operations Manual prescribes procedures for facilitating the free and open exchange of information, such as conducting onsite worker interviews without management present. OSHA further stated that when workers indicate interest in offsite interviews, the agency will conduct those interviews as prescribed by the Field Operations Manual. We note in our report that because inspectors inform plant management which workers they want to speak with, supervisors know the identity of workers interviewed onsite. Workers and worker advocates we spoke with expressed concerns about this. OSHA told us that inspectors interview meat and poultry workers offsite infrequently, since these interviews can be challenging and take additional time, and OSHA also may be challenged to find an acceptable venue when the employee is available. In June 2020, DOL informed us that OSHA had signed an alliance with several meat and poultry-related industry associations and that they expect this alliance to help improve overall safety and health for the industry's workers. We continue to believe that there are additional steps OSHA can take to better encourage workers to disclose sensitive concerns, and we look forward to learning how OSHA will draw upon this alliance to help take these steps.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should gather more information, such as by asking workers during meat and poultry plant inspections, to determine the extent to which bathroom access is a problem and how to address any identified issues. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: OSHA stated that meat and poultry workers should have bathroom access as prescribed by the agency's regulations. They noted that if it is observed that processes indicate lack of bathroom access, or if a worker indicates there is an issue, the agency will investigate. Our report identified a mismatch between the concerns we heard from workers about lack of bathroom access and the problems reported by OSHA. We also reported that workers may not volunteer information about lack of bathroom access unless specifically asked. OSHA may choose to address this issue without routinely asking workers about bathroom access, such as by selectively querying workers based on criteria determined by the agency. In June 2020, DOL informed us that OSHA had signed a national alliance with several meat and poultry-related industry associations, and that bathroom access is one of the topics that will be addressed within this alliance, with a goal of developing educational materials. We note that this is a positive step forward, and we continue to stand by our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should update its guidance for employers on how to manage their health units to address the challenges of managing these units. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOL informed us that OSHA continues work on updating its guidance for employers on how to manage their health units to address the challenges of managing these units, and that OSHA anticipates initiating clearance of the draft updated guidance in fall 2020. We will consider closing this recommendation when this effort is complete.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health should work with FSIS to assess the implementation of the MOU and make any needed changes to ensure improved collaboration; and set specific timeframes for periodic evaluations of the MOU. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In February 2020, OSHA reported that OSHA and FSIS drafted an updated MOU, which both parties are reviewing. The two agencies met in Summer 2019 to discuss workplace safety, collaboration between the two agencies, and the implementation of the MOU. During a series of working meetings, they discussed each aspect of the MOU, including training and coordination activities. FSIS and OSHA will continue to meet routinely and review the MOU to determine whether adjustments are needed, as appropriate. We will consider closing this recommendation when this effort is complete.

Recommendation: The FSIS Administrator should work with OSHA to assess the implementation of the MOU and make any needed changes to ensure improved collaboration; and set specific timeframes for periodic evaluations of the MOU. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: FSIS stated that it already has directives in place to recognize and report hazards affecting FSIS employees, and acknowledged that the MOU was designed to additionally have FSIS employees report hazards affecting plant employees due to the regular presence of its inspectors in plants. FSIS noted that in collaborating with OSHA, FSIS will need to ensure its primary mission is not compromised by undertaking activities that take time and resources away from its food safety inspection responsibilities. In January 2019, OSHA reported that it met with FSIS several times to discuss chemical exposures, referrals, and issues of jurisdiction in state plan states. FSIS subsequently shared the results from a NIOSH health hazard evaluation that was conducted, as well as the efforts to track the source of the infected birds. To fully implement this recommendation, FSIS should strengthen the MOU and develop a mechanism to regularly evaluate it would help ensure that the goals of the MOU are met; leveraging FSIS's presence in plants provides the federal government with a cost-effective opportunity to protect worker safety and health.

