M'O
x^j? I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
k^^^^^ja
-------
MISSION
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency
is to protect human health and the environment.
EPA's purpose is to ensure that:
All Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where
they live, learn, and work.
National efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information.
Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.
Environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources,
human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international
trade; and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.
All parts of society—communities, individuals, business, state and local governments, tribal
governments—have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing
human health and environmental risks.
Environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse,
sustainable, and economically productive.
The United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global
environment.
STRATEGIC GOALS
September 2000 Strategic Plan
1. Clean Air
2. Clean and Safe Water
3. Safe Food
4 Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and Ecosystems
5. Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response
6. Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks
7. Quality Environmental Information
8. Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and Greater Innovation to
Address Environmental Problems
9. A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
10. Effective Management
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR
I am pleased to provide the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2002 Annual Report,
which conveys a comprehensive view of the Agency's program and financial performance
over the past fiscal year. I believe that the Congress and the American public will find this
report helpful in assessing the Agency's success in protecting human health and the
environment and in using taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively in this pursuit.
Much of the progress described in the report is a direct result of contributions by our
federal, state, local, and tribal partners. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA and its partners continue
to make important progress in reducing air pollution and protecting Americans—particularly
children, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments—from airborne health risks.
Similarly, under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Agency and its
partners have helped to restore and protect watersheds and aquatic ecosystems and to move
us closer to our goal that all Americans have drinking water that is clean and safe to drink.
Continued Superfund site cleanup and the job training and employment opportunities
associated with Brownfields redevelopment have demonstrated the economic benefits of
environmental improvement.
In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the anthrax outbreaks, and in light
of continuing terrorist threats, I am proud of this Agency's efforts to meet its homeland
security responsibilities, including improving our ability to respond to potential chemical and
biological incidents and to promote the safety of our public water systems and of the
chemical industry. Our EPA Homeland Security Strategic Plan, released in October, will guide
our efforts in the years ahead. We look forward to working closely with the newly-created
Department of Homeland Security in meeting our shared homeland security responsibilities.
Internationally, under EPA leadership, a renewed program along the United States-Mexico
border is taking shape to improve the quality of drinking water and the level of food safety,
particularly among young children. As an outgrowth of this summer's World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, EPA is leading the development of
children's environmental health indicators and efforts to reduce levels worldwide of indoor air
pollution and lead and sulfur emissions from vehicle fuels.
In FY 2002 EPA made significant progress toward accomplishing the government-wide
reforms of the President's Management Agenda. The Agency continues to be a leader in the
area of e-government—modernizing and streamlining our administrative systems and actively
participating in 14 of the federal government's e-gov projects to improve service efficiency
and expand public access. EPA is revising the Agency's Strategic Plan and structuring it around
fewer more outcome-oriented environmental goals that we feel will be more meaningful to
the public and Congress. EPA's efforts to integrate our Strategic Plan and environmental
performance with the Agency's budget process and workforce planning will enable us to
make more informed policy decisions and ensure that Americans' tax dollars are well spent.
(continued on next page)
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
In addition, the Agency is working to develop a comprehensive set of environmental
indicators, so that we can improve our understanding of current environmental conditions and
ensure that environmental policy is producing measurable improvements in the condition of
the environment. We will release the findings later this year in a draft report on the state of
the environment.
As we look to the future, I want to thank the American people for their unwavering
support of environmental protection. It is to them that we are ultimately accountable, and I
know that by working together, we are certain to accomplish our goal of cleaner air, purer
water, and better protected land for ourselves and for generations that follow.
Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
\
Q
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
I am pleased to present to you EPA's Annual Report for FY 2002, a year in which the
Agency accomplished much in protecting the environment and human health, and in
managing public resources effectively and efficiently. This was a special year for all of us.
We sustained all of the Agency's ongoing environmental protection efforts for cleaner air,
purer water, and better protected land. At the same time, we were called upon to respond to
new and complex challenges, including follow-up to the September 11 attacks and to multiple
incidents of anthrax contamination. In FY 2002 EPA was also in the vanguard of support for
the government-wide reforms outlined in the President's Management Agenda.
As a consolidated annual report, this document is designed to provide information about
EPA's performance—what the Agency planned to work on in the past year, and the results of
the work we did—along with our audited annual financial statements. We aim to produce a
report of useful information for the American people as well as for our partners and
stakeholders in state and tribal governments, other federal agencies, Congress and OMB,
industry, and the environmental community.
This report itself exemplifies one of our most distinguished achievements. EPA has been
described as a leader among federal agencies for integrating our planning and budgeting
processes with information about our performance. Most recently, the Agency was honored
by the President as one of seven finalists government-wide for the President's Quality Award
for budget and performance integration. Thanks to the efforts of many across EPA, we have
achieved more rational approaches to planning and budgeting; clearer strategic direction for
the Agency; and annual reports that merit clean audit opinions and commendations for
transparency—all of which place EPA in the forefront of government reform.
As always, we welcome your suggestions for ways to make EPA's Annual Report for
FY 2003 more informative and interesting. We invite you to send comments by postal or
electronic mail to the addresses provided on the back cover of this Report.
Thank you for your continuing interest in our work and your support for a clean
environment and good health for all Americans.
Linda M. Combs
Chief Financial Officer
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA'S FY 2002 ANNUAL REPORT
CONTENTS
Mission Statement - Strategic Goals Inside Front Cover
Message from the Administrator Feature
Message from the Chief Financial Officer Feature
Contents i
SECTION I-Overview and Analysis 1-1
SECTIONII-PerformanceResults H-l
Goall: Clean Air II-l
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 11-15
Goal 3: Safe Food 11-31
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks 11-39
Goal 5: Better Waste Management 11-53
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Risks 11-63
Goal 7: Quality Environmental Information 11-77
Goal 8: Sound Science 11-87
Goal 9: Credible Deterrent and Greater Compliance 11-99
Goal 10: Effective Management 11-111
SECTION HI - Management Accomplishments and Challenges III-l
FY2002 Integrity Act Report III-2
Major Management Challenges III-4
FY 2002 Management's Report on Audits III-ll
Key Management Challenges 111-13
SECTION IV -FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-1
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis IV-1
Principal Financial Statements IV-5
OIG's Report on EPA's Financial Statements IV-67
www.epa.gov/ocfo Contents
-------
APPENDIX A - Comprehensive Listing ofFY2002 Program Evaluations A-l
APPENDIX B - Data Quality for Assessments of FY 2002 Performance B-l
APPENDIX C - EPA Organization Chart C-l
APPENDIX D -Acronyms and Abbreviations D-l
Public Access Inside Back Cover
Report Acquisition and Photo Credits Back Cover
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report umv.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Section!
-------
OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 to protect
human health and safeguard the environment.
Since that time the Agency has worked
continuously to ensure that the American people
have air that is safe to breathe, water that is clean
and safe to drink, and land that is protected
from toxic chemicals and other hazards.
Consistent with the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA), in 1997 EPA
established 10 long-term strategic goals that
identify the environmental results the Agency is
working to achieve and reflect the sound
financial and management practices it intends
to employ. These goals and the accompanying
statement of objectives and strategies to achieve
results constituted the Agency's first Strategic Plan
under GPRA. In 2000, when the Agency released
a revised Strategic Plan, the goals were modified
slightly. Each fiscal year, as required under GPRA,
the Agency develops an Annual Plan that
translates these long-term goals and objectives
into specific actions to be taken and resources to
be used during the year. EPA is accountable to
the American people for making yearly
progress toward its annual and long-term goals
and is required to assess that progress and
report to Congress and the public. As a result, at
the end of every fiscal year, the Agency develops
an Annual Report that describes the year's
programmatic and financial achievements.
This Annual Report is intended to provide a
comprehensive assessment of the Agency's
fiscal year (FY) 2002 progress in protecting
human health and the environment and in
using taxpayer dollars efficiently and effectively
to do so. The Agency's FY 2002 performance
results were achieved by using a mix of tools
and approaches and by adjusting strategies in
light of the performance assessments of
previous years' accomplishments. Throughout
the year EPA worked closely with its primary
partners—states, tribes and other federal
agencies—whose contributions were critical to
many of the results described in the report.
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report contains four
main sections. First, this Overview and Analysis
is intended to provide a broad view of EPA's
performance and fiscal accountability over the
past year.* In discussing performance results,
the Overview focuses on environmental
achievements, particularly under EPA's Goals 1
through 6. The Overview also presents
approaches and tools the Agency is using to
improve managing for results, discusses
significant factors that might affect future
Agency operations, and highlights EPA's
accomplishments in sound financial
management.
Section II describes in greater detail the
results that EPA—working with its federal, state,
tribal, and local government partners—achieved
under each of the Agency's 10 goals. It also
presents progress in meeting the Annual
Performance Goals established in EPA's
FY 2002 Annual Plan and longer-range strategic
goals and objectives identified in EPA's 2000
Strategic Plan. Section III discusses major
management challenges EPA faced during the
year and presents the Agency's approaches and
accomplishments in addressing the challenges.
Finally, Section IV summarizes EPA's financial
activities and achievements and presents the
Agency's annual financial statements, which
have been independently audited by EPA's
Inspector General.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
During FY 2002 EPA and its partners,
building on FY 2001 accomplishments, made
significant progress in protecting human health
and the environment. The sections below
highlight key environmental and program
' The Overview and Analysis also addresses requirements for a
"Management's Discussion and Analysis" of the annual financial
statements included in EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report. Because the
FY 2002 Annual Report consolidates a number of specific reports, some
required components of the "Management's Discussion and Analysis"
are presented in greater detail elsewhere in this report. In particular,
EPA's mission statement and long-range goals appear at the front of the
report and an EPA organization chart is included as Appendix C. For a
discussion of the Agency's performance goals, objectives, and results,
refer to Section II. Management accomplishments and challenges are
discussed in Section III. Financial statements, along with a discussion
of systems, controls, and legal compliance, are presented in Section IV.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
1-1
-------
results, summarize the Agency's performance in
meeting its FY 2002 performance goals, and
discuss some of EPA's current performance
issues and concerns.
Environmental Accomplishments
Clean Air: Under EPA's Clean Air goal, the
Agency and its partners made significant
progress in FY 2002 in reducing air pollution
and protecting Americans—particularly children,
the elderly, and people with respiratory
ailments—from the health risks posed by air
pollution. During FY 2002 EPA's state and tribal
partners continued to work toward achieving or
maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and the Agency provided guidance,
tools, and resources to help its partners meet their
objectives. As a result, in FY 2002 more than
19 million Americans live in geographic areas
newly designated by EPA as achieving clean air.1
In FY 2002 as EPA promulgated 13 new standards
for toxic air pollutants, its state and tribal partners
implemented standards for toxic pollutants that
were already in place.2 In FY 2002 emissions of
toxic air pollutants nationwide from stationary
and mobile sources combined were reduced by
an additional 1.5 percent, or 90,000 tons, from
FY 2001 levels. This percentage represents a
cumulative reduction of almost 33.8 percent, or
about 2 million tons, from the 1993 baseline of
6 million tons.3
Power-generating utilities regulated under
the market-based Acid Rain Program continue
to achieve or exceed the required reductions
for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx). Through FY 2001 SO2 emissions
continued to decline from their high of
17 million tons in 1980 to 10.6 million tons.
NOx emissions were reduced by 2 million tons
nationally during the same period.4
Lastly, EPA issued emissions standards for
several types of previously unregulated non-road
engines and vehicles that contribute to ozone
formation and/or particulate matter emissions, both
which cause significant health concern. These
standards apply to recreational vehicles, diesel
marine engines, and large industrial spark-ignition
engines. When the standards are fully
implemented, EPA expects an overall 72 percent
reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from such
engines, an 80 percent reduction in NOx
emissions, and a 56 percent reduction in
carbon monoxide emissions annually. These
controls will improve visibility in national parks
and wilderness areas and reduce exposure for
people who operate, work with, or are close to
these engines and vehicles. The annual human
health benefits of this rulemaking include
avoiding about 1,000 premature deaths,
preventing 1,000 hospital admissions, reducing
asthma attacks by 23,400, and preventing
200,000 days of lost work. In monetary terms,
EPA estimates these health benefits to be worth
roughly $8 billion per year when the standards
are fully implemented.5
Clean and Safe Water: In FY 2002 EPA
continued its work to ensure that all Americans
have drinking water that is clean and safe to
drink; that the country's rivers, lakes, wetlands,
aquifers, and coastal and ocean waters are
healthy; and that watersheds and aquatic
ecosystems are restored and protected. During
FY 2002, 91 percent of Americans who
obtained their drinking water from community
water systems received drinking water that met
all EPA health standards.6
EPA and its partners worked in FY 2002 to
increase the security of the Nation's drinking
water supplies and wastewater systems and
protect them from potential terrorist attacks.
Since November 2001 about 6,000 drinking
water and wastewater plant managers and
operators have received security training in
assessing the vulnerabilities of their water
supply systems, developing emergency and
response plans, and communicating risks to
communities. EPA expects that the drinking
water supplies of more than 120 million people,
or nearly half the population served by the
Nation's community water systems, will be more
secure as a result of the greater awareness
fostered by this FY 2002 training. Lastly, in
FY 2002 EPA developed a protocol for ensuring
the safe disposal of wastewater from the
cleanup of anthrax-contaminated sites.
1-2
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Safe Food: Throughout FY 2002 EPA
worked to ensure that the Nation's food supply
is safe from risks posed by pesticide residues.
Through its pesticide registration program, EPA
made available to the agricultural community
alternatives to currently used pesticides posing
risks to human health and the environment. EPA
registered an alternative to methyl bromide,
9 organophosphate alternatives, 11 bio-pesticides,
and 4 conventional reduced-risk pesticides. The
Agency also completed its first-ever cumulative
risk assessment of a group of pesticides that
have a common mechanism of toxicity or a
common effect on the human body. This risk
assessment evaluated how much risk a group of
pesticides posed to human health by estimating
human exposure to the pesticides through food,
water, skin, and inhalation in residential and
public settings in this country. By continuing to
conduct cumulative risk assessments in FY 2003,
EPA will be able to determine whether the risks
posed by groups of similar pesticides meet the
current safety standard required by the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996.
Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk
in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and
Ecosystems: In FY 2002 EPA continued its
work to reduce risk in communities, homes,
workplaces, and ecosystems. In FY 2002 the
Agency launched a national advertising
campaign coupled with a major outreach effort,
cosponsored by EPA and key medical,
consumer, and community organizations, to
protect the more than 15 million children who
are exposed to secondhand smoke in their
homes. In addition, in FY 2002 the Agency,
working cooperatively with the chemical
industry, established the Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation Program. Under this
program 35 chemical manufacturers and
10 consortia have volunteered to sponsor and
respond to risk assessments for 20 chemicals to
which children have a high likelihood of being
exposed. Further, during FY 2002 EPA, in
partnership with states, facilitated the safe
disposal of more than 10,000 transformers and
22,000 large capacitors containing a group of
toxic chemicals known as polychlorinated
biphenyls, or PCBs. Finally, in FY 2002 nearly
1,000 hospitals across the country enrolled in
EPA's Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
program, which seeks to cut the waste
generated by hospital facilities in half and to
eliminate the use of mercury, a toxic chemical.
Better Waste Management, Restoration
of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response: To better protect this
Nation's land, EPA continued to promote safe
waste management, clean up hazardous waste
sites, return abandoned or underutilized industrial
and commercial properties to productive use,
and respond rapidly and effectively to waste-
related accidents and emergencies. During
FY 2002 EPA's emergency response program
supported the environmental cleanup at the
World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon.
EPA employees monitored these locations for
toxic and other air pollutants released from the
burning of building contents (particularly from
plastics and computers), assisted with waste
management, advised on cleanup and
decontamination, and provided information to
the public. At the WTC EPA was the federal lead
on environmental contamination. When
outbreaks of anthrax bioterrorism occurred
during October 2001, the Agency's response
personnel led the effort to clean up and
decontaminate six post offices in Florida and
four congressional office buildings in
Washington, DC. Success in this area depended
on counterterrorism research, planning, and
preparedness at the federal, state, and local levels.
In FY 2002 the Agency exceeded its
performance goal of completing the cleanup of
40 Superfund sites by achieving "construction
completes" at 42 sites on the Superfund National
Priority List. In addition, the Brownfields
Program leveraged more than $4.8 billion in
public and private investments and resulted in
more than 21,000 jobs in cleanup, construction,
and redevelopment from 1995 through June
2002. The primary goal of EPA's Brownfields
Program is to provide states, tribes, and local
governments with the tools and financial
assistance they need to assess, clean up, and
redevelop Brownfield properties. Since 1995,
3,807 properties have been assessed using
federal funds. The job training and development
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
1-3
-------
demonstration pilots have trained more than
1,200 participants, of whom more than 750 have
obtained jobs.
Reduction of Global and Cross-Border
Environmental Risks: By working collabor-
atively with other countries, international
organizations, and U.S. federal agencies, EPA
provided U.S. leadership in addressing global
environmental challenges. For example, EPA and
the Government of Mexico—in cooperation with
other federal agencies, the 10 states along the
U.S.-Mexican border, and participating tribes—
drafted a new "Border 2012" environmental
program. This program will protect the
environment and the 11.8 million people living
near the border over the next 10 years by,
among other things, providing potable drinking
water and wastewater services, reducing the
health and water quality risks posed by
discarded tire piles and exposure to pesticides,
and addressing the high rates of asthma in
children living near the border. Further, at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg, South Africa, in August and
September 2002, EPA announced new global
partnerships to develop children's environmental
health indicators, reduce indoor air pollution,
eliminate lead from gasoline, and reduce sulfur
in vehicle fuels.
A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and
Greater Compliance with the Law: In
FY 2002 EPA took significant actions to promote
and monitor compliance with environmental
laws as well as to enforce the laws as
appropriate. During FY 2002 EPA helped small
and medium-sized businesses, local govern-
ments, and federal facilities to understand and to
comply with their environmental regulatory
obligations through 10 Internet-based
Compliance Assistance Centers.
During FY 2002 EPA concluded several
enforcement settlements that significantly
advanced environmental and human health
protection. In FY 2002 EPA's Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program eliminated
266 million pounds of pollution from the air,
water, and land, and compelled violating
companies to invest $56.4 million in environ-
mental improvements. For example, EPA
reached a settlement to end the discharge of an
estimated 30 million gallons a year of untreated
wastewater contaminated with bacteria,
pathogens, and other harmful pollutants into the
Baltimore harbor. Also during FY 2002 a judicial
action was concluded against a large brass fitting
company in Alabama for violations of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Illegal
treatment of hazardous waste foundry sand at the
facility resulted in lead-contaminated sand which
the company then donated to city and county
governments for use as fill on playgrounds and
ballfields. The settlement will eliminate public
contact with the sand. Under another settlement
reached in FY 2002, a large energy utility in
New Jersey will spend $337 million to install
state-of-the-art pollution controls to reduce its
emissions of SO2 by 90 percent and NOx by more
than 80 percent, eliminating about 54,000 tons
of air pollutants per year.
Other Agency Accomplishments and the President's
Management Agenda (PMA)
To successfully protect human health and the
environment, EPA recognizes that it must
develop and apply the best available science in
carrying out its programs, function effectively as
an organization, serve the public responsively,
and use its resources wisely. For example, to
improve its understanding of environmental risk
as well as its ability to detect and address
emerging environmental problems, in FY 2002
the Agency produced a modeling framework for
estimating human exposure to pollutants through
multiple environmental media (e.g., air, water,
food) and multiple pathways. This framework
will help the Agency in assessing and managing
risks for a variety of pollutants, such as
pesticides and toxic air pollutants and in
protecting children and other susceptible
subpopulations from harmful exposures. Further,
during FY 2002 EPA developed two innovative
computer software programs that allow industry
and state and local decision makers to apply the
best available science to (1) estimate the
potential environmental impact of chemical
process designs, and (2) evaluate the inhalation
impact of metal finishing facilities on workers
1-4
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
and nearby residents. (Refer to Goal 8 for more
information.)
In FY 2002 EPA also made significant
progress in ensuring that it has safe, healthy,
energy-efficient office facilities and laboratories
to support its work and employees. During
FY 2002 EPA completed the new state-of-the art
laboratory facilities in North Carolina and Kansas
that will enable the Agency to better address the
environmental scientific challenges of the 21st
century. In January 2002 EPA's Massachusetts
laboratory facility received a White House
"Closing the Circle Award" for its environmental
performance. Finally, EPA completed its
relocation to the newly renovated buildings in
the Federal Triangle complex in Washington,
DC. This project began in 1993 and involved the
design and renovation of 1.3 million square feet
to support the work of 5,500 EPA employees.
(Refer to Goal 10 for more information.)
EPA's senior managers recognize that
managing the organization and its resources
effectively is key to achieving long-term
environ-mental results. The Agency's most
significant accomplishments in this area occurred
as it addressed the five areas identified in the
President's Management Agenda (PMA)7, the
Administration's strategy for improving the
management and performance of the federal
government. In FY 2002 the President's Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) credited EPA
for taking major steps forward in each of the
five areas. OMB's PMA scorecard8—used to rate
agencies on each initiative using a "score" of
red, yellow, or green—designated EPA's
progress as green in all five areas, marking EPA
as 1 of the 2 agencies out of the 24 CFO
agencies accomplishing this progress rating as of
September 30, 2002.
Improved Financial Performance: This
area of the PMA calls for reducing erroneous
payments and ensuring that federal financial
systems produce accurate and timely information
to support operating, budget, and policy
decisions. EPA made significant progress in
FY 2002 in improving its financial performance
by reviewing internal controls to assess the
potential for making erroneous payments under
the State Revolving Funds managed by the
water program, submitting the final FY 2001
financial statements on time with clean audit
opinions, and issuing interim financial
statements on schedule. The Agency also made
great strides in the grants arena by issuing a
grants competition policy, appointing a senior
executive as the Agency Grants Competition
Advocate, establishing an internal web site to
facilitate implementation, and providing
training on the policy. EPA also made
significant progress in FY 2002 by correcting all
four of its current material weaknesses—
deficiencies in program policies, guidance, or
procedures that might impair EPA's ability to
achieve its mission—under the Federal
Managers Financial Integrity Act.
Budget and Performance Integration:
This area focuses on linking resources to
performance, using program evaluation in
planning and budget decision-making, and
improving accountability for performance. As
one of the few agencies with an integrated,
goal-based budget, EPA has long been a leader
in budget and performance integration consistent
with the PMA. In FY 2002 the Agency made
good progress addressing the PMA criteria for
this area, including developing a methodology to
include social costs in the Agency's revised
strategic plan. EPA's selection as a finalist for the
President's Quality Award in the area of budget
and performance integration distinguished the
Agency government-wide.
Expanded Electronic Government: This
area seeks to make it easier for people to
receive high quality government services
through the Internet, while reducing the cost of
delivering those services. In FY 2002 EPA was
recognized by OMB as a model partner for its
work under 14 e-government projects that use
information technology to improve environmental
decision making, eliminate redundant activities
across multiple federal agencies, and achieve a
more seamless, citizen-centered provision of
services. EPA also was designated to be the
managing partner and lead agency for the
Online Rulemaking Initiative, which will make
the rulemaking process more transparent to
citizens and businesses.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
1-5
-------
Strategic Management of Human
Capital: This area calls for ensuring that an
agency's human capital strategy is aligned with its
mission and organizational objectives. EPA uses its
Human Resource Council, made up of senior
managers from across the Agency, as a forum to
discuss key human resource issues and provide
direction for its human capital efforts. In FY 2002
EPA launched a Senior Executive Service
Candidate Development Program, hired a group
of highly skilled and educated EPA interns, and
provided grants competition training for current
EPA employees, all aimed at improving and
enhancing EPA's human resources. The Agency
also is aligning its human capital strategy with its
revised Strategic Plan to help build the skills and
competencies needed in its workforce to carry
out the Agency's mission and to strengthen
employee recruitment and retention.
Competitive Sourcing:This area of the
PMA focuses on achieving greater efficiencies in
program administration and effective competition
between public and private sources. EPA has
embraced the President's competitive sourcing
initiative and is committed to introducing more
competition into the activities EPA performs. By
doing so, the Agency can improve how it
protects the environment and human health.
Competitive sourcing provides EPA with an
opportunity to take a fresh look at how the
Agency conducts operations, to reevaluate what
EPA does as well as how it is done, to generate
greater value for the taxpayer, and to introduce
efficiencies to business processes. In FY 2002
the Agency completed all targeted conversions
and 100 percent of the combined FY 2002/2003
competitive sourcing goal. EPA also launched an
Agency-wide competitive sourcing team to
develop recommendations for a strategic and
sustainable approach to competitive sourcing.
The team's report will include an analysis of
Agency-wide, cross-cutting functions and activities
that can be bundled as possible candidates for
further study and competition with the private
sector as well as a proposed framework for
conducting competitive sourcing at EPA.
Summary of Performance Data
In FY 2002 EPA met 48 (83 percent) of the
Annual Performance Goals (APGs) for which
data are provided in this report. (EPA identified
71 APGs in its FY 2002 Annual Plan; however,
final results for 13 of these APGs are not
available until FY 2003 or later, and will be
discussed in future annual reports.) This reflects
an improvement over the total percentage of
goals met in FY 2001. The goal chapters in
Section II include charts that present EPA's
FY 2002 performance results and highlights of
4-year performance trends (FY 1999-FY 2002).
During FY 2002 final performance results
data became available for six FY 2001 and two
FY 2000 APGs. For example, the Agency met
its FY 2001 goals for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and consumption of ozone depleting
substances as well as SC> and NO emissions.
2 x
EPA can now report achievement of 46
(69 percent) of the 67 APGs for which it has
FY 2001 data. For FY 2000 EPA can now report
achievement of 58 (82 percent) of the 71 APGs
for which it has performance data. Delays in
reporting cycles and targets set beyond the fiscal
year continue to affect three FY 2001 APGs,
two FY 2000 APGs, and four FY 1999 APGs.
Performance Issues and Concerns
Despite the best efforts of EPA and its
partners, the Agency was not able to meet all
planned targets for FY 2002. However, the
Agency does not expect the shortfall in meeting
these APGs to compromise progress toward
achieving its long-range goals and strategic
objectives. For 4 of the 11 missed APGs, EPA
fell only slightly short of the targets and met the
cumulative goals.
External factors contributed to seven of the
missed APGs. For example, EPA had anticipated
that 10 areas would be redesignated from non-
attainment to attainment of the ozone standard in
FY 2002, but fell considerably short of that goal.
Several states previously revocated for the
1-hour ozone standard decided not to redesignate
and instead wait for implementation guidance for
the new 8-hour ozone standard. As long as
issues remain concerning the move toward the
1-6
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
more protective 8-hour ozone standard, states
are reluctant to request redesignation to the
current 1-hour ozone standard.
EPA had anticipated that six areas would be
redesignated to attainment of PM standards, but
due to delays in the redesignation process for
one state and the failure of a second state to
submit a maintenance plan as scheduled, only
four areas were redesignated to attainment.
Despite these difficulties, EPA and states
continue to work together to ensure progress in
meeting the present ozone and PM standards
while facilitating a smooth transition as new
standards are implemented.
In addition, under its goal to achieve
Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater
Compliance with the Law, EPA anticipated a
pollution reduction of 300 million pounds of
pollutants due to enforcement settlement
provisions, an estimated target based on the
results of concluded enforcement actions from
previous years. In FY 2002 only 266 million
pounds of pollutants were reduced. The Agency
does not establish quotas for the number of
enforcement cases to be pursued, and estimated
pollution reduction targets sometimes vary
widely from year to year. EPA greatly exceeded
the targets for pollution reduction in FY 2000
and FY 2001. The Agency continues to direct
enforcement actions to maximize compliance
and address environmental and human health
problems.
One final example of external factors
contributing to performance shortfalls is the
Agency's leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) program, which oversees cleanup of
releases from underground storage tanks
containing gasoline, other petroleum products,
or hazardous substances. In 2002 EPA and its
state partners completed 15,769 cleanups, for a
total of nearly 284,000 since 1987. The FY 2002
target of 22,000 cleanups was not met due to
the presence at many sites of the contaminate
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline
additive, which has complicated cleanup and
resulted in longer-than-expected cleanup times
and higher-than-expected cleanup costs at LUST
sites. MTBE contamination also led to the
reopening of previously closed sites in
12 states, thus deflecting resources from
completion of other cleanup sites.
For some missed APGs, shortfalls cannot be
attributed to a single reason. For example, under
the Agency's Clean Water Goal, EPA missed its
target for issuing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for major
point sources. NPDES permits help reduce or
eliminate discharges into the Nation's waters of
inadequately treated wastewater from municipal
and industrial facilities and of pollutants from
urban stormwater, combined sewer overflows,
and concentrated animal feeding operations. In
FY 2002 permits issued covered only 83 percent
of the targeted 90 percent of major point
sources. While EPA is making progress to
address the permit backlog, the missed target
can be attributed to a number of factors
including complexities associated with
integrating individual permits with watershed
and other planning processes.
In summary, EPA and its partners did not
meet 10 of the 58 FY 2002 APGs for which
performance data are currently available. These
APGs are associated with 7 of EPA's 10 strategic
goals. The Agency is considering the various
causes of these shortfalls—legal issues,
redirection or shortages of staff, continued
complexities in cleanup processes, technological
limitations, and other factors—as it adjusts APGs
and program strategies for FY 2003 and sets
priorities for 2004 and beyond. The performance
data charts in Section II provide more complete
information on missed targets and discuss
Agency progress toward achievement of its
strategic goals and objectives.
IMPROVING RESULTS
In FY 2002 EPA strengthened its ability to
achieve environmental results and measure its
performance. The Agency's Managing for
Improved Results Steering Group, composed of
senior managers from across EPA, examined a
number of current management practices—
including priority-setting, planning and budgeting,
and performance tracking and reporting—with
an eye toward dramatically improving them. In
www. epa.gov/ocfo
1-7
-------
FY 2002 the group finalized a set of short- and
long-term recommendations for improving EPA's
results-based management processes. Many of
the short-term recommendations were
implemented in FY 2002 and have become the
driving force behind development of EPA's
FY 2004 budget and the 2003 revision of the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
For example, in FY 2002 EPA institutionalized
a process for developing its annual funding
request by analyzing the previous year's results
and engaging partners and stakeholders to
identify priority areas. This process focused on
the Agency's ability to fulfill commitments set
forth in its Strategic Plan. It included a series of
meetings on each of the 10 strategic goals with
the Deputy Administrator and Chief Financial
Officer to examine the Agency's performance
and identify areas where EPA is not achieving its
intended results. Taken together, the
recommendations that the Results Group
developed in FY 2002 will improve the
alignment of day-to-day activities with strategic
goals and objectives; improve accountability
between EPA's headquarters and regional offices;
strengthen the involvement of the Agency's
10 regions, states, and tribes in EPA's planning
and priority-setting processes; and build the
capacity of Agency managers and staff in
managing for results.
In addition in FY 2002, 11 EPA programs,
accounting for 20 percent of EPA's budget, were
evaluated using the Administration's new
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which
aims to identify opportunities for federal
agencies to improve strategic planning,
management, and results of its programs. The
results of PART analyses, which showed that
some programs have insufficient data, reinforced
the need for EPA to continue its progress in
identifying outcome-based goals and measures to
better link its activities to actual improvements in
health or ecosystem quality. In FY 2003 OMB
plans to conduct PART reviews for another
20 percent of the Agency's programs during the
FY 2005 budget formulation process.
As discussed below, in FY 2002 EPA
strengthened other areas critical to its ability to
achieve long-term results: (1) collaborating with
its partners, (2) conducting and applying the
results of program evaluations, (3) tracking and
measuring performance, (4) addressing
environmental performance data issues, and
(5) anticipating future trends and issues.
Strengthening Partnerships
Many of the FY 2002 advances in
environmental protection discussed in Section II
would not have been possible without strong
collaboration between EPA and its federal, state,
local, and tribal partners. EPA continues to
collaborate closely with states and tribes and is
committed to strengthening vital partnerships
with organizations such as the Environmental
Council of the States (EGOS) and the Tribal
Caucus. EPA envisions a stronger role for states
and tribes in its annual planning and budgeting
and has been striving to involve them early in
these processes. In FY 2002 EGOS and tribal
representatives participated in EPA's FY 2004
Annual Planning Meeting to present
recommendations for the Agency's FY 2004
budget priorities. Similarly, during FY 2002 EPA
regional offices consulted with states and tribes
on overall EPA budget priorities and developing
regional budget initiatives.
Apart from soliciting state input and
participation in its annual planning processes,
EPA worked closely with EGOS and other state
organizations in FY 2002 as it began to revise its
long-range Strategic Plan. In spring 2002 EPA
solicited state views on the greatest challenges
and opportunities in environmental and human
health protection that the Agency and the Nation
would likely face in the coming 5 to 10 years.
These views were taken into account as the
Agency developed options for a new strategic
goal framework. The Agency's managers shared
these goal framework options with EGOS,
carefully considering the state feedback as they
developed their recommendations for EPA
Administrator Whitman. In July 2002, after the
Administrator announced a new five-goal
structure, EPA continued consulting with states to
help determine more precisely the desired
results to be achieved under each of the new
strategic goals. EPA will continue to consult
1-8
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
extensively with states in completing the
2003 Strategic Plan and will carefully consider
state priorities and issues as it develops the
objectives, strategies, and approaches for
achieving the Agency's new strategic goals.
EPA and several states, through an EGOS Ad
Hoc Committee, conducted a joint system
evaluation of the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) during
FY 2002. The evaluation reviewed the
accomplishments of Performance Partnerships
and barriers to further improvement in results-
based partnering with states. Recommendations
from this evaluative process pull together and
build upon other Agency efforts such as the
Managing for Improved Results initiative,
Indicators project, and the new EPA Innovations
Strategy. The Agency will work with selected
states in FY 2003 to model having the
Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA)
become the definitive operating agreement
between the Agency and a state. A
complementary effort to improve the value of
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) is also
underway with anticipated benefits in flexibility
and reduced transaction costs to be realized in
FY 2003 and beyond.
During FY 2002 EPA also continued to work
closely with tribal governments to identify
priorities, improve management of
environmental issues, and help develop the
capacity to carry out environmental programs in
Indian Country. For example, in FY 2002 EPA
developed a highly accessible database
containing environmental profiles of
300 federally recognized tribes. This new
database includes historical information, maps,
geographic dimensions, inventories of regulated
facilities, governmental structure, descriptions of
wastewater and drinking water facilities, grant
activities, and the status of environmental
programs for each individual tribe. EPA also
developed resource materials useful to both the
tribes and the Agency in managing tribal grants
and maintaining quality grant oversight. The
Agency worked closely with authorized tribes to
publish the brochure How Water Quality
Standards Protect Tribal Waters, an informative
tool for citizens, tribes, and other stakeholders.
During FY 2002 EPA continued to
collaborate with other federal agencies on a
wide variety of programs with environmental
protection benefits. EPA developed and managed
the WTC Multi-Agency Database, which
provided decision makers from 13 government
and private partner organizations at the WTC
site with access to the results of environmental
monitoring. In FY 2002 the Agency also
developed a Compendium of Environmental
Programs, an interactive Web-enabled database
that catalogues and cross-references the environ-
mental programs of 29 federal departments and
agencies for use in their collaborative planning,
implementation, program evaluation, and
resource sharing.
In FY 2002 EPA teamed with the
Department of the Army and the Department of
Defense Logistics Agency to implement
alternatives to ozone-depleting halons used in
fire protection. EPA and its two Defense
Department partners also began jointly
investigating environmentally friendly options
for destroying stockpiles of certain ozone-
depleting substances. Also, because of a strong
partnership between EPA and the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, as
well as state and local governments in
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, EPA
exceeded its commitment to reduce nonpoint
source pollution and restore important forest
areas near local waterways and the Chesapeake
Bay. As a result EPA and its partners are ahead
of schedule to restore 2,010 miles of critical
riparian forest areas by 2010 and in FY 2003
will set new goals to extend this restoration.
Further, working with its federal partners in
FY 2002, EPA was able to clean up five
Superfund sites at federally owned facilities. EPA
also entered into a partnership with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
promote coastal resource protection through
smart growth in coastal areas. This collaboration
provides developers, local governments,
infrastructure providers, and others with
information, technical assistance, and
recommendations regarding best practices to
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
1-9
-------
minimize the detrimental environmental
impacts of growth in these sensitive areas.
Using Program Evaluation
During FY 2002 EPA continued to build
Agency-wide capability to effectively conduct
program evaluations and analyses that inform
management decisions, enhance organizational
learning, promote innovation, and foster better
environmental results. For example, in FY 2002
EPA conducted an evaluation to assess how
effectively the Agency's Clean Air Program is
using its resources to build tribal capacity for
addressing air quality in Indian Country. The
evaluation noted the success that EPA has had
since 1995 in increasing the number of tribes
participating in the Clean Air Program, but also
recognized the significant remaining need for
support, expertise, and coordination in Indian
Country. The evaluation led to 30 recommend-
ations for improving EPA's approaches to
addressing air problems in tribal lands. EPA
began implementing many of the recommend-
ations in FY 2002 before the evaluation was
complete, and several more will be
implemented over time.
In an FY 2002 report, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) recognized EPA's
Compliance Assistance Program as one of five
federal public information dissemination
programs employing useful program evaluation
strategies that could serve as a model for other
federal agencies.9 GAO also found that EPA's
Compliance Assistance Program is the only
program that had developed an approach for
measuring the long-term health and
environmental outcomes or benefits resulting
from its program. In many cases, the positive
environmental effects of complying with
environmental requirements could be seen
relatively quickly. To continue to promote such
program evaluation efforts and help foster
environmental program evaluation as a nationally
recognized discipline, EPA launched a Web-
based "gateway" in FY 2002, linking
environmental program evaluation information
within EPA and with information resources
outside the Agency.10 In FY 2003 EPA will
continue to add relevant information to this site,
specifically focusing on new developments
and new information from states, tribes, and
the academic community.
Improving Environmental Indicators and
Performance Measurement
During FY 2002 EPA made significant
progress in developing and improving
environmental indicators and performance
measures to measure and assess the Agency's
results over the next several years. For example,
in FY 2002 EPA began work on an Agency-wide
Environmental Indicators Initiative. Environ-
mental indicators are measurements of
environmental conditions over time. Indicators
help measure the state of air, water, and land
resources; the pressures on them; and the
resulting effects on ecological and human health.
The purpose of the Environmental Indicators
Initiative is to improve the Agency's ability to
report on the status of and trends in
environmental conditions and their impacts on
human health and the Nation's natural resources.
As a first step, in FY 2002 EPA collected
currently available data and indicators and began
drafting a report on the environment, which it
plans to release for public comment in FY 2003.
In FY 2002 the Agency continued to
increase the environmental outcome orientation
of its annual performance goals and measures
(APGs and PMs) that are used to plan and budget
resources. EPA recognizes that to use its
resources wisely, it should measure the results it
is achieving with respect to environ-mental
protection in terms of outcomes such as cleaner
air and cleaner water. During FY 2002 the
Agency increased the percentage of
environmental outcome-oriented APGs tied to its
annual budget by 7 percentage points while
increasing the percentage of outcome-oriented
PMs by 11 percentage points.11 In addition, the
Agency streamlined its APGs and PMs by
consolidating two overlapping sets of goals and
measures into a single, more easily
understandable set for EPA's FY 2004 Annual
Plan and Budget.
In FY 2002 the Agency also worked to
develop improved performance measures in a
no
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
number of highly focused projects. For
example, during FY 2002 new draft measures
were developed for assessing the impact in
future years of the Agency's planned
implementation of provisions relevant to
international technical assistance in the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs). In this case measures of
current activities, such as inventorying
stockpiles of POPs, were tied to the more
important externally reported measures of
POPs stockpiles collected and destroyed. When
appropriate, the Agency can use such external
measures for external communication as well
as management.
Finally, during FY 2002, in an effort to
develop more useful measures, the Agency
selected several performance measurement
improvement projects to fund via an Agency-
wide competition. Two examples of these
projects include developing outcome PMs for
EPA's Brownfields Program and evaluating a
measure of the effects of harmful pesticides on
bird populations.
Improving Data Quality
During FY 2002 the Agency continued to
improve its ability to detect and correct errors in
environmental data, standardize reporting, and
exchange and integrate electronic data and data
quality information among its federal, state, and
local data-sharing partners. In FY 2002 EPA
completed work on an internal set of
Information Quality Guidelines to help ensure
that the information the Agency provides to the
public is of the highest quality.12 These
guidelines were developed using an
electronically enhanced public participation
process, and they contain EPA's policy and
procedural guidance for maximizing the quality
of the information the Agency disseminates. The
guidelines also contain new Agency procedures
for individuals to seek and obtain correction of
information collected by EPA that might not
comply with these information guidelines. The
information contained in the Performance Data
Charts in Section II - Performance Results relative
to data quality references can be found in
Appendix B - Data Quality for Assessments of
FY 2002 Performance.
This FY 2002 Annual Report is one of EPA's
first publicly released documents to apply the
guidelines to the data on which the Agency's
performance is being measured. The report
documents, to the extent possible, the quality
of the Agency's performance data; makes
transparent the methods of analysis and data
manipulation; and references data sources. Most
of this information is captured in Appendix B.
That appendix also explains how EPA's program
offices use well-established and robust Agency
policies and procedures to ensure data quality,
such as the quality system, peer review process,
Inspector General's audits, and other error
correction processes. Appendix B also discusses
the limitations of the performance data contained
in this report, as well as data lags in reporting
progress toward some FY 2002 goals.
During FY 2002 EPA undertook several other
initiatives to improve the quality of its
environmental data. For example, EPA's Science
Advisory Board Executive Committee began
investigating commonly accepted means by
which the scientific community communicates
information, analyses, and findings. In addition,
EPA's Science Policy Council began work on
developing assessment factors for use in
reviewing the quality of data submitted to the
Agency by third parties. Lastly, EPA's National
Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory developed and tested software to
capture, sort, store, and retrieve the wealth of
scientific data developed by EPA's research
organizations.
Considering Future Trends
During FY 2002 EPA continued to look to the
future to identify potential new challenges and
opportunities for human health and
environmental protection. The Agency
recognizes that in addition to addressing long-
standing environmental protection issues, it must
try to anticipate and plan for future
developments. The future will be marked by
increased rates of change and greater uncertainty
about the responses of complex biological,
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
Ml
-------
ecological, social, and political systems. EPA is
exploring ways to keep pace with these
developments by looking ahead to better
understand potential threats, such as global
warming. Further, the Agency and its partners
increasingly recognize that many world
developments are likely to present
opportunities to further develop environmental
protection efforts.
Population growth and the way resources
are consumed to sustain this growth are altering
the earth in unprecedented ways. The earth's
population now exceeds 6 billion. Over the next
25 years this total will increase by nearly
2 billion, largely in developing countries. By
2025 an estimated 2.7 billion people will live in
areas experiencing severe water scarcity,
creating the potential for regional conflicts over
water rights. In the United States, growth in the
South and Southwest will pose water
management problems such as substantial water
and wastewater infrastructure maintenance,
aquifer depletion, and surface water
contamination. The expected unprecedented
population growth will also affect the Agency's
long-standing environmental concerns, such as
air quality. Urbanization of undeveloped areas,
for example, will likely increase demands for
transportation, potentially leading to more
vehicle miles traveled and increased emissions
of pollutants.
Today's world is on the edge of a far-
reaching industrial transformation. A number of
recent technological developments and advances
will pose new issues for human health and
environmental protection. Scientists have
deciphered the human genome and the genomes
of many other organisms, including rice, the
food most consumed throughout the world. A
number of patents have been filed for a new
type of technology where devices are built
using single atoms and molecules; i.e.,
nanotechnology. EPA may need to examine the
impact that nanotechnology might have on
human health and the environment and also to
explore opportunities to foster more
environmentally benign technologies that use
fewer resources and less energy. Production of
industrial biotechnology products, such as
Pharmaceuticals raised as crop plants, is
growing and might present environmental and
human health protection issues. In the area of
research advances, scientists might soon be
able to ascertain whether current droughts are a
normal variation of the earth's weather patterns
or an increasingly likely phenomenon due to
the effects of climate change. To plan for the
future, EPA and its partners must consider these
and other technological and scientific advances
and the implications they hold for
environmental protection work.
During FY 2002, as part of its strategic
planning work, EPA completed several efforts to
assist managers and staff in adopting a longer-
range, futures perspective and in applying their
findings to planning activities. In May 2002
senior Agency managers met to discuss
emerging issues in environmental protection.
The managers focused on two topics, fuel cells
and genomics, as examples of emerging
technologies with significant implications for
EPA's work. In addition, the Agency has been
using the results of a Look-Out Panel, including
interviews with leaders and experts outside the
Agency on future challenges and opportunities
facing EPA. This panel will also inform the
development of EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan.
The National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
provides independent advice to the EPA
Administrator on a broad range of environmental
policy, technology, and management issues.
Earlier this year NACEPT completed a major
report The Environmental Future: Emerging
Challenges and Opportunitiesfor EPA.13
The report makes several overarching
recommendations related to planning: create an
ongoing scanning process that involves all major
parts of EPA; support the ongoing work of EPA's
Futures Network and provide additional training
on environmental scanning, scenario
development, and modeling; and incorporate
futures analysis into EPA's strategic planning.
EPA is considering how it will incorporate the
findings of this report into its planning
processes. In addition to these planning-related
recommendations, there are more than
50 emerging challenges and opportunities.
1-12
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
These represent important environmental
issues for the future that do not fit well with
EPA's traditional roles. The Agency will
encourage the programs and regions to
consider the emerging challenges and
opportunities identified in the report in their
long-term planning and use them as a starting
point for futures projects within their core work
areas. As a result, these programs should be
better prepared to respond to changing
environmental conditions.
EPA intends to continue using innovative
approaches and sound science to investigate
complex interdisciplinary problems in
environmental protection and to address them in
its strategic planning. The Agency will need to
expand its efforts to achieve interagency and
international cooperation to address
environmental issues on a global scale and will
continue to rely on relationships with its federal,
state, local, and tribal government partners and
with its stakeholders to anticipate and address
future environmental challenges.
LOOKING AHEAD TO FY 2003
Over the next year EPA expects to make
significant improvements in the use of
performance and results information to inform
the Agency's internal planning and decision
making and to communicate to the public the
environmental results it is achieving. During
FY 2003 many of the recommendations of the
Agency's Results Steering Group will be carried
out for both near-term improvements and more
far-reaching reforms to improve the way EPA
manages for results. In FY 2003 the Agency will
issue a revised Strategic Plan. Among other
improvements, the Plan will contain a smaller set
of more environmentally focused strategic goals
and objectives. As recommended by the Results
Steering Group, the Plan will set clear directions
for the Agency, enable cross-Agency and cross-
program planning, accommodate EPA program
and regional office priority setting, and reflect
input from EPA partners and stakeholders.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, in FY 2003
EPA plans to release a draft report on the
environment. This report will use available
national environmental indicators data to
describe the current status of environmental
conditions and human health concerns. It will
also address many of the public's frequently
asked questions on the environment, and will
reflect work being done by others, such as the
H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment, the EPA
Science Advisory Board, and the National
Research Council.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A central theme of the President's
Management Agenda is the need for greater
accountability in government. The financial
statements provided in Section IV are one
important aspect of Agency accountability in
that they provide a snapshot of EPA's financial
position at the end of the fiscal year. These
financial statements are prepared in accordance
with established federal accounting standards
and audited by EPA's Inspector General. In
addition to the financial statements, other views
of how the Agency spends its resources are
depicted in the discussion below.
EPA Resources: 1998 to 2002
EPA's available resources from all
appropriations and aggregate spending are
depicted in the EPA Financial Trends chart.14
Budgetary Resources consist of resources
available each fiscal year largely from three
sources: (1) yearly appropriations received from
Congress, (2) unspent appropriations from
previous years that the Agency has the authority
to use in subsequent fiscal years, and
(3) resources received from other sources such
as collections of federal receipts that remit to the
Agency and that the Agency may use for
specific purposes. Obligations reflect legal
authority and commitments to incur costs on the
part of the government. For example, an
obligation is recognized when the government
awards a contract or a grant. The actual payment
of the contract or grant may extend over several
years depending on the terms and conditions.
Outlays represent cash payments for goods and
services received. The Statement of Budgetary
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
1-13
-------
EPA Financial Trends
3>13
-------
FY 2002 Obligations by Goal
(Dollars in Millions)
Appropriations
State & Tribal
Assistance Grants
AllOther
Superfund
TOTAL
% of Total
G-1
233
355
0
588
6.22
G-2
3,241
649
0
3,890
41. 18
G-3
0
112
0
112
1.19
G-4
99
223
0
322
3.41
G-5
74
273
1,473
1,820
79.27
G-6
10
203
0
213
2.25
G-7
25
167
10
202
2.14
&8
0
301
3
304
3.22
G-9
70
363
18
451
4.77
G-10
0
376
52
428
4.53
Reim.
0
287
130
417
4.41
Other
0
700*
0
700
7.47
Total
3,752
4,009
1,686
9,447
100.00
NOTE: Actual costs are reflected in Section IV- Annual Financial Statements
" The $700 million represents an annual payment from the general revenue to the Hazardous Substance Superfund and transfers from other federal agencies.
drinking water programs. (See Section II, Goal
2, for more information on the SRFs.)
Funding for both revolving funds is
awarded as grants to states and tribes, which
then make loans to municipalities and other
entities for construction of infrastructure
projects, purchases of land or conservation
easements, and implementation of other water
quality activities. Additional funds from state
match and leveraged bond proceeds expand
the capital available in the SRFs to address
priority water quality and public health needs,
while loan repayments and earnings ensure
funding for these activities far into the future.
The flexibility and revolving nature of the SRFs
have provided states with a powerful tool to
apply needed funding toward their clean water
and drinking water infrastructure needs.
Through FY 2002 CWSRFs have turned
$19.5 billion in federal capitalization grants into
more than $38.7 billion in assistance to
municipalities and other entities for wastewater
projects. In recent years CWSRFs have directed
about $4 billion in annual loan assistance to
wastewater projects. More than $200 million of
these funds are used each year to manage
polluted runoff, making the CWSRF an effective
tool in addressing nonpoint source problems.17
In a similar fashion the newer DWSRFs have
turned $4.4 billion in federal capitalization grants
into more than $5.1 billion in loan assistance, of
which $1.3 billion was provided in assistance in
FY 2002 alone.18 States have also used more
than $694 million of their DWSRF grants to fund
other programs and activities that enhance water
system management and protect sources of
drinking water.
The large dollar volume of these two grant
programs is the reason that more than
43 percent of EPA's costs are incurred in
connection with its Clean and Safe Water Goal,
as depicted in the Major Grant Categories chart.
Other grant programs include categorical
assistance to states and tribes, consistent with
EPA's authorizing statutes, and research grants
to universities and other nonprofit institutions.
Drinking
Water SRF
16.3%
Superfund
3.8%
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview and Analysis
1-15
-------
Homeland Security Spending
EPA's actions in responding to
homeland security concerns in the
wake of September 11 are described in
Section II. During FY 2002 the Agency
obligated a total of $159.6 million19 for
homeland security for the activities
shown in the chart. Most of these
resources have been devoted to
Preparedness, which addresses many
potential kinds of terrorism incidents.
Response covers the immediate actions
taken in response to the September 11
and other attacks. Mitigation is action
taken to reduce the risk and potential
damage caused by future events, and
Recovery constitutes actions to rebuild
and otherwise return to normal.
FY 2002 Homeland Security Obligations
$3.5
$3.0
$2.5
g $2.0
o
m $1.5
$1.5
$0.5
$0
Cumulative Superfund Trust Fund Cost Recoveries
FY 1997-FY 2002
$120
$100
g *80
_o
$40
$20
$0
^B Recovery | | Mitigation | | Response | | Preparedness _
$110.3
—
—
$3«9
•
$9.9
$1.2 |
Superfund Cost Recovery
The Superfund Program was established
under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980 (P.L. 96-510) to address
public health and environmental threats from
abandoned toxic waste dumps and releases of
hazardous substances. CERCLA was
subsequently amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 1986 (P.L. 99-499).
Under CERCLA, Congress authorized the
Superfund Program for 5 years (1981-1985)
with funding of $1.6 billion and established the
I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1997 1998
1999 2000
Fiscal Year
2001 2002
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund,
known as the Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Trust Fund). Because of the long-term nature
and expense of site cleanups, Congress
reauthorized the Superfund Program by passing
SARA. Under SARA the Superfund Program was
authorized for an additional 5 years (1987-1991)
and the Trust Fund's funding level was increased
to $8.5 million. The Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act, passed by Congress on
November 5, 1990, extended the Superfund
program for an additional 4 years (1992-1995)
and increased the Trust Fund's funding level by
$5.1 billion. Although the Superfund Program
has not been reauthorized, the program
continues to operate based on annual
congressional appropriations.
The Trust Fund was largely funded by
excise taxes charged on crude oil and petroleum
and on the sale or use of certain chemicals. Also,
a corporate environmental tax (alternative
minimum tax) was levied on corporations having
a taxable annual income in excess of $2 million.
The Trust Fund's other revenue sources include
cost recoveries, fines and penalties, interest
revenue from investments, and general revenue
appropriated by Congress. Superfund cost
recoveries represent amounts recovered by EPA
through legal settlements with responsible
parties for site clean up cost incurred by EPA.
Tax revenues provided the Trust Fund with most
of its funding until the Superfund's authority to
1-16
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
tax expired on December 31, 1995. With the
expiration of tax authority, current Trust Fund
revenue is composed of the other revenues
discussed above; appropriations from general
revenues make up the largest funding source in
this group.
Cost recovery continues to be a major
revenue source of the Trust Fund. Cumulative
cost recovery receipts since the inception of the
program now total $3.1 billion.20
EPA Spending Related to Other Federal Agencies
As published in the Treasury Department's
annual Statement of Receipts and Outlays, EPA's
net outlays are relatively small in relation to
those of other federal agencies and the federal
government as a whole. A comparison of EPA
with selected cabinet-level departments is
displayed.
Innovative Environmental Financing: The
Advantage of Public-Private Partnerships
EPA leverages federal funds through several
innovative environmental financing efforts that
are mutually beneficial public-private
partnerships, such as the Environmental
Finance Program.
The Environmental Finance Program uses
leveraging and partnerships to extend the reach
and impact of its activities. The program has
three closely related components that provide
financial outreach services to Agency
customers and the regulated community. First,
the Environmental Financial Advisory Board
(EFAB), a discretionary federally chartered
advisory committee, provides innovative ideas
and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
and EPA program offices on ways to lower
costs, increase investments, and promote
public-private partnerships with respect to
environmental and public health protection.
Second, the Environmental Finance Center
(EFC) Network, consisting of nine university-
based programs in eight EPA regions, delivers
targeted technical assistance and partners with
states, tribes, local governments, and the
private sector to address how to cover the costs
of meeting environmental standards. Through
FY 2002 the EFCs had worked in 46 states
delivering this assistance and sharing
information among interested parties and
throughout the network. (See Section II, Goal
10, for more information.) Third, the
Environmental Financing Information Network,
through its highly popular Web site and other
means, catalogues the work and
accomplishments of EFAB and the EFC
Network and has provided full-text copies of
more than 50 EFAB documents, summaries of
over 350 environmental financing tools, and
about 1,000 abstracts and case studies of
valuable environmental finance documents.
$20
$15
CO
| $10
m
$5
$0
EPA COMMERCE STATE INTERIOR NASA ENERGY
Departments
www. epa.gov/ocfo
1-17
-------
Notes:
1. Geographic Areas redesignated by EPA as in
attainment of the NAAQS: Billings MTArea,
Redesignated to Attainment for CO, 67 FR 7966,
February 21, 2002. Denver-Boulder CO Area
Redesignated to Attainment for CO, 66 FR
64751, December 14, 2001. Great Falls Area
MT Area Redesignated to Attainment for CO, 67
FR 31143, May 9, 2002. Klamath Falls OR Area
Redesignated to Attainment for CO, 66 FR
48349,
September 20, 2001. Lowell MA Area Redesignated
to Attainment for CO, 67 FR7272, February 19,
2002. Medford OR Area Redesignated to
Attainment for CO, 67 FR 48388, July 24, 2002.
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY Area
Re designated to Attainment for CO, 67 FR 54574,
August 23, 2002. New York-N. New Jersey-Long
Island NY Area Redesignated to Attainment for
CO, 67 FR 19337, April 19, 2002. Springfield MA
Area Redesignated to Attainment for CO, 67 FR
7272, February 19, 2002. Waltham MA Area
Redesignated to Attainmentfor CO, 67 FR 7272,
February 19, 2002. Worcester MA Area
Redesignated to Attainmentfor CO, 67 FR 7272,
February 19, 2002. Cincinnati-HamiltonKYArea
Redesignated to Attainment for Ozone, 67 FR
49600, July 31, 2002. Adams, Denver, and
Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan Areas
Redesignated to Attainment for PM-10, 67 FR
58335, September 16, 2002. Mohave County
(part); Bullhead City AZ Area Redesignated to
Attainment for PM-10, 67 FR 43020, June 26,
2002. Final and Gila Counties; PaysonAZArea
Redesignated to Attainment for PM-10, 67 FR
43013 June 26, 2002. Ramsey County; (part)MN
Area Redesignated to A ttainmentfor PM-10,
67 FR 48787, July 26, 2002. AQCR 238: Marathon
County: Rothschild Sub-city Area, Rib Mountain,
Weston WIArea Redesignated to Attainment for
SO2, 67 FR 37328, May 29, 2002. Central Steptoe
Valley NVArea Redesignated to Attainment for
SO2, 67 FR 17939, April 12, 2002.
2. Sources for standards for toxic pollutants
already in place in FY 2002: Generic MACT:
Carbon Black Production, Cyanide Chemicals
Manufacturing, Ethylene Processes, and
Spandex Production, 67 FR 39301, June 7,
2002. Large Appliances: (Surface Coating), 67
FR 48253, July 23, 2002. Leather Finishing
Operations, 67 FR 915510, February 27, 2002.
Polyvinyl Chloride & Copolymers Production, 67
FR 45885, July 9, 2002. Primary Copper, 67 FR
40477, June 12, 2002. Tire Manufacturing, 67
FR 45598, July 9, 2002. Cellulose Production:
Carboxymethylcellulose Production, Cellulose
Ethers Production, Cellulose Food Casing
Manufacturing, Cellophane Production,
Methylcellulose Production, Rayon Production,
65 FR 52166, August 28, 2000, and Signed:
May 15, 2002. Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming & Sulfur Plant Units.
67 FR 43244, April 11, 2002. Wet Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production, 67 FR 17823,
April 11, 2002.
3. U.S. EPA, Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (August 2002).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/scramOOl/
tt22.htm.
4 U.S. EPA, Clean Air Markets-Progress and Results:
The EPA Acid Rain Program 2001 Progress
Report. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/cmprpt/arpOl/index.html.
5. U.S. EPA, EPA's Tier2/Gasoline SulfurFinal
Rulemaking (February 10, 2000) Regulatory
Impact Analysis. Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost
Analysis, EPA 420-R-99-023 (December 22, 1999).
Available at http://www. epa. gov/otaq/regs/ld-
hwy/tier-2/frm/ria/chvii.pdf. See also EPA's Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements
(December 21, 2000), hapter VII: Benefit-Cost
Analysis. Regulatory Impact Analysis
EPA 420-R-00-026 (December 2000). Available
at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frrn/ria-
vii.pdf.
6. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water's Drinking Water Natonal Information
Management System. Available at
htp://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwsrf/dwnims.html.
7. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
Office of the President, Federal Management, The
President's Management Agenda. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/
pma index.html.
8. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
Office of the President, July 15, 2002, Executive
Branch Management Scorecard, Agency
Scorecard: U.S. EPA. Available at
http: //www. whitehouse. gov/omb/budinte gration/
scorecards/epa scorecard.html.
9. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation,
Strategies for Assessing How Information
Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals,
GAO-02-923 (September 2002).
10. U.S. EPA, Evaluation Support, Evaluation of
Environmental Programs. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/.
1-18
IT
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
11. U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability,
Analysis Staff, internal analysis, Outcome
Orientation According to the GAO Classification
and the Hierarchy of Indicators (Hoi), (April 2002).
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Environment Information,
Information Quality Guidelines. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/
index, htm.
13. National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology, The Environmental Future:
Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for EPA,
EPA 100-R-02-001 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
Office of the Administrator, Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management September 2002).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocem.
14. Section IV, FY 1998 to FY 2002 Statement of
Budgetary Resources.
15. Section IV, FY 2002 Statement of Net Costs.
16. U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO), EPA's Integrated Financial Accounting
System.
17. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Clean Water State
Revolving Fund National Information
Management System. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/r5water/cwsrf.
18. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water's Drinking Water National Information
Management System. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/OGWDW/dwsrf/
dwnims.html.
19. U.S. EPA, OCFO, EPA's FY 2002 Budget
Automation System.
20. U.S. Department of the Treasury, FY 2002
Superfund Trust Fund Financial Statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Overview
1-19
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
1-20 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Section II
Performance
Results
-------
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR
air in community will be In
particular, children, the elderly, be
from the health air. air
will in
as life in health to
directly on
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC GOAL
AND OBJECTIVES
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAA) provide a nationwide framework for EPA
and its partners and stakeholders to reduce air
pollution through implementation of a variety
of regulatory, market-based, and voluntary
programs.1 The results since 1990 have been
impressive, not only because of the tons of
pollution reduced or prevented, but also
SIX PRINCIPAL POLLUTANTS
Ozone (O3)
P articulate Matter (PM)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Lead (Pb)
because the programs achieved the results
cost-effective manner, with the
monetized benefits far outweighing
the economic impacts. The extent of
the public health benefits also is
striking. EPA estimates that on a daily
basis the 1990 clean air programs, in
combination with the results of the
1970 amendments to the Act, have
prevented 600 premature mortalities,
2,000 chronic illnesses, and 75,000
lost workdays.2
To add to the substantial public
health benefits being achieved, EPA is
implementing programs that will
improve public health in the future. For
example, mobile source programs, such as
in a
200
Tier 2 automobile standards and heavy-duty
engine and diesel fuel standards, will help a
significant number of additional areas meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set to protect public health and
improve air quality throughout the country.3
These programs, when fully implemented, are
projected to result in a combined reduction, on
a daily basis, of about 30 premature deaths,
20 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 5,600 lost
workdays.4
EPA and its partners and stakeholders were
able to make steady progress toward the Clean
Air Goal during a period of economic growth.
Since 1970 their combined efforts have reduced
aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants
covered by the NAAQS by 25 percent.5 During
the same time period, the U.S. Gross Domestic
Product has increased by 161 percent; energy
consumption, by 42 percent; and vehicle miles
traveled, by 149 percent.6
of
161%
149%
Gross Domestic Product
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Energy Consumption
U.S. Population
Aggregate Emissions
(Six Principal Pollutants)
1970 1980 1990^1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Years
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-i
-------
Contiguous U.S. Contribution of Source Categories to Total
Emissions For All Hazardous Air Pollutants
1990-1993 1999 2002 2003
2004
2007
To date, federal rules covering stationary
sources, vehicles, fuels, and engines have
reduced air toxics by close to 34 percent from
the 1993 baseline of 6 million tons. EPA
estimates that annual air toxics emissions from
stationary sources are nearly 1.5 million tons
less in FY 2002 than in 1993 as a result of
implementation of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards and
500,000 tons less than in 1993 as a result of
implementation of federal mobile source rules.
To further reduce air toxics emissions and risk,
EPA will begin to focus increasingly on
community-specific air toxics problems,
working with partners and stakeholders to
identify the risk reductions that matter most
to local citizens. The National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA), published by EPA in
FY 2002, provides a significant source of
data to guide additional efforts on more
community-based risk reduction activities
for air toxics.7 NATA also supports the need
to put in place an air toxics monitoring
network that will provide key data to EPA
and communities as they develop
additional risk reduction strategies and
programs.
In FY 2000 EPA's Acid Rain Program met its
strategic objective for nitrogen oxides (NOx)
under Title IV of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7651-76610.
The program now is on track to meet its 2010
objective for sulfur dioxide (SO2), which sets a
permanent cap on nationwide power plant SO2
emissions. As a result of efforts by utilities
covered under the Acid Rain Program, SO2
emissions continued to decline from 17.5 million
tons in 1980 (baseline) to 10.6 million tons
through 2001, while NO emissions were
reduced by 2 million tons nationally.8
Reductions in SO, and NO, Emissions
20
! 15H
110-1
in
q
17.5
15.9
Without Title IV
With Title IV
18.7
vvimoui i me iv „_„_. '88
WO, Emissions 5.2
With Title IV
5.7
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
n-2
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Population of Counties With Air Quality Concentrations
Above the NAAQS Levels
(8-hour)
133.1
20 40 60 80 100 120
Millions of People
140
Utility, industry, transportation, and other
sources still emit more than 170 million tons of
pollution into the air each year in the United
States, and about 133 million people live in
counties where monitored air in 2001 was
unhealthy at times because of high levels of at
least one of the six principal pollutants for
which EPA has set NAAQS. The vast majority of
areas that experienced unhealthy air did so
because of one or both of two pollutants—
ozone and particulate matter (PM).9
The Agency's strategies to address the most
persistent remaining challenges posed by air
pollution in the 21st century include a
combination of regulatory, market-based,
community-based, and voluntary programs. In
general, EPA will carry out those components
of the strategies that address emissions from
whole industries or from source categories
such as power plants or motor vehicles, while
state, tribal, and local partners will focus on
area-specific problems. In implementing the
strategies, EPA will continue to set priorities
among activities based on health and
environmental risk and will seek cost-effective
and flexible solutions to reduce air emissions.
The Agency also will use an active consultative
process to identify solutions that best meet the
collective needs of its partners and
stakeholders.
The indicators used in the Clean Air chapter
of EPA's draft report on the state of the
environment are particularly useful because
they focus on longer-term progress and
provide context for EPA's FY 2002 annual
performance results. The FY 2002 annual
performance information complements this
report and includes measures of the following:
• Populations attaining the NAAQS, which are
based on air quality concentrations.
• Air toxics emission reductions, which are
closely correlated to ambient air toxics
concentrations.
• SO2 and nitrogen dioxide emissions from
utilities under the Acid Rain Program.
To address the significant remaining
challenges, the President proposed the multi-
pollutant Clear Skies legislation.10 If enacted,
the Clear Skies legislation will make
considerable advances in reducing power plant
emissions by requiring mandatory reductions of
SO2, NOx, and mercury by an average of
70 percent from today's levels.11 EPA projects
that by 2020 human health benefits alone will
include 12,000 avoided premature deaths
annually and total more than $93 billion.
Early human health benefits are very significant,
including $40 billion in annual benefits by 2010,
and more than 6,000 avoided premature deaths.
Visibility benefits in national parks and
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-3
-------
FY 2002 CLEAN AIR PROGRAM RESULTS
• SO2 emissions continued to decline from
17.5 million tons in 1980 (baseline) to
10.6 million tons through 2001 and NO
& X
emissions were reduced by 2 million tons
nationally.
• EPA redesignated 17 areas, with a
combined population of over 19 million
people, to attainment for the NAAQS.
• Air toxics emissions from stationary and
mobile sources were reduced by 33.8 percent
or 2.02 million tons from the 1993 baseline
of 6.0 million tons.
• EPA promulgated 13 additional MACT
standards that when fully implemented will
reduce air toxics emissions by 20.8 thousand
tons annually. EPA also proposed 13 MACT
standards.
Source: Air Quality Subsystem; Findings and
Required Elements Data System; and Census
Bureau, Department of Commerce. See
Appendix B.
V '
wilderness areas are projected to be $3 billion
annually.12 Additional information about Clear
Skies, including legislative language and region-
specific information about air quality and health
benefits, is available at http://www.epa.gov/
clearskies.
As Congress considers the Clear Skies
legislation, EPA and its state, tribal, and local
partners will continue their progress toward
attaining the NAAQS and maintaining air quality
in areas that already meet the standards. EPA
will develop implementation guidance for
meeting the fine particulate (PM2 ) standard
through expanding existing state, tribal, and
local programs. EPA also will support states,
tribes, and local governments in developing
innovative, voluntary programs that will help
areas achieve early reductions in pollution in
the transition from the 1-hour to the 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA will continue to
implement existing vehicle, engine, and fuel
standards, as well as develop additional
regulations for selected mobile sources. In
FY 2003 EPA expects to propose standards for
heavy-duty, non-road diesel equipment—
including construction, mining, industrial,
agricultural, and airport equipment. The
resultant reduction in pollution will provide
important health benefits and emission
reductions similar to those of the recent on-
highway, heavy-duty diesel rule.
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
EPA, working with its state, local, and tribal
partners along with industry, small businesses,
and other federal agencies, made significant
progress in FY 2002 toward achieving the
Clean Air annual goals. EPA's partners
continued to carry out programs for achieving
or maintaining the NAAQS, while EPA provided
guidance, tools, and resources to help them
meet their objectives. EPA continued work on
MACT standards and issued mobile source
standards for vehicles, fuels, and engines.
When implemented, the standards will provide
reductions in health and environmental risks
from both air toxic and criteria pollutants. The
Agency's air toxics work contributes to progress
in addressing the management challenge in the
air toxics program (Refer to Section III,
"Management Accomplishments and
Challenges,"for further discussion). Lastly, EPA
expects utilities regulated under the market-
based Acid Rain Program to achieve or exceed
the required reductions for SO2 and NOx.
Selected FY 2002 Clean Air accomplishments
that support ongoing EPA programs and
initiatives are highlighted below.
Market-based Programs
EPA's Acid Rain Program, demonstrating the
new efficiencies possible through electronic data
management systems, implemented the On-line
Allowance Tracking System (OATS).13 The latest
innovation in air emissions trading, OATS is a
timesaving, system that enables participants in
the SO2 and NOx allowance trading markets to
record trades directly on the Internet instead of
submitting paper forms to EPA for processing.
EPA's tracking systems, which currently hold
allowances with a combined value of more than
$20 billion, record official SO, and NO
n-4
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
o
I
o
Hi
**
H
£
100
80
60
40
20
0
np""""fcrs
2i . i in,
•7-1 I
I I I
I I I
I I I
• 80%H|f
I I
I I
I I
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
Month/Year
allowance transfers under existing emission cap
and trade programs. Anyone anywhere in the
world can participate in the allowance trading
market, and hundreds of companies, brokers, and
individuals are already engaged in online trading.
Air Quality Index (AQI)
EPA continued its strong leadership in
providing real-time AQI data to the public
through the AIRNow program. In FY 2002 the
AIRNow program expanded real-time ozone
data delivery from 38 to 43 states and increased
the number of air quality forecast cities from
165 to 235. AIRNow reaches millions of readers
and viewers through EPA's partnership with the
Weather Channel, USA Today, and CNN. EPA
also began receiving real-time PM2 5 data and
developed sample maps with the expectation of
using these data in future forecasting efforts. As
part of the PM2 5 effort, the program went from
no monitors reporting in FY 2001 to more than
170 at the end of FY 2002.14
Across the country, EPA offices are reaching
out to state and local communities and tribes
with information about air quality allowing,
people to take action to reduce risks when poor
air quality is forecast. In New England, EPA
implemented an intensive ozone outreach plan
during one of the hottest Northeast summers
ever. Smog alerts, based on predicted high
ozone levels, were provided to children's
camps, day care centers, school nurses, and
other interested persons. EPA posted the ozone
forecast map for the Northeast on the EPA web
site daily; targeted outreach to TV meteorologists,
letting them know where to obtain AQI for their
areas; and published the air quality forecast in
New England newspapers.15
Mobile Sources
In 2002 EPA set emissions standards for several
types of previously unregulated recreational
vehicles, diesel marine engines, and large
industrial spark-ignition engines. EPA expects that
the standards, when fully implemented in 2020,
will provide an overall 72 percent reduction in
hydrocarbon emissions, an 80 percent reduction
in NOx emissions, and a 56 percent reduction in
carbon monoxide. As a result of reducing
emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx, which
contribute to ozone and PM formation, these
controls will improve visibility in national parks
and wilderness areas and reduce exposure for
people who operate, work with, or are close to
these engines and vehicles. The human health
benefits of these standards include avoiding
about 1,000 premature deaths, preventing 1,000
hospital admissions, reducing asthma attacks by
23,400, and preventing 200,000 days of lost
work. In dollars, EPA estimates these health
benefits to be worth roughly $8 billion in 2030.l6
EPA's voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program helps
state and local agencies to retrofit old, dirty
engines to make them run cleaner and to
develop model programs to reduce emissions
from idling engines. Diesel retrofit is a creative,
non-regulatory way to reduce pollution from the
existing fleet of engines that use diesel fuel.17
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-5
-------
The Diesel Retrofit Program, which began just
over 2 years ago, currently has commitments
from partners in industry, states, and local
governments, as well as major fleet owners/
operators, to retrofit over 87,000 diesel engines.
These retrofits will result in the elimination of
about 26,000 tons of NO and 12,000 tons of
' X '
PM. To date, 60 projects have been established
in 22 states across the country with 20 new
commitments in FY 2002 alone.
EPA also issued the first certifications for
engine families that complied with the Heavy-
Duty Engine Consent Decree, which require
engine manufacturers to meet the 2004 diesel
engine standards by October 1, 2002.18 These
engines met EPA emission limits that are about
30 to 45 percent lower than previous engines
of the same model.
Research Contributions
Clean Air goal research provides a strong
scientific basis for policy and regulatory decision
making and explores emerging problem areas
through a coordinated and comprehensive
research program. Both EPA and its partners use
the results of this peer-reviewed research in
carrying out their programs.
EPA described the biological mechanisms that
may underlie the reported effects of PM in the
Utah Valley, where exposure data were
collected before and after the closing of a local
steel mill and again after it was reopened. This
report correlates, for the first time, pulmonary
effects to PM health outcomes observed in
epidemiological studies. This information will
strengthen the scientific basis for the
reassessment of the PM NAAQS.
In FY 2002 EPA also provided critical
information to environmental decision makers on
the effects of PM on humans believed to be
most susceptible to adverse effects, such as the
elderly and those with lung disease. For
example, state-of-the-art methods were used to
measure the effects of exposure to concentrated
ambient PM on various subpopulations of human
volunteers and animals. These studies will help
identify the components of PM producing
toxicity and other factors, such as existing
disease, that may affect toxicity.19
In FY 2002 EPA published the peer-
reviewed report, "Health Assessment Document
for Diesel Engine Exhaust, "which documents the
public health implications of current exposure to
diesel engine exhaust and further supports
ongoing work in the areas of PM, particularly
diesel exhaust.20 The report states that long-term
exposure to diesel engine exhaust is likely to be
a lung carcinogen hazard to humans, as well as
to have non-cancer effects on the respiratory
system. The report also pinpoints diesel exhaust
as a likely allergy and asthma trigger.
Program Evaluation
Appendix A contains descriptions of program
evaluations completed in FY 2002 that support
the overall Clean Air Goal. No program
evaluations focused specifically on FY 2002
performance.
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
State, tribes, and local agencies all play
crucial roles in working with EPA toward the
goal of cleaner air and contributed significantly
to achieving the Agency's FY 2002
accomplishments. These EPA partners carry out
extensive program implementation activities,
including developing state implementation
plans (SIPs) and tribal implementation plans
(TIPs), permitting major and minor pollution
sources, monitoring air quality, providing
education and outreach, and carrying out
compliance and enforcement activities. The
EPA partners also identify and implement
innovative ways to help reduce health and
environmental risks in specific areas. Often
these innovations are the catalysts for similar
programs elsewhere. The contributions
described are just a few of the innovative, area-
specific approaches that EPA's partners initiated
in FY 2002.
n-6
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
State and Local Partner Contributions
The Hunts Point Cooperative Market in the
Bronx, New York, is the site of the first
operational anti-idling advanced electrification
project in the country. The Hunts Point Market,
in partnership with Sustainable South Bronx
and the New York Power Authority, installed
28 truck electrification bays during Fall 2002.
