	EPA Has Not Fully Addressed Findings of Evaluations on Long- standing Planning, Coordination, or Leadership Issues

EPA has taken some actions but has not fully addressed the findings and  recommendations of five independent evaluations over the past 20 years  regarding long-standing planning, coordination, and leadership issues  that hamper the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of its science  activities, including its laboratory operations. First, EPA has yet to fully address planning and coordination issues  identified by a 1992 independent, expert panel evaluation that  recommended that EPA develop and implement an overarching issue- based planning process that integrates and coordinates scientific efforts  throughout the agency, including the important work of its 37  laboratories. That evaluation found that EPA’s science was of uneven  quality and that the agency lacked a coherent science agenda and  operational plan to guide scientific efforts throughout the agency. Because EPA did not implement the evaluation’s recommendation, EPA’s  programs, regional officials, and ORD continue to independently plan and  coordinate the activities of their respective laboratories based on their  own offices’ priorities and needs. MITRE Corporation, Center for Environment, Resources, and Space, Assessment of the  Scientific and Technical Laboratories and Facilities of the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (McLean, Va., May 1994). Regarding  program office laboratory consolidations, the Office of Radiation and  Indoor Air did not physically consolidate its laboratories but did  administratively and physically consolidate its Las Vegas laboratory with  ORD’s Las Vegas radiation laboratory, and the Office of Prevention,  Pesticides, and Toxic Substances colocated three of four laboratories  with the region 3 laboratory. technical activities. EPA Has Not Taken an Agencywide, Coordinated Approach to Manage Its Laboratory Physical Infrastructure

On the basis of our analysis of EPA’s facility master planning process, we  found that EPA manages its laboratory facilities on a site-by-site basis  and does not evaluate each site in the context of all the agency’s real  property holdings—as recommended by the National Research Council  report in 2004. EPA’s facility master plans are intended to be the basis  for justifying its building and facilities spending, which was $29.9 million in  fiscal year 2010, and allocating those funds to specific repair and  improvement projects. Master plans should contain, among other things,  information on mission capabilities, use of space, and condition of  individual laboratory sites. In addition, we found that most facility master  plans were out of date. EPA’s real property asset management plan  states that facility master plans are supposed to be updated every 5 years  to reflect changes in facility condition and mission, but we found that 11 of  20 master plans were out of date and 2 of 20 had not been created yet. Since 2003, when GAO first  designated federal real property management as an area of high risk,  agencies have come under increasing pressure to manage their real  property assets more effectively. According to EPA officials,  they do not use benchmarks because the work of the laboratories  varies. EPA Does Not Use a Comprehensive Workforce Planning Process for Its Laboratories