Recommendation: The FSIS Administrator should develop a process to regularly share the worker safety information it collects during its review of new chemicals with FSIS inspectors, plant management, OSHA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Food Safety and Inspection Service
Status: Open

Comments: FSIS stated that the agency already has a process for sharing chemical safety information with its inspectors. However, FSIS has not provided us with evidence that it has shared the worker safety information it collects related to new chemicals, such as safety information that is specific for dilution levels and conditions of use at plants, as noted in the report. FSIS also stated that it would take certain steps to share information about approval of chemicals with other agencies such as OSHA and NIOSH, but the steps identified did not include sharing worker safety information. Incorporating worker safety information would further help enhance this information sharing. FSIS further stated that some of the information collected during its review of new chemicals may be proprietary.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the military departments, should assess whether risk mitigation actions have been identified in the event of a loss of each task critical assets (TCA) facility in the defense industrial base and, based on this assessment, develop risk mitigation actions with associated implementation plans and time lines, and provide this information to congressional and DOD decision makers. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include the issuance of the mission assurance instruction in August 2018 that guides the identification, prioritization, and assessment of defense critical infrastructure. Further, Executive Order 13806 required that DOD perform a whole-of-government assessment of the manufacturing and the defense industrial base, assess risk, identify impacts, and propose mitigation strategies. DOD issued the resulting report in October 2018, which includes a focus on numerous single source and sole supply risks. Lastly, DOD officials stated that DOD senior leadership and Congress were briefed in May 2019 on investments planned to reduce risks and updates will be included in an annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should provide congressional and DOD decision makers with information on potential effects on defense capabilities in the event of a loss of each TCA facility in the defense industrial base. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include a description of the mission assurance process and the annual report on the industrial capabilities that were already in place at the time of issuance of this report, therefore do not represent a change or response to this recommendation. Another key corrective action identified is the issuance of the report in response to the Executive Order 13806 in October 2018, which provides a whole of government assessment of the defense industrial base risks and impacts and associated Hill briefing. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year as a result of the Executive Order, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should provide congressional and DOD decision makers with information on DOD organic facilities that have been identified as TCAs, similar to the information provided previously on commercial facilities. This information also should include (1) the potential effects on defense capabilities in the event of a loss of the facility and (2) risk mitigation actions and associated implementation plans with time lines. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In June 2019, DOD provided follow up information and identified key corrective actions for recommendations from this report. The key corrective actions identified for this recommendation include the mission assurance process that was already in place at the time of the issuance of this report, which does not reflect a change in response to this recommendation. However, other key corrective actions identified include the identification of several DOD-owned assets in the report DOD issued in response to Executive Order 13806 in October 2018. Further, DOD states that it will provide yearly updates to Congress in its Industrial Capabilities report. Lastly, the corrective actions state that DOD will continue to execute risk mitigation identified in its October 2018 report. DOD placed considerable focus on defense industrial base issues in the past year as a result of the Executive Order, we will review the next annual report to ensure this focus is continued and that detailed information on DOD's industrial base risks and task critical assets is provided to DOD and Congressional decision makers.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with DCMA and the military departments, should take steps to share information on risks identified through the annual Critical Asset Identification Process with relevant program managers or other designated service or program officials. At a minimum, relevant officials should receive information on the most critical facilities (such as TCAs) that produce parts supporting their programs. This information-sharing could occur through service-specific channels of communication or another method of internal communication deemed appropriate by DOD. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD officials stated that they are in the process of developing proactive steps to share information on risks identified through the annual CAIP with relevant program managers, or other designated service or program officials as necessary. However, in June 2019, DOD shared the key corrective actions identified for this recommendation, which include a description of the mission assurance process that was already in place at the time of issuance of this report, therefore do not represent a change or response to this recommendation. It further states that the Critical Asset Identification Process is addressed in semi-annual Joint Industrial Base Working Group meetings, which are attended by all service and agency industrial base representatives. As of November 2019, DOD officials did not respond to a request for more detail, we will continue to assess DOD's actions.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the military departments, should develop a mechanism to ensure that program offices obtain information from contractors on single source of supply risks. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2018, DOD officials stated that assessing the health of the defense industrial base and associated supply chains was the focus of an Executive Order issued in July 2017 and that the resulting inter-agency report will be released within the next year. DOD officials stated that the issuance of this report will provide significant information towards addressing this recommendation. However, in June 2019, DOD provided key corrective actions for this recommendation, which stated that multiple services and agencies began in 2018 to incorporate contracting language to require prime contractors to track and provide sub-tier data and that this effort will expand to cover more programs. Further, it states that in the Industrial Base Integrated Data System, suppliers are indicated as either single or sole source suppliers and that the services and agencies have access to this list. As of November 2019, DOD officials did not respond to a request for more detail, we will continue to assess DOD's actions.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the military departments, should issue department-wide DMSMS policy, such as an instruction, that clearly defines requirements of DMSMS management and details responsibilities and procedures to be followed by program offices to implement the policy. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. The DOD official that is the lead for the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) program stated that as of July 2019, the department has completed the draft DMSMS instruction and accompanying manual that details program requirements, responsibilities, and procedures to be followed. The draft instruction is undergoing legal review and the official expects the instruction and manual to be issued by December 2019. As of November 2019, this recommendation will remain open and we will review the instruction once issued.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of the SEC's conflict minerals disclosure rule, the Secretary of Commerce should submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan outlining steps that Commerce will take, with associated time frames, to (1) assess the accuracy of the independent private sector audits (IPSA) and other due diligence processes described under section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (2) develop recommendations for the process used to carry out such audits, including ways to improve the accuracy of the audits and establish standards of best practices for such audits; and (3) acquire the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out these responsibilities.

Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Commerce agreed with this recommendation. In response to this recommendation, Commerce indicated in an October 25, 2016 letter to GAO that it has developed a three-step approach which parallels the three distinct elements of the recommendation. To fully implement this recommendation, Commerce needs to submit the said three-step plan, including associated timeframes for their completion, to the appropriate congressional committees. Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act defines "appropriate committees" to mean the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate. In a January 2018 email, a Commerce official indicated to GAO that the agency had reviewed the 19 IPSA audits filed by companies in 2016, and the agency plans to complete a review of the 16 IPSA audits filed in 2017 by the end of FY 2018. However, the official noted that the "Department will not undertake the development of recommendations and best practices while the SEC is revising its rule." Commerce cited SEC staff's recent updated guidance and ongoing reviews of the conflict minerals rule, among other things, as their primary reason. However, the SEC staff's updated guidance also clarified that the guidance "does not express any legal conclusion on the rule" and is "subject to any further action that may be taken by the Commission." Therefore, the rule is still in effect, according to SEC staff. We requested a status update in October 2019 and Commerce responded: "In National Association of Manufacturers v. United States SEC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135732 (2017), the District Court for the District of Columbia declared an element of the relevant SEC rule unconstitutional, necessitating that the SEC determine how that decision affects overall implementation of the Conflict Minerals rule. Until the SEC completes its deliberative process, makes such determination, and implements any necessary revisions to the rule, the Department does not intend to undertake additional work under Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with regard to the assessment of the accuracy of the audits and other due diligence processes or recommendations regarding the audits. After which point, the Department will assess how the SEC determination and any revisions to the rule affect the Department's plans for implementing GAO's recommendation."

Recommendation: To strengthen DOL's efforts to ensure employers protect the safety and health of workers at meat and poultry plants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, working together with the Commissioner of Labor Statistics as appropriate, to develop and implement a cost-effective method for gathering more complete data on musculoskeletal disorders.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its implementation would make a difference in working conditions in the meat and poultry industry. The agency also noted that resource constraints may make it difficult to implement. DOL reported in 2018 that it is reviewing its options for moving forward and is exploring accurate coding and recordkeeping of MSDs and drivers for underreporting in poultry processing and elsewhere. As of March 2020, OSHA stated that it continues to examine ways to work with BLS to address the recommendation. We will monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: To develop a better understanding of meat and poultry sanitation workers' injuries and illnesses, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health and the Commissioner of Labor Statistics to study how they could regularly gather data on injury and illness rates among sanitation workers in the meat and poultry industry.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL generally agreed with this recommendation and stated that its implementation would make a difference in working conditions in the meat and poultry industry. The agency noted that resource constraints may make it difficult to implement, particularly due to privacy concerns related to using form 301 (injury and illness incident report) and form 300 (log of work-related illnesses and injuries. DOL also noted that form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) does not have the specificity necessary to develop an understanding of worker injuries and illnesses in specific occupations. Our report explained that plants may use various job titles in their OSHA logs for sanitation workers they employ directly. However, those workers who are employed by contracted sanitation companies may be included in the sanitation companies' OSHA logs, and there may be nothing to indicate that their workplace is a meat or poultry plant. Thus, the problem is not the data source, but rather how to identify these particular workers by occupation and by industry in order to collect information about the full extent of injuries and illnesses in meat and poultry plants. We reiterate our recommendation that OSHA should work together with BLS to study how to regularly gather data on injury and illness rates among sanitation workers in the meat and poultry industry.