The Market delivers close to 80 percent of the
New York metropolitan area's produce and
40 percent of the region's meat. Each day, while
shipments are loaded and offloaded, hundreds of
diesel vehicles idle, creating exhaust fumes that
pose a serious health risk to the Hunts Point
residential community of about 9,000 people.
The truck/trailer anti-idling devices allow drivers
to power cab/sleeper compartment climate
control systems and appliances, as well as
refrigerated trailer units, without running their
engines. All idling emissions are eliminated while
the electrification system is in use, and local air
pollution impacts are traded off with emissions
from the regional power system. At full
operation, the 28 bays are expected to eliminate
over 15 tons of NO , 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide,
and nearly a ton of toxic pollutants annually with
the potential to cut fuel costs by more than $3,000
and maintenance costs by more that $1,500
annually per vehicle.21
In FY 2002 the City of Cleveland, Ohio, took
charge of and expanded the Cleveland Air
Toxics Pilot Project begun by EPA to show
local, voluntary actions can play a significant
role in improving the environment and
protecting public health.22 Cleveland plans to
continue and expand many of the EPA projects,
including replacing dirty off-road diesel
equipment with cleaner diesel equipment,
developing a local toxic emissions inventory,
completing an anti-idling campaign for motor
vehicles, expanding industry agreements to the
entire auto refinishing and electroplating sectors,
and supporting an effort to reduce indoor air
pollution in city schools and to carry out a
smoke-free home pledge drive. The Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) is inaugurating 225 new
buses that will use ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
The RTA already operates a number of environ-
mentally friendly vehicles—buses that use
compressed natural gas and rail cars that run on
electricity.23
In Boston in FY 2002 over 200 school buses
will be fueled with ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Over half the buses will be fitted with special
pollution control devices that reduce emissions
of PM by 90 percent. As a follow-up, EPA will
monitor air quality at the bus depot before and
after the retrofits to help quantify the local air
quality benefit of the project. New England
states have partnered with EPA to reduce PM
and other emissions from diesel vehicles through
retrofit efforts and anti-idling policies. As a result
of state and EPA efforts, several major
construction projects in New England will also
require the retrofitting of diesel construction
equipment to minimize emissions.
24
In the Chicago metropolitan region, the
Clean Air Counts Campaign5" convened a diverse
group of stakeholders interested in working
together to create voluntary strategies for
attaining the NAAQS, while at the same time
achieving community development goals. The
Illinois EPA worked with the U.S. EPA to
quantify the emission reduction potential of
various strategies developed by stakeholders to
determine what voluntary actions were needed.
As a result of these efforts, 34 public and private
organizations and 7 communities across the
Chicago metropolitan area are implementing
voluntary, measurable emission and energy use
reduction programs. In FY 2002 the Campaign's
accomplishments included 7 gas can exchange
events throughout the metropolitan area,
reducing 4 tons/year of volatile organic
compounds (VOC); a lawn mower buyback
program exchanging 180 two- and four- stroke
mowers for rebates on electric and push
mowers, reducing 1.5 tons/year of VOC; and a
locomotive idling project on 7 switchers, saving
16,000 gallons of fuel/year/locomotive, and
reducing 5 tons of NO/year/locomotive and
reducing 177 tons CO2/year/locomotive.25
In FY 2002 the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality and local environmental
groups established a voluntary program to
encourage early action to reduce levels of
urban smog. Early 8-hour air quality plans are
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-7
-------
developed through a compact between local,
state, and EPA officials for areas that are in
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, but
are close to or monitor levels in excess of the
8-hour standard. The Early Action Compact
plans, tailored to local needs and driven by
local decisions, are designed to develop and
implement control strategies, account for
growth, and achieve and maintain the 8-hour
ozone standard. This approach offers a way to
achieve emission reductions earlier than required
by EPA's expected 8-hour implementation
rulemaking, while providing fail-safe provisions
for the area to revert to the traditional SIP
process if specific milestones are not met.26
Tribal Contributions
In FY 2002 tribes continued to increase their
capacity for carrying out air pollution programs.
One of the most significant accomplishments in
the Clean Air goal was the establishment of the
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA).27 NTAA's
goals are to help tribes participate more
effectively in air policy development and
decision making, much like the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(STAPPA) does for states and the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO)
does for local programs. NTAA will bring
national representation to tribal air programs.
While many tribes are only beginning basic
air quality assessments, attending training,
developing inventories, and conducting
preliminary monitoring, others are beginning to
develop more advanced air programs. Four
tribes—the Mohegan, Pequot, St. Regis
Mohawk, and Gila River—are working toward
adopting TIPs, which are similar to SIPs. Another
10 tribes have asked for and received eligibility
determinations to implement parts of the CAA.
In FY 2002 the Mohegan Tribe of southern
Connecticut submitted the country's first TIP.
Once approved by EPA, this TIP will represent
an important milestone in tribal air pollution
control program development.
The Puyallup Tribe in the state of
Washington established a diesel retrofit project
for the tribe's school buses. Through this first-
time project, the Puyallup will install advanced
emission control technologies on about 20 to 30
buses in the fleet and will use ultra-low-sulfur
diesel fuel, thereby reducing particulate levels in
bus exhaust by more than 90 percent.28
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
Adjustments to the FY 2003 Annual
Performance Goals (APGs) under Goal 1, which
are documented in the FY 2004 President's
Budget,29 reflect FY 2002 performance. In
particular, in FY 2002 EPA missed targets for
several of the NAAQS APGs for different
reasons, ranging from uncertainty among some
states over how areas will be designated under
the revised 8-hour ozone standard and under the
new PM2 standard, to underestimating the time
states required to submit a redesignation request
and receive approval. An additional reason some
areas do not request redesignation is the loss of
federal funding from the Congestion and
Mitigation Air Quality Program. EPA and the
Department of Transportation are jointly working
on adjusting the funding formula to eliminate the
current disincentive to request redesignation.
EPA will make adjustments to the FY 2003
targets where EPA and the states underestimated
the time required to complete and submit a
redesignation request and receive approval.
n-s
F¥
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 1: Clean Air
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
EPATotal: $9,447,202
GoaM: $588,190
Goal 1 Share of Total: 6.2%
ummary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
2
Goals 1 n 1 Goals
Met |2J Not Met
3
A description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
' ERA'S
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 1 Costs: $588,808
Goal 1 Share of Total: 7.4%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-10 of the Financial Statements for a consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY 1999-FY2002 Results
Strategic Objective: Reduce the Risk to Human Health and the Environment By Protecting and Improving Air
Quality SoThat AirThroughout the Country Meets National Clean Air Standards By 2005 for Carbon Monoxide,
Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Lead; By 2012 for Ozone; and By 2018 for Particulate Matter (PM).To
Accomplish This in Indian Country, the Tribes and EPA Will, By 2005, Have Developed the Infrastructure and Skills
to Assess, Understand, and Control Air Quality and Protect Native Americans and Others From Unacceptable
Risks to Their Health, Environment, and Cultural Uses of Natural Resources.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $463,012 (78.6% of FY2002 Goal I Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA, working with its state, local, and tribal partners as well as industry, small businesses, and
other federal agencies, continues to make steady progress toward the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) objective.
Since 1970 aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants tracked nationally have been cut 25%. These emission reductions are a
result of effective implementation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as well as improvements in industrial technology, state and local initiatives,
and goodwill and voluntary efforts on the part of the general public. During this same time period, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product
increased 161%, energy consumption increased 42%, and vehicle miles traveled increased 149%. In spite of these impressive gains,
there is still considerable work to be done with ozone and particulate matter as the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate (PM26) standards
are implemented. Voluntary programs will help areas achieve early reductions as they transition from the 1-hour to 8-hour ozone
standard. Implementation guidance will also be developed for the PM26 standard. For carbon monoxide (CO), lead, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2), there are few areas not monitoring clean air. For nitrogen dioxide (NO2), the country meets the standard.
APG 1 Reduce Ozone and Ozone Precursors
FY2002 Maintain healthy air quality for 41.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining
the ozone standard; certify 10 areas of the remaining 55 nonattainment areas have
attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone, thus increasing the number of people living in
areas with healthy air by 2.5 million. Goal Not Met. ^-Corresponds with FY 2002
NEPPS Core Performance Measure (CPM).
Performance Measures
- Tons of VOCs Reduced from Mobile Sources.
- Tons of NO., Reduced from Mobile Sources.
Planned
41.7 M
10 areas
2.5 M
1,755,000
1,319,000
Actual
41.7 M
1area
326,000
1,755,000
1,319,000
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
35.1 M
5
1.9M
38.2M
3 areas
3.5 M
FY2000 Maintain healthy air quality for 33.4 million people living in 43 areas attaining the ozone
standard. Goal Met.
33.4 M
33.4 M
FY1999 Eight additional areas currently classified as non-attainment will have the 1-hour ozone 8 10areas
standard revoked because they meet the old standard. Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: EPA maintained healthy air quality for 41.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining the ozone standard and
certified 1 area of the remaining 55 nonattainment areas have attained the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone, thus increasing the number of
people living in areas with healthy air by 326,000.
The Cincinnati area is composed of two parts, Kentucky and Ohio. The Kentucky part of the Cincinnati area was approved for
redesignation to attainment in FY 2002, but the final approval of the Ohio part (1,514,000 population) did not occur in FY 2002 as
originally planned. The Portland, Maine area (488,000) was expected to redesignate but violated the NAAQS in the summer of 2002 and
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-9
-------
now does not meet the requirement of 3 years of clean air quality data. The remaining areas targeted for redesignation to attainment
were the areas previously revocated for the 1-hour ozone standard. The states with these areas have chosen not to redesignate and
wait for the implementation guidance for the new 8-hour ozone standard. If a state redesignated the area for the 1 -hour standards, it would
be required to have a maintenance plan for the area and would likely lose a portion of its Congestion and Mitigation Air Quality funding.
APG2
Reduce Particulate Matter
Planned
Actual
FY2002 Maintain healthy air quality for 3.4 million people living in monitored areas attaining the
particulate matter (PM) standards; increase by 3.7 million the number of people living in
areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
^Corresponds with I 'Y 2002 NEPPS CPM.
Performance Measures
- Areas redesignated to attainment.
- Tons of PM-10 Reduced from Mobile Sources.
- Tons of PMOC Reduced from Mobile Sources.
3.4 M
3.7 M
6 areas
23,000
17,250
3,4 M
2.7 M
23,000
17,250
FY2001
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met
1.276M
60,000
1.189M
2.249 M
FY2000
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met:
1.2M
60,000
FY1999 Deploy particulate matter 2.5 ambient monitors including mass, continuous, speciation and
visibility resulting in a total of 1,500 monitoring sites. Goal Met
1,500
FY 2002 Result: EPA maintained healthy air quality for 3.4 million people living in monitored areas attaining the PM standards and
increased by 2.7 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
EPA had expected six areas with a total population of 3.7 million to be redesignated to attainment for PM in FY 2002. Four areas were
redesignated with a total population of 2.7 million. The status of the two additional areas is that (1) Aspen, Colorado redesignation will not
be final until early FY 2003, and (2) Jackson County (Medford), Oregon will not redesignate until FY 2004 because the state did not
submit the maintenance plan as scheduled.
APG 3 PM Effects Research
FY2002 Provide data on the health effects and exposure to particulate matter (PM) and provide
methods for assessing the exposure and toxicity of PM in healthy and potentially
susceptible subpopulations to strengthen the scientific basis for reassessment of the
NAAQS for PM. Met,
Performance Measures
Planned
Report on the effects of concentrated ambient PM on humans and animals believed
most susceptible to adverse effects (e.g., elderly, people with lung disease, or animal
models of such diseases).
Report on animal and clinical toxicology studies using Utah Valley particulate matter
(UVPM) to describe biological mechanisms that may underlie the reported
epidemiological effects of UVPM.
Actual
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
- Complete PM longitudinal panel study data collection and report exposure data.
- Report on health effects of concentrated ambient PM in healthy animals and humans, in
asthmatic and elderly humans, and in animal models of asthma and respiratory infection.
- Final PM AQCD completed.
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- Hold CASAC Review of draft PM AQCD.
- Longitudinal Panel Study on exposure of susceptible sub-populations to PM.
- PM Monitoring Study Data.
- Baltimore Study on Response of Elderly to PM.
9/30/00
1
9/30/01
1
FY 1999 Identify and evaluate at least two plausible biological mechanisms by which PM causes death
and disease in humans. Goal Met:
n-io
lilWs FY 1001 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY 2002 Result: To strengthen the scientific basis for reassessment of the NAAQS for PM, EPA provided data on the health effects of
and exposure to PM and provided methods for assessing the exposure and toxicity of PM in healthy and potentially susceptible
subpopulations. EPA has made significant progress in assessing the health effects of ambient PM. Through coordinated studies in the
field (retirement homes in Baltimore and Fresno) and in the laboratory evaluating human subjects and animal models, investigators
have ascertained that there are likely cardiovascular implications of PM exposure.
APG4
FY2002
Reduce CO, SO2, NO2, Lead
Maintain healthy air quality for 36.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining
the carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead
standards; increase by 16 million, the number of people living in areas with healthy air
quality that have newly attained the standard.
FY
Planned
36.7 M
16M
Actual
FY2001
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
31.1 M
13.2M
36.3 M
FY2000
Same Goal, different targets. Goal
27.7 M
1.1 M
27.7 U
3.41 M
FY 1999 Certify that 14 of the 58 estimated remaining nonattainment areas have achieved the NAAQS for
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or lead. Goal Met
14
13
FY 2002 Result: EPA maintained healthy air quality for 36.7 million people living in monitored areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2, and
lead standards and increased by 16.5 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the
standard. EPA exceeded its target of 8 redesignations by 4, and its population target by an additional 500,000 people.
Strategic Objective: By 2020, Eliminate Unacceptable Risks of Cancer and Other Significant Health Problems From Air
Toxic Emissions for at Least 95% of the Population, With Particular Attention to Children and Other Sensitive
Subpopulations, and Substantially Reduce or Eliminate Adverse Effects on Our Natural Environment. By 2010, the
Tribes and EPA Will Have the Information and Tools to Characterize and Assess Trends in AirToxics in Indian Country.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $105,133 (17.9% of FY 2002 Goal I Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track to meeting this objective. When all the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rules are fully implemented in addition to efforts by states and industry, toxic emissions from large industrial
facilities will decrease by 1.7 million tons, or 63%. EPA is making steady progress in reducing emissions and the associated health
risks from air toxics by reducing toxic emissions from industrial sources and reducing emissions from vehicles and engines through
new emission standards and cleaner-burning gasoline. EPA is also working extensively with the tribes to build capacity. Through FY
2002 EPA estimates, using the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants (EMS-HAP) modeling tool, air toxics
emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined have been reduced by 33.5% from the adjusted 1993 levels.
(Based on updated inventory data in the 1996 National Toxics Inventory (NTI), EPA has adjusted the 1993 baseline to 6.0 million tons.)
EPA issued the Integrated Urban AirToxics Strategy in 1999 which identified the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) that pose the
greatest threat in the largest number of urban areas and the area source categories that emit these pollutants. In 2002, EPA published
the National AirToxics Assessment (NATA) that lays the groundwork for developing the state, local, and tribal component of the overall
toxics strategy. NATA will help EPA, states, local areas, and communities address emissions issues that are of concern to a specific
area. EPA is beginning to provide information to states and communities through case examples, documents, web sites, and
workshops on tools to help them in conducting assessments and identifying risk reduction strategies. This approach puts the tools in
the hands of communities who are then able to prioritize risk concerns locally. As tribal capacity increases, they too will begin to benefit
from the availability of these tools.
APG5
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be
reduced by 5% from 2001 (for a cumulative reduction of 40% from the 1993 level of
4.3 million tons per year). Data Lag. FY
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced
by 5% from 2000 (fora cumulative reduction of 35% from the 1993 level of 4.3 million tons
per year). Data Lag.
Air toxic emissions nationwide from both stationary and mobile sources combined will be
reduced by 3% from 1999 (for a cumulative reduction of 30% from the 1993 levels of
4.3 million tons). Data Lag.
Reduce air toxic emissions by 12% in FY 1999, resulting in cumulative reduction of 25%
from 1993 levels. Data Lag.
Planned
5%
5%
3%
12%
Actual
data
available
in 2004
data
available
in 2004
data
available
in 2004
data
available
in 2003
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-n
-------
FY 2002 Result: Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary (major and area) mobile sources are estimated to have been reduced
by 1.5% or 90,000 tons from 2001, for a cumulative reduction of 33.5% or 2,028,000 tons from the adjusted 1993 level of 6.0 million tons.
EPA expects that final estimated data for FY 2002 will be available in 2004 when the 2002 NTI is completed.
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Reduce Ambient Nitrates and Total Nitrogen Deposition to 1990 Levels. By 2010,
Reduce Ambient Sulfates and Total Sulfur Deposition By Up to 30% From 1990 Levels.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $20,663 (3.5% of FY2002 Goal I Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA's Acid Rain Program met its strategic objective under Title IV of the CAA Amendments in
FY 2000 for nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions and is on track to meet its 2010 objective for SO2, which sets a permanent cap on the total
amount of SO2 that can be emitted by power plants nationwide. As a result of efforts by utilities covered under the Acid Rain Program,
SO2 emissions continued to decline from 17.5 million tons in 1980 (baseline) to 10.6 million tons through 2001, while NOX emissions were
reduced by 2 million tons nationally.
APG6
FY 2002
Reduce SO2 Emissions
Maintain or increase annual SO2 emission reduction of approximately 5 million tons
from the 1980 baseline. Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance
holdings and make progress toward achievement of Year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Data Lag.
Planned
5M
Actual
data
available
in 2003
FY2001 Maintain annual reduction of approximately 5 million tons of SO2 emissions from utility sources
from 1980 baseline. Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and
make progress towards achievement of Year 2010 SO2 emissions cap. Goal Met.
5M
FY2000 5 million tons of S02 emissions from utility sources will be reduced from the 1980 baseline.
Goal Met.
5M
FY1999
Maintain 4 million tons of SO emissions reduction from utility sources. Goal Met.
4M
FY 2002 Result: EPA is on track to meet this goal. End-of-year 2002 data will be available in late 2003 to verify that an annual SO2
emissions reduction of approximately 5 million tons from utility sources has been maintained or increased during 2002, making progress
toward achievement of the year 2010 SO2 emission cap for utilities. (Annual progress in SO2 emission reductions under the Title IV Acid
Rain Program is measured and reported on a calendar year, not fiscal year, basis.)
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: In calendar year 2001, SO2 emissions for all Title IV affected utility units totaled 10.63 million
tons, representing an annual emission reduction of more than 6.5 million tons from the 1980 baseline. In 2001 SO2 emissions dropped by
approximately 5%, or 570,000 tons, from 2000 levels.
APG7 Reduce NOX Emissions Planned Actual
FY2002 Two million tons of NOX from coal-fired utility sources will be reduced from levels that 2M data
would have been emitted without implementation of Title IV of the Clean Air Act available
Amendments. Data Lag. in 2003
FY2001 Two million tons of nitrogen oxides (NO)x from coal-fired utility sources will be reduced from levels
that would have been emitted without implementation of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Goal Met.
2M
2M
FY2000 Two million tons of NOX emissions from coal-fired utility sources will be reduced from the
levels before implementation of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Goal Met.
2M
FY1999
Maintain 300,000 tons of NO reduction from coal-fired utility sources. Goal Met.
300,000
420,000
FY 2002 Result: EPA is on track toward this goal of maintaining or increasing the annual NOX emission reduction goal of 2 million tons
from levels that would have been emitted without implementation of Title IV of the CAA Amendments.
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: Program achieved goal of reducing annual NOX emissions from coal-fired utility sources by
2 million tons from levels that would have been emitted without implementation of Title IV of the CAA Amendments.
n-12
lil'A's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-76?lq); Clean Air
Act Amendments, Title I (42 U.S.C. 7401-7514a);
Clean Air Act Amendments, Title II (42 U.S.C.
7521-7590); Clean Air Act Amendments, Title
IV(42 U.S.C. 7651-766lf); Clean Air Act
Amendments, Title IX (42 U.S.C. 7403-7404).
2. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, The Benefits
and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970 to 1990
EPA Report Congress, EPA-410-R-97-002
(October 1997). See also U.S. EPA, Office of Air
and Radiation, Office of Policy, The Benefits and
Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990 to 2010 EPA
Report to Congress, EPA-410-R-99-001
(November 1999).
3. U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html.
4 U.S. EPA, Tier2/Gasoline SulfurFinal
Rulemaking, EPA-420-R-99-023 (February 10,
2000). U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost Analysis, EPA 420-R-99-
023 (December 22, 1999). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/tier-2/frm/
ria/chvii.pdf. See also U.S. EPA, Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements
(December 21, 2000) and U.S. EPA, Regulatory
Impact Analysis, Chapter VII: Benefit-Cost
Analysis, EPA-420-R-00-026 (December 2000).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/
hd2007/frm/ria-vii.pdf.
5. U.S. EPA, Latest Findings on National Air Quality-.
2001 Status and Trends Report (September 4,
2002). Available at
http://www.epa. gov/air/aqtrndO.
6. Ibid
7. U.S. EPA, National Air Toxics Assessment (May
31, 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/nata. Scientific Peer Review of the National-
Scale Assessment. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.
8. U.S. EPA, Latest Findings on National Air
Quality: 2001 Status and Trends Report
(September 4, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa. gov/air/aqtmdOl.
9. Ibid
10. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate
Change Initiatives (February 14, 2002). Available
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2002/02/20020214-5.html.
11. Senate and House of Representatives, Clear Skies
Legislation Act of 2002, S. 2815 Quly 29, 2002) and
H.R. 5266 (July 26, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/bill.pdf.
12. U.S. EPA, Human Health and Environmental
Benefits Achieved by the Clear Skies Initiative
(July 1, 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/
clearskies/CSIhealth env benefits7-01.ppt. U.S.
EPA, Technical Addendum: Methodologies for
the Benefit Analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative
(September 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/Tech adden.PDFl.
13. U.S. EPA, Clean Air Markets Divisions, On-Line
Allowance Transfer System (OATS). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/transfer/.
14. U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards, AIRNow. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/aimow.
15. U.S. EPA, New England, News Release, Poor Air
Quality Predicted in Southern New England
for Monday and Tuesday (July 29, 2002).
Available at http://www.epa. gov/Regionl/pr/
2002/iul/020734.html.
16. U.S. EPA, Emission Standards for New Nonroad
Engines—Large Industrial Spark-ignition
Engines, Recreational Marine Diesel Engines,
and Recreational Vehicles, EPA-420-F-02-037
(September 2002). U.S. EPA, Regulatory
Support Document, Chapter 10: Benefit-Cost
Analysis, EPA-420-R-02-022. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/
cleanrec-final.htm.
17. U. S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/otaq/retrofit.
18. Caterpillar, Inc., Mack Trucks, Inc., Renault
Vehicles Industries, Volvo Truck Corporation,
Cummins Engine Company, Detroit Diesel
Corporation, and Navistar International
Transportation Corporation, Heavy Duty Diesel
Engine Consent Decree Documents
(April 30, 1999). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/programs/
caa/diesel/condec.html.
19. A.J. Ohio, C. Kim, and R.B. Devlin, Concentrated
Ambient Air Particles Induce Mild Pulmonary
Inflammation in Healthy Human Volunteers, AmJ
Respir Crit CarMed 162 (3 Pt 1, September
2000): 981-988.
20. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-13
-------
Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine
Exhaust, EPA-600-8-90-057F (May 1, 2002).
21. TJ. Roskelley, NESCA UM GHG Case Study: The
Hunts Point Truck/ Trailer Electrification Pilot
Project (2QQY). Available at
http://www.nescaum.org/Greenhouse/Private/
HuntsPointGHGCase.doc.
22. U.S. EPA, Cleveland Air Toxics Pilot Project.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/cleveland.
23. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, RTA
Vehicles to Burn Ultra-low-sulfur Fuel in Clean Air
Project, RTA News (May 1, 2002). Available at
http://www. gcrta.org/
pressreleaselist.asp?ristingid=328.
24. U.S. EPA, Region 1, Diesel Exhaust. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/ne/eco/diesel.
25. Clean Air Campaigns for Clean Air and
Development in Metropolitan Chicago. Available
at http://www.cleanaircounts.org.
26. U.S. EPA, Region 6, Administrator Gregg A. Cooke
endorsed the Early Action Compact (June 19, 2002,
amended October 2002). Available at
http://www.aacog.dst.tx.us/cap/
062002 BAG Final.htm. U.S. EPA, Protocol for
Early Action Compacts Designed to Achieve and
Maintain the 8-hour Ozone Standard. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/air/pd-l/
compact amend.pdf.
27. National Tribal Air Association and National Tribal
Air Committee/Working Group, National Tribal
Environmental Council. Available at
http://www.ntec.org/NTAC.html.
28. U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program, Diesel Retrofit
Calculator (Version 1.0.0). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/aqcreditcalc.htm.
29. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2004Justification of
Appropriations Estimates for the Committee on
Appropriations (January 31, 2003).
n-i4
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The quality of the Nation's surface waters
and drinking water supplies has improved
dramatically in the 30 years since the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) were enacted. However, despite
tangible improvements in the quality of the
Nation's waters, serious water pollution and
drinking water problems remain. With respect to
drinking water, although 91 percent of the
population served by community water systems
received water that met all health-based
standards,1 states, tribes, and public water
systems will need increased implementation
assistance to meet the 2005 target of healthy
drinking water for 95 percent of the population.2
With respect to surface water quality, in FY 2001
states reported that more than 80 percent of
assessed waters in 510 watersheds met all water
quality standards. This is an increase from 501
watersheds in 1998, but it may not be at the rate
needed to meet the FY 2003 goal of 600
watersheds.3 In FY 2002 the Agency exceeded
its targets for pounds of pollution prevented
from entering waterways as a result of states and
EPA issuing National Permit Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which
implement the effluent guidelines developed by
the Agency. Since FY 2000 state and EPA
programs have protected waterways from 13.5
million pounds of toxic pollutants, 715.7 million
pounds of conventional pollutants, and 1,200
million pounds of non-conventional pollutants.4
Despite these achievements, without improved
effectiveness of drinking water and clean water
programs, there is the risk of losing some of the
water quality improvements achieved over the
past 30 years.
A report on the state of the environment,
which EPA plans to release in draft during
FY 2003, features two of EPA's geographically-
based water programs, the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay, that are setting the pace in
developing and using environmental indicators
to track the condition of these waters, to make
management decisions, to evaluate programs,
and to inform joint work with states, tribes, and
stakeholders on priorities and commitments. The
report includes indicators and descriptions of
available data and efforts under way to improve
the quality of data on drinking water safety, the
condition of recreational waters, the condition of
waters supporting fish and shellfish propagation,
and the overall condition of surface waters. The
report also uses indicators presented in EPA's
FY2002 Coastal Condition Report, a ground-
breaking report that integrates a broad range of
data from a variety of sources into a coherent
picture of the environmental quality of the
Nation's coastal waters.5
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
Drinking Water
The first line of defense against consumers'
exposure to drinking water contaminants is
protecting their drinking water sources from
contamination. State and tribal community water
systems (CWSs) completed assessments of more
than 7,700 drinking water sources in FY 2002,
exceeding the target of 6,000. In addition and of
particular note, 3,528 CWSs are implementing
source water protection programs.6 During
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-15
-------
(A
O
Types of Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Projects:
Dollars Loaned from 1997 to 2002
$5,500 - -
$5,000 -|- $477.8
Source
5.3%
Transmission
and Distribution
32.3%
Planning and
Design Only
0.6%
Source: Drinking Water National Information Management System; Project Category is a
percentage of Total Dollars of Assistance Provided; Cumulative from DWSRF inception in 1997
through June 30, 2002.
FY 2002 drinking water systems completed
1,253 infrastructure improvement projects,
exceeding the target of 1,100. States also
exceeded the FY 2002 goal of 2,400 by making
more than 2,500 agreements with water systems
for projects that help maintain or achieve
systems' capacity to provide safe drinking
water.7
In FY 2002 EPA also strengthened the
drinking water standard that protects consumers
served by small community water systems (those
serving a population of 10,000 or fewer) against
dangerous microbes such as Cryptosporidium.
Implementation of this new standard at all small
public water systems by 2005 will result in the
reduced likelihood of endemic illness from
Cryptosporidium by an estimated 12,000 to
41,000 cases annually.8 States and water systems
are working to develop the technical and
managerial capacity to address implementation
assistance needs and to comply with drinking
water regulations, especially rules for arsenic,
microbes, disinfectants, and disinfection by-
products.
The Agency and its state and tribal partners
may not meet the national target to provide
drinking water that meets all health-based
standards in place as of 1994 to 95 percent of
the population served by community water
systems by 2005. Because implementing source
water protection programs is not mandated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the
achievement of national source water protection
goals depends on states, tribes, and communities
taking voluntary measures to implement
contamination prevention programs.
Recreational Waters and Fish Consumption
In FY 2002 EPA continued to provide states
and tribes with tools and information to help
them protect people from health risks associated
with contaminated recreational waters and
noncommercially caught fish. Jurisdictions
provided information voluntarily on closings and
advisories for more than 2,400 beaches,
exceeding the target of 2,354 beaches.9 The
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Act of 2000 (BEACH Act, PL 106-284)
enacted in October 2000, requires EPA to
n-i6
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Reported Causes of Beach Closings
or Advisories
Other
3.0%
Stormwater
Runoff
20.0%
Sewer Line
Blockage/Break
4%
Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
1%
Septic System
3%
Combined Sewer Overflow
3%
Boat Discharge
" 2%
Sanitary Sewer
Overflow
2%
publish performance criteria for monitoring and
assessment of all recreational waters adjacent to
beaches and authorizes EPA to award grants to
states and territories to develop beach
monitoring and notification programs. EPA
published this document in June 200210 and
awarded grants to all 35 eligible states and
territories. The Act also requires all coastal and
Great Lakes states to adopt stronger water
quality standards for their coastal recreation
waters by April 2004. As of FY 2002, 17 states
had taken the first step toward these stronger,
consistent standards by adopting E. coli or
enterococci criteria approved by EPA for all of
their recreational waters.11
In FY 2002, 28 percent of U.S. lake acres
and 14 percent of U.S. river miles were covered
by state and tribal fish consumption advisories,
as compared to 23 percent of lake acres and
9.8 percent of river miles in FY 2001.12 This
steady increase in advisories over the last
10 years is due to increased monitoring and use of
risk-based methodologies for issuing advisories.
EPA activities included technical assistance to states
and tribes to enhance fish tissue monitoring and
development of fish and shellfish consumption
advisories, sponsoring a national forum for state,
tribal, and federal agencies on risk assessment
and risk communication, and development and
dissemination of outreach materials. In FY 2002
EPA completed the first phase of a 4-year
national screening-level study of contaminants in
fish tissue from 500 lakes and reservoirs in the
continental United States. Results of this effort
will help states determine if further fish tissue
samples are needed in their decisions about
issuing consumption advisories for these
waters.13
Protecting and Restoring Surface Waters
States reported in FY 2001 that nearly 40
percent of all assessed waters in the United
States did not meet water quality standards.
Pollution from nonpoint sources remains the
single largest reported cause of poor water
quality.14 In FY 2002, 25 states now have
approved new or revised water quality
standards, exceeding the target of 20. This is the
first time in 3 years that the Agency has met this
commitment.15 Twenty-two tribes have adopted
and EPA has approved new or revised standards,
reflecting continuing progress, but not meeting
the goal of 27.l6 A number of reasons have
contributed to slower than anticipated progress.
Most notable are two recent Supreme Court
decisions, Nevadav. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 121 S.
Ct. 2304 (2001) and Atkinson Trading Company,
Inc. v. Shirley, 352 U.S. 645, 121 S. Ct. 1825
(2001). These two cases ruled on the jurisdiction
tribes have over non-members who reside
within a reservation. EPA had to reevaluate its
program authorization process to determine
what, if any, additional analysis was necessary to
support Treatment as a State decisions.
EPA and states continued to increase the
annual pace of developing approved Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), water quality
planning tools that consider all sources of water
pollution in a watershed and develop budgets to
bring the water bodies into attainment. States and
EPA completed 2,956 in FY 2002, which is more
than five times the number completed in
FY 1999.17 New effluent guidelines issued in
FY 2002 will clean up 5,000 miles of streams
impaired by abandoned coal mines,18 reduce
pollutants discharged by the iron and steel
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-17
-------
Types of Projects Funded by the $38.7 Billion of the Clean Water
State Revolving Funds (through 2002)
Sanitary Sewer
Overflows
$0.2
$3.8
$7.2
Nonpoint Source
and Estuary
5% / Combined Sewer
Storm Water Overflows
1% 8%
($.7 B not allocated)
-i- $40
-- $35
-- $30
-- $25
- - $20
-- $15
-- $10
--$5
--$0
ffl
Source: State Data for July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002; Clean Water State Revolving
Fund National Information Management System, http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf
industry by 1.4 million pounds per year
beginning in FY 2005,19 and improve arid
western watersheds by restoring land at active
mines to pre-mining conditions upon closure.20 A
new regulation for cooling water intake
structures at about 120 facilities will significantly
reduce the number of eggs, larvae, and small
aquatic organisms that are pulled into cooling
water systems and killed or injured and will
virtually eliminate impacts on larger organisms
over the next 20 years.21
In FY 2002 the pace of initiating the funding of
wastewater treatment projects has continued to
increase under the Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Fund (CWSRF), with 8,642 projects in place
since the program began in 1987, exceeding the
target of 7,900. The CWSRF also provided
$242 million to help manage nonpoint source
pollution. EPA and states continue to work hard to
issue current NPDES permits to protect water
quality and human health. The backlog of major
facilities has been reduced from 26 percent in
1998 to 17 percent in September 2002, and the
backlog of minor facilities from 48 percent in
1998 to 25.5 percent in September 2002. States
and EPA achieved 83 percent current permits for
majors, falling short of the FY 2002 target of 90
percent. However, states and EPA exceeded the
minors target of 73 percent current permits by
1.5 percent in FY 2002.22
Throughout the United States, EPA and states
are facing backlogs, court challenges, and
petitions to withdraw state program authorization.
EPA will work with states and tribes to focus on
core water programs to remedy significant
problems and boost environmental performance
in the following areas:
• Monitoring and assessment programs, with a
particular emphasis on the probabilistic
approach, to support water quality decision-
making.
• Assisting states and tribes to adopt water
quality standards that are appropriate for use
in developing TMDLs.
• Increasing the pace of TMDL development
and working with states to ensure
implementation of already approved TMDLs,
including targeting CWA Section 319
nonpoint source funding.23
n-is
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
• Assisting states in adopting tools, such as the
new Permitting for Environmental Results
Initiative for prioritizing permits, to ensure that
facilities required to have permits are covered
by current effective permits.
• Strengthening the drinking water
implementation program to maintain
effective state and tribal programs and to
achieve the enhanced level of public health
protection established in post-1998 drinking
water rules.24
Geographically-based Results
In FY 2002, 85,000 acres of submerged
aquatic vegetation were measured in the
Chesapeake Bay, exceeding the target of
78,000 acres.25 The Bay Program also exceeded
its commitment to restore riparian forest buffers,
which play an important role in providing habitat
and reducing pollutant loads from nonpoint
sources to local waterways and the Bay.26 EPA's
Gulf of Mexico program reported that 3,197
acres of coastal and marine habitat were restored
or protected, exceeding the goal of 2,400 acres.
Restoration actions are being implemented in 37
coastal river and estuary segments in the Gulf,
exceeding the target of 14.27
modest, annual goal for habitat acres protected
and restored. The actual number of acres
protected and restored by the NEPs may exceed
that goal due to a number of factors, including
unanticipated changes in federal funding levels
for habitat protection and restoration at the state
and local level, changes in NEPs' annual priorities
that lead to enhanced protection and restoration
efforts, growth in community interest and
involvement in protection and restoration, and
the enhanced capacity of NEPs and their
partners to collect and report on data depicting
protection and restoration achievements.
Residents of 21 percent of the 71,000 homes
in Indian Country who did not have access to
adequate sanitation now have adequate
wastewater systems funded through the CWSRF
Tribal set-aside.29 This number exceeds the
FY 2002 goal of 19 percent of households and
reflects the Agency's commitment to tribes. In
FY 2002, 720,000 people who live in the
U.S.-Mexico border area were protected from
health risks through access to basic sanitation
provided by funding that supported water and
wastewater infrastructure.30 This number is less
than the target of 790,000 additional people due
to the extra time that was required to complete
final planning and design to ensure the high
quality of the projects.
Acres of Bay Grasses
Potential Habitat (600,000 acres)
100
60
E
is
I
40
20
Interim Goal (114,000 acres)
!> Bay grass beds are
< vital habitat for
fish and crabs.
No
Surveys
1979-83 >
Improved water quality
will promote Bay
grass growth.
* n indicates estimated additional acreage
In 2002 the National Estuary Program (NEPs)
protected and restored more than 137,000 acres,
exceeding the target of 50,000 acres, and initiated
88 priority actions.28 EPA sets a realistic, but
Wetlands
In FY 2002 EPA and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers issued a
rule that clarified the definition of the
term fill material to ensure consistent,
fair, and environmentally effective
implementation of the regulatory
program under Section 404 of the
CWA.31 This rule, together with other
measures being taken to strengthen
protection of wetlands, streams, and
watersheds in Appalachia, will help
achieve national consistency and
reduce mining-related environmental
impacts.
In 2002 EPA also established a goal that two-
thirds of its Wetland Program Development
Grants to states, tribes, and local agencies under
Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA would be used to
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-19
-------
fund three major challenges faced by EPA and its
partners: (1) protecting vulnerable wetlands and
other waters, including those no longer federally
regulated because of the 2001 Supreme Court
decision;32 (2) developing wetlands monitoring
programs to establish baseline conditions and
measure movement towards the national goal of
improving the quality of the Nation's wetlands;
and (3) improving compensatory mitigation in
the CWA's Section 404 program.33
Innovations
In FY 2002 EPA and partners improved
water quality management by using both
traditional and innovative strategies, such as
asset management, Environmental Management
Systems (EMS), and electronic tools. EPA
designated eight organizations around the
country as EMS Local Resource Centers that will
help local communities to adopt state-of-the-art
management approaches that minimize
environmental risks, reduce costs to taxpayers,
and help citizens enjoy a cleaner and healthier
environment.34 Fourteen local agencies that
completed an EPA project to help them adopt
EMSs were able to document cost savings,
improved compliance, and greater efficiency as
a result of adopting EMSs.35
EPA also released its Water Quality Trading
Policy and awarded the first grants under this
policy that encourages states and tribes to imple-
ment the requirements of the CWA in more
flexible ways while reducing the cost of
improving and maintaining the quality of the
Nation's waters.36 Trading provides voluntary
incentives for industrial and municipal facilities to
go beyond technology requirements to achieve
further progress toward water quality goals.
Homeland Security
EPA worked with states, tribes, local
governments, and the private sector to take
steps to secure the Nation's 168,000 public
drinking water systems and 16,000 wastewater
systems from terrorism by providing new tools,
training, technical and financial assistance,
information, and research and technology.37
Since November 2001 about 6,000 drinking
water and wastewater plant managers and
operators have received training in security
issues including assessing vulnerabilities,
emergency response plans, and risk
communication. EPA expects that the work
supported by grants to drinking water systems
will provide an added level of protection for at
least 120 million people or nearly half the total
population served by community water systems.
Work through EPA grants to technical,
professional, and academic organizations also
helped protect 125 million people, or
58 percent of those who depend on centralized
wastewater treatment systems.38 EPA has also
developed a protocol for assuring the safe
disposal of wash-down water from the cleanup
of anthrax-contaminated sites at wastewater
treatment facilities.39
Research Contributions
The SDWA Amendments of 1996 require EPA
to establish scientifically sound and cost-
effective drinking water regulations that protect
the health of both the general public and
subpopulations that may be more sensitive to the
effects of contaminated drinking water.40 The
Agency's ability to accomplish this depends
upon the availability of adequate information and
methods to assess and control the risks posed by
contaminants. A critical area of research involves
the development of reliable and accurate
analytical methods to detect and enumerate
waterborne pathogens, particularly those on the
Contaminant Candidate List41 to be considered for
future regulation. These analytical methods
provide exposure data for use in risk
assessments and are essential for health effects
and treatability studies. In FY 2002 EPA
developed a method for calicivirus that was used
to investigate two waterborne outbreaks.42 This
method will enhance the quality and sensitivity
of detection technologies for caliciviruses,
allowing EPA and states to start collecting data
on the occurrence of these pathogens in
drinking water. These data will also assist EPA in
making better regulatory decisions and helping
to safeguard the American public from harmful
drinking water contaminants.
n-20
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Program Evaluation
An EPA evaluation, A Review of Statewide
Watershed Management Approaches, focused on
the experiences of eight states with different
models of statewide watershed management.
State managers identified benefits of using a
watershed model, including more and better
water quality monitoring data, better focused
water quality assessments and planning, more
efficient and equitable permitting programs,
improved coordination, and increased public
involvement.43 EPA is working to incorporate
these findings into its current strategies to
support state efforts to plan and manage on a
watershed basis.
During FY 2002 EPA worked with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Departments
of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and
Transportation to develop a National Wetlands
Mitigation Action Plan to be completed and
released in 2003. The action plan is intended to
ensure effective, scientifically-based decisions
about protecting and restoring wetlands and also
expand access to information on these activities.
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
EPA, states, and tribes all play crucial roles in
working toward the goal of clean and safe water.
Virtually all of the accomplishments described
above and those reported in the performance
data chart that follows represent the combined
efforts of EPA, state, and tribal programs.
State Contributions
The CWA authorizes states to carry out or
EPA delegates responsibility to states to carry out
programs. In particular, states have the primary
responsibility to set water quality standards,
taking into account variations in hydrological and
geographic conditions and the social uses of
aquatic resources. The standards guide programs
in making surface waters healthier. Forty-four
states and one territory have delegated authority
for NPDES permitting and compliance and
enforcement.44 Fifty-three states and territories
have primary enforcement authority (primacy)
for drinking water regulations.45
States contribute significant resources to
managing CWA and SDWA programs. Constraints
on state resources may impact states' abilities to
protect and restore surface waters and to
provide safe drinking water.
Tribal Contributions
The CWA, as amended in 1987, allows tribes
to be treated as states to receive funding and
administer programs. In FY 2002, of
570 recognized tribes, 212 can receive funds to
administer one or more CWA programs, 70 can
receive nonpoint source funds, and 22 tribes
have CWA water quality standards.46 In FY 2002
the Agency worked closely with authorized
tribes to publish the brochure How Water Quality
Standards Protect Tribal Waters, an informative
tool for citizens, tribes, and other stakeholders to
learn about how the water quality standards
program relates to tribes.47
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
In FY 2003 the National Estuary Program
habitat performance measure will be lowered to
reflect that large parcels (more than 1 million
acres) have been restored or protected since the
beginning of the program in 1987. Continued
restoration will occur in smaller, more difficult to
manage parcels. In addition, the Chesapeake
Bay partners are ahead of schedule to restore
2,010 miles of riparian forest buffers by 2010
and will set new goals to expand buffer mileage
in 2003.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-2i
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
ummary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
7
Goals 1 j 1 Goals
Met I Not Met
2
A description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
' ERA'S
EPATotal:
Goal 2:
Goal 2 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$3,889,731
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 2 Costs: $3,447,114
Goal 2 Share of Total: 43.1%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-10 of the Financial Statements for a consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY 1999-FY2002 Results
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Protect Human Health So That 95% of the Population Served by Community Water
Systems Will Receive Water That Meets Drinking Water Standards, Consumption of Contaminated Fish and
Shellfish Will Be Reduced, and Exposure to Microbial and Other Forms of Contamination in Waters Used for
Recreation Will Be Reduced.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $1,071,099 (31.0% of FY 2002 Goal 2 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track to achieve this objective by 2005. The Agency has consistently met its drinking
water goals, and the population that receives drinking water that meets all standards has been maintained, even as population increases
and threats to drinking water sources pose new challenges. States and water systems, however, face increasing capacity issues, which
might hinder their ability to reach the target of 95% by 2005. EPA does not track consumption of fish and shellfish, but the Agency does
continue to work with states, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registration, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers
for Disease Control and others to improve fish consumption advisories and to increase the quantity and quality of information about
contaminated fish that is available to the public. Legislation enacted in 2001 requires states to strengthen water quality standards to
protect against microbial contamination in recreational waters. States must update these standards by April 2004, or EPA will promulgate
standards for them. Grants to states under the BEACH Act are providing increased funding for monitoring of coastal waters and public
notification of closings or advisories. Better standards and more information will improve both the condition of and public knowledge
about the condition of recreational waters by 2005.
APG 8 Safe Drinking Water Planned Actual
FY2002 91% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water 91% 91%
meeting all health-based standards, up from 83% in 1994. Goal Met.
^•Corresponds with FY 2002 NEPPS Core Performance Measure (CPM).
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- Population served by community drinking water systems with no violations during the year of
any federally enforceable health-based standards that were in place by 1994.
- Population served by non-community, non-transient drinking water systems with no violations
during the year of any federally enforceable health-based standards that were in place by 1994.
91%
96%
91%
92%
FY2000
Same Goal. Goal Met
91%
91%
FY1999 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met
91%
91%
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002, 244 million people were served by community water systems meeting all health-based standards. This
result is 91% of the 268 million people served by 53,437 community water systems in FY 2002.
APG 9 Safe Drinking Water
FY2002 85% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water
meeting health-based standards promulgated in 1998. Data lag.
^•Corresponds with FY 2001 NEPPS Core Performance Measure (CPM).
Planned
85%
Actual
data
available
in 2003
FY 2002 Result: Data Lag. FY 2002 end of year data will be available July 2003.
n-22
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
APG 10 Increase Information on Beaches
FY2002 Reduce exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing the information
available to the public and decision-makers.
Performance Measure
Planned
Actual
Beaches for which monitoring and closure data are available to the public at
http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/ (cumulative).
2,354
2,445
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Got
2,200
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Cumulative number of beaches for which monitoring and closure data are available at
"beaches" web-page.
- Number of digitized maps on the web-page.
1,800
150
1,981
150
FY 2002 Result: Exposure to contaminated recreation waters was reduced as a result of use of monitoring and closure data on 2,455
beaches by the public and decision makers.
APG 11
FY 2002
Drinking Water Research Planned
Produce scientific reports to support the development of the next Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) of chemicals and pathogens for potential regulatory action and
research. These reports will help ensure that future regulations address the contaminants
of greatest public health concern.
Performance Measure
Actual
Provide method(s) for CCL related pathogens in drinking water for use in the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
Journal
article
Journal
article
FY 2002 Result: EPA produced scientific reports to support the development of the next CCL of chemicals and pathogens for potential
regulatory action and research. These reports will help ensure that future regulations address the contaminants of greatest public health
concern. In addition, EPA developed an improved analytical detection method for an unregulated waterborne pathogen of public health
concern (calicivirus), which will allow the Agency and others to collect accurate national occurrence data on this important pathogen.
The use of this method and other FY 2002 research products will provide critical data to support EPA's regulatory decision making
process for unregulated contaminants.
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Increase By 175 the Number of Watersheds Where 80% or More of Assessed
Waters Meet Water Quality Standards, Including Standards That Support Healthy Aquatic Communities. (The 1998
Baseline is 501 Watersheds Out of a National Total of 2,262.)
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $432,633 (12.6% of FY 2002 Goal 2 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: No new data to report. EPA receives data from states every 2 years. In FY 2001 EPA did not
meet the goal of 550 watersheds. The accomplishment of 510 watersheds represents progress, but results may not be happening fast
enough to meet the target by 2005.
APG 12
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
Watershed Protection Planned
By FY 2003, water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that 600 of the 600
Nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than 80% of assessed waters meeting all
water quality standards, up from 500 watersheds in 1998. Data Lag.
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met, 550
Environmental improvement projects will be underway in 350 high priority watersheds as a result 350
of implementing activities under the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP). Goal Not Met.
As part of CWAP, all states will be conducting or have completed unified watershed
assessments, with support from EPA, to identify aquatic resources in greatest need
of restoration or prevention activities. Goal Met,
50
Actual
data
available
in 2003
510
324
1:6
FY 2002 Result: This measure reflects states' biennial reporting under CWA 305(b), and is not intended to be reported until the FY 2003
reporting cycle.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-23
-------
APG13 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards Planned Actual
FY2002 Assure that states and tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality standards
programs adopted in accordance with the Water Quality Standards (WQSs) regulation
and the WQSs program priorities. Goal Met,
Performance Measures:
- States with new or revised WQSs that EPA has reviewed and approved or disapproved 20
and promulgated federal replacement standards.
- Tribes with water quality standards adopted and approved (cumulative). 27 S2
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met 30states 21 states
27 tribes
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met. 15 states 35 states
22 tribes
FY 2002 Result: WQSs established under the Clean Water Act establish specific environmental goals for the Nation's waters. Having
current, protective WQSs in place is an essential element of the national water program's water quality protection efforts. States and
tribes continue to do significant work in this area. In FY 2002 EPA ensured that 25 states and 22 tribes have effective, up-to-date WQSs
programs adopted in accordance with the WQSs regulation and the WQSs program priorities. Several tribes are at different stages in
the process of adoption and approval of WQSs. A Supreme Court decision resulted in EPA revisiting its tribal program authorization
process, which has delayed approval of any new tribal standards.
APG14 Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries Planned Actual
FY2002 Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans (CCMPs). Goal Met
Performance Measure
- Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the National Estuary 50,000 137,710
Program (annual).
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measure
- Acres of habitat preserved, restored and/or created nationwide as part of the National 50,000 70,000
Estuary Program (cumulative).
FY 2002 Result: EPA restored and protected more than 137,000 acres of estuary habitat through the implementation of CCMPs,
significantly exceeding its FY 2002 target. The National Estuary Program (NEP) exceeded the goal due to one or more of the following
factors: unanticipated changes in federal funding levels for habitat protection and restoration at the state and local levels; changes in the
NEP's annual priorities that led to enhanced protection and restoration efforts, growth in community interest and involvement in
protection and restoration; or the enhanced capability of estuary programs and their partners to collect and report on data depicting
protection and restoration achievements.
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Reduce Pollutant Loadings From Key Point and Nonpoint Sources By at Least 11%
From 1992 Levels. Air Deposition of Key Pollutants Will Be Reduced to 1990 Levels.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $1,943,382 (56.4% of FY 2002 Goal 2 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA continues to face a significant challenge in its ability to adequately document reductions in
pollutant loadings. The amount of data available from many EPA programs is and will continue to be very limited. To help document
loading reductions from permits that implement effluent guidelines and an overall loading reductions strategy, EPA is taking steps to
determine the number of facilities in each major program. This information will greatly improve the Agency's ability to successfully model
expected reductions and validate these models using the limited data available.
APG15 Reducing Industrial Pollutant Discharge Planned Actual
FY2002 Industrial discharges of pollutants to the Nation's waters will be significantly reduced
through implementation of effluent guidelines. Goal Met
Performance Measures
Cumulative reduction in loadings for toxic pollutants for facilities subject to effluent 10.5 M Ibs
guidelines promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as compared to 1992 levels as
predicted by model projections.
Cumulative reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants for facilities subject 572 M Ibs
to effluent guidelines promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as compared to 1992
levels as predicted by model projections.
n-24 EFA's FY 2002 Annual Report uww.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Cumulative reduction in loadings for non-conventional pollutants for facilities
subject to effluent guidelines promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as compared
to 1992 levels as predicted by model projections.
1,007Mlbs
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Cumulative reduction in toxic-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent guidelines
promulgated between 1992 and 1999, as predicted by model projections.
- Reduction in loadings for conventional pollutants for facilities subject to effluent guidelines
promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as compared to 1992 levels as predicted by model
projections.
- Reduction in loadings for non-conventional pollutants for facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as compared to 1992 levels as predicted
by model projections.
9.8Mlbs
552.7Mlbs
935.6 Mlbs
FY2000
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
Cumulative reduction in toxic-pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent guidelines
promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
Cumulative reduction in conventional pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
Cumulative reduction in non-conventional pollutant loadings by facilities subject to effluent
guidelines promulgated between 1992-1999, against 1992 levels (predicted by models).
4 Mlbs 4 Mlbs
385 Mlbs 4 73 Mlbs
260 Mlbs 136 Mlbs
FY 2002 Result: Industrial discharges of pollutants to the Nation's waters were significantly reduced through implementation of effluent
guidelines. A total of approximately 2 billion pounds of industrial discharges was eliminated.
APG 16 NPDES Permit Requirements
FY2002 Current national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits reduce or
eliminate discharges into the Nation's waters of (1) inadequately treated discharges
from municipal and industrial facilities; and (2) pollutants from urban stormwater,
combined sewer overflow (CSO), and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
Not Met,
Performance Measures
Planned
Actual
Major point sources are covered by current permits.
Minor point sources are covered by current permits.
90%
73%
74,4%
FY2001
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met,
Performance Measures
- Major point sources are covered by current permits.
- Minor point sources are covered by current permits.
89%
66%
75%
FY 2002 Result: EPA and states exceeded the minor point sources covered by current permits target by 1.5%. EPA and states
achieved 83% current permits for major point sources, falling short of the FY 2002 target of 90% due to state and regional capacity
issues as well as growing complexities of permits including the need to integrate individual permits with watershed and other planning
processes. Nevertheless, the Agency is making progress towards its goals and objectives as evidenced by the following: 94% of states
and territories had current storm water permits for all industrial activities, and 98% had current permits for construction sites more than
5 acres; 92% of approximately 900 CSO communities were covered by permits or other enforceable mechanisms consistent with the
1994 CSO Policy; and approximately 67% of states had current NPDES general permits for CAFOs or individual NPDES permits for all
CAFOs.
The Agency has launched a Permitting for Environmental Results Initiative to address the permit backlog and focus existing resources
on getting the most environmental results. This effort will work toward achieving an environmental focus in permit issuance, mutual
accountability for EPA and states, and developing permitting efficiencies.
APG 17 Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Annual Assistance
FY2002 700 projects funded by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) will initiate
operations, including 400 projects providing secondary treatment, advanced treatment,
CSO correction (treatment), and/or storm water treatment. Cumulatively, 7,900 CWSRF
funded projects will have initiated operations since program inception. Goal Met,
Planned
7,900
Actual
8,642
FY2001
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
7,200
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-25
-------
FY2000 Another 2 million people will receive the benefits of secondary treatment of wastewater, 2M
for a total of 181 million people. Goal Met,
FY1999 Another 3.4 million people will receive the benefits of secondary treatment of wastewater, 3.4 M
for a total of 179 million. Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: Operations initiated through projects funded by the CWSRF totaled 1,190, including 400 projects providing secondary
treatment, advanced treatment, CSO correction (treatment), and/or storm water treatment. Cumulatively, 8,642 projects have initiated
operations since program inception.
Prior Year Annual Performance Goals Without Corresponding FY 2002 Goals
(Actual Performance Data Available in FY 2002 and Beyond)
Planned Actual
FY 1999 By 2003: deliver support tools, such as watershed models, enabling resource planners target
to select consistent, appropriate watershed management solutions and alternative, less year is
costly wet-weather flow control technologies. FY2003
n-26 lil'A's FT 21102 Annual Report uww.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. Appendix B.
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4 Ibid
5. U.S. EPA, National Coastal Condition Report, EPA-
620/R-01/005 (September 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr.
6. Information collected from EPA regions and
housed in an internal EPA database. Contact the
Drinking Water Protection Division at 202-564-
3797.
7. The EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water's Drinking Water National Information
Management System (DWNIMS) is accessible only
on the Internet at http://www.epa. gov/OGWDW/
dwsrf/dwnims.html.
8. See Federal Register 67 (9, January 14, 2002): 1812.
9. Appendix B.
10. U.S. EPA, National Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants, EPA-823-02-
004. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants.
11. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Bacterial Water Quality
Standards for Recreational Waters (Freshwater
andMarine Waters), draft, EPA-B-02-003
(Washington, DC: May 2002). U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, Regulations and Standards Division,
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986
(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1986).
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Update: National Listing
of Fish and Wildlife Advisories, EPA-823-F-02-007
(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/
factsheetpdf.
13. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, The National Study of
Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue, EPA-823-
F01-028 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 2001).
14 U.S. EPA's National Water Quality Inventory-.
2000 Report is accessible only on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/.
15. Appendix B.
16. Ibid
17. For national-level information on TMDLs
completed to date, see the National Section
303(d) List Fact Sheet, with information compiled
by state and by region, on the EPA Total
Maximum Daily Loads web page at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national rept.control.
Annual TMDL production numbers are available
through EPA's Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
18. Preamble to final rule, 67 FR 3389, January 23,
2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/guide/
coal/.
19. Preamble to final rule, 67 FR 64216, October 17,
2002. See also U.S. EPA, Development Document
for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category, EPA-821-R-02-004.
Available at http: //www. epa. gov/waterscience/
ironsteel/.
20. Preamble to final rule, 67 FR 3370 and 3381,
January 23, 2002. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/guide/coal/.
21. Preamble to final rule, 66 FR 65262-5, 65279-80,
65311-13, December 18, 2001. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2001/
December/Day-18/w28968.pdf. See also U.S.
EPA, Economic Analysis of the Final Regulations
Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for
New Facilities, EPA-821-R-01-035 (November
2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/3l6b/
economics/economic.html.
22. U.S. EPA, Permit Compliance System Database—
Backlog Tables (major facilities, minor facilities,
minor facilities including non-storm water general
permits), Backlog Trend Reports (national major
facilities, national minor facilities, EPA only major
facilities, EPA only minor facilities, state only major
facilities, state only minor facilities, regional major
facilities, regional minor facilities), Backlog
Staleness Reports (major facilities, minor facilities),
Monthly Backlog Report to Regions. Available
(with password) at http://clients.limno. com/
protected/pcscleanup.
Backlog calculations from November 1998
through December 2001 were made through
sorting out all non-individual permits from PCS
data with the exception of non-storm water major
general permits and individual major storm
permits and dividing the total number of these
permits that have been expired 45 days or longer
plus the total number of permits with no issuance
data and/or no expiration date by the total
number of active permits not sorted out as
mentioned above. This number provides the
backlog percentage. As of January 2002, permits
were considered backlogged only if they had
been expired 6 months or greater, up from
3
SB
O"
S!S
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-27
-------
45 days. Beginning in the September 2002
backlog report, individual permits issued by
EPA in authorized states were counted as EPA
permits and not state permits. Beginning with
the October 2002 backlog report, minor
facilities covered by non-storm water general
permits listed in the Permit Issuance
Forecasting Tool are included in the definition
of backlog.
23. U.S. EPA, Supplemental Guidelines for the Award
of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States
and Territories in FY2003 (August 2002).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
Section319/319guide03.html.
24. 40 CFR Part 141; 40 CFR Parts 136 to 149
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2002).
25. Information on the SAV measure is available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/
status.cfm?sid=88&subiectarea=INDICATORS.
26. Information on the riparian forest buffer measure
is available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/
status.cfm?sid=83&subiectarea=INDICATORS.
27. Information is available at
http://www.epa. gov/gmpo.
28. Appendix B.
29. The 2000 Census reports that there are
302,882 existing occupied American Indian
homes; the Indian Health Service, Department of
the Interior, reports that 123,277 homes require
solid waste assistance (Sanitation Facilities
Construction Program of the Indian Health Service,
Public Law 86-121 Annual Report for 2000). A
total of 41 percent of homes therefore require
solid waste assistance. EPA has set a multiyear
goal to reduce this percentage by 25 percent.
EPA's Annual Performance Reports for 2000 and
2001 document progress toward that goal.
30. Appendix B.
31 Federal Register 67 (31, May 9, 2002): 129.
Available at http://www.epa. gov/owow/wetlands/
fillfinalhtml.
32. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159
(2001) can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
owow/wetlands/swanccnav.html.
33. Memorandum from Robert H. Wayland to Water
Division Directors and the Environmental Services
Division Director of Region 3 (November 19, 2001).
34. There is no specific publication to cite. EPA
sent letters dated June 18, 2002, to each of the
eight Local Resource Centers informing them of
their selection. The funding to assist these Local
Resource Centers is included in a cooperative
agreement awarded to the Global Environment
and Technology Foundation in July 2002.
Additional information about each Local Resource
Center can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ems or
http://www.peercenter.net.
35. Global Environment and Technology
Foundation (GETF), Final Report on Second
EMS Initiative for Government Entities, prepared
under Cooperative Agreement no. 828071-01-0
awarded by the U.S. EPA (fall 2002). Available
through the EPA Water Resource Center and
online at http://www.peercenter.net
or http://www.epa.gov/ems.
36. Federal Register 67 (94, May 15, 2002):34709-
34710. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/
watershed/trading/tradingpolicy.html.
37. "Quarterly Monitoring Report, Water Environment
Federation, September 3, 2002, Grant No.
829656" to Curt Baranowski, Project Officer,
Office of Wastewater Management, U.S. EPA;
"Quarterly Monitoring Report, Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, September 30,
2002, Grant No. 829595" to Curt Baranowski,
Project Officer, Office of Wastewater
Management, U.S. EPA.
38. Information from periodic grantee reports
required by regulation and provided to the
Agency during FY 2002. No quality assurance
plan; not publicly available; not peer-reviewed.
39. U. S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Water Infrastructure Task Force, Draft
Protocol for Discharging Decontaminated
Anthrax Wastewater to POTWs (September
2002.)
40. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,
Section 1412(b)(3).
41. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,
Section 1412(b)(l).
42. A Waterborne Outbreak of Norwalk-like Virus
among Snowmobilers? Wyoming, 2001, NERL-CI-
MCEARD-02-039. Accepted for publication by
Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 2002;
not yet publicly available. Contact the National
Exposure Research Laboratory, Microbiological and
Chemical Exposure Assessment Research Division,
513-569-7303.
n-28
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
43. U.S. EPA, A Review of Statewide Watershed
Management Approaches (April 2002). Available
at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
approaches fr.pdf.
44. U.S. EPA, StateNPDESProgram Status Table
(December 16, 2002). Available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm.
45. Contact the Drinking Water Protection Division at
202-564-3797.
46. Section 518 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1377. For further information on tribal water
quality standards activities, contact the Standards
and Health Protection Division at U.S. EPA,
202-566-0400.
47. EPA-823B-02-002 is available from the National
Service Center for Environmental Publications,
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
(phone 800-490-9198, fax 513-489-8695).
3
C,
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-29
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
H-30 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 3: SAFE FOOD
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC GOAL
AND OBJECTIVES
EPA continues to make progress toward its
long-term goals of protecting the Nation's food
supply, reducing risk from unsafe pesticide
residues, and eliminating the use on food of
pesticides that do not meet standards through
registration and reregistration of pesticides.
EPA sets limits, called tolerances, on the amount
of pesticides that may remain on foods. Tolerances
are set on the basis of risk assessments pursuant to
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996}
Through tolerance reassessments, EPA ensures that
existing tolerances meet the FQPA standard of
reasonable certainty of no harm.2 Those that do
are either revoked or have additional risk mitiga-
tion measures added to them. EPA's
consideration of cumulative risk takes into
account exposure from all pesticides that have a
common mode of action, thereby adding
additional protection. The inclusion of aggregate
risk considerations in the risk assessments
provides further protection.3
In FY 2002 EPA's strategy for reducing risks
from pesticide residues in foods included:
• Reevaluating older, potentially higher-risk
pesticides by using the best current scientific
data and methods to determine what
additional limits on each pesticide's use are
needed to provide reasonable certainty of no
harm, especially to children and other
sensitive subpopulations. In FY 2002 EPA
reevaluated 2,667 tolerances for older
pesticides.
• Accelerating EPA's review and registration of
alternative pesticides that are less risky than
those currently in use. In FY 2002 EPA
registered 15 reduced-risk pesticides.
• Using partnerships and other means to
promote the adoption and use of lower-risk
pest management methods. EPA continued or
launched a variety of partnership efforts in
FY 2002.
A key element in meeting these objectives
and thus demonstrating performance results is
the availability of baseline data. EPA, the
Florida State University, and the National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable worked
cooperatively in 2002 to identify data sets and
potential performance indicators and measures
in the challenging pollution prevention area.
Tribal program measures were another area of
continuing focus. This work builds on EPA's
and Florida State University's efforts to
inventory and describe environmental outcome
measures nationwide for federal agencies,
states, tribes, and local government entities.
The statute requires EPA to examine each
pesticide individually, unless there is a class of
pesticides with a common mechanism of
toxicity. The data sets and hazard and exposure
findings for the pesticides that are reviewed
cannot be aggregated into a national baseline.
The program is continuing to analyze federal
and other data sets, as well as internal risk
assessment methodologies, to explore options
to identify baseline data without posing
enormous data collection burdens and expense
on EPA's partners.
The program is very science-oriented and
constantly works to incorporate the latest
scientific methodologies. Additional challenges
include addressing resource issues associated
with the expiration of the maintenance fee, the
timely receipt of stakeholder input, and the
need for more intensive risk assessment reviews
prompted by the incorporation of cumulative
and aggregate risk work.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-3i
-------
The Agency has collaborated extensively
with scientists from other federal agencies,
academia, and the private sector, including
members of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory
Panel. These collaborative efforts involved the
Agency's regulatory decision-making responsi-
bilities and particularly complex work in the
evolving field of biotechnology and new science
policies for risk assessments. These efforts
provide opportunities to review the Agency's
processes, scientific methodologies, and in some
cases assessments and to ensure transparency, as
required by the FQPA. Such a review conducted
on certain biotechnology issues has led to the
creation of a multi-agency, department-level work
group to improve coordination and outreach to
the agriculture industry.
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
Reducing Agricultural Pesticide Risk
Older registered pesticides might cause
health problems such as birth defects, nerve
damage, and cancer after long-term exposure. In
addition, some pesticides might adversely affect
indigenous populations of birds, fish, mammals,
beneficial insects, and other sensitive species
that are not targets for pesticide applications.
Consequently, EPA seeks to eliminate or reduce
human health and environmental risks by
encouraging substitution of less risky pesticides
for older chemicals that have the potential to
cause these adverse effects.
Reduced risk pesticides constituted an
estimated 3.6 percent of all agricultural pesticide
acre treatments in 1998. This increased to
7.5 percent during the FY 2002 reporting period
that used FY 2001 data, significantly exceeding
EPA's original annual and long-term targets.
However, two reduced risk pesticides—glysophate
and s-metalachlor—account for about 50 percent
of the pesticides used. The Agency anticipates
that the growth rate of this measure, which
depends on how quickly the agriculture and
pesticide industries make the transition, might
slow in the next year or two. EPA encourages
the switch to the use of safer pesticides through
outreach programs, applicator training, and the
provision of grants for integrated pest
management and environmental stewardship
projects. The Agency reviews pesticides to
ensure that they meet the current health and
safety standards and provides incentives for the
registration and adoption of reduced risk
pesticides; however EPA has limited impact on
the adoption of these pesticides. This is due in
part to farmers' preference for using broad-
spectrum pesticides that tend to be cheaper and
easier to apply. It is, therefore, difficult for the
Agency to predict with accuracy the extent of
adoption of reduced risk pesticides.
Reducing Use on Food of Pesticides Not Meeting
Health Standards
EPA continued its ongoing comprehensive
reviews of pesticides initially registered before
November 1, 1984, to ensure their continued
safety. After a thorough review of the data, the
Agency issues a Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED). In cases where pesticides do
not meet health and environmental requirements,
EPA determines what changes are needed in the
allowable uses of the pesticides, including
canceling use or limiting use to certified
applicators. For pesticides that do meet the new
standards, the issuance of a RED makes the
products eligible for reregistration. By the end of
FY 2002, EPA completed review of 72.7 percent
of the 612 cases requiring reregistration. The
Agency did not meet the target of 76.4 percent
because of both the need to incorporate into the
process the cumulative risk assessment required
by the FQPA and the redirection of resources to
support the homeland security initiative on
anthrax contamination. The cumulative risk
assessment under the FQPA requires a more
intensive review and also requires that
pesticides having a common mode of action be
reviewed together.
To further protect the Nation's food supply,
the FQPA set stricter safety standards for
pesticide residues in or on food and requires
EPA to reassess all existing tolerances by 2006
to ensure they meet the new safety standard of
"reasonable certainty of no harm." By the end of
FY 2002, the Agency had completed reassessment
of 66.9 percent of these tolerances, including
n-32
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tolerance Reassessments That Now Meet New Health Standards as of August 2002
Organophosphates Carbamates Organochlorines Carcinogens
Others
Total
This graph shows the status of EPA's tolerance reassessment program by chemical class. As of
August 5, 2002, EPA had reassessed 6,499 tolerances (66.9%).
about 65 percent of the organophosphates and
carcinogens that are among those pesticides
considered of highest risk. The reassessment of
these tolerances included an additional 198 of
the 893 tolerances on children's foods. In
FY 2002 EPA met the second statutory deadline
set by FQPA for tolerance reassessment, and the
Agency is on track to meet its long-term
objective to substantially eliminate pesticides that
do not meet the FQPA standard and to reduce
dietary risk to children.
In FY 2002 EPA completed a total of
36 reregistration regulatory decisions, including
9 risk mitigation decisions on the most hazardous
organophosphates (OPs). EPA met the decision
deadlines set by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) agreement for FY 2002 (five
completed in FY 2002) with one exception,
atrazine, for which an extension to 2003 has
been requested. These decisions were
completed after extensive public participation
and negotiations.4
FQPA requires that EPA take into account the
cumulative effects of pesticide residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism
of toxicity when setting tolerances. EPA
completed and issued the preliminary
organophosphate cumulative risk assessment in
December 2001 and revised it in June 2002
based on stakeholder input. As a result, EPA met
the NRDC agreement deadline to issue a revised
risk assessment of the OPs by August 2002. This
methodology incorporated new standards and
represents a new way of analyzing data
regarding potential exposure to pesticides and
REDUCING RISK THROUGH
REGULATORY ACTIONS
During FY 2002 EPA significantly reduced
exposure to several organophosphate (OP)
pesticides by completing regulatory actions
such as issuance of Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions (RED). OPs are older, widely used
pesticides that are among the riskiest. Benefits
derived from this action include reduced
exposure, assumed reduced risk, and therefore
improved protection of human health and the
environment. The pesticides involved included
azinphos-methyl, diazinon, dicrotophos,
disulfoton, fenamiphos, methamidophos,
naled, phosmet, and tetrachlorvinphos.
Azinphos-methyl risk reduction measures
were taken in 1999 to reduce dietary risk to
children. Additional measures were taken in
FY 2002 to further reduce risk to agricultural
workers and the environment. For phosmet,
which is used on orchard fruits, nuts, and other
crops, additional measures were identified to
reduce risk to agricultural workers, including
requiring personal protective equipment and
enclosed cabs. Ecological risk reduction
measures included revising labels, limiting
application amounts, prohibiting application
during bloom, and canceling some uses.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-33
-------
the risks they might pose and is the result of
rigorous scientific analysis and extensive public
participation.
Research Contributions
In FY 2002 EPA produced exposure and
effects data and models to support the August
2006 assessment of current uses of pesticides
(tolerance reassessment) required under the
FQPA. This research was part of an ongoing
collaborative effort with the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences to study
outcomes of developmental exposure to
pesticides on the nervous, immune, and
reproductive systems. These efforts have
provided the Agency with a better understanding
of the increased vulnerabilities of children to
pesticide exposure through food consumption as
well as during gestation. As a result, EPA can
better determine the latent and/or persistent
effects of developmental exposure to pesticides
and compare the sensitivities of different human
systems to various pesticides. The data and
models will also help EPA examine the critical
factors influencing children's exposure to
pesticides and fill important data gaps to reduce
uncertainties in future pesticide risk assessments.
In addition, EPA developed a source-to-dose
modeling framework that will advance the
science of human exposure and dose assessment
by describing the routes, magnitude, and
variability of human exposures and doses, as
well as by characterizing the way people
interact with their environment.
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP
CONTRIBUTIONS
State Contributions
Through grant agreements, and with
guidance provided by EPA, the states enforce
federal and state laws, maintain pesticide
laboratory operations, train and certify
,3 commercial and private pesticide applicators,
I and develop groundwater pesticide management
"|j plans to protect groundwater from contamination.
£, States play a pivotal role in ensuring that food
,| use and other pesticides are used according to
the label instructions, and that applicators who
apply restricted use pesticides are adequately
trained. In FY 2002 states submitted more than
500 emergency exemption requests to EPA in
response to emergency pest problems, each of
which the Agency reviewed for compliance with
FQPA health-based standards. Use of the
emergency exemption process generates a
savings in excess of $1 billion per year to the
U.S. economy, according to estimates from the
Inter-Regional Four (IR-4) program, which
promotes increased availability of less risky
pesticides for use on foods.
EPA supports a state-led project providing
training on pesticide safety for farmworkers and
farm families by partnering with the Association
of Farmworker Opportunity Programs,
AmeriCorps, and 37 community-based
organizations in 22 states. EPA also consults with
the Association of American Pesticide Control
Officials and shares information with the State
FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group, a
network of state officials interested in federal/
state co-regulation of pesticides. In FY 2002 EPA
and California's Department of Pesticide
Regulation Workshare Program conducted data
review for IR-4 petitions, which has expedited
federal and state minor use registrations and
resulted in establishment of tolerances for many
crop uses. Most fruits and vegetables are actually
"minor use" crops, such as corn and peaches,
and industry does not support the science to
establish tolerances because it is costly.
Tribal Contributions
EPA continues to work closely with its tribal
partners, including members of the Tribal
Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) and others, to
create risk assessment models that capture the
chemical exposure opportunities that may
uniquely attend traditional native American
lifeways. To support this endeavor, in FY 2002
EPA launched a pilot project to create two new
software modules for the state-of-the-art risk
assessment software—Lifeline. The tribes in the
Nivalena consortium near Alaska's Lake Iliamna,
and the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana are
working with EPA to provide data to incorporate
into the software that will model risks to those
n-34
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
populations. The Tribal Medicine Project (TMP)
is another important tribal risk project supported
by EPA. The TMP sends teams of experts on
pesticide exposure risks and symptoms to Indian
country, where they encourage greater
community awareness of potential pesticide-
related hazards and train tribal health care
providers to identify, prevent, and treat toxic
exposure. There are about 40 tribes with
ongoing pesticide programs. Since tribes are
sovereign governments, there is an increase in
both human health and environmental protection
when a pesticide program is implemented,
where the need is identified. When a tribe
implements a continuing program, it commits to
a pesticide use compliance program plan, with
either direct enforcement under tribal code or by
referral to EPA in the absence of a specific code.
ASSESSMENTS OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
As a result of exceeding FY 2002
performance, the Agency revised its FY 2003
targeted percentage of acre-treatments that used
reduced risk pesticides and will likely adjust the
2004 target. Because the Agency missed its
FY 2002 targets for Registration Eligibility
Decisions and Product Reregistrations, EPA
adjusted its FY 2003 targets and an adjustment to
FY 2004 targets is likely.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-35
-------
Goal 3: Safe Food
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
EPA Total: $9,447,202
Goal 3: $112,374
Goal 3 Share of Total: 1.2%
Summary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
'
3
Goals 1 j 1 Goals
Met I Not Met
1
\ description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
ERA'S
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $7,998,422
Goal 3 Costs: $128,817
Goal 3 Share of Total: 1.6%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-10 of the Financial Statements for a consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY 1999-FY2002 Results
Strategic Objective: By 2006, Reduce Public Health Risk From Pesticide Residues in Food From Pre-Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Levels (Pre-1996).