EPA does not use a comprehensive planning process for managing its  laboratories’ workforce. For example, we found that not all of the regional  and program offices with laboratories prepared workforce plans as part of  an agencywide planning effort in 2007, and for those that did, most did  not specifically address their laboratories’ workforce. In fact, some  regional management and human resource officials we spoke with were  unaware of the requirement to submit workforce plans to the Office of  Human Resources. Some of these managers told us the program and  regional workforce plans were a paperwork exercise, irrelevant to the way  the workforce is actually managed. Managers in program and regional  offices said that workforce planning for their respective laboratories is  fundamentally driven by the annual budgets of program and regional  offices and ceilings for full-time equivalents (FTE). We believe that such information is essential for EPA to prepare a  comprehensive laboratory workforce plan to achieve the agency’s mission  with limited resources. The agency  asked its National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and  Technology to help address scientific and technical competencies as it  develops a new agencywide workforce plan. Finally, in our July 2011 report on EPA’s laboratory enterprise we  recommended, among other things, that EPA develop a coordinated  planning process for its scientific activities and appoint a top-level official  with authority over all the laboratories, improve physical and real property  planning decisions, and develop a workforce planning process for all  laboratories that reflects current and future needs of laboratory facilities.
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony discusses the research and development activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the findings of our recent report on the agency's laboratory enterprise. EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities into one agency for ensuring the joint protection of environmental quality and human health. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical information are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its standard-setting, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement functions. The agency's scientific performance is particularly important as complex environmental issues emerge and evolve, and controversy continues to surround many of the agency's areas of responsibility. Unlike other primarily science-focused federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, EPA's scientific research, technical support, and analytical services underpin the policies and regulations the agency implements. Therefore, the agency operates its own laboratory enterprise. This enterprise is made up of 37 laboratories that are housed in about 170 buildings and facilities located in 30 cities across the nation. Specifically, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) operates 18 laboratories with primary responsibility for research and development. Four of EPA's five national program offices operate nine laboratories with primary responsibility for supporting regulatory implementation, compliance, enforcement, and emergency response. Each of EPA's 10 regional offices operates a laboratory with responsibilities for a variety of applied sciences; analytical services; technical support to federal, state, and local laboratories; monitoring; compliance and enforcement; and emergency response. Over the past 20 years, independent evaluations by the National Research Council and others have addressed planning, coordination, or leadership issues associated with EPA's science activities. The scope of these evaluations varied, but collectively they recognized the need for EPA to improve long-term planning, priority setting, and coordination of laboratory activities; establish leadership for agencywide scientific oversight and decision making; and better manage the laboratories' workforce and infrastructure. When it was established in 1970, EPA inherited 42 laboratories from programs in various federal departments. According to EPA's historian, EPA closed or consolidated some laboratories it inherited and created additional laboratories to support its mission. Nevertheless, EPA's historian reported that the location of most of EPA's present laboratories is largely the same as the location of its original laboratories in part because of political objections to closing facilities and conflicting organizational philosophies, such as operating centralized laboratories for efficiency versus operating decentralized laboratories for flexibility and responsiveness. Other federal agencies face similar challenges with excess and underused property. Because of these challenges, GAO has designated federal real property as an area of high risk. This statement summarizes the findings of our report issued in July of this year that examines the extent to which EPA (1) has addressed the findings of independent evaluations performed by the National Research Council and others regarding long-term planning, coordination, and leadership issues; (2) uses an agencywide, coordinated approach for managing its laboratory physical infrastructure; and (3) uses a comprehensive planning process to manage its laboratory workforce.

What GAO Found

EPA has taken some actions but has not fully addressed the findings and recommendations of five independent evaluations over the past 20 years regarding long-standing planning, coordination, and leadership issues that hamper the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of its science activities, including its laboratory operations. First, EPA has yet to fully address planning and coordination issues identified by a 1992 independent, expert panel evaluation that recommended that EPA develop and implement an overarching issue-based planning process that integrates and coordinates scientific efforts throughout the agency, including the important work of its 37 laboratories. Second, EPA has also not fully addressed recommendations from a 1994 independent evaluation by the MITRE Corporation to consolidate and realign its laboratory facilities and workforce--even though this evaluation found that the geographic separation of laboratories hampered their efficiency and technical operations and that consolidation and realignment could improve planning and coordination issues that have hampered its science and technical community for decades. Third, EPA has not fully addressed recommendations from the independent evaluations regarding leadership of its research and laboratory operations. On the basis of our analysis of EPA's facility master planning process, we found that EPA manages its laboratory facilities on a site-by-site basis and does not evaluate each site in the context of all the agency's real property holdings--as recommended by the National Research Council report in 2004. EPA's facility master plans are intended to be the basis for justifying its building and facilities spending, which was $29.9 million in fiscal year 2010, and allocating those funds to specific repair and improvement projects. Master plans should contain, among other things, information on mission capabilities, use of space, and condition of individual laboratory sites. In addition, we found that most facility master plans were out of date. EPA's real property asset management plan states that facility master plans are supposed to be updated every 5 years to reflect changes in facility condition and mission, but we found that 11 of 20 master plans were out of date and 2 of 20 had not been created yet. EPA does not use a comprehensive planning process for managing its laboratories' workforce. For example, we found that not all of the regional and program offices with laboratories prepared workforce plans as part of an agencywide planning effort in 2007, and for those that did, most did not specifically address their laboratories' workforce. In fact, some regional management and human resource officials we spoke with were unaware of the requirement to submit workforce plans to the Office of Human Resources. Some of these managers told us the program and regional workforce plans were a paperwork exercise, irrelevant to the way the workforce is actually managed. Managers in program and regional offices said that workforce planning for their respective laboratories is fundamentally driven by the annual budgets of program and regional offices and ceilings for full-time equivalents (FTE).