Recommendation: To develop a better understanding of meat and poultry sanitation workers' injuries and illnesses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to have the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conduct a study of the injuries and illnesses these workers experience, including their causes and how they are reported. Given the challenges to gaining access to this population, NIOSH may want to coordinate with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop ways to initiate this study.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation and noted the previous difficulties NIOSH has had gaining access to these workplaces and the potential resource commitment involved in conducting such a study. We acknowledge this access challenge and noted in our report that OSHA has negotiated access for NIOSH in other industries, hence the rationale for recommending that NIOSH may want to coordinate with OSHA. In February 2020, NIOSH reported it met with industry associations to discuss areas of mutual interest for research on worker safety in poultry plants. However, according to NIOSH, the advent of COVID-19 and its challenges have limited plans for field studies for FY20. During the COVID-19 epidemic NIOSH informed us its representatives have: (1) created COVID-19 safety guidelines with OSHA and (2) performed more than 30 meat and poultry worksite evaluations focusing on the prevention of COVID-19. NIOSH notes that it continues to have an interest in learning more about and providing assistance to minimize various types of illnesses and injuries that may affect meat and poultry sanitation workers, and at some point in the future they hope to "re-initiate" their interactions with stakeholders such as the National Chicken Council and US Egg & Poultry Association on the study of peracetic acid exposure in the poultry processing industry. Our recommendation was aimed at increasing the understanding of the various types of illnesses and injuries that are common among meat and poultry sanitation workers, including their causes and how they are reported. We look forward to hearing about future studies that address this topic.

Recommendation: To help achieve and sustain public acceptance for future spent nuclearfuel management efforts, the Secretary of the Department of Energy should develop and implement a coordinated outreach strategy for providing information to specific stakeholders and the general public on federal activities related to managing spent nuclear fuel.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In 2015 and 2016, the Department of Energy (DOE) solicited public comments as part of a policy to develop a consent-based siting process for high-level radioactive waste management facilities. However, DOE's solicitation of public comments does not reflect a coordinated outreach strategy to achieve and sustain public acceptance for the decades required to site, license, construct, and operate waste management facilities. As of March 2020, we are following up with DOE to determine the status of the agency's response to this recommendation.

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. As of June 2018, 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 rulemaking process.

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.

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. According to OSHA officials, the agency discussed the option of adding ammonium nitrate to the list of chemicals covered by the Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations and collected comments. As of June 2018, the PSM 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 rulemaking process.

Recommendation: To better ensure that air ventilation systems in manufactured homes perform as specified and meet the HUD Code, HUD should develop an appropriate method to test and validate the performance of the ventilation system as part of the HUD certification process.

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.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and to improve the transparency and usefulness of cost analyses prepared for future NNSA nuclear facilities modernization projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that life cycle cost analyses include a thorough and balanced evaluation of short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives. Such analyses should consider the full useful life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirement for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time that might produce results that favor one option over another.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and because of the importance of mitigating the risks of outsourcing nuclear weapons components and other information that if exported, might allow potential adversaries to develop or advance their nuclear capabilities, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to take immediate action to assess the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of KCP's current export control and nonproliferation practices and, if appropriate, initiate corrective actions to strengthen that oversight.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.