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $47,093 (36.6% of FY 2002 Goal 3 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: Since 1996, the year FQPA was enacted, EPA has made substantial progress toward reducing
risk from pesticide residues in food. More than 100 safer pesticides—those which pose less risk to human health and the environment
than conventional chemical pesticides—have been registered, substantially increasing the tools farmers have at their disposal to protect
human health and the environment while ensuring productive agricultural yields. At the same time, use of pesticides that have the
highest potential to cause cancer and neurotoxic effects has declined by more than 15% based on survey data. The increasing number
of safer pesticides on the market, and the increasing number of acre-treatments using such pesticides, ensure that EPA is on track to
meet its revised objective to reduce public health risk from pesticides in food from pre-FQPA levels.
APG 18 Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
FY2002 Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels and assure that new
pesticides that enter the market are safe for humans and the environment through ensuring
that all registration actions are timely and comply with standards mandated by law.
Goal Met.
Performance Measure
Planned
Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
105
Actual
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measure
- Register safer chemicals and biopesticides.
96
FY2000 Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels and assure that new pesticides are
safe by such actions as registering 6 new chemicals, 2,200 amendments, 600 me-toos, 200 new
uses, 45 inerts, 375 special registrations, 225 tolerances and 13 reduced risk chemicals/
biopesticides. Goal Met.
6
2,200
600
200
45
375
225
13
3,069
1,106
FY 1999 Decrease adverse risk from agricultural pesticides from 1995 levels and assure new
pesticides that enter the market are safe for humans and the environment. No Data.
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002 EPA continued to register pest control products, including "safer" pesticides, thus ensuring that growers have an
adequate number of pest control options available to them.
APG 19
2 FY2002
«
Reduce Use of Highly Toxic Pesticides
Detections of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase inhibiting neurotoxic
pesticides on foods eaten by children will have decreased by 15% (cumulative) from
their average 1994 to 1996 levels. Data Lag.
Planned
15%
Actual
data
available
in 2003
H-36 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY 2002 Result: Data lag. Data will be available for the FY 2003 Annual Report.
APG20 Reduced Risk Pesticides Planned Actual
FY2002 At least 1% of acre-treatments will use applications of reduced risk pesticides. 1% 7,5%
FY 2002 Result: Targets for this annual goal were developed without the benefit of experience on their adoption by growers or the impact of
improvements in the registration process. The use of two herbicides—glyphosate and s-metalachlor— greatly exceeded expectations and
contributed to surpassing the target.
Strategic Objective: By 2008, Use on Food of Current Pesticides That Do Not Meet the New Statutory Standard
of "Reasonable Certainty of No Harm"Will Be Eliminated.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $81,724 (63.4% of FY 2002 Goal 3 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is well on the way to meeting the revised objective to substantially eliminate, by 2008, the
use on food of pesticides that do not meet the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard of the FQPA. Since 1996, 66.9% of the 9,721
tolerances (legal pesticide residue levels on food) have been reassessed using the new standard. More than 72% of 612 reregistration
eligibility decisions have been completed. In particular, the risk of pesticides used on foods frequently eaten by children is decreasing, in
part through work conducted in EPA's tolerance reassessment program.
APG21 Reassess Pesticide Tolerances Planned Actual
FY2002 By the end of 2002 EPA will reassess a cumulative 66% of the 9 J21 pesticide tolerances 66%
required to be reassessed over 10 years.This includes 67% of the 893 tolerances 67%
having the greatest potential impact on dietary risks to children.
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met, 40% 40%
46% 44%
FY2000 EPA will reassess 20% of the existing 9,721 tolerances to ensure that they meet the statutory 1,250 121
standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm." Goal Not Met.
FY1999 Under pesticide reregistration, EPA will reassess 19% (or 1,850) of the existing 9,700 tolerances 1,850 1,445
(cumulative 33%) for pesticides food uses to meet the new statutory standards of "reasonable
certainty of no harm." Goal Not Met.
FY 2002 Result: The Agency met its statutory and GPRA deadlines and targets for reassessing tolerances in FY 2002. (Tolerances in general
are the major portion of the work, and the children's tolerances are a small subset.) Reassessing these tolerances helps ensure that pesticide
residues on foods are safe. EPA expects all 9,721 pesticide tolerances, including the 893 tolerances of special concern to children, to be
reassessed by the statutory deadline, August 2006.
APG22 Review Pesticides'Active Ingredients Planned Actual
FY2002 Assure that pesticides' active ingredients registered prior to 1984 and the products that
contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health and the
environment. Also consider the unique exposure scenarios such as subsistence
lifestyles of Native Americans in regulatory decisions.
Performance Measures
- Product Reregistration. 750 314
- Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) (cumulative). 76.4% 72.7%
FY 2002 Result: Cumulative risk assessment is a new area of science that requires extensive peer review and several iterations before
becoming final. The cumulative risk assessments themselves are a resource-intensive and time-consuming process. Also, in FY2002
funding was redirected to review and test pesticides for efficacy against anthrax. These factors delayed reregistration efforts. REDs are done
in tandem with the tolerance reassessments and all 612 REDs are on track to be completed by August 2006. Product re registrations are
generally completed 2 years after the RED is done. Therefore, the Agency is on track to complete product reregistrations by 2008. The total
number of REDs completed to date is 443; 169 remain to be done. The relationship of product registration to REDs is that one RED can
result in any numberof product registrations (from one to many). Fewer REDs completed will result in fewerfuture product registrations.
Because the Agency missed its FY 2002 targets for REDs and Product Reregistrations, EPA adjusted its FY 2003 targets and an adjustment
to FY 2004 targets is likely.
FY 2001 Annual Performance Goals (No Longer Reported for FY 2002)
Provide timely decisions to the pesticide industry on the registration of active ingredients for conventional pesticides including tolerance
setting, product registrations and inert ingredients.
www.epa.gov/ocfo n-37
-------
Notes:
Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical
Residues, Food Quality Protection Act of 1996,
sec. 408 [6a](a) Requirement for Tolerance or
Exemptions.
The new safety standard, provided in section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FQPA, is a "reasonable
certainty of no harm" standard for aggregate
exposure using dietary residues and all other
reliable exposure information.
U.S. EPA, The Office of Pesticide Programs' Policy
on Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety
Factor(s) for Use in the Tolerance-Setting Process,
draft document, 64 FR 48617 (Washington, DC:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, May 10, 1999).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
1999/may/lOxpoli.pdf.
C.T Whitman, Directive on Implementation of
EPA Obligations Under the Consent Decree in
NRDCv. Whitman, March 19, 2001.
n-38 lU'A's FY 2002 www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 4: PREVENTING POLLUTION AND REDUCING RISKS IN
COMMUNITIES, HOMES, WORKPLACES, AND ECOSYSTEMS
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC GOAL
AND OBJECTIVES
EPA is on track to meet most of its strategic
objectives toward its goal of ensuring cleaner
and safer environments by preventing pollution
before it occurs and reducing human and
ecosystem risks from pollutants that cannot be
eliminated at their source. EPA's work under this
goal spans six strategic objectives that follow a
risk identification, reduction, and elimination
progression:
• Screening new and existing chemicals to
identify potential for human and ecological
risks.
• Assessing environmental conditions on tribal
lands to identify need for action.
• Improving indoor air quality to rid homes,
schools, and workplaces of indoor
environmental pollutants and to reduce
asthma incidents.
• Reducing the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning and human exposure to
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin,
and asbestos, as well as other chemicals of
concern.
• Reducing pesticide risks to workers,
consumers, and ecosystems.
• Preventing, recycling, and reducing wastes
and toxic chemicals.
EPA's Chemical-Right-To-Know Program
focuses on providing the public with information
on the basic health and environmental effects of
the 2,800 highest production volume chemicals
in the United States. More than 300 companies
and 101 consortia have voluntarily accepted the
challenge to address the absence of and need
for screening-level data for more than
2,100 high-production-volume (HPV) chemicals
by 2005, with the remaining to be addressed by
international and government actions. In
FY 2002 EPA continued to make health and
environmental effects screening data publicly
available for more than 800 industrial and
commercial chemicals, making steady progress
toward its objective of screening existing
chemicals to identify potential human and
ecological hazards and risks.1 EPA also continued
its work to evaluate potential risk of 20 chemicals
to which children have a high likelihood of
exposure.2
In connection with assessing conditions on
tribal lands, EPA's American Indian
Environmental Office (AIEO) has made
tremendous progress in developing an electronic
baseline assessment system used to access tribal
environmental information.3 In addition to
providing a picture of environmental conditions
in Indian Country, this baseline assessment
profile will provide indicators of the progress of
tribal environmental programs in contributing to
the Agency's strategic goals and objectives. EPA
deployed the Tribal Information Management
System (TIMS) as an Intranet application in
September 2001 and can now extract
environmental information tribe by tribe or by
using tribal boundaries. TIMS currently has
completed profiles for 300 tribes. In addition to
TIMS, AIEO has developed a GPRA performance
measure tracking system called the Tribal
Accountability Tracking System and a tracking
system for the General Assistance Program
(GAP) grants program.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-39
-------
In FY 2002 EPA continued to make progress
toward its strategic objective of improving indoor
air quality. By reducing the exposure of children
with asthma to indoor environmental triggers and
to secondhand smoke in their homes, EPA seeks
to protect a particularly vulnerable sector of the
population.4 EPA is also making progress in
promoting the adoption of good indoor air
quality management in schools and commercial
buildings and in reducing the exposure of all
Americans to elevated levels of radon in their
homes.5
EPA has made great strides in reducing the
incidence of childhood lead poisoning through a
combination of rulemaking, education, research,
and partnerships. According to blood lead level
data from the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey for children
1 to 5 years of age, the incidence of children
with elevated blood lead levels dropped in the
last decade.6 In addition, the geometric mean
blood level for children ages 1 to 5 years
decreased from 15 u/dL to 2 u/dL from 1980 to
1999.
EPA has made significant progress in
reducing pesticide risks to workers, consumers,
and ecosystems through a wide array of environ-
mental programs. The Agency is ensuring that
pesticides pose less risk to groundwater through
careful management of pesticides with high
leaching and persistence potential. EPA
identified 31 such pesticides. Twenty-one of
those pesticides were managed through
FY 2002. The development and implementation
of environmentally friendly model partnership
pilot projects under the Strategic Agricultural
Initiative, as well as Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship strategies developed by voluntary
partners, have encouraged a transition to safer
pesticides. In a new measure for FY 2002, the
Agency found that the use of pesticides that it
considers safer increased to an estimated
7.5 percent of all agricultural pesticide acre-
treatments in 2001 based on data reported in
FY 2002, an increase from 3.6 percent in 1998.
EPA also made continued progress in
achieving its 50 percent priority chemicals
reduction target and in meeting the Municipal
Solid Waste recycling goal. In 2002 EPA
launched the Resource Conservation Challenge
(RCC), which targets 30 waste minimization
priority chemicals and urged all Americans to
join in conserving resources by reducing waste
and increasing recycling.7 The RCC is the
umbrella for initiatives that target waste
reduction and recycling. Through these
initiatives, EPA works directly with state and
local governments, businesses, industry, and the
public to reduce waste generation. In several
ways, states continue to be instrumental to
achievement of the national recycling goal.
States participate with EPA as WasteWise
partners and endorsers, implement EPA's
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines by
purchasing goods made from recycled materials,
actively support America Recycles Day, and
provide training, support, and oversight for local
recycling programs. Other EPA programs such as
the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards, Design
for the Environment, Hospitals for a Healthy
Environment, and National Environmental
Performance Track are achieving significant
progress in reducing the amount of toxic
substances and waste released into the
environment. For example, EPA Region 2
Performance Track facilities have collectively
reduced the generation of hazardous waste in
their area by more than 20 million pounds
through process and design changes, equipment
upgrades, and efficiency improvements.8
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
Risk Identification
Hazard identification is an essential initial
step in the risk-reduction process. In FY 2002
EPA's HPV Challenge Program continued to
provide health and environmental effects
screening data for more than 800 industrial and
commercial chemicals. EPA's efforts in making
these data available on the Agency's HPV Web
site kept pace with the unprecedented volume
of data submitted by industry participants.9
EPA also established the Voluntary Children's
Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP), under
which 35 chemical manufacturers and
10 consortia volunteered to develop risk
assessment and additional data for 20 chemicals
n-4o
IT
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
to which children have a high likelihood of
exposure.10 In FY 2002 EPA and the American
Chemistry Council conducted a technical
workshop to assist industry in formulating and
reporting exposure information on chemicals
sponsored under the pilot program. In addition,
in FY 2002 the Toxicology for Excellence in
Risk Assessment (TERA) group, through a
cooperative agreement with EPA, solicited and
approved members for the peer review panel
that will convene to review submissions on
sponsored chemicals in FY 2003.
The Agency also worked to identify risks
posed by endocrine disrupters—chemicals that
may cause adverse effects in humans and
wildlife. In FY 2002 EPA continued to move
forward with evaluation and validation of test
methods focused on identifying and assessing
potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
In FY 2002 EPA electronically published
environmental profiles for all 565 federally
recognized tribes as part of the Tribal Baseline
Assessment Project.11 Of those profiles 331 are
complete, including history, maps, geographic
dimensions, inventories of regulated facilities,
governmental structure, descriptions of
wastewater and drinking water facilities, grant
activities, and status of environmental programs
for each tribe.
Risk Reduction and Elimination
Where potential risks are identified, EPA
pursues three strategies for reducing or
eliminating them. The Agency's first choice is to
prevent risks from occurring in the first place by
eliminating pollution at the source. Second,
when pollution cannot be eliminated at the
source, EPA applies several risk reduction
strategies: education and outreach, partnership
and collaboration, regulation, and international
negotiation. Third, once wastes are produced,
there is still an opportunity for recycling or
reuse.12
Part of the Agency's pollution prevention
efforts in FY 2002 was the public release of the
PBT (persistent bioaccumulative toxics)
Profiler,13 which received accolades from both
industry and environmentalists.14 In the brief
CHEMICAL TERRORISM:
INCREASING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
To prepare for catastrophes that might occur
and to improve the Nation's incident response
capabilities, EPA leads nine federal agencies,
six states, member countries of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, and numerous other experts from
private industry and other non-governmental
organizations in developing Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for chemicals in
commerce.3 The AEGL values represent three
tiers of health effects endpoints (discomfort,
disability, and death) for five different exposure
durations (10 and 30 minutes, 1, 4, and 8 hours)
to provide maximum flexibility and
applicability to chemical emergency planners
and responders. To date the program has
developed AEGLs for about 90 chemicals with
Proposed, Interim, or Final status. The Agency
continues to assess the remaining 300 extremely
hazardous substances.13
a U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances. Overview of the Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGL) Program. June 2002.
b U.S. EPA Acute Exposure Guideline Limits (AEGL)
Tracking System, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
period of time between the PBT Profiler's public
release on September 25, 2002, and mid-
November 2002, industry conducted more than
3,750 chemical-specific PBT analyses.15
A component of EPA's Pollution Prevention
Assessment Framework, the PBT Profiler is a
screening-level tool that estimates persistence,
bioaccumulation, and fish chronic toxicity. Use
of this tool informs decision making at early
stages of new chemical development and
promotes the selection and application of safer
chemicals and processes, thus reducing
product development costs and increasing
pollution prevention benefits.
In addition, EPA made substantial progress in
reducing potential health and environmental
risks posed by a number of chemicals already in
commerce. For example, in the case of
perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) chemicals,
EPA followed up 3M's voluntary phase-out of
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-4i
-------
CHALLENGES:
KEY STRATEGY FOR REDUCING RISKS
EPA's challenges to industry, academia, and
others to seek new ways to reduce risk are
increasingly effective. Pollution prevented
by EPA's Green Chemistry Challenge Award
winners reached new levels through the 2002
award cycle.a Results included reduced
quantity of hazardous chemicals and solvents
in the environment through the adoption of
safer chemicals and greener technologies.
Since 1996 more than 250 million pounds
and 25 million gallons of hazardous solvents
were eliminated and 2 billion gallons of
water were saved.
aU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green
Chemistry. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Information available on the Internet:
Onto: /Avww. epa. gov/opptintr/greenchemistrv).
these chemicals with Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Significant New Use Rules (SNURs)
addressing 88 PFOS-related chemicals.16 The
SNURs establish a 90-day notification process for
companies interested in manufacturing or
importing the listed chemicals for new uses
other than those specifically excluded in the
rules. The required notice provides EPA with
the opportunity to evaluate the intended use
and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that use
before it occurs.17
The Design for the Environment (DfE)
Program demonstrated the effectiveness of its
best practices approach by helping auto body
shops reduce emissions of and exposure to
diisocyanates and other hazardous air
pollutants.18 Diisocyanates are the leading cause
of occupational asthma.19 In the past several
:, years, DfE has conducted more than 50 best
practices site visits. Over 75 percent of visited
shops show improved practices and better
: protection of their workers and the neighboring
community.20 To build on this success and reach
out to the more than 50,000 auto body shops
u across the country, DfE is conducting train-the-
7 trainer workshops for regional and state
^ technical assistance providers in FYs 2002 and
1 2003.
DfE also published two Cleaner Technologies
Substitutes Assessments on flexographic printing
inks and foam adhesives, which are spurring
adoption of cleaner formulations and the
innovation of even cleaner ones.21 For example,
prior to the Foam Adhesives Partnership,22 the
predominant solvent used in adhesive
formulations was methylene chloride, a
hazardous air pollutant and a suspected human
carcinogen. In part based on the DfE study, use
of methylene chloride in foam adhesives has
dropped by more than 80 percent (from
46 million pounds in 1997 to 8 million pounds in
2001). The DfE Program also formed a
partnership with the broader electronics industry
in FY 2002, at the industry's request, to begin a
life-cycle assessment of lead-free alternatives to
the traditional tin-lead solder now used in
virtually all electronic products.23
The Environmental Leadership Program in
the National Parks Intermountain Region is a joint
venture between EPA and the National Park
Service of the Department of the Interior (DOI),
which won the 2002 Most Valuable Pollution
Prevention (MVP 2) Partnership Award from the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.24This
innovative partnership between EPA Region 8
and the National Park Service delivered pollution
prevention tools, training, and technical
assistance to 90 parks in the Intermountain
Region, including Rocky Mountain, Bryce
Canyon, and Grand Canyon National Parks.
Examples of the partnership's success include an
integrated solid waste management program that
saved the parks thousands of dollars while
setting up recycling centers in many locations; a
hazard communication program that trained
3,000 employees on chemical preparedness; a
green purchasing program for environmentally
sound products; a clean-out manual on how to
remove, dispose of, and recycle unwanted
chemicals; and the first environmental
management system in the DOI based on EPA's
Performance Track program.25 Another
successful partnership was achieved between
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
southeastern states' pollution prevention
programs. Two million dollars of DOD funds
were supplied to state partners to initiate
n-42
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
pollution prevention (P2) research projects at
military facilities in FY 2002. This partnership
represents DOD's first effort to link P2 resources
in state universities to facilities in those states.26
EPA will continue to conduct education and
outreach programs to inform and educate the
public about the health risks posed by poor
indoor air quality. In FY 2002 EPA launched a
national campaign to protect children from
secondhand smoke by motivating millions of
parents to pledge to keep their homes smoke-
free. It is estimated that 15 million children are
exposed on a
daily basis to
secondhand
smoke.27 The
Smoke-Free
Home Pledge
initiative includes
a national
advertising
campaign coupled
with a major
outreach effort
cosponsored by
EPA and key
medical, consumer, and community
organizations.28 In addition, mold continues to be
one of the highest concerns for people in their
indoor environments. In FY 2002 EPA released
current guidance to the public on mold in A Brief
Guide to Mold, Moisture, and Your Home29 The
guide, available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
molds/images/moldguide. pdf. provides
information and guidance to homeowners and
renters on how to clean up residential mold
problems and how to prevent mold growth.30
EPA also released the report Healthy Buildings,
Healthy People: A Vision for the 21st Century, a
cross-Agency effort that includes comments from
more than 300 stakeholders.31 The report focuses
on why human health indoors deserves the
scrutiny, concern, and action of policy makers. It
also provides information on actions and
strategies that can be taken to protect people
indoors. EPA has already undertaken program
initiatives focusing on childhood asthma,
characterizing the effect of building and
consumer products for use in schools, creating
voluntary guidance for existing buildings, and
designing indoor air quality guidance that can be
applied by architects and engineers when
planning new schools and major renovations.32
EPA's campaign to reduce the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning through regulatory
and extensive outreach efforts has realized
significant results. The consolidation of 1999
National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey data with 2000 data (made public in the
summer of 2002) revealed that the incidence of
children with elevated blood lead levels dropped
during the 1990s.33 The median concentration of
lead in the blood of children 5 years old and
younger dropped from 15 micrograms per
deciliter (u/dL) between 1976 and 1980 to
1.9 u/dL in 1999, a decline of 87 percent.
In FY 2002 EPA also made significant
progress in promoting Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) in schools and day care
facilities, with the goal of reducing the risk of
both pesticides and pests to children. EPA grant
funding supported a partnership of 14 land grant
universities that aided in the development of
comprehensive IPM guidance documents, which
enabled state agencies to more efficiently
operate their IPM programs. Currently, 33 states
and more than 400 school districts have policies
and/or laws relating to the adoption of IPM in
schools. More than 1 million children attend
schools that use IPM according to the Monroe
Model, that has been replicated in several states,
such as Indiana, Alabama, Florida, Nevada,
California, and Arizona (including Navajo Nation/
Bureau of Indian Affairs Schools). The Monroe
Model is the IPM program developed for the
Monroe County, Indiana, school system. Monroe
County is a Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program (PESP) partner that received seed
funding from the PESP program through grants
with the National Foundation for IPM Education.
These schools report a 90 percent reduction in
pesticide applications, while at the same time
achieving a 90 percent reduction in pest problems
and a reduction in cost for pest management.
EPA has targeted reduction and elimination
efforts for chemicals that persist, accumulate
through the food chain, and are toxic to humans
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-43
-------
•-•It"
"3
or are environmental receptors (PBTs.) In
FY 2002 EPA launched the Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment (H2E) program, seeking to
eliminate use of mercury by hospitals and cut
waste generation in half. More than
1,000 facilities enrolled in the first year—five
times more than expected—prompting the
Agency to raise expectations for its FY 2003
and FY 2004 annual performance measure
targets.34 EPA is also targeting the reduction of
30 priority chemicals through hazardous waste
minimization. The National Waste Minimization
Voluntary Program, initiated in FY 2002 as part
of the RCC, is seeking industry partners to
eliminate or reduce the generation of priority
chemicals typically found in hazardous waste.
This effort would result in the generation of
less hazardous waste and a reduction in the
likelihood of exposures to toxic chemicals. The
Agency expects to have between 50 and 100
members enrolled by 2004 and expects to
continue the program beyond 2004.35
Once wastes are produced, there is still an
opportunity to recycle or otherwise reuse them.
Data reported in FY 2002 reflect that the
2000 national Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
recycling rate increased to 30 percent.36 This
figure reflects the diversion of 69.9 million tons
of MSW from the waste stream and the
conservation of 159 million cubic yards of
landfill capacity.37 Reducing the amount of MSW
that goes to landfills by recycling saves
resources, such as the number of trees milled to
produce lumber and paper goods and the
amount of metals mined and tailings produced to
create new cans. At the same time, by providing
feedstock, increased recycling enhances the
viability of the recycling and reuse industry, a
key segment of the Nation's manufacturing base.
Data compiled from 1997 through 1999 indicate
that recycling and reuse contribute more than
1.1 million jobs to the economy with a
$37 billion annual payroll and $236 billion in
gross annual sales.38
Research Contributions
FY 2002 research focused on improving
EPA's understanding of health risks and reducing
community and wildlife exposures to
environmental stressors. EPA produced a report
for Agency use on ecological risk assessment
methods that shows the extent to which acutely
toxic effects of pesticides and crop management
practices on non-target birds can be used to
project health impacts on wildlife populations in
complex agricultural landscapes.39 EPA also
performed studies on the variability and value of
newly developed biological indicators in
determining the endocrine-disrupting potential of
various pesticides. EPA's research on new
molecular biological indicators will help the
Agency detect and protect the public from
pesticides that induce genetic changes
characteristic of those caused by endocrine-
disrupting chemicals.
EPA continued to move forward with
evaluation and validation of test methods for
identifying and assessing potential endocrine
disrupting chemicals. In FY 2002 EPA completed
and presented to one of its advisory committees,
the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation
Subcommittee, detailed review papers
summarizing what is known in the literature for
13 assays.40 All 13 assays are in various stages of
pre-validation, optimization, and standardization.
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
State Contributions
States significantly contributed to achieving
EPA's goal to lower children's blood lead levels
and reduce childhood lead poisoning. Partnering
with 36 states, EPA made substantial progress
toward its goal of establishing a national cadre of
trained and certified lead-based paint abatement
professionals. By the end of FY 2002, more than
4,000 workers were certified to employ EPA-
required and recommended work practices to
reduce the primary remaining source of
children's exposure to lead.41
States have primary enforcement
responsibility for the Pesticides Certification and
Training programs as well as the Worker
Protection Program under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
The states' role is critical to the health and safety
n-44
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
of applicators and workers who have the highest
degree of potential exposure to pesticides. The
Worker Protection Program has an enormous
scope, reaching more than 3.5 million workers at
over 560,000 workplaces.42
Tribal Contributions
Through its Jobs Through Recycling program,
EPA partners with a number of nonprofit
organizations, including some in tribal nations, to
successfully demonstrate the ability of recycling
practices to create job and business opportunities.
EPA's high-visibility WasteWise program serves
as a vehicle for the Agency's 1,250 partners to
enhance, measure, and obtain recognition for
their proactive achievements in waste reduction
and recycling.43 WasteWise partners are diverse,
representing all sizes of businesses, government
agencies at all levels, tribal nations, and
nonprofit organizations. By showing cost savings
through waste reduction and recycling, partners
are protecting the environment while enhancing
the economy both locally and nationally.
In FY 2002 the Federal Geographic Data
Committee organized a Tribal Data Working
Group, an interagency effort to promote tribal
data coordination and compatibility throughout
the federal government in assessing
environmental conditions in Indian Country. EPA
also provided $52.5 million in Indian GAP grants
that will support the work of at least one person
in about 75 percent of all federally recognized
tribes or intertribal consortia in building
understanding about the environment and
helping to set tribal priorities. Creating a strong,
sustainable environment for the future based on
sound, quality information is an important
objective for EPA's tribal partners.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
There are no changes to FY 2003 APGs
based on the results of FY 2002 performance.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-45
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution
and Reducing Risks
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
Summary of FY 2002 Annual Performance Goals
I Goals
Not Met
Data
Lags
i description of the quality of the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in Appendix B.
EPA Total:
Goal 4:
Goal 4 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$322,442
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPA Total: $7,998,422
Goal 4 Costs: $309,196
Goal 4 Share of Total: 3.8%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-10 of the Financial Statements for a consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY1999-FY 2002 Results
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Public and Ecosystem Risk From Pesticides Will Be Reduced Through Migration to
Lower-Risk Pesticides and Pesticide Management Practices, Improving Education of the Public and At Risk
Workers, and Forming "Pesticide Environmental Partnerships"With Pesticide User Groups.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $51,487 (16.7% of FY 2002 Goal 4 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA continued to make significant progress toward fulfilling this objective in FY 2002 and is on
target to achieve its goals through a wide array of environmental programs. EPA's Strategic Agricultural Initiative, in which states,
academia, and grower groups develop and implement model agricultural partnership pilot projects, is providing a highly visible platform
for environmentally friendly agricultural projects. In addition, the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program has approved
120 strategies developed by voluntary partners in both agricultural and nonagricultural settings, which are made available to the public
through EPA's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/). EPA is also working to ensure that pesticides pose less risk to the
Nation's groundwater through careful management of those pesticides with high leaching and persistence potential. In addition, EPA is
working to reduce the risk of pesticides to human health and the environment, by registering safer pesticides (those registered through
the Reduced Risk Initiative and biopesticides).
APG 23
FY 2002
Agricultural Partnership
Planned
Implementation of 10-15 additional model agricultural partnership projects that 10-15
demonstrate and facilitate the adoption of farm management decisions and practices that
provide growers with a "reasonable transition" away from the highest risk pesticides.
Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: EPA implemented 12 strategic agricultural projects.
Actual
Strategic Objective: By 2007, Significantly Reduce the Incidence of Childhood Lead Poisoning and Reduce
Risks Associated With Polychlorinated Biphenlys (PCBs), Mercury, Dioxin, and Other Toxic Chemicals
of National Concern.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $37,062 (12.0% of FY 2002 Goal 4 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: The Agency is making significant progress toward the objective of reducing the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning, from approximately 900,000 children under 6 years of age to under 200,000 by 2007, through its regulatory
and outreach efforts. The 1999 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data reveal that the median concentration
of lead in the blood of children 5 years old and under dropped from 15 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL) between 1976 and 1980 to
1.9 ug/dL in 1999, a decline of 87%. However, even when the 1999 NHANES data are combined with the 2000 NHANES data made
public in the summer of 2002, there are insufficient numbers of observations in the samples to report an estimate of the number of
children 5 years old and under with levels of 10 ug/dL in 1999/2000. This suggests that the number of such children nationally has been
reduced dramatically from the early 1990s, though development of a reportable estimate must now wait at least until the 2001 NHANES
data can be added to the combined sample. EPA's efforts, through state partnerships, contributed partly to this reduction through the
certification of more than 4,500 workers to employ EPA-required and recommended lead-based paint abatement practices.
Risk reduction efforts for other National Program Chemicals such as PCBs, mercury, asbestos, and dioxin continue to meet the mandates
underTSCA and fulfill the commitments made in domestic and international agreements. Approximately 98,000 PCB-contaminated capacitors
and approximately 53,000 PCB-contaminated transformers were disposed of in permitted facilities between 1996 and 2000, continuing
progress toward EPA's 2007 targets for PCB capacitors.
H-46 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
APG 24 Lead Certification and Training of Lead Abatement Planned Actual
FY2002 Implement certification and training of lead abatement professionals. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
- Certified nationally (federally-administered and state-administered program). 4,000 4,574
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002, 4,574 lead abatement officials were nationally certified. EPA exceeded its FY 2002 target for this measure as a result
of the response by lead-based paint abatement professionals to the Agency's and states' efforts to train and certify proficiency in lead-based paint
abatement techniques, which was greater than anticipated. Targets for future performance under this goal have been increased accordingly.
Strategic Objective: By 2007, Prevent or Restrict Introduction into Commerce of Chemicals That Pose Risks to
Workers, Consumers, or the Environment and Continue Screening and Evaluating Chemicals Already in
Commerce for Potential Risk.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $77,788 (25.1% of FY 2002 Goal 4 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is making progress toward this strategic objective by safeguarding the entry of new
chemicals into commerce and providing screening tools through the Agency's Pollution Prevention Assessment Framework. These tools
inform decision-making at early stages of new chemical development and promote the selection and application of safer chemicals and
processes, thus reducing product development costs and increasing pollution prevention benefits. EPA's High Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge Program continued to provide health and environmental effects screening data for more than 800 industrial and commercial
chemicals—supplying input to hazard identification efforts (http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/viewsrch.htm). More than 300 companies and
101 consortia have accepted the voluntary challenge to address the absence of and need for screening-level data for more than
2,100 of the 2,800 HPVs by 2005. Concurrently, EPA established the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP), under
which 35 chemical manufacturers volunteered to develop risk assessment and additional data needs for 20 chemicals to which children
have a high likelihood of exposure. In addition, EPA reduced potential health and environmental risks associated with a number of
chemicals already in commerce. For example, in the case of perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) chemicals, EPA followed up industry's
voluntary phase-out of these chemicals with TSCA Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) addressing 88 PFOS-related chemicals.
APG 25 New Chemicals and Microorganisms Review Planned Actual
FY2002 Of the approximately 1,800 applications for new chemicals and microorganisms submitted 1,800
by industry, ensure those marketed are safe for humans and the environment. Increase
proportion of commercial chemicals that have undergone pre-manufacture notice review
to signify they are properly managed and may be potential green alternatives to existing
chemicals. Goal Met.
FY2001 Same Goal. Goal Met 1,800 1,770*
FY2000 Same Goal. Goal Met, 1,800 1,838
FY1999 Same Goal. Goal Met 1,800 1,717*
FY 2002 Result: EPA reviewed all 1,943 Pre-manufacturing Notices (PMNs) received during FY 2002. At the end of 2002, 21.5% of all
chemicals in commerce had been assessed for risks. Many of these chemicals also may be "green" alternatives to existing chemicals in
commerce, thus reducing these chemicals' impact on human health and the environment.
*Note: While the actual number of chemicals for which PMNs were reviewed is lower than the target, the target was set to reflect EPA's
commitment to comply with statutorally-mandated 90-day reviews of all PMNs submitted in 1999 and 2001, which it did. Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act, EPA does not control the pace at which companies submit PMNs for review, but it does control the pace at which it
completes such reviews. Accordingly, the Agency has determined this performance goal to have been met.
APG 26 Chemical Right to Know Initiative Planned Actual
FY2002 Provide information and analytical tools to the public for accessing the risk posed by
toxic chemicals. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
- Make screening quality health and environmental effects data publicly available 10% data 843
for 2,800 HPV chemicals (cumulative). (280
chemicals)
FY2001 EPA will make publicly available data from test plans submitted by industry or chemicals
already in commerce. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
- Through chemical testing program, obtain test data for high production volume chemicals 800
on master testing list.
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002 screening quality health and environmental effects data were made available for 843 HPV chemicals, vastly
exceeding EPA's annual goal. Companies voluntarily reported more than 30% of the total cumulative requirement (20% above the annual target).
www.epa.gov/ocfo Performance Results n-47
-------
*Note: While the actual number of chemicals for which test data were obtained was lower than the target, the target was set to reflect
EPA's commitment to make publicly available all test data that it received from companies in 2001, which it did. Under the HPV Challenge
voluntary program, EPA does not control the pace at which companies submit their test data, but it does control the pace at which such
data are made public. Accordingly, the Agency determined this performance goal to have been met.
Strategic Objective: By 2005,16 Million More Americans Than in 1994 Will LiveorWorkin Homes, Schools, or Office
Buildings With Healthier Indoor Air.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $38,397 (12.4% of FY2002 Goal 4 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY 2002 EPA continued to make progress in the areas of reducing the exposure of children with
asthma to indoor environmental triggers, reducing all Americans' exposure to elevated levels of radon in their homes, reducing the exposure of
children to secondhand smoke in their residences, and promoting the adoption of good indoor air quality management in schools and
commercial buildings. While the data on which EPA evaluates its FY 2002 progress toward the objective are not yet available for 2002, the
Agency is on track in meeting its goal for improving the indoor conditions for 16 million Americans in their homes, schools, and offices.
APG 27 Healthier Residential Indoor Air
FY2002 834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor environments.
Data Lag.
Planned
834,400
Actual
data
available
in 2003
FY2001
Same Goal. Goal Met,
890,000
FY2000
Same Goal. Goal Met.
890,000
FY1999
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
700,000
FY 2002 Result: Based on feedback received to date, EPA is making progress in reducing radon exposure in homes. EPA will implement a
survey to measure asthma and ETS results. These data will be available in late 2003 and will be reported on in the FY 2003 Annual Report. (Data
sources: National Association of Home Builders Research Center Survey (January 2002); National Radon Residential Study 1989-1990, EPA402-R-
92-011 (October 1992); National Radon Results: 1985-1999; IAQ Practices in Office Buildings Survey, OMB 2060-0436 (October2001).)
APG 28
FY2002
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
1,228,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in
their schools. Data Lag.
Planned
1,228,500
Actual
data
available
in 2003
FY2001
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
1,930,000
FY2000
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
2,580,000 2,600,000
FY2002 Result: EPA is on track to meet this APG. The number of schools adopting indoor air quality management plans, a key component of
the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools kit, continued to increase in FY2002 based on feedback received to date. EPA will determine FY 2002
performance in calendar year 2003 once final survey results become available.
Til Nun-Kcrvclrd task- Trend: FY i»»2 2000
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Facilitate the Prevention, Reduction, and Recycling of Toxic Chemicals and Municipal
Solid Wastes, Including Persistent, BioaccumulativeToxicants (PBTs). In Particular, Reduce By 20% the Actual
(From 1992 Levels) and By 30% the Production-Adjusted (From 1998 Levels) Quantity of Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI)-ReportedToxic Pollutants Which Are Released, Disposed of,Treated, or Combusted For Energy Recovery, Half
Through Source Reduction.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $46,623 (15.1% of FY2002 Goal 4 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is making progress toward this strategic objective. In September 2002 EPA launched its
Resource Conservation Challenge, a major national effort inviting all Americans to join in
conserving resources by reducing waste and increasing recycling. In the coming months,
EPA will form partnerships, conduct an intense educational campaign, and demonstrate
progress in conserving our natural resources through waste reduction and recycling. For the
30 waste minimization priority chemicals tracked by EPA and included in the Challenge,
there was a 44% reduction in the reported Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) volume generated
between 1991 and 1998.This reduction, coupled with the ongoing efforts of the Resource
Conservation Challenge, illustrates EPA's continued progress toward achieving its 50%
source reduction objective by 2005. Through EPA's Green Chemistry Challenge Program,
initiated in 1996, more than 250 million pounds and 25 million gallons of hazardous solvents
were eliminated and 2 billion gallons of water were saved. Another major step toward source
reduction has occurred through EPA's Hospitals fora Healthy Environment (H2E) program.
Launched in FY 2002, the H2E program seeks to eliminate use of mercury by hospitals and
cut waste generation in half; more than 330 partners representing more than 1,000 facilities
enrolled in FY 2002, far surpassing the Agency's expectations.
| 12
§110
20% Reduction Target:
7.980,785,074
30% Reduction Target:
4,938,558,414
Projected-Actual IDS
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Fiscal Year
n-4s
lil'A's IT 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA's progress toward reduction of TRI pollutants is uncertain. The aggregate change in TRI non-recycled wastes since 1992 is
unknown due to a significant reporting error uncovered subsequent to the release of the 2000 TRI reporting data. It is difficult to predict
with accuracy the number of pounds of pollutants released in any given year due to fluctuations in production, reporting system rules,
and estimation methods. The long-term trend, however, is a continued reduction of pollutants released into the environment.
APG29
FY2002
FY2001
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Pollutants Released
The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy
recovery in 2002 (normalized for changes in industrial production) will be reduced by
200 million pounds, or 2%, from 2001 . Data Lag.
The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in
2001 (normalized for changes in industrial production) will be reduced by 200 million pounds, or
2%, from 2000. Data Lag.
Planned
-200 M
-200 M
Actual
data
available
in 2004
data
available
in 2003
FY2000 The quantity of TRI pollutants released, disposed of, treated or combusted for energy recovery, -200 M
(normalized for changes in industrial production) will be reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%,
from 1999 reporting levels. Goal Met,
FY1999 The quantity of TRI pollutants released, treated, or combusted for energy recovery will -200 M
be reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2% from 1998 reporting levels. Goal Not Met.
FY 2002 Result: Data Lag. Data will be available in September 2004.
FY 2000 Result Available in FY 2002: EPA exceeded its target of a reduction of 200 million pounds of TRI pollutants released. An analysis
conducted using preliminary corrected data shows that actual non-recycled waste increased by just under 300 million pounds (2.9%) from
1999 to 2000, compared to the target of a 2% reduction. However, when the data are normalized to control for changes in production, a 2.3%
reduction is observed from 1999 to 2000.
APG30
FY2002
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 31% or 69 million tons) of municipal
solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds
per day. Data Lag.
Planned
69 M
4.5 Ibs
Actual
data
available
in 2004
FY2001 Divert an additional 1 % (for a cumulative total of 30% or 67 million tons) of municipal solid waste 67M data
from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste 4.3 Ibs available
at 4.3 pounds per day. Data Lag. in 2003
FY2000 Divert an additional 1 % (for a cumulative total of 29% or 64 million tons) of municipal solid
waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA
municipal solid waste at 4.3 pounds per day. Goal Met,
FY 1999 Maintain levels (for a cumulative total of 28% or 62 million tons) of municipal solid
waste diverted from land filing and combustion, and maintain per capita generation
of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.3 pounds per day. Goal Met.
64M
4.3 Ibs
62 M
4.3 Ibs
FY 2002 Result: Data Lag. Data will be available in December 2004.
FY 2000 Result Available in FY 2002: In FY 2000, 30.1%, or 69.9 million tons of municipal solid waste, was diverted from land filling
and combustion, and the per capita generation decreased to 4.5 pounds per day.
Strategic Objective: By 2005, EPA Will Assist All Federally Recognized Tribes in Assessing the Condition of Their
Environment, Help in Building Tribes'Capacity to Implement Environmental Management Programs, and Ensure
That EPA is Implementing Programs in Indian Country Where Needed to Address Environmental Issues.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $57,839 (18.7% of FY 2002 Goal 4 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track and making progress toward this strategic objective. Through FY 2002 the
Agency has collected baseline environmental information on 331 tribes, or 58% of tribes, exceeding its annual goal. In addition to
providing a picture of environmental conditions in Indian Country, the baseline assessment effort will provide indicators of the progress
of tribal environmental programs according to Agency goals and objectives.
APG31 Tribal Environmental Baseline/Environmental Priority
FY2002 Baseline environmental information will be collected for 38% of tribes (covering 50%
of Indian Country). Goal Met.
Performance Measure
Environmental assessments for tribes (cumulative).
Planned
Actual
217 tribes*
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance flesults
n-49
-------
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met, 193
FY2000 16% of tribal environmental baseline information will be collected and 12 additional tribes 16%
(cumulative total of 57) will have tribal/EPA environmental agreements or identified 12
environmental priorities. Goal Not Met.
FY1999 10% of tribal environmental baseline information will be collected and 10 additional tribes 10%
(cumulative total of 45) will have tribal/EPA environmental agreements or identified 10
environmental priorities. Goal Met.
FY2002 Result: Underfederal environmental statutes, EPA is responsible forensuring human health and environmental protection in Indian
Country. By the end of FY2002, EPA collected baseline environmental information for a cumulative total of 331 of 572 tribal entities.
*Note: EPA collected baseline information for 331 tribes (58%) of the universe of 572 tribes, thereby exceeding the goal of 217 tribes (38%).
Prior Year Annual Performance Goals Without Corresponding FY 2002 Goals
(Actual Performance Data Available in FY 2002 and Beyond)
Planned Actual
FY2000 Administer federal programs and oversee state implementation of programs for target
lead-based paint abatement certification and training in 50 states, to reduce exposure year is
to lead-based paint and ensure significant decreases in children's blood levels by 2005. FY2005
FY 1999 Complete the building of a lead-based paint abatement certification and training in 50 target
states, to ensure significant decreases in children's blood lead levels by 2005 through year is
reduced exposure to lead-based paint. FY2005
n-50 lil'A's FY 2IJ02 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, High Production Volume Challenge
Program, HPV Commitment Tracking System.
Available at http://www.epa. gov/chemrtk/
viewsrch.htm.
2. U. S. EPA, Office of Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Voluntary Children's Chemicals
Evaluation Program (VCCEP) Commitment
Tracking System.
3. U.S. EPA, American Indian Environmental Office,
Tribal Information Management System Fact
Sheet, EnviroMapper for Tribes. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/envirofw/html/bia/
tribal em background.html.
4 Institute of Medicine, Clearing the Air: Asthma
and Indoor Air Exposures (Washington, DC: The
National Academy Press, 2000). Available at
http://books.nap.edu/books/030906496l/html/
Rl.html.
5. U.S. EPA, National Radon Results: 1985 to 1999
(n.d.). Available at http://www.epa.gov/iedwebOO/
radon/images/radonresults85-99. pdf.
6. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for
Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey: 1999-2002. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
7. U.S. EPA, Resource Conservation Challenge
(September 13, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/
index.htm.
8. National Environmental Performance information
and reports are posted on EPA's web site at http://
www.epa. gov/performancetrack/particip/
regions.htm#region .
9. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, High Production Volume Challenge
Program. Available at http://www.epa. gov/
chemrtk/viewsrch.htm.
10. U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, EPA Voluntary Children's Chemicals
Evaluation Program (VCCEP) Commitment
Tracking System.
11. U.S. EPA, American Indian Environmental Office.
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances, Overview of the Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGL) Program (June 2002).
13. U.S. EPA, Persistence, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Profiler, Ver. 1.20. Developed by
Environmental Science Center under contract to
the U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics; computer resources donated by Syracuse
Research Corporation. Last updated
November 27, 2002. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/oppt/pbtprofiler/ and
http: //www. pbtprofiler. net/.
14 American Chemistry Council, Chlorine Chemistry
Council, and Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association, Industry Statement on
EPA's PBT Profiler (September 26, 2002); news
release: Environmental Defense Offers Support
for New EPA Internet Tool (Washington, DC,
September 25, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa. gov.
15. U.S. EPA, Persistence, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Profiler.
16. Final Rules: 67 FR 11008, FRL-6823-6, March 11,
2002; 67 FR 72854, FRL-7279-1, December 9,
2002.
17. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Green Chemistry. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/.
18. U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Breathing Easy: Ensuring Proper
Ventilation of Paint Mixing Rooms in Auto
Reflnish Shops, EPA744-F-02-008 (May 2002),
Design for the Environment Results Tracking
Files. Available only on the Internet. See also:
U.S. EPA, Respiratory Protection Program for
Auto Reflnish Shops, EPA 744-F-02-009 (May
2002) and also Sample Respiratory Protection
Program for Auto Reflnish Shops (EPA744-F-02-
010). Available only on the Internet at
http://www.epa. gov/dfe.
19. J.A. Bernstein, Overview of Diisocyanate
Occupational Asthma, Toxicology 111(103,
1996): 181-9. Available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.
20. U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Design for the Environment Results
Tracking Files.
21. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Design for the Environment Program,
Flexographic Ink Options: A Cleaner
Technologies Substitutes Assessment, EPA/744-R-
02-001 A & B (February 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/flexo/ctsa/frontvl-
apr02.pdf. FoamAdhesives-CTSA will be available
late in 2002 on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/dfe. Draft: Alternative
Adhesives Project, Alternative Adhesives
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-5i
-------
Technologies: Foam Furniture and Bedding
Industries (A Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
Assessment (June 2002 Draft). Available for
review at the Center for Clean Products and
Clean Technology Web site at
http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/ccpct/aapl.html.
23. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Design for the Environment, Lead-Free
Solder Partnership, Assessing Life-Cycle Impacts in
the Electronics Industry, EPA744-F-02-007
(June 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/
dfe/pubs/solder/solderfact.pdf.
24. National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, 2002
MVP2 Award Ceremony, Washington, DC.
Information available at
http: //www.p2. org/p2week/appform. cfm.
25. U.S. EPA, Region 8, Greening the Federal
Government, National Park Service Intermountain
Region/EPA Region 8 Partnership Project.
Information available at http://www.epa. gov/
regionOS/conservation recycring/natlpk.html.
26. U.S. EPA, Region 4, Region 4-P2 Partnership,
Resources no. 6 (July 2002). Available at
http://wrrc.p2pays.org/DoDPartnership/
ResourcesNo6.pdf.
27. Centers for Disease Control, Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report 46
(44, November 7, 1997). Available at
http: //www. cdc. gov/mmwr/mmwr. html.
28. For example, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the Consumer Federation of America,
and the National Association of Counties.
29. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Indoor-
Environments Division, A Brief Guide to Mold,
Moisture, and Your Home, EPA 402-K-02-003
(July 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
molds/moldguide.html.
30. Ibid
31. U. S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Healthy
Buildings, Healthy People: A Vision for the 21st
Century, EPA 402-K-01-003 (Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA, October 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/hbhp/hbhptoc.html.
32. Ibid
33. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for
Health Statistics, National Health andNutrition
Examination Survey: 1999-2002. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
34. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Annual Performance Measure Tracking
Files.
35. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Waste
Minimization Trends Report (1991-1998),
EPA530-R-02-007 (Washington, DC, September
17, 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/trends.htm.
36. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 2000 Facts and Figures, EPA530-S-02-
001 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, June 2002).
Available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
37. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive,
Recycling . . . for the Future: Consider the
Benefits (November 1998). Available at
http://www.ofee.gov/pubs/pubs.htm.
38. U.S. EPA, Jobs Through Recycling: Results of the
National REI Study. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/
itr/econ/rei-rw/result.htm. For complete report,
see R.W. Beck, Inc., U.S. Recycling Economic
Information Study (The National Recycling
Coalition, July 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/
itr/econ/rei-rw/pdf/n report.pdf.
39. N.H. Schumaker and R.S. Bennett, Spatial
Population Model for Assessing Risk of
Pesticides to Bird Populations (Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory, 2002).
40. U.S. EPA, Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
Web site. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/.
41. State records.
42. Ibid
43. U.S. EPA, WasteWise: Preserving Resources,
Preventing Waste (October 2002). Available at
http://www.epa. gov/wastewise/.
n-52
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 5: BETTER WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION OF
CONTAMINATED WASTE SITES, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
EPA has made significant progress in
achieving the goal of better waste management,
restoration of contaminated sites, and emergency
response preparedness. With the help of
federal, state, tribal, and local partners, the
Agency has continued to clean up sites and has
ensured that facilities are managed according to
practices that prevent releases to the
environment. EPA and its partners have made
progress toward meeting strategic objectives in
Goal 5 for protecting human health and the
environment by performing, supporting, and
overseeing cleanup operations and ensuring
protective and preventive facility management
practices.
EPA has already met the FY 2005 target
(more than 375,000 sites) for the first objective
by reaching cleanup milestones at more than
389,000 sites. Success in exceeding the target is
primarily due to the work of the Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Program, which had initiated
or completed cleanup action at more than
384,000 releases by the end of FY 2002.: In
addition, the Brownfields Program has already
exceeded its FY 2005 target (of 1,500 sites) for
property assessments: 3,807 properties were
assessed from the beginning of the program in
1995 through June 2002.2 The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, as
amended) Corrective Action Program is on target
to achieve FY 2005 intermediate cleanup goals,
signifying that adequately protective controls are
in place at these facilities to prevent any
unacceptable human exposures or migration of
contaminated groundwater. Through FY 2002,
1,018 facilities had adequate controls in place
for pathways of human exposure (compared to
the FY 2005 target of 1,630 facilities), and
876 facilities had adequate controls in place for
controlling migration of contaminated
groundwater (compared to the FY 2005 target of
1,200 facilities).3 Although 846 sites4 in the
Superfund Program had achieved construction
completion through FY 2002, it is unlikely that
the program will meet its FY 2005 target of
1,105 sites.
It is unlikely that EPA will be able to validate
meeting the overall FY 2005 target for the
second objective, ensuring that more than
277,000 facilities are managed according to
practices that prevent releases to the
environment. The total includes 3,750 RCRA
municipal solid waste facilities with approved
controls, and the data for these facilities are
unavailable. The total also includes ensuring that
7,100 facilities are in compliance with the spill
prevention, control, and countermeasure
provision of the Oil Pollution Act. While
2,925 facilities5 are in compliance through
FY 2002, annual targets for confirming facility
compliance have been reduced as resources are
shifted to address high demand for Agency
assistance in responding to or monitoring oil
spills. Otherwise, the UST Program, in
partnership with the states, has ensured that
213,000 facilities6 are in compliance with spill,
overfill, and corrosion protection requirements
through FY 2002, as compared to the FY 2005
target of 264,000. Finally, the RCRA Program,
working effectively in partnership with states,
tribes, and other stakeholders, has exceeded this
year's expectations in achieving permits or
approved controls at 2,176 hazardous waste
management facilities7 through FY 2002, as
compared to the FY 2005 target of 2,750.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-53
-------
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
The most significant accomplishment for
EPA's emergency response program was the
rapid and effective response to the anthrax
bioterrorism incident on Capitol Hill. This
catastrophe presented challenges due to the
unique contaminant, the uncertainty of the
response technology, and the time constraints
and nature of the work of the legislative branch.
EPA led the effort to clean up and decontaminate
six post offices in Florida and four congressional
office buildings in Washington, DC—the Ford,
Longworth, Dirksen, and Hart office buildings.
The Agency's success in this area is due to
homeland security planning and preparedness
activities at the state and local levels in
conjunction with federal activities.
During FY 2002 the Superfund Program
reduced health threats posed to 140,000 people
who lived within 1 mile of the 42 sites that
achieved construction completion. In addition,
the Superfund Program cleaned up 800,000
cubic yards of solid hazardous waste and
provided alternative drinking water supplies to
32,500 people at 6 sites.8 Coordination with state
partners during the construction phase of these
projects contributed to the achievement.
Another important element is that federal
agencies worked together to carry out cleanups
at federal facilities. In conjunction with EPA's
federal partners, in FY 2002 the Superfund
Program was able to accomplish 5 of the
42 construction completions at sites owned by
federal agencies.9 Nationwide, thousands of
federal facilities are contaminated with hazardous
waste, unexploded ordnance, radioactive waste,
fuels, and various of other toxic contaminants.
These facilities include abandoned mines,
nuclear weapons production plants, fuel
distribution areas, and landfills. As a result, cleanup
remedies are varied and difficult to accomplish.
For example, the Department of Energy's
nuclear weapons production facility in Hanford,
Washington, is the size of Rhode Island, and
cleanup estimates for the facility exceed 100 years.
An important element of managing the
Superfund Program is ensuring that potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) perform cleanups or
SUPERFUND CLEANUP AND RESTORATION:
DUPONT-NEWPORT SITE, NEWPORT, DELAWARE
Cleanup efforts have resulted in more than
9 acres of wetland areas being restored while
creating an additional acre of wetland and
wildlife habitat along the river. Two industrial
landfills at the Dupont-Newport Site in New
Castle County, Delaware were capped. The
cleanup remedy included the removal of more
than 70,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils
and sediments and installation of groundwater
treatment and containment systems. The former
pigment-manufacturing facility was used to
manufacture a white zinc- and barium-based
pigment called Lithopone, and much of the area
was contaminated with heavy metals and
chlorinated solvents from past operations and
disposal practices Chttp://www.epa.gov/
superfund/accomp/success/dupont.html).
pay their fair share of cleanup costs. In FY 2002
PRPs initiated 71 percent of new long-term
cleanup actions at non-federal facility Superfund
sites, exceeding the 70 percent annual goal. EPA
also secured private party commitments for
cleanup and cost recovery that exceeded
$627 million. Of this amount, PRPs agreed to
conduct more than $501 million in future
cleanup work and to reimburse EPA for more
than $126 million in past costs. Total private
party commitments for cleanup and cost
recovery since the inception of the program are
valued at more than $20.6 billion—more than
$16.9 billion in response settlements and about
$3.7 billion in cost recovery settlements,10
resulting in almost $8 in private party
n-54
GIWs IT 21)1)2 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
BROWNFIELDS HOUSING
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council Brownfields Pilot
grant, awarded by EPA, has partnered with the Minnesota
Environmental Initiative and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
to perform environmental assessments on 10 Brownfields in
Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. This partnership is
opening the door to reuse of the sites for affordable housing.
As of April 2002, three energy-efficient single-family homes
had been built on one property at Nebraska and Arkwright
Streets in St. Paul by Habitat's WomenBuild project, which
uses all-female volunteer crews. All of the Habitat homes will
be built with energy-efficient r25 insulation in the walls and
mechanical ventilation to maintain indoor air quality
Chttp://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pdf/ss twin.pdf.)
commitments for cleanup and cost recovery for
every $1 spent on Superfund enforcement.11
The Brownfields Program, one of EPA's most
successful public-private partnerships, has
awarded 437 pilot grants since its inception in
1995. These Brownfield pilots assessed
3,807 properties, leveraged more than
$4.8 billion in public and private investments,
and generated more than 21,000 jobs in cleanup,
construction, and redevelopment through the
third quarter of FY 2002.12
In January 2002 the President signed the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act. This law authorized up to
$250 million for financial assistance for
Brownfields revitalization and limited the liability
of certain prospective purchasers and contiguous
property owners. Spurred in part by the new
Brownfields law, the Agency and at least 20
other federal agencies have committed to the
2002 Brownfields Federal Partnership Action
Agenda to support Brownfields redevelopment
in communities throughout the United States.
The agenda also incorporates commitments from
federal agency participants to increase
coordination between Brownfields stakeholders
and promote Brownfields redevelopment.
In FY 2002 EPA's waste management
programs worked in partnership with states and
the regulated community to ensure safe and
preventive facility management practices by:
• Obtaining permits or approved controls at
2,176 hazardous waste management
facilities.13
• Attaining compliance with spill prevention
requirements at 2,925 oil facilities.14
• Achieving 74 percent significant operational
compliance with leak detection requirements
and 81 percent significant operational
compliance with spill, overfill, and corrosion
protection requirements at UST facilities.15
Research Contributions
In FY 2002 EPA completed evaluations of six
innovative technologies through the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation program (SITE)
program (http://www. epa. gov/ORD/SITE/). This
information will assist decision makers in
determining the most effective remediation
options for the cleanup of contaminated sites.
EPA also evaluated and produced reports on
several processes for treating methyl tertiary
butyl-ether (MTBE)-contaminated groundwater.
These reports provide site managers with the
appropriate performance data to assess the best
technologies for treating MTBE contamination.
EPA also produced reports on the short-term
effects of dredging and capping contaminated
sediments, comparing the advantages and
disadvantages of these cleanup strategies in
protecting ecological surroundings. The capping
reports evaluate the release of contaminated
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-55
-------
sediments occurring during capping procedures
through resuspension. The dredging report
assesses the potential effects on aquatic receptors
from dredging. These reports will be valuable
tools for risk managers and risk assessors in
evaluating the short-term risks associated with
the implementation of dredging and capping
remedies at contaminated sediment sites.
Program Evaluation
Appendix A contains descriptions of program
evaluations completed in FY 2002 that support
the overall Waste Management Goal. Two
reports provide lessons learned from Agency
activities following the September 11 attacks in
New York and Washington, DC, and the anthrax
incidents. Both reports conclude that overall the
Agency did an excellent job responding to these
unprecedented actions of terrorism and
successfully carried out its mission to protect
human health and the environment. The Agency
has taken several actions to respond to report
recommendations, including providing consistent
training in incident management and
communication for both senior managers and
field personnel, hiring more On Scene
Coordinators in each region for spill incidents
and other emergencies, and purchasing uniform
national equipment.
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
Although federal statutes govern the RCRA,
Underground Storage Tanks, Emergency
Preparedness, and Brownfields Programs, almost
all of the issues addressed by these programs
are unique to each state, tribe, or locality. For
this reason, states, tribes, and local communities
are the primary implementers of these programs
and work in partnership with EPA. Even the
Superfund Program, which EPA implements
nationally, relies on strong state, tribal, and local
partnerships to ensure that its mission is
achieved in the most effective and efficient
manner.
State Contributions
Homeland security planning and
preparedness efforts through the National
Response Team and the Federal Response Plan
have established effective coordination and
communication systems and deterred creation of
redundant systems. In addition, EPA's work with
states, tribes, and communities has resulted in
16 states implementing the risk management
plan program and establishing partnerships with
thousands of Local Emergency Planning
Committees.
Superfund has a strong and effective
partnership with states to support its
implementation. In FY 2002 EPA provided more
than $75 million to states for conducting site-
specific support functions such as assessment,
and $18 million to support or enhance state
program capabilities such as hiring staff with
technical expertise.
States implement cleanup and management
programs for hazardous and solid waste
management facilities and for USTs. States are
also key players in implementing RCRA
Corrective Action Program reforms, with
accomplishments in piloting innovative
approaches to cleanups, developing venues to
showcase program success stories, and actively
participating in Brownfields Program activities to
further integrate these two programs.
Since 1997 EPA has offered Superfund Core
Program financial assistance and contract support
for Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) and/or
Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs) to
48 states and 2 tribes. EPA headquarters
provided $25.5 million in FY 2002 for state and
tribal voluntary cleanup programs and pre-
remedial site assessment funding for EPA-, state-,
and tribe-conducted Targeted Brownfields
Assessment. These funds supported state and
tribal VCPs, state TBAs, and TBAs conducted by
EPA regional offices.
The new Brownfields law amends
section 128 to CERCLA and provides expanded
authority for EPA to fund state and tribal
response programs to capitalize revolving loan
n-56
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
funds and support insurance mechanisms. The
goals of this funding are to ensure that state and
tribal response programs include, or are working
to include, four statutory elements and a
required public record and to provide funding
for other activities, including TBAs, that enhance
the cleanup capacity of a state or tribal program.
In addition, the new law authorizes EPA to
perform TBAs itself with funding available to
carry out section 104 of CERCLA.
The UST Program awarded $3.8 million to
fund 40 state and tribal UST field pilots. These
pilots will help communities turn petroleum-
contaminated land into clean, safe, productive
properties that will create jobs, yield higher
property values, and generate new revenue.
The program also provided $3.1 million in
funding for four MTBE cleanup pilots (Long
Island, NY, Santa Monica, CA, Pascaoag, RI, and
Columbia, SC). In addition, the UST program
developed a Web-based toolbox to promote and
assist states in the use of performance-based
contracting to clean up releases from USTs. The
14 states currently using performance-based
contracting have reported that their cleanups
cost about half as much and took about half as
long to complete as compared to cleanups done
using the more traditional time and materials
contracts.
Tribal Contributions
During FY 2002 EPA continued to work with
tribal waste program managers to develop waste
program expertise in tribes and address the most
pressing needs on tribal lands. EPA provided
$775,000 as part of an interagency grant
program totaling about $2.2 million for closing
municipal solid waste open dumps in Indian
Country. Cumulatively, since 1999 the
Interagency Workgroup has provided more than
$6 million to 31 tribes resulting in the cleanup of
27 open dumps and conducts activities to
prevent future dumping of wastes in Indian
Country. EPA also provided $425,000 in tribal
grants for RCRA hazardous waste activities and
surveyed more than 175 tribes as an initial step
in developing an inventory of the RCRA
hazardous waste management needs of tribal lands.
EPA provided more than $3.6 million in
grants to develop or enhance tribal UST and
Superfund Programs in FY 2002. The Agency
also supported involvement for 78 tribes at
Superfund sites through 27 cooperative
agreements. In FY 2002 EPA also provided
$450,000 to tribes through its Brownfields
assessment pilot grants.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON THE FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
Beginning in FY 2003 the Agency is starting
a 3-year planning cycle to identify and track
construction completion candidate sites. Early in
FY 2002 data were collected from project
managers in regional offices on the status of
candidate sites for construction completion
during FY 2002 through FY 2004. Future-year
targets for construction completions will be set
using this information.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-57
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
EPATotal: $9,447,202
Goal 5: $1,820,344
Goal 5 Share of Total: 19.3%
Summary of FY 2002 Annual Performance Goals
X
9
Goals 1 j 1 Goals
Met I Not Met
0
description of the quality of the data used to measur
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Data
Lags
e ERA'S
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal:
Goal 5 Costs:
Goal 5 Share of Total:
$7,998,422
$1,929,151
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-10 of the Financial Statements for a consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY1999-FY 2002 Results
Strategic Objective: By 2005, EPA and Its Federal, State, Tribal and Local Partners Will Reduce or Control the Risk
to Human Health and the Environment At More Than 374,000 Contaminated Superfund, RCRA, Underground
Storage Tank (UST) and Brownfield Sites and Have the Planning and Preparedness Capabilities to Respond
Successfully to All Known Emergencies to Reduce the Risk to Human Health and the Environment.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $1,690,421 (87.6% of FY 2002 Goal 5 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: Through FY 2002 EPA and its partners reduced or controlled the risks to human health and the
environment at more than 389,000 contaminated sites. The FY 2005 objective target includes 384,000 leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) cleanups initiated or completed, and through FY 2002, EPA initiated 384,000 LUST cleanups and completed approximately 284,000.
The Agency also reduced or controlled the risks to human health and the environment at more than 840 Superfund sites, more than 800
high-priority RCRA sites, and more than 3,800 Brownfields sites. EPA and its partners are also working to increase their capabilities to
successfully respond to all known emergencies by FY 2005 to reduce the risk to human health and the environment.
APG 32 Superfund Cleanups Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA and its partners will complete 40 Superfund cleanups (construction completions). 40 42
47 construction completions were completed in FY 2001. Goal Met.
FY2001
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
75
47
FY2000
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
85
FY1999 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
85
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002 EPA completed construction at 42 Superfund sites for a cumulative total of 846 sites where the Agency has
reduced or controlled the risks to human health and the environment over the life of the program. FY2002 Superfund accomplishments in
Indian Country include eight site assessments, provision of $2.4 million for capacity building, and tribal leadership or support in responding to
28% of Superfund sites affecting Indian Country. The FY 2001 construction completion target was reduced for FY 2002 due to the constraints
of large size and complexity of sites on construction completion.
APG 33 Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participation Planned Actual
FY2002 Maximize all aspects of potentially responsible party (PRP) participation which includes 70% 71%
maintaining PRP work at 70% of the new remedial construction starts at non-Federal
Facility Superfund sites, and emphasize fairness in the settlement process. Goal Met.
FY2001
- FY2000
Same Goal. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
- Ensure fairness by making orphan share offers at 100% of all eligible settlement negotiations
for response work.
- Provide finality for small contributors by entering into de minimis settlements and report the
number of settlers.
Same Goal. Goal Not Met.
70%
100%
18
70%
100% (orphan)
20 (de minimis)
67.3%
100%
15
68%
100%
H-58 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY1999 Obtain PRP commitments for 70% of the work conducted at new construction starts at
non-federal facility sites on the National Priority List (NPL) and emphasize fairness in the
settlement process. Goat Met
70%
80%
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002 the percentage of remedial construction starts initiated by responsible parties exceeded the target by 1%.
EPA determines the percentage of remedial construction starts conducted by responsible parties at non-federal facility Superfund sites
because it indicates the percentage of sites where cleanup is achieved using private party funding as opposed to the Superfund Trust
Fund. It also includes those construction starts performed by EPA where the majority of funding comes from special accounts, and
majority is defined to mean that the funding contributed by responsible parties toward the total response cost to the special account
exceeds the amount contributed by the largest non-private entity.
APG 34 Superfund Cost Recovery Planned Actual
FY2002 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover 100% 100%
costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address cost recovery at all
NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations on total past costs equal to or
greater than $200,000.
FY2001 Same Goal. Goal Not Met. 100% 97.8%
FY2000
Same Goal. Goal Not Met.
100%
FY1999
Same Goal. Goal Met.
100%
FY 2002 Result: Cost recovery was addressed at 204 National Priority List (NPL) and non-NPL sites during FY 2002, of which 101 had
total past costs greater than or equal to $200,000 and potential statute of limitations concerns. EPA's cost recovery activities are
important because they replenish the Superfund Trust Fund by recovering EPA's past costs, making resources available for other
Superfund site cleanups. With respect to private parties, in FY 2002 EPA secured cleanup and cost recovery commitments in excess of
$627 million (more than $501 million for future cleanup and $126 million for recovery of past costs).
APG 35 RCRA Corrective Actions
FY2002 172 (for a cumulative total of 995 or 58%) of high priority RCRA facilities will have
human exposures (HE) controlled and 172 (for a cumulative total of 882 or 51%) of high
priority RCRA facilities will have groundwater releases (GWR) controlled. Goal
two FY
FY2001 Same Goal. Goal Not Met.
Planned
172 HE
172 GWR
Actual
205 HE
171
172HE 179HE
172GWR
FY2000
Same Goal. Goal Met.
172 HE 191 HE
172 GWR
FY1999
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
83 HE 162 HE
45 GWR 188 GWR
FY 2002 Result: During FY2002 the Corrective Action Program achieved environmental indicators (Els) for human health protection and
groundwater migration Els at 205 and 171 facilities, respectively. This progress, combined with progress from previous years, allowed the
program to remain ahead of its cumulative goals by achieving cumulative totals of 1,018 facilities with human exposures controlled and 876
high priority RCRA facilities with groundwater releases controlled. The progress made toward achieving the two Els was facilitated by the
successful partnerships among EPA, states, and tribes.
APG 36 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA and its partners will complete 22,000 Leaking Underground StorageTank (LUST) 22,000 15,769
cleanups for a cumulative total of approximately 290,000 cleanups since 1987.
Not FY Core
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
FY2000 Same Goal. Goal Met
FY1999
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
21,000 19,074
21,000 20,834
22,000
FY2002 Result: During FY2002 EPA and its state partners completed 15,769 LUST cleanups for a total of nearly 284,000 since 1987. The
FY 2002 target of 22,000 LUST cleanups was not met for several reasons. Contributing factors include (1) the majority of states are
discovering new sites contaminated by MTBE, which is more complicated and costly to cleanup; (2) at least 12 states have already reopened
closed sites due to MTBE contamination, thus diverting resources from overseeing completion of cleanups; and (3) state programs are now
confronting cleanup of more complex sites in general.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance
n-59
-------
APG37
FY 2002
Brownfield Site Assessment Grants
Planned
EPA will provide additional site assessment funding to 38 new communities, and to 38 3,100
existing communities, resulting in a cumulative total of 3,100 properties assessed, the 19,300
generation of 19,300 jobs, and the leveraging of $4.0 billion in cleanup and redevelopment $4.0 B
funds since 1995. Goal Met.
Actual
3,807
21,737
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
2,500
12,000
$3.1B
1,900
4,900
$1.7B
FY 1999 EPA will fund Brownfields site assessments in 100 more communities, thus reaching 300 100
communities by the end of 1999. Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: Although fourth-quarter data will not be available until April 2003, EPA exceeded the FY 2002 targets for the
Brownfields Program, as indicated by third-quarter data. Since 1995 more than 3,800 properties have been assessed, more than 21,000
jobs generated, and more than $4.8 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged through Brownfields Program activities. The
program facilitates assessment and cleanup of abandoned or underutilized sites where actual or potential contamination and liability
might be impeding development. It empowers states, communities, and other stakeholders in economic development to work together in
a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse Brownfields.
APG38
FY 2002
Superfund Federal Facilities Compliance
Planned
Actual
Within 18 months after final listing on the NPL, EPA will make a final offer for an interagency
agreement (IAG) that is consistent with Agency policy and guidance at 100% of Federal
facility Superfund sites. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
Percentage of Federal facility NPL sites for which final offers are made that meet Agency
policy and guidance.
Percent of Federal facilities with final offers made within 18 months.
100%
100%
FY2001
Same Goal. Goal Not Met.
100%
100%
0%
0%
FY2000 Ensure compliance with Federal facility statutes and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) agreements and ensure completion of current NPL
CERCLAIAGs.
Performance Measures
- Complete NPL lAGs.
- Begin CERCLA Negotiations.
6
4
2
1
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002 there were two federal facility Superfund sites for which EPA could make a final offer for interagency agreements
(lAGs) within 18 months of having listed the sites on the NPL. In both cases, the offer was made, resulting in the goal being met. Because of
a dispute raised by the Department of Defense (DOD) concerning EPA's authority to oversee cleanup after a remedy has been
selected, negotiations to finalize these lAGs have stalled. Once the dispute with DOD is resolved, the offers made by EPA should lead to
signed lAGs at these sites.
APG 39 Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Clean-up
FY2002 Provide at least 6 innovative approaches that reduce human health and ecosystem
exposures from dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and methyl-tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) in soils and groundwater, and from oil and persistent organics in aquatic systems.
Met.
Performance Measure
Planned
Actual
- Deliver the Annual Superfund Innovation Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program Report
to Congress detailing 4-6 innovative approaches, their cost savings and future direction;
reports summarizing pilot scale evaluation of in-situ remedies for solvents.
FY2001 Provide technical information to support scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions
for cleanup of complex sites, hard-to-treat wastes, mining, oil spills near shorelines, and
Brownfields to reduce risk to human health and the environment. Goal Not Met.
n-6o
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Performance Measures
- Deliver the Annual SITE Program Report to Congress. 1 0
FY2000 Enhance scientifically defensible decisions for site cleanup by providing targeted research
and technical support. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
- Report of natural attenuation case studies of MTBE. 1 0
- Deliver the SITE report to Congress. 9/30/00 1/30/131
- Report of key research on methods, models and factors relating to risk evaluation of 9/30/00 12/31/00
dermal route of exposure.
- Review20 soil contaminants and develop screening levels. 9/30/00 9/30/00
FY 2002 Result: EPA made significant progress in providing information to site managers to determine the most effective methods/
technologies for cleaning up contaminated sites. The technologies evaluated through the SITE Program provide a range of innovative means
for remediation of contaminated soils including in situ chemical oxidation, bioremediation, steam heating, and electrokinetic extraction. EPA
also produced a report on the ecotoxicity soil screening levels for mammals, birds, soil plants, and soil biota that will provide a consistent
basis for making decisions on whether to conduct additional monitoring and risk assessments for various soil contaminants.
Strategic Objective: By 2005, EPA and Its Federal, State,Tribal, and Local Partners Will EnsureThat MoreThan
277,000 Facilities Are Managed According to the PracticesThat Prevent Releases to the Environment.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $238,730 (12.4% of FY2002 Goal 5 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: Through FY 2002 EPA and its partners have been assured that more than 218,000 facilities are being
managed according to practices that prevent releases to the environment. The total includes 2,176 RCRA management facilities with
approved controls; 2,925 oil facilities in compliance with spill prevention, control, and countermeasure requirements of the Oil Pollution Act;
and 213,000 underground storage tank facilities in compliance with spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements.
APG40 RCRA Facility Standards and Compliance Planned Actual
FY2002 75.8% of the hazardous waste management facilities will have approved controls in 75.8% 790%
place to prevent dangerous releases to air, soil, and groundwater, representing an
average increase of 39 additional facilities per year. Goal Met,
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met. 67% 67%
FY1999 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met. 61% 61%
FY 2002 Result: EPA exceeded its goal of 75.8% by achieving 79.0% of hazardous waste management facilities having approved controls in
place to prevent dangerous releases to air, soil, and groundwater. The progress resulted from a focused effort and coordination with the
regions and states. This increased effort has been ongoing for the past few years.
APG41 Ensure WIPP Safety Planned Actual
FY2002 Certify that 6,000 55 gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 18,000 6,000
curies) shipped by DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of
safely and according to EPA standards. Goal Met,
FY 2002 Result: EPA substantially exceeded the goal of ensuring the safe characterization and disposal of drums of transuranic waste.16
In FY 2002 the Department of Energy disposed of the equivalent of 22,800 drums. To date, 35,070 drums have been shipped. Four percent of
the planned waste volume, based on the disposal of 860,000 drums, has been permanently disposed of safely and in accordance with EPA
standards.
FY 2001 Annual Performance Goals (No Longer Reported for FY 2002)
EPA and its state and tribal partners will achieve levels of 75% UST compliance with EPA/State leak detection requirements; and 96% UST
compliance with EPA/State December 22, 1998 requirements to upgrade, close or replace substandard tanks.
Continue to make formerly contaminated parcels of land available for residential, commercial, and industrial reuse by addressing liability
concerns through the issuance of comfort letters and Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs).
www.epa.gov/ocfo Performance Results n-6l
-------
Notes:
1. U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks,
FY 2002 End of Year Activity Report, Cliff
Rothenstein, Director (December 23, 2002).
Available at http://www.epa. gov/swerustl/cat/
eoy02memo.pdf.
2. U.S. EPA, Brownfields Cleanup and
Redevelopment, Brownfields Management System
(June 2002).
3. U.S. EPA, RCRAInfo database, Corrective Action,
Facility Information. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/
facility.htm#Database. Facility information updated
monthly at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/ca/facility/stofcra/sei.
4 U.S. EPA, Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS
Hazardous Waste Sites, CERCLIS database.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/
query/queryhtm/nplccll. htm.
5. Ibid
6. Although this number is not in the FY 2002
End-of-Year Activity Report for the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (note 1, above), it is
derived from data primarily found in that report
and is based on the following calculations: There
were 697,966 active tanks at the end of FY 2002.
