FAS

IG Finds Classification Program at EPA Full of Errors

11.19.13 | 2 min read | Text by Steven Aftergood

A new review by the Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that classified documents at the Agency are riddled with errors.

Because the EPA has a minuscule classification program that hardly generates any classified material, it may be seen as a microcosm of the larger classification system. Only eight original classifications have been approved since the EPA Administrator was given authority to classify by President Bush in 2002, with a modest number of derivative classifications based on those.

Even so, the Inspector General wrote, “Our review of both originally and derivatively classified documents generated by three offices found that the EPA does not sufficiently follow national security information classification standards.”

“Of the two originally classified documents we reviewed, portions of one needed different classification levels and the other contained numerical data that was incorrectly transferred from another document,” the IG report said.

Meanwhile, “None of the 19 derivatively classified documents we reviewed completely met the requirements of Executive Order 12356 and the implementing regulations.”

See EPA Does Not Adequately Follow National Security Information Classification Standards, Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General, November 15, 2013.

Some of the IG’s objections seem persnickety.

“A classified paragraph portion was incorrectly marked as U/FOUO rather than as U//FOUO,” the report stated. This is considered a problem because “Having one versus two slashes can change the meaning.”

Other findings can easily be generalized to the entire classification system.

“EPA needs to declassify information in a timelier manner,” the IG said.

As with other agency IG reviews of classification policy required under the Reducing Over-Classification Act, the EPA Inspector General deliberately took a superficial view of the problem of overclassification. The IG review examined EPA compliance with existing classification policies and procedures. But it did not consider whether those policies and procedures are themselves to blame for widespread overclassification and, if so, how they ought to be changed.

publications
See all publications
Global Risk
Blog
The Pentagon’s (Slimmed Down) 2025 China Military Power Report

On Tuesday, December 23rd, the Department of Defense released its annual congressionally-mandated report on China’s military developments, also known as the “China Military Power Report,” or “CMPR.” The report is typically a valuable injection of information into the open source landscape, and represents a useful barometer for how the Pentagon assesses both the intentions and […]

01.09.26 | 7 min read
read more
Global Risk
Report
On the Precipice: Artificial Intelligence and the Climb to Modernize Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications

Successful NC3 modernization must do more than update hardware and software: it must integrate emerging technologies in ways that enhance resilience, ensure meaningful human control, and preserve strategic stability.

01.08.26 | 2 min read
read more
Global Risk
Blog
What’s New for Nukes in the New NDAA?

The FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) paints a picture of a Congress that is working to both protect and accelerate nuclear modernization programs while simultaneously lacking trust in the Pentagon and the Department of Energy to execute them.

12.18.25 | 5 min read
read more
FAS
Blog
“I’ve always been around people who make a living by caring”: an interview with Impact Fellow John Whitmer

For Impact Fellow John Whitmer, working in public service was natural. “I’ve always been around people who make a living by caring.”

12.18.25 | 3 min read
read more