A facility number can be derived from the tank
number by dividing 697,966 by 2.65, which is the
average number of tanks per facility. Thus, there
were 263,383 facilities at the end of FY 2002.
Then, the number of facilities can be multiplied by
the compliance rate of 81%, which results in the
estimate of 213,000 facilities in compliance with
spill, overfill, and corrosion protection
requirements.
7. U.S. EPA, RCRAInfo database, Hazardous Waste
Facility Permitting Accomplishments. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/
pgprarpt.htm and http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/permit/charts/charts. pdf.
8. U.S. EPA, Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS
database and U.S. Census 2000.
9. U.S. EPA, Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS
database. The five federal facility sites are Fort
Wainwright, Old Navy Dump/Manchester Lab,
Brunswick Naval Air Station, Lone Star Army
Ammunition Plant, and Sacramento Army Depot.
10. U.S. EPA, Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS
database.
11. U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
Integrated Financial Management System.
12. U.S. EPA, Brownfields Cleanup and
Redevelopment, Brownfields Management System
(June 2002).
13. U.S. EPA, RCRAInfo database, Hazardous Waste
Facility Permitting Accomplishments.
14. U.S. EPA, Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS
database.
15. U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
16. The official, operating definition as taken from
federal legislation is as follows: radioactive waste
containing more than 100 nanocuries
(3,700 becquerels) of alpha-emitting transuranic
isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives greater
than 20 years, except for (1) high-level radioactive
waste; (2) waste that the Secretary of Energy has
determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the U.S. EPA, does not need the
degree of isolation required by the 40 CFR Part
191 disposal regulations; or (3) waste that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved for
disposal on a case-by-case basis in accordance with
10 CFR Part 61.
n-62
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 6: REDUCTION OF GLOBAL AND
CROSS-BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
The United States will lead other nations in successful multilateral efforts to
reduce significant risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change,
stratospheric ozone depletion, and other hazards of international concern.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
EPA's domestic, bilateral, and multilateral
efforts protect and preserve human health and
the environment in the United States and around
the world. Since 1997 the Agency has made
significant progress in reducing risks to human
health and ecosystems by working to reduce
stratospheric ozone depletion, helping to slow
climate change through voluntary programs,
reducing and mitigating hazards on U.S. borders,
and taking action to reduce other hazards of
international concern.
On the Mexican border, new and increased
regional participation will result in better health
and ecosystem protection. The governments of the
United States and Mexico, 10 border states in the
United States and Mexico, and 26 participating
tribes drafted a new Border 2012 environmental
program to protect the public health of
11.8 million inhabitants of the area and the
environment for the next 10 years. Border 2012
emphasizes a bottom-up approach, anticipating
that local decision making, priority setting, and
project implementation will better address
environmental issues in the border region
Chttp ://www. epa. gov/r6border).1
EPA and state and local governments
succeeded in conducting both an international
exercise between sister cities on the border to
test the binational emergency response plan and
local binational security seminars on weapons of
mass destruction including biological and nuclear
exposures. EPA continues to evaluate environ-
mental needs and facilitate the construction of
environmental infrastructure with the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC)
and the North American Development Bank. As
of FY 2002, 67 BECC-certified projects had been
or were being built in the border area, ultimately
serving about 7.6 million border residents. About
720,000 residents along the Mexican border will
receive protection from health risks, beach
pollution, and damaged ecosystems as a result of
improved water and wastewater sanitation
systems funded in FY 2002.
Contaminated sediments impair more than
2,000 miles, or 20 percent, of shoreline and are
a principal source of the polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent toxics
contributing to fish consumption advisories
throughout the U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes. On
the Canadian border, contaminated sediments
and PCBs are the principal sources of Great
Lakes fish and wildlife contamination. EPA and
its partners remediated almost 400,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediments in 2001,
bringing the 4-year cumulative total to 2.1 million
cubic yards.2 Consequently, from 2001 actions
alone, 100,000 to 200,000 pounds of toxic
pollutants, which could adversely affect human
health, were physically removed from the
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-63
-------
1,000,000
Volume of Sediment Remediated in U.S.
Great Lakes Basin Beginning in 1997
937,850
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
environment. Such removal will lead to a more
diverse and less contaminated community of
small organisms at the base of the food chain.
Over the long term, water quality will improve
and fish will be less contaminated and safer to eat.
Despite major reductions since the 1970s of
PCB concentration levels in Great Lakes fish, this
region is still well beyond the Health Protection
Value (HPV) of 0.05 parts per million agreed
upon by the Great Lakes states. The HPV is a
level considered safe for even the most sensitive
subpopulations, such as women and children, to
eat unlimited fish. Although the overall trend
continues to decline, indicating progress by EPA
in removing contaminants from the Great Lakes
ecosystem, concentrations of certain contaminants
in Lakes Erie and Superior fish are no longer
decreasing. Some contaminants such as
polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used in flame
retardants and often applied to textiles, have
been detected in Great Lakes fish at
exponentially increasing concentrations.3
EPA continues to make adjustments
concerning the inexplicably low dissolved
oxygen levels in Lake Erie, which have resulted
in an increasing "dead zone," despite U.S. and
Canadian success in achieving total phosphorus
targets. Success in phosphorus reduction should
have resulted in higher dissolved oxygen
concentrations because there should have been
less of the algae decomposition that removes
oxygen from the water. Instead, the dissolved
oxygen rate of decline in 2001, reported in
2002, was among the most rapid in the past
decade. EPA convened 25 principal investigators
and cooperators in May 2002 to initiate a special
study of Lake Erie. More than $1 million from
U.S. and Canadian federal and local agencies
and universities will be invested in the study
Chttp://www. epa.gov/glnpo/lakeerie/
eriedeadzone. html).
m
o
o.
PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish*
Lake trout for all but Lake Erie, which is walleye
Lake Michigan
Lake Ontario
_§
Lake Huron
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
H-64 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA, working together with the U.S. Coast
Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Department of State, and
other interested parties, made a significant
breakthrough in FY 2002 in efforts to prevent
the introduction of invasive species into
navigable waterways. The introduction of
nonnative aquatic species through ship ballast
water has resulted in direct costs exceeding
$1 billion in the United States since 1989 and
has dramatically altered estuarine and marine
ecosystems across North America. International
negotiations continue, but the United States has
succeeded in convincing numerous other
governments around the world that an
international performance standard applicable to
ship ballast water discharges is the most
effective means for preventing the transfer of
these harmful organisms. Although aquatic
species are introduced through other vectors,
such as hull fouling, ballast water is widely
recognized as the single largest vector
responsible for the transfer of aquatic species
across the globe.
Climate change and depletion of the ozone
layer are both important areas of focus for the
Agency. EPA is on target to achieve the strategic
objective to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and slow climate change through
voluntary programs. In addition to the long-term
climate benefits, energy savings from
partnership programs leads to increased energy
system reliability and energy security, as well as
reduced energy costs to businesses and
consumers. Reductions in energy use lead to
corresponding reductions in emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and mercury, resulting in cleaner
air and water. Emissions of NOx were reduced
by 140,000 tons in 2001 alone *
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
EPA's international accomplishments in
FY 2002 were wide-ranging. At the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg, South Africa, in August-
September 2002, EPA and its partners announced
a goal to reduce by half, by 2015, the estimated
4.4 billion people worldwide who do not have
access to basic sanitation and announced
partnerships on cleaner fuels and vehicles
Chttp://www.johannesburgsummit.org).
International capacity efforts will lead to several
accomplishments: the reduction of 600,000 tons
of mobile source emissions in Russia;
25 countries in Africa committing to phaseout of
leaded gasoline by 2005; establishment of
environmental ministries in all 7 Central
American countries; small-scale efforts in East
Africa to train workers in accessing chemical
o
?
o =
o
£
UJ
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall Goals and Accomplishments
for the Climate Protection Programs
• ^| Annual Achievements
| | Annual Goals
1995
1996
1997
2001
2002
1998 1999 2000
Fiscal Year
*Note: FY 2002 data are not official as shown in EPA Budget documents.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-65
-------
EPA'S ON THE GROUND AT WSSD
The Ubuntu Village was the
'"^ central transportation and
logistics hub for the WSSD,
in which more than 22,000
people participated, includ-
ing more than 10,000 delegates,
8,000 non-governmental organiz-
ations, and representatives of civil society.
EPA presented formal mini-courses on key
sustainable development issues. These
practical "how to" courses addressed
environmental decision making, water
resource and watershed management,
pesticide handling, children's health, and
partnerships.
safety information via the Internet; and advances
implementing the Stockholm Convention on
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) worldwide,
toward the goal to eliminate the use of 12 of the
worst POPs chemicals (http://www.pops.int).
In June 2002 a new cooperative agenda for
children's environmental health in North America
was adopted at the Council Session of the North
American Commission on Environmental
Cooperation. Through this agenda, the Council,
representing the governments of the United
States, Mexico, and Canada, agreed on
17 concrete action items to address the priorities
of asthma and respiratory disease, lead
poisoning, and the effects of exposures to toxic
chemicals, including pesticides. Priority actions
identified in the cooperative agenda include
strengthening the knowledge base through the
development of indicators, research, risk
assessment, and economic valuation for the long
term and increased public outreach and
education for the short term. Activities related to
waterborne diseases might be added to the
cooperative agenda in the future.
Many of EPA's climate protection programs
have resulted in substantial savings in energy
use and energy costs in the United States that
will be realized over the next decade. Because
equipment promoted through EPA's climate
change programs often lasts for decades or
more, these investments will continue to deliver
environmental and economic benefits through
2012 and beyond. Based on a 2002 analysis of
actions that program partners have taken through
the end of 2001, consumers and businesses have
secured investments in energy-efficient
technologies exceeding $13 billion. After
accounting for these investments, consumers and
businesses are expected to save about
$70 billion cumulatively through 2012. In
FY 2001 reductions of GHGs totaled 65 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent and energy
consumption was reduced by an estimated
84 billion kilowatt hours. These programs
continue to be highly cost-effective approaches
for delivering environmental benefits across the
nation. Every dollar EPA spends on climate
change programs results in a reduction in GHG
emissions of 1 metric ton of carbon equivalent
(3.7 tons of CO2), savings for partners and
consumers of more than $75 per year on their
energy bills, the creation of more than $15 in
private sector investment, and the addition of
over $60 into the economy.5
The projected increase in the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons—
powerful stratospheric ozone-depleting
substances (ODS)—in developing countries
could eliminate the benefits achieved in the
United States, in addition to posing serious
public health problems, such as increased skin
cancer, for populations worldwide. Through U.S.
payments to the Multilateral Fund over the past
10 years, EPA helped fund more than
3,900 projects that when fully implemented will
permanently eliminate more than 150,000 metric
tons of ODSs.6 EPA also concluded agreements
with developing countries to dismantle over
two-thirds of their CFG production capacity and
nearly all of their halon production capacity. In
FY 2002 the United States reduced methyl
bromide production and imports by 50 percent
from the 1991 baseline and listed 50 new
alternatives to ODSs through the Significant New
Alternatives Program.7 Finally, EPA expanded the
outreach of its SunWise School Program by
70 percent over the 2001 level with an
additional 223,000 students in a total of
4,800 schools. The SunWise School Program
n-66
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY AT WORK
EPA's Clean Automotive Technology program made significant progress on the goal of increasing
the fuel economy of motor vehicles by as much as 50 percent or more through hydraulic hybrid
technology. Using EPA-developed technology, the Ford Motor Company announced its plans for "a
demonstration fleet of E550 commercial vans for production prove-out of a promising hydraulic
hybrid powertrain" and noted that a demonstration fleet will be put into service in early 2004a.
This initial commercial prove-out of EPA's hydraulic hybrid technology provides a 30 to 35 percent
fuel economy improvement. This action reflects Ford's commitment to its agreement with EPA "to
invest to further develop this proprietary technology, with an aim toward putting a pilot fleet of
vehicles on the road by the end of the decade." Research is continuing on the goal for a full
hydraulic hybrid vehicle, which is expected to achieve fuel economy improvement of more than
100 percent13.
Sources:
a. "Ford Prepares Demonstration Fleet of Vans with Hydraulic Power Assist," Ford Motor Company, July 15, 2002.
b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ford Signs Agreement to Develop Technology to Improve Fuel Economy"
(October 12, 2001).
educates children ages 5 to 12 on the risks
associated with ultraviolet and sun exposure.
Research Contribution
In FY 2002 EPA examined the effects of
climate change on weather-related morbidity in
the United States at both the national and
regional levels. Specifically, the Agency issued a
report for external review that analyzed the
effects of inclement weather on accidents and
injuries and projected changes in incidence
associated with climate change. The report also
addressed the effects of extreme heat on
emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
These data will help inform decision makers
about the extent to which adaptive responses
will have to be made to reduce the effects of
continued global warming.
The Agency is also conducting research on
the effects of globally transmitted mercury.
Research findings suggest unanticipated changes
are occurring to mercury, which cycles globally
through the air after being released from coal-
fired facilities, at the poles and at high altitudes.8
For example, in the spring, when sunlight first
returns to the Arctic, elemental mercury
transforms into more water-soluble and
bioavailable reactive gaseous mercury (RGM),
which can enter the ecosystem through
snowmelt. Further evidence indicates that there
might be some transport of mercury from the
Arctic to the lower 48 states due to the polar
sunrise in the spring. Findings of research
conducted at high altitudes indicates that
elemental mercury, previously believed to
remain unreactive and innocuous during global
transport, is transforming into RGM, which is
being deposited over land and sea with such
biological consequences as increased mercury
levels in tuna, swordfish, and other fish.
Program Evaluation
Appendix A contains descriptions of program
evaluations completed in FY 2002 that support
this goal.
STATE CONTRIBUTIONS
Although many metropolitan areas have had
some form of commuter programs through the
years, the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative
represents the first comprehensive national
standard of excellence for commuter benefits.
EPA partners with employers who agree to reduce
their employees' vehicle miles traveled during
commuting by offering incentives for them to
use alternative modes of transportation. FY 2002
represented the first full year of recruiting for
the Commuter Choice Partners program. By the
end of FY 2002, 1,300 employers had signed up
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-67
-------
COMMUTER CHOICE EMPLOYERS IN COLORADO"
• Almost 20,000 fewer automobile commuting trips taken every single working day.
• 3 million gallons of gasoline saved every year.
• $4.7 million a year in gasoline costs saved by employees.
• 550 tons per year of noxious air pollutants taken out of Colorado air.
• 24,000 tons of global warming pollution prevented.
a Those values are estimates based on the COMMUTER Model, A EPA-, DOT- and industry-reviewed model that estimates
changes in travel behavior. With the number of commuters from program data, the model gives an estimate of mode shift
(changes in travel behavior), then the national average auto emissions savings values are applied.
representing nearly 570,000 commuters.
Commuter Choice Employers are located at over
290 work sites in more than 25 states9
Chttp ://www. commuterchoice. gov).
The Agency continues to partner with states
and Canada to achieve significant environmental
progress in addressing toxic chemicals. In
FY 2002 government, industry, and non-
governmental partners in the United States/
Canadian Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
reported large reductions in the worst toxic
chemicals polluting the Great Lakes. For the first
time, EPA can quantify that it has made
substantial progress toward achieving the
challenge goals set for 2006.
In FY 2002 EPA worked with states, through
the Quicksilver Caucus, to resolve two difficult
mercury issues: how to meet mercury reduction
goals for specific water bodies where mercury
water pollution is caused primarily by air
deposition, and how to ensure safe stewardship
of mercury supplies and wastes. The Caucus is
also providing comments and counsel on EPA's
draft Mercury National Action Plan.
In FY 2002 the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) established the
Bio-diversity Conservation Working Group. This
is the first standing working group of the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation to
include non-governmental stakeholders in a
Progress Under United States/Canada Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Mercury
Polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCBs)
OtherToxic Chemicals
United States
Canada
United States
Canada
United States
Canada
over40%-50% use and release reduction
over 78% release reduction
30% (PCB transformers) and 1 0% (PCB capacitors) have
been disposed of
80% of high-level PCB wastes have been destroyed
75% reduction of hexachlorobenzene and 25% reduction of
benzo(a)pyrene
65% reduction of hexachlorobenzene and 45% reduction of
benzo(a)pyrene
Source: DS EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office and Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Branch. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Five-Year
Perspective. Mav 2002. http://www.epa.eov/alnpo/bns/reports/5YearPerspective/5Year.html
H-68 FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
formal way, and it represents a new direction in ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
stakeholder involvement on the CEC. The PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
working group includes state/provincial and PERFORMANCE PLAN
federal government agencies, indigenous and
local communities, the academic community, There are no changes to FY 2003 APGs
environmental non-governmental organizations, based on the results of FY 2002 performance.
and the private sector. These stakeholders and
other interested groups will be included in the
processes of developing a Strategic Plan to
guide the Conservation of Bio-diversity Program,
promoting the implementation of Action Plans
and other activities, and reviewing the Strategic
Plan to ensure its continuing effectiveness.
www.epa.gov/ocfo H-69
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global
and Cross-Border Risks
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
ummary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
1
Goals 1 /j 1 Goals
Met IrJ Not Met
3
A description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
' ERA'S
EPATotal:
Goal 6:
Goal 6 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$212,569
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 6 Costs: $242,958
Goal 6 Share of Total: 3.0%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-10 of the Financial Statements for a consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY 1999-FY2002 Results
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Reduce Transboundary Threats to Human Health and Shared Ecosystems in North
America, Including Marine and Arctic Environments, Consistent with Our Bilateral and Multilateral Treaty
Obligations in These Areas, As Well As Our Trust Responsibility to Tribes.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $62,807 (25.9% of FY 2002 Goal 6 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track to meet this objective. EPA made significant progress in FY 2002 toward
achieving this objective by reducing threats to human health and shared ecosystems along the Mexican and Canadian borders and
marine waters. Improved water and wastewater services were provided along the Mexican border through the Border Environmental
Infrastructure Fund. Successful international exercises were conducted between U.S.-Mexican border sister cities to test the binational
emergency response plans, and local binational security seminars on weapons of mass destruction and bio and nuclear exposures
were conducted to support homeland security. Along the Canadian border EPA and its partners removed or contained more than
400,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes, substantially exceeding the 100,000-cubic yard target and
bringing the 4-year cumulative total to 2.1 million cubic yards. The removal or containment of contaminated sediments will over the longer
term result in improved water quality and in fish which are less contaminated and safer to eat. Negotiations that seek to manage the
introduction of invasive species by ships globally took a major step forward, resulting in an agreement to establish an international
standard to prevent introduction of invasive species through ship's ballast water.
APG 42 U.S.-Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
FY2002 Increase the number of residents in the Mexico border area who are protected from
health risks, beach pollution and damaged ecosystems from nonexistent and failing
water and wastewater treatment infrastructure by providing improved water and
wastewater service. Goal Not Met.
Planned
Actual
Performance Measure
- Number of additional people in Mexico border area protected from health risks 790,000 720,000
because of adequate water and wastewater sanitation systems funded through
Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund.
FY2001 Same Goal, different target. Goal Met. 600,000 576,405
FY2000 Five additional water/wastewater projects along the Mexican border will be certified 5
for design-construction for a cumulative total of 30 projects. Goal Met.
FY 1999 One additional water/wastewater project along the Mexican border will be certified 1
for design construction. Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: EPA's Mexico Border Program is working to increase public health and environmental benefits by directing funding to
high-quality projects ready to proceed relatively quickly to construction. Progress has slowed somewhat from earlier projections due to
the intensity and duration of pre-project planning necessary for the development of such higher quality projects. Residents numbering
720,000 in the Mexican border area were protected from health risks, beach pollution, and damaged ecosystems from nonexistent and
failing water and wastewater treatment infrastructure by providing improved water and wastewater service.
APG 43 Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
FY2002 Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress on fish
contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and trophic status. Goal Not Met.
Planned
Actual
H-70 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Performance Measures
- Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator fish.
- Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
- Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, ug/l) in the Lake Erie Central Basin.
declining declining
declining declining
improving
FY2001
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress on fish
contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and trophic status. Goal Met
Performance Measures
- Concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator fish.
- Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air.
- Trophic status and phosphorous concentrations in the Great Lakes.
FY2000 Measurable improvements in Great Lakes ecosystem components. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- Indicator indices.
- Model predictions for toxics reductions.
declining uncertain
declining declining
improving improving
9
5
FY 2002 Result: EPA met targets for declining long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator fish and
toxic chemicals in the air. By removing or containing contaminated sediments, 100,000 to 200,000 pounds of persistent toxics that could
affect human health will no longer be biologically available through the food chain. This decrease contributes to decreasing fish
contaminants and advances the goal of removing fish advisories.
There is currently scientific uncertainty over the cause of the regrowth of the Lake Erie dead zone. Nonpoint source control had
reduced nutrient levels in the past (from agriculture and husbandry activities), but the zone is redeveloping without known cause. To
provide a better focus on the dynamic changes to the Lake Erie ecosystem, the Agency, for FY 2003 and beyond, replaced the general
Great Lakes trophic status and phosphorus concentration measure with a measure for phosphorus concentration in the Lake Erie
central basin, specifying a quantitative target.
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: Great Lakes ecosystem components improved, including progress on fish contaminants, beach
closures, air toxics, and trophic status.
Strategic Objective: By 2010, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Be Substantially Reduced Through Programs
and Policies That Also Lead to Reduced Costs to Consumers of Energy and Reduced Emissions Leading to
Cleaner Air and Water. In Addition, EPA Will Carry Out Assessments and Analyses and Promote Education to
Provide an Understanding of the Consequences of Global Change Needed for Decision Making.
FY 2002 Cost (in thousands): $146,171 (60.1%ofFY 2002 Goal 6 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA continues to make substantial progress toward this objective. EPA's Climate Protection
Programs (CPP) have substantially reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as methane
and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Since the mid-1990s these programs have reduced U.S. GHG emissions by more than 300 million metric
tons carbon equivalent (MMTCE), while also saving families and businesses an estimated $28 billion on energy bills (net of investments
in energy-efficient technologies) and deterring approximately 600,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOX) from entering the air. In
FY 2002 EPA implemented new partnership programs aimed at reducing energy demand in the transportation sector.
Many of EPA's CCPs have locked in substantial energy and environmental benefits over the next decade. Since many of the
investments promoted through CPPs involve energy-efficient equipment with lifetimes of decades or more, the investments achieved
through 2002 will continue to deliver environmental and economic benefits through 2012 and beyond. Based on investments made in
equipment due to EPA's programs through 2002, the Agency estimates that organizations and consumers across the country will net
savings of more than $70 billion and GHG emissions will be reduced by more than 500 MMTCE through 2012 (cumulative reductions
based on estimated 2002 achievements). These programs continue to be highly cost-effective approaches for delivering environmental
benefits across the country. For every dollar EPA spends on its technology deployment programs, these programs reduce GHG
emissions by more than 1.0 metric ton of carbon equivalent (3.7 tons of CO2) and deliver more than $75 per year in energy bill savings.
This is based on a cumulative reduction since 1995.
APG 44 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Planned
FY2002 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately
65.8 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMCTE) per year through EPA partnerships
with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations thereby
offsetting growth in GHG emissions above 1990 levels by about 20 percent. Data Lag,
Performance Measures
Actual
Annual GHG Reductions-All EPA Programs.
GHG Reductions from EPA's Buildings Sector Programs (ENERGY STAR).
GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste Management Programs.
GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach Programs.
GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial HFC/PFC Programs.
65.8
17.2
6.3
16.3
21.9
data
available
in 2003
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-7i
-------
- GHG Reductions from EPA'sTransportation Programs. 2.1
- GHG Reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs. 2.0
FY2001 GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 66 MMTCE per year 66
through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other
organizations thereby offsetting growth in greenhouse gas emissions above 1990 levels by
about 20%. Goal Met.
FY2000 GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by more than 58 MMTCE per year through 58
EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations
thereby offsetting growth in GHG emissions above 1990 levels by about 20%. Goal Met,
FY1999 Reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 35 MMTCE per year through partnerships with businesses, 35 48
schools, state and local governments, and other organizations. Goal Met
FY 2002 Result: Data for this performance goal will be available in mid-2003. EPA is on track to meet this goal.
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: EPA's CPPs reduced GHG emissions by 65 MMTCE in 2001. EPA estimates that due to investments
made through the Agency's technology deployment programs, GHG emissions will be reduced by more than 500 MMTCE through 2012.
*Note: The annual target for this goal was set at 65.8 MMTCE. Of that total, 6.2 MMTCE was for transportation programs. Within that
6.2 MMTCE, approximately 4.2 MMTCE was for the Transportation Partners Program that was zeroed out by Congress. When these
estimated reductions are removed, the revised target for FY 2001 is 61.6 MMTCE. Using the revised target, EPA met its goal.
APG 45 Reduce Energy Consumption Planned Actual
FY2002 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 85 billion kilowatt 85 data
hours, contributing to over $10 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses. available
Data Lag. in 2003
FY2001 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 75 billion kilowatt hours, 75 84
contributing to over $9 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses. Goal Met
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met, 60 74
FY 2002 Result: Data for this performance goal will be available in mid-2003. EPA is currently on track to meet this goal.
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: EPA's CPPs reduced energy use by 84 billion kilowatt hours in 2001. EPA estimates that from
investments made due to EPA's technology deployment programs, businesses and consumers across the country will realize energy bill
savings of more than $70 billion through 2012 (net of investment in energy-efficient technologies).
Strategic Objective: By 2005, Ozone Concentrations in the Stratosphere Will Have Stopped Declining and Slowly
Begun the Process of Recovery. In Addition, Public Education to Promote Behavior Change Will Result in
Reduced Risk to Human Health From Ultraviolet (UV) Overexposure, Particularly Among Susceptible
Subpopulations Such As Children.
FY 2002 Cost (in thousands): $ 14,802 (6.1%ofFY 2002 Goal 6 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: Although EPA and the United States have met all the requirements of the Montreal Protocol to
date, current understanding of the protective stratospheric ozone layer indicates that the Agency's stated goal will not be met by 2005.
However, the latest quadrennial assessment of the state of the protective stratospheric ozone layer finds that restraints on production of
ozone-destroying chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons are having the intended effect. The concentration of the prime offender,
chlorine, is at or near a peak in the stratosphere. And an improved scientific understanding of stratospheric ozone is reassuring
scientists that the world has probably seen the worst ozone loss.10
The global average total column ozone amount for the period 1997 to 2001 was approximately 3% below the pre-1980 average values.
However, observations show that the total combined effective abundance of ozone-depleting compounds continues to decline slowly
from the peak that occurred in 1992 to 1994 in the troposphere (lower atmosphere). A return to pre-1980 total column ozone amounts in
the Antarctic is expected by the middle of this century. The expected decrease in the amount of stratospheric chlorine and bromine over
the next 50 years is predicted to lead to an increase in the global amount of total column ozone."
EPA is also making steady progress to reduce ultraviolet overexposure, particularly among children through its voluntary SunWise
School Program. In 2002 alone, EPA directly reached 233,000 students in 4,800 schools, an increase of 70% since 2001.
APG 46 Montreal Protocol Fund Planned Actual
FY2002 Provide assistance to at least 60 developing countries to facilitate emissions reductions 60 3)
and toward achieving the requirements of the Montreal Protocol. Not
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met, 75
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met, 50
n-72 EPA's FY 201)2 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY 2002 Result: EPA provided funding to 50 developing countries to facilitate emissions reductions and toward achieving the requirements of
the Montreal Protocol. The Multilateral Funds were awarded with priority given to those projects targeted toward the most harmful ozone
depletion substances. This resulted in not as many countries receiving funding from the Multilateral Fund, while still working toward the goal of
reducing the highest risk ozone depleting substances.
APG47 Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs Planned Actual
FY2002 Restrict domestic consumption of class II hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) below <15,240 data
15,240 ozone depletion potential-weighted metric tons (OOP MTs) and restrict domestic <60,000 available
exempted production and import of newly produced class I chlorof luorocarbons (CFCs) in 2003
and halons below 60,000 OOP MTs. Data Lag.
FY2001 Restrict domestic consumption of class II hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) below 15,240
ozone depletion potential-weighted metric tons (OOP MTs) and restrict domestic exempted
production and import of newly produced class I chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons
below 60,000 OOP MTs. Goal Met.
<15,240
<60,000
FY2000
Same Goal. Goal Met.
<15,240
<60,000
FY 1999 Same Goal, different target. Goal Met,
<208,400 <208,400
<60,000 < 130,000
FY 2002 Result: Data for this performance goal will be available in mid-2003. EPA is currently on track to meet this goal.
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: EPA successfully reduced consumption, production, and import of ozone-depleting substances
in accordance with the U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and requirements of
the Clean Air Act by restricted domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 15,240 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP MTs) and
restricted domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 60,000 OOP MTS.
Strategic Objective: By 2006, Reduce the Risks to Ecosystems and Human Health, Particularly in Tribal and Other
Subsistence-Based Communities, From Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxicants (PBTs) and Other Selected Toxins
Which Circulate in the Environment on Global and Regional Scales.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $6,037 (2.5% of FY 2002 Goal 6 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track to achieve this objective. Major progress was made toward this strategic
objective when the United States signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in May 2001. Countries
signing the convention committed to reduce and/or eliminate the production, use, and/or release of the 12 POPs of greatest concern to
the global community and established a mechanism to add further chemicals in the future. Toxics covered by the convention include
DDT, PCBs, and dioxins. EPA's capacity building efforts in FY 2002 led to dioxin inventories being conducted in Jordan, Lebanon, Bruni,
Vietnam, and the Philippines, and PCB inventories in the Caribbean. Domestic, regional, and international activities were conducted in
FY 2002 to address mercury contamination. Mercury is known to circulate globally and accumulate in fish and is the cause of many U.S.
fish advisories. EPA is leading the development of a United Nations global mercury assessment, which may result in a treaty or other
global mechanism to reduce mercury risk.
Strategic Objective: Through 2005, Integrate Environmental Protection With International Trade and Investment
and Increase the Application of Cleaner and More Cost-Effective Environmental Practices and Technologies in the
United States and Abroad to EnsureThat a Clean Environment and a Strong Economy go Hand-in-Hand.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $13,141 (5.4% of FY 2002 Goal 6 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track to achieve this objective. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
EPA and its partners announced a goal by 2015 to reduce by half the estimated 4.4 billion people worldwide who do not have access to
basic sanitation, and announced partnerships on cleaner fuels and vehicles. All seven Central American countries—El Salvador,
Ecuador, Belize, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, and Costa Rica—now have environmental ministries. These successes and the
variety of projects described below will allow EPA to meet this objective.
APG48 Enhanced Institutional Capabilities
FY2002 Enhance environmental management and institutional capabilities in priority countries.
Performance Measures
Planned
Actual
Assist in the development or implementation of improved environmental laws or
regulations in priority countries.
Increase the transfer of environmental best practices among the United States and
its partner countries and build the capacity of developing countries to collect,
analyze, or disseminate environmental data.
Increase the capacity of programs in Africa or Latin America to address safe drinking
water quality issues.
2
countries
3
countries
3
countries
2
countries
3
countries
countries
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-73
-------
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- Number of countries or localities (3) that have adopted new or strengthened environmental 3 3
laws and policies.
- Number of organizations (3) that have increased environmental planning, analysis, and 3 3
enforcement capabilities.
- Number of organizations (3) that have increased capabilities to generate and analyze 3 3
environmental data and other information.
- Number of organizations (3) that have increased public outreach and participation. 3 4
- Number of targeted sectors (3) that have adopted cleaner production practices. 3 2
- Number of cities (3) that have reduced mobile-source based ambient air pollution 3 3
concentrations.
FY2000 Deliver 30 international training modules; implement 6 technical assistance/technology 30
dissemination projects; implement 5 cooperative policy development projects; and 6
disseminate information products on U.S. environmental technologies and techniques to 5
2,500 foreign customers. Goal Met. 2,500
FY 2002 Result: FY 2002 efforts led to two countries committing to the phaseout of leaded gasoline and targeted countries in the
Carribean and in Asia completing the first phases of commitments to the POP conventions with PCB inventories.
FY 2001 Annual Performance Goals (No Longer Reported for FY 2002)
/Assess the consequences of global change (particularly climate change and climate variability) on human health and ecosystems.
Assist 10 to 12 developing countries with economies in transition in developing strategies and actions for reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases and enhancing carbon sequestration.
Demonstrate technology for a 80 mpg mid-size family sedan that has low emissions and is safe, practical, and affordable.
In close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, identify and develop specific opportunities to sequester carbon in
agricultural soils, forests, other vegetation and commercial products, with collateral benefits for productivity and the environment, with
carbon removal potential of up to 25 MMTCE by 2010.
Provide analysis, assessment, and reporting support to Administration officials, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Increase the number of children participating in the SunWise School Program by 20%.
n-74 lil'A's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1 U.S. EPA, U.S.-Mexico Border Program Office,
Border 2012Program (2002). Available at
http://www.epa. gov/r6border.html.
2 U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office,
2001 Sediment Remediation Report (Collier, June
2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
glindicators/sediments/remediatea.html.
3 J.M. Luross, M. Alaee, D.B. Sergeant, D.M. Whittle,
and K.R. Solomon, Spatial and Temporal
Distribution of Polybrominated Biphenyls in Lake
Trout from the Great Lakes, Organobalogen
Compounds 47 (2000):73-76. J.P. Hickey, S.M.
Chernyak, LJ. Begnoche, and R.T. Quintal,
Concentration Trends of Polybrominated Diphenyl
Ethers (PBDEs) in Great Lakes Biota, U.S.
Geological Survey abstract, presented in June
2002.
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Climate
Protection Partnerships Division, Partnerships
Changing the World: ENERGY STAR and Other
Voluntary Programs, EPA 430-R-02-010
(Washington, DC, August 2002). 2001 Annual
Report.
5 Ibid
6 U.S. EPA, Ozone Depletion Rules & Regulations:
Harmonizing the Clean Air Act & Montreal
Protocol Methyl Bromide Phaseouts. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/ozone/mbr/harmoniz. html.
7 Federal Register Notices: Notice 16, 67 FR 13272
(March 22, 2002); Direct Final Rule 67 FR 4185
(January 29, 2002); Subsequent Final Rule No. 10,
67 FR 44703 (July 22, 2002). All actions listed new
alternatives and/or updated SNAP regulations.
8 S. Brooks, M. Goodsite, M.S. Landis, C.J. Lin,
S.E.Lindberg, A. Richter, K.L. Scott, and R.K.
Stevens, Dynamic Oxidation of Gaseous Mercury
in the Arctic Troposphere at Polar Sunrise,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (2002): 1245-1246.
9 Information about the Commuter Choice Program
is available at http: //www. commuterchoice. gov.
10 Ozone Depletion: A Brighter Outlook for Good
Ozone, Science 297(5587, September 6,
2002):l623-l625.
11 The Executive Summary of the "Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002" published
July 2002 by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-75
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
H-76 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 7 - QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC GOAL
AND OBJECTIVES
EPA strives to provide the right information,
at the right time, in the right format, to the right
people. This means making quality environmental
and management information available to
decision makers for developing environmental
policies and priorities. It means making
environmental data publicly accessible to support
family and community involvement in environ-
mental developments. It means building the
necessary infrastructure to provide secure
information, reliable data, efficient and timely
access, and analytical information tools.
EPA makes environmental information more
widely available through education, partnerships,
and other methods. In partnership with states
and others, the Agency is building a National
Environmental Information Exchange Network
(NEIEN) to effectively share information. To make
environmental information more accessible and
readily understood, EPA develops analytical tools,
such as its redesigned Internet Web site for
integrated access to environmental information
and the forthcoming report on the environment
reporting on the status of the Nation's environ-
mental conditions. The report, part of a multiyear
Environmental Indicators Initiative to provide
indicators of human health and environmental
conditions, will be a valuable tool for helping
to assess the effectiveness of environmental
programs.
EPA continues to improve the reliability,
capability, and security of its information infra-
structure. New Agency policies and procedures
for coordinated information system investment
and development ensure the best use of
Agency resources in managing information and
expanding access to it. EPA's substantial
progress in keeping pace with the evolving
challenges of information security has been
recognized by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the General Accounting
Office, as well as the Agency's Inspector
General. EPA made substantial progress in
meeting new information security challenges
and corrected a material weakness in inform-
ation security by implementing effective new
security controls. (Refer to Section III, "Manage-
ment Accomplishments and Challenges, "for
further discussion.)
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
EPA's information goals and objectives are
in alignment with the President's Management
Agenda1 initiative to improve management of
and access to government information. The
Agency is actively involved in 14 of the federal
electronic government projects to better serve
citizens' needs and has been commended for
improvements in providing electronic access to
information, strengthening information security,
and making results-based investments in
technology. EPA's environmental e-government
initiatives include the NEIEN, electronic
reporting, and electronic dockets. In FY 2002
OMB designated EPA as the managing partner
and lead agency for the President's electronic
On-Line Rulemaking Initiative.
Availability of Quality Environmental Information
In FY 2002 EPA continued to make progress
in improving access to quality information. The
Agency worked successfully with state and
tribal partners to further develop the building
blocks of the NEIEN. Using Internet
technology, the NEIEN promotes more timely,
www. epa.gov/ocfo
H-77
-------
secure, cooperative data exchange among
federal, state, tribal, and local governments;
improves the delivery of government services to
citizens; and reduces the business paperwork
burden. EPA awarded $25 million in NEIEN
Grants to 44 states, 17 tribes, and 1 U.S. territory
(Puerto Rico) to build NEIEN.
EPA developed the Central Data Exchange
(CDX), a NEIEN central reporting facility that
provides users with faster access to reliable data.
The CDX became fully operational in FY 2002
and quickly became so popular that the
number of state users (45) is now three times
the Agency's goal for the first operational year.
Including reporting industries, there are now
more than 8,000 external CDX registered users,
more than double the FY 2001 number. CDX
currently processes information flows for the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), Toxic
Substances Control Act, Permit Compliance
System Interim Data Exchange Format,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, and
National Emissions Inventory. EPA established
a long-term, performance-based contract to
efficiently support the CDX and other Agency
data processing with state-of-the-art technical
support. Through NEIEN and CDX, EPA
integrated environmental information from
state, federal, and EPA program systems;
improved data accuracy; and supported better
use and understanding of environmental
information.
In FY 2002 EPA enhanced the TRI program
to reduce reporting burden, improve data
quality, and increase access to data. One
improvement was the first full release of EPA's
new intelligent desktop software, TRI Made
Easy (TRI-ME). TRI-ME assists facilities in
understanding and completing their TRI
reporting obligations. Facilities using TRI-ME to
submit Reporting Year 2001 TRI reports
numbered 10,799, representing 43 percent of
all reporting facilities2 and exceeding an
Agency target of 25 percent. Data that EPA
collected on the prior, pilot version of TRI-ME
indicate that facilities that use TRI-ME for the
t; first time reduce reporting burden by
1 25 percent and reduce errors by about
50 percent.3 Ninety-two percent of TRI facilities
prepared and/or submitted Reporting Year 2001
TRI forms electronically in FY 2002, 7 percent
above the Agency's goal.4
EPA collected and processed 110,000
chemical form submissions in FY 2002, as well
as 2,400 miscellaneous documents from about
24,800 facilities.5 In FY 2002 the Agency
released the TRI data for 2000, which was the
first year of public information on persistent
bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals,
including dioxins, mercury, and polychlorinated
biphenyls.6 This PBT reporting provided the
public with more complete information on
toxic chemicals in their communities; in
particular, there were an additional 6,947 PBT
chemical reports from 3,543 facilities, 762 of
which had not reported in the previous year.7
To help facilities prepare their first year of
reporting for lead and lead compounds with
the new lower reporting thresholds, EPA
produced and published a guidance document
on the new lead rule through a public notice
and comment process.8 The first TRI reports for
lead under the new thresholds were due on
July 1, 2002, and will be publicly available in
June 2003. These new lead reports will give
the public more complete information on the
lead releases and waste management activities.
Better Understanding Through Increased Access
In FY 2002, to support better access to and
understanding of environmental information,
EPA designed several tools to integrate and
interpret the information used to support
environmental decisions. EPA launched the
Environmental Indicators Initiative and
identified indicators for the first key product, a
draft report on the Nation's environmental
conditions, which the Agency plans to release
in FY 2003 for public review. The Agency is
identifying indicators of the condition of the
country's air, land, water, human health, and
ecosystems. In FY 2002 EPA identified, reviewed,
and analyzed more than 130 potential
environmental indicators and selected 80 to
include in the environmental report. The
Agency also established a new partnership with
the U.S. Department of Health and Human
n-78
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
INTEGRATED ACCESS TO LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION THROUGH EPA'S WINDOW TO
MY ENVIRONMENT
In January 2002 EPA received an Excellence.gov award for Window to My Environment as an
innovative federal electronic government information service. EPA's Window to My Environment is
a powerful Web-based tool that provides a wide range of federal, state, or local information about
environmental conditions for any area in the United States specified by the user. EPA provides this
helpful information tool on its public Internet site at, in partnership with federal, state and local
government and other organizations.
To get started, users can access Window to My Environment at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/wme
and input a ZIP code or the name of a city/town and state. Features include:
• An interactive map-shows the location of regulated facilities, monitoring sites, water bodies,
population density, perspective topographic views and more, with hotlinks to state and federal
information about these items of interest.
• Your Window-selected geographic statistics about the area of interest, including estimated
population, county and urban area designations, local watersheds and water bodies, plus much
more.
• Your Environment-links to information from federal, state, and local partners on environmental
issues such as air and water quality, watershed health, Superfund sites, fish advisories, impaired
waters, and local services working to protect the environment in the area.
Services to share environmental information on
the links between human health and
environmental exposure. The report on the
environment will be an important information
tool for understanding and analyzing
environmental issues and for evaluating
progress.9
EPA also launched a redesigned Agency
Web site (http://www.epa.gov) that provides
enhanced features such as up-to-the-minute
coverage of EPA's responses to security threats,
gives users more direct access to topics, and
strengthens protection of sensitive information.
About 1.2 million people visit EPA's top-ranked
federal Web site each month for one-stop
access to environmental information, including
news, resources, applications, maps, tools, and
databases.10
In FY 2002 EPA implemented its innovative
On-Line Rule-making system, which provides a
single point for businesses and the public to
access all available information on proposed
rule-makings. The new electronic access
effectively expands opportunities to participate
in the process of environmental decision making.
The Agency also developed and implemented
EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/EDOCKET).
another e-government initiative that supports
the President's Management Agenda.
EDOCKET combines eight electronic dockets
into one central system, providing a unified,
convenient way for the public to comment on
any regulatory or nonregulatory action
proposed by the Agency. EPA improved on-site
access to regulatory information by combining
docket centers from several locations into one
central site.
Infrastructure to Support Security and Quality
In FY 2002 EPA improved and expanded its
information infrastructure to deliver reliable,
secure information. EPA systematically assesses
and manages risk by implementing effective
management and security controls, including
risk assessments, analytical reviews, automated
monitoring tools, and independent testing. EPA
assessed the security of 168 general support
systems and major applications. The
assessment confirmed the effectiveness of
security controls and provided the basis for
planning further improvements.11
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-79
-------
EPA also implemented a virtual private
network technology, one of the most effective
security technologies available, for electronic
information exchange with external business
partners. In FY 2002 the Agency continued to
support World Trade Center site monitoring
activities through its Multi-Agency Environmental
Monitoring Database, which also provides the
public with a "clickable" interactive map of all
relevant monitoring locations.12 By the end of
FY 2002 the database contained hundreds of
thousands of records of environmental
monitoring data collected by 13 federal, state,
city, and private organizations at dozens of sites
in the lower Manhattan area and its environs.13
In FY 2002 EPA issued the Information
Quality Guidelines to improve data quality and
accountability for information provided to the
public.14 The guidelines, developed using an
electronically enhanced public participation
process, include Agency procedures for
ensuring information quality. They also outline
how the public, particularly the business and
scientific communities, can seek correction of
information. The Agency also provided a user-
friendly method for reporting and resolving
data quality errors in all its publicly accessible
data through the Integrated Error Correction
Process.
EPA is taking a comprehensive, systematic
approach to improving information technology
planning and investment. In FY 2002 the Agency
assessed management of its information
technology investment to ensure compliance
with federal guidance and requirements. It also
took action to better coordinate investments,
streamline authority for acquisitions, and formally
establish a capital planning and investment
control process. EPA started developing a
complete investment portfolio aligned with the
Agency's technology architecture, deploying
the Information Technology Investment
Portfolio System, and planning better alignment
and efficiencies between information
technology investment and other Agency
management processes. In FY 2002 EPA
established a baseline Agency-wide enterprise
architecture to guide system development and
conform with federal guidance.
Research Contributions
In FY 2002 EPA submitted seven human
health assessments for Agency consensus
review. These assessments describe the
potential human health impacts of various
chemicals found in the environment. This
information is used for hazard identification
and dose-response evaluations in EPA and state
risk assessments, and it is available to the
public. Chemical toxicity data will also provide
EPA with valuable information that might
influence the development of the Agency's
regulatory standards and site cleanup decisions.
These assessments will be posted on the
publicly available Integrated Risk Information
System.15
Program Evaluation
Appendix A contains descriptions of
program evaluations completed in FY 2002 that
support the overall goal. No program
evaluations focused specifically on FY 2002
performance.
STATE/TRIBAL PARTNER CONTRIBUTIONS
State and tribal governments are essential
partners in EPA's efforts to achieve its vision of
integrated access to comprehensive
environmental information. Accordingly, the
Agency works closely with state and tribal
partners on all aspects of the NEIEN.
State Contributions
EPA worked with states and tribes to
increase access to information needed to make
informed decisions by developing the NEIEN
to provide better environmental information for
decision making, improving data quality and
accuracy, ensuring the security of sensitive
data, avoiding data redundancy, and reducing
the burden on those who provide and those
who access information.
n-so
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Tribal Contributions
EPA and the EPA Tribal Caucus worked
together to plan for achieving the tribes'
environmental information vision and priorities.
They outlined ongoing and planned tribal
information projects and actions for FY 2002
and FY 2003, and they agreed to review
progress and identify new initiatives annually.
In addition, the Agency awarded NEIEN Grants
to 17 tribes.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
EPA increased its FY 2003 target for number
of states using the CDX because FY 2002
performance exceeded expectations.
www.epa.gov/ocfo n-81
-------
Goal 7: Quality Environmental
Information
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
EPA Total:
Goal?:
Goal 7 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$202,090
Summary of FY 2002 Annual Performance Goals
I Goals
Not Met
Data
Lags
i description of the quality of the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in Appendix B.
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 7 Costs: $253,865
Goal 7 Share of Total: 3.2%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-11 of the Financial Statements fora consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY1999-FY 2002 Results
Strategic Objective: Through 2006, EPA Will Continue to Increase the Availability of Quality Health and Environmental
InformationThrough Educational Services, Partnerships, and Other Methods Designed to Meet EPA's Major Data
Needs, Make Data Sets More Compatible, Make Reporting and Exchange Methods More Efficient, and Foster Informed
Decision Making.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $87,636 (34.5% of FY2002 Goal 7 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA continues to make progress toward this objective, and in FY 2002 improved access to
environmental information by implementing new electronic reporting tools. These tools increase the Agency's capability to quickly provide
current information and also integrate available environmental data used to support environmental decisions. Highlights include tripling
external users of EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), increasing by 33% the number of unique facility records in the Federal Registry
System, and expanding Window to My Environment to provide the public with a "one stop shop" for federal, state, and local government
information on environmental conditions in theircommunities.
APG 49 Enhanced Public Access
FY2002 Improve public access to compliance and enforcement documents and data through
multimedia data integration projects and other studies, analyses and communication/
outreach activities. Goal Met.
Planned
Actual
Performance Measure
- Make 90% of enforcement and compliance policies and guidances issued this
fiscal year available on the Internet within 30 days of issuance.
90%
100%
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
- By the end of FY 2001, all ten EPA Regions will have an enforcement and compliance web site. 10
- Make 90% of enforcement and compliance policies and guidances issued this fiscal year 90%
available on the Internet within 30 days of issuance.
- By April 2001, make summaries of all significant cases available on the Internet. 100%
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- Percent of OECA policy and guidance documents available on the Internet. 90%
- Increase by 50% the number of states with direct access to Integrated Data for Enforcement 21 states
Analysis (IDEA).
Not
Available
94%
34 states
FY 2002 Result: EPA was able to make all of the enforcement and compliance policies and guidances available to the public by posting them
on the Agency's compliance and enforcement web site at http://www.epa.gov/oeca/index.html.
APG 50 Process and Disseminate TRI Information Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA will reduce reporting burden, improve data quality, lower program costs, and speed
data publication by increasing the amount of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) electronic 85% 92%
reporting from 70 to 85%. Goal Met.
H-82 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY2001 Process all submitted facility chemical release reports; publish annual summary of TRI data;
provide improved information to the public about TRI chemicals; and maximize public access to
TRI information. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- TRI Public Data Release. 1 report 1 report
- Chemical submissions and revisions processed. 110,000 120,000
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- TRI public data release. 1 1
- Form R's processed. 110,000 119,000
- TRIS database complete and report issued. 2/2001 on target
FY1999 Process 110,000 facility chemical release reports, publish the TRI Data Release Report, and 110,000 117,171
provide improved information to the public about TRI chemicals, enhancing community
right-to-know and efficiency processing information from industry. Goal Me/,
FY 2002 Result: In FY2002, 92% of the chemical submissions forTRI Reporting Year 2001 were submitted and/or prepared electronically. Many
facilities used EPA's new, expert software, TRI Made Easy (TRI-ME), thereby making the reporting process significantly easier, faster, and
mo re accurate.
APG51 Information Exchange Network Planned Actual
FY2002 The Central Data Exchange, a key component of the environmental information 15 45
exchange network, will become fully operational and 15 states will be using it to send
data to EPA thereby improving data consistency with participating states. Met,
FY 2002 Result: By the end of FY 2002, 45 states were using CDX to send data to EPA, tripling the number of states originally anticipated.
The new users significantly increased the flow of data through CDX, speeding progress toward a fully functioning environmental information
exchange network.
Strategic Objective: By 2006, EPA Will Provide Access to New Analytical or Interpretive Tools Beyond 2000 Levels
So That the Public Can More Easily and Accurately Use and Interpret Environmental Information.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $31,932 (12.6% of FY 2002 Goal 7 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track to achieve this objective, and in FY 2002 increased users' understanding of available
environmental data by integrating and interpreting the many data sets and information sources that are used to support environmental
decisions. To support better understanding of environmental information and public health protection, EPA's Window to My Environment
became operational and now serves citizens across the country with federal, state, and local environmental information that can be geared to
a specific geographic location. In addition, 100% of the publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems accessible on the EPA
web site is part of EPA's Integrated Error Correction Process. The Agency used an electronically enhanced public participation process to
develop federally required EPA Information Quality Guidelines.
APG52 Environmental Justice (EJ) Planned Actual
FY2002 Ensure that EPA's policies, programs and activities address disproportionately exposed
and under-represented population issues so that no segment suffers disproportionately
from adverse health and environmental effects. Met,
Performance Measures
- Award 90 grants to organizations which address environmental problems in 90 73
communities disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards.
- Hold meetings with the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), all
stakeholders involved in the environmental justice dialogue, and communities 30 38
disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards.
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Award 90 grants to organizations which address environmental problems in communities 90
comprised primarily of low income and minority populations.
- Hold25 EPA-sponsoredpublic meetings where disproportionately impacted and 25
disadvantaged communities participate.
- Respond within 60 days to 75% of requests made to each Region and National Program 75% >75%
Manager to address complaints heard during public comment period at NEJAC public meetings.
- Conduct 18 NEJAC meetings and focused roundtables in local communities where 18 13
problems have been identified.
www.epa.gov/ocfo Performance Besulls n-83
-------
- Increase the number of demonstration projects established under the Federal Interagency 18 15
Working Group on EnvironmentalJustice.
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Number of EPA-sponsoredpublic meetings held where disproportionately disadvantaged 25 31
communities participate.
- Number of grants awarded to low income, minority communities for addressing 70 62
environmental problems.
FY1999 Provide over 100 grants to assist communities with understanding and address EJ issues. 100 ICO
Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: EPA continued to work for equal environmental and health protection through access to information across the United States.
EPA published environmental justice reports and sponsored community revitalization demonstration projects and intern training in community
organizations. EPA also awarded grants, although it did not receive enough applications to meet the FY 2002 target (this also explains
FY 2001 and FY 2000 results for the same performance measure). Although EPA did not receive enough applications to meet the FY2002
target, it did award grants to all 73 eligible applicants.
APG53 Data Quality Planned Actual
FY2002 100% of the publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems accessible on 100% 100%
the EPA web site will be part of the Integrated Error Correction Process, reducing data
error. Goal Met,
FY 2002 Result: Access to the Agency's Integrated Error Correction Process (IECP), a user-friendly method for reporting and resolving errors
identified by the public, is now available by clicking on "Contact Us" on the EPA homepage. By offering easy access to IECP via the EPA web
site and by providing direct links from more than a dozen databases and web sites, EPA is helping to reduce errors in the information it makes
available to the public.
Strategic Objective:Through 2006, EPA Will Continue to Improve the Reliability, Capability, and Security of EPA's
Information Infrastructure.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $134,297 (52.9% of FY2002 Goal 7 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA is on track and making progress toward this objective. The Agency increased the security of
environmental information on its acute infrastructure, financial, and mission critical environmental systems. Based on the assessment results,
the Agency strengthened its information security program to ensure the integrity and availability of data and appropriate level of access to
data. EPA supported the development of an additional strategy for homeland security by establishing a rigorous plan to prevent and respond
to a terrorist attack.
APG 54 Information Security Planned Actual
FY2002 Complete risk assessments on the Agency's critical infrastructure systems, critical
financial systems, and mission critical environmental systems. Goal Met
Performance Measures
- Critical infrastructure systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented 12
and transmitted to systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment
document.
- Critical financial systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented 13 13
and transmitted to systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment
document.
- Mission critical environmental systems risk assessment findings will be formally 5 5
documented and transmitted to system owners and managers in a formal Risk
Assessment document.
FY2002 Result: EPA conducted formal risk assessments, including comprehensive testing, on 30 systems. The Agency also conducted base risk
assessments on 168 general support systems and major applications. The risk assessments provide fuller knowledge about the threats to,
and vulnerabilities of, the Agency's electronic systems, thereby allowing EPA to implement the best possible security measures and achieve
a high degree of confidence in its security program.
FY 2001 Annual Performance Goals (No Longer Reported for FY 2002)
Provide guidance for risk assessment to improve the scientific basis of environmental decision making.
n-84 lilWs IT 21)112 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
Office of the President, Federal Management, The
President's Management Agenda. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/
pma index.html.
2. U.S. EPA, EPCRA Reporting Center RY2001
Production Statistics, as of September 27, 2002.
Prepared by Titan, the EPA contractor that runs
the EPCRA Reporting Center. Available upon
request to EPA.
3. Source for TRI-ME burden hours: C. Rice,
Estimate of Burden Hours for Economic Analyses
of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,
July 2002 Information Collection Request
(Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
June 10, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa. gov/tri/lawsandregs/
burden hour memo.pdf. Source for error reduction:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Data Quality
Impact of Pilot Version of TRI-ME (October 2002).
Available upon request.
4 U.S. EPA EPCRA Reporting Center.
5. Ibid
6. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information,
Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release
Report, EPA 260-R-02-003 (Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, August 2002).
Available (with related materials) at
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/triOO/index.htm.
7. U.S. EPA, 2002 Toxics Release Inventory Data
Release, Questions and Answers, Final
(May 29, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/triOO/index.htm.
8. U.S. EPA, Guidance for Reporting Releases and
Other Waste Management Quantities of Toxic
Chemicals: Lead and Lead Compounds, EPA
260-B-01-027 (December 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide docs/
index.htm#chemical sp.
9. U.S. EPA, Environmental Indicators Initiative.
Information available at
http://www.epa. gov/indicators.
10. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information,
Information Access Division, U.S. EPA Web Site
Statistics (September 2002).
11. Office of Management and Budget, Guidance
for Preparing and Submitting Security Plans of
Action and Milestones, Memorandum 02-01
(October 17, 2001). Memorandum for the
heads of executive departments and agencies.
12. Available at http://www.epa.gov/wtc/.
13. U.S. EPA, EPA response to September 11.
Information available at http://www.epa. gov/wtc/.
See also Monitoring Summaries at
http://www.epa.gov/WTC/summary.html. For
New York City response, see also
EnviroMapper at http://www.epa. gov/wtc/em/.
14. Available at http://www.epa. gov/oei/
quality guidelines/index.htm.
15. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Available only through the Internet at
http://www.epa. gov/iris/index.html.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-85
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
H-86 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 8: SOUND SCIENCE, IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK, AND GREATER INNOVATION TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
EPA continued to address current and future
environmental challenges in FY 2002 by
developing the best available science and
adopting new and innovative approaches for
environmental protection. Specifically, the
Agency completed an analysis of acid deposition
trends in U.S. lakes and streams that provides
evidence of the success of current
environmental policies and contributes to the
scientific understanding needed to maintain and
restore these highly valued ecosystems.1 The
development of new methods to assess
pesticide-related health impacts in young
children similarly strengthens the Agency's
ability to effectively prevent and manage risks to
human health, particularly for those most
susceptible to the effects of environmental
contaminants.2 Improved methods for quantifying
mercury emissions from man-made sources and
other research to reduce and prevent
environmental and human exposure to endocrine
disrupter chemicals (EDCs), mercury, and
biological agents will enhance EPA's ability to
anticipate and respond to environmental
challenges.3
Environmental decision makers also have
access to improved pollution prevention tools
and technologies, including software to evaluate
the inhalation impacts of metal finishing facilities
on workers and nearby residents and protocols
to verify the performance of new pollution
prevention technologies with applicability to
multiple economic sectors.4 In FY 2002 EPA
continued to encourage the use of expert review
and collaborative partnerships to ensure the
highest level of quality in its work. Building on
its scientific, economic, and regulatory research
and analysis activities, EPA is making
environmental protection more flexible,
efficient, and effective, while minimizing the
burden on the regulated community.
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
Sound Science
The American public, EPA, Congress, and the
research community have expressed growing
concern about the effects of acidic deposition on
the lakes and streams of the United States. Title
IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments sets target
reductions for sulfur and nitrogen emissions from
industrial sources as a means of reducing the
acidity of deposition and thereby improving the
biological condition of surface waters. In
FY 2002 EPA produced a report5 on trends in
acid deposition and the acidity of lakes and
streams in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and
upper Midwest regions of the United States.
The report provides evidence that acid
deposition controls are working. Researchers
found that all regions except the Blue Ridge
area have experienced significant declines in
sulfate concentrations in surface waters,
consistent with a decline in sulfate
precipitation. Nitrate concentrations decreased
in two regions. The highest nitrate
concentrations were found in the Adirondacks
and northern Appalachian plateau; however,
acid-neutralizing capacity increased in the
Adirondacks, northern Appalachian plateau,
and upper Midwest, and modest increases in
neutralizing capacity have reduced the number
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Results
n-87
-------
of acidic lakes and streams in some of these
regions. For example, the number of acidic lakes
in the upper Midwest fell from 251 to 80
between 1985 and 2001. Acid-neutralizing
capacity is a key indicator of recovery because
it reflects the capacity of watersheds to buffer
inputs of acidity. The National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) will
include the results of this analysis in its report
to Congress and will be available at http://
www.oar.noaa.gov/orgamzatioiVnapap.html.
Another significant FY 2002 achievement
involved the completion of a framework that
provides the Agency with the necessary
components to determine the routes, magnitude,
and variability of human exposures to various
multimedia pollutants (e.g., pesticides, air toxics,
metals). Through the framework, EPA will
advance the science of human exposure and
dose assessment by helping to answer key
questions regarding pollutants that pose
significant risk to children and other susceptible
subpopulations. In response to recommendations
from the Science Advisory Board (SAB),6 EPA
also completed analyses of the National Human
Exposure Assessment Survey,7 a program
investigating critical information gaps about
population-scale distributions of human
exposures to contaminant mixtures. These
analyses provide aggregate exposure data to
evaluate many multimedia and media-specific
risk management issues and to improve
exposure methods and models.
EPA developed two new protocols for use in
the Agency's endocrine disrupters screening and
testing program, which were authorized by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996s and the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.9
The protocols will help EPA identify areas in
which technologies can be applied to reduce
and/or prevent human and environmental
exposure to endocrine disruptor chemicals. In
addition, EPA improved methods for quantifying
mercury emissions from manmade sources. In
FY 2002 the Agency produced a report10
Chttp ://www. epa. gov/appcdwww/aptb/EPA-600-
R-01-109corrected.pdf. appendix:
http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/aptb/EPA-600-
R-01-109A.pdf) on the parameters that affect
both the species of mercury in coal-fired utility
boiler flue gas and the performance of
promising mercury control technologies. This
report will be used to help plan future
research needed to outline, by December 2003,
the Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Requirements. This work supports EPA's
December 2000 decision to regulate mercury
emissions from coal-fired electric utility steam-
generating plants. Releasing about 43 tons of
mercury each year, coal-fired power plants are
the largest source of human-caused mercury
emissions in the United States. EPA has found
that there are cost-effective ways of controlling
mercury emissions from power plants.11
Technologies available today and technologies
expected to be available in the near future can
eliminate most of the mercury from utilities at a
cost far lower than 1 percent of utility industry
revenues.
In the area of pollution prevention research,
EPA developed improved pollution prevention
tools, including (1) computer software that can
estimate the potential environmental impact of
chemical process designs, (2) a pest resistance
management framework to delay or prevent the
emergence of resistance in target insects to the
toxins in transgenic crops, and (3) software to
evaluate the inhalation impacts of metal finishing
facilities on workers and nearby residents.
Industry and state and local decision makers
can use these tools to evaluate pollution
levels, impacts, and costs of product, process,
or system redesigns that will in turn inform
decisions that better protect human health and
the environment. In addition, EPA's
Environmental Technology Verification
program completed 20 stakeholder-approved
and peer-reviewed testing protocols for
commercially ready environmental
technologies in 6 categories (environmental
monitoring, air pollution control, drinking
water treatment, greenhouse gas reduction,
pollution prevention, and water quality
protection). EPA will use the protocols to
objectively evaluate a wide variety of
environmental technologies so that purchasers
and permitters will have an independent and
credible assessment of the technologies they are
buying or permitting. EPA is also developing
n-ss
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
outcome-oriented goals and performance
measures in these areas.
In FY 2002 the SAB issued 17 reports
advising EPA on a broad range of scientific and
technical issues.12 One major report,
A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Conditions1^ (http://www.epa.gov/
sab/fiscalO 2. htm). provided guidance that
contributed to the Agency's design of its report
on the environment, which the Agency plans to
release in draft during FY 2003. The SAB
guidance highlighted EPA's emphasis on
measuring the impacts of Agency programs
through scientifically credible indicators, and on
protecting ecological resources. Other SAB peer-
reviewed reports addressed environmental
agents and cross-media issues, such as the
review of particulate matter Chttp ://www. epa. gov/
sab/f iscalO 2. htm) and the trichloroethylene health
risk assessment14 (http://www.epa.gov/sab/
fiscal03.htm). This last report will help EPA
address an environmental contaminant
affecting air, water, and multiple Superfund
sites and improve the Agency's approach to
several important areas in risk assessment, such
as protection of children and other vulnerable
populations, and cumulative risk.
In FY 2002 the Regional Science and
Technology organizations provided field
sampling, analytical and data management
support, and quality assurance to Agency
programs nationwide and continued to expand
the number of Centers of Applied Science
(CASs). CASs support the development and
application of new and innovative technologies
by developing sampling, quality assurance, and
analytical methodologies. These methodologies
and technologies are shared both within EPA and
with the Agency's partners. Some examples are
(1) developing polymerase chain reaction as an
analytical tool that would improve EPA's ability
to detect protozoan parasites and other target
organisms in drinking water and (2) developing
a qualitative method of compound identification
by X-ray diffraction, which, when combined
with chemical analysis, has been valuable in
determining the fate and transport of compounds
in the environment. Advances in compound
identification will help environmental decision
makers determine the most effective remedies at
Superfund sites and assess water quality impacts
from proposed or operating mineral resource
facilities.
Greater Innovation
The Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI)
Program (http://www.epa.gov/regional/rgi.htm)
is one of the most effective tools to help EPA
regions achieve a balance between responding
to state and local needs and national priorities.15
In FY 2002 the 124 projects funded through the
RGI Program provided EPA with flexibility to
achieve environmental results by responding to
strategic regional, state, and local priorities.16
EPA fostered regional solutions to cross-
programmatic environmental problems,
promoted innovation, built partnerships,
developed holistic approaches and, of particular
significance, leveraged additional funds from
state, local, and non-governmental organization
sources. For example, Region 3's "Livable
Neighborhoods for Philadelphia" project engages
citizens to promote the conservation of
municipal resources and initiate actions that will
result in increased neighborhood safety,
environmental and human health protection,
greening, and capacity building.17 Similarly,
Region 7's "Kansas City WildLands" project
involves citizen volunteers in conserving,
FY 2002 Distribution of Regional Geographic
Initiative Projects Across Agency Goals
Pollution Prevention
22.0%
Better
Waste Management
3.7%
Global
3.0%
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-89
-------
restoring, and protecting remnant natural
communities threatened by overgrowth of
woody vegetation, invasive species, and the
loss of ecological integrity.18
In FY 2002 EPA also made significant
progress toward incorporating innovative
approaches to environmental management so
that the Agency and its external partners can
achieve greater and more cost-effective public
health and environmental protection results. EPA
produced new economic work products on
environmental impacts related to specific air,
water, and agricultural issues. Additional
EPA-sponsored economic research studies begun
in 2002 will improve Agency decision making in
a lengthy list of specialized areas: children's
health valuation, value of statistical life, water
quality benefits valuation, cancer risk reduction
benefits, host community compensation, and
municipal solid waste landfills.
In FY 2002 EPA's industry sector-based
program Chttp://www. epa.gov/projectxl/
2002state.htm) developed projects to help
enhance performance in five U.S. industries:
metal finishing, metal foundries and die casting,
meat processing, shipbuilding and ship repair,
and specialty-batch chemical production.19 Such
projects included sector-specific EMS templates,
compliance assistance guides, and proposed
RCRA regulatory changes to enhance waste
recovery and reuse. Building on this program
foundation, EPA will begin work with new
industries to reduce regulatory and other barriers
to improved environmental performance, while
also providing tools and incentives to prompt
many companies within each sector to develop
environmental management systems. EPA
outreach activities for small businesses and smart
growth also expanded. The Agency responded
to more than 15,000 calls on the Small Business
Ombudsman Hotline for assistance regarding
environmental regulations, and reached more
than 10,000 individuals and organizations with
information on Brownfields redevelopment
through conference presentations and
distribution of printed materials.20
EPA selected three state projects to be
funded under its FY 2002 State Innovation Pilot
Grant Program Chttp://www. epa. gov/innovation/
stategrants/). Specifically, the Agency requested
projects that test innovative permitting
approaches using incentives to motivate
"beyond-compliance" environmental
performance, or that move whole sectors toward
improved environmental performance and could
show results in 2 to 3 years. EPA selected
projects from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, the Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. These projects include
efforts to develop a Web-based system that will
simplify and expedite storm water permitting
and an innovative permitting approach for auto
body repair shops that are facing new air quality
requirements. EPA has approved the final work
plan and made the award for Arizona—the time
line for results for the innovative storm water
permitting project is December 31, 2003. The
Massachusetts project, watershed-based
permitting in the Assabet River watershed, is in
final negotiation and the time lines are not yet
final; however, based upon their pre-proposal
the Agency anticipates final results by March
2004. Similarly with the Delaware project, the
development of an innovative air permitting
program for the auto body sector, EPA is
negotiating the final agreement and anticipates
results by January 2005.
In April 2002 EPA issued its innovation
strategy—"Innovating for Better Environmental
Results: A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation
of Innovation at EPA" (http://www.epa.gov/
innovation/strategy/). This strategy reflects the
Agency's commitment to explore new and
creative ways of achieving cleaner air, purer
water, and better-protected land. This vision for
the future includes four primary elements:
(1) strengthen EPA's innovation partnerships with
states and tribes; (2) focus the Agency's
innovation efforts on four priority environmental
problems—smog, greenhouse gases, water
quality, and water infrastructure; (3) make full
use of technology, market-based incentives,
environmental management systems, and
measurable performance goals; and (4) make
EPA's culture and management systems more
n-90
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
"innovation-friendly." EPA is tracking progress
under this strategy and issued its first progress
report in November 2002.
Program Evaluation
In FY 2002 EPA completed the Directory
of Project Experiments and Results
Chttp://www. epa.gov/projectxl/01report.htm).
which summarizes progress in meeting
commitments and the unique issues and
challenges in achieving the innovations for 51
innovation pilots under Project XL (excellence
and Leadership). Each of the 51 projects has
made progress in meeting commitments outlined
in the formal Final Project Agreements. For the
19 projects that reported environmental progress
during the period 1997 to 2001, cumulative
environmental benefits accrued in a variety of
areas. For example, XL projects cumulatively
eliminated 28,319 tons of emissions of criteria
air pollutants (NOx, SOx, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter) and recycled 20,540 tons of
solid waste. The report includes the cumulative
and individual environmental results of projects
that reported environmental data for the period
1997 to 2001. The Agency uses these data to
determine opportunities for successful
innovations and lessons learned to be applied to
broader system change. For example, the results
from the International Paper project in Jay,
Maine, clarifies the application of new effluent
technologies and will inform EPA's future
rulemaking regarding chemical oxygen demand
and color at pulp and paper mills.
In FY 2002 EPA also issued the report
Mid-Term Evaluation: Piloting Superior
Environmental Performance in Labs, which
presents lessons learned from the unique
approach to laboratory management being tested
by Project XL's New England Labs innovation
pilot at Boston College, the University of
Massachusetts-Boston, and the University of
Vermont. The report explains the environmental
results of an approach that harmonizes
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
requirements by using performance-based
criteria for managing laboratory waste under an
Environmental Management Plan tailored to each
institution. EPA is considering how the results of
this evaluation should be incorporated into a
proposed rulemaking.
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
State Contributions
The Nation's 24 coastal states and Puerto
Rico are partnering with EPA's National Coastal
Assessment (NCA) Program to build the scientific
basis for representative cost-effective monitoring
of conditions and trends in the country's
estuaries. State participation is essential to the
success of the NCA Program to ensure that each
state's monitoring needs, as well as regional and
national needs, are met. The states' participation
throughout the process provides important
feedback on the appropriateness of the NCA
Program for assessing their resources. This
EPA-state collaboration has developed a
compatible probabilistic design and a common
set of survey indicators that measure factors such
as water quality, sediment quality, and the
quality of living resources. Each participating
state employs this design and a set of core
indicators to conduct the survey and assess the
condition of its coastal resources. The
information from these estimates can then be
aggregated to assess conditions at the regional,
biogeographical, and national levels. In
conducting this joint coastal monitoring and
assessment program, the coastal states and
Puerto Rico are providing about 50 percent of
total costs; EPA contributes the remaining half.
All of the participating states either are
evaluating or have already adopted for the long
term this new and cost-effective approach to
monitoring their coastal resources.
Under EPA's innovation strategy, one of the
primary goals is to work more closely with states
to align Agency innovation priorities and look
for collaborative opportunities. In FY 2002 the
Environmental Results Program (ERP), an
innovation initiative developed by EPA and
Massachusetts, grew to include Rhode Island,
Florida, Maryland, Tennessee, and the District of
Columbia. The initiative seeks to cost-effectively
s
os
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-9i
-------
improve the environmental results of whole
small business sectors through the use of linked
regulatory tools. These tools educate small
businesses about their environmental impacts
and obligations, allow businesses to self-evaluate
and certify compliance, and allow agencies to
track environmental performance. ERP projects
now cover several business sectors—printing,
photo processing, dry cleaning, auto repair
shops, auto salvage yards, auto body shops, and
underground storage tanks—in addition to the
cross-sector initiative for new industrial boilers.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
There are no changes to FY 2003 APGs
based on results of FY 2002 performance.
n-92
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 8: Sound Science
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
ummary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
3
Goals 1 « 1 Goals
Met 1 U | Not Met
0
A description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
' ERA'S
EPATotal:
Goal 8:
Goal 8 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$304,325
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 8 Costs: $325,622
Goal 8 Share of Total: 4.1%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-11 of the Financial Statements fora consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY 1999-FY 2002 Results
Strategic Objective: Provide the Scientific Understanding to Measure, Model, Maintain, and/or Restore, at Multiple
Spatial Scales, the Present and Future Integrity of Highly Valued Ecosystems.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $112,647 (34.6% of FY2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY2002 EPA produced an analysis of data from streams and lakes in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic,
and upper Midwest that provides evidence that controls on acid deposition, taken in response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of
1990, are working. Determining the results of environmental management policies such as these will in turn increase EPA's ability to maintain
and restore the integrity and sustainability of highly valued ecosystems.
APG 55 Integrated Ecosystem Modeling
FY2002 Produce a report on trends in acid deposition and the acidity of lakes and streams to
assess progress toward reducing the impacts of acid rain. Goal Met.
Planned Actual
1
FY 2002 Results: EPA produced a report on trends in acid deposition and the acidity of lakes and streams to assess progress toward
reducing the impacts of acid rain. This report analyzed some of the key mechanisms preventing recovery in critical regions of the United
States and will provide crucial information on the effectiveness of Title IV of the CAA Amendments of 1990. EPA will use the results in its
biennial report to Congress on the Acid Rain Program.
Strategic Objective: Improve the Scientific Basis to Identify, Characterize, Assess, and Manage Environmental
Hazards and Exposures That Pose the Greatest Health Risks to the American Public By Developing Models and
Methodologies to Integrate Information About Exposures and Effects From Multiple Pathways.This Effort Includes
Focusing on Risks Faced by Susceptible Populations, Such As People Differentiated By Life Stage
(e.g., Children and the Elderly) and Ethnic/Cultural Background.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $50,450 (15.5% of FY 2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY 2002 EPA completed a framework for conducting risk assessments for a variety of
multimedia, multipathway pollutants of concern to the Agency. This framework will provide the Agency with a more complete
understanding of the relationships between sources, exposures, doses, and effects and will enable EPA to conduct more accurate and
reliable risk assessments. The Agency also continued to evaluate the exposures and effects of environmental contaminants affecting
susceptible subpopulations and produced a series of reports on potential methods to assess pesticide-related health impacts in young
children. These research efforts strengthened the Agency's ability to effectively prevent and/or manage risks to human health.
Strategic Objective: Enhance EPA's Capabilities to Anticipate, Understand, and Respond to Future Environmental
Development and Conduct Research in Areas That Combine Human Health and Ecological Considerations.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $50,345 (15.4% of FY 2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: FY 2002 research efforts yielded protocols for use in EPA's endocrine disrupter (EDC) screening and
testing program mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. EPA also examined
the application of various technologies to effectively reduce and/or prevent environmental and human exposure to EDCs. Additional research
focused on improving methods for quantifying mercury emissions from man-made sources, as well as enhancing EPA's ability to mitigate and
prevent harm caused by biological agents. These research efforts help EPA anticipate and identify environmental changes before they affect
human health and the environment.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-93
-------
Strategic Objective: Provide Tools andTechnologies to Improve Environmental Systems Management While
Continuing to Prevent and Control Pollution and Reduce Human Health and Ecological Risks Originating From
Multiple Economic Sectors.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $57,301 (17.6% of FY2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY2002 EPA provided, to environmental decision makers, improved pollution prevention tools to
estimate the potential environmental impact of chemical process designs, to delay resistance in target insects to toxins in transgenic crops,
and to evaluate inhalation impacts of metal finishing facilities on workers and nearby residents. In addition, through the Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) program, EPA produced 20 protocols for verifying innovative environmental technologies. These research
efforts strengthen the ability of the Agency and its customers to prevent and/or mitigate risks to human health and the environment.
APG56
FY 2002
Pollution Prevention (P2) Tools and Methodologies
Improve P2 tools for the industrial sector and other sectors by providing updated/new
methods and approaches to help users simulate product, process or system redesign
and evaluate resulting pollution levels, impacts and costs. Goal Met
Performance Measures
Planned
Actual
Enhance the Waste Reduction Algorithm environmental impact assessment
tool used to design or retrofit chemical processes with: (1) a better assessment
methodology, and (2) new features (costing).
Prepare a pest resistance management framework to prolong the effectiveness of
genetically-modified corn pesticide characteristics for the Office of Pesticide
Programs during product registration.
Provide a PC-based tool for use by EPA and the metal finishing sector in evaluating
exposure and inhalation health risks to workers and residents living near metal
finishing facilities.
1 method 1 method
1 protocol 1 protocol
1 risk tool 1 risk tool
FY 2002 Result: This APG provides tools that facilitate the use of preventative approaches to solve pollution problems posing the greatest
risks to human health and the environment. Specifically, EPA improved P2 tools for the industrial sector and other sectors by providing
updated/new methods and approaches to help users simulate product, process, or system redesign and evaluate resulting pollution levels,
impacts, and costs. EPA successfully completed a variety of independent tools, including: (1) the Waste Reduction (WAR) Algorithm for
process simulators, (2) the pest resistance management framework and genetically modified com, and (3) computer-based evaluation of
exposure and risk in metal finishing facilities. These low cost and easy to use products will enable EPA, regions, states, municipalities, and
businesses to find cost-effective ways to reduce pollution at the source and potentially lead to improved environmental and human health.
APG 57
FY2002
New Technologies
Formalize generic testing protocols for technology performance verification, and
provide additional performance verifications of pollution prevention, control and
monitoring technologies in all environmental media. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
Planned
Actual
FY2001
- Complete 20 stakeholder approved and peer-reviewed test protocols in all environmental 20
technology categories under Environmental Technology Verification (ETV), and provide
them to testing organizations world-wide.
Develop, evaluate, and deliver technologies and approaches that eliminate, minimize, or control
high risk pollutants from multiple sectors. Emphasis will be placed on preventive approaches for
industries and communities having difficulty meeting control/emission/effluent standards. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measure
20
FY2000
- Deliver a Report to Congress on the status and effectiveness of the ETV Program during its
first 5 years.
Complete development of one or more computer-based tools which simulate product, process, or
system design changes, and complete proof-of-process structure for one or more generic
technologies (applicable to more than one environmental problem) to prevent or reduce pollution in
chemicals and industrial processes. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
Complete development of PARIS II Software tool to design environmentally benign solvents,
and development and integration of WAR Algorithm into commercially available chemical
process simulator.
Complete Beta testing of a decision support tool for life-cycle analyses of municipal waste
management options.
9/30/00
9/30/00
FY 2002 Result: EPA formalized generic testing protocols for technology performance verification, and provided additional performance
verifications of pollution prevention, control, and monitoring technologies in all environmental media. EPA successfully completed 20
stakeholder approved and peer-reviewed testing protocols for commercial-ready environmental technologies in six different categories
n-94
tilWs i'V 21)112 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
(environmental monitoring, air pollution control, drinking water treatment, greenhouse gas reduction, pollution prevention, and water quality
protection). In addition, 30 verifications of commercial-ready environmental technologies were completed. These protocols and verifications
are intended to provide decision making advancements and facilitate understanding by purchasers, permitters, and vendors of a variety of
environmental technologies.
Strategic Objective: Increase Partnership-Based Projects With Counties, Cities, States, Tribes, Resource
Conservation Districts, and/or Bio-regions, Bringing Together Needed External and Internal Stakeholders, and
Quantify theTangible and Sustainable Environmental Results of Integrated, Holistic, Partnership Approaches.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $12,556 (3.9% of FY2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY 2002 under the Regional Geographic Initiatives Program, EPA supported projects that
focus resources on problems that are not being addressed, wholly or in part, by existing national environmental programs because of
their unique geographic or cross-media nature. Projects are accomplished by working in partnership with states, local governments, and
the private sector. All of the projects support one or more of EPA's environmental goals. EPA has analyzed possible methods of
identifying and quantifying the gains in environmental outcomes associated with the projects and has linked each of the projects to the
Agency goal and objective it supports.
Strategic Objective: Incorporate Innovative Approaches to Environmental Management into EPA Programs,
So That EPA and External Partners Achieve Greater and More Cost-Effective Public Health and
Environmental Protection.
FY 2002 Cost (in thousands): $35,741 (11% of FY 2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY 2002 EPA made significant progress toward incorporating innovative approaches to
environmental management so that the Agency and its external partners can achieve greater and more cost-effective public health and
environmental protection results. EPA's industry sector-based programs surpassed environmental performance targets, while outreach
activities for small businesses and smart growth expanded. EPA responded to more than 15,000 calls on the Small Business Ombudsman
Hotline and reached more than 10,000 individuals and organizations with information on Brownfields redevelopment through conference
presentations and distribution of printed materials. Through a successful competitive process, EPA awarded three Innovation Grants to
state agencies for the purpose of assisting the states in solving key environmental problems through innovative methods.
Strategic Objective: Conduct Peer Reviews and Provide Other Guidance to Improve the Production and Use of the
Science Underlying Agency Decisions.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $3,039 (.9% of FY2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: In FY 2002 the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) completed 17 reports advising the Agency
on a broad range of scientific and technical issues. Four reports provided guidance on protecting ecological resources. One report, A
Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition, provided guidance that EPA is using to design its forthcoming report
on the state of the environment. The SAB's guidance not only helped to heighten EPA's emphasis on measuring the impacts of Agency
programs through scientifically credible indicators, but also affected the Agency's plans to emphasize protection of ecological resources
in the forthcoming report.
Strategic Objective: Demonstrate Regional Capability to Assist Environmental Decision Making By Assessing
Environmental Conditions and Trends, Health and Ecological Risks, and the Environmental Effectiveness of
Management Action in Priority Geographic Areas.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $3,543 (1.1% of FY 2002 Goal 8 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: The Regional Science & Technology (RS&T) organizations support EPA's air, water, waste, and
toxic substances programs by providing field sampling, analytical and data management support, and quality assurance to Agency
programs nationwide. Regions have developed special capabilities and expertise (Centers of Applied Science) based on unique
geographic and demographic issues. Centers have been designated in the areas of ambient air monitoring-environmental biology,
chemistry, and microbiology-and analytical pollution prevention methodologies. The RS&T organizations continue to strengthen their
operations by implementing Corrective Action Plans in response to Laboratory Assessments of both internal quality system reviews and
external technical systems audits (eight assessments completed). Quality assurance programs in the EPA regions ensure the integrity
of environmental data by overseeing management of monitoring programs, approving data collection activity plans, and evaluating
monitoring and laboratory practices.
Prior Year Annual Performance Goals Without Corresponding FY 2002 Goals
(Actual Performance Data Available in FY 2002 and Beyond)
Planned Actual
FY 1999 Develop and verify innovative methods and models for assessing the susceptibilities of population target
to environmental agents, aimed at enhancing risk assessment and management strategies and year is
guidelines. FY2008
www.epa.gov/ocfo Performance icsulls H-95
-------
FY 2001 Annual Performance Goals (No Longer Reported for FY 2002)
Establish baseline conditions from which changes, and ultimately trends, in the ecological condition of the nation's estuaries can be
confidently documented, and from which the results of environmental management policies can be evaluated at regional scales.
EPA will implement significant improvements to core Agency functions identified as high environmental or economic impact identified
during FY 2000 priority setting (Project excellence and Leadership—XL).
H-96 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. J.L.Stoddard, J.S. Kahl, F.A. Daviney, D.R. DeWalle,
C.T. Driscoll, A.T. Herlihy, J.H. Kellogg, P.S.
Murdoch, J.R. Webb, and K.E. Webster, Response of
Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Research Triangle Park, NC:
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Health Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, in clearance).
2. J. Buzzard, V. Moser, and S. Padilla, Comparison of
the role of esterases in the differential age-related
sensitivity to chlorpyrifos and methamidophos,
Neurotoxicology 21 (2001):49-56.
3. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Control of Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired
Electric Utility Boilers: Interim Report, EPA-600/R-
01-109 (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA,
Office of Research and Development, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, 2002).
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Metal Finishing Facility Risk Screening Tool
(MFFRST): Technical Documentation and User's
Guide, EPA/600/R-01/057 (Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
2001). ORD's Environmental Technology
Verification Program protocols are available only
through the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/etv/
verifications/protocols index.html.
5. J.L.Stoddard, J.S. Kahl, F.A. Daviney, D.R. DeWalle,
C.T. Driscoll, A.T. Herlihy, J.H. Kellogg, P.S.
Murdoch, J.R. Webb, and K.E. Webster.
6. U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board, Integrated
Human Exposure Committee, An SAB Advisory:
The National Human Exposure Assessment Survey
(NHEXAS) Pilot Studies, EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-
004 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 1999).
7. L.J. Bonanno, N.C.G. Freeman, M. Greenberg, and
PJ. Lioy, Multivariate Analysis on Levels of Selected
Metals, Particulate Matter, VOC, and Household
Characteristics and Activities from the Midwestern
States NHEXAS, Appl. Occup. Environ. Hygiene
16(9, 2001):859-874. C.A. Clayton, E. Pellizzari,
and J. Quackenboss, National Human Exposure
Assessment Survey: Analysis of Exposure Pathways
and Routes for Arsenic and Lead in EPA Region 5,
/. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 12(1, 2002),
29-43. C.A. Clayton, E.D. Pellizzari, JJ.
Quackenboss, and R.W Whitmore, Distributions,
Associations, and Partial Aggregate Exposure of
Pesticides and Polynuclear Aromatic
Hhydrocarbons in the Minnesota Childrens
Pesticide Exposure Study (MNCPES),/ Expo.
Anal. Environ. Epidemiol, in press. D.E. Camann,
D.L. Macintosh, Y. Pang, and P.B. Ryan, Analysis of
Aggregate Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in the
NHEXAS-Maryland Investigation, Environ. Health
Perspect. 110(3, 2002):235-240. The National
Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS)
database is available through EPA's Environmental
Information Management System (EIMS) on the
Human Exposure Database System (HEDS) web
site at http://www.epa.gov/heds/.
8. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, H.R.
1627, Public Law 104-170.
9. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,
Public Law 104-182.
10. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Utility Boilers: Interim Report, EPA-600/R-
01-109 (Cincinnati, OH: U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, 2002). Available
at http://www.epa. gov/appcdwww/aptb/.
11. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, The Mercury
White Paper (2000). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaal/t3/meta/m22914.html.
12. The SAB Report can be found on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/sab. The reports advising EPA
in the SAP are as follows:
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Water and
Watersheds Grants Program: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Review, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-001
(2001).
Water Quality and Pollution Prevention Multiyear
Plans: An SAB Review, EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-003
(2001).
Review of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air's
Draft Methodology for Ranking Indoor Air Toxics,
EPA-SAB-EHC/IHEC-02-004 (2001).
Planning for Ecological Risk Assessment:
Developing Management Objectives: An SAB
Report, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-005 (2002).
Contaminant Candidate List Research Plan: An
SAB Report, EPA-SAB-DWC-02-006 (2002). g>
FY2003 Presidential Science and Technology f
Budget Request for the Environmental Protection o
Agency: An SAB Review, EPA-SAB-RSAC-02-007 |
(2002). if
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-97
-------
Interim Review of the Paniculate Matter (PM)
Research Centers of the USEPA: An EPA Science
Advisory Board Report, EPA-SAB-EC-02-008
(2002).
A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Conditions, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009
(2002).
A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Conditions: Executive Summary, EPA-
SAB-EPEC-02-009a (2002).
Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the
Environmental Protection Agency Science
Advisory Board, EPA-SAB-EC-02-010 (2002).
Review of the Agency's Draft Continuous
Monitoring Implementation Plan: A Review by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, EPA-
SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-001 (2002).
Review of the Southeastern Ecological Framework:
An EPA Science Advisory Board Report, EPA-SAB-
EPEC-LTR-02-002 (2002).
Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for
Paniculate Matter-. Third External Review Draft,
EPA 600/P-99/002aC & 002bC: A CASAC Review,
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-003 (2002).
NATA—Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data: An SAB Advisory, EPA-
SAB-EC-ADV-02-001 (2002).
Review of the Agency's Draft Proposed
Methodology for Paniculate Matter Risk Analysis
for Selected Urban Areas: An Advisory by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, EPA-SAB-
CASAC-ADV-02-002 (2002).
Importance of Maintaining the Annual Pollution
Abatement Cost and Expenditures (PACE) Survey,
EPA-SAB-EEAC-COM-02-001 (2002).
Industrial Ecology: A Commentary by the EPA
Science Advisory Board, EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-02-
002 (2002).
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel
Formation Process: Immediate Steps to Improve
Policies and Procedures—An SAB Commentary,
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-02-003 (2002).
Agency's Proposed Methodology for Measuring
Coarse Paniculate Matter-. A CASAC Notification
of a Consultation, EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-02-001
(2002).
Market Incentives: A SAB Notification of a
Consultation, EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-02-002 (2002).
A n Approach to Developing a Research Agenda
for Environmental Economics: An SAB
Consultation, EPA-SAB-EEAC-CON-02-003 (2002).
13. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Conditions, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009,
(2002).
14. Review of the A ir Quality Criteria Document for
Paniculate Matter. Third External Review Draft,
EPA 600/P-99/002aC & 002bC: A CASAC Review,
EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-02-003 (2002). Review of
Draft Trichloroethylene Health Risk Assessment:
Synthesis and Characterization: An SAB Report,
EPA-SAB-EHC-03-002 (2002).
15. U.S. EPA, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Office of Regional
Operations. Available at http:7/www.epa. gov/
sab.html.
Id U.S. EPA, Office of Regional Operations,
202-564-3100.
17. U.S. EPA, Region 3, Office of Policy and
Management, 202-814-5200.
18. U.S. EPA, Region 7, Program Operations and
Integration Staff, 913-551-7661.
19. U.S. EPA, Industry Sector Performance Program,
2002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/sectors.
20. The figure of 10,000 individuals and organizations
was arrived at through an internal analysis
conducted by the Development, Community, and
Environment Division of EPA's Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation.
n-98
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 9: A CREDIBLE DETERRENT TO POLLUTION AND
GREATER COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW
will ensure full compliance with intended, to human health
and the environment.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
A vigorous enforcement and compliance
program remains a priority of EPA and is central
to achieving the Agency's mission of protecting
human health and the environment. Integral to
achieving this mission is ensuring compliance
with environmental laws on the part of the
regulated community. EPA focuses its efforts on
developing strategies that combine assistance,
incentives, and enforcement in order to mitigate
significant environmental risk and ensure
compliance. As a result of these strategies, the
regulated community corrects violations of
environmental law, returns to compliance, and
reduces the quantity of pollutants released into
the environment.
EPA is improving the quality and accuracy of
enforcement and compliance data through the
design and implementation of the new
Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS). Already partially implemented, this
system will enhance the ability of the Agency
and states to identify and target inspections and
enforcement toward the most serious non-
compliance and address the most significant air,
water, and land pollution problems; and the most
significant human health risks.1
EPA also continues to review and improve the
analyses of the compliance and environmental
data routinely collected through its monitoring,
compliance incentives, compliance assistance,
and enforcement programs. The effort is
designed to better evaluate the outcomes
achieved by ensuring compliance with federal
environmental statutes. For FY 2002 EPA is
now able to better report the results of settled
enforcement cases in gallons of polluted
groundwater to be treated—2.8 billion, the
pounds of contaminated soils to be cleaned
up—503 million, and the acres of wetlands to be
protected—about 40,000.2
EPA consistently exceeds its annual goals to
promote compliance within the regulated
community through voluntary compliance
incentive and assistance programs. Over the past
3 years, 5,421 facilities took advantage of
voluntary programs to identify, self-disclose, and
correct compliance violations. EPA is expanding
efforts to encourage disclosure by companies
suspected of having serious violations. In the
past 3 years, nearly 1.5 million entities have
received compliance assistance materials and
have visited EPA Compliance Assistance Centers
more than 1.6 million times.3
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
During FY 2002 EPA, along with state and
tribal partners, provided assistance to help
facilities comply with environmental laws,
completed agreements with companies to
conduct their own self-audits and correct
violations, and took civil and criminal
enforcement actions to address noncompliance
associated with serious environmental problems
and ensure fairness in the marketplace. In
FY 2002 approximately 157,000 pounds of
pollutants were reduced, treated, or properly
managed per enforcement workyear;
approximately $2.4 million of injunctive relief
was collected per enforcement workyear; and
approximately $34,000 was committed to
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) per
enforcement workyear.4
Enforcing the Law, Achieving Results
EPA continues to focus its enforcement
efforts on resolving the worst environmental
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Perform an ce Resin I Is
n-99
-------
problems and achieving environmental results
by bringing the most egregious violators into
compliance with environmental laws. Through
these efforts, EPA seeks to maintain a level
playing field for the Nation's industries by
ensuring that no company secures a competitive
advantage through noncompliance. When
enforcement actions are necessary, the vast
majority of civil enforcement actions require
facilities to take direct action to correct illegal
discharges of pollutants and/or change facility
management and information practices, such as
record keeping. The Agency does not, however,
establish quotas for the number of enforcement
cases to be pursued. The anticipated amounts of
pollutants to be reduced during a fiscal year are
estimates based on the results of concluded
enforcement actions from previous years, and
often vary dramatically from year to year. During
FY 2002 the Agency secured 261 million pounds
pollutants to be reduced through settled
enforcement cases, falling short of its target of
300 million pounds.
In FY 2002 EPA conducted 17,668 inspect-
ions and 541 intensive civil compliance
investigations to determine the compliance
status of regulated facilities and to help deter
facilities from lapsing into noncompliance.5
These inspections and investigations resulted
in the identification of a number of serious
environmental violations, including, but not
limited to, pollutant releases not allowed by
permit, illegal storage of hazardous waste, and
the discharge of oil in harmful quantities into
U.S. waters. Findings from a recent analysis of
the effectiveness of compliance inspections
indicate that 50 percent of all stationary air and
water inspections, pesticide and toxic chemical
laboratory facility inspections, and lead-based
paint building inspections resulted in the
identification of environmental violations.6 Ten
percent of the inspections prompted corrective
action to immediately address environmental
and human health risks from excessive air and
water pollution.
EPA calculates statistically valid compliance
rates to determine the level of compliance for an
entire population, not just for the subset of
inspected facilities.7 The Agency analyzes
compliance across an entire regulatory
population, rather than assessing a subset of
inspected facilities in order to obtain a more
accurate picture of compliance patterns across
sectors and states. EPA uses analyses of
compliance trends to determine where the most
significant environmental problems are, and
where best to focus its resources. In FY 2002
EPA calculated statistically valid compliance rates
for the following areas: municipality compliance
with the nine minimum controls to prevent,
monitor, and control combined sewer overflows;
commercial facilities compliance with Clean Air
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards for ethylene oxide; municipality
compliance with biological oxygen demand and
total suspended solid permit limits; and
petroleum refining facilities compliance with
ammonia permit limits. EPA also calculated
statistically valid compliance rates from self-
reported data under the Clean Water Act for
compliance of municipalities with biological
oxygen demand and total suspended solids
permitted discharge limits, and compliance of oil
refineries with ammonia-N permitted discharge
limits. These inspection numbers include state
and local inspections as well as federal
inspections. The results will be available in the
second quarter of FY 2003.
EPA's FY 2002 enforcement actions resulted
in the prevention and/or reduction of emissions
or discharges by an estimated 261 million
pounds of pollutants, the treatment of an
additional 503 million pounds of contaminated
soil and sediments, and 2.8 billion gallons of
contaminated groundwater to be treated. In
FY 2002, 37 percent of concluded enforcement
actions directed improvements in the use or
handling of pollutants, such as changes in
industrial processes or storage and disposal
practices. About 62 percent of actions directed
improvements in facility environmental
management practices, including testing, training,
and overall improvements to environmental
management systems. In FY 2002 polluters were
required to invest more than $3.9 billion in
injunctive relief (actions necessary to correct
violations), and to take additional steps to protect
the environment. The settlement of
n-ioo
IT
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
HOMELAND SECURITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
EPA's criminal enforcement program effectively responded to the terrorist events of September 11,
2001. Throughout FY 2002 EPA provided crisis and consequence management support—
investigative, forensic, technical—to federal, state, county, local, and tribal governments and training
for homeland security related environmental, chemical, or biological incidents involving violations
of environmental law. EPA supported federal security efforts at designated National Security Special
Events including the Superbowl and the Winter Olympics. Agency investigative and technical
forensic personnel participated in the federal government's Capitol Hill anthrax investigations in
the Hart, Ford, Longworth, and Dirksen office buildings, and at the General Services Administration
facility in Springfield, Virginia. EPA also provided personal protective equipment training to a
number of major county sheriffs departments, and provided environmental threat identification and
warning assistance to 95 Department of Justice Anti-terrorism Task Forces. .
enforcement cases often produces SEPs,
through which violators perform additional
environmentally beneficial projects beyond any
injunctive relief in exchange for a penalty
reduction. SEPs totaled $56.4 million in
FY 2002.8
EPA addresses noncompliance with
enforcement actions appropriate to the violation.
Civil administrative and judicial actions and civil
referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
civil judicial settlements, or criminal referrals to
DOJ serve as a deterrent for other potential
noncompliers, secure environmental benefits,
protect communities and the environment, and
ensure fairness to companies that invest in
compliance with environmental laws. EPA
enforcement actions against noncomplying
facilities often result in outcomes such as
improvements in environmental management
practices by facilities, improved or enhanced
monitoring and reporting, special projects
benefitting the environment, and significant
reductions of pollutant discharges to the air,
water, or land.
During FY 2002 EPA conducted a strong
criminal enforcement program, emphasizing
environmental results and effective partnerships
with federal, state, tribal, and local governments.
The criminal enforcement program focused on
investigations of knowing and willful violations
that pose a significant threat to human health and
the environment. The cases taken provide an
effective deterrent by incorporating high fines,
restitution, and jail sentences. EPA helped
prosecute cases that resulted in 215 years of
incarceration and $62 million in fines and
restitution in FY 2002.9
In FY 2002 EPA initiated 3,062 civil, judicial,
and administrative enforcement actions; opened
674 criminal investigations, 190 of which were
counterterrorism related; and referred
250 criminal cases to the DOJ, as illustrated by
the following significant civil and criminal
enforcement cases.10
City of Baltimore Settlement: In
September 2002 the U.S. District Court entered a
consent decree to implement a settlement
between EPA and the city to end discharge of
untreated sewage. Consent Decree in United
States et al. v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, JFM
02 CV1524 (September 30, 2002). Because of
years of neglect, an estimated 30 million gallons
of untreated sewage was discharged annually,
contaminating Baltimore's water with bacteria,
pathogens, and other harmful pollutants.
Complaint in United States et al. v. Mayor and City
of Baltimore, JFM 02 CV1524. The city was
assessed a civil penalty of $600,000. The facility
improvements required under this enforcement
action will cost Baltimore about $940 million to
rehabilitate and repair pumping stations and
eliminate raw sewage discharge. Consent
Decree at Sections VI and VIII in United States et
al. v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, JFM 02
CV1524 (September 30, 2002). The city also
agreed to implement a SEP to design, install, and
operate a biological nutrient-reduction facility at
the city-owned Patapsco Wastewater Treatment
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-ioi
-------
Plant that will improve the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay by significantly reducing the
amount of nitrogen nutrient runoff entering the
bay. Consent Decree at Section X in United States
et al. v. Mayor and City of Baltimore, JFM 02
CV1524 (September 30, 2002).
PSEG Fossil LLC Settlement: In FY 2002
EPA and the State of New Jersey concluded a
major settlement with PSEG for violations of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) at its coal-fired power plants
in Jersey City and Hamilton, New Jersey. Consent
Decree in United States etal. v. PSEG Fossil LLC,
Civil Action No. 02-340 (JCL) (July 26, 2002)
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
cases/civil/caa/psegllc.html. PSEG paid a
$1.4 million civil penalty and will spend about
$337 million to install state-of-the-art pollution
controls to reduce the emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) by 90 percent and reduce
nitrogen oxides (NOX) more than 80 percent.
These improvements will ultimately reduce
36,000 tons of SO2 and 18,000 tons of NOX per
year. Consent Decree at Sections IV and X in
United States et al. v. PSEG Fossil LLC, Civil
Action No. 02-340 (JCL) (July 26, 2002). The
company also agreed to three SEPs that will
cost the company $6 million to (1) voluntarily
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent;
(2) contribute to New Jersey's ongoing efforts to
recover and use methane gas from landfills; and
(3) develop ways to reduce and monitor
mercury emissions from its plants. Consent
Decree at Section VIII in United States et al. v.
PSEG Fossil LLC, Civil Action No. 02-340 (JCL)
(July 26, 2002).
Lee Brass Settlement: EPA, the DOJ, and
the State of Alabama concluded a judicial
action against Lee Brass Company, Inc., for
violations of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) that resulted in public
exposure to excessive levels of lead. See
http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/
cases/civil/rcra/leebrass.html: Consent Decree in
United States etal. v. Lee Brass, Inc. Civil Action
No. Ol-B-2422 (April 25, 2002). The lead-
contaminated sand had been donated to county
and city governments for use as fill on
playgrounds and ballfields. Some lead levels
were more than four times the 400 parts per
million exposure limit. Lead exposure is known
to have significant human health effects,
including developmental effects on children
(available at http://www.epa.gov/lead). It is
estimated that annually 0.5 million to 1 million
pounds of sand containing about 500 to 1,000
pounds of lead had been sent off-site. The
implementation of the settlement will reduce
thousands of pounds of lead releases to the
environment and eliminate public contact with
the sand. EPA also issued an emergency order
(imminent and substantial endangerment) to
address the assessment and potential cleanup of
the sand that had been sold or donated.
Ashland, Incorporated Settlement:
Ashland Inc., in Covington, Kentucky, pled
guilty to criminal charges of negligent
endangerment under the CAA, and to submitting
a false certification to environmental regulators.
The CAA violations led to an explosion and fire
at a refinery that injured five persons, one
severely. The agreement requires Ashland to
pay $3.5 million to the severely injured man and
to pay medical costs for him and his family. The
other four injured workers will receive
$10,000 each. Ashland has agreed to a
$3.5 million criminal fine and was required to
pay $50,000 to each fire department that
responded to the incident. Ashland must also
perform $3.7 million in upgrades to the pollution
control system at the refinery. United States v.
Ashland, Inc., U.S. District Court of Minnesota.
CR 02-152.
Increasing Compliance Through Assistance
In FY 2002 EPA developed a wide range of
information tools and services to help the
regulated facilities, industry sectors, trade
associations, compliance assistance providers,
and the public to understand environmental
compliance requirements. The Agency reached
589,566 entities in FY 2002 through compliance
assistance activities that resulted in process or
management changes that reduce emissions and
noncompliance.11
In FY 2002 small and medium size
businesses, local governments, federal facilities,
and the public visited the 10 Internet-based
H-102 FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Compliance Assistance Centers more than
676,000 times, an increase of 39 percent from
FY 2001. EPA created these Internet-based
centers to help small and medium-sized
businesses, local governments, and federal
facilities to understand and comply with
regulatory requirements. The 10 centers provide
information and assistance for local governments,
federal facilities, and the following industries:
printing, metal finishing, automotive services and
repair, agriculture, chemical manufacturers,
paints and coatings, transportation, and printed
wiring board manufacturers. In FY 2001 surveys
of center users, 74 percent of survey
respondents stated they had realized one or
more environmental improvements as a result of
center assistance, and 65 percent stated they had
realized a cost savings. Compliance Assistance
Center users will be surveyed again in
FY 2003.12
EPA created an inventory of the Agency's
existing compliance assistance tools and guides
in FY 2002 to support the Business Compliance
One-Stop Initiative. EPA also created The National
Environmental Compliance Assistance
Clearinghouse Chttp://www.epa.gov/
clearinghouse), which is the repository for EPA's
compliance assistance tools and guides. The
clearinghouse, launched in FY 2001, is a Web-
based, searchable reference tool that provides
quick access to compliance assistance materials
and allows interaction with EPA, states, and other
compliance assistance providers. These
initiatives support a Presidential Management
Agenda reform for e-government.
Compliance assistance is also provided
during EPA compliance inspections. In FY 2002
EPA conducted an assessment of about
4,000 inspections in 4 media programs and
found that compliance assistance was provided
during 76 percent of the inspections.13
Increasing Compliance Through Incentives
In FY 2002 EPA's Audit and Self-Policing
Policy14 continued to provide a significant
incentive for many regulated facilities to detect,
disclose, and correct environmental violations in
exchange for a waiver or significant reduction in
penalties.15 The benefit to the public from this
policy is that facilities come into compliance
quickly, fewer government resources are
expended to produce compliance, and emissions
are reduced or eliminated. In FY 2002 more than
252 companies used this EPA policy to report
and resolve violations at 1,467 facilities. Through
initiatives to use the policy to improve
environmental management at facilities, EPA
actively solicits companies or industry sectors.
The Bakery Partnership Program (BPP),16
designed to ensure full compliance with
requirements protecting the ozone layer, was
initiated in FY 2002 with the participation of
43 companies owning 250 baking facilities. The
Compliance Assurance Program initiative,17 a
structured self-audit, was developed in
coordination with the largest trade association
representing the baking industry. The BPP
involved an audit of 250 baking facilities that
identified equipment releasing a refrigerant that
causes ozone depletion. A schedule of penalties
was established at the outset to ensure that
owners would be aware of the penalties they
would face as a result of the program. More than
800 machines, some containing thousands of
pounds of refrigerant, now use non-ozone-
depleting refrigerant as a result of this
program.18 Companies completing conversions
before the start date of the initiative were
assured that no penalties would be assessed.
EPA also promotes self-auditing by regulated
facilities through developing audit protocols that
can be used as part of an Environmental
Management System (EMS).19 An EMS is a
continual cycle of planning, implementing,
reviewing, and improving the processes and
actions that an organization undertakes to meet
its business and environmental goals. The
Agency included EMS provisions in
90 settlements of enforcement cases.20 EMSs
affected more than 95 facilities because many
recent settlements containing EMS provisions
require a company to use EMSs corporate-wide.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
As a result of delegation authority provided
for by most statutes, state, tribal, and local
governments bear much of the responsibility
for ensuring the compliance of regulated
facilities and other entities. Nationally, states
conduct the majority of all federally related
inspection and formal enforcement actions and
provide most of the data retained in EPA's
enforcement and compliance data systems.
State, tribal, and local law enforcement
agencies continue to contribute to EPA's
cooperative law enforcement efforts by
participating in 93 criminal task forces and law
enforcement coordinating committees across the
country. To help build the capacity of state, local,
and tribal programs, EPA sponsors a number of
training courses and assists with enforcement
inspections. In the past 3 years, EPA conducted
2,689 joint inspections with states, localities, and
tribes.21 In FY 2002 EPA trained 7,439 state,
local government, and tribal personnel in
inspection and enforcement skills. The data
provided by states and tribal partners adds to
national enforcement and compliance enviro-
nmental performance information, thereby
allowing the Agency to more accurately track its
environmental and human health benefits to the
public.
In addition to the responsibilities of state,
tribal, and local governments discussed above,
EPA partners make other significant contributions
to ensure compliance with the Nation's
environmental laws. Partners provide important
feedback during the biennial selection of
national priorities. Groups that represent the
interests of state program partners also work
closely with EPA.22 These include such entities
as the Environmental Council of the States
(EGOS) and the National Association of Attorneys
General (NAAG), as well as media-specific
associations like the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of
Local Air Pollution Officials, Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, and Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
Through rigorous competition EPA selected
16 projects out of a total of 220 proposals
submitted by states, tribes, and state universities
for the support of inspector training,
performance measurement, collaborative work
planning, and data management. The 16 selected
projects are part of an Agency funding program
to build and support state and tribal compliance
capabilities.23 The selected proposals totaled
$2.05 million for projects to be carried out
during FY 2003-2004. For example, the grant
awarded to the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment will supplement the use
of traditional output measures with measures that
assess the status and trends of regulatory
compliance and environmental improvements
resulting from enforcement and compliance
assistance activities.24 This will be a multimedia
(air, water, and waste) system. In FY 2002 EPA
began construction of a Web site to showcase
the products of grants awarded during the past
4 years hoping that others can use the results of
successful projects.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON THE FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
For FY 2003 Goal 9 proposed two new
measures—environmental justice and public
access to enforcement policy guidance. These
two measures were formerly in Goal 7. One
target for environmental justice grants was
reduced due to performance results from
previous years.
H-104 FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent
to Pollution
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
Summary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
7
Goals 1 j 1 Goals
Met I Not Met
0
A description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
' ERA'S
EPATotal:
Goal 9:
Goal 9 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$451,345
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 9 Costs: $387,545
Goal 9 Share of Total: 4.8%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-11 of the Financial Statements fora consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY1999-FY 2002 Results
Strategic Objective: EPA and Its State,Tribal, and Local Partners Will Improve the Environment and Protect Public
Health By Increasing Compliance With Environmental LawsThrough a Strong Enforcement Presence.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $330,072 (85.2% of FY2002 Goal 9 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: Over the last 3 fiscal years, EPA prevented an estimated 1.6 billion pounds of pollutants from entering
the air, waterways, and soil as a result of enforcement settlement provisions that require polluters to adopt better waste management
practices; maintain permit levels for emissions, effluent, and runoff; and improve record keeping. The majority of enforcement settlements
resolved in FY 2001 and FY 2002 required polluters to take decisive measures to reduce pollution, and change facility management and
information practices. Over the past 3 fiscal years, EPA conducted 1,633 criminal investigations, 1,569 civil investigations, and 55,603
inspections. EPA-assisted inspections and training courses improved both inspection capability nationwide and the quality of environmental
data collected by state and tribal regulators. EPA consistently meets its hazardous waste tracking responsibilities and homeland security
support responsibilities that reduce the likelihood of United States-initiated transboundary hazardous waste pollution, and improve America's
response and deterrence capability to combat domestic terrorism.
APG 58 Non-Compliance Reduction
FY2002 EPA will direct enforcement actions to maximize compliance and address environmental
and human health problems; 75% of concluded enforcement actions will require
environmental or human health improvements such as pollutant reductions and/or changes
in practices at facilities. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
Planned
Actual
- 75% of concluded enforcement actions require physical action that result in pollutant
reductions and/or changes in facility management or information practices.
- Millions of pounds of pollutants required to be reduced through enforcement actions
settled this fiscal year.
- Develop and use valid compliance rates or other indicators of compliance for
selected populations.
- Reduce by 2 percentage points overall the level of significant noncompliance
recidivism among CAA, CWA, and RCRA programs from FY 2000 levels.
75%
3COM
77%
261 M
5 populations 5 pop.
2%
data
available
in FY 2003
FY2001
Increase by 2% over FY 2000 levels the proportion of significant noncomplier facilities 2%
under CAA, CWA, and RCRA which returned to compliance in less than 2 years.
Produce report on the number of civil and criminal enforcement actions initiated
and concluded.
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- 75% of concluded enforcement actions require pollutant reductions and/or changes in facility 75%
management or information practices.
- Estimated pounds of pollutants reduced. 350 M
data
available
in FY 2003
data
available
in FY 2003
79%
660M
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
H-105
-------
Increase or maintain existing compliance rates or other indicators of compliance for populations 5
with established baselines, or develop additional rates for newly selected populations. populations
Reduce by 2 percentage points overall the level of significant non-compliance recidivism 2%
among the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) programs from FY 2000 levels.
Increase by 2% over FY 2000 levels the proportion of significant non-complier facilities under 2%
CAA, CWA, and RCRA which returned to compliance in less than 2 years.
Produce a report on the number of civil and criminal enforcement actions initiated and concluded. 1
1,33%
FY2000
Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
- Percent of actions which require pollutant reductions. 35%
- Estimated pounds of pollutants reduced (aggregate). 300M
- Establish statistically valid noncompliance rates or other indicators for selected environmental 5
problems.
- Establish a baseline to measure percentage of significant violators with reoccurring significant 1
violations within 2 years of returning to compliance.
- Establish a baseline to measure average length of time for significant violators to return to 1
compliance or enter enforceable plans/agreements.
- Produce report on the number of civil and criminal enforcement actions initiated and concluded. 1
FY 2002 Result: Currently, data are available for three of the six performance measures under this goal. Because the missed pollution
reduction measure is a key element for determining goal status, the Agency was able to designate this APG as not met without data for
the remaining three measures. The remaining performance data are expected to be available by February 2003.
During 2002 the Agency achieved a level of 261 million pounds of pollutants to be reduced through enforcement, falling short of its target
of 300 million pounds. Because the Agency does not establish quotas for the number of enforcement cases to be pursued, the
anticipated pollution reduction target is an estimate based on the results of concluded enforcement actions from previous years, and
frequently displays wide variation from year to year. Of enforcement settlements this fiscal year, 77% required polluters to take decisive
measures to reduce pollution and change facilities management and information practices around the country. EPA met its goal to
develop statistically valid compliance rates for five new populations. The Agency uses these analyses of compliance trends to determine
where the most significant environmental problems are, and where best to focus its resources. In FY 2002 EPA calculated statistically
valid compliance rates for the following areas: municipality compliance with nine minimum controls to prevent, monitor, and control
combined sewer overflows (CSOs); commercial facilities' compliance with Clean Air Act Maximum Achievable Control Technologies
(MACTs) for ethylene oxide; municipality compliance with biological oxygen demand and total suspended solid permit limits; and
petroleum refining facilities' compliance with ammonia permit limits.
FY 2001 Result Available in FY 2002: This performance result has been updated to reflect information received after the FY 2001
Annual Report date of publication.
APG 59 Inspections/Investigations
FY2002 EPA will conduct inspections, criminal investigations, and civil investigations targeted to
areas that pose risks to human health or the environment, display patterns of
non-compliance or include disproportionately exposed populations. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
Number of EPA inspections conducted.
Number of criminal investigations.
Number of civil investigations.
Planned
15,500
400
200
Actual
674
541
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met
Unit Measures
- Number of inspections.
- Number of criminal investigations.
- Number of civil investigations.
17,000
460
250
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures
- Number of EPA inspections. 13,500
- Number of civil investigations. 150
- Number of criminal investigations. 500
- Percent of inspections and investigations (civil and criminal) conducted at priority areas. 50%
FY 1999 Deter non-compliance by maintaining levels of field presence and enforcement actions, particularly 15,000
in high risk areas and/or where populations are disproportionately exposed. In 1999, EPA will 2,600
conduct 15,000 inspections and undertake 2,600 enforcement actions. Goal Met,
20,123
060
477
15%
n-io6
lil'A's I'Y 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY 2002 Result: EPA greatly exceeded its performance goal to provide a credible deterrent to polluters through a strong enforcement
presence. In 2002 EPA exceeded performance targets for investigations and inspections, performing 674 criminal and 541 civil
investigations, and 17,668 inspections. A strong enforcement presence in the field provides a strong incentive for industries and other
regulated entities to continue to comply with environmental laws, and ensures that polluters do not experience financial benefits from
persistent non-compliance.
APG60 Capacity Building
FY2002 Improve capacity of states, localities and tribes to conduct enforcement and compliance
assurance programs. EPA will provide training as well as assistance with state and tribal
inspections to build capacity, including implementation of the inspector credentials
program for tribal law enforcement personnel. Goal Met
Performance Measures
Planned
- Number of EPA training classes/seminars delivered to states, localities and tribes to
build capacity.
- Conduct EPA-assisted inspections to help build state program capacity.
- Provide tribal governments with 50 computer-based training (CBT) modules.
- Total number of state and local students trained.
- Train tribal personnel.
200
400
50
4,900
95
Actual
1,081
116
6,631
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met
Performance Measures
- Number of EPA training classes/seminars delivered to states, localities and tribes to build 22O
capacity.
- Conduct EPA-assisted inspections to help build state program capacity. 150
- The National Enforcement Training Institute will provide tribal governments with 50 50
computer-based modules.
- Total number of state and local students trained. 4,900
- The National Enforcement Training Institute will train tribal personnel. 105
128
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Number of EPA-assisted inspections to build capacity.
- Number of EPA training classes/seminars delivered to state/localities and tribes to build capacity.
100
200
FY 1999 Assist states and tribes with their enforcement and compliance assurance and incentive
programs. EPA will provide specialized assistance and training, including 83 courses, to state
and tribal officials to enhance the effectiveness of their programs. Goal Met,
83
FY 2002 Result: Capacity building efforts greatly assist EPA in meeting annual performance targets each year as the bulk of statutory
reporting requirements is delegated to state and tribal entities. Better understanding of environmental requirements and inspection
techniques improves the consistency of enforcement and compliance work, thereby improving the quality of environmental data
collected and reported. For FY2002, the Agency collected training performance data from EPA regional offices, whereas in the past,
EPA headquarters training performance data were the only data collected. Therefore, performance for state, local, and tribal capacity
building training is considerably above the planned performance target for FY 2002, and more accurately depicts the full spectrum of
EPA capacity building nationwide. Beginning in FY 2003, EPA will track these performance measures internally.
APG 61 Quality Assurance
FY2002 Maintain and improve quality and accuracy of EPA's enforcement and compliance data to
identify noncompliance and focus on human health and environmental problems. Goal
Performance Measures
Planned
- Operate 14 information systems housing national enforcement and compliance
assurance data with a minimum of 95% operational efficiency.
- Have Phase I of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) fully operational
in March 2002.
95%
Phase 1
Actual
1
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Continue operation and maintenance/user support of 14 information systems housing national 95%
enforcement and compliance assurance data with a minimum of 95% operational efficiency.
- Complete Phase I of Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) development Phase 1
(programming) and begin design of Phase II.
- Complete Quality Management Plan (QMP) project for additional data systems. 3
- Complete detailed design (development of screens, prototypes) including a pilot NPDES 1
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-107
-------
permitting desk model for Permit Compliance System (PCS) system modernization.
- Conduct four data analyses of environmental problems in Indian Country using the American 4 12
Indian Lands Environmental Support Project (AILESP) and the baseline assessment survey.
FY 2002 Result: Data modernization efforts begun in previous fiscal years resulted in the implementation of the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) in June 2002. ICIS will enhance environmental data analysis capabilities and allow for more informed decision-
making for populations of the regulated community that emit a disproportionate share of pollution, or those regulated entities that
persistently violate environmental laws and permits.
APG62 International Enforcement
FY2002 Ensure compliance with legal requirements for proper handling of hazardous waste
imports and exports. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
Planned
Actual
Evaluate 100% of the notices for transboundary movement of hazardous wastes,
ensuring their proper management in accordance with international agreements.
100%
100%
FY2001
Same Goal. Goal Met,
100%
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met
Performance Measure
- Ensure compliance with legal requirements by assuring that hazardous waste exports from the
United States are properly handled (number of import and export notices filed and reviewed).
1,500
158-4
FY 2002 Result: In FY 2002 EPA met its goal to prevent transboundary discharge of hazardous waste from sources in the United
States.
APG 63 Homeland Security Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA will provide direct investigative, forensic, and technical support to the Office of 100% 100%
Homeland Defense, FBI and/or other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to
help detect and prevent, or respond to, terrorist-related environmental, biological
or chemical incidents. Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: EPA met its goal to provide homeland security support to federal, state, and local entities in FY 2002.
Strategic Objective: EPA and Its State,Tribal, and Local Partners Will Promote the Regulated Communities'
Compliance With Environmental Requirements Through Voluntary Compliance Incentives
and Assistance Programs.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $57,473 (14.8% of FY 2002 Goal 9 Total Costs)
Progress Towards Strategic Objective: EPA encourages regulated sectors to maintain compliance through a variety of incentive
programs tailored for specific sectors that represent the greatest need due to past compliance patterns or for sectors that are highly
motivated to improve their environmental performance. Initiatives undertaken this fiscal year provided enhanced ozone layer and
watershed protection, among other environmental and human health benefits. The total number of facilities that voluntarily implement
better self-monitoring of waste streams, emissions, and runoff continues to increase as more members of the regulated community
respond to incentives to disclose environmental violations for reduced financial penalties. Over the past 3 fiscal years, 5,421 facilities
participated in voluntary incentive programs to identify and correct violations at facilities around the country. These incentive programs
expand the reach of EPA's regulatory efforts by increasing the total number of facilities monitored over and above the population of
facilities that receive conventional enforcement inspections and investigations in a given fiscal year.
APG 64 Compliance Incentives
FY2002 Increase opportunities through new targeted sector initiatives for industries to voluntarily
self-disclose and correct violations on a corporate-wide basis. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
Planned
Actual
Facilities voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations with reduced or no penalty as
as a result of EPA self-disclosure policies.
500
1,467
FY2001
Same Goal. Goal Met.
500
FY2000 Increase entities self-policing and self-correction of environmental problems through use of EPA
incentive policies: small business, small community and audit policies over FY 1997 levels.
Goal Met,
Performance Measure
- Number of facilities that self-disclose potential violations.
346
n-ios
lil'A's IT 200* Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY 2002 Result: The number of facilities that participated in voluntary self-audit programs to monitor and assess compliance with
environmental requirements greatly exceeded initial performance targets by more than 400 facilities. Self-disclosure programs increase
the number of facilities in compliance at any given time through more frequent environmental monitoring that protects human health and
the environment from accidental release of excessive pollution and quick detection of permit and statutory violations. Voluntary
compliance incentive programs increase the frequency of environmental monitoring at facilities, augmenting the total number of facilities
participating in environmental protection efforts. These voluntary programs encourage facilities to disclose pollution violations and set
timetables for meeting legal requirements for maximum pollution release limits.
APG 65 Environmental Management Systems Planned Actual
FY2002 Promote the use of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) to address known
compliance and performance problems. Goal Met
Performance Measure
- Increase EMS use by developing tools, such as training, best practice manuals, and 3 27
other resources that encourage improved environmental performance.
FY2001 Same Goal, different target. Goal Met 3 10
FY 2002 Result: EPA exceeded this APG through an increased emphasis on EMS outreach to the regulated community. The Agency
provided additional guidance on development of better management practices to protect the environment and initiated numerous site
visits to encourage application of EMSs within the regulated community. In FY 2002 EPA renewed its emphasis on encouraging
noncompliers to adopt better management practices through enforcement settlement agreements that require the adoption of EMSs at
facilities. EPA responded to environmental management problems at federal facilities by increasing assistance provided to these
regulated entities. Multiple EMS courses provided to states, regions, and federal facilities throughout FY 2002 also contributed to
superior EMS performance.
www.epa.gov/ocfo Performance Results n-109
-------
Notes:
1. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002.
Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive
data available to the public through the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA).
2. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS).
Forms available at http: //www. epa. gov/
compliance/resources/publicatines/.
3. The data in this paragraph were taken from the
U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Measures of Success (MOS) Reports
1999-2001. Copies of 2000 and 2001 available at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/results/
mos.html. FY1999 RECAP Measures of Success
Report Management Report, signed April 12, 2000.
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS).
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis (IDEA) database. Information for accessing
non-enforcement sensitive data available at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/
multimedia/idea/users.html.
6. This information was collected manually through
the U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Inspection Conclusion Data
Sheets (ICDS). This information is internal to EPA
and not currently accessible through a database or
Web site.
7. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, National Performance Measures
Strategy—Final Report for Public Distribution,
signed February 1998.
8. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS).
9. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, ICIS Phase I.
10. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis (IDEA) database.
11. The information in this paragraph was collected
from exit surveys completed by users of the
National Compliance Assistance Centers found at
http://www.assistancecenters.net/.
12. Ibid
13. This information was collected manually through
the U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Inspection Conclusion Data
Sheets (ICDS).
14. U.S. EPA, EPA's Audit and Self-Policing Policy,
Incentives for Self Policing: Discovery, Disclosure,
Correction and Prevention of Violations (65 FR
19,618; April 11, 2000).
15. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Compliance Incentives & Auditing.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
incentives/auditing/auditpolicy.html.
16. The Bakery Partnership Program (BPP) was
proposed on December 10, 2001, at 66 FR 63696;
final promulgation was February 6, 2002, at 6? FR
5586.
17. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Compliance and Enforcement.
Partnership and links to the Federal Register
citations available at http://www.epa.gov/
compliance/civil/pro grams/caa/bakery/index. html.
18. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Compliance and Enforcement. Available
at http://www.epa. gov/compliance/resources/
policies/docket hcsearch.html and search for
Docket EC-2001-007 for a listing of participating
companies.
19. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Environmental Management Systems.
Information available at http://www.epa. gov/ems.
20. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS).
21. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis (IDEA) database.
22. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, State and Tribal Partner Contribution,
65 FR 68786.
23. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, State and Tribal Partner Contribution,
67 FR 72184.
24 U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
#BG998474.
H-110 FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GOAL 10: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
KPA wiJJ
ft
ill maintain til
•clivc internal
lighcsl cp.ia.IIty slandards for cnvironmenlal leadership
magemcnl fiscal 'responsibility by for results.
PROGRESS TOWARD THE STRATEGIC
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
EPA promotes effective management and
fiscal responsibility by focusing on services that
enable EPA program offices to make results-
based decisions and meet environmental
protection goals in a cost-effective manner. The
accomplishments highlighted in this chapter
demonstrate EPA's management abilities in
human resources, information technology,
financial management, procurement, and
accountability. They also highlight the Agency's
work to advance the President's Management
Agenda (PMA),1 and to protect human health and
the environment.
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
EPA's most significant management
accomplishments reflect strides in managing
human capital, streamlining business processes
and meeting customer needs, improving
financial performance, investing in infrastructure,
protecting children's health, and improving
management and program operations. The steps
taken under these initiatives are intended to
provide resources, technology, and financial
information directly to EPA program managers
for decision making purposes. As of
September 30, 2002, EPA was one of only two
federal agencies that received green progress
ratings from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on all five of the PMA initiatives
tracked in the Executive Branch Management
Scorecard.2 In addition, EPA was selected as 1 of
the 7 finalists from 100 nominations government-
wide for the 2002 President's Quality Award
Program, for its accomplishments in Budget and
Performance Integration.
Managing Human Capital
EPA has set in motion a variety of human
capital initiatives aimed at investing in its
employees and addressing its hiring needs to
ensure that the Agency has the skill base and the
diversified workforce to accomplish its mission.
EPA faces significant challenges in obtaining a
workforce with the highly specialized skills and
knowledge required to accomplish its work.
Retirement projections for FY 2002 through
FY 2007 indicate that 27 percent of the EPA
workforce will be eligible to retire within the
next 5 years—including 26 percent of the
scientific-technical workforce and 54 percent of
the Senior Executive Service (SES).3 EPA's human
capital strategy,4 aligned with the PMA goals,
and several initiatives in FY 2002 were aimed at
addressing the expected loss of talent at all
levels of the Agency. EPA has submitted its Five-
Year Restructuring Plan, which focuses on how
the Agency is addressing the most critical
workforce issues through realistic, creative
approaches.5 The plan's strategies will provide
for an EPA workforce that is innovative and
skilled at applying the most productive ways to
address significant environmental problems in a
more cost-effective manner. To align human
capital activities with the Agency's Strategic Plan
revisions, EPA is developing a Workforce
Planning System that links competencies to
mission needs along core business lines.
Specifically, in FY 2002 the Agency made
significant progress in implementing the
workforce development strategy, which is a
major component of the human capital strategy.
EPA is making progress in implementing its
human capital strategy by launching an SES
Candidate Development Program, hiring its fifth
class of EPA interns, developing programs for its
workforce, and completing the first phase of a
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-iii
-------
Strategic Workforce Planning system. FY 2002
accomplishments are highlighted below:
• Selection of 51 candidates from a pool of
655 applicants for the Agency's SES
Candidate Development Program. Candidates
will undergo a rigorous 15- to 18-month
developmental program that will prepare
them for placement into future SES
vacancies.
• Hiring of 41 interns as part of the EPA intern
program. Since its inception in 1998, the
program has selected a total of 152 interns,
exceeding the Agency's original target of
120 interns. EPA selected this diverse cadre
of young people based on academic
accomplishments, leadership potential,
commitment to a career in public service,
and interest in environmental issues. This
new class and those that preceded it will
help to prepare the Agency for the projected
loss through retirement of its most senior
people. This centrally funded program
continues to receive senior management
support.
• Implementation of programs geared toward
better preparing the Agency's workforce for
the challenges of the future. EPA's
Management Development Program
reestablished a curriculum of courses for
Agency supervisors and managers. The
Mid-level Development Program provides
five courses that focus on building cross-
cutting competencies and skills that all
employees need to work effectively. About
400 employees per year receive this
training. The New Skills/New Options
program supports administrative staff
development through the use of structured
self-assessments, career planning tools, and
online learning.
• Implementation of the strategic workforce
planning system. EPA highlighted public and
private sector best practices; completed
112 pilot office interviews; finalized the
requirements analysis, line of business
document, and competencies report; and
submitted the Strategic Workforce Planning
Methodology Options Report.
Streamlining Business Processes and Meeting
Customer Needs
In FY 2002 EPA increased the services that it
offers electronically to its employees and
customers and provided greater accessibility to
grants information through electronic govern-
ment initiatives. These actions were taken in
direct response to the President's e-government
initiative as outlined in the PMA.
• EPA expanded e-government opportunities
by making grant opportunities available to
prospective recipients electronically as well
as by incorporating into its new Grants
Competition Policy the requirement to use
the Federal Business Opportunities
(FedBizOpps) Web site for posting grant
solicitations.6 EPA participated in work
groups that defined standard data elements
and format for grant solicitations. EPA also
joined the Intergovernmental Online
Registry, a system for handling funds
transferred between agencies in interagency
agreements (lAGs). It is expected that this
registry will be used to order goods and
services through lAGs.
• In the area of acquisitions, EPA extended the
use of electronic signatures, developed
interfaces with current Agency-wide systems
involved in the buying and paying process,
and developed a business case for the
replacement of the legacy small purchases
system.
EPA continued its use of performance-based
contracts that allow the contractor flexibility to
propose innovative ways of achieving environ-
mental results with limited government inter-
vention. The Agency increased its percentage of
performance-based awards from 10 percent in
FY 2001 to 17 percent in FY 2002.7 Although
the goal of 20 percent was not achieved,
considerable efforts have been made to
negotiate individual performance-based work
assignments or task orders under existing
contracts. EPA plans to continue these efforts for
both existing and new contracts in FY 2003.
In support of the PMA Initiative for
competitive sourcing, the Agency has made
n-ii2
FY
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
substantial progress in implementing competitive
sourcing within EPA. The Agency identified
90 positions, or 100 percent of EPA's FY 2002/
2003 competitive sourcing goal, for competitive
review or conversion. The Agency directly
converted 36 positions to the private sector and
began reviews of 21 additional positions, thus
exceeding its FY 2002 goal. An interoffice team
was convened to develop a more strategic and
sustainable approach to competitive sourcing.
The team's focus will include identifying similar
functions across Agency program offices that can
be bundled for competitive review.
Improving Financial Performance
EPA continues to strengthen its financial
management practices, as required by the PMA,
to enhance customers' confidence in the delivery
of the Agency's environmental results. In
FY 2002 EPA improved its status score for
financial management on OMB's Executive
Branch Management Scorecard from red to
yellow in recognition of significant progress.
FY 2002 accomplishments are highlighted
below:
• EPA corrected and resolved all four of its
standing material weaknesses. This marks the
first time in the Agency's 20-year history of
complying with the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act requirements that EPA
will not report any material weaknesses.
(Refer to Section III, "Management
Accomplishments and Challenges, "forfurther
discussion.)
• Upgrading of software applications, which
resulted in improved quality and greater ease
in generating financial statements. In
FY 2002 the Agency again received a clean
opinion for its FY 2002 financial statements
and developed the capability to produce
statements on a quarterly basis. This
improvement will help meet accelerated
year-end and periodic reporting
requirements. In addition, EPA began
development of a new financial reporting
approach involving business intelligence
tools that will produce real-time program
information and help managers to make
better business and program management
decisions.
• EPA is replacing its Integrated Financial
Management System and related systems. In
FY 2002 the Agency performed a strategic
assessment of existing systems and their
functions, current business processes, and
potential business needs. Based on the
assessment, EPA began developing
requirements and architecture options for a
comprehensive new system, including cost
estimates for various commercial off-the-
shelf software.
• The Agency assessed its vulnerability to
erroneous payments in response to OMB
requirements and the PMA. EPA created a
task force to review existing processes and
controls over the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds. The task force
found the occurrence of erroneous payments
to be as low as 0.13 percent and
0.04 percent for the respective funds and the
controls to be excellent. In addition, EPA's
Office of the Inspector General found the
Agency's controls to be effective in
identifying and correcting duplicate
payments.
• EPA's new grant competition policy8 became
effective on October 1, 2002. The policy
directly supports the PMA initiative on
financial management to implement an
effective grant competition policy and
strengthen grant oversight.9
Investing in EPA's Infrastructure
In FY 2002 EPA completed 56 physical
security vulnerability risk assessments.10 As a
result, the Agency strengthened its perimeter,
entrances and exits, interior, and security
planning capabilities by increasing guard
services and procuring and installing perimeter
countermeasures, security equipment, and
emergency communications systems.
EPA completed state-of-the-art construction
projects at Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, and the Region 7 office in Kansas City
that will better prepare the Agency and its
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-ii3
-------
;
:
: ;
--'
•
Aerial view of EPA's Campus at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Photograph taken by "Flying
Fotos" in Chapel Hill, NC, on October 10, 2001.
employees to face the environmental scientific
challenges of the 21st century. The new EPA
campus at Research Triangle Park, the largest
facility ever designed and built by the Agency,
operates on an environmentally friendly, cost-
effective, and highly functional basis. The
facility provides state-of-the-art laboratories and
offices and represents EPA's commitment to
scientific excellence in the pursuit of human
health and environmental protection.
The Agency also completed its move into
the Federal Triangle complex, the new
headquarters for EPA. In conjunction with the
Department of Energy, EPA provided technical
advice to pilot laboratory partners from the
federal, public, and private sectors by sharing
technical information and innovative whole-
laboratory designs for reducing energy and
water consumption and pollution as a result of
its experience at the Federal Triangle site.11
Protecting Children's Health
Protecting children from environmental
threats remains a priority for EPA. In FY 2002
the Agency continued its efforts toward
developing knowledge about the relationship
between environmental factors and children's
health. These efforts include the issuance of a
second report on trends in measures reflecting
environmental factors that might affect the health
and well-being of children, an intra-agency
effort across programs to develop information on
children's exposure to environmental
contaminants, and the revision of EPA's cancer
risk assessment guidelines to include
consideration of children.
States play a critical role in protecting
children's health. EPA forged relationships with
the Environmental Council of the States (EGOS)
and the Association of State and Territorial
Health Officials (ASTHO). In FY 2002 ASTHO
convened a series of meetings of state health
and environment officials with the purpose of
developing a national action agenda to reduce
environmental triggers of childhood asthma. EPA
is also working with the National Conference of
State Legislatures, which launched an online
database of state children's environmental health
legislation, conducted a national workshop for
state legislators on children's environmental
health, and is developing a legislative guide that
explores policy options for states on children's
environmental health issues.
EPA is supporting the American Academy of
Pediatrics, which recently conducted its third
workshop for chief pediatric residents on
children's environmental health. With EPA's
support, the American Nurses Association
Discover the Rewards!
EPA led a multi-agency effort to celebrate
Children's Health Month in October 2002. For
information on topics and tips to discover the
rewards of healthy children, check out EPA's
Web site at http://www.childrenshealth.gov.
H-114 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
published three continuing education modules
on children's environmental health and
conducted children's environmental health
workshops at four meetings of professional
nursing organizations.
In August-September 2002 EPA successfully
launched an international partnership on
children's environmental health indicator
development at the World Summit for
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South
Africa. The Commission for Environmental
Cooperation produced an agenda for action on
children's environmental health in the United
States, Mexico, and Canada and has started
implementing projects on risk assessment and
indicators. EPA sponsored a major conference on
children's environmental health in Southeast
Asia, generating interest in the subject from
policy makers, researchers, non-governmental
organizations, and health care professionals.
Improving Management and Program Operations
In response to recommendations of EPA's
Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the
Agency undertook action that contributed to cost
savings, improvements in business practices, and
increased environmental results. The Agency
took action in the following areas:
• At EPA's request, several communities
implemented the OIG-recommended best
practices and solutions to improve operations
and reduce costs in resolving the combined
sewer overflow discharges of untreated
domestic, commercial, and industrial
wastewater.12
• Investigation of an environmental services
company doing scientific testing for EPA
resulted in the company's conviction for
conspiring to alter scientific test data and its
assessment of $18 million in criminal and
civil fines and penalties.13
• Completion of audits, evaluations, and the
issuance of advice by the OIG resulted in
the recommendation of more than
$35 million in savings, questioned costs, and
improvements in EPA's programs and
operational performance.14 For example, the
OIG recommended that EPA develop
OIG PROFILE OF PERFORMANCE
/" Questioned Costs/Savings (millions) $35
/ Fines, Recoveries, Settlements (millions) $20
/" Criminal, Civil, Administrative Actions 79
/ Environmental Program Actions/Improvements 29
/" Management Operational Actions Improvements 95
/ Recommendations (Environmental & Operational) 384
/ Customer Service Rating 79%
Source: Inspector General Operations and Reporting System, and the OIG
Performance and Results Measurement System. All data originate from
audits and evaluations done in conformance with Professional Standards of
the Comptroller General, official records of legal and administrative proceed-
ings, and direct independent surveys with OIG clients and stakeholders.
regulations, qualification protocols, and risk-
based targeting and apply them to control
the open market trading of air emissions
credits.15
• Ongoing investigative initiatives continued to
uncover criminal activity in EPA's assistance
agreements and contracts, laboratory fraud,
and cyber fraud in partnership with other
government agencies.
• The OIG also developed a Web-enabled
interactive Compendium of Federal
Environmental Programs, through the
President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency, for more efficient program
collaboration between federal environmental
agencies.
In FY 2002 the OIG improved its
organizational planning and performance. The
OIG issued its first Annual Performance Report
as a best practice among the federal Inspector
General community, for which it received high
praise by the Mercatus Center. The OIG Web
site, http://www.epa.gov/oig/earth. contains
information on its Annual Performance Report,
Semiannual Reports, Strategic Plan, and other
reports and facts. In addition, under the OIG
statutory requirement for reporting on the
Agency's Top Management Challenges, two new
challenges were added: Air Toxics Program and
Management of Biosolids. These challenges are
described in Section III of this report,
Management Accomplishments and Challenges.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-ii5
-------
Program Evaluations
Appendix A contains descriptions of program
evaluations completed in FY 2002 that support
the overall Effective Management Goal.
STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNER
CONTRIBUTIONS
Because much of the day-to-day work to
protect human health and the environment is
done by state and tribal governments through
federally delegated programs, EPA invites early
input from its regulatory partners when setting
long-range priorities and evaluating progress. In
FY 2002 the EGOS and tribal representatives
participated in EPA's FY 2004 Annual Planning
Meeting to present recommendations for
consideration during development of the
Agency's budget priorities. EPA regional offices,
in turn, consulted with states and tribes on
overall EPA budget priorities and the
development of regional budget initiatives. In
spring 2002, as the Agency developed options
for a new strategic goal framework, it solicited
the state perspective on the greatest challenges
and opportunities in environmental and human
health protection that the Agency and the Nation
would likely face in the coming 5 to 10 years
and carefully considered the states' viewpoint as
EPA officials developed recommendations for
presentation to the Administrator. When the new
five-goal structure was announced, EPA
continued consulting with states to help
determine more precisely the desired results to
be achieved under each of the new strategic
goals. In FY 2003 EPA will continue to consult
extensively with states in completing its revised
Strategic Plan, due to the Congress and the
public by September 30, 2003.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF FY 2002
PERFORMANCE ON FY 2003 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE PLAN
There are no changes to FY 2003 APGs
based on the results of FY 2002 performance.
H-116 F¥
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 10: Effective Management
FY 2002 Obligations (in thousands):
ummary of FY 2002 Annual Performance
5
Goals 1 j 1 Goals
Met I Not Met
0
A description of the quality of the data used to measure
performance can be found in Appendix B.
Goals
Data
Lags
' ERA'S
EPATotal:
Goal 10:
Goal 10 Share of Total:
$9,447,202
$427,794
FY 2002 Costs (in thousands):
EPATotal: $7,998,422
Goal 10 Costs: $390,191
Goal 10 Share of Total: 4.9%
Refer to page 1-13 of the Overview (Section I) for an explanation of difference between obligations and costs.
Refer to page IV-11 of the Financial Statements fora consolidated statement of net cost by goal.
Annual Performance Goals (APG) and Measures
FY 1999-FY 2002 Results
Strategic Objective: Provide Vision, National and International Leadership, Executive Direction,
and Support for All Agency Programs.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $48,467 (12.4% of FY2002 Goal 10 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: The Immediate Office of the Administrator and its regional counterparts provided the vision and
leadership needed to enable EPA to meet its commitments to protect public health and the environment. Vision and leadership, as well as
executive direction and policy oversight for all Agency programs are ongoing, evolving objectives. EPA continues its commitment to
protect children's health and will continue to direct resources toward the programs that reduce risks to children from a range of
environmental hazards. The Agency continues to work diligently to process all Title VII internal employment discrimination complaints and
will continue to administer and monitor the implementation of affirmative employment programs. Furthermore, EPA will continue to
manage special-emphasis programs designed to improve the representation, utilization, and retention of minorities, women, and persons
with disabilities in the Agency's workforce and monitor the external compliance, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibits discrimination in programs and activities that receive financial assistance from EPA.
Strategic Objective: Demonstrate Leadership in Managing for Results By Providing the Management Services,
Administrative Policies, and Operations to Enable the Agency to Achieve Its Environmental Mission and to Meet
Its Fiduciary and Workforce Responsibilities and Mandates.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $60,921 (15.6% of FY 2002 Goal 10 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: EPA's progress toward effective management and fiscal responsibilities is highlighted by quick
response to changing needs while maintaining the highest quality standards for resource stewardship and management, managing
changing needs for workforce skills, and keeping pace with new technology. EPA provided the management operations and customer
service needed to support Agency environmental results.
APG 66 GPRA Implementation
FY2002 EPA strengthens goal-based decision making by developing and issuing timely planning
and resource management products that meet customer needs. Goal Met.
Performance Measures
Agency's audited financial statements and Annual Report are submitted on time.
Agency's audited financial statements receive an unqualified opinion and provide
information that is useful and relevant to the Agency and external parties.
Planned
3/01/02
1
Actual
2/27/02
FY2001
Same Goal. Goal Met.
3/01/01 3/01/01
(timelines) (timelines)
1 (opinion) 1 (opinion)
FY2000 100% of EPA's Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) implementation components
(planning, budgeting, financial management, accountability, and program analysis) are completed
on time and meet customer needs. Goal Not Met.
100%
85%
FY 1999 By the end of 1999, the Agency can plan and track performance against annual goals and
capture 100% of costs through the new Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability structure,
based on modified budget and financial accounting systems, a new accountability process, and
new cost accounting mechanisms. Goal Met.
9/30/99
9/30/99
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Performance Results
n-ii7
-------
FY 2002 Result: EPA prepared and submitted, by the statutory due date of February 27, 2002, the FY 2001 financial statements and received
a clean audit opinion from EPA's Office of the Inspector General (DIG). These statements, for the first time, included comparative schedules.
In addition, the DIG did not cite any material weaknesses or recommend any additional corrective actions.
APG67 GPRA Performance Measurement Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA continues improving how it measures progress in achieving its strategic objectives 2% 10%
and annual goals by increasing external performance goals and measures characterized
as outcomes by 2% in the FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification compared to FY 2002. Goal Met
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met, 4% 4%
FY 2002 Result: EPA exceeded the goal of a 2-percentage-point increase in outcome-oriented Annual Performance Goals (APGs) and
Performance Measures (PMs). In FY 2002 EPA released the FY 2003 Annual Plan which included 49 APGs and 114 PMs that were
subsequently classified as outcomes. The percentage of outcome-oriented APGs changed from 29% for FY 2002 to 36% for FY 2003
(an increase of 7 percentage points), while the percentage of outcome PMs changed from 29% to 40% (an increase of 11 percentage points).
If APGs and PMs are added together, outcomes increased by 10 percentage points—from 29% for FY 2002 to 39% for FY 2003.
Strategic Objective: Effectively Conduct Planning and Oversight for Building Operations and Provide Employees
With a Quality Work Environment That Considers Safety, New Construction, and Repairs and That Promotes
Pollution Prevention Within EPA and With Our State,Tribal, Local, and Private Partnerships.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $227,568 (58.3% of FY 2002 Goal 10 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: The Agency has made strides in ensuring that all of its employees are provided a safe and
energy-efficient work environment by either consolidating employees into a central location or building new facilities. EPA met its
strategic objective by consolidating thousands of employees in a well-planned central location that offers greater efficiency, comfort, and
safety and lower operating costs, while maintaining consistency with its environmental mission. With its new facilities, EPA has ensured
that its buildings are as energy-efficient and sustainable as possible to serve as models of healthy workplaces with minimal
environmental impacts. Through innovative technologies and holistic approaches to design, construction, renovation, and use, the
Agency is "living its mission" by practicing sound environmental management.
APG 68 Facilities Projects - Personnel Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA will ensure personnel are relocated to new space as scheduled. Goal Met,
Performance Measure
- Percentage of EPA personnel consolidated into Headquarters complex. 72% 72%
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met. 52% ES%
FY 2002 Result: EPA successfully relocated 72% of its headquarters employees to quality work environments that are safe and
energy-efficient. This relocation was the conclusion of a 10-year effort by the Agency to improve the working conditions of employees in
the Washington, DC area.
APG 69 Facilities Projects - Construction Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA will ensure that all new and ongoing construction projects are progressing and
completed as scheduled. Met.
Performance Measure
- Percentage of complete build out of Customs and Connection Wing buildings. 100%
FY2001 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Percentage of the new Research Triangle Park (RTF) building construction completed. 100% 95%
- Percentage of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) building construction completed. 100% 100%
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Percentage of new RTF building construction completed. 80%
- Percentage of the ICC construction completed. 80%
- Percentage of EPA personnel consolidated into Headquarters complex. 40%
FY 1999 Complete at least 50% of construction of the consolidated research lab at RTF, North Carolina. 50%
Goal Met,
n-118 lil'A's 1"Y JJOOJ! Annual lie-port www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Continue renovation of the new consolidated Headquarters complex, completing 100%build 100% 90%
out of the Ariel Rios north and Wilson Building, and 50% of the ICC, and moving 50% 50%
38% of EPA personnel from vacated spaces to the new consolidated complex. Goal Met, 38% 31%
FY 2002 Result: Renovation and build-out of the final building in the Federal Triangle Complex were successfully completed. EPA's new
space houses the cafeteria, as well as additional offices and services. The historic space is in keeping with the Agency's goal to provide
a quality work environment that is safe and energy-efficient.
APG 70 Energy Reduction Technology Planned Actual
FY2002 EPA will initiate a demonstration fuel cell at Ft. Meade Laboratory. Not
Performance Measures
- Percentage of fuel cell components in place. 50%
- Percentage of structure completed. 100% 0%
FY2001 Same Goal. Goal Not Met, 10% 0%
FY 2002 Result: This project is a joint project involving EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, Siemens
Westinghouse, and the electric utility industry. At the beginning of FY 2002, the project consortium concluded that the output of the
originally proposed fuel cell would not work properly with available standard-sized steam turbines, rendering the project economically
unfeasible. The Agency then attempted to reconfigure the fuel cell project and establish a new funding partnership. Since adequate
funding could not be found, the project is being terminated.
Strategic Objective: Provide Audit, Evaluation, and Investigative Products and Advisory Services Resulting in
Improved Environmental Quality and Human Health.
FY2002 Cost (in thousands): $53,235 (13.7% of FY2002 Goal 10 Total Costs)
Progress Toward Strategic Objective: The DIG made progress toward its objective by focusing on customer needs and investing its
resources on evaluations of national environmental issues to identify improvements and solutions. The DIG is also providing advisory
assistance to the Agency on GPRA, accountability, and data quality processes as well as promoting more collaborative approaches and
techniques.
APG 71 Audit and Advisory Services16 Planned Actual
FY2002 Improve environmental quality and human health by recommending 50 improvements 50 100
across Agency environmental goals, identifying and recommending solutions to reduce 15 18
15 of the highest environmental risks, and identifying 15 best environmental practices. 15 16
Met,
FY2001 Office of Audit provides independent audits, evaluations, and advisory services, responsive to
customers and clients, leading to improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness in Agency
business practices and attainment of its environment goals. Goal Met,
Performance Measures
- Potential monetary value of recommendations, questioned costs, savings and recoveries. 40M
- Examples of Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendations/advice or actions taken to 55
improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of business practices and environmental
programs.
- Overall customer and stakeholder satisfaction with audit products and services (timeliness, 77%
relevancy, usefulness and responsiveness).
FY2000 Same Goal, different targets. Goal Met, 64 M
63
recommendations
75% '76%
satisfaction
FY1999 In 1999, the OIG will provide objective, timely and independent auditing, consulting, and 15 24
investigative services through such actions as completing 15 construction grant closeout audits.
Goal Met.
FY 2002 Result: The OIG exceeded the targets for this goal. The OIG is continuing its pursuit of improved environmental outcomes by
focusing its product line on national environmental problems, issues, and results; promoting partnering relationships across
governmental entities; and investing in additional follow-up to fully recognize the environmental benefits of its work. During the year, the
OIG reported more than $55 million in combined potential costs savings and recoveries; conducted 79 criminal civil or administrative
www.epa.gov/ocfo Performance Results n-119
-------
actions preventing the loss of resources and program integrity; and identified more than 384 recommendations, best practices, or risks. The
OIG also received a 79% client satisfaction rating on the quality, timeliness, and usefulness of its staff products.17
FY 2001 Annual Performance Goals (No Longer Reported for FY 2002)
Evaluate the effectiveness of the Children's Valuation Handbook.
H-120 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
Office of the President, Federal Management, The
President's Management Agenda. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/
pma index.html.
2. Office of Management and Budget, Executive
Office of the President. Executive Branch
Management Scorecard, Agency Scorecard: U.S.
EPA (July 15, 2002). Available at
http: //www. whitehouse. gov/omb/budinte gration/
scorecards/epa scorecard.html.
3. U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Office of Human Resources and
Organizational Services, EPA Personnel System data
report (August 10, 2002).
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Office of Human Resources and
Organizational Services, Investing in Our People:
EPA's Strategy for Human Capital 2001 through
2003.
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Office of Human Resources and
Organizational Services, EPA'sFive Year
Restructuring Plan (May 2002).
6. U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Office of Human Resources and
Organizational Services, Policy for Competition in
Assistance Agreements, EPA Order 5700.5
(September 12, 2002).
7. U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Office of Human Resources and
Organizational Services, Office of Acquisition
Management, internal tracking.
8. U.S. EPA, Office of Administration and Resources
Management, Office of Human Resources and
Organizational Services, Policy for Competition in
Assistance Agreements, EPA Order 5700.5
(September 12, 2002).
9. Ibid
10. U.S. Marshall Service, Vulnerability Assessments at
Federal Facilities (June 28,1995).
11. Office of the President, Greening the Government
Through Efficient Energy Management, Executive
Order 13123 (1999).
12. U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General, OIG
Audit Report 2002 P 00012 (2002).
13. U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General, OIG
Semiannual Report to Congress October 1, 2001
through March 31, 2002, EPA350-K-02-001.
14. U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General.
15. U.S. EPA. Office of the Inspector General, OIG
Audit Report 2002 P 00019 (2002).
Id The OIG uses an internal Performance Results and
Measurement Database to categorize and
accumulate performance results from its products
and services designed to influence improvements
in EPA's implementation of its environmental
programs.
17. U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General, Annual
Performance Report. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/ereading room/
Perfm5.pdf.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
n-i2i
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
H-122 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Section III
Management
Accomplishments
and Challenges
-------
MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
FY 2002 Integrity Act Report III-2
Major Management Challenges III-4
FY 2002 Management's Report on Audits III-ll
Key Management Challenges III-l 3
-------
MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
EPA senior managers are aware of the
complex management challenges the Agency
must address to achieve program results, and
they work diligently to identify strategies to
maintain integrity and strengthen the public's
confidence in the Agency. The President's
Management Agenda,1 an initiative to improve
management, performance, and accountability
government-wide, has placed additional
emphasis on effective program management. In
FY 2002 the Agency accelerated efforts to address
its most serious management problems and
corrected all four of its material weaknesses as
well as a number of its other management
challenges—deficiencies in program policies,
guidance, or procedures that might impair the
Agency's ability to achieve its mission.
The Agency uses a system of internal
program reviews, independent reviews, and
audits by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
and EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG);
program evaluations; and performance
measurements to ensure that program activities
are effectively carried out in accordance with
applicable laws and sound management policy
and provide reasonable assurance that Agency
resources are protected against fraud, waste,
abuse, and mismanagement. As a result EPA is
quick to identify and develop strategies to
address integrity weaknesses and major
management challenges.
For some management problems the Agency
has put annual performance goals in place to
track progress. Three of the four material
weaknesses corrected in FY 2002 and six of the
nine additional management challenges have
associated Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) annual performance goals and
measures. Although EPA does not have specific
GPRA goals or measures for all integrity
weaknesses and major management challenges,
the Agency's senior leadership monitors all
problems closely as discussed later in this
section.
Section III provides a comprehensive
discussion of EPA's management and
performance challenges and its strategy to
resolve these issues. (The most significant of
these and their relevance to the achievement of
the Agency's mission are also addressed in the
Section II goal chapters.) This section also meets
the reporting requirements of the Federal
Managers Financial Integrity Act (Integrity Act);2
the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended;3
and the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000,4 as
discussed below.
FISCAL YEAR 2002
ANNUAL ASSURANCE STATEMENT
I am pleased to give an unqualified statement
of assurance that the Agency's programs and
resources are protected from fraud, waste,
and mismanagement, based on EPA's annual
self-assessments of the Agency's internal
controls, management, and financial control
systems.
Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
Under the Integrity Act all federal agencies
must submit an annual Integrity Act Report to the
President and Congress and provide reasonable
assurance that their policies, procedures, and
guidance are adequate to support the
achievement of their intended mission, goals,
and objectives. Agencies also must report
material weaknesses—those deficiencies found
to impair achievement of the agencies'
missions—and identify corrective action
strategies that have been developed and are
under way to remedy the problems. EPA senior
managers periodically report to the Administrator
on progress to address material weaknesses and
other less serious but important problems.
The Inspector General Act of 1978,5 as
amended, requires federal agencies to report to
Congress twice a year on the status of efforts to
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-1
-------
carry out corrective actions and reach final action
on OIG audits. The Reports Consolidation Act of
20006 gives agencies the authority to consolidate
various management reports (including
management's report on audits) into a single
annual report. EPA managers have greatly
improved the timeliness and effectiveness of
their audit management practices, and since
FY 1999 they have decreased by 58 percent the
number of audits without final action 1 year after
the management decision (from 72 in FY 1999
to 23 in FY 2002).7
As required by the Reports Consolidation Act
of 2000, OIG's list of top management
challenges facing the Agency, along with its
assessment of EPA's progress in addressing these
challenges, is included at the end of this section.
OIG tiered the challenges to reflect its
consideration of their significance and severity
of impact on the Agency's mission. The
Agency's response to the OIG statement is
included as part of the discussion of corrective
action strategies for integrity weaknesses and
major management challenges.
FY 2002 11 .' \CT
Since 1982 EPA has identified and reported
49 material weaknesses and 18 financial
nonconformances.8 By the end of FY 2002 the
Agency had corrected all of these material
weaknesses and financial nonconformances,
closing the last four material weaknesses during
FY 2002. EPA's record in correcting its
management challenges has steadily improved
over the past decade, and, for the first time in
the 20-year history of the Integrity Act, EPA has
no material weaknesses. The progress in
correcting material weaknesses and financial
nonconformances exemplifies EPA's strong
commitment to improving integrity and
accountability in all programs, organizations, and
functions.
20 No
Discrimination Complaints. The Agency's
corrective action strategy and determination that
these weaknesses had been resolved are
discussed below.
Material Weaknesses Corrected During FY 2002
The four material weaknesses corrected in
FY 2002 are National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permits, Construction Grants
Closeout, Information System Security, and
Backlog of Title VI (Civil Rights Act of 1964)
1. Reduce the Backlog of National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permits9 (Goal 2): Based on Permit Compliance
System (PCS) data in November 1998,
26 percent of permits for major facilities had not
been reissued following expiration, and
48 percent of permits for minor facilities had not
been reissued. In 1999 the Agency estimated
that the backlog in EPA-issued major permits had
tripled over the past 10 years; likewise, the
backlog in state-issued permits had
doubled over that time. Expired NPDES
permits might not reflect the most
recent applicable effluent guidelines,
water quality standards, or Total
Maximum Daily Loads, posing a threat
to the environment. Without timely
issuance of high-quality permits,
necessary improvements in water
quality could be delayed. (FY1998-
2002 OIG management challenge—
tier 2 management challenge in 9/6/02
OIG memo to the Administrator on
EPA's Key Management Challenges,
declared a material weakness FY 1998.)
Corrective Action Strategy: Since the Agency
identified this weakness in 1998, it has achieved
56 percent of targeted reduction in the backlog
ffl-2
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
of major point source permits and achieved
58 percent of targeted reduction in the backlog
for minor point source permits. EPA's
comprehensive strategy for improving the
NPDES permit program10 has resulted in
noteworthy progress, and it establishes a
management control framework for continued
improvement. EPA is deploying guidance and
tools designed to help regions and states
prioritize permits that have the greatest
environmental impact and to automate the permit
writing process.11 EPA believes it has addressed
the materiality of this issue and put the
management controls in place for continued
progress. EPA is supporting a number of efforts to
strengthen the NPDES Program: (1) two pilot
projects with states to develop systems to address
permits on a watershed basis, (2) an EPA/state
project to identify permit streamlining
opportunities, (3) expanded use of general permits
to address increases in the permitting universe, and
(4) ongoing permit quality reviews. (Also see
OIG's Key Management Challenges)
2. Construction Grants Closeout (Goal 2):
Without timely closeouts of construction grants,
millions of dollars in potentially ineligible
program costs cannot be recovered for use in
other high-priority state clean water projects.
(FY1992 OMB candidate material weakness,
declared an Agency weakness FY 1992, elevated
to a material weakness FY 1996.)
Corrective Action Strategy: Since 1990 the
Agency has worked to accelerate the completion
and closeout of construction grants by annually
assessing the remaining workload in each
region, identifying the bottlenecks, and agreeing
on a closeout plan and follow-up actions to bring
the program to completion. Forty-seven states
and 8 regions have met the "success" criteria of
no more than 5 open grants per state and 10
open grants per region.12 The Agency-wide goal
for correcting this weakness is 100 open grants.
EPA has exceeded this goal with 84 open grants.
The remaining open grants are concentrated in a
few states and will be closed out once the
grantees have exhausted all appeal mechanisms.
EPA will monitor the open grants closely through
mechanisms such as annual state work plans and
closeout strategies.
3. Information System Security (Goal 7):
EPA needs a centralized security program with
strong oversight processes to adequately
address risks and ensure that valuable informa-
tion technology resources and environmental
data are secure. (FY1997-2002 OIG major
management challenge—tier 2 management
challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to the
Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges, FY2001 GAO major management
challenge, declared a material weakness FY 199 7
and an expanded material weakness FY2000.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA has made
substantial progress in keeping pace with the
evolving challenges of information security. In
FY 2002 the Agency developed and began
implementing a comprehensive strategy to
systematically address security-related
deficiencies in accordance with the Government
Information Security Reform Act.13 This strategy
included initiating annual security risk
assessments for the Agency's systems, as well as
instituting regular monitoring and reporting of
system owners' follow-up actions in response to
the assessments. EPA has completed risk
assessments for its critical applications and
systems and has implemented regular
evaluations of its security network and data,
network intrusion detection and monitoring
controls, and formal security plan reviews.
Recent reviews conducted in FY 2002 show that
EPA has an improved information security
program that assesses, identifies, and mitigates
risks to the Agency's data and systems."Recent
network penetration tests validated that controls
successfully deter penetration attempts. To
improve on this performance, the Agency plans
to enhance its ability to monitor activities at the
subnetwork level to ensure deeper protection
and guard against possible unauthorized access
or internal exploitation.
EPA plans to sustain improvements through
consistent security control implementation and
ongoing evaluation and regular testing to ensure
that the policies and procedures are effective.
The Agency's validation strategy15 employs a
variety of methods, processes, and mechanisms
to ensure EPA's information security meets the
criteria of the best industry practices and
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-3
-------
federal requirements. Validation methods
include (1) comprehensive risk assessments of
major applications and general support systems
using the security self-assessment methodology
published by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology,16 (2) implementation of central
automated monitoring for assessing compliance
with security standards, and (3) internal and
external network penetration testing. (Also see
OIG's Key Management Challenges.)
4. Backlog of Title VI (Civil Rights Act of
1964)17 Discrimination Complaints
(Goal 10): Title VI prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color, or national origin by any
entity that receives federal financial assistance.
By June 2001 the number of Title VI adminis-
trative complaints that required an investigation
or a jurisdictional determination by EPA had
reached 66. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 718
require EPA to process complaints of
discrimination filed under the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 within 180 days after acceptance of the
complaint. EPA's program to investigate Title VI
complaints did not meet regulatory deadlines
for processing and investigating complaints.
(Declared a material weakness in FY 2000.)
Corrective Action Strategy: On June 1, 2001,
the Administrator announced a comprehensive
strategy for addressing the backlog and
improving the Title VI program within 2 years.
EPA formed a 13-member interoffice Task Force
to eliminate the backlog.19 The Office of Civil
Rights, which leads the Task Force, also initiated
new policies and procedures to prevent increases
in the backlog. The backlog of 66 cases has been
reduced by half. All remaining cases have been
analyzed and preliminary determinations made as
to how they should be processed. There are no
new cases in backlog status. EPA expects to
eliminate the backlog by July 2003 and validate
the effectiveness of management controls to
ensure timely resolution of new cases.
Following are brief descriptions and
summaries of activities planned in response to
management challenges identified by GAO,
OMB, OIG, or EPA itself. The Agency will
continue to use the tools available under GPRA
and other management statutes to assist in
addressing these issues. Six of EPA's
management challenges are being addressed as
internal Agency weaknesses for which the
Agency develops specific and measurable
corrective actions and reports on progress to the
Administrator.
1. Protecting Critical Infrastructure from
Non-traditional Attacks (Cross-Goal): EPA
has the responsibility of helping to secure the
Nation's drinking and wastewater infrastructure,
of promoting security in the chemical industry
and hazardous materials sector, and of
responding to and recovering from biological,
chemical, certain radiological, and other terrorist
attacks. To achieve its goals, the Agency needs
to apply technical, organizational, resource,
training, and communication assets to complex
issues with unprecedented dispatch. Success
requires simultaneous attention to questions of
threat, capabilities and deficiencies,
preparedness, management and oversight, and
efficiency and effectiveness. (FY2002 OIG
major management challenge—tier 1
management challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to
the Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA has taken
measures to respond to terrorist incidents and is
taking steps to better prepare for, and respond
to, future incidents based on lessons learned.
The Agency carried out its mission and
accomplished a remarkable achievement in
responding to three national incidents during the
same time period in response to the attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and
the cleanup of anthrax contamination in the
Capitol Complex and other facilities around the
country. One of these tasks, cleaning up anthrax
contamination from the Capitol Hill Complex,
defied the customary thinking that the cleanup
of an anthrax-contaminated building was
impossible.
ffl-4
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the federal government has taken action to
prepare and protect the public against terrorist
threats. The President created the Office of
Homeland Security (OHS) and recently signed
legislation creating a cabinet-level Department
of Homeland Security. The July 2002 National
Strategy for Homeland Security20 designated EPA
as the lead agency for protecting critical drinking
and wastewater infrastructure and promoting
security in the chemical industry and hazardous
materials sectors. The November 2002 Reorgan-
ization Plan for the Department of Homeland
Security also identifies some areas where EPA
will coordinate efforts with the Department.
In testimony before the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works on
September 24, 2002,21 the EPA Administrator
described in detail the aggressive and effective
actions EPA has taken to build on existing
strengths to meet new security challenges. EPA
worked to define its role in homeland security
and to make decisions regarding where the
Agency should allocate existing and new
resources, authority, and personnel to ensure
the safety of human health and the
environment. The Agency conducted two
major reviews of lessons learned, one relating
to the incidents of September 11 and the other
related to EPA's anthrax response. EPA used
objective outside sources to conduct extensive
interviews with Agency personnel, from front
line staff to senior managers, to examine what
EPA had learned from its response activities.
EPA chairs the interagency National
Response Team (NRT), which has an excellent
track record for federal-state coordination. In
April 2002 the OHS asked the NRT to be an
OHS work group providing interagency policy
coordination assistance on terrorist incident
preparedness and response. The NRT also
completed anthrax and World Trade Center and
Pentagon lessons learned documents for use by
member agencies, and developed anthrax
cleanup technical assistance documents for use
by planners and responders at all levels of
government.22
EPA aggressively developed vulnerability
assessment tools for drinking water and
wastewater utilities, funded vulnerability
assessments at the Nation's 424 largest drinking
water facilities serving nearly half the
population, sped up establishment of a secure
Information Sharing and Analysis Center for the
water sector, provided threat information to
utilities as required under Public Law 107-188,23
and initiated high-priority water security research
projects. The Agency developed EPA's Threat
Warning System and Protective Measures,
including facility protective measures,
emergency preparedness and response
activities, and protection of facilities in the water
sectors and chemical industry. EPA implemented
this system on September 10, 2002, when the
country went to "orange" threat status, and is
now revising the system in response to lessons
learned from this first implementation.
Implementation has included providing alerts
and protective information to members of the
water sectors and chemical industry.
The lessons learned reports24 have generally
concluded that EPA responded successfully;
however, it can do better. In October 2002 the
Administrator announced EPA's Strategic Plan for
Homeland Security,25 which supports the
President's National Strategy for Homeland
Security26 and the efforts to be undertaken by
the new Department of Homeland Security. The
plan serves as a blueprint on how to enhance
EPA's ability to meet its homeland security
responsibilities. The activities and initiatives in
the plan represent an enhancement of EPA's
capabilities to detect, prepare for, prevent,
respond to, and recover from terrorist incidents.
As the federal government continues to address
the issue of protecting the Nation, the plan will
continue to be revised and improved. Some of
the activities identified in the plan might
eventually be carried out by the Department of
Homeland Security or other agencies. The
Federal Homeland Security Advisor commended
EPA for its Homeland Security Strategic Plan,
noting that it can serve as a model for other
departments and agencies.
In context of the urgency and national
significance of addressing these infrastructure
issues, the Agency's activities during the past
year have revealed significant management
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-5
-------
strengths. (Also see OIG's Key Management
Challenges)
2. Working Relationship with the States
(Cross-Goal):27 The National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS)
established EPA-state working partnerships to
accomplish complex environmental issues with
scarce resources. One of the primary tools for
implementing NEPPS, performance partnership
grants (PPGs), allows states and tribes to
combine multiple EPA grants into one. In
implementing the NEPPS program, including
PPGs, the following are required to fully
integrate NEPPS principles: leadership providing
a clear direction and expectations, training and
guidance, and goals and related performance
measures to monitor and measure progress on
achieving better environmental results.
(FY1999-2001 GAO major management
challenge; FY 2000-2002 OIG major
management challenge—tier 2 management
challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to the
Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA works closely
with states, tribes, other federal agencies, and
other stakeholders to protect public health and
the environment. Under NEPPS, the Agency
committed to long-term collaboration with state
agencies to improve EPA and state management
of national environmental programs. NEPPS is a
framework to build a result-based management
system, focus on joint planning and priority
setting, and use environmental indicators and
outcome measures for accountability. Although
EPA and states recognize that existing
implementation approaches are no longer
efficient and effective, they have not yet agreed
on how states will have flexibility while being
accountable for environmental results.
For several years, EPA and the states have been
implementing NEPPS with mixed results. As a
result of an ongoing program evaluation
conducted jointly with the states, EPA is
developing an implementation plan that will
address the implementation issues identified.
Through NEPPS, the Agency is improving
EPA-state partnerships by working with the
states to establish priorities, improve
performance measures, and promote results-
based management under the Performance
Partnership System. The Agency is also
developing tools that state and EPA NEPPS
negotiators can use to clarify the appropriate
performance expectations. In addition EPA and
the Environmental Council of the States (EGOS)
have an active joint work group to address
continuing implementation issues and work to
identify and remove remaining barriers to
effective implementation of the Performance
Partnership System.
In FY 2002 the Agency developed issue
papers on performance partnerships that were
discussed with Agency senior leaders, EGOS,
and the performance partnership practitioner
community. The Agency integrated NEPPS
principles in its planning, budgeting, and
accountability systems and has included NEPPS
Core Performance Measures in EPA's Annual
Report. EPA continued development of a NEPPS
primer on policies and practices, revised its Web
site to provide historical information and best
management practices, organized a national
training conference, and continued biannual
reporting on the states' use and application of
PPGs.28
In FY 2003 EPA plans to meet with the states
to identify a set of national, state, and regional
priorities, in the context of NEPPS information
from environmental indicators and performance
work. The results will be incorporated into EPA's
national strategic planning, budgeting, and
accountability process in FY 2004. EPA and the
states will also jointly review roles,
responsibilities, and resources to improve
efficiency and environmental impact. EPA will
implement a communication strategy on the
successes and benefits of the Performance
Partnership System and recognize those who
have made improvements. The Agency will
continue a joint annual evaluation of
performance partnership agreements and review
recommendations from the PPG Task Force on
mitigating conflicts between performance
partnership principles and categorical grants
guidance. (Also see OIG's Key Management
Challenges.)
ffl-6
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
3. Management of Biosolids (Cross-Goal):
EPA needs to implement a national biosolids
program and establish a strong enforcement
program to meet the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requirements to reduce environmental risks and
maximize the beneficial use of sewage sludge.29
(FY2002 tier 2 management challenge in 9/6/02
OIGmemo to the Administrator.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA continues to
meet its statutory obligations under the CWA
pertaining to sewage sludge. Although there has
been concern as to the adequacy of the sewage
sludge rule, and there is a need for some
additional scientific research in this area, the
inclusive process EPA has launched will
adequately address those concerns. The Agency
requested that the National Research Council
(NRG) make a second evaluation of the biosolids
program, specifically of the scientific basis
supporting the CWA Part 503 rule.30The second
NRG report, issued in July 2002,31 concluded that
there was no documented scientific evidence
that EPA's Part 503 sewage sludge standards
failed to protect public health. The NRG stated
that additional scientific work is needed to
reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential
for adverse human health effects from exposure
to biosolids that are applied to the land. The
Agency has set into motion a process for
developing a response to the NRC's
recommendations and the OIG's concerns. A
committee is being established to provide an
open process, including seeking public
comments on Agency plans. Following receipt
of these comments, EPA will publicly announce
its final plan for taking actions. The Agency
intends to complete this process by the end of
2003. As part of the process, the Agency will
seek public comment on its proposed
determination on whether to regulate additional
pollutants in biosolids as required by
section 405(d)(20)(C) of the CWA.32 EPA also
will publicly announce its final decision on
regulating additional pollutants under Part 503.
In the meantime, the Agency will continue
to communicate information on applying
biosolids. The information will include a brief
summary of additional research that is now
being conducted to reduce public uncertainty,
and that, if needed, will result in the
modification of the biosolids regulation or land
application practices. EPA has taken actions to
address biosolids violations and will continue
to address instances where biosolids pose an
immediate endangerment to human health or
the environment. Regions and states have the
flexibility and responsibility to address
situations where compliance assistance and
enforcement actions to address biosolids are
appropriate and necessary. EPA also developed
a Biosolids Data Management System (BDMS).33
Although the Agency has not undertaken or
completed all of the specific studies described in
the preamble to Part 503, it has undertaken a
variety of studies associated with biosolids
recycling that it believes to be very relevant
today and is undertaking new studies. In
addition, studies by others outside the Agency
have helped to resolve many of the issues of
concern discussed in the preamble. (Also see
OIG's Key Management Challenges.)
4. Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics
Program Phase 1 and Phase 2 Goals (Goal 1):
Because of budget constraints and new
guidelines established for processing regulation
packages, there have been delays in completing
the 10-year Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards and possible
delays in the residual risk program. (FY 2001
Agency weakness; FY2002 OIG tier 1
management challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to
the Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA is developing
a comprehensive approach to air toxics and is
continuing to shift the emphasis from a
technology-based to a more risk-based program
using the National Air Toxics Assessment34
(NATA) to help set programs and guide
priorities. EPA published the NATA 1996
national-scale assessment in FY 2002, which
took into account peer review comments from
the Science Advisory Board (SAB).
EPA has made significant progress in
reducing air toxics. Since 1990 air toxics have
been reduced by over 1.5 million tons per
year, a 34 percent reduction. Most of those
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-7
-------
reductions are from major industrial sources
and mobile sources. There will be even greater
reductions as EPA completes the MACT
program (technology-based standards for major
stationary sources), implements mobile source
standards (including non-road), and sets
standards for area sources of air toxics. EPA has
worked successfully to integrate the air toxics
program, addressing risks from all sources of
toxics—major, area, mobile, and indoor
sources.
Regarding the technology-based program,
the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set standards
for all major sources of air toxics. This is an
ambitious requirement, and EPA has already set
63 standards covering 105 source categories.
While EPA is behind schedule on the remaining
sources, it has now proposed all of the
remaining 34 standards (covering 64 source
categories) and will promulgate final standards
for these sources no later than February 2004.35
After implementing the technology-based
program, EPA is to evaluate the remaining risks
at these sources. EPA has begun this "residual
risk" program and is currently assessing more
than 1,000 sources in 20 different source
categories. While the statutory requirements are
extensive, EPA is working to streamline the
program and focus on the most important
sources of air toxics by updating health
assessments on critical pollutants, using risk-
assessment methodologies, and working
cooperatively with industry to collect the best
available data. The Agency is also developing
exemption options for low-risk facilities and
identifying economically feasible risk reduction
options for sources with high risk impacts.
Finally, EPA has been supporting states'
toxics monitoring since 1987. EPA realized,
however, the need for a consistent, national
monitoring network to provide more information
on ambient levels of toxics and overall trends.
The SAB identified protocols for the monitoring
program in March 2000. EPA also developed a
strategy with state partners and has now initiated
a 13-city national trends network for toxics. The
final network will include 30 sites. EPA is also
funding regional networks, which will include
some mobile platforms, allowing measurement
of some potential hot spots. Including all the
state monitors, there are about 390 sites
monitoring year-round and over 2,000 with some
form of monitoring. (Also see OIG's Key
Management Challenges.)
5. Information Resources Management
(IRM) and Data Quality and Environmental
and Performance Information Management
(Goal 7): Consistent, complete, and current data
are needed to support full and effective
information sharing, environmental monitoring,
and enforcement. If EPA and the states apply
different data definitions and sometimes collect
and input different data, the result can be
reporting of inconsistent, incomplete, or obsolete
data. EPA needs to continue developing and
implementing its information management
strategy to address Agency information
management challenges such as data gaps.
(FY1998-2002 GAO major management
challenge; FY 1998-2002 OIG major
management challenge—tier 1 management
challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to the
Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges combining previous management
challenge on IRM with Data Quality management
challenge; IRM data management declared an
Agency weakness FY 1994; scope of weakness
expanded FY 2000, and target correction date
extended to FY2004.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA is working in
partnership with the states to improve the
management, comprehensiveness, consistency
and reliability, and accuracy of its data. Better
data management will reduce inefficiencies and
support better assessment of environmental
results and Agency priority-setting to protect
human health and the environment. EPA has
carried out a number of actions to improve data
management practices. The Agency developed
and approved six key environmental data
standards,36 and in FY 2002 it completed four
data standards while initiating work on additional
standards. Meanwhile, EPA is working with states
and EPA system and program managers to
implement these data standards in major
environmental systems. The Agency instituted
an Integrated Error Correction Process37 and
drafted a Data and Information Quality Strategic
ffl-8
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Plan to present recommendations for
improving the quality and management of
currently collected data. The Agency completed
guidance for the EPA Web site and is
developing guidance on administrative control
designations. EPA is also revising its IRM
Strategic Plan and developing an Enterprise
Architecture to address the integration and
management of environmental data. Other
corrective actions under way include developing
a Strategic Information Plan for addressing data
gaps, developing an Agency data architecture,
developing and putting in place appropriate data
management policies and procedures, and
improving data collection processes through the
use of the Central Data Exchange. EPA expects
to release for public discussion this year the
State of the Environment Report on
environmental indicators. The Agency will
continue efforts to identify data needed to
manage programs and work with partners to
provide timely, accurate, and consistent data.
(Also see OIG's Key Management Challenges)
6. Linking Mission and Management (Goal 10):
EPA works with its regional offices and state and
federal partners to develop appropriate outcome
measures and accounting systems that track
environmental and human health results across
the Agency's goals. This information must then
become an integral part of senior management's
decision making process. (OIG major
management challenge for FY 2002—tier 1
management challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to
the Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges combines FY2001 management
challenges on accountability and managerial
accounting.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA has long
focused on improving the way it manages for
results and uses cost and performance
information in decision making. The Agency has
made substantial progress and achieved the
following results in FY 2002: (1) an increased
focus on performance and results as key criteria
for developing EPA's FY 2004 budget, (2) the
Administrator's decision to adopt fewer, more
outcome-oriented goals in EPA's revised Strategic
Plan, and (3) successful efforts to establish
Business Objects as the Agency's standard
financial reporting tool and expand the
Financial Data Warehouse to make more
information available to managers. EPA has
been recognized for its achievements in
integrating budget and performance.38The OIG
has identified important improvement
opportunities, and in FY 2003 EPA expects to
build on progress made as it completes the
revision of its Strategic Plan, implements the
recommendations of the Managing for
Improved Results Steering Group, and adopts
business intelligence tools Agency-wide. In
FY 2003 EPA will continue to enhance its cost
accounting capabilities to strengthen the
linkages between resources and performance
in Agency program offices. (Also see OIG's Key
Management Challenges)
7. Employee Competencies/Human Capital
(Goal 10): To place the right people with the
appropriate skills where they are needed, EPA
must make human capital management an
integral part of its strategic and programmatic
approaches to accomplishing its mission. The
Agency needs to determine how human capital
actions can best help achieve goals, identify
milestones for key actions, and establish results-
oriented performance measures for human
capital initiatives. With its Human Capital
Strategic Plan in place, the Agency has a
blueprint for the initial and longer-term steps
needed to begin addressing this weakness.39
(FY 1998-2002 OIG major management
challenge—tier 1 management challenge in
9/6/02 OIG memo to the Administrator on EPA's
Key Management Challenges, FY 2000-2002
GAO major management challenge, declared an
internal Agency weakness FY 2000.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA has made
significant progress toward addressing this
weakness and meeting the objectives of the
President's Management Agenda initiative on
Strategic Management of Human Capital.
Ongoing efforts include aligning the Agency's
human capital planning activities with its
strategic planning and budgeting processes, as
well as continuing to implement EPA's Human
Capital Strategic Plan. The Agency is developing
a Workforce Planning System that will link
competencies to mission needs along core
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-9
-------
business lines. In addition, EPA's Workforce
Development Strategy (WDS) is a comprehensive
program that focuses on training and development
at all levels of the organization. As part of the
WDS, the Agency developed and implemented a
number of training programs: the New Skills and
New Options Program for administrative staff
with electronic learning accounts available to
eligible employees; the Mid-Level Development
Program, which introduces the SES core
competencies to most EPA employees; and a
management development program that includes
supervisory and management training. In
addition, EPA selected 51 participants for an SES
Candidate Development Program. The Agency
has established goal teams to set appropriate
baselines to track advances in measuring results
and programmatic benefits. The Agency is also
working toward better alignment of its human
capital strategy with annual performance goals/
measures, strategic sub-objectives, and Agency
activities. This effort will help the Agency
develop human capital measures and set targets
for environmental and programmatic outcomes
and track its costs and economic impacts. (Also
see OIG's Key Management Challenges.)
8. Improved Management of Assistance
Agreements (Goal 10): EPA needs to improve
overall grants management by implementing a
competitive award policy and process and by
improving prioritization, oversight, and
enforcement procedures. EPA needs to address
problems repeatedly identified in audit reports
concerning EPA's use of assistance agreements to
accomplish its mission. (FY2002 OMB and OIG
candidate material weakness; FY2000-2002 OIG
major management challenge—tier 1
management challenge in 9/6/02 OIG memo to
the Administrator on EPA's Key Management
Challenges; grants closeout and oversight of
assistance agreements was declared a material
weakness in FY1996, reported corrected in
FY 1999 and redesignated as an internal Agency
weakness; grants closeout was corrected in
FY 2000; and improved management of
assistance agreements was declared an internal
Agency weakness in FY2000.)
Corrective Action Strategy: During the past
year the Agency has made significant progress
in strengthening its grants management. OMB
recognized this progress in its most recent
Executive Branch Scorecard.40 A major premise
underlying the OIG's recommendation and
OMB's concerns was the absence of a policy for
competing discretionary grant funds. EPA has
squarely addressed that issue by developing a
new grant competition policy, which went into
effect October 1, 2002.
EPA also continues to make progress in
improving post-award management, as
evidenced by the high quality of the 2002 post-
award monitoring plans, the corrective actions
taken by headquarters and regional offices in
response to validation reviews, and the
development of a new consolidated post-award
monitoring policy.41
EPA's strategies to improve grants
management are solidly based on the risk
involved. Each fiscal year, EPA awards
approximately $3 billion in grants to support the
environmental programs of state and local
governments.42 These grants constitute more than
87 percent of the grant funds awarded by EPA
annually. The concerns raised by the OIG do not
demonstrate systemic mismanagement of these
funds. This means that the primary area of risk
involves other categories of grants that receive
relatively small amounts of money (e.g., grants
to nonprofit organizations, which receive about
6 percent of EPA's grant dollars each fiscal year).
EPA is appropriately managing that risk by
making cost-effective improvements to its
already extensive set of management controls,
including initiatives on post-award monitoring,
procurement oversight and environmental
results, recipient training and technical
assistance, and, most important, strategic
planning. These enhancements ensure that the
deficiencies the OIG identified do not
significantly impair the accomplishment of the
Agency's mission, making a material weakness
designation unwarranted.
EPA believes that the actions taken in FY 2002
to address the existing Agency weakness have
strengthened EPA's grants management program
and does not recommend raising grants
management to a material weakness. Neverthe-
m-10 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
less, recent EPA validation reviews show that
further improvement is needed, a finding
supported by OIG audit reports. The Agency will
carry the existing Agency weakness into FY 2004
while the long-term strategic plan is implemented
and further improvements are made and validated.
9. Innovative Regulatory Programs (Goal 10):
EPA needs the flexibility to use innovative
approaches to address complex and intractable
environmental problems that warrant new and
more cost-effective approaches. In the absence
of specific legislative changes that would
provide the authority for EPA to allow states and
others to use innovative approaches, the Agency
needs to closely monitor the new approaches to
ensure they are more effective than the
traditional approaches. (FY2002 GAO major
management challenge.)
Corrective Action Strategy: EPA continues
initiatives to fully support and manage
innovations and address concerns about
flexibility. In April 2002 the EPA Administrator
released a new innovation strategy that had
resulted from an intensive 9-month task force
review of EPA's innovation efforts.43The strategy's
goals are being implemented through program and
regional commitments to specific actions that
have been documented and are being tracked by
the Agency's Innovation Action Council. EPA,
states, localities, industry, and nongovernmental
organizations have been developing, testing, and
implementing innovative approaches for more than
a decade. These efforts have produced a number
of successful innovations, such as the Brownfields
revitalization program.
As is always the case when new
approaches or alternative ways are tried, some
projects did not meet expectations. EPA has
taken significant, concrete steps to establish
Agency-wide controls that result in better
priority setting, planning, and monitoring of
results. The Agency has several ongoing efforts to
evaluate and learn from particular innovations
that represent the best candidates for broader
application. EPA has nearly completed an effort
to evaluate pilot projects that seek to streamline
pollution prevention considerations and infuse
them into air permits, and the Agency is
beginning to evaluate several innovative
approaches to manage hazardous wastes in
university labs. The new State Innovation
Grants program requires that states receiving
grants develop measures and performance
outcomes over the lifetime of their projects.44
FY 2002
EPA continues to make progress in reducing
the number of audits without final corrective
action as well as strengthening its audit
management practices Agency-wide. In FY 2002
EPA was responsible for addressing the OIG's
recommendations and tracking follow-up
activities on 412 audits. During the fiscal year
the Agency achieved final action on 164 audits.45
Following is a summary of the Agency's
audit management activities for FY 2002:
Final Corrective Action Taken: EPA completed
final corrective action on 24 performance audits
and 140 financial audits. Of the 140 financial
audits, the OIG questioned costs of more than
$22 million. After careful review, the OIG and
the Agency agreed to disallow $11 million of
these questioned costs. For this period, EPA
management and the OIG did not identify audits
for which resources could be better utilized (i.e.,
funds put to better use) based upon findings in a
performance audit.
Final Corrective Action Not Taken: As of
September 30, 2002, 118 audits were without
final action (excluding those audits with
management decisions under administrative
appeal by the grantee). Of these 118 audits,
EPA officials had not completed final action on
23 audits (20 percent) within 1 year after the
management decision.
Audits Awaiting Decision on Appeal: EPA
regulations allow grantees to appeal management
decisions on financial assistance audits that seek
monetary reimbursement from the recipient.
In the case of an appeal, EPA must not take
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-11
-------
action to collect the account receivable until
the Agency issues a decision on the appeal.
As of September 30, 2002, 68 management
decisions were in administrative appeal status.
Audits Pending Final Corrective Action
Beyond 1 Year: Because of the complexity of
the issues, it often takes Agency management
longer than 1 year after management decisions are
reached with the OIG to complete corrective
actions on audits. Beginning October 1, 2002,
management will track 23 audits with outstanding
corrective actions after the 1-year period.
These audits are categorized by three types:
program performance audits (14), assistance
agreement audits (4), and single audits (5).
These audits are discussed below by category
and identified by title and responsible office.
Additional information on these audits is
available, upon request, from OCFO's Audit
Management Team (202-564-3633).
Audits of Program Performance: Final action
for program performance audits occurs when all
corrective actions have been implemented. This
process might take longer than 1 year when
corrections are complex and lengthy. These audits
include audits of EPA's financial statements. EPA is
tracking 14 audits in this category.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic
Substances:
101378 Pesticides Inerts
304030 Pesticides Banned (follow-up)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
P00007 RCRA Financial Assurances
P00028 RCRA Corrective Actions
S00007 EPA Actions Concerning Libby SF Site
POOO11 Superfund Interagency Agreements
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance:
POOO 18 Multimedia Enforcement
P00019 Air Enforcement Stack Tests
Office of Administration and Resource
Management:
P00029 Interagency Agreements Follow-up
POOO 11 Superfund Interagency Agreements
Office of Environmental Information:
501240 PCIE Application Maintenance
Office of Water:
701142 Animal Waste Disposal Issues
701223 Mining Financial Assurance
Region 2:
P00001 Combined Sewer Overflows
Audits of Assistance Agreements: Final action
for assistance agreement audits can take longer
than 1 year because the grantee may appeal,
refuse to repay, or be placed on a repayment
plan that spans several years. The Agency's
Audit Follow-Up Coordinators are tracking four
audits with financial or associated corrective
actions taking longer than 1 year to complete.
Region 3:
102023 Bath County Service Auth VA
Region 5:
100001 Sauget
103115 Galion, OH
104047 Indianapolis, IN 4
Single Audits: Final action for single audits
occurs when non-monetary compliance actions
are completed. This might take longer than 1
year to implement if the findings are complex or
the grantee does not have the resources to take
corrective action. Single audits are conducted of
nonprofit organizations, universities, and state
and local governments. EPA is tracking
completion of corrective action on five single
audits for the period beginning April 1, 2002.
Region 2:
300108 United States Virgin Islands
Region 5:
300047 Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
300048 Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
Region 9:
805053 Colorado River Indian Tribes, AZ
805059 Colorado River Indian Tribes, AZ
m-12 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
DISALLOWED COSTS AND FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE
Category
Audits with management decisions but without
final action at the beginning of FY 2002
Audits for which management decisions were
reached in FY 2002
Total audits pending final action during FY 2002
Final action taken during FY 2002:
(i) Recoveries
(a) Offsets
(b) Collection
(c) Value of Property
(d) Other
(ii) Write-offs
(iii) Reinstated Through Grantee Appeal
(iv) Value of recommendations completed
(v) Value of recommendations management
decided should/could not be completed
Audits without final action at end of FY 2002
Disallowed Cost
(Financial Audits)
Number
102
131
233
140
93
Value
$153,237,895
$7,015,479
$160,253,374
$10,434,962
$5,179,343
$1 ,795,202
$0
-------
together national, regional, and program office
indicator efforts to describe the condition of
critical environmental areas and human health
concerns. Perfecting this report will be a multi-
year process, but preparing the report is a
significant step forward. It will allow the Agency to
inventory and report on existing indicators, identify
data gaps, and develop plans to address the
challenges in filling these gaps.47
In response to the need for reliable cost
information, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) has purchased a financial
management business intelligence reporting tool
for managerial cost accounting and reporting.
OCFO will work with selected offices to define
and develop program-specific and executive
reports to help managers analyze data to support
resource decisions, manage costs, and gauge
program results.48 As the Agency implements
cost accounting, its success will rely on how
well EPA program offices (1) define their
mission-critical activities; (2) identify data needs,
determine whether such data exists and, if so,
where it resides; (3) link information systems to
optimize data usability and minimize data
integrity concerns; and (4) technically design
program-specific and executive cost reports
using the new reporting tool. OCFO will need to
work closely with each program office in these
areas for its cost accounting solution to be
successful Agency-wide.
During the past year, EPA examined options
for improvements in its ability to manage for
results and account for resources. In June 2002,
senior Agency leaders issued a draft report to
the Administrator recommending specific
changes in four areas: Planning, Performance
Measurement, Accountability and Feedback, and
the Agency's Capacity to Manage for Results.
The steering group also suggested improve-
ments for the 2004 budget process, and will
develop a change strategy for memorandum of
understanding agreements between national
program managers and regions regarding annual
work planning.49
EPA has begun developing the process for
linking costs to goals but must follow through by
working with its regional offices and state and
federal partners to develop appropriate outcome
measures and accounting systems that track
environmental and human health results across
the Agency's goals. This information must then
become an integral part of senior management's
decision-making process.50
Information Resources Management and Data
Quality
EPA faces a number of challenges with the
data it uses to make decisions and monitor
progress against environmental goals. Those
challenges cover a broad range of interrelated
activities including (1) using enterprise and data
architecture strategies to guide integration and
management of data; (2) implementing data
standards to facilitate data sharing; and
(3) establishing quality assurance practices to
improve the reliability, accuracy, and scientific
basis of environmental data, including data
derived from laboratories.51 EPA and most states
often apply different data definitions supporting
their own information systems, and sometimes
collect and input different data resulting in
inconsistent, incomplete, and obsolete
consolidated national data.
EPA acknowledges IRM data management as
an Agency-level weakness and has specifically
targeted various components for improvement.
However, developing a robust data management
program remains a complex and elusive effort,
and several areas still need to be completed.52
For example, the Agency has yet to implement a
1998, agreed-upon, OIG recommendation to
formally revise its policies and procedures
supporting an Agency standards program.53 EPA
developed and formally approved seven data
standards; however, states will be allowed to
decide whether or not to adopt these standards.54
Data standards are a fundamental component for
implementing EPA's National Environmental
Information Exchange Network and other
e-government initiatives.55 If EPA's exchange
network infrastructure is to work effectively, the
use of data standards should be a required
condition for receiving money under the
Exchange Grant Program.
m-14 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA estimates that the first six standards will
not be implemented in major environmental
systems until the end of FY 2003.56 During the
interim, EPA is working with the Environmental
Council of States (EGOS) to identify and develop
additional data standards. However, past
experiences suggest that the overall process
needs to move forward in a more timely and
structured manner.57
Data reliability is another major aspect of
data management that needs further attention.
Recent audits indicate systems used by EPA's
Enforcement, Superfund, and Water programs
have inconsistent, incomplete, and obsolete data.
For example, we are concerned that the system
EPA uses to manage its drinking water programs,
SDWIS-FED, is not well designed and imple-
mented.58 Also, data in two major Agency
systems contain significant error rates in crucial
data fields used to track environmental progress
on Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) goals and measures.59 For example, over
90 percent of the cases reviewed within EPA's
National Enforcement Docket System contained
errors.60
The Agency has responded to data quality
concerns by instituting an Integrated Error
Correction Process, which provides a mechanism
for reporting and resolving errors identified by
the public on EPA Web sites.61 Last year, EPA
drafted a Data Quality Strategic Plan to prioritize
recommendations for improving the quality of
currently collected data, but the draft plan did not
address the long-recognized problem of data
gaps.62 EPA plans to issue its first Environmental
Indicators Report in 2002, which should help
identify gaps between existing and needed
environmental data.63
Questionable analyses by laboratories raise
concerns about the effectiveness of environ-
mental decisions and lead to additional costs and
unnecessary delays when EPA has to identify
and assess the impact of the fraudulent data and
undertake additional sampling. In a June 1999
memorandum to the Acting Deputy
Administrator, the OIG suggested actions the
Agency could take to better identify data of
questionable quality. Ongoing lab fraud
investigations in FY 2002 indicate that despite
Agency efforts to ensure improved data quality,
manipulated data continues to be generated and
supplied to EPA.
OIG reviews and investigations have
disclosed a disturbing trend in the number of
environmental laboratories that are providing
misleading and fraudulent data to the states for
monitoring the Nation's public water supplies.
For example, several current lab fraud
investigations involve severe manipulation of
data used to evaluate the compliance of public
water supplies with federal drinking water
standards. Many other EPA programs (e.g.,
Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, National Pollution Elimination and Discharge
System, air toxins, underground storage tanks,
and pesticides) have also been impacted by
laboratory fraud.64
The Agency has conducted extensive
technical systems assessment audits at all EPA
regional and research laboratories. In addition,
EPA has provided fraud detection and awareness
training and ethics training; studied electronic
methods for screening data; and issued guidance
discussing the level of quality assurance given
the intended use of data. These efforts should
help to improve the quality assurance systems
and documentation throughout the Agency's
environmental laboratories. However, until the
impact of these and any other recommended
actions is realized, EPA must continue to assess
and improve its controls over laboratory data
quality.65 In its mid-year Integrity Act report for
FY 2002, the Agency considered laboratory
quality to be an Agency weakness.66
As a result of current shortcomings, EPA will
not have the foundation needed to share or
compare information, or to monitor environ-
mental activities in the near future. EPA's ability
to make environmental decisions, enforce
environmental laws and evaluate the outcomes
of its programs in terms of environmental
changes may continue to be limited by gaps and
inconsistencies in data quality. EPA needs to
continue to identify what data is necessary to
manage its programs and work with its partners
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-15
-------
to capture and report timely, accurate, and
consistent information.67
Establish results-oriented performance
measures.72
Employee Competencies
One of the Agency's greatest challenges is
the development and implementation of a
workforce planning strategy that links employee
development to its goals. To achieve its
environmental goals and objectives, EPA must
have a competent, well-trained, and motivated
workforce with the right mix of skills and
experience, and a system for holding employees
accountable for achieving strategic goals.68
The General Accounting Office (GAO)
reported that EPA needs to implement a
workforce planning strategy to determine the
skills and competencies essential for meeting
current and future needs and improve employee
training.69 A number of OIG reports also
highlighted the need for improved training at
EPA.70 Acknowledging that appropriate training
is critical to ensuring the credibility of its actions,
the Agency (1) fostered a series of management
development programs; (2) established a
contract to develop training for mid-level
professionals and managers; and (3) initiated a
contract to create a workforce planning model to
identify skills needs and gaps, and target
recruitment and retention for critical
occupations.71
GAO recently testified that EPA has made
substantial progress in developing a strategy to
manage its workforce, yet it also acknowledged
that EPA still needs to integrate this strategy into
its daily business practices. In particular, EPA
must:
• Specifically address how human capital
activities will help achieve environmental
goals.
• Identify milestones for completing actions to
implement its human capital objectives.
• Further its commitment to deploy the
strategy by dedicating resources.
• Help regions and program offices develop
specific technical training plans that link into
the human capital strategic plan.
The Agency recognized human capital as a
key Agency priority in its FY 2001 Strategic
Plan. In response to OIG and GAO
recommendations, EPA also began implementing
a Human Capital Strategic Plan. The plan calls
for identifying the skills needed in every
program unit by assessing future needs,
identifying skills gaps, and tying skill needs to
future budget requests. In calendar year 2003,
EPA plans to complete a model workforce
planning process and deploy a system that will
meet the Agency's competency-based workforce
planning needs.73
While progress has been made and
additional work is planned, this area continues to
be a key challenge. In a recent briefing, EPA
provided information to the OIG concluding that
staff has limited experience in non-traditional,
collaborative approaches to environmental
problem solving. Training is needed to develop
management skills to better focus on outcomes
and do business with EPA partners.74 The OIG
will continue to monitor the Agency's progress
in developing a system that ensures a well-
trained and motivated workforce with the right
mix of skills and experience. Implementation of
the Human Capital Strategic Plan is an Agency-
level weakness under the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act.75
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish
Its Mission
Assistance agreements constitute
approximately one-half of EPA's budget and are
the primary vehicles through which the Agency
delivers environmental and human health
protection.76 Thus, it is important that EPA and
the public receive the value for which the
Agency has paid.
OIG audit work has repeatedly identified
problems in this area. Recent OIG audits
reported that some EPA assistance recipients did
not have adequate financial and internal controls
to ensure federal funds were managed properly.
As a result, EPA had limited assurance that grant
funds were used in accordance with work plans
m-16 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
and met negotiated environmental targets. For
example, an EPA Region 5 grantee could not
adequately account for over half of its $300,000
in EPA funds.77 Also, a Region 1 grantee had
submitted multiple financial status reports with
different ending balances, had excess federal
funds on hand, and could not support that it had
met the minimum cost-sharing requirement.78
Misuse of grant funds also resulted in the City of
Cleveland agreeing to settle a civil lawsuit
charging that its Air Pollution Control Program
improperly spent over $429,000 in grant funds.79
Further, in May 2001, the OIG reported that
EPA did not have a policy for competitively
awarding $1.3 billion in discretionary assistance
funds and recommended such a policy be
developed. The Agency agreed and is drafting a
policy to address competition in the award of
discretionary assistance funds.80
The Agency has taken several actions to
improve its oversight controls over assistance
agreements, including requiring additional
training for all project officers and issuing policy
on project officer and grant management
oversight roles and responsibilities.81 However,
recent reports and ongoing work indicate that
Agency efforts to improve assistance agreement
management are still not uniformly effective. In
March 2002 the OIG reported that the Agency
did not always measure whether assistance
agreements awarded as surveys, studies,
investigations, and special purpose grants
achieved results that contributed to protecting
human health and the environment.82 The OIG
reported that EPA lacked assurance that
$187 million spent by assistance agreement
recipients for procurements was used to obtain
the best products, at the best price, from the
most qualified firms.83
Ongoing OIG work shows that some Agency
actions to address grant oversight weaknesses
have not been effective. For example, the
Office of Administration and Resources
Management developed post-award monitoring
policies, but these policies were not always
followed. On-site evaluations, and oversight and
baseline monitoring of assistance agreements by
grant specialists were not sufficient to assure that
agreement recipients were complying with the
requirements of the grants and are appropriately
using EPA funds.84 In May 2002 OIG recom-
mended the Agency elevate this issue from an
Agency weakness to a material weakness under
the Integrity Act.85
Protecting Critical Infrastructure From Non-
Traditional Attacks
In 2001 OIG reported that EPA had yet to
fulfill its responsibilities under Presidential
Decision Directive (PDD) 63 regarding the
development of a national framework for
protecting critical physical and cyber-based
infrastructures.86 In the past year the Agency
reported that it had made significant progress in
completing many of the tasks outlined in a draft
1998 plan to develop a National Infrastructure
Assurance Plan.87 However, the attacks of
September 11, 2001, greatly increased the scope
and priority of EPA's mission in protecting critical
infrastructure.
The July 2002 National Strategy for
Homeland Security, issued by the Office of
Homeland Security, designates EPA as the lead
agency for protecting critical infrastructure and
key assets in the water and chemical industry
and hazardous materials sectors.88 This
responsibility is consistent with the Agency's
traditional oversight role in water and
wastewater infrastructure security and the
cleanup of chemical, biological, and certain
radiological attacks; and as the primary regulator
of chemical facilities. Thus, EPA must be
prepared to fulfill crisis and consequence
management responsibilities in the wake of a
terrorist incident and it must be prepared to help
detect, prevent, protect against, respond to, and
recover from a terrorist attack against the United
States.89Moreover, Public Law 107-188, the
Public Health Security and Bio-terrorism
Response Act, signed in June 2002, specifically
tasked EPA with funding and overseeing water
system vulnerability assessments and the
resulting response.90The Agency's infrastructure
protection needs have been further defined by
the lessons it learned from the World Trade
Center response and the cleanup of the anthrax-
contaminated buildings.91 These combined
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-17
-------
challenges are identified and addressed in EPA's
draft Strategic Plan for Homeland Security.
Among the many infrastructure protection
challenges contained in the plan are the
following:
• To assist water and waste water utilities in
every community in the United States to
(1) access the best scientific information,
training, and technical expertise on water
security; (2) assess their utility's vulnerabili-
ties to a possible attack; (3) take action to
improve security; and (4) respond effectively
and efficiently in the event that an incident
occurs.92
• To develop a water utility security research
plan and establish a technology verification
program for water utility security as well as
to evaluate promising technologies.93
• To support and develop the preparedness of
state and local governments and private
industry to respond to, recover from, and
continue operations following a terrorist
attack. For example, EPA will work with
other agencies to ensure that building air
protection guidance is produced and widely
disseminated, and that training on such
guidance is available. EPA will also work
with our partners in other federal agencies,
academia, industry, and public health
organizations to identify and conduct
research on needed technologies, as
appropriate.94
To achieve the goals in EPA's Strategic Plan,
the Agency will need to apply technical,
organizational, resource, training, and
communication assets to complex issues with
unprecedented dispatch. Success will require
simultaneous attention to questions of threat,
capabilities and deficiencies, preparedness,
management and oversight, and efficiency and
effectiveness. The OIG plans to address these
issues in its multi-year oversight of the Agency's
implementation of its homeland security plan in
support of the Office of Homeland Security.95
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Program Phase
1 and Phase 2 Goals
Toxic air pollution remains one of the most
significant health and environmental problems in
the United States, causing cancer, neurological,
immunological, and other serious health
problems.96 Despite the potential for serious
harm, EPA is nearly 2 years behind in fulfilling
its statutory responsibilities for issuing all Phase
1 air toxics standards (also known as MACT
standards97) by the November 2000 statutory
deadline.98 Of 174 air toxics categories that EPA
is required to regulate under the 1990 Clean Air
Act,99 EPA has issued MACT standards for about
86 categories.100The Agency's most recent
estimate for completing the Phase 1 MACT
standards is 2004.101 EPA's delay in issuing the
Phase 1 MACT standards was identified as an
Agency weakness in 2001.102
Of even more importance is that Phase 1 is
solely a technology-based approach to emissions
reductions, and may not provide acceptable
health protections from exposure to air toxics.103
EPA will assess the health risks of the 188 toxic
air pollutants in the second phase of the two-
phased approach, known as the "residual risk"
phase.104 No Phase 2 residual risk standards have
been completed.105 The Science Advisory Board
has questioned EPA's early efforts at assessing
residual risks,106 including whether the Agency
might seek statutory relief from Phase 2.
The Phase 2 residual risk determinations are
expected to be expensive and controversial
based on the limited amount of air toxics health
data available and the projected costs of
compliance for industry.107 Although the Clean
Air Act listed 188 air toxics that EPA must
control, to date the Agency has focused largely
on 33 of the suspected worse air toxics
prevalent in urban areas.108 Significant data gaps
in our understanding of these 33 highest priority
air toxics still exist.109 Additionally, EPA has
limited health and ecological effects information,
exposure data, emissions data, source
characterization data, and ambient data on many
of the remaining 155 air toxics.110
At the present time, the air toxics program
relies heavily on industry emissions data for its
m-18 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
GPRA measures, some of which are generated
by using inferior emission estimation
techniques.111 The lack of a robust set of
ambient monitoring data on the quantity and
concentrations of air toxics is also a concern.112
The Agency estimates that mobile sources may
contribute half of all air toxics emissions,113 and
there is little health data on the synergistic
impacts of exposures to multiple air toxics, such
as the exposures that routinely occur in urban
areas—the types of exposures that some
scientists believe are the leading health impact
from air toxics.114
EPA requested $118 million for all air toxics
activities for FY 2003, or about 20 percent of its
clean air budget.115 About one-third of the air
toxics budget goes to 112 state and local
agencies that have authority to implement
existing air toxics regulations, including
permitting and inspecting sources for air
toxics.116 EPA's goal is to eliminate the risks of
cancer and other significant health problems
from air toxics emissions for 95 percent of the
U.S. population by 2020.117 We will continue to
monitor the progress EPA makes in addressing
this important issue.118
TIER TWO
EPA's Working Relationship With the States
According to EGOS, in FY 2001, the authority
to implement about 80 percent of the
environmental programs rested with the states,
which provided about 65 percent of the financial
resources to EPA's 35 percent. Accordingly, the
Agency relies to a great extent on the states for
environmental results, the data used to measure
performance against standards, and for
enforcement actions against violators. Yet, the
Agency and states have been unable to agree on
state flexibility and accountability issues.
Relations remain strained due to disagreements
over (1) respective roles and the extent of
federal oversight; (2) priorities and budgets; and
(3) results-oriented performance measures,
milestones, and data. EPA can improve its
working relationship with states by establishing a
structure to mutually set direction, establish
goals, provide training, oversee accomplish-
ments, and ensure accountability.119
The National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) established EPA-state
working partnerships to address complex
environmental issues with scarce resources. One
of the primary tools for implementing NEPPS,
performance partnership grants (PPGs), allows
states and tribes to combine multiple EPA grants
into one.
A series of OIG audits on regional and state
NEPPS program implementation (including PPGs)
reported that NEPPS principles were not well-
integrated into EPA because of the lack of
(1) leadership providing a clear direction and
expectations, (2) training and guidance, (3) trust in
NEPPS due to fear of change and losing control,
and (4) goals and related performance measures to
monitor and measure progress on achieving better
environmental results.120
Since the OIG began reporting on NEPPS,
the Agency has been working to fulfill its
potential. To address the lack of leadership and
clear direction for NEPPS, the Agency formally
designated the Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations (OCIR) as the National Program
Manager for NEPPS. OCIR has developed a
strategy for NEPPS issues and is developing tools
to promote better understanding of NEPPS and
clarify appropriate expectations.121
The current Administrator has also expressed
a personal commitment to seeing NEPPS succeed
and expand by (1) requiring regular reports from
the Regional Administrators on how NEPPS is
working; and (2) asking the Assistant Administra-
tors, regions and states to jointly identify areas
where flexibility is available and encourage
testing new measures of program performance.
In addition, EPA and EGOS are working jointly to
remove remaining barriers to effective
implementation of NEPPS. The Agency also
solicited formal input from EGOS and the Tribal
Caucus on state and tribal priorities for the EPA
FY 2003 and 2004 annual planning and
budgeting process. This information will be
incorporated into EPA's strategic and annual
planning processes and will influence the
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-19
-------
development of performance goals and targets
under GPRA.122
Although the Agency has taken some notable
actions to improve EPA's working relationship
with states, the OIG believes much remains to
be done. For example, EPA and state managers
continue struggling with ways of providing states
flexibility to address their highest environmental
priorities while implementing and reporting on
core program requirements. In addition, EPA has
not defined its performance measures and
related milestones to monitor EPA and state
progress toward accomplishing NEPPS and PPG
goals. OIG is continuing to monitor the Agency's
progress in addressing this important issue.123
EPA's Information Systems Security
EPA's information systems collect, process,
store, and disseminate vast amounts of information
used to help make sound regulatory and program
decisions. Therefore, it is essential that the Agency
prevent intrusion and abuse of these systems and
protect the integrity of its data.
Under the leadership of the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI), EPA is working
toward its goal to make information on its
computer systems available, while protecting the
confidentiality and integrity of its information.
The Agency has substantially enhanced its
Information Security Program through improved
risk assessment and planning processes, major
new technical and procedural controls, issuance
of new policies, and initiation of a regular
process of testing and evaluation.
The dynamic nature of security, however,
requires continued emphasis and vigilance.
We believe the following actions are needed to
protect the Agency's information and systems.
• Implement a formal incident response plan.
OEI is trying to address this need through
draft guidelines and a strong working
relationship with the OIG's Computer Crimes
Unit. Also, a contract to develop an incident
response capability will soon be awarded.
Furthermore, an informal process has been
agreed upon for timely referral of potential
incidents, coordination, securing of evidence,
and other vital actions.
Establish a robust quality assurance (QA)
program. Without regular, effective oversight
processes, EPA management will continue to
place unsubstantiated trust in its many
components to fully implement, practice, and
document security requirements. Moreover,
the public and Congress may continue to
question how well the Agency plans for and
protects its information resources. EPA's
decentralized organizational structure makes
it essential that OEI provide strong leader-
ship and oversight to ensure the
effectiveness of its entity-wide computer
security program. OEI has begun addressing
these responsibilities, but additional
resources are needed to fully develop and
implement QA processes Agency-wide.124
Implement an organizational structure under
which Information Security Officers (ISOs)
are accountable directly to the OEI. EPA's
decentralized Wide Area Network
infrastructure and its security procedures
create serious vulnerabilities. Since intrusion
detection sensors on the central network
cannot track subnetwork activity, subnetwork
security relies upon the expertise of
assigned ISOs. The experience and training
of the ISOs, as well as their methods of
obtaining information and providing security
maintenance vary greatly. Furthermore, OEI
has no direct supervisory relationship over
them since they report to and are evaluated
by the regional or program offices to which
they are assigned. This relationship makes it
is difficult for OEI to mandate Agency-wide
changes, deal with personnel issues and
inefficiencies, resolve security conflicts, or
detect and respond to security vulnerabilities
on a subnetwork level.125 In its mid-year
Integrity Report for FY 2002, the Agency
considered information security to be a
material weakness.126
m-20 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Backlog of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permits
The Clean Water Act specifies that NPDES
permits expire in 5 years.127 Permittees wishing
to continue discharging beyond that term must
apply for permit renewal at least 6 months prior
to the expiration date of their permit.128 If the
permitting authority receives a renewal
application but does not reissue the permit prior
to expiration, the permit may be
"administratively continued. "129
Administratively continued, or "backlogged,"
permits are a major concern because conditions
may have subsequently changed since the
original permit was issued, and new restrictions
on permits may now apply. However,
"backlogged" permits would not contain these
new terms and conditions, thereby delaying
potential environmental improvements to
waters.130
The Agency recognizes that the backlog of
NPDES permits is a nationwide problem and has
developed a corrective action plan.131 The plan
includes (1) using new technology to streamline
the permit development process, (2) providing
environmental assessments and permit assistance
to the states, and (3) communicating the
importance of this issue to the states and EPA
regional offices and receiving their firm
commitments to reduce the backlog.132
Last year, EPA's goal was to reduce the
backlog of NPDES permits for major facilities to
10 percent by the end of calendar year 2001
and to 10 percent for major and minor permits
by the end of calendar year 2004.133 As of
February 2002, only 18 states had met the
10 percent backlog goal for majors.134 During
FY 2002, EPA drafted a system for prioritizing
and reissuing backlogged permits to focus on
those with the most significant environmental
impact, but the Agency no longer expects to
meet its 2004 goal.135 Corrective actions are not
expected to be completed until the end of
FY 2005.136
The Agency realizes it needs to find new
ways of implementing the NPDES program or
the problem will increase.137 Accordingly, it is
considering several innovative solutions to
expedite permit renewal and prevent backlogs,
such as issuing general permits for a class of
similar facilities138 and using information
technology to expedite the entire permit
development process.139 It is also committing to
provide increased contractor capacity for state
permit issuance work.140
This issue was identified as an Integrity Act
material weakness in 1998 and was reduced to
an Agency weakness at the end of FY 2002.141
OIG will continue monitoring EPA's progress in
addressing this important issue.142 Eliminating the
backlog and making the permit issuance process
more efficient will release resources for other
important activities.143
Management of Biosolids
Approximately 6 million tons of sewage
sludge ("biosolids") are produced annually by
sewage treatment plants in the United States.144
With inadequate treatment these biosolids may
contain a wide variety of chemicals and
pathogens, the remains of the sewage treatment
process.145 The OIG believes that EPA (1) does
not know whether current regulations, when
adhered to, are protective of public health;146
(2) does not have an overall understanding of
the magnitude and quality of biosolids
production and disposal practices;147 and
(3) does not know if the enforcement and
compliance resources committed to managing
biosolids are adequate to ensure that the
regulations are adhered to.148
EPA has not conducted the basic research
needed to determine the risk associated with
certain biosolids disposal practices.149The
Agency has taken the position that biosolids
management is a low-risk activity.150 As a result,
EPA has failed to adhere to its commitment to
comprehensively assess the extent of the risk.151
EPA issued Part 503 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations ("The Sludge Rule") to
govern the use and disposal of biosolids in
February 1993 under court order. When the
Agency issued the rule, it committed to
conducting a comprehensive research program
to assess the risks associated with land
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-21
-------
application of biosolids; however, it has not yet
done so.152 In June 2002 the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) recommended additional
research.153 EPA is currently studying those
recommendations, and has committed to
producing a research work plan by the end of
2003, nearly 11 years after committing to do so.154
EPA uses the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) to manage water quality activities of point
source dischargers such as sewage treatment
plants, but the Office of Water (OW) has
acknowledged that PCS is inadequate for
managing biosolids.155 EPA is unable to answer
basic questions such as how much biosolids is
land-applied.156 As a result of this data gap, OW
developed an independent system, the Biosolids
Data Management System (BDMS), to track
compliance with biosolids regulations.157 EPA is
revising PCS, but has not yet decided whether to
incorporate BDMS into this new version.
According to OW, "the ultimate usefulness of the
BDMS on a national basis is likely dependent
upon its adoption into PCS."158
EPA has diverted compliance and
enforcement resources away from this program.
The safety of biosolids land application depends
on the adherence to highly technical treatment
standards by land applicators across the country.
In a 2000 report OIG found inadequacies in
EPA's management and enforcement of the
biosolids program.159 In a status report on the
biosolids program published 2 years later, OIG
reported a further 44 percent reduction in full-
time equivalent (FTE) positions (from 18 to
10).l6°This is a particular concern because EPA
runs the biosolids program in 45 states.161
Adequate oversight of this program is critical for
ensuring regulatory compliance. To date, EPA
has not committed the resources needed to fulfill
its oversight responsibilities.
In convening a committee to study the NAS
recommendations EPA is beginning to address
these issues. Several issues remain unsettled and
the OIG is not convinced that the Agency is
directing adequate resources to resolving these
concerns. OIG will continue to monitor EPA's
progress in this area until these issues are
settled.162 In May 2002 the OIG recommended
this issue as an Agency weakness under the
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act.163
m-22 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive
Office of the President, Federal Management,
The President's ManagementAgenda. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/
pma index.html.
2. Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982,
Public Law 97-255 (September 8, 1982).
3. Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended,
Public Law 100-504 (amended September 30,
1988).
4 Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, Public Law
106-531, to amend Chapter 35 of Title 31, United
States Code (January 24, 2000).
5. Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.
6. Reports Consolidation Act of 2000.
7. Information from internal database: Management
Audit Tracking System.
8. Data compiled from EPA's Annual Integrity Act
Reports, 1988 to present.
9. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Backlog
Reduction. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes/permitissuance/backlog.cfm.
10. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Interim Framework to
Ensure Issuance of Timely and High Quality
NPDES Permits. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes/home.cfm?program id=45.
11. Ibid
12. U.S. EPA internal reporting.
13. FY 2001 Defense Authorization Act, Public Law
106-398, Title X, Subtitle G.
14. U.S. EPA internal documents, security-sensitive.
Not available to public.
15. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information,
FY 2002 Assurance Letter (October 2002).
16. National Institute of Standards and Technology
Computer Security Resources Center Web site at
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/
index.html.
17. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (42 O.S.C. section 2000d to 2000d-7).
18. Tide VI implementing regulations of
40CFR7.115(c)(l).
19. U.S. EPA, National Senior Executive Service
Meeting (May 2001).
20. Office of Homeland Security, The National
Strategy for Homeland Security. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/
nat strat hls.pdf.
21. U.S. EPA, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Congressional
Hearings Held before the House and Senate
Committee of EPA Officials—Status Report for
2002 (September 24, 2002). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/
092402ctw.PDF.
22. U.S. EPA internal reports: Observations and
Lessons Learned from Anthrax Responses
(February 2002); Observations and Lessons
Learned from the World Trade Center and
Pentagon Terrorist Attacks (February 2002), and
Technical Assistance Documents for Anthrax
Response (September 2002).
23. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
24. U.S. EPA internal report: Lessons Learned in the
Aftermath of September 11, 2001
(February 2002).
25. U.S. EPA, EPA Newsroom, EPA Announces
Homeland Security Strategic Plan, One of Many
Efforts to Ensure Agency's Ability to Protect,
Respond and Recover, news release
(October 2, 2002). Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/epahome/
headline 100202.htm.
26. Office of the President, Office of Homeland
Security. Available at http://www.whitehouse. gov/
homeland/book/index.html.
27. U.S. EPA, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Performance
Partnership. Available at http://www.epa. gov/
ocirpage/nepps/index. htm.
28. U.S. EPA, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations, Performance
Partnership Grants. Available at
http: //www. epa. gov/ocirpa ge/nepps/
pp grants.htm.
29. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977. Available at
http://www.epa. gov/r5water/cwa.htm.
30. Part 503 of the Clean Water Act, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
Biosolids. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
home.cfm?program id=l6.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-23
-------
31. National Research Council, Division on Earth and
Life Studies, Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing
Standards and Practices (2002). Available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10426.html.
32. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Section
405(d)(20)(c), Disposal of Sewage Sludge.
Available at
http://www.epa. gov/r5water/cwa.htm.
33. U.S. EPA, Region 8, Biosolids Data Management
System (BDMS). Available at http://www.epa.gov/
region08/water/wastewater/biohome/bdms/
bdms.htm.
34. U.S. EPA, National Air Toxics Assessment
(May 31, 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/nata. Scientific Peer Review of the
National-Scale Assessment. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.
35. U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Available at http://www.epa. gov/airs/
criteria.html.
36. U.S. EPA, Environmental Data Registry. Available
at http://www.epa.gov/edr/.
37. U.S. EPA, Central Data Exchange. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/cdx/.
38. EPA selected as finalist for the 2002 Presidential
Quality Award in Area of Budget and Performance
Integration, news release. Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/
ll/20021125-2.html.
39. U.S. EPA, Investing in Our People: EPA's Strategy
for Human Capital 2001 through 2003.
40. Office of Management and Budget, Executive
Office of the President, Executive Branch
Management Scorecard. Agency Scorecard: U.S.
EPA (September 30, 2002). Available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/
scorecards/epa scorecard.html.
41. EPA order 5700.6, December 2002.
42. U.S. EPA, EPA Grants Information and Control
System (GIGS) database.
43. U.S. EPA, Innovating for Better Environmental
Results: A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation
of Innovation at EPA. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/opei/strategy/.
44. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, State Innovation Pilot Grant
Program. Available at http://www.epa. gov/opei/
state grants/index, htm.
45. U.S. EPA, Management Audit Tracking System,
internal EPA database.
46. EPA Needs Better Integration of the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System,
2000-M-000828 (March 31, 2000), pp. 3-4.
47. EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework
fortheFuture (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
July 29, 2002), p. 11.
48. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of the
Comptroller, Business Objects Implementation
Plan (September 2002), p. 3.
49. Managing for Improved Results,
recommendations for Linda Fisher, Deputy
Administrator, and Linda Combs, Chief Financial
Officer, Appendix 2 (November 2002).
50. EPA's Progress in Using the Government
Performance and Results Act to Manage for
Results, 2001-B-000001 (June 13, 2001), pp. 1-2.
51. Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for
the Future, p. 8.
52. Office of Water Data Integration Efforts,
E1NWG6-15-0001-8100177 (June 22, 1998), p. 5.
53. Subsequent to this report EPA has finalized its
target architecture and recognized a standards
program as a integral component.
54. EPA Strategic Information Plan-. A Framework for
the Future, p. 15.
55. Ibid, p. 17.
56. Data Standards: EPA Data Systems
Implementation Progress Measurement Matrix
(REI + Major Systems) (September 10, 2002).
57. EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for
the Future, p. 15.
58. Office of Water Data Integration Efforts, p. 8.
59. Unreliable Data Affects Usability of DOCKET
Information, 2002-P-00004 (January 18, 2002;
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Quality, 2002-P-00016
(September 30, 2002).
60. Unreliable Data Affects Usability of DOCKET
Information, p. 5.
6l. EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for
theFuture, p. 15.
m-24 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
62. OIG Comments to Data & Information Quality
Strategic Plan (May 2001) and EPA Pre-Brief for
the Quality and Information Council (May 24,
2001).
63. EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for
the Future, p. 12.
64. Laboratory Fraud: Deterrence and Detection,
memorandum to the Acting Deputy Administrator
(June 25, 1999), pp. 1, 3.
65. Ibid., pp. 6-8.
66. Briefing Booklet: Senior Management Integrity
Meeting with GAO, OMB, and OIG (June 11,
2002), p. 1.
67. EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for
the Future, p. 28.
68. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
Section I, Goal 10.
69. General Accounting Office, Observations onEPA's
Efforts to Implement a Workforce Planning
Strategy, GAO/T-RCED-00-129 (March 23, 2000).
70. Region 6 Supplemental Environmental Projects,
2000-P-00014 (August 22, 2001); EPA Needs
Better Integration of the National Performance
Partnership System, 2000-M-000828 (March 31,
2000).
71. Meeting with representatives from OHROS to
discuss Human Capital Strategic Plan,
August 1, 2002.
72. General Accounting Office, Observations on
Elevating the Environmental Protection Agency
to Cabinet Status, GAO-02-552T (March 21,
2002), p. 6.
73. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
Section I, Goal 10.
74. EPA Needs to More Actively Promote State Self
Assessment of Environmental Programs,
2003-P-00004 (December 27, 2002), p. 12.
75. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
Section III, p. 10.
76. Additional Efforts Needed to Improve EPA's
Oversight ofAssista nee Agreements,
2002-P-00018 (September 30, 2002), p. 1.
77. Audit of Costs Claimed by Michigan Association
of Conservation Districts, 2000-4-0059
(September 7, 2000), pp. 1, 12.
78. Grant Management Practices of Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management,
2000-1-0416 (September 21, 2000), pp. ii-iii.
79. Settlement Agreement and Release, United States
v. City of Cleveland, Civil Action No. 1:98CV1951.
80. EPA's Competitive Practices for Assistance
Agreements, 2001-P-00008 (May 21, 2001)
pp. ii, 2, 3.
81. Additional Efforts Needed to Improve EPA's
Oversight of 'Assistance Agreements, pp. 6-7.
82. Surveys, Studies, Investigations, and Special
Purpose Grants, 2002-P-00005 (March 21, 2002),
p.i.
83. Procurements Made by Assistance Agreement
Recipients Should Be Competitive, 2002-P-00009
(March 28, 2002), p. i.
84. Additional Efforts Needed to Improve EPA's
Oversight of Assistance Agreements, pp. 7-16.
85. Fiscal 2002 Agency Weakness Candidates,
memorandum from the Inspector General to the
Chief Financial Officer (May 20, 2002).
86. U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General,
2001-P-00010, pp. 1, 4-8.
87. Internal memorandum from Mehan to Chan re
Completion of Activities Under Presidential
Decision Directive (FDD) 63 in Relation to OIG
2001-P-10 (October 25, 2001); undated internal
memorandum from O'Connor & Horinko to Chan
re Comments on the Office of Administration and
Resources Management and Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response's Response to OIG
report Review of EPA's Adherence to Presidential
Decision Directive (FDD 63) Requirements.
88. Office of Homeland Security, The National Strategy
for Homeland Security (July 2002), p 32.
89. U.S. EPA, Strategic Plan for Homeland Security
(October 2002), pp. i-iii, 6, 9, 21. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
headline 100202.htm.
90. Public Health Security and Bio-terrorism Response
Act, Public Law 107-188 (June 2002), Sec. 401.
91. Internal working documents cross-walking lessons
learned reports into Homeland Security action
plans.
92. U.S. EPA, Strategic Plan for Homeland Security,
p.l.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-25
-------
93. Ibid, p. 3.
94. Ibid, p. 9.
95. Summary statement supported by OIG Draft
Multi-year Plan, Chapter 5.
96. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, The Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990—Summary
Materials (November 15, 1990); U.S. EPA, Control
of Emissions of Hazardous A ir Pollutants from
Mobile Sources: Response to Comments,
EPA-420-R-00-024 (December 2000), p. 15;
U.S. EPA, EPA FY 2003 Annual Plan, p. 1-3;
U.S. EPA, Taking Toxics Out of the Air Progress
in Setting "Maximum Achievable Control
Technology" Standards Under the Clean Air Act,
EPA-452/K-00-002 (August 2000).
97. United States Court of Appeals, District of
Columbia Circuit, Case No. 97-1686, March 2,
1999, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense
Council, Petitioners v. EPA and Integrated Waste
Services Association and Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America,
Intervenors.
98. FY 2002 Integrity Act Annual Assurance Letter
from Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator
for Office of Air and Radiation, to Christine Todd
Whitman, Administrator, U.S. EPA, pp. 4-5; United
States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, Case No. 02-1135 and consolidated cases
(November 26, 2002), Sierra Club, Petitioners.
EPA-SettlementAgree, pp. 1-13.
99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workplan
for the National Air Toxics Program and
Integrated Air Toxics State/Local/Tribal Program
Structure (September 2001), p. 2-1.
100. Memorandum from Jeneva Craig, Office of Policy
Analysis and Review, Office of Air and Radiation,
to Office of the Inspector General re proposed
BIN schedule for remaining MACTs
(November 7, 2002).
101. FY 2002 Integrity Act Annual Assurance Letter
from Jeffrey R. Holmstead to Christine Todd
Whitman, p. 4.
102. Hid
103. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workplan
for the National Air Toxics Program and
Integrated Air Toxics State/Local/Tribal Program
Structure (September 2001), pp. 2-1, 2-2;
Risk Assessment for Toxic Air Pollutants-.
A Citizen's Guide, EPA-450-3-90-024
(March 1999); and EPA Air Risk Information
Support Center, Health Effects Notebook for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (December 1994).
104. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workplan
for the National Air Toxics Program and
Integrated Air Toxics State/Local/Tribal Program
Structure, p. 5; Evaluation Exposures to Toxic
Air Pollutants: A Citizen's Guide, EPA-450/3-90-
023 (March 1991). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/workplanl7.pdf.
105. Status of the MACT and Residual Risk Programs,
briefing by K.C. Hustvedt, Emissions Standards
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
(November 15, 2001). Available at
http://www.4cleanair.org/members/committee/
airtoxics/Hustvedt.pdf: Integrated Air Toxics
Briefing for the OIG, Beth Craig, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA
(October 31, 2002).
106. Letter from Dr. Morton Lippman, Interim Chair,
Science Advisory Board (SAB), to Carol M.
Browner, (former) Administrator, U.S. EPA,
EPA-SAB-EC-00-005 Quly 25, 2000), pp. 1-2;
Executive Committee Commentary on Residual
RiskProgram, EPA-SAB-EC-00-015 Quly 25,
2000), pp. 1-4, 8-9; NATA—Evaluating the
National Scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data:
An SAB Advisory, EPA-SAB-ED-ADV-02-001
(December 2001); Workshop on the Benefits of
Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Developing Best Estimates of Dose-
Response Functions, EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001
(January 2002).
107. Letter from S. William Becker, Executive Director,
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), to Timothy
D. Backstrom, Air and Radiation Law Office, Office
of General Counsel, U.S. EPA (September 24,
2002), pp. 1-2; Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("vinyl chloride" case), United States Court
of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, July 28,
1987; letter from the Environmental Council of
the States (EGOS) to Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, U.S. EPA (September 19, 2001),
available at http://www.law.buffalo.edu/
Academics/courses/640/materials/CAA 2 02.htm.
108. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workplan
for the National Air Toxics Program and
Integrated Air Toxics State/Local/Tribal Program
Structure (September 2001), p. 2-2; National
Scale Air Toxics Assessment Program: Overview—
m-26 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
The 33 Pollutants, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html:
The National Scale Air Toxics Assessment,
available http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/.
109. An SAB Advisory on the USEPA 's Draft Case Study
Analysis of the Residual Risk of Secondary Lead
Smelters, EPA-SAB-EC-ADV-00-005 (May 2000),
pp. 2-3; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Workplanfor the National Air Toxics Program
and Integrated Air Toxics State/Local/Tribal
Program Structure, September 2001, p. 2-8.
110. An SAB Advisory on the USEPA's Draft Case Study
Analysis of the Residual Risk of Secondary Lead
Smelters, pp. 2-3; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Workplanfor the National Air Toxics
Program and Integrated Air Toxics State/Local/
Tribal Program Structure, pp. 2-15 to 3-12; EPA's
August 31, 2000, FY 2002 GPRA Goal 1: Clean
Air, Objective 1.2: Reducing Air Toxics,
Subobjective 1.2.1: Air Toxics, ORD
Background, pp. 5-7; EPA Science Forum
2000: Meeting the Challenges (abstracts,
presentations, and proceedings); 2002 Air
Toxics Implementation Workshop,
April 9-11, 2002.
111. Discussion Paper for CASAC—Diesel Health
Assessment Issues, NCEA-W-0634 (May 1999),
pp. 10-15; Limitations in the 1996National-Scale
Air Toxics Assessment, pp. 1-4, available at
http: //www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata/natsalim. html:
Introduction to AP-42, vol. I, 5th ed.
(January 1995), pp. 1-5; Locating and Estimating
Air Emissions from Sources of 1,3 Butadiene,
EPA-454/R-96-008 (November 1996).
112. Air Toxics Monitoring Newsletter, a publication of
the STAPPA/ALAPCO/USEPA Monitoring Steering
Committee, January 2002, pp. 1-2.
113. Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Response to
Comments, p. 14.
114. U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Framework
for Cumulative Risk Assessment (External
Review Draft) (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
April 23, 2002); FY 2002 Integrity Act Annual
Assurance Letter from Jeffrey R. Holmstead to
Christine Todd Whitman, p. 4.
115. EPA FY2003 Annual Plan, p. 1-7.
116. EPA FY2003 Annual Plan, p. 1-8; AIR: EPA and
State Progress in Issuing Title VPermits,
2002-P-00008 (March 29, 2002), pp. i, 45-48.
117. FY2002'FinalAnnual'PerformancePlan.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/
2002/2002final/01 lv.pdf.
118. EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) Multi-Year
Plan (Draft) (December 2002).
119. EPA's Progress Using the Government
Performance and Results Act to Manage for
Results, 2001-B-000001 (June 13, 2001).
120. Improving Region 5'sEnPPA/PPG Program,
2000-P-00008 (February 29, 2000); EPA Needs
Better Integration of the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System, 2000-M-
000828-000011 (March 31, 2000); Region 8
Needs to Improve Its Performance Partnership
Grant Program to Ensure Accountability and
Improved Environmental Results, 1999-000209-
R8-100302 (September 29, 1999); Region 4's
Implementation and Oversight of Performance
Partnership Grants, 1999-P-00216
(September 27, 1999); Region 6 Oversight of
Performance Partnership Grants, 1999-000208-
R6-100282 (September 21, 1999).
121. Water Enforcement: State Enforcement of Clean
Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective,
2001-P-00013 (August 2001).
122. EPA Strategic Information Plan: A Framework for
the Future (July 29, 2002).
123. EPA's Progress Using the Government
Performance and Results Act to Manage for
Results.
124. Government Information Security Reform Act:
Status of EPA's Computer Security Program,
2001-P-00016 (September 7, 2001), p. 21.
125. Briefing given to OEI (formerly OIRM): Improving
Information Systems Security, Recommendation 1
(June 17, 1999).
126. Briefing Booklet: Senior Management Integrity
Meeting with GAO, OMB, and OIG, p. 1.
127. U.S. EPA, Backlog Reduction: Overview. Available
at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/
backlog.cfm: accessed December 23, 2002.
128. Ibid
129. Ibid
130. U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet—NPDES Permit Backlog
Reduction, p. 1. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes/permitissuance/reductiondocs.cfm:
accessed December 23, 2002.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
Management Accomplishments and Challenges ffl-27
-------
131. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, Interim Framework to Ensure
Issuance of Timely and High Quality NPDES
Permits (Approaches for reducing the NPDES
permit backlog) (July 28, 1999), available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/permitissuance/
reductiondocs.cfm. accessed December 23, 2002;
U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
p. 111-17, available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/
finstatement/2001ar/2001ar.htm#2001ar. accessed
December 23, 2002.
132. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
p. 111-18.
133. Ibid., p. III-3; Backlog Reduction Goals and
Current Rates, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes/permit issuance/goals.cfm. accessed
December 23, 2002.
134. A backlog status report that is updated every
quarter is available at http://cfpub.epa. gov/
npdes/permitissuance/backstat. cfm.
135. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
p. III-3.
136. Ibid
137. Ibid, p. m-18.
138. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, p. 2-2; U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year2001
Annual Report, p. 111-18.
139. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, p. 5-4; U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year2001
Annual Report, p. III-3.
140. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater
Management, p. 5-5.
141. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
p. III-3. Auditor's Note: The Agency has noted
that it will report the NPDES permit backlog as
corrected in the 2002 Annual Report and will
continue to monitor this backlog as an Agency-
level weakness. (U.S. EPA, Financial Management
Five-Year Plan FY2002-FY200 7
(September 2002), p. AI-13).
142. U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report,
p. 111-18.
143. U.S. EPA, Financial Management Five-Year Plan
FY2002-2007, p. AI-14; U.S. EPA, Fiscal Year
2001 Annual Report, p. 111-18.
144. National Academy of Sciences, Sewage Sludge
Standards Need New Scientific Basis. Available at
http://www4.nas.edu/news.nsf/isbn/
0309084865?OpenDocument.
145. Ibid
146. Biosolids Management and Enforcement, p. ii.
147. Ibid., p. 30.
148. Ibid, p. 18.
149. National Academy of Sciences.
150. Land Application of Biosolids, 2002-S-000004
(March 28, 2002), p. i.
151. Ibid, pii.
152. Ibid, p. 18.
153. National Academy of Sciences.
154. Letter from Tracy Mehan and Paul Oilman to EPA
regions and State Commissioners (October 31,
2002).
155. Biosolids Management and Enforcement,
pp. 30, 44.
156. Ibid, p.ii.
157. Ibid, p. 20.
158. Memorandum from Office of Water responding to
OIG's nomination of biosolids as a major
management challenge (e-mail from Brigid Rapp
of OCFO to Kwai Chan and Dan Engelberg,
August 29, 2002), p. 2.
159. Biosolids Management and Enforcement, p. ii.
160. Land Application of Biosolids, p. i.
161. Ibid.
162. OIG Conclusion.
163. Memorandum from Nikki Tinsley to Linda Combs
(May 20, 2002), p. 4.
m-28 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Section IV
FY 2002 Annual
Financial
Statements
-------
FY 2002 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis IV-1
Principal Financial Statements IV-5
OIG's Report on EPA's Financial Statements IV-67
-------
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S ANALYSIS OF EPA'S
FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND 2001 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared the following Fiscal Year (FY) 2002
Financial Statements: Statement of Financial Position (Balance Sheet), Statement of Changes in Net
Position, Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Budgetary Resources, Statement of Financing, and
Statement of Custodial Activity. In addition, we prepared a Statement of Net Cost by Goal for each
of the Agency's 10 Strategic Goals.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) stated: "In our opinion, the consolidating financial
statements present fairly the consolidated and individual assets, liabilities, net position, net cost, net
cost by goal, changes in net position, reconciliation of net cost to budgetary obligations, and custodial
activity of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its subsidiary funds, the Superfund Trust Fund
and All Other Appropriated Funds, as of and for the years ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, and
budgetary resources as of and for the year ended September 30, 2002, in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles."
Report on Internal Controls
The OIG's Audit Report on the EPA's Fiscal 2002 and 2001 Financial Statements did not identify
any material weaknesses.1 However, the Report cited seven reportable conditions. These reportable
conditions are summarized below, along with a short statement of the Agency's position with respect
to each of those items.
• Documentation and Approval of Journal Vouchers-The OIG noted that the Agency did not
always adequately document journal vouchers and standard vouchers prior to the transactions being
entered into the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). The OIG ascertained
that most of the entries appeared to be correct but was concerned about the vulnerability
associated with executing transactions without proper documentation and supervisory review and
approval. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will issue a general reminder to the
staff to fully document and support all entries to IFMS.
• Reconciling Superfund State Cost Share Contracts-The OIG noted that improvement was
needed in reconciling unearned revenue for State Superfund Contracts (SSC). EPA did not reconcile
the unearned revenue from SSC for FY 2002 because the Agency relied on its accounting system's
internal controls and regional year-end adjustments to unearned revenue. As a result, the Agency
could not ensure the accuracy of the SSC unearned revenue accounts, which totaled approximately
$45 million.
EPA agrees that improvement is needed. As a result of the audit findings and the subsequent
reconciliation, the Agency was able to make on-top adjustments for most of the regional errors and
reduce the overall variance to avoid a material misstatement of Unearned Advances. In the future,
the Agency will calculate the SSC revenue and perform a reconciliation at year end to validate the
unearned revenue remaining after the regional SSC accruals have been posted. The OCFO will
issue additional written guidance to the regions on how to calculate the accruals and increase their
oversight.
1 A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatement of amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within
a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
tvtvw.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-1
-------
• Reconciliation of Deferred Cashouts-The OIG found that EPA regions did not periodically
reconcile the uncollected receivables for Superfund cashouts to the general ledger liability
accounts. Cashouts represent money that potentially responsible parties agree to pay EPA to fund
future cleanup work at Superfund sites. The OCFO agrees with the need to prepare written
guidance for reconciling uncollected cashout accounts and will issue written guidance for
reconciliation.
• Integrated Grants Management System Security Plan Compliance with Federal
Requirements-The OIG noted the Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) Security Plan
did not adequately describe the security requirements nor the controls used to protect the System
and its data. The Office of Grants and Debarment agrees with the OIG's recommendation to revise
the IGMS Security Plan to include requirements identified in the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program (JFMIP) standards for financial systems and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Standard 800-18.
• Automated Application Processing Controls-As part of the OIG's FY 2002 financial statement
audit, the OIG evaluated the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
replacement activities and found that EPA has taken tangible steps to replace IFMS through the
Financial Replacement System project. The OIG believes that EPA is moving in a credible fashion
towards replacing IFMS and made no recommendations in this area at this time.
• Capitalization of Superfund Contractor-Held Property-The OIG recommended that the OCFO
capitalize current Superfund site-specific contractor-held property costs meeting capitalization
thresholds and only remove property from the general Property, Plant, and Equipment accounts in
accordance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SSFAS) No. 6, Accounting for
Property, Plant, and Equipment. EPA agrees with the OIG's recommendation and will issue written
guidance on capitalization criteria.
• Revenue Recognition on Cashouts-The OIG cited the Agency for not restating the FY 2001
statements to properly characterize a $53 million on-top adjustment as unearned revenue from
future costs or earned revenue from past costs. In response, EPA restated in the FY 2002
statements its FY 2001 Balance Sheet, Statement of Net Cost, Statement of Changes in Net Position,
and Statement of Financing to correctly reflect the prior year's revenue and net position. The
OCFO also has implemented additional internal controls to ensure that the Agency complies with
financial reporting standards for reporting corrections of errors.
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
Noncompliance Issues with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)
The OIG identified no substantial noncompliance issues with FFMIA. However, they did note four
other noncompliances.
• EPA did not comply with the Managerial Cost Accounting Standard-The OIG believed the
OCFO did not comply with the FFMIA concerning the SSFAS No. 4, "Managerial Cost Accounting
Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government." While the OCFO agrees that improvements
in cost accounting can be made, and has continued to take initiative as a federal leader in this area,
we also believe that the Agency substantially complies with this Standard.
The OIG recommends that the OCFO set a goal to provide EPA managers with useful and timely
reports that present the full costs of their outputs and programs by the end of the fiscal year. The
OIG also recommended that we change the Agency's cost accounting outputs so that they
correspond to discrete products and services that the Agency produces. However, we believe that
IV-2 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
having the capability to provide information at the subobjective level is appropriate for defining
"products and services" and that this information is useful to managers. The Agency is now moving
from ten goals to five in the new Strategic Plan and will further evaluate what information EPA
managers need under that new structure. The OCFO believes the new structure will provide more
detailed accounting for Agency resources and programs. We also are continuing to enhance our
management reporting tools and capabilities.
• Reconciliation of intra-governmental transactions is not in compliance with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and Treasury Financial Manual requirements-The OIG
reported that EPA continues to experience difficulties in reconciling some of its intragovernmental
assets and liabilities because some federal entities do not perform corresponding reconciliations.
The OIG noted that this is a government-wide issue and they made no recommendations at this
time. They encouraged EPA to continue their proactive efforts in reconciling the Agency's intra-
governmental transactions in order to comply with federal financial reporting requirements. We
appreciate the OIG's recognition of our efforts. The OCFO will continue to participate in
government-wide initiatives to overcome the difficulties of reconciling intergovernmental
transactions between agencies.
• The Contract Payment System (CPS) is not in compliance with the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program system requirements-The OIG stated that during
FY 2002 CPS was not in compliance with JFMIP mandatory system requirements because no report
existed to reconcile the total number of dollars and transactions transferred daily between CPS and
IFMS. Subsequent to the OIG review, OCFO staff modified the CPS reporting package to address
the OIG's concerns.
• The fiscal 1999 Remediation Plan to correct some FFMIA issues has not been completed-
The OIG reported that EPA had not yet completed two key action items from the Office of Chief
Financial Officer's 1999 Remediation Plan for achieving compliance with FFMIA requirements. The
OCFO is taking action to correct the remaining issues. Specifically, the OCFO will work with the
Office of Administration and Resources Management to firm up milestone dates for establishing a
security certification process for key personnel and will revise the Remediation Plan to identify
responsibility for the security certification process, set a target date for completion of the action,
and provide a revised status report to OMB to disclose the changes made.
Compliance with the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
The OIG found that the Agency was not in compliance with the requirements of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (the Act) because it exceeded the amount of maintenance fees that could be
used for expedited processing. The Agency subsequently made adjustments to correct the
noncompliance and will closely monitor future amendments to the Act to identify any potential
revisions that will affect compliance requirements.
Compliance with the Treasury Financial Manual
The OIG found that the Agency does not prepare the SF 224 Statement of Transactions in
accordance with the Treasury Financial Manual. The OCFO concurs and has taken appropriate action
to develop, document, and implement procedures to ensure that the Agency's financial processes
relating to SF 224 reporting, reconciliation, and maintenance of fund balances with Treasury are in line
with the Treasury Financial Manual.
tvtvw.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-3
-------
Progress in Correcting Previously Identified Problems
OCFO management believes that audit followup is an integral part of good management and that
corrective actions are essential to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government
operations. To resolve long-standing audit recommendations, the OCFO formed an Audit Followup
Council in July 2000 to review progress on audit findings, discuss approaches to resolving audit issues,
and provide coordination and support across the OCFO on audit related matters.
As a result of the Council's efforts, the Agency has resolved several long-standing issues. During
the audit of the FY 2001 financial statements, the OIG noted substantial progress in completing a
number of corrective actions from prior years. In FY 2002 EPA completed corrective action for the
interagency agreement invoice approval process by implementing an automated project officer
notification. The Agency and the OIG are working to resolve three remaining issue areas from prior
financial statements audits. Those areas are as follows:
• Automated Application Processing Controls for IFMS-The OIG acknowledges that the
Agency plans to replace IFMS with a new automated accounting system. Until the Agency
implements the new accounting system, the OIG states that they will continue to mention this area
as a reportable condition.
• Financial System Security Plans-The OIG determined that two related corrective actions in
EPA's Remediation Plan were incomplete. The Agency is taking corrective action.
• Managerial Cost Accounting Standards-The OIG no longer views this audit issue area as a
substantial noncompliance because of Agency enhancements to its reporting capabilities and
additional ongoing initiatives.
IV-4 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
CONTENTS
Financial Statements
Consolidating Balance Sheet
Consolidating Statement of Net Cost
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
Consolidating Statement of Financing
Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury
Note 3. Cash
Note 4. Investments
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
Note 6. Other Assets
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net - Nonfederal
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Note 9. General Plant, Property, and Equipment
Note 10. Debt
Note 11. Custodial Liability
Note 12. Other Liabilities
Note 13. Leases
Note 14. Pensions and Other Actuarial Benefits
Note 15. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Note 16. Unexpended Appropriations
Note 17. Amounts Held by Treasury
Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies
Note 19. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Note 20. Environmental Cleanup Costs
Note 21. Superfund State Credits
Note 22. Superfund Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Note 23. Income and Expenses from Other Appropriations
Note 24. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Note 25. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 26. Recoveries and Permanently Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 27. Unobligated Balances Available
Note 28. Offsetting Receipts
Note 29. Statement of Financing
Note 30. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
Note 31. Transfers-in and out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 32. Imputed Financing
Note 33. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 34. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 35. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 36. Correction of Error in Revenue, Prior Year, Superfund
Note 37. Correction of Error in Contractor-held Property, Prior Years, Superfund
tvtvw.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-5
-------
Supplemental Information Requested by OMB
Required Supplemental Information
Deferred Maintenance (Unaudited)
Intragovernmental Assets (Unaudited)
Intragovernmental Liabilities (Unaudited)
Intragovernmental Revenues and Costs (Unaudited)
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
Working Capital Fund Supplemental Balance Sheet (Unaudited)
Working Capital Fund Supplemental Statement of Net Cost (Unaudited)
Working Capital Fund Supplemental Statement of Changes in Net Position (Unaudited)
Working Capital Fund Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
Working Capital Fund Supplemental Statement of Financing (Unaudited)
Required Supplemental Stewardship Information
Annual Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
IV-6 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001 (Restated*See Notes36and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2002
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2001*
All
Others
FY 2002
All
Others
FY 2001
Combined
Totals
FY 2002
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
Fund Balance with Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Note 4)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5)
Other (Note 6)
Total Intragovernmental
Cash and Other Monetary Assets (Note 3)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5)
Loans Receivables, Net - Nonfederal (Note 7)
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Notes 9 and 37)
Other (Note 6)
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note 11)
Other (Note 12)
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 14)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 20)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Notes 15 and 36)
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 18)
Payroll and Benefits Payable (Note 33)
Other (Notes 12 and 13)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations (Note 16)
Cumulative Results of Operations (Notes 36 & 37)
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
$ 32,229
3,309,975
33,309
4,520
$ 3,380,033
0
411,437
0
38,746
780
$ 3,830,996
$ 116,239
0
0
23,727
139,966
145,805
7,698
0
337,139
0
39,136
45,515
$ 715,259
$ 6,706
3,724,044
31,178
5,521
3,767,449
0
466,038
0
40,169
8,876
$ 4,282,534
$ 123,537
0
0
21,308
144,845
137,735
7,731
0
447,955
3,778
35,111
27,659
$ 804,814
$11,688,934
1,952,052
72,298
4,578
13,717,862
10
49,398
64,646
551,336
4,937
$14,388,189
$ 43,983
24,290
69,706
26,381
164,360
511,236
31,759
13,309
0
20
177,432
47,479
$ 945,595
$11
1,
13,
$13
$
$ I,
,272,374
778,818
69,977
4,386
125,555
0
75,027
75,552
526,893
1,128
,804,155
41,659
31,124
77,778
27,507
178,068
655,274
31,902
14,528
0
6,020
163,730
60,536
,110,058
$11,721,163
5,262,027
105,607
9,098
17,097,895
10
460,835
64,646
590,082
5,717
$18,219,185
$ 160,222
24,290
69,706
50,108
304,326
657,041
39,457
13,309
337,139
20
216,568
92,994
$ 1,660,854
$ 0 $ 0 $10,923,889 $10,358,961 $10,923,889
3,115,737 3,477,720 2,518,705 2,335,136 5,634,442
3,115,737 3,477,720 13,442,594 12,694,097 16,558,331
$ 3,830,996 $ 4,282,534 $14,388,189 $13,804,155 $18,219,185
* Cashout Advances; Property, Plant and Equipment, Net; and Cumulative Results of Operations, Superfund, are restated f or FY 2001.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEET
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001 (Restated*See Notes36and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Combined Intra-agency Intra-agency Consolidated Consolidated
Totals Elimination Elimination Totals Totals
FY 2001* FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2001*
ASSETS
Intragovernmental
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Note 4)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5)
Other (Note 6)
Total Intragovernmental
Cash and Other Monetary Assets (Note 3)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5)
Loans Receivable, Net - Nonfederal (Note 7)
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9 and 37)
Other (Note 6)
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note 11)
Other (Note 12)
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 14)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 20)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Notes 15 and 36)
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 18)
Payroll and Benefits Payable (Note 33)
Other (Notes 12 and 13)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations (Note 16)
Cumulative Results of Operations (Notes 36 & 37)
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
$11,279,080 $
5,502,862
101,155
9,907
$16,893,004 $
0
541,065
75,552
567,062
10,006
$18,086,689 $
$ 165,196 $
31,124
77,778
48,815
$ 322,913 $
793,009
39,633
14,528
447,955
9,798
198,841
88,195
$ 1,914,872 $
$10,358,961 $
5,812,856
16,171,817
$18,086,689 $
0 $
0
(47,412)
(4,447)
(51,859) $
0
0
0
0
0
(51,859) $
(47,480) $
0
0
(4,379)
(51,859) $
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(51,859) $
0 $
0
0
(51,859) $
0
0
(48,128)
(5,739)
(53,867)
0
0
0
0
0
(53,867)
(48,512)
0
0
(5,355)
(53,867)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(53,867)
0
0
0
(53,867)
$11,721,163
5,262,027
58,195
4,651
$17,046,036
10
460,835
64,646
590,082
5,717
$18,167,326
$ 112,742
24,290
69,706
45,729
$ 252,467
657,041
39,457
13,309
337,139
20
216,568
92,994
$ 1,608,995
$10,923,889
5,634,442
16,558,331
$18,167,326
$11,279,080
5,502,862
53,027
4,168
$16,839,137
0
541,065
75,552
567,062
10,006
$18,032,822
$ 116,684
31,124
77,778
43,460
$ 269,046
793,009
39,633
14,528
447,955
9,798
198,841
88,195
$ 1,861,005
$10,358,961
5,812,856
16,171,817
$18,032,822
' Cashout Advances; Property, Plant and Equipment, Net; and Cumulative Results of Operations, Superfund, are restated for FY 2001.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IV-8
EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF NET COST
FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001 (Restated*See Notes 36 and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Costs
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note 23)
Total Costs (Note 37)
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal (Note 19)
Earned Revenues, Nonfederal (Note 19)
Total Earned Revenues (Notes 19 and 36)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2002
$ 348,980
1,209,338
114,297
$ 1,672,615
22,932
477,768
$ 500,700
$ 1,171,915
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2001*
$ 426,499
1,177,849
103,654
$ 1,708,002
435,141
$ 1,272,861
All
Others
FY 2002
$ 782,110
5,678,789
(114,297)
$ 6,346,602
104,318
24,927
$ 129,245
$ 6,217,357
All
Others
FY 2001*
$ 710,290
5,784,628
(103,654)
$ 6,391,264
77,933
$ 6,313,331
Combined
Totals
FY 2002
$ 1,131,090
6,888,127
0
$ 8,019,217
127,250
502,695
$ 629,945
$ 7,389,272
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF NET COST
FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001 (Restated*See Notes 36and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Combined Intra-agency Intra-agency Consolidated Consolidated
Totals Eliminations Eliminations Totals Totals
FY 2001* FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2001*
Costs
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note 23)
Total Costs (Note 37)
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal (Note 19)
Earned Revenues, Nonfederal (Note 19)
Total Earned Revenues (Notes 19 and 36)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
$ 1,136,789
6,962,477
0
$ 8,099,266
513,074
$ 7,586,192
$
$
$
$
(20,795) $
0
0
(20,795) $
(20,795)
0
(20,795)
0 $
(19,627)
0
0
(19,627)
(19,627)
0
$ 1,110,295 :
6,888,127
0
$ 7,998,422 :
106,455
502,695
$ 609,150
$ 7,389,272 :
£ 1,117,162
6,962,477
0
£ 8,079,639
493,447
£ 7,586,192
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-9
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF NET COST BY GOAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
COSTS
Intragovernmental ;
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Nonfederal
Total Earned Revenue (Note 19)
Management Cost Allocation
NET COST OF OPERATIONS ;
Clean
Air
$ 101,347 $
487,461
588,808
266
25
291
59,337
$ 647,854 $
Clean and
Safe Water
• 183,063 $
3,264,051
3,447,114
3,744
2,290
6,034
87,575
; 3,528,655 $
Safe
Food
37,022
91,795
128,817
109
14,960
15,069
26,585
140,333
Pollution
Prevention
$ 55,734
253,462
309,196
1,497
1,193
2,690
37,863
$ 344,369
Better Waste
Management
$ 440,640 $
1,488,511
1,929,151
92,691
473,739
566,430
143,513
$ 1,506,234 $
Global
Risks
36,020
206,938
242,958
4,081
586
4,667
16,636
254,927
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF NET COST BY GOAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (Restated*See Notes 36 and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
COSTS
Federal
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 37)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Note 36)
Total Earned Revenue (Note 19)
Management Cost Allocation
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
Clean
Air
$ 87,360 $
458,256
545,616
702
702
$ 610,872 $
Clean and
Safe Water
156,900 $
3,482,906
3,639,806
4,966
4,966
3,711,968 $
Safe Pollution Better Waste
Food Prevention Management*
30,210 $
77,687
107,897
17,051
17,051
124,503 $
41,065 $
236,933
277,998
1,545
1,545
318,520 $
465,452 $
1,441,486
1,906,938
457,649
457,649
1,553,091 $
Global
Risks
39,816
186,919
226,735
7,286
7,286
242,731
Detailed descriptions of the above Goals are provided in EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report, Section II— Performance Results.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IV-10 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF NET COST BY GOAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environ. Sound Credible Effective Not Assigned Consolidated
Info Science Deterrent Management to Goals** Totals
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Nonfederal
Total Earned Revenue (Note 19)
Management Cost Allocation
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
$ 60,624 $ 62,030 $ 106,374 $ 23,393 $
193,241 263,592 281,171 366,798
253,865 325,622 387,545 390,191
130,237 800 234 (125,025)
154 84 914 3,300
130,391 884 1,148 (121,725)
28,089 30,408 81,910 (511,916)
$ 151,563 $ 355,146 $ 468,307 $ 0 $
4,048 $
(8,893)
(4,845)
(2,179)
5,450
3,271
0
(8,116) $
1,110,295
6,888,127
7,998,422
106,455
502,695
609,150
0
7,389,272
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF NET COST BY GOAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (Restated^See Notes 36 and 37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environ. Sound Credible Effective Not Assigned Consolidated
Info Science Deterrent Management to Goals** Totals
COSTS
Federal
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 37)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Note 36)
Total Earned Revenue (Note 19)
Management Cost Allocation
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
$ 41,540 $ 58,804 $ 100,116 $ 66,461 $
126,154 290,056 299,021 424,036
167,694 348,860 399,137 490,497
324 706 786 4,330
2,335,136 10,358,961 786 10,358,961
$ (2,167,442) $ (2,654,016) $ 398,351 $ (2,512,379) $
29,438 $
(60,977)
(31,539)
(1,898)
(1,898)
(29,641) $
1,117,162
6,962,477
8,079,639
493,447
493,447
7,586,192
'See Note 30.
Detailed descriptions of the above Goals are provided in EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report, Section II- Performance Results.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net Position - Beginning of Period,
restated (Notes 36 and 37)
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 31)
Other Adjustments (Note 34)
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue (Notes 17 and 35)
Transfers In/Out (Note 31)
Trust Fund Appropriations (Note 17)
Income from Other Appropriations (Note 23)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out (Note 31)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 32)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Position - End of Period
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
Superfund
Trust Fund
$ 3,477,720
0
0
0
0
108,038
(103,448)
676,292
114,297
$ 795,179
47
14,706
$ 14,753
(1,171,915)
$ 3,115,737
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
All
Others
$ 2,335,136
0
0
0
6,784,295
260,111
63,672
(676,292)
(114,297)
$ 6,317,489
398
83,039
$ 83,437
(6,217,357)
$ 2,518,705
Unexpended
Appropriations
All
Others
$10,358,961
7,356,085
28,598
(35,460)
(6,784,295)
0
0
0
0
$ 564,928
0
0
$ 0
0
$10,923,889
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
Consolidated
Totals*
$ 5,812,856
0
0
0
6,784,295
368,149
(39,776)
0
0
$ 7,112,668
445
97,745
$ 98,190
(7,389,272)
$ 5,634,442
Unexpended
Appropriations
Consolidated
Totals*
$10,358,961
7,356,085
28,598
(35,460)
(6,784,295)
0
0
0
0
$ 564,928
0
0
$ 0
0
$10,923,889
* This statement does not have any intra-agency eliminations for FY 2002.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IV-12 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION
FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (Restated*SeeNotes36and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net Cost of Operations (Notes 36 and 37)
Financing Sources
(Other Than Exchange Revenues) :
Appropriations Used
Taxes & Non Exchange Interest (Note 1 7)
Other Non Exchange Revenue
Imputed Financing (Notes 32)
Trust Fund Appropriations (Note 17)
Transfers-In (Note 31)
Transfers-Out (Note 31)
Income from Other Appropriations (Note 23)
Net Change in Cumulative Results of Operations
Increases/Decreases in Unexpended Appropriations
Change in Net Position
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Prior Period Adjustment (Note 37)
Adjusted Net Position - Beginning of Period
Net Position - End of Period (Notes 36 and 37)
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2001*
$ 1,272,861
0
226,861
2,775
13,686
633,603
0
(127,927)
103,654
(420,209)
0
(420,209)
3,875,439
22,490
3,897,929
$ 3,477,720
All
Others
FY 2001
$ 6,313,331
6,867,762
276,346
11,878
77,855
(633,603)
62,861
0
(103,654)
246,114
239 122
485,236
12,208,861
12,208,861
$12,694,097
Combined Intra-agency
Totals Eliminations
FY 2001* FY 2001
$ 7,586,192 $
6,867,762
503,207
14,653
91,541
0
62,861
(127,927)
0
(174,095)
239,122
65,027
16,084,300
22,490
16,106,790
$16,171,817 $
0
0
0
0
0
0
(47,894)
47,894
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Consolidated
Totals
FY 2001*
$ 7,586,192
6,867,762
503,207
14,653
91,541
0
14,967
(80,033)
0
(174,095)
239,122
65,027
16,084,300
22,490
16,106,790
$16,171,817
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-13
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMBINED STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Budgetary Resources
Budget Authority:
Appropriations Received
Borrowing Authority
Net Transfers
Other
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period
Net Transfers, Actual
Anticipated Transfers Balance
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Anticipated for Rest of Year
Transfers from Trust Funds
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations (Note 26)
Permanently Not Available (Note 26)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 25)
Status of Budgetary Resources
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 25)
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 27)
Exempt from Apportionment
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 27)
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
Relationship of Obligations to Outlays
Obligations Incurred, Net
Obligated Balances, Net - Beginning of Period
Accounts Receivable
Unfilled Customer Orders from Federal Sources
Undelivered Orders, Unpaid
Accounts Payable
Total Outlays (Note 25)
Disbursements
Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts (Note 28)
Net Outlays
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2002
$ 0
0
1,329,490
0
714,321
0
0
193,835
3,523
(22,548)
1,749
0
0
$ 176,559
230,628
(2,000)
$ 2,448,998
$ 1,548,650
149,354
$ 1,698,004
726,589
0
24,405
$ 2,448,998
$ 1,290,817
2,108,696
3,694
66,448
(1,831,268)
(260,633)
$ 1,377,754
$ 1,549,041
(171,287)
(248,252)
$ 1,129,502
All
Others
FY 2002
$ 7,371,085
0
101,010
0
1,911,304
500
0
262,102
1,410
2,133
62,549
0
48,671
$ 376,865
89,440
(42,292)
$ 9,807,912
$ 7,514,054
248,610
$ 7,762,664
1,917,637
0
127,611
$ 9,807,912
$ 7,296,359
9,324,855
72,577
253,348
(9,277,925)
(656,652)
$ 7,012,562
$ 7,323,740
(311,178)
(687,650)
$ 6,324,912
Combined
Totals
FY 2002
$ 7,371,085
0
1,430,500
0
2,625,625
500
0
455,937
4,933
(20,415)
64,298
0
48,671
$ 553,424
320,068
(44,292)
$ 12,256,910
$ 9,062,704
397,964
$ 9,460,668
2,644,226
0
152,016
$ 12,256,910
$ 8,587,176
11,433,551
76,271
319,796
(11,109,193)
(917,285)
$ 8,390,316
$ 8,872,781
(482,465)
(935,902)
$ 7,454,414
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IV-14 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF FINANCING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2002
All
Others
FY 2002
Consolidated
Totals*
FY 2002
Resources Used to Finance Activities:
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations Incurred
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting
Collections and Recoveries
Obligations, Net of Offsetting Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts (Note 28)
Net Obligations
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement,
Property (Note 31)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 32)
Income from Other Appropriations (Note 23)
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities
Resources Used to Finance Items
Not Part of Net Cost of Operations
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated
Resources that Fund Prior Period Expenses (Note 29)
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts
that Do Not Affect Net Cost of Operations
Credit Program Collections Increasing Loan
Liabilities for Guarantees of Subsidy Allowances
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
Resources that Finance Asset Acquisition
Adjustments to Expenditure Transfers
that Do Not Affect Net Cost
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not
Part of the Net Cost of Operations
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net
Cost of Operations
$ 1,698,004 $ 7,762,664 $ 9,460,668
0
(407,187) (466,305) (873,492)
$ 1,290,817 $ 7,296,359 $ 8,587,176
(248,252) (687,650) (935,902)
$ 1,042,565 $ 6,608,709 $ 7,651,274
47 $ (47) $
14,706 83,039
114,297 (114,297)
0
248,252
(6,587)
(48,758)
4,394
11,358
(53,692)
48,670
0
97,745
0
$ 129,050 $ (31,305) $ 97,745
$ 1,171,615 $ 6,577,404 $ 7,749,019
64,738 $ (422,293) $ (357,555)
(1,590) (399) (1,989)
4,394
259,610
(60,279)
$ 256,055 $ (411,962) $ (155,907)
$ 1,427,670 $ 6,165,442 $ 7,593,112
* This statement did not have any intra-agency eliminations for FY 2002.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-15
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF FINANCING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2002
All
Others
FY 2002
Consolidated
Totals*
FY 2002
Components of Net Cost of Operations
That Will Not Require or Generate
Resources in the Current Period
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in
Future Periods
Increase in Annual Leave Liability (Note 29)
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability (Note 29)
Up/Downward Reestimates of Subsidy Expense
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivable
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs (Note 29)
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that
Requires or Generates Resources in the Future
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources
Depreciation and Amortization
Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations
that Will Not Require or Generate Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations
That Will Not Require or Generate
Resources in the Current Period
Net Cost of Operations
0 $
0
0
(305,035)
0
7,854
0
41,426
49,280 $
(255,755)
0 $ 0
578 578
(371) (371)
(2,422) (307,457)
0 0
$ (305,035) $ (2,215) $ (307,250)
27,022
0
27,108
51,915
34,876
0
68,534
54,130 $ 103,410
(203,840)
$ 1,171,915 $ 6,217,357 $ 7,389,272
* This statement did not have any intra-agency eliminations for FY 2002.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IV-16 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF FINANCING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 (Restated *See Notes 36 and37)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Obligations and Nonbudgetary Resources
Obligations Incurred $
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned Reimbursements
Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders
Transfers from Trust Funds
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations
Imputed Financing for Cost Subsidies (Note 32)
Income from Other Appropriations (Note 23)
Transfers In/Out of Nonm on etary Assets
Exchange Revenue Not in the Entity's Budget (Note 36)
Total Obligations and Nonbudgetary Resources
Resources that Do Not Fund Net Cost of Operations
Change in Amount of Goods/Services Ordered But
Not Yet Provided - (Increases) /Decreases
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders, etc.
Costs Capitalized on the Balance Sheet
General Plant, Property, and Equipment (Note 37)
Purchases of Inventory
Adjustments to Costs Capitalized on the Balance Sheet
Collections that Decrease Credit Program Receivables or
Increase Program Liabilities
Adjustment for Trust Fund Outlays that Do Not Affect Net Cost
Total Resources that Do Not Fund Net Costs of Operations
Components of Costs that Do Not Require or Generate Resources
Depreciation and Amortization (Note 37)
Bad Debt Related to Uncollectible Receivables
Loss (Gain) on Disposition of Assets
Other Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources
Total Costs That Do Not Require Resources
Financing Sources Yet to be Provided
Net Costs of Operations (Notes 36 and 37) $
Superfund
Trust Fund
FY 2001*
1,570,056
(311,271)
3,716
(41,203)
0
(196,644)
13,686
103,654
0
(128,757)
1,013,237
145,931
41,203
(12,530)
(40)
0
(47,894)
126,670
7,091
133,761
(9,426)
699
132,125
829
1,272,861
All
Others
FY 2001
$ 7,431,802
(227,827)
6,306
(36,273)
(46,178)
(76,814)
77,855
(103,654)
0
(2,072)
7,023,145
(117,998)
36,273
(74,092)
52
(4)
7,722
(587,424)
(735,471)
19,333
2,881
895
(5,686)
17,423
8,234
$ 6,313,331
Consolidated
Totals
FY 2001**
$ 9,001,858
(539,098)
10,022
(77,476)
(46,178)
(273,458)
91,541
0
0
(130,829)
8,036,382
27,933
77,476
(86,622)
52
(44)
7,722
(635,318)
(608,801)
26,424
136,642
(8,531)
(4,987)
149,548
9,063
$ 7,586,192
** This statement did not have any intra-agency eliminations for FY 2001.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-17
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CUSTODIAL ACTIVITY
FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AND 2001
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2002
FY 2001
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Collections:
Fines and Penalties
Other
Total Cash Collections
Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 24)
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund)
Increases/Decreases in Amounts To Be Transferred
Total Disposition of Collections
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 24)
$ 94,237
9 322
$ 103,559
(8,070)
$ 95,489
$ 103,818
(8,329)
$ 95,489
$ 0
$ 114,830
31,754
$ 146,584
(24,692)
$ 121,892
$ 147,045
(25,153)
$ 121,892
$ 0
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
IV-18 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in Thousands)
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
A. Basis of Presentation
These consolidating financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and
results of operations of the Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) for the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Superfund) Trust Fund and All Other Funds, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act
of 1990 and the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. The reports have been prepared from
the books and records of the Agency in accordance with "Form and Content for Agency Financial
Statements," specified by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Bulletin 01-09, and the
Agency's accounting policies which are summarized in this note. In addition, to the guidance in
Bulletin 01-09, the Statement of Net Cost has been prepared by the EPA strategic goals. These
statements are therefore different from the financial reports also prepared by the Agency pursuant to
OMB directives that are used to monitor and control the Agency's use of budgetary resources.
B. Reporting Entities
The Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 by executive reorganization from
various components of other Federal agencies in order to better marshal and coordinate federal
pollution control efforts. The Agency is generally organized around the media and substances it
regulates—air, water, land, hazardous waste, pesticides, and toxic substances. For FY 2002 the
reporting entities are grouped as Hazardous Substance Superfund and All Other Funds.
Hazardous Substance Superfund
In 1980 the Hazardous Substance Superfund, commonly referred to as the Superfund Trust Fund,
was established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) to provide resources needed to respond to and clean up hazardous substance
emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Trust Fund financing
is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry. The Agency allocates funds from its
appropriation to other federal agencies to carry out the Act. Risks to public health and the environment
at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites qualifying for the Agency's National Priorities List (NPL) are
reduced and addressed through a process involving site assessment and analysis and the design and
implementation of cleanup remedies. Throughout this process, cleanup activities maybe supported by
shorter term removal actions to reduce immediate risks. Removal actions may include removing
contaminated material from the site, providing an alternative water supply to people living nearby,
and installing security measures. NPL cleanups and removals are conducted and financed by the
Agency, private parties, or other federal agencies. The Superfund Trust Fund includes the Treasury
collections and investment activity. The Superfund Trust Fund is accounted for under Treasury symbol
number 8145.
All Other Funds
All Other Funds include other Trust Fund appropriations, General Fund appropriations,
Revolving Funds, Special Funds, the Agency Budgetary Clearing accounts, Deposit Funds, General
Fund Receipt accounts, the Environmental Services Special Fund Receipt Account, the
Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund, and General Fund appropriations transferred from
other federal agencies as authorized by the Economy Act of 1932. Trust Fund appropriations are the
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-19
-------
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund and the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund.
General Fund appropriations are the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), Science and
Technology (S&T), Environmental Programs and Management (EPM), Office of Inspector General
(IG), Buildings and Facilities (B&F), and Payment to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. General
Fund appropriation activities that no longer receive current definite appropriations but have
unexpended authority are the Asbestos Loan Program and Energy, Research and Development.
Revolving Funds include the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Revolving
Fund, and Tolerance Revolving Fund which receive no direct appropriations; however, they do
collect fees from public industry as a source of reimbursement for the services provided. In
addition to FIFRA and Tolerance, a Working Capital Fund (WCF) was established and designated as
a franchise fund to provide computer operations support and postage service for the Agency. A
Special Fund was established to collect the Exxon Valdez settlement as a result of the Exxon Valdez
oil spill. All Other Funds are as follows:
The LUST Trust Fund was authorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The LUST appropriation
provides funding to respond to releases from leaking underground petroleum tanks. The Agency
oversees cleanup and enforcement programs which are implemented by the states. Funds are allocated
to the states through cooperative agreements to clean up those sites posing the greatest threat to
human health and environment. Funds are used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes
under section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The program is financed by a
one cent a gallon tax on motor fuels which will expire in 2005 and is accounted for under Treasury
symbol number 8153.
The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund was authorized by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990. Monies
were appropriated to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible for
directing, monitoring, and providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities.
This involves setting oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions for
compliance with OPA and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements, and directing
response actions when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to improve response actions to
oil spills including research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and
bioremediation. Funding of oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of
Transportation under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other federal
agencies. The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund is accounted for under Treasury symbol number 8221.
The STAG appropriation provides funds for environmental programs and infrastructure assistance
including capitalization grants for state revolving funds and performance partnership grants.
Environmental programs and infrastructure supported are Clean and Safe Water; Capitalization grants
for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; Clean Air; Direct grants for Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure needs, Partnership grants to meet Health Standards, Protect Watersheds, Decrease
Wetland Loss, and Address Agricultural and Urban Runoff and Storm Water; Better Waste Management;
Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems; and
Reduction of Global and Cross Border Environmental Risks. STAG is accounted for under Treasury
symbol 0103.
The S&T appropriation finances salaries; travel; science; technology; research and development
activities including laboratory and center supplies; certain operating expenses; grants; contracts;
intergovernmental agreements; and purchases of scientific equipment. These activities provide the
scientific basis for the Agency's regulatory actions. In FY 2002 Superfund research costs were
appropriated in Superfund and transferred to S&T to allow for proper accounting of the costs.
Scientific and technological activities for environmental issues include Clean Air; Clean and Safe Water;
Americans Right to Know About Their Environment; Better Waste Management; Preventing Pollution
IV-20 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and Ecosystems; and Safe Food. The S&T
appropriation is accounted for under Treasury symbol 0107.
The EPM appropriation includes funds for salaries, travel, contracts, grants, and cooperative
agreements for pollution abatement, control, and compliance activities and administrative activities of
the operating programs. Areas supported from this appropriation include Clean Air; Clean and Safe
Water; Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and Ecosystems;
Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response;
Reduction of Global and Cross Border Environmental Risks; Americans' Right to Know About Their
Environment; Sound Science; Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk; and Greater Innovation
to Address Environmental Problems; Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the
Law; and Effective Management. The Environmental Programs and Management appropriation is
accounted for under Treasury symbol 0108.
The IG appropriation provides funds for audit and investigative functions to identify and
recommend corrective actions on management and administrative deficiencies that create the
conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. Additional funds for
audit and investigative activities associated with the Superfund Trust Fund and the LUST Trust Funds
are appropriated under those Trust Fund accounts and are transferred to the IG account. The audit
function provides contract, internal and performance, and financial and grant audit services. The IG
appropriation is accounted for under Treasury symbol 0112 and includes expenses incurred and
reimbursed from the appropriated trust funds being accounted for under Treasury symbols 8145 and
8153.
The B&F appropriation provides for the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities that are owned or used by the Agency. The B&F
appropriation is accounted for under Treasury symbol 0110.
The Payment to the Hazardous Substance Superfund appropriation authorizes appropriations from
the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities conducted through Hazardous Substance
Superfund. Payment to the Hazardous Substance Superfund is accounted for under Treasury symbol
0250.
The Asbestos Loan Program was authorized by the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1986
to finance control of asbestos building materials in schools. Funds have not been appropriated for this
Program since FY 1993. For FY 1993 and FY 1992 the program was funded by a subsidy appropriated
from the General Fund for the actual cost of financing the loans, and by borrowing from Treasury for
the unsubsidized portion of the loan. The Program Fund disburses the subsidy to the Financing Fund
for increases in the subsidy. The Financing Fund receives the subsidy payment, borrows from
Treasury, and collects the asbestos loans. The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury
symbol 0118 for the subsidy and administrative support, under Treasury symbol 4322 for loan
disbursements, loans receivable and loan collections on post FY 1991 loans, and under Treasury
symbol 2917 for pre FY 1992 loans receivable and loan collections.
The FIFRA Revolving Fund was authorized by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act of 1972 as amended and as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Fees are paid by
industry to offset costs of accelerated reregistration, expedited processing of pesticides, and
establishing tolerances for pesticide chemicals in or on food and animal feed. The FIFRA Revolving
Fund is accounted for under Treasury symbol number 4310.
The Tolerance Revolving Fund was authorized in 1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees. Fees
are paid by industry for federal services of pesticide chemicals in or on food and animal feed.
Effective January 2, 1997, fees collected are now being collected and deposited in the Reregistration
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-21
-------
and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund (4310). The fees collected prior to this date are
accounted for under Treasury symbol number 4311.
The WCF includes two activities: computer support services and postage. WCF derives revenue
from these activities based upon a fee for services. WCF's customers currently consist solely of
Agency program offices. Accordingly, revenues generated by WCF and expenses recorded by the
program offices for use of such services, along with the related advances/liabilities, are eliminated on
consolidation. The WCF is accounted for under Treasury symbol 4565.
The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund has funds available to carry out authorized environmental
restoration activities. Funding is derived from the collection of reimbursements under the Exxon Valdez
settlement as a result of the oil spill. The Exxon Valdez Settlement fund is accounted for under
Treasury symbol number 5297.
Allocations and appropriations transferred to the Agency from other federal agencies include funds
from the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Department of Commerce which provide
economic assistance to state and local developmental activities, the Agency for International
Development which provides assistance on environmental matters at international levels, and from the
General Services Administration which provides funds for rental of buildings and operations, repairs,
and maintenance of rental space. The transfer allocations are accounted for under Treasury
symbols 0200, 1010, and 4542; and the appropriation transfers are accounted for under 0108.
Clearing Accounts include the Budgetary suspense account, Unavailable Check Cancellations and
Overpayments, and Undistributed IPAC Payments and Collections. Clearing accounts are accounted for
under Treasury symbols 3875, 3880, and 3885.
Deposit funds include Fees for Ocean Dumping; Nonconformance Penalties; Clean Air Allowance
Auction and Sale; Advances without Orders; and Suspense and payroll deposits for Savings Bonds, and
State and City Income Taxes Withheld. Deposit funds are accounted for under Treasury symbols 6050,
6264, 6265, 6266, 6275, and 6500.
General Fund Receipt Accounts include Hazardous Waste Permits; Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties
and Forfeitures; General Fund Interest; Interest from Credit Reform Financing Accounts; Fees and
Other Charges for Administrative and Professional Services; and Miscellaneous Recoveries and
Refunds. General Fund Receipt accounts are accounted for under Treasury symbols 0895, 1099, 1435,
1499, 3200, and 3220.
The Environmental Services Receipt account was established for the deposit of fee receipts
associated with environmental programs, including radon measurement proficiency ratings and training,
motor vehicle engine certifications, and water pollution permits. Receipts in this special fund will be
appropriated to the S&T and EPM appropriations to meet the expenses of the programs that generate the
receipts. Environmental Services are unavailable receipts accounted for under Treasury symbol 5295.
The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund includes gifts for pollution control programs
that are usually designated for a specific use by the donor and deposits from pesticide registrants to
cover the costs of petition hearings when such hearings result in unfavorable decisions to the
petitioner. Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund is accounted for under Treasury symbol
8741.
The accompanying financial statements include the accounts of all funds described in this note.
The expense allocation methodology is a financial statement estimate that presents EPA's programs
at full cost. Superfund may charge some costs directly to the fund and charge the remainder of the
costs to the All Other Funds in the Agency-wide appropriations. These amounts are presented as
IV-22 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Expenses from Other Appropriations on the Statement of Net Cost and as Income from Other
Appropriations on the Statement of Changes in Net Position and the Statement of Financing.
The Superfund Trust Fund is allocated to general support services costs (such as rent,
communications, utilities, mail operations, etc.) that were initially charged to the Agency's S&T and
EPM appropriations. During the year, these costs are allocated from the S&T and EPM appropriations to
the Superfund Trust Fund based on a ratio of direct labor hours, using budgeted or actual full-time
equivalent personnel charged to these appropriations, to the total of all direct labor hours. Agency
general support services cost charges to the Superfund Trust Fund may not exceed the ceilings
established in the Superfund Trust Fund appropriation. The related general support services costs
charged to the Superfund Trust Funds were $53.5 million for FY 2001 and $49.1 million for FY 2002.
C. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
Superfund
Congress adopts an annual appropriation amount to be available until expended for the Superfund
Trust Fund. A transfer account for the Superfund Trust Fund has been established for purposes of
carrying out the program activities. As the Agency disburses obligated amounts from the transfer
account, the Agency draws down monies from the Superfund Trust Fund at Treasury to cover the
amounts being disbursed.
All Other Funds
Congress adopts an annual appropriation amount for the LUST Trust Fund and for the Oil Spill
Response Trust Fund to remain available until expended. A transfer account for the LUST Trust Fund
has been established for purposes of carrying out the program activities. As the Agency disburses
obligated amounts from the transfer account, the Agency draws down monies from the LUST Trust
Fund at Treasury to cover the amounts being disbursed. The Agency draws down all the appropriated
monies from the Treasury's Oil Spill Liability trust fund to the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund when
Congress adopts the appropriation amount. Congress adopts an annual appropriation for STAG,
Buildings and Facilities, and for Payments to the Hazardous Substance Superfund to be available until
expended; adopts annual appropriations for S&T, EPM and for the Office of the Inspector General to
be available for two fiscal years. When the appropriations for the General Funds are enacted, Treasury
issues a warrant to the respective appropriations. As the Agency disburses obligated amounts, the
balance of funds available to the appropriation is reduced at Treasury.
The Asbestos Loan Program is a commercial activity financed by a combination from two sources:
one for the long term costs of the loans and another for the remaining non-subsidized portion of the
loans. Congress adapted a one year appropriation, available for obligation in the fiscal year for which
it was appropriated, to cover the estimated long term cost of the Asbestos loans. The long-term costs
are defined as the net present value of the estimated cash flows associated with the loans. The portion
of each loan disbursement that did not represent long term cost was financed under a permanent
indefinite borrowing authority established with the Treasury. A permanent indefinite appropriation is
available to finance the costs of subsidy re-estimates that occur after the year in which the loan was
disbursed.
Funding of the FIFRA and the Tolerance Revolving Funds is provided by fees collected from
industry to offset costs incurred by the Agency in carrying out these programs. Each year the Agency
submits an apportionment request to OMB based on the anticipated collections of industry fees.
Funding of the WCF is provided by fees collected from other Agency appropriations collected to
offset costs incurred for providing the Agency administrative support for computer support and
postage.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-23
-------
Funds transferred from other Federal agencies are funded by a non expenditure transfer of
funds from the other Federal agencies. As the Agency disburses the obligated amounts, the balance
of funding available to the appropriation is reduced at Treasury.
Clearing accounts, deposit accounts, and receipt accounts receive no budget. The amounts are
recorded to the Clearing and Deposit accounts pending further disposition. Amounts recorded to the
Receipt accounts capture amounts receivable to or collected for the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
D. Basis of Accounting
Superfund and All Other Funds
Transactions are recorded on an accrual accounting basis and on a budgetary basis (where budgets
are issued). Under the accrual method, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are
recognized when a liability is incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary
accounting facilitates compliance with legal constraints and controls over the use of federal funds. All
interfund balances and transactions have been eliminated.
E. Revenues and Other Financing Sources
Superfund
The Superfund program receives most of its funding through appropriations that may be used,
within specific statutory limits, for operating and capital expenditures (primarily equipment).
Additional financing for the Superfund program is obtained through reimbursements from other federal
agencies under Inter-Agency Agreements (lAGs), state cost share payments under Superfund State
Contracts (SSCs), and settlement proceeds from Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), under CERCLA
section 122(b)(3), placed in special accounts. Special accounts were previously limited to settlement
amounts for future costs; however, beginning in FY 2001 cost recovery amounts received under
CERCLA section 122(b)(3) settlements could be placed in special accounts. Cost recovery settlements
that are not placed in special accounts continue to be deposited in the Superfund Trust Fund.
All Other Funds
The majority of All Other Funds appropriations receive funding needed to support programs
through appropriations, which may be used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital
expenditures. Under Credit Reform provisions, the Asbestos Loan Program received funding to support
the subsidy cost of loans through appropriations which may be used with statutory limits. The Asbestos
Direct Loan Financing fund, an off-budget fund, receives additional funding to support the outstanding
loans through collections from the Program fund for the subsidized portion of the loan. The last year
Congress provided appropriations to make new loans was 1993. The FIFRA and the Tolerance
Revolving Funds receive funding, which is now deposited with the FIFRA Revolving Fund, through
fees collected for services provided. The FIFRA Revolving Fund also receives interest on invested
funds. The WCF receives revenue through fees collected for services provided to Agency program
offices. Such revenue is eliminated with related Agency program expenses on Consolidation. The
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund received funding through reimbursements.
Appropriations are recognized as Other Financing Sources when earned, i.e., when goods and
services have been rendered without regard to payment of cash. Other revenues are recognized when
earned, i.e., when services have been rendered.
IV-24 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
F. Funds with the Treasury
Superfund and All Other Funds
The Agency does not maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Cash receipts and disbursements
are handled by Treasury. The funds maintained with Treasury are Appropriated Funds, Revolving
Funds, and Trust Funds. These funds have balances available to pay current liabilities and finance
authorized purchase commitments. (See Note 2)
G. Investments in U.S. Government Securities
All Other Funds
Investments in U.S. Government securities are maintained by Treasury and are reported at
amortized cost net of unamortized discounts. Discounts are amortized over the term of the investments
and reported as interest income. No provision is made for unrealized gains or losses on these
securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity. (See Note 4)
H. Notes Receivable
Superfund
The Agency records notes receivable at their face value and any accrued interest as of the date of
receipt. (See Note 6)
I. Marketable Equity Securities
The Agency records marketable securities at cost as of the date of receipt. Marketable securities
are held by Treasury and reported at their cost value in the financial statements until sold. Currently
EPA does not hold any marketable securities.
J. Accounts Receivable and Interest Receivable (See Note 5)
Superfund
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) provides for the recovery of
costs from potentially responsible parties (PRPs). However, cost recovery expenditures are expensed
when incurred since there is no assurance that these funds will be recovered.
It is the Agency's policy to record accounts receivable from PRPs for Superfund site response costs
when a consent decree, judgment, administrative order, or settlement is entered. These agreements are
generally negotiated after site response costs have been incurred. It is the Agency's position that until
a consent decree or other form of settlement is obtained, the amount recoverable should not be
recorded.
The Agency also records accounts receivable from states for a percentage of Superfund site
remedial action costs incurred by the Agency within those states. As agreed to under Superfund State
Contracts (SSCs), cost sharing arrangements under SSCs may vary according to whether a site was
privately or publicly operated at the time of hazardous substance disposal and whether the Agency
response action was removal or remedial. SSC agreements are usually for 10% or 50% of site remedial
action costs. States may pay the full amount of their share in advance or incrementally throughout the
remedial action process. Allowances for uncollectible state cost share receivables have not been
recorded because the Agency has not had collection problems with these agreements.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-25
-------
All Other Funds
The majority of receivables for All Other Funds represent interest receivable for Asbestos and
FIFRA and both accounts receivable and interest receivable to the General Fund of the Treasury.
K. Advances and Prepayments
Superfund and All Other Funds
Advances and prepayments represent funds advanced or prepaid to other entities both internal and
external to the Agency for which a budgetary expenditure has not yet occurred. (See Note 6)
L. Loans Receivable
All Other Funds
Loans are accounted for as receivables after funds have been disbursed. The amount of Asbestos
Loan Program loans obligated but not disbursed is disclosed in Note 7. Loans receivable resulting from
obligations on or before September 30, 1991, are reduced by the allowance for uncollectible loans.
Loans receivable resulting from loans obligated on or after October 1, 1991, are reduced by an
allowance equal to the present value of the subsidy costs associated with these loans. The subsidy cost
is calculated based on the interest rate differential between the loans and Treasury borrowing, the
estimated delinquencies and defaults net of recoveries offset by fees collected, and other estimated
cash flows associated with these loans.
M. Appropriated Amounts Held by Treasury
Superfund and All Other Funds
For the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds, and for amounts appropriated to the Office of Inspector
General from the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds, cash available to the Agency that is not needed
immediately for current disbursements remains in the respective Trust Funds managed by Treasury.
(See Note 17)
N. Property, Plant, and Equipment
Superfund and All Other Funds
The Fixed Assets Subsystem (FAS), implemented in FY 1997, maintains EPA's personal property,
real property, and capital software records in accordance with Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 6, "Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment," (SFFAS No. 6). The FAS
automatically generates depreciation entries monthly based on acquisition dates. Purchases of EPA-held
and contractor-held personal property are capitalized if valued at $25 thousand or more with an
estimated useful life of at least two years. Prior to implementing FAS, depreciation was taken on a
modified straight-line basis over a period of six years, depreciating 10% the first and sixth year and
20% in years two through five. This modified straight-line method is still used for contractor-held
property. All EPA-held personal property purchased before the implementation of FAS was assumed to
have an estimated useful life of five years. New acquisitions of EPA-held personal property are
depreciated using the straight-line method for specific assets with useful lives ranging from two to
15 years.
Superfund contractor-held property used as part of the remedy for site-specific response actions is
capitalized in accordance with Agency's capitalization threshold. This property is part of the remedy at
the site and eventually becomes part of the site itself. Once the response action has been completed
and the remedy implemented, EPA will retain control of the property, e.g., pump and treat facility, for
IV-26 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
10 years or less, and will transfer its interest in the facility to the respective state for mandatory
operation and maintenance - usually 20 years or more. Consistent with EPA's 10 year retention period,
depreciation for this property will be based on a 10-year life. However, if any property is transferred
to a state in a year or less, this property will be charged to expense. If any property is sold prior to
EPA relinquishing interest, the proceeds from the sale of that property shall be applied against contract
payments or refunded as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
In FY 1997 the EPA's Working Capital Fund, a revenue generating activity, implemented
requirements to capitalize software if the purchase price was $100,000 or more with an estimated
useful life of two years or more. In FY 2001 the Agency began capitalizing software for All Other
Funds whose acquisition value is $500,000 or more in accordance with the provisions of SFFAS
No. 10, "Accounting for Internal Use Software." Software is depreciated using the straight-line method
over the specific assets' useful lives ranging from two to ten years.
Real property consists of land, buildings, and capital and leasehold improvements. Real property,
other than land, is capitalized when the value is $75 thousand or more. Land is capitalized regardless
of cost. Buildings were valued at an estimated original cost basis and land was valued at fair market
value if purchased prior to FY 1997. Real property purchased during and after FY 1997 are valued at
actual costs. Depreciation for real property is calculated using the straight-line method over the
specific assets' useful lives ranging from 10 to 102 years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over
the lesser of their useful lives or the unexpired lease terms. Additions to property and improvements
not meeting the capitalization criteria, expenditures for minor alterations, and repairs and maintenance
are expensed as incurred. (See Note 9)
0. Liabilities
Superfund and All Other Funds
Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the
Agency as the result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can be
paid by the Agency without an appropriation or other collection of revenue for services provided.
Liabilities for which an appropriation has not been enacted are classified as unfunded liabilities and
there is no certainty that the appropriations will be enacted. Liabilities of the Agency, arising from
other than contracts, can be abrogated by the Government acting in its sovereign capacity.
P. Borrowing Payable to the Treasury
All Other Funds
Borrowing payable to Treasury results from loans from Treasury to fund the Asbestos direct loans
described in part B and C of this note. Periodic principal payments are made to Treasury based on the
collections of loans receivable.
Q. Interest Payable to Treasury
All Other Funds
The Asbestos Loan Program makes periodic interest payments to Treasury based on its debt to
Treasury. At the end of FY 2001 and FY 2002 there was no outstanding interest payable to Treasury
since payment was made through September 30.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-27
-------
R. Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Superfund and All Other Funds
Annual, sick, and other leave is expensed as taken during the fiscal year. Sick leave earned but not
taken is not accrued as a liability. Annual leave earned but not taken as of the end of the fiscal year is
accrued as an unfunded liability. Accrued unfunded annual leave is included in the Balance Sheet as a
component of "Payroll and Benefits Payable." (See Note 33)
S. Retirement Plan
Superfund and All Other Funds
There are two primary retirement systems for federal employees. Employees hired prior to January
1, 1984, may participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (GSRS). On January 1, 1984, the
Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) went into effect pursuant to Public Law 99-335. Most
employees hired after December 31, 1983, are automatically covered by FERS and Social Security.
Employees hired prior to January 1, 1984, elected to either join FERS and Social Security or remain in
GSRS. A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan to which the Agency automatically
contributes 1 percent of pay and matches any employee contributions up to an additional 4 percent of
pay. The Agency also contributes the employer's matching share for Social Security.
With the issuance of SFFAS No.5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government," (SFFAS
No. 5) , which was effective for the FY 1997 financial statements, accounting and reporting standards
were established for liabilities relating to the federal employee benefit programs (Retirement, Health
Benefits, and Life Insurance). SFFAS No. 5 requires that the employing agencies recognize the cost of
pensions and other retirement benefits during their employees' active years of service. SFFAS No. 5
requires that the Office of Personnel Management, as administrator of the Civil Service Retirement and
Federal Employees Retirement Systems, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the
Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program, provide EPA with the 'Cost Factors' to compute
EPA's liability for each program.
T. Prior Period Adjustments
Prior period adjustments will be made in accordance with SFFAS No. 21, "Reporting Corrections of
Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles," which is effective for FY 2002. EPA will make prior
period adjustments for material errors as follows in accordance with SFFAS No. 21. Prior period
adjustments will only be made for material prior period errors to (1) the current period financial
statements and (2) the prior period financial statements presented for comparison. Adjustments related
to changes in accounting principles will only be made to the current period financial statements, but
not to prior period financial statements presented for comparison. (See Notes 36 and 37)
IV-28 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 2. Fund Balances with Treasury
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, consist of the following (in
thousands):
FY2002
FY2001
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill
Revolving Funds:
FIFRA/Tolerance
Working Capital
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
$ 32.229 $
16,405
3,796
3,028
57,380
11,504,638
99,575
$11,717,051 $
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,112
4,112
Total
$ 32,229
16,405
3,796
3,028
57,380
11,504,638
103,687
$11,721,163
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets
$ 6,706 $
18,158
3,156
3,496
51,267
11,088,824
88,218
11,259,834 $
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,246
19,246
Total
$ 6,706
18,158
3,165
3,496
51,267
11,088,824
107,464
$ 11,279,080
Entity fund balances include balances that are available to pay current liabilities and to finance
authorized purchase commitments. Also, Entity Assets, Other Fund Types consist of the Environmental
Services Receipt account. The Environmental Services Receipt account is a special fund receipt
account. Upon Congress appropriating the funds, EPA will use the receipts in the S&T and the EPM
appropriations.
The non-entity Other Fund Type consist of clearing accounts and deposit funds. These funds are
awaiting documentation for the determination of proper accounting disposition.
For FY 2002 the amounts on the financial statements are $2,828 thousand less than the balances on
Treasury's records. These differences consist mainly of unrecorded transactions from the last two
months of FY 2002 that will be recorded by the agency early in FY 2003. The differences for
Superfund and All Other Funds are $1,301 thousand and $1,527 thousand, respectively.
Note 3. Cash
In All Others, as of September 30, 2002, Cash consisted of imprest funds totaling $10 thousand.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-29
-------
Note 4. Investments
As of September 30, 2002 and 2001, investments consisted of the following:
Unamortized
(Premium)
Cost Discount
Interest Investments, Market
Receivable Net Value
SUPERFUND
Intragovernmental Securities:
Non-Marketable
ALL OTHERS
Intragovernmental Securities:
Non-marketable
FY 2002 $ 3,234,352 $ (62,650) $ 12,973 $ 3,309,975 $ 3,309,975
FY 2001 $ 3,630,186 $ (33,967) $ 59,891 $ 3,724,044 $ 3,724,044
FY 2002 $ 1,892,769 $ (36,752) $ 22,531 $ 1,952,052 $ 1,952,052
FY 2001 $ 1,703,909 $ (52,551) $ 22,358 $ 1,778,818 $ 1,778,818
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to recover monies to clean up Superfund sites from
responsible parties (RP). Some RPs file for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code. In bankruptcy
settlements, EPA is an unsecured creditor and is entitled to receive a percentage of the assets
remaining after secured creditors have been satisfied. Some RPs satisfy their debts by issuing securities
of the reorganized company. The Agency does not intend to exercise ownership rights to these
securities and instead will convert these securities to cash as soon as practicable.
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30, 2002 and 2001, consist of the following:
FY 2002 FY 2001
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable
Total
Non-Federal Assets:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable
Accounts & Interest Receivable
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles
Total
Superfund
$ 33,309
$ 33,309
$ 87,443
783,279
(459,285)
$ 411,437
All Others
$
$
$
$
72,298 $
72,298 $
2,210 $
101,392
(54,204)
49,398 $
Superfund
31,178
31,178
86,470
949,566
(569,998)
466,038
All Others
$
$
$
$
69,977
69,977
1,668
133,787
(60,428)
75,027
The Allowance for Doubtful Accounts is determined on a specific identification basis as a result of
a case-by-case review of receivables and a reserve on a percentage basis for those not specifically
identified.
IV-30 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 6. Other Assets
For FY 2002 inventory and operating materials and supplies were included in Other Nonfederal
Assets. In FY 2001 these items were originally reported on a separate line.
Other Assets for September 30, 2002, consist of the following:
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies
Advances to Working Capital Fund
Advances for Postage
Total Intragovernmental Assets
Superfund
Trust Fund
$ 141 $
4,379
0
$ 4,520 $
All
Others
4,163
0
415
4,578
Combined
Totals
$ 4,304
4,379
415
$ 9,098
Nonfederal Assets:
Travel Advances
Letter of Credit Advances
Grant Advances
Other Advances
Operating Materials and Supplies
Inventory for Sale
Total Nonfederal Assets
(13)
0
0
793
0
0
780
(911) $
2,388
3,054
148
216
42
4,937 $
(924)
2,388
3,054
941
216
42
5,717
Other Assets for September 30, 2001, consist of the following:
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies
Advances to Working Capital Fund
Advances for Postage
Total Intragovernmental Assets
Nonfederal Assets:
Travel Advances
Letter of Credit Advances
Grant Advances
Other Advances
Bank Card Payments
Operating Materials and Supplies
Inventory for Sale
Bankruptcy Settlement*
Total Nonfederal Assets
Superfund
Trust Fund
$ 166 $
5,355
0
$ 5,521 $
$ 7 $
0
0
769
1
0
0
8,101
$ 8,878 $
All
Others
4,265 $
0
121
4,386 $
(854) $
315
1,322
92
0
252
1
0
1,128 $
Combined
Totals
4,431
5,355
121
9,907
(847)
315
1,322
861
1
252
1
8,101
10,006
' Bankruptcy Settlement: A promissory note in the amount of $8.1 million was issued to the Superfund in a bankruptcy
settlement by Joy Global, Inc. The note was paid off in FY 2002.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-31
-------
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net—Nonfederal
Asbestos Loan Program loans disbursed from obligations made prior to FY 1992 are net of an
allowance for estimated uncollectible loans, if an allowance was considered necessary. Loans
disbursed from obligations made after FY 1991 are governed by the Federal Credit Reform Act. The
Act mandates that the present value of the subsidy costs (i.e., interest rate differentials, interest
subsidies, anticipated delinquencies, and defaults) associated with direct loans be recognized as an
expense in the year the loan is made. The net present value of loans is the amount of the gross loan
receivable less the present value of the subsidy.
An analysis of loans receivable and the nature and amounts of the subsidy and administrative
expenses associated entirely with Asbestos Loan Program loans as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, is
provided in the following sections.
FY 2002
FY 2001
Value of
Loans Assets Related
Receivable, to Direct
Gross Allowance* Loans
Loans
Receivable,
Gross Allowance*
Value of
Assets Related
to Direct
Loans
Direct Loans Obligated
Prior to FY 1992
Direct Loans Obligated
After FY 1991
Total
41,181
38,664
0 $
41,181
49,683 $
0 $
(15,199)
42,779 (16,910)
49,683
25,869
79,845 $ (15,199) $
64,646 $ 92,462 $ (16,910) $ 75,552
* Allowance for Pre-Credit Reform loans (Prior to FY 1992) is the Allowance for Estimated Uncollectible Loans and the
Allowance for Post Credit Reform Loans (After FY 1991) is the Allowance for Subsidy Cost (present value).
Subsidy Expenses for Post Credit Reform Loans:
Interest
Differential
Direct Loan Subsidy Expense - FY 2 002
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2002
FY 2002 Totals
Direct Loan Subsidy Expense - FY 2 001
$
$
$
$
115 $
(496) $
(381) $
1,227 $
Expected
Defaults
157 $
(816) $
(659) $
2,353
Fee
Offsets
0
0
0
0
$
$
$
$
Total
272
(1,312)
(1,040)
3,580
IV-32 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
The Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities, both federal and nonfederal, are current liabilities
consisting of the following amounts as of September 30, 2002:
Federal:
Accounts Payable to Other Federal Agencies
Liability for Allocation Transfers
Expenditure Transfers Payable to other EPA Funds
Accrued Liabilities, Federal
Total Federal Accounts Payable & Accrued
Liabilities
Nonfederal:
Accounts Payable, nonfederal
Advances Payable, nonfederal
Interest Payable
Grant Liabilities
Other Accrued Liabilities, nonfederal
Total nonfederal Accounts Payable & Accrued
Liabilities
The Accounts Payable and Accrued
following amounts as of September 30,
Federal:
Accounts Payable to other Federal Agencies
Liability for Allocation Transfers
Expenditure Transfers Payable to other EPA Funds
Accrued Liabilities, Federal
Total Federal Accounts Payable & Accrued
Liabilities
Nonfederal:
Accounts Payable, nonfederal
Advances Payable, nonfederal
Interest Payable
Grant Liabilities
Other Accrued Liabilities, nonfederal
Total Nonfederal Accounts Payable & Accrued
Superfund
Trust Fund
$ 4,964
20,017
45,701
45,577
$ 116,239
$ 43,344
14
333
14,590
87,524
$ 145,805
Liabilities, both
2001:
Superfund
Trust Fund
$ 759
20,163
44,887
57,728
$ 123,537
$ 39,746
5
126
16,921
80,937
$ 137,735
All Other
Funds
$ 620 $
43,363
$ 43,983 $
$ 74,260 $
3
1
348,474
88,498
$ 511,236 $
federal and nonfederal
All Other
Funds
$ 1,118 $
40,541
$ 41,659 $
$ 91,050 $
33
476,749
87,442
$ 655,274 $
Combined
Total
5,584
20,017
45,701
88,920
160,222
117,604
17
334
363,064
176,022
657,041
, consisted of the
Combined
Total
1,877
20,163
44,887
98,269
165,196
130,796
38
126
493,670
168,379
793,009
Liabilities
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-33
-------
Note 9. General Plant, Property, and Equipment
Superfund property, plant and equipment, consists of personal property items held by contractors
and the Agency. EPA also has property funded by various other Agency appropriations. The property
funded by these appropriations are presented in the aggregate under "All Others" and consists of
software; real, EPA-Held and Contractor-Held personal, and capitalized-leased property.
As of September 30, 2002, Plant, Property, and Equipment consisted of the following:
Superfund
All Others
EPA-Held Equipment $
Software
Contractor-Held Property:
Superfund Site-Specific
General
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
Total $
As of September 30
see Note 37):
EPA-Held Equipment $
Software
Contractor-Held Property:
Superfund Site-Specific
General
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
Total $
Note 10. Debt
The Debt consisted
All Others
Other Debt: Debt to Treasury
Classification of Debt:
Intragovernmental Debt
Total
Acquisition
Value
25,968
961
32,472
10,407
0
0
69,808
, 2001, Plant
Acquisition
Value
23,832
559
32,472
9,447
0
0
66,310
Accumulated
Depreciation
$ (15,245) $
(85)
(12,065)
(3,667)
0
0
$ (31,062) $
, Property, and
Superfund
Accumulated
Depreciation
$ (15,031) $
(5)
(8,818)
(2,287)
0
0
$ (26,141) $
Net Book
Value
10,723
876
20,407
6,740
0
0
38,746
Equipment
Net Book
Value
8,801
554
23,654
7,160
0
0
40,169
Acquisition
Value
$ 148,693
26,358
0
18,412
521,515
41,614
$ 756,592
consisted of
Acquisition
Value
$ 161,253
10,398
0
16,752
500,854
40,992
$ 730,249
Accumulated
Depreciation
$ (92,920) $
(2,520)
0
(9,689)
(85,238)
(14,889)
$ (205,256) $
the following (as
All Others
Accumulated
Depreciation
$ (105,484) $
(148)
0
(7,647)
(76,951)
(13,126)
$ (203,356) $
Net Book
Value
55,773
23,838
0
8,723
436,277
26,725
551,336
restated;
Net Book
Value
55,769
10,250
0
9,105
423,903
27,866
526,893
of the following as of September 30, 2002 and 2001:
Beginning
Balance
$ 31,124
FY 2002
Net
Borrowing
$ (6,834) $
$
$
Ending
Balance
24,290
24,290
24,290
Beginning
Balance
$ 37,922
FY 2001
Net
Borrowing
$ (6,798) $
$
$
Ending
Balance
31,124
31,124
31,124
IV-34 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 11. Custodial Liability
Custodial Liability represents the amount of net accounts receivable that, when collected, will be
deposited to the General Fund of the Treasury. Included in the custodial liability are amounts for fines
and penalties, interest assessments, repayments of loans, and miscellaneous other accounts receivable.
Note 12. Other Liabilities
The Other Liabilities, both intragovernmental and nonfederal, for September 30, 2002, are as
follows:
Covered by
Not Covered by
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Superfund - Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Resources Payable to Treasury
Superfund - Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Total Superfund
All Other - Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
All Other - Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Total All Other
Other Liabilities - Nonfederal
Superfund - Current
Unearned Advances, Nonfederal
Total Superfund
All Other - Current
Unearned Advances, Nonfederal
Deferred Credits
Liability for Deposit Funds, Nonfederal
All Other - Non-Current
Capital Lease Liability
Total All Other
Budgetary Resources
$ 3,169
2,470
16,618
30
0
0
$ 22,287
$ 13,883
4,379
1,435
(91)
2
371
0
$ 19,979
Covered by
Budgetary Resources
$ 45,515
$ 45,515
$ 6,569
0
4,181
0
$ 10,750
Budgetary Resources
0
0
0
0
0
1,440
$ 1,440
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
6,402
$ 6,402
Not Covered by
Budgetary Resources
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
0
0
36,729
$ 36,729
Total
$ 3,169
2,470
16,618
30
0
1,440
$ 23,727
$ 13,883
4,379
1,435
(91)
2
371
6,402
$ 26,381
Total
$ 45,515
$ 45,515
$ 6,569
0
4,181
36,729
$ 47,479
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-35
-------
The Other Liabilities, both intragovernmental and nonfederal, for September 30, 2001, are as
follows:
Other Liabilities - Intragovernmental
Covered by
Budgetary Resources
Not Covered by
Budgetary Resources
Total
Superfund - Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Resources Payable to Treasury
Superfund - Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Total Superfund
All Other - Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
All Other - Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Total All Other
Other Liabilities - Nonfederal
Superfund - Current
Unearned Advances, Nonfederal
Total Superfund
All Other - Current
Unearned Advances, Nonfederal
Deferred Credits
Liability for Deposit Funds, Nonfederal
All Other - Non-Current
Capital Lease Liability
Total All Other
$ 2,682
1,045
15,208
947
0
0
$ 19,882
$ 11,935
5,355
2,646
(85)
2
1,313
0
$ 21,166
Covered by
Budgetary Resources
$ 27,659
$ 27,659
$ 4,275
0
19,331
0
$ 23,606
$ 0
0
0
0
0
1,426
$ 1,426
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
6,341
$ 6,341
Not Covered by
Budgetary Resources
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
0
36,930
$ 36,930
$ 2,682
1,045
15,208
947
0
1,426
$ 21,308
$ 11,935
5,355
2,646
(85)
2
1,313
6,341
$ 27,507
Total
$ 27,659
$ 27,659
$ 4,275
0
19,331
36,930
$ 60,536
IV-36 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 13. Leases
The Capital Leases as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, consist of the following:
Capital Leases, All Other Funds:
Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease:
FY 2002
FY 2001
Real Property
Personal Property
Total
Accumulated Amortization
$
$
$
40,913
701
41,614
14,889
$
$
$
40,913
79
40,992
13,126
EPA has three capital leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories and/or
computer facilities. All of these leases include a base rental charge and escalator clauses based
upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs are adjusted
annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor). EPA has one capital lease for a Xerox copier that expired in
FY 2002 and capital leases for seven shuttle buses terminating in FY 2007. The real property leases
terminate in fiscal years 2010, 2013, and 2025. The charges are expended out of the Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation. The total future minimum lease payments of the
capital leases are listed below.
Future Payments Due:
All Others
Fiscal Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
After 5 Years
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments
Less: Imputed Interest
Net Capital Lease Liability
Liability Not Covered by Budgetary Resources (See Note 12)
$ 6,439
6,439
6,439
6,439
6,331
83,605
115,692
(78,963)
36,729
$ 36,729
Operating Leases:
The General Services Administration (GSA) provides leased real property (land and buildings) as
office space for EPA employees. GSA charges a Standard Level Users Charge that approximates the
commercial rental rates for similar properties.
EPA has five direct operating leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories and/or
computer facilities during FY 2002. Most of these leases include a base rental charge and escalator
clauses based upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs are
adjusted annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor). Two of these operating leases expired in FY 2002. Two of
these operating leases that were due to expire in FY 2002 were extended: one until FY 2004 and the
other on a monthly basis. Two others expire in fiscal years 2017 and 2020. The fifth lease that
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-37
-------
expired in FY 2001 was extended until FY 2007. The charges are expended out of the EPM
appropriation. The total minimum future costs of operating leases are listed below.
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Beyond 2006
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments
Superfund
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
$ 0
All Others
$ 2,102
74
74
74
74
920
$ 3,318
Total Land
& Buildings
$ 2,102
74
74
74
74
920
$ 3,318
Note 14. Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities
FFECA provides income and medical cost protection to covered federal civilian employees
injured on the job, employees who have incurred a work-related occupational disease, and
beneficiaries of employees whose death is attributable to a job-related injury or occupational
disease. Annually, EPA is allocated the portion of the long term FECA actuarial liability attributable to
the entity. The liability is calculated to estimate the expected liability for death, disability, medical,
and miscellaneous costs for approved compensation cases. The liability amounts and the
calculation methodologies are provided by the Department of Labor.
The FECA Actuarial Liability at September 30, 2002 and 2001, consisted of the following:
FY2002
FY2001
Superfund All Others Superfund All Other
FECA Actuarial Liability
$ 7,698 $ 31,759 $ 7,731 $ 31,902
The FY 2002 present value of these estimates was calculated using a discount rate of 5.2
percent. The estimated future costs are recorded as an unfunded liability.
IV-38 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 15. Cashout Advances and Deferrals, Superfund
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another Potentially Responsible Party under the
terms of a settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree) to finance response action costs at a specified
Superfund site. Under CERCLA section 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are placed in site-
specific, interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement. Funds placed in special accounts may be used without further
appropriation by Congress.
Note 16. Unexpended Appropriations
As of September 30, 2002 and 2001, the Unexpended Appropriations consisted of the following
for All Other Funds:
Unexpended Appropriations: FY 2002 FY 2001
Unobligated
Available
Unavailable
Undelivered Orders
Total
$ 1,725,016
52,896
9,145,977
$10,923,889
$ 1,635,071
64,930
8,658,960
$10,358,961
Note 17. Amounts Held by Treasury
Amounts Held by Treasury for Future Appropriations consists of amounts held in trusteeship by
the U.S. Department of Treasury in the "Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund" (Superfund)
and the "Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund" (LUST).
Superfund (Audited)
Superfund is supported primarily by an environmental tax on corporations, cost recoveries of
funds spent to clean up hazardous waste sites, and fines and penalties. Prior to December 31, 1995,
the fund was also supported by other taxes on crude and petroleum and on the sale or use of
certain chemicals. The authority to assess those taxes and the environmental tax on corporations
also expired on December 31, 1995, and has not been renewed by Congress. It is not known if or
when such taxes will be reassessed in the future.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-39
-------
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Department of Treasury
as of September 30, 2002 and 2001. The amounts contained in these statements have been
provided by the Treasury and are audited. Outlays represent amounts received by EPA's Superfund
Trust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the Superfund Trust Fund maintained
by Treasury.
SUPERFUND FY 2002
EPA
Treasury
Combined
Undistributed Balances
Available for Investment
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net of Discounts
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Transfers to CDC
Total Outlays
Net Income
0
2,762,430
$ 2,762,430
$ 2,762,430
$ 2,762,430
1,329,490
$ 1,329,490
1,876
12,973
534,572
$ 549,421
549,421
549,421
$ 7,466
248,252
1,444
257,162
676,292
110,577
$ 1,044,031
$(1,329,490)
(49,502)
(1,378,992)
$ (334,961)
1,876
12,973
3,297,002
$ 3,311,851
3,311,851
3,311,851
$ 7,466
248,252
1,444
257,162
676,292
110,577
$ 1,044,031
0
(49,502)
(49,502)
994,529
IV-40 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
SUPERFUND FY 2001 EPA Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Available for Investment $ 0 $ 768 $ 768
Total Undisbursed Balance ?? ?? ??
Interest Receivable 0 59,891 59,891
Investments, Net of Discounts 2,837,243 826,910 3,664,153
Total Assets $ 2,837,243 $ 887,569 $ 3,724,812
Liabilities & Equity
Equity $ 2,837,243 $ 887,569 $ 3,724,812
Total Liability and Equity $ 2,837,243 $ 887,569 $ 3,724,812
Receipts
Petroleum-Imported $ 0 $ 2,471 $ 2,471
Petroleum-Domestic 0 (12) (12)
Certain Chemicals 0 32 32
Imported Substances 055
Corporate Environmental 0 3,861 3,861
Cost Recoveries 0 202,132 202,132
Fines & Penalties 0_ 2,112 2,112
Total Revenue 0 210,601 210,601
Appropriations Received 0 633,603 633,603
Interest Income 0_ 220,504 220,504
Total Receipts 0_ 1,064,708 1,064,708
Outlays
Transfers to EPA 1,227,360 (1,227,360) 0
Transfers to CDC 0_ (74,835) (74,835)
Total Outlays 1,227,360 (1,302,195) (74,835)
Net Income $ 1,227,360 $ (237,487) $ 989,873
LUST (Audited)
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In
FY 2002 there were no fund receipts from cost recoveries, and only $40 thousand in cost recoveries
were received in FY 2001. The following represents LUST Trust Fund as maintained by the
U.S. Department of Treasury. The amounts contained in these statements have been provided by
Treasury and are audited. Outlays represent appropriations received by EPA's LUST Trust Fund; such
funds are eliminated on consolidation with the LUST Trust Fund maintained by Treasury.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-41
-------
LUST FY 2002
EPA
Treasury
Combined
Undistributed Balances
Available for Investment
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net of Discounts
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
$ 0
0
0
80,875
$ 80,875
$ 80,875
$ 80,875
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72,912
72,912
$ 72,912
$ 12,232
12,232
22,531
1,848,646
$ 1,883,409
$ 1,883,409
$ 1,883,409
$ 173,351
13,199
474
(2,167)
(3,357)
(310)
181,190
67,563
248,753
(72,912)
(72,912)
$ 175,841
$ 12,232
12,232
22,531
1,929,521
$ 1,964,284
$ 1,964,284
$ 1,964,284
$ 173,351
13,199
474
(2,167)
(3,357)
(310)
181,190
67,563
248,753
0
0
$ 248,753
IV-42 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
LUST FY 2001
EPA
Treasury
Combined
Undistributed Balances
Available for Investment
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net of Discounts
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liability and Equity
Receipts
Highway TF Tax
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Tax
Refund Aviation Fuel Tax
Cost Recovery
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to EPA
Total Outlays
Net Income
$ 0
0
0
83,460
$ 83,460
$ 83,460
$ 83,460
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74,617
74,617
$ 74,617
$ 12,211
12,211
22,358
1,673,000
$ 1,707,569
$ 1,707,569
$ 1,707,569
$ 167,408
16,114
582
(834)
(1,584)
(19)
(123)
40
181,584
94,802
276,386
(74,617)
(74,617)
$ 201,769
$ 12,211
12,211
22,358
1,756,460
$ 1,791,029
$ 1,791,029
$ 1,791,029
$ 167,408
16,114
582
(834)
(1,584)
(19)
(123)
40
181,584
94,802
276,386
0
0
$ 276,386
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-43
-------
Note 18. Commitments and Contingencies
EPA may be a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions, and claims brought by
or against it. These include:
• Various personnel actions, suits, or claims brought against the Agency by employees and others.
• Various contract and assistance program claims brought against the Agency by vendors, grantees,
and others.
• The legal recovery of Superfund costs incurred for pollution cleanup of specific sites, to include
the collection of fines and penalties from responsible parties.
• Claims against recipients for improperly spent assistance funds which may be settled by a
reduction of future EPA funding to the grantee or the provision of additional grantee matching
funds.
Superfund
Under CERCLA Section 106(a), EPA issues administrative orders that require parties to clean up
contaminated sites. CERCLA Section 106(b) allows a party that has complied with such an order to
petition EPA for reimbursement from the Fund of its reasonable costs of responding to the order, plus
interest. To be eligible for reimbursement, the party must demonstrate either that it was not a liable
party under CERCLA Section 107(a) for the response action ordered, or that the Agency's selection of
the response action was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.
There are currently one CERCLA Section 106(b) administrative claim. If the claimant is successful,
the total losses on the administrative and judicial claims could amount to approximately $17.8 million.
The Environmental Appeals Board has not yet issued final decisions on the administrative claim;
therefore, a definite estimate of the amount of the contingent loss cannot be made. The claimant's
chance of success overall is characterized as reasonably possible.
All Other
There is one material claim which may be considered threatened litigation involving all other
appropriated funds of the Agency. If the claimant is successful, the total losses of the claim could
amount to $82.8 million. The claim is currently being evaluated by GSA contracting officials and their
private sector claims consultant. The claimant's chance of success overall is characterized as reasonably
possible.
Judgement Fund
In cases that are paid by the U.S. Treasury Judgement Fund, the Agency must recognize the full
cost of a claim regardless of who is actually paying the claim. Until these claims are settled or a court
judgement is assessed and the Judgement Fund is determined to be the appropriate source for the
payment, claims that are probable and estimable must be recognized as an expense and liability of the
agency. For these cases, at the time of settlement or judgement, the liability will be reduced and an
imputed financing source recognized. See Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
No. 2, Accounting for Treasury Judgement Fund Transactions.
As of September 30, 2002, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury Judgement Fund.
IV-44 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 19. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
For FY 2002, the exchange revenues reported on the Statement of Net Cost are separated into
Federal and nonfederal portions. Exchange revenues were reported only in total for the FY 2001
Statement of Net Cost. Exchange revenues on the Statement of Net Cost include income from
services provided, non-custodial interest revenue (with the exception of interest earned on trust
fund investments), and non-custodial miscellaneous earned revenue.
Note 20. Environmental Cleanup Costs
The EPA has one site that requires clean up stemming from its activities. Costs amounting to
$20 thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgement Fund. (The $20 thousand represents the
lower end of a range estimate, of which the maximum of the range will total $200 thousand.) The
claimant's chance of success is characterized as probable. EPA also holds title to a site in Edison, New
Jersey which was formerly an Army Depot. While EPA did not cause the contamination, the Agency
could potentially be liable for a portion of the cleanup costs. However, it is expected that the
Department of Defense and GSA will bear all or most of the cost of remediation.
Accrued Cleanup Cost
The EPA has 14 sites that will require future cleanup associated with permanent closure and one
site with cleanup presently underway. The estimated costs will be approximately $13.4 million. Since
the cleanup costs associated with permanent closure are not primarily recovered through user fees,
EPA has elected to recognize the estimated total cleanup cost as a liability and record changes to the
estimate in subsequent years.
The FY 2002 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs increased by $1 million resulting from a Denver
facility move from an existing site to a newly renovated building at the Denver Federal Center. Of the
remaining $13.3 million in estimated cleanup costs, approximately $6 million represents the estimated
expense to close the current RTP facility. These costs will be incurred within the next year. The
remaining amount represents the future decontamination and decommissioning costs of EPA's other
research facilities. There was a net decrease of approximately $1.8 million in funded cleanup costs
from FY 2001 to FY 2002. EPA could also be potentially liable for cleanup costs, at a GSA-leased site;
however, the amounts are not known.
Note 21. Superfund State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related federal regulations require states to enter
into Superfund State Contracts (SSCs) when EPA assumes the lead for a remedial action in their state.
The SSC defines the state's role in the remedial action and obtains the state's assurance that they will
share in the cost of the remedial action. Under Superfund's authorizing statutory language, states will
provide EPA with a ten percent cost share for remedial action costs incurred at privately owned or
operated sites, and at least fifty percent of all response activities (i.e., removal, remedial planning,
remedial action, and enforcement) at publicly operated sites. In some cases, states may use EPA
approved credits to reduce all or part of their cost share requirement that would otherwise be borne
by the states. Credit is limited to state site-specific expenses EPA has determined to be reasonable,
documented, direct out-of-pocket expenditures of nonfederal funds for remedial action. Once EPA has
reviewed and approved a state's claim for credit, the state must first apply the credit at the site where
it was earned. The state may apply any excess/remaining credit to another site when approved by
EPA. As of September 30, 2002, total remaining state credits have been estimated at $11.2 million. The
estimated ending credit balance on September 30, 2001 was $10.7 million.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-45
-------
Note 22. Superfund Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Under Superfund preauthorized mixed funding agreements, PRPs agree to perform response
actions at their sites with the understanding that EPA will reimburse the PRPs a certain percentage of
their total response action costs. EPA's authority to enter into mixed funding agreements is provided
under Section lll(a)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Under Section 122(b)(l) of CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, a PRP may assert a claim against the Superfund
Trust Fund for a portion of the costs they incurred while conducting a preauthorized response action
agreed to under a mixed funding agreement. As of September 30, 2002, EPA had 15 outstanding
preauthorized mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $37.4 million. A liability is not
recognized for these amounts until all work has been performed by the PRP and has been approved
by EPA for payment. Further, EPA will not disburse any funds under these agreements until the PRP's
application, claim, and claims adjustment processes have been reviewed and approved by EPA.
Note 23. Income and Expenses from other Appropriations
The Statement of Net Cost reports program costs that include the full costs of the program outputs
and consist of the direct costs and all other costs that can be directly traced, assigned on a cause and
effect basis, or reasonably allocated to program outputs.
During Fiscal Years 2002 and 2001 EPA had one appropriation which funded a variety of
programmatic and non-programmatic activities across the Agency, subject to statutory requirements.
The EPM appropriation was created to fund personnel compensation and benefits, travel, procurement,
and contract activities.
All of the expenses from EPM were distributed among EPA's two Reporting Entities: Superfund and
All Others. This distribution is calculated using a combination of specific identification of expenses to
Reporting Entities and a weighted average that distributes expenses proportionately to total
programmatic expenses.
As illustrated below, this estimate does not impact the net effect of the Statement of Net Costs.
FY2002 FY2001
Superfund
All Others
Total
Income Expenses
From Other From Other
Appropriations Appropriations
$ 114,297 $ (114,297)
(114,297) 114,297
$ 0 $ 0
Income Expenses
Net From Other From Other
Effect Appropriations Appropriations
$ 0 $ 103,654 $ (103,654)
0 (103,654) 103,654
$ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Net
Effect
$ 0
0
$ 0
Note 24. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
EPA uses the accrual basis of accounting for the collection of fines, penalties, and miscellaneous
receipts. Collectibility by EPA of the fines and penalties is based on the responsible parties'
willingness and ability to pay.
IV-46 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
FY2002
FY 2001
Fines, Penalties, and Other Misc Revenue (EPA)
Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties,
and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable
Less: Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Total
$ 95,489
$ 107,779
39,383
$ 68,396
121,892
$ 123,966
46,186
$ 77,780
Note 25. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Reconciliations of budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the
audited Statements of Budgetary Resources, to amounts included in the Budget of the United States
Government for the years ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, are as follows:
FY2002
Budgetary Obligations
Resources Incurred Outlays
SUPERFUND
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations,
Unfilled Customer Orders, and Other
Budget of the United States Government
ALL OTHER
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Less: Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations,
Unfilled Customer Orders, and Other
Budget of the United States Government
$ 2,448,998 $ 1,698,004 $ 1,377,754
(17,463) (17,463) (1,313)
$ 2,431,535 $ 1,680,541 $ 1,376,441
$ 9,807,912 $ 7,762,664 $ 7,012,562
(24,419) (24,066) (24,582)
0
(622)
(26)
$ 9,783,493 $ 7,737,976 $ 6,987,954
FY2001
Budgetary Obligations
Resources Incurred Outlays
SUPERFUND
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations,
Unfilled Customer Orders and Other
Budget of the United States Government
ALL OTHER
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Less: Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations,
Unfilled Customer Orders and Other
Budget of the United States Government
$ 2,284,377 $ 1,570,056 $ 1,199,748
(3,650) 13,813 0
$ 2,280,727 $ 1,583,869 $ 1,199,748
$ 9,343,106 $ 7,431,802 $ 7,015,605
(26,148) (25,677) (25,342)
(5,229)
(5,229)
0
$ 9,311,729 $ 7,400,896 $ 6,990,263
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-47
-------
Note 26. Recoveries and Permanently Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Details of Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations and Permanently Not Available on the Statement
of Budgetary Resources are represented by the following categories:
FY2002
FY2001
SUPERFUND
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations
Less: Rescinded Authority
Total
ALL OTHERS
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations
Adjustments to Beginning Unobligated Balances
Less: Payments to Treasury
Rescinded Authority
Canceled Authority
Total
$ 230,628
(2,000)
$ 228,628
$ 89,440
0
(6,834)
(1,588)
(33,870)
$ 47,148
$ 196,644
0
$ 196,644
$ 76,815
0
(6,798)
(15,668)
(36,254)
$ 18,095
Note 27. Unobligated Balances Available
Availability of unobligated balances are shown comparatively for FY 2002 and FY 2001. The
unexpired authority is available to be apportioned by the Office of Management and Budget for new
obligations at the beginning of FY 2003. Expired authority is available for upward adjustments of
obligations incurred as of the end of the fiscal year.
ALL OTHERS
Unexpired Unobligated Balance
Authority Available for Apportionment
Expired Unobligated Balance
Total
FY2002
FY2001
SUPERFUND
Unexpired Unobligated Balance
Authority Available for Apportionment
Expired Unobligated Balance
Total
$ 726,589
24,386
19
$ 750,994
$ 714,321
0
0
$ 714,321
$ 1,917,637 $ 1,791,475
1,150 0
126,461 119,829
$ 2,045,248 $ 1,911,304
IV-48 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 28. Offsetting Receipts
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund or trust fund receipt
accounts offset gross outlays. For FY 2002 the following receipts were generated from these activities:
FY2002
SUPERFUND
Trust Fund Recoveries
Total
ALL OTHERS
Special Fund Environmental Service
Trust Fund Appropriation
Total
$ 248,252
11,358
676,292
$ 687,650
Note 29. Statement of Financing
Specific components requiring or generating resources in future periods and resources that fund
expenses recognized in prior periods are related to changes in liabilities not covered by budgetary
resources. For FY 2002 the following line items are reconciled to the increases or decreases in those
liabilities.
Superfund All Other Combined
Trust Fund Funds Total
Statement of Financing lines
Resources that fund expenses recognized
in prior periods
Increases in environmental liabilities
Total
Increases (Decreases) in Liabilities
Not Covered by Budgetary Resources
and Reconciling Items
Unfunded Annual Leave Liability
Unfunded Contingent Liability
Unfunded Workers Compensation Liability
Actuarial Workers Compensation Liability
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Unfund Clean-up Costs Liability
Negative subsidy entries
Subsidy re-estimate entries
Total
$ (1,590) $
0_
$ (1,590) $
(399) $ (1,989)
578 578
179 $ (1,411)
2,206 $
(3,778)
14
(32)
0
0
0
0
5,375 $
(6,000)
61
(143)
(942)
578
616
634
7,581
(9,778)
75
(175)
(942)
578
616
634
$ (1,590) $
179 $ (1,411)
Note 30. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
FY 2002's Statement of Net Cost by Goal has -$4.8 million in gross costs not assigned to goals. This
amount is comprised of decreases of $6.0 million in unfunded contingent liabilities and $2.5 million in
bad debt expenses; offset by increases of $2.0 million interest on borrowing, $0.6 million in environ-
mental cleanup costs, $0.6 million in undistributed federal payroll-related costs, and $0.5 million in
other interest costs.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-49
-------
For FY 2001 's Statement of Net Cost by Goal, -$31.5 million in gross costs were not assigned to
goals. This amount was comprised of a decrease of $57.0 million to the year-end grant accruals;
partially offset by $19.7 million in bad debt expense not assigned to goals, $2.4 million in interest on
Treasury borrowing, $3.1 million in undistributed imputed costs, and $0.3 million in miscellaneous
expenses.
Note 31. Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FY 2002 the Appropriation Transfers under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of
Changes in Net Position are comprised of nonexpenditure transfers which affect Unexpended
Appropriations for non-invested appropriations. These amounts are included in the Budget
Authority, Net Transfers and Prior Year Unobligated Balance, Net Transfers lines on the Statement of
Budgetary Resources. Detail of the Appropriation Transfers on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position and a reconciliation with the Statement of Budgetary Resources follow:
Fund/Type of Account Superfund All Other Funds
GSA Building Fund $ 0 $ 23,948
EPM (from current year balances) 0 3,750
EPM (from prior year balances) 0 500
STAG 0 400
Total of Appropriation Transfers $ 0 28,598
Net Transfers to Invested Funds* 1,329,490 72,912
Total of Net Transfers on Statement of
Budgetary Resources $ 1,329,490 $ 101,510
* Portion of transfers on Statement of Budgetary Resources that are not part of Appropriation transfers on Statement
of Changes in Net Position
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
For FY 2002 Transfers In/Out under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes
in Net Position are comprised of transfers to or from other federal agencies and between EPA funds.
These transfers affect Cumulative Results of Operations. A breakdown of the transfers-in and
transfers-out, expenditure and nonexpenditure, follows:
Type of Transfer/Funds Superfund All Other Funds
Transfers-in (out) , expenditure, Superfund to S&T fund
Transfers-in (out) , expenditure, Superfund to OIG fund
Transfers-out, nonexpenditure, from Superfund to other Federal agencies
Transfers-out, nonexpenditure, from Treasury trust fund to CDC
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure, Oil Spill
Transfer-in (out) adjustments, canceled funds
Total Transfers in (out) without Reimbursement, Budgetary
$ (36,891) :
(11,867)
(5,188)
(49,502)
$ (103,448)
$ 36,891
11,867
15,000
(86)
63,672
IV-50 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FY 2002, Transfers In(Out) without Reimbursement under Other Financing Sources on the
Statement of Changes in Net Position are comprised of 1) transfers of property, plant, and equipment
between EPA funds and 2) transfers of negative subsidy to a special receipt fund for the credit reform
funds. The amounts reported on the Statement of Changes in Net Position are as follows:
Type of Transfer/Fund
Transfer-in (out) of Property, Between Superfund and EPM
Transfer-out of FY 2002 Negative Subsidy, to be Paid in FY 2003
Adjustment to Transfer-out of FY 2001 Negative Subsidy, Paid out in
FY 2002 and Adjusted to Funded Expenses
Total Transfers in (out) Without Reimbursement, Budgetary
$
$
Superfund
47
47
All
$
$
Other Funds
(47)
(371)
816
398
For FY 2001 the consolidated amounts shown as transfers-in on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position are comprised of transfers from other federal agencies in accordance with applicable
legislation. The consolidated amounts shown as transfers-out are nonexpenditure transfers to other
Hazardous Substance Superfund allocation agency funds, such as HHS and Labor. Elimination
transactions consist of intra-agency transfers between EPA funds.
Note 32. Imputed Financing
In accordance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard No. 5 (Liabilities of the
Federal Government), federal agencies must recognize the portion of employees' pensions and other
retirement benefits to be paid by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) trust funds. These
amounts are recorded as imputed costs and imputed financing for the agency. Each year the OPM
provides federal agencies with cost factors to calculate these imputed costs and financing that apply to
the current year. These cost factors are multiplied by the current year's salaries or number of
employees, as applicable, to provide an estimate of the imputed financing that the OPM trust funds
will provide for each agency. The estimates for FY 2002 were $14.7 million and $83.0 million for
Superfund and All Other Funds, respectively. For FY 2001 the estimates were $13.4 million and
$76.5 million for Superfund and All Other Funds, respectively.
In addition to the pension and retirement benefits described above, EPA also records imputed costs
and financing for Treasury Judgement Fund payments on behalf of the agency. Entries are made in
accordance with the Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 2, Accounting for
Treasury Judgement Fund Transactions. For FY 2002, no Judgement Fund payments were made on
EPA's behalf. For FY 2001, entries for Judgement Fund payments totaled $0.3 million and $1.3 million
for Superfund and All Other Funds, respectively.
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-51
-------
Note 33. Payroll and Benefits Payable
The amounts that relate to payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending
September 30, 2002 and 2001, are detailed in the following tables.
FY 2002 Payroll and Benefits Payables
Covered by
Budgetary Resources
Not Covered by
Budgetary Resources
Total
Superfund - Current
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable, nonfederal (TSP)
Other Post-employment Benefits Payable
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Superfund - Current
All Other Funds - Current
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable, nonfederal (TSP)
Other Post-employment Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Leave, WCF
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - All Other Funds - Current
FY 2001 Payroll and Benefits Payables
Superfund - Current
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable, nonfederal (TSP)
Other Post-employment Benefits Payable
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - All Other Funds - Current
All Other Funds - Current
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable, nonfederal (TSP)
Other Post-employment Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Leave, WCF
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - All Other Funds - Current
$ 9,146
6,897
443
3
0
$ 16,489
$ 41,309
30,233
1,943
29
320
0
$ 73,834
Covered by
Budgetary Resources
$ 8,361
5,935
372
3
0
$ 14,671
$ 37,099
26,410
1,645
33
320
0
$ 65,507
$ 0
0
0
0
22,647
$ 22,647
$ 0
0
0
0
0
103,598
$ 103,598
Not Covered by
Budgetary Resources
$ 0
0
0
20,440
$ 20,440
$ 0
0
0
0
0
98,223
$ 98,223
$ 9,146
6,897
443
3
22,647
$ 39,136
$ 41,309
30,233
1,943
29
320
103,598
$ 177,432
Total
$ 8,361
5,935
372
3
20,440
$ 35,111
$ 37,099
26,410
1,645
33
320
98,223
$ 163,730
IV-52 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Note 34. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Other Adjustments under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in
Net Position are comprised of rescissions to appropriated funds and cancellations of funds that
expired on September 30, 1997. These amounts affected Unexpended Appropriations for All
Other Funds for FY 2002.
Rescissions to Appropriate Funds $ 1,588
Canceled Authority 33,872
Total Other Adjustments $ 35,460
Note 35. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position for FY 2002 is comprised of the following items:
Superfund Trust Fund All Other Funds Combined Total
Interest on Trust Fund Investments
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
Fines and Penalties Revenue *
Special Receipt Fund Revenue
Total Nonexchange Revenue
$
$
110,577
7,466
(10,005)
0
108,038
$
$
67,563
181,190
0
11,358
260,111
$
$
178,140
188,656
(10,005)
11,358
368,149
* Fines and penalties revenue included the following negative items: a $9,664 thousand write-off and $1,339 thousand allowance for
uncollectible accounts.
Note 36. Correction of Error in Revenue, Prior Year, Superfund
In FY 2001 in accordance with agency General Counsel opinions, EPA started placing both
past and future cost settlement amounts into site-specific accounts that could be used immediately
without a Congressional appropriation. (See also Note 15, Cashout Advances, Superfund.) In that
same fiscal year a material error was made in accruing revenue from the cashout advance
account. That error resulted in an overstatement of earned revenue of $53,256 thousand for
FY 2001 for Superfund. The applicable statements are restated in accordance with Statement of
Federal Financial Standards No. 21, Paragraphs 10 and 11.
The FY 2001 Statements of Changes in Net Position and Financing are restated in the same
format as the FY 2001 EPA Audited Financial Statements. Because extensive format changes to
these statements were required in FY 2002 by OMB Bulletin No. 01-09, Form and Content of
Agency Financial Statements, these statements will not be comparative. The lines affected on the
FY 2001 Statement of Financing were "Exchange Revenue not in the Entity's Budget" and "Net
Cost of Operations."
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-53
-------
The effect of the change on Earned Revenue, Net Cost of Operations, and Net Position,
Superfund, for FY 2001 are as follows:
Amount
on FY 2001
Statements
Revenue
Restatement
Increase/
(Decrease)
Property
Restatement
(See Note 37)
Increase /(Decrease)
Restated
Amount
Earned Revenue
(applied to Strategic Goal
of Better Waste Management)
Net Cost of Operations
Net Position
$ 488,397
1,220,769
3,507,433
$ (53,256)
53,256
(53,256)
(1,164)
23,654
435,141
1,272,861
3,477,720
Note 37. Correction of Error in Contractor-held Property, Prior Years, Superfund
Prior to FY 2002 Superfund contractor-held property used on site-specific response actions were
charged to expense in the period acquired. While some of this site-specific property was transferred
to states for mandatory operation and maintenance, other items were held by EPA for a period in
excess of two years. These items should have been capitalized and depreciated in accordance with
federal accounting standards for property, plant, and equipment.
The omission of these Superfund site-specific items resulted in material errors in prior years'
statements from FY 1996 to FY 2001. In accordance with SFFAS No. 21, "Reporting Corrections of
Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles", the FY 2001 statements presented have been restated.
The effect on statements for fiscal years prior to FY 2001 is reported as a prior period adjustment
increase of $22,490 thousand to FY 2001 's beginning net position. The effect on relevant statement
lines for Superfund for the fiscal years 1996 to 2001 are presented below.
The FY 2001 Statements of Changes in Net Position and Financing are restated in the same format
as the FY 2001 EPA Audited Financial Statements. Because extensive format changes to these
statements were required in FY 2002 by OMB Bulletin No. 01-09, Form and Content of Agency
Financial Statements, these statements will not be comparative. The lines affected on the FY 2001
Statement of Financing were "Costs Capitalized on the Balance Sheet-General Property, Plant, and
Equipment", "Depreciation and Amortization", and "Net Cost of Operations."
Effect on Property, Plant and Equipment, Net, Superfund:
FY Effect on Cost
1996 $
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1,359
8,410
4,129
6,040
8,334
4,224
Effect on
Depreciation
$ 68
815
1,053
1,540
2,306
3,060
Net Effect
$ 1,291
7,595
3,076
4,500
6,028
1,164
Cumulative
Effect
$ 1,291
8,886
11,962
16,462
22,490
23,654
Amount
Reported on
Statements
$ 8,735
6,485
6,560
13,407
13,581
16,515
Corrected
Balances
(FY 2001
Restated)
$ 10,026
15,371
18,522
29,869
36,071
40,169
IV-54 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Effect on Total Costs*, Superfimd:
Fiscal Year
1996**
1997
1998
1999
2000**
2001
Amount Reported
on Statements
$ 1,542,925
1,489,086
1,505,963
1,744,559
1,644,516
1,709,166
Not Effect of
Error (from
previous table)
$ (1,291)
(7,595)
(3,076)
(4,500)
(6,028)
(1,164)
Corrections Balances
(FY 2001 Restated)
$ 1,541,634
1,481,491
1,502,887
1,740,059
1,638,488
1,708,002
Effect on Net Position, Superfund:
Fiscal Year
1996**
1997
1998
1999
2000**
2001
Amount Reported
on Statements
$ 6,106,381
5,649,530
5,064,268
4,301,250
3,875,439
3,507,322
Cumulative
Effect of Error
(from previous table)
$ 1,291
8,886
11,962
16,462
22,490
23,654
Revenue
Restatement
(see Note 36)
$ (53,256)
Corrected
Balances
(FY 2001 restated)
$ 6,107,672
5,658,416
5,076,230
4,317,712
3,897,929
3,477,720
"Because of changes in OMB Form and Content Bulletin requirements, for FY 1996 and 1997 "Total Funded Costs" plus
"Unfunded Expenses "provided the closest comparison with later years' statements' "Total Costs." For years in which the Statement
of Net Cost by Goal was presented, the costs were applied to the Strategic Goal of "Better Waste Management."
**As restated on the following year's Audited Financial Statements.
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-55
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
Deferred Maintenance
The EPA classifies tangible property, plant, and equipment as follows: 1) EPA-Held Equipment,
2) Contractor-Held Equipment, 3) Land and Buildings, and, 4) Capital Leases. The condition assessment
survey method of measuring deferred maintenance is utilized. The Agency adopts requirements or
standards for acceptable operating condition in conformance with industry practices. No deferred
maintenance was reported for any of the four categories.
Intragovernmental Assets
Intragovernmental amounts represent transactions between all federal departments and agencies
and are reported by trading partner (entities that EPA did business with during FY 2002).
EPA confirmed its investment balances with the Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the
Treasury. In addition, EPA sent out requests to trading partners to reconcile and confirm intra-
governmental receivables and transfers. Responses or inquiries were received from the Department of
Commerce, Department of the Treasury, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the National Science Foundation.
Trading Accounts
Partner Investments Receivable Other
Code Agency Superfund All Other Superfund All Other Superfund All Other
04
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
31
45
47
57
58
68
69
72
75
80
86
Government Printing Office $ 0 $ 0 ^
Executive Office of the President
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of the Navy 70
U. S. Postal Service 16
Department of State
Department of the Treasury 3,309,975 1,952,052
Department of the Army
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
General Services Administration
Department of the Air Force
Federal Emergency Management Agency
EPA (between Superfund and All Other)
Department of Transportation
Agency for International Development
Department of Health and
Human Services
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
> 0
115
13,583
80
468
35
8,120
2
6
131
510
$ 0 $ 47 $
3
4
61 4
568
58
20
155
23
1
53
2
185
9,549
47,412 4,387
9,695
1,153
442
10
46
1,683
22
5
415
2,418
60
IV-56 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Trading
Partner
Code Agency
89
96
97
99
00
Total
Department of Energy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Defense
Treasury General Fund
Unassigned
Accounts
Investments Receivable
Superfund All Other Superfund
124
8
10,509
000
$3,309,975 $1,952,052 $ 33,309
All Other
399
1,344
60
371
274
$ 72,298
Other
Superfund All Other
24 (25)
$ 4,520 $ 4,578
Intragovernmental Liabilities
EPA received a few requests for intragovernmental liabilities reconciliation from trading partners.
EPA was able to confirm balances with the National Science Foundation (49), the Department of
Commerce (13), the Department of Justice (15), the Office of Personnel Management (24), the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (31), the Department of the Treasury (20), and the Department of Labor (16).
Trading
Partner
Accounts Payable
Accrued Liabilities
Other Liabilities
Code
03
04
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
31
36
45
47
49
57
58
59
64
68
69
72
75
80
86
89
93
95
Agency Superfund All Other
Library of Congress $ 0 $ 0
Government Printing Office
Department of Agriculture 84
Department of Commerce 889
Department of Interior 901
Department of Justice 617 58
Department of Labor 2,258
Department of the Navy 351
United States Postal Service
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Department of the Army
Office of Personnel Management
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
EEOC
General Services Administration
National Science Foundation
Department of the Air Force
Federal Emergency Management Agency 15,317
Nat'l Foundation on Arts and Humanities
Tennessee Valley Authority
EPA (between Superfund and All Others) 45,742 27
Department of Transportation
Agency for International Development
Department of Health and
Human Services 16
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Department of Energy
Federal Mediation Service
Independent Agencies
Superfund
$ 13
60
877
947
3,566
4,183
147
2
44
27
47
2
4,473
6
21
12
1,711
4,128
3,431
378
5
All Other
$ 194
1,023
991
2,819
2,415
96
477
89
2
208
266
367
9
74
40
15,315
91
66
74
3,420
5
7,850
239
4,407
22
508
Superfund
$ 0
2,119
4
1,232
1,440
872
15
896
2,318
8,750
2,673
1,490
All Other
$ 0
(5)
187
90
6,402
47
372
10,163
20
(91)
36
4,379
17
827
164
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-57
-------
Trading
Partner
Accounts Payable
Accrued Liabilities
Other Liabilities
Code
96
97
99
00
Total
Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Treasury General Fund
Unassigned
Superfund All
4,613
(22)
$ 70,682 $
Other Superfund
438
13
620 5
21,191
49
237
[i 45,557
All Other
1,533
338
425
$ 43,363
Superfund All Other
5
1,044
851
18
$ 23,727
19
33
3,721
$ 26,381
For All Other Funds' remaining intragovernmental liabilities, $24,290 thousand in Debt is assigned
to the Department of the Treasury (trading partner Code 20), and $69,706 thousand in Custodial
Liability is assigned to the Treasury General Fund (trading partner Code 99).
Intragovernmental Revenues and Costs
EPA's intragovernmental earned revenues are not reported by trading partners because they are
below OMB's threshold of $500 million.
Superfund
All Others
Intragovernmental Earned Revenue
Associated Costs to generate above Revenue
(Budget Functional Classification 304)
22,932
22 932
104,318
104,318
IV-58 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental
Programs &
STAG Management
Budgetary Resources:
Budget Authority:
Appropriations Received $
Borrowing Authority
Net Transfers
Other
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period
Net Transfers, Actual
Anticipated Transfers Balance
Spending Authority-Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Anticipated for Rest of Year
Transfers from Trust Funds
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations
Permanently Not Available
Total Budgetary Resources $
Status of Budgetary Resources:
Obligations Incurred:
Direct $
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred $
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Exempt from Apportionment
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $
Relationship of Obligations to Outlays:
Obligations Incurred, Net $
Obligated Balances, Net - Beginning
Accounts Receivable
Unfilled Customer Orders-Federal Sources
Undelivered Orders ("
Accounts Payable
Total Outlays $
Disbursements $
Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts
Net Outlays $
3,738,276
0
400
0
1,299,314
0
0
16,944
0
0
0
0
0
$16,944
62,743
0
5,117,677
3,751,750
0
3,751,750
1,365,927
0
0
5,117,677
3,672,063
7,917,132
0
0
7,886,623)
(349,388)
3,353,184
3,370,128
(16,944)
0
3,353,184
$ 2,093,511
0
3,750
0
306,938
500
0
66,735
6,161
166
59,663
0
0
$ 132,725
15,315
(27,868)
$ 2,524,871
$ 2,091,207
79,514
$ 2,170,721
249,695
0
104.455
$ 2,524,871
$ 2,022,681
783,265
15,680
179,292
(704,134)
(191,514)
$ 2,105,270
$ 2,172,171
(66,901)
0
$ 2,105,270
Science &
Technology
$ 788,397
0
0
0
200,941
0
0
7,823
(5,908)
475
1,610
0
36,891
$ 40,891
2,072
(6,533)
$1,025,768
$ 798,823
1,468
$ 800,291
203,607
0
21.870
$1,025,768
$ 757,328
492,591
41,803
10,575
(543,042)
(72,695)
$ 686,560
$ 731,059
(44,499)
0
$ 686,560
FIFRA
$ 0
0
0
0
1,917
0
0
17,802
0
(1)
0
0
0
$ 17,801
0
0
$ 19,718
$ 0
19,342
$ 19,342
376
0
0
$ 19,718
$ 1,541
1,547
0
0
(839)
(1,782)
$ 467
$ 18,267
(17,800)
o
$ 467
LUST
Trust Fund
$ 0
0
72,912
0
6,220
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
$ 2
1,032
0
$ 80,166
$ 76,939
0
$ 76,939
3,227
0
0
$ 80,166
$ 75,905
83,186
0
0
(74,673)
(7,146)
$ 77,272
$ 77,274
(2)
o
$ 77,272
All
Other
$ 750,901
0
23,948
0
95,974
0
0
152,796
1,157
1,493
1,276
0
11,780
$ 168,502
8,278
(7,891)
$1,039,712
$ 795,335
148,286
$ 943,621
94,805
0
1.286
$1,039,712
$ 766,841
47,134
15,094
63,481
(68,614)
(34,127)
$ 789,809
$ 954,841
(165,032)
(687.650)
$ 102,159
Total
All
Other
$ 7,371,085
0
101,010
0
1,911,304
500
0
262,102
1,410
2,133
62,549
0
48,671
$ 376,865
89,440
(42,292)
$ 9,807,912
$ 7,514,054
248,610
$ 7,762,664
1,917,637
0
127.611
$ 9,807,912
$ 7,296,359
9,324,855
72,577
253,348
(9,277,925)
(656,652)
$ 7,012,562
$ 7,323,740
(311,178)
(687.650)
$ 6,324,912
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-59
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
SUPPLEMENTAL BALANCE SHEET
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Unaudited
ASSETS
Intragovernmental
Fund Balance With Treasury $ 57,380
Accounts Receivable, Net Federal 10,754
Other 419
Total Intragovernmental $ 68,553
General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 11,746
Other Nonfederal Assets £3
TotalAssets $ 80,342
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities, Federal $ 1,978
Other Federal Liabilities 29,206
Total Intragovernmental $ 31,184
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities, Nonfederal 16,450
Payroll and Benefits Payable Nonfederal 1,683
Other Nonfederal Liabilities
Total Liabilities $ 49,317
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations $ 31,025
Total Net Position 31.025
Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 80,342
IV-60 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF NET COST
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Unaudited
COSTS:
Intragovernmental $ 17,836
With the Public 112,735
Total Costs $ 130,571
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal 131,178
Earned Revenues, Nonfederal (32)
Total Earned Revenues $ 131,146
Net Cost of Operations $ (575)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Unaudited
Net Position - Beginning of Period $ 28,708
Prior Period Adjustments 0
Beginning Balances, as adjusted $ 28,708
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out 0
Other 0
Total Budgetary Financing Sources $ 0
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out 0
Imputed Financing Sources 1,742
Other 0
Total Other Financing Sources $ 1,742
Net Cost of Operations 575
Net Position - End of Period $ 31,025
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-61
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Budgetary Resources Unaudited
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriations Received $ 0
Borrowing Authority 0
Net Transfers 0
Other 0
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period 23,034
Net Transfers, Actual 0
Anticipated Transfers Balance 0
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected 130,822
Receivable from Federal Sources 328
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders
Advance Received 1,621
Without Advance from Federal Sources (699)
Anticipated for Rest of Year 0
Transfers from Trust Funds 0_
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections $ 132,072
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations 2,415
Permanently Not Available 0_
Total Budgetary Resources $ 157,521
Status of Budgetary Resources
Obligations Incurred:
Reimbursable $ 130,359
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned 27,162
Exempt from Apportionment 0
Unobligated Balances Not Available 0_
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 157,521
Relationship of Obligations to Outlays
Obligations Incurred, Net $ (4,128)
Obligated Balances, Net - Beginning of Period 28,232
Accounts Receivable 114
Unfilled Customer Orders from Federal Sources 3,675
Undelivered Orders (14,993)
Accounts Payable (19,014)
Total Outlays $ (6,114)
Disbursements $ 126,330
Collections (132,444)
Less: Offsetting Receipts 0
Net Outlays $ (6,114)
IV-62 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FINANCING
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
Resources Used to Finance Activities:
Budgetary Resources Obligated
Obligations Incurred
Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries
Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries
Less: Offsetting Receipts
Net Obligations
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Property
Imputed Financing Sources
Other (+/-)
Income from Other Appropriations
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities
Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of Net Cost of Operations
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated
Resources that Fund Prior Period Expenses
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts that Do Not
Affect Net Cost of Operations
Credit Program Collections Increasing Loan Liabilities for Guarantees of
Subsidy Allowances
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost of Operations
Resources that Finance the Acquisition of Assets
Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated
Resources that Do Not Affect Net Cost of Operations
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of Net Cost of Operations
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations
Components of the Net Cost of Operations that Will Not Require or
Generate Resources in the Current Period
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods
Increase in Annual Leave Liability
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability
Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense
Increase in Exchange Revenue Receivable from the Public
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Will
Require or Generate Resources in Future Periods
Components Not Requiring or Generating Resources
Depreciation and Amortization
Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities
Other Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Will
Not Require or Generate Resources
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not
Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period
Net Cost of Operations
Unaudited
$ 130,359
(134,487)
$ (4,128)
0
$ (4,128)
$ 0
1,742
0
0
$ 1,742
$ (2,386)
$ (597)
(170)
0
0
0
(1,717)
0
$ (2,484)
$ (4,870)
0
4,326
0
(3D
4,295
4,295
(575)
www. epa.gov/ocfo
FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements
IV-63
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
(Dollars in Thousands)
INVESTMENT IN THE NATION'S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Public and private sector institutions have long been significant contributors to our Nation's
environment and human health research agenda. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Research and Development, however, is unique among scientific institutions in this country in
combining research, analysis, and the integration of scientific information across the full spectrum of
health and ecological issues and across both risk assessment and risk management. Science enables us
to identify the most important sources of risk to human health and the environment, and by so doing,
informs our priority-setting, ensures credibility for our policies, and guides our deployment of
resources. It gives us the understanding and technologies we need to detect, abate, and avoid
environmental problems. Science provides the crucial underpinning for EPA decisions and challenges
us to apply the best available science and technical analysis to our environmental problems and to
practice more integrated, efficient, and effective approaches to reducing environmental risks.
Among the Agency's highest priorities are research programs that address the effects of the
environment on children's health, the potential risks of unregulated contaminants in drinking water, the
health effects of air pollutants such as particulate matter, and the protection of the Nation's ecosystems.
For FY 2002 the full cost of the Agency's Research and Development activities totaled over
$682.5 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Programmatic Expenses 507,828 543,777 541,117 555,794 559,218
Allocated Expenses 53,322 58,728 59,523 90,039 123,307
INVESTMENT IN THE NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE
The Agency makes significant investments in the Nation's drinking water and clean water
infrastructure. The investments are the result of three programs: the Construction Grants Program,
which is being phased out, and two State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.
Construction Grants Program: During the 1970s and 1980s the Construction Grants Program
was a source of federal funds, providing more than $60 billion of direct grants for the construction of
public wastewater treatment projects. These projects, which constituted a significant contribution to the
Nation's water infrastructure, included sewage treatment plants, pumping stations and collection and
intercept sewers, rehabilitation of sewer systems, and the control of combined sewer overflows. The
construction grants led to the improvement of water quality in thousands of municipalities nationwide.
Congress set 1990 as the last year that funds would be appropriated for Construction Grants.
Projects funded in 1990 and prior will continue until completion. Beyond 1990 EPA shifted the focus
of municipal financial assistance from grants to loans that are provided by SRFs.
State Revolving Funds: EPA provides capital, in the form of capitalization grants, to state revolving
funds which state governments use to make loans to individuals, businesses, and governmental entities
for the construction of wastewater and drinking water treatment infrastructure. When the loans are repaid
to the state revolving fund, the collections are used to finance new loans for new construction projects.
The capital is reused by the states and is not returned to the federal government.
IV-64 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
The Agency also is appropriated funds to finance the construction of infrastructure outside the
SRFs. These are reported below as Other Infrastructure Grants.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Nation's Water Infrastructure are outlined
below (dollars in thousands):
FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Construction Grants 444,817 414,528 55,766 63,344 149,841
Clean Water SRF 1,109,017 925,744 1,564,894 1,548,270 1,389,048
Safe Drinking Water SRF 94,936 387,429 588,116 728,921 708,528
Other Infrastructure Grants 138,363 245,606 212,124 282,914 367,259
Allocated Expenses 187,649 213,117 266,299 424,999 576,536
STEWARDSHIP LAND
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in CERCLA
section 104 (J) related to remedial cleanup sites. The land rights are in the form of easements to allow
access to clean up sites or to restrict usage of remediated sites. In some instances, the Agency takes
title to the land during remediation and returns it to private ownership upon the completion of
cleanup. A site with "land acquired" may have more than one acquisition property. Sites are not
counted as a withdrawal until all acquired properties have been transferred.
As of September 30, 2002, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
Superfund Sites with Easements
Beginning Balance 29
Additions 2
Withdrawals 0_
Ending Balance 31
Superfund Sites with Land Acquired
Beginning Balance 25
Additions 1
Withdrawals 2
Ending Balance 24
HUMAN CAPITAL
Agencies are required to report expenses incurred to train the public with the intent of increasing
or maintaining the Nation's economic productive capacity. Training, public awareness, and research
fellowships are components of many of the Agency's programs and are effective in achieving the
Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment, but the focus is on enhancing the
Nation's environmental, not economic, capacity.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below (dollars in
thousands):
FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Training and Awareness Grants 39,131 46,630 49,265 48,697 49,444
Fellowships 11,084 10,239 9,570 11,451 8,728
Allocated Expenses 5,273 6,142 6,472 9,744 12,827
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-65
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
IV-66 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
SUMMARY OF OIG'S AUDIT REPORT
Audit Report 2003-1-00045
Full Electronic Version of Complete Audit Report
at http ://www. epa. gov/oigearth
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-67
-------
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT ON EPA'S FISCAL 2002 AND 2001
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
We have audited the consolidating balance sheets of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, or the Agency) and its subsidiary funds, the Superfund Trust Fund (Superfund) and All Other
Appropriated Funds (All Other), as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidating
statements of net cost, changes in net position and financing, and consolidated statements of net cost
by goal and custodial activity for the years then ended, and the related combined statement of
budgetary resources for the year ended September 30, 2002. These financial statements are the
responsibility of EPA's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based upon our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; the standards
applicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin
01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts
and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
The financial statements include expenses of grantees, contractors, and other federal agencies.
Our audit work pertaining to these expenses included testing only within EPA. Audits of grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements performed at a later date may disclose questioned costs of an
amount undeterminable at this time. In addition, the United States Treasury collects and accounts for
excise taxes that are deposited into the Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Funds.1 The United States Treasury is also responsible for investing amounts not needed for current
disbursements and transferring funds to EPA as authorized in legislation. Since the United States
Treasury, and not EPA, is responsible for these activities, our audit work did not cover these activities.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is not independent with respect to amounts pertaining to its
operations that are presented in the financial statements. The amounts included for the OIG are not
material to EPA's financial statements. The OIG is organizationally independent with respect to all
other assets of the Agency's activities.
In our opinion, the consolidating financial statements present fairly the consolidated and individual
assets, liabilities, net position, net cost by goal, changes in net position, reconciliation of net cost to
budgetary obligations, and custodial activity of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its
subsidiary funds, the Superfund Trust Fund and All Other Appropriated Funds, as of and for the years
ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, and budgetary resources as of and for the year ended
September 30, 2002, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
1 The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund is included in the All Other Appropriated Funds column of the financial statements.
IV-68 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Review of EPA's Required Supplemental Stewardship Information, Required Supplemental
Information, and Management Discussion and Analysis
We inquired of EPA's management as to their methods for preparing Required Supplemental
Stewardship Information (RSSI), Required Supplemental Information, and Management Discussion and
Analysis, and reviewed this information for consistency with the financial statements. However, our
audit was not designed to express an opinion and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion.
We did not identify any material inconsistencies between the information presented in EPA's
financial statements and the information presented in EPA's RSSI, Required Supplemental Information,
and Management Discussion and Analysis. OMB Bulletin No. 01-09, Form and Content of Agency
Financial Statements, requires agencies to report, as Required Supplemental Information, their
intragovernmental assets and liabilities by federal trading partner. We did find that, through no fault of
EPA, other federal agencies were unable to reconcile EPA's reported transactions with their records
(see Attachment 2 for additional details on this issue).
Evaluation of Internal Controls
As defined by OMB, internal control, as it relates to the financial statements, is a process, affected
by the Agency's management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance that the
following objectives are met:
Reliability of financial reporting - Transactions are properly recorded, processed, and
summarized to permit the timely and reliable preparation of the financial statements and RSSI in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and assets are safeguarded against
loss from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.
Reliability of performance reporting - Transactions and other data that support reported
performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the
preparation of performance information in accordance with criteria stated by management.
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations - Transactions are executed in
accordance with laws governing the use of budget authority and other laws and regulations that
could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or RSSI; and any other laws,
regulations, and government-wide policies identified by OMB.
In planning and performing our audit, we considered EPA's internal controls over financial
reporting by obtaining an understanding of the Agency's internal controls, determined whether internal
controls had been placed in operation, assessed control risk, and performed tests of controls in order
to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements. We limited our internal control testing to those controls necessary to achieve the
objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements,
as supplemented by an OMB memorandum dated January 4, 2001, Revised Implementation Guidance
for the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. We did not test all internal controls relevant
to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982,
such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient operations. The objective of our audit was not to
provide assurance on internal controls and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal
controls.
Our consideration of the internal controls over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all
matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be reportable conditions. Under
standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, reportable conditions are
matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-69
-------
internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the Agency's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions by management in the financial
statements. Material weaknesses are reportable conditions in which the design or operation of one or
more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited
may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions. Because of inherent limitations in internal controls, misstatements,
losses, or noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. We noted certain matters
discussed below involving the internal control and its operation that we consider to be reportable
conditions, although none of the reportable conditions is believed to be a material weakness.
In addition, we considered EPA's internal control over the RSSI by obtaining an understanding of
the Agency's internal controls, determined whether these internal controls had been placed in
operation, assessed control risk, and performed tests of controls as required by OMB Bulletin
No. 01-02. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on these internal controls and,
accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such controls.
Finally, with respect to internal controls related to performance measures presented in EPA's Fiscal
Year 2002 Annual Report, Section 1, Overview and Analysis (which addresses requirements for a
Management's Discussion and Analysis), we obtained an understanding of the design of significant
internal controls relating to the existence and completeness assertions, as required by OMB
Bulletin No. 01-02. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on internal control over
reported performance measures and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such controls.
Reportable Conditions
Reportable conditions are internal control weakness matters coming to the auditor's attention that,
in the auditor's judgment, should be communicated because they represent significant deficiencies in
the design or operation of internal control that could adversely affect the organization's ability to meet
the OMB objectives for financial reporting discussed above.
In evaluating the Agency's internal control structure, we identified seven reportable conditions, as
follows:
Documentation and Approval of Journal Vouchers
EPA's Financial Reports and Analysis Branch did not always adequately document journal
vouchers and standard vouchers prior to the transactions being entered into the Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS). For example, of 447 transaction documents reviewed,
39 did not have adequate backup to support entries, and 3 did not have appropriate signatures.
After performing additional work we were able to determine that most of the entries appeared
to be correct. However, we are concerned about the vulnerability associated with executing
transactions without proper documentation and supervisory review and approval. The review
and approval process would reduce the potential for errors occurring.
Reconciling Superfund State Cost Share Contracts
EPA did not reconcile the unearned revenue from State Superfund Contracts for FY 2002.
When EPA assumes the lead for a Superfund site remedial action in a state, the State Superfund
Contract clarifies EPA and state responsibilities. EPA records unearned revenue when a state is
billed for its share of the estimated remedial action costs on the site and recognizes earned
revenue as it incurs costs. However, EPA's Financial Management Division did not reconcile
the unearned revenue from State Superfund Contracts to the general ledger liability account -
IV-70 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Unearned Advances, Nonfederal. This was because EPA relied on its accounting system's
internal controls and regional year-end adjustments to unearned revenue. As a result, EPA
could not ensure the accuracy of the State Superfund Contract unearned revenue accounts.
Additional work performed by the OIG enabled the Agency to post adjustments to reduce the
variance.
Reconciliation of Deferred Cashouts
EPA did not properly reconcile Superfund cashouts at the regional level. Cashouts represent
money that potentially responsible parties agree to pay EPA for cleanups. We found that
EPA's regions did not periodically reconcile the uncollected receivables for Superfund
cashouts to the general ledger liability accounts Deferred Cashouts Federal and Deferred
Cashouts Nonfederal. This occurred because the Financial Management Division did not
require the reconciliations or provide guidance. As a result, the regional finance offices were
not able to reconcile their deferred cashouts and could not ensure the accuracy of the
accounts, which totaled approximately $44 million. While the combined net difference of
the variances were under $2 million, the individual variances in the regional offices were
significant and could result in a material misstatement if proper reconciliations are not
performed.
IGMS Security Plan Compliance with Federal Requirements
The Integrated Grants Management System (IGMS) security plan did not adequately describe
the security requirements or the controls used to protect the system and its data. The IGMS
security plan reflected only 41 percent of the 140 elements required by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Special Publication 800-18. In addition, the IGMS
security plan included only 50 percent of the 30 Core Financial System technical requirements
mandated by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP). The IGMS
security plan was missing many key elements required by federal regulations because the
Director for Grants and Debarment used EPA's Information Security Planning Guidance as a
benchmark for developing the IGMS security plan. Management agreed that addressing NIST
and JFMIP system requirements would significantly raise the bar for evaluating security plans.
As such, management has established a schedule for addressing unmet requirements.
Automated Application Processing Controls
We continue to be unable to assess the adequacy of the automated internal control structure
as it relates to automated input, processing, and output controls for IFMS. IFMS applications
have a direct and material impact on the Agency's financial statements. Therefore, an
assessment of each application's automated input, processing, and output controls, as well as
compensating manual controls, is necessary to determine the reliance we can place on the
financial statements.
Capitalization of Superfund Contractor-Held Property
EPA did not capitalize and depreciate approximately $33.3 million in Superfund contractor-
held property in accordance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
(SFFAS) No. 6, Accounting For Property, Plant, and Equipment. Instead, the Agency
expensed all costs for contractor-held property used for Superfund site-specific projects. The
Agency explained that it expensed property on these Superfund remediation sites because
the property would remain at the site and not be useful on future sites due to contamination.
The $33.3 million cumulative amount included approximately $10.2 million for fiscal 2002
and $23.1 million from prior years. By expensing these costs, the Agency is understating the
value of its property in the possession of contractors and, therefore, the value of general
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-71
-------
Property, Plant, and Equipment. Subsequently, the Agency adjusted the financial statements
to capitalize contractor-held property used for Superfund site-specific projects.
Revenue Recognition on Cashouts
The Financial Management Division overstated by $53 million a fiscal 2001 on-top financial
statement adjustment for earned revenue from past costs in Superfund special accounts. This
overstatement also affected the fiscal 2002 Superfund financial statements by understating
liabilities and overstating income. EPA did not restate the financial statements because it lacked
adequate internal controls for reporting corrections of errors. As a result, EPA's fiscal 2001
and 2002 financial statements would have been materially misstated without prompting by
the OIG.
Attachment 1 of the OIG's complete audit report describes each of the above reportable conditions
in more detail and contains our recommendations on actions that should be taken to correct these
conditions. We will also be reporting other less significant matters involving the internal control
structure and its operation in a separate management letter.
Comparison of EPA'S FMFIA Report with Our Evaluation of Internal Controls
OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, requires us to
compare material weaknesses disclosed during the audit with those material weaknesses reported in
the Agency's Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA or Integrity Act) report that relate to the
financial statements and identify material weaknesses disclosed by audit that were not reported in the
Agency's FMFIA report. EPA reports on Integrity Act decisions in EPA's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Report. For a discussion on Agency reported Integrity Act material weaknesses and corrective action
strategy, please refer to EPA's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report, Section III, FY 2002 Management
Accomplishments and Challenges.
For reporting under FMFIA, material weaknesses are defined differently than they are for financial
statement audit purposes. OMB Circular A-123, Management Accountability and Control, defines a
material weakness as a deficiency that the Agency head determines to be significant enough to be
reported outside the Agency.
For financial statement audit purposes, OMB defines material weaknesses in internal control as
reportable conditions in which the design or operation of the internal control does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors, fraud, or noncompliance in amounts that would be material in
relation to the financial statements or RSSI being audited, or material to a performance measure or
aggregation of related performance measures, may occur and not be detected within a timely period
by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our audit did not
disclose any material weakness that was not reported by the Agency as part of the Integrity Act
process.
The Agency did not report any material weaknesses for fiscal 2002 as part of the Integrity Act
process.
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations
EPA management is responsible for complying with laws and regulations applicable to the
Agency. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Agency's financial statements
are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of
laws and regulations, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts, and certain other laws and regulations specified in
IV-72 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as supplemented by
an OMB Memorandum dated January 4, 2001, Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act. The OMB guidance requires that we evaluate compliance
with federal financial management system requirements, including the requirements referred to in
the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996. We limited our tests of
compliance to these provisions and did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable
to EPA.
Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an
objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. There are a number of
ongoing investigations involving EPA's grantees and contractors that could disclose violations of laws
and regulations, but a determination about these cases has not been made.
None of the noncompliances discussed below would result in material misstatements to the audited
financial statements.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Noncompliance
Under FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Agency's financial management systems
substantially comply with the federal financial management systems requirements, applicable federal
accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction
level. OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, as supplemented by an OMB memorandum dated January 4, 2001,
Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act,
substantially changed the guidance for determining whether or not an Agency substantially complied
with the federal financial management systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards,
and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. The document is
intended to focus Agency and auditor activities on the essential requirements of FFMIA. The
document lists the specific requirements of FFMIA, as well as factors to consider in reviewing systems
and for determining substantial compliance with FFMIA. It also provides guidance to Agency heads
for developing corrective action plans to bring an Agency into compliance with FFMIA. To meet the
FFMIA requirement, we performed tests of compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements and
used the OMB guidance, revised on January 4, 2001, for determining substantial noncompliance with
FFMIA.
The results of our tests did not disclose any instances where the Agency's financial management
systems did not substantially comply with the applicable federal accounting standard.
We recognize improvements the OCFO has made in cost accounting and believe that while there
are still noncompliance issues with cost accounting, those noncompliances no longer meet OMB's
definition of substantial noncompliance. However, the Agency was not in compliance with Statement
of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4 that requires EPA to provide full costs per output to
management in a timely fashion.
We identified three other FFMIA noncompliances, related to reconciliation of intragovernmental
transactions, Contract Payment System compliance with JFMIP system requirements, and completion of
the fiscal 1999 FFMIA remediation plan. However, these noncompliances do not meet the definition
of substantial noncompliance as described in OMB guidance.
Our tests also disclosed two other instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations, related to
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Treasury Financial Manual for preparation of SF 224
"Statement of Transactions."
Attachment 2 of the OIG's complete audit report provides additional details, as well as our
recommendations on actions that should be taken on these matters. We will also be reporting other
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-73
-------
less significant matters involving compliance with laws and regulations in a separate management
letter.
Prior Audit Coverage
During previous financial or financial-related audits, weaknesses that impacted our audit objectives
were reported in the following areas:
• Complying with FFMIA requirements.
• Reconciliation and Reporting intragovernmental transactions, assets and liabilities by federal trading
partner.
• Complying with SFFAS No. 4, including accounting for the cost to achieve goals and identifying
and allocating indirect costs.
• Accounting for capitalized property.
• Recording accrued liabilities for grants.
• Interagency Agreement invoice approval process.
• Documenting EPA's IFMS.
• Complying with federal financial management system security requirements.
• Accounting for payments for grants funded from multiple appropriations.
• Documentation and approval of journal vouchers.
• Timely repayment of Asbestos Loan Debt to Treasury.
• Assessing automated application processing controls for the IFMS.
• Compliance of financial system security plans.
Attachment 3 of the OIG's complete audit report, Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations,
summarizes the current status of corrective actions taken on prior audit report recommendations with
corrective actions in process.
The Chief Financial Officer, as the Agency's Audit Follow-up Official, oversees EPA's follow-up on
audit findings and recommendations, including resolution and implementation of corrective actions.
For these prior audits, final action occurs when the Agency completes implementation of the
corrective actions to remedy weaknesses identified in the audit.
We acknowledge that many actions and initiatives have been taken to resolve prior financial
statement audit issues. We also recognize that the issues we have reported are complex, and require
extensive, long-term corrective actions and coordination by the Chief Financial Officer with various
Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators, and Office Directors before they can be completely
resolved. A few issues have been unresolved for many years. The OIG will continue to work with
the Office of Chief Financial Officer in helping to resolve all audit issues resulting from our financial
statement audits.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In a memorandum dated January 22, 2003, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer responded
to our draft report. The OCFO generally concurred with our findings and is in the process of
IV-74 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
implementing corrective actions. However, the OCFO did expand on comments in some areas to
reflect their view that they have made substantial improvements.
The OCFO believes that they are complying with the Managerial Cost Accounting Standard by
preparing quarterly subobjective level reports, taking actions to execute the Agency's plan for
expanding cost information, and moving from 10 goals to 5 in the new Strategic Plan. We recognize
improvements that the Agency has made in the area of Cost Accounting and believe that the new plan
for expanding cost information will eventually provide manager's the cost information they need to
manage. However, we do not agree with OCFO that the subobjective level reports provide useful,
timely, and full cost information.
The OCFO also stated that they developed a new process and report for reconciling the Contract
Payment System with IFMS that they believe satisfies the OIG's concerns. The OIG did not review the
new process and report because they were developed after we completed our work.
The rationale for our conclusions and a summary of the Agency comments are included in the
appropriate sections of this report, and the Agency's complete response is included as Appendix II to
the complete audit.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of EPA, OMB, and
Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.
Paul C. Curtis
Assignment Manager
Financial Audit Division
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
January 22, 2003
www.epa.gov/ocfo FY 2002 Annual Financial Statements IV-75
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
IV-76 EPA's FY 2002 Annual Report www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
f
o
-------
APPENDIX A:
COMPREHENSIVE LISTING OF PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Environmental Protection: The
Federal Government Could Help
Communities Better Plan for
Transportation That Protects Air
Quality
As Congress begins the
reauthorization of the surface
transportation programs, it •will
consider whether to continue or
revise these initiatives. To help
inform this work, the General
Accounting Office (GAO)
comments on (1) the impacts of
surface transportation on air
quality; (2) the benefits and limits
of key federal surface
transportation and clean air
requirements and programs
designed to mitigate these impacts;
and (3) 'ways the federal
government can use these
requirements and programs to
further reduce these impacts.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
GAO had three key findings:
(1) air pollution from vehicle
emissions will continue to pose
health and environmental risks
to some communities, despite
new technology and emissions
limits; (2) federal laws and
programs linking transportation
to improved air quality have
helped targeted communities
control pollution but could be
more comprehensive; and
(3) planners have identified
additional ways the federal
government could help further
limit transportation impacts on
air quality, including financial
incentives, technical assistance,
and public outreach.
The program
recognizes the
importance of GAO's
findings and where
appropriate will
incorporate them into
program planning.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
Testimony before the
Committee on
Environment and
Public Works, U.S.
Senate
GAO-02-988T
July 30, 2002
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
Goal 1, Objective 1
Consistency and Transparency
in Determination of EPA's
Anticipated Ozone Designations
The purpose of this Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) review
•was to determine whether each of
the EPA regional offices used a
specific process, method, or
approach for obtaining stakeholder
input for the 1-hour ozone
designations; •what process,
method, or approach •was used for
the preliminary analysis of the
8-hour ozone designations; and the
potential usefulness of the Multi-
criteria Integrated Resource
Assessment (MIRA) decision
approach.
The OIG found that the
guidance for the preliminary
8-hour ozone designations is
more comprehensive than the
approach EPA used in 1990,
•with respect to stakeholder
participation and in terms of
providing criteria that states
should consider if proposing
larger or smaller metropolitan
nonattainment boundaries. The
OIG, however, states that the
preliminary 8-hour ozone
guidance did not provide a
methodical process for the
regions and states to use when
considering the 11 criteria.
Without a consistent regional
approach, the ozone designa-
tions might not be fair or
equitable throughout the
Nation. The OIG recommends
that EPA use an approach
similar to the MIRA approach
used by Region 3 to address the
preliminary 8-hour ozone
designations, noting that this or
a similar multi-criteria approach
could be useful for all EPA
regions.
EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR)
stated in its response
to the draft report
that it does not agree
•with the recommen-
dation in the report
and maintains that
MIRA cannot be used
as the sole tool for
designating areas
under the Clean Air
Act. OAR believes
that the primary
approach for
assigning designa-
tions should be a
case-by-case consid-
eration and evalua-
tion of each area's
unique situation and
circumstances. OAR
completed its final
response to the
August 15, 2002,
report in October
2002.
U.S. EPA, Office of
the Inspector General
2002-S-00016
August 15, 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/
ereading room/
list901/Mira.Final.Q8-
15.pdf
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-l
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 1, Objective 1
Air: Open Market Trading
Program for Air Emissions
Needs Strengthening
The objectives of the OIG's
program evaluation were to
determine (1) whether EPA's basis
for proposing to approve selected
air emissions open market trading
(OMT) programs was adequate;
(2) the extent of use of EPA-approved
emissions quantification protocols
and whether accurate, reliable data
underlie OMT trades in these
programs; and (3) the extent of EPA
and state compliance assurance,
enforcement, and oversight
activities relative to OMT trades.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The OIG made several
recommendations to the OAR
based on its review of OMT
programs in Michigan and New
Jersey, including that EPA:
•Develop and propose federal
regulations for OMT pro-
grams.
•Ensure that shutdown credits
are not allowed to be traded
in OMT programs.
• Require the use of EPA- and
state-approved emissions
quantification protocols prior
to allowing trades to occur.
•Develop and require the use
of a risk-based targeting
approach for federal and state
compliance assurance,
enforcement, and oversight of
OMT trades.
EPA provided
comments on the
draft report on
September 26, 2002.
EPA communicated
its final response
verbally to the IG
and a final written
response was sent to
the IG, at the end of
January 2003.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
the Inspector General
2002-P-00019
September 30, 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/
ereading room/
omt.pdf
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Environmental Protection:
Federal Incentives Could Help
Promote Land Use That Protects
Air and Water Quality
Congress asked GAO to examine
the extent to which local
transportation planners, state air
quality managers, and water quality
officials consider the impacts of
land use on the environment and to
identify actions federal agencies
can take to help these officials
assess land use impacts.
In its report, GAO recommends
several key actions:
•EPA should target available
financial incentives in ways
that encourage transportation
planners, environmental
officials, and local decision
makers to collaboratively
consider the impacts of
transportation and land use on
air quality and should take
more action to educate the
public and local decision
makers about the air quality
impacts of their transportation
and land use decisions.
•Both EPA and the Department
of Transportation should
provide more access to
technical tools, such as staff
and user-friendly models that
integrate transportation,
environmental protection, and
land use, and better market
these tools to transportation
and local decision makers.
The program
recognizes the
importance of GAO's
findings and where
appropriate will
incorporate them into
program planning.
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-12
October 31, 2001
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
A-2
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Public Participation in
Louisiana's Air Permitting
Program and EPA Oversight
At EPA's request, the OIG
performed a review of the public
participation process in Louisiana,
which is covered by EPA Region 6.
Specifically, the OIG performed a
review of the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ)
Title V program. The review
evaluated whether LDEQ allows for
effective public participation in the
implementation of its air permitting
process and whether EPA Region 6
provides effective oversight of
LDEQ's air permitting program.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The OIG found that LDEQ
minimally met the public
participation requirements for air
permitting. However, the OIG
states that LDEQ's records were
often unorganized, incomplete,
missing, or inaccessible. In
addition, LDEQ did not clearly
define the role of its public
participation group; as a result,
the public was unable to access,
or had difficulty accessing, key
records needed to effectively
review, evaluate, and comment
on facilities' proposed opera-
tions, thus hindering the public's
ability to effectively comment on
proposed permits. The OIG also
found that EPA Region 6 did not
perform adequate oversight of
LDEQ's public participation
activities. The OIG said that
Region 6 generally did not
review public comments before
LDEQ issued permits because the
Region did not require LDEQ to
provide such comments to the
Region until after the permit had
been issued. It also asserted that
Region 6 did not take a proactive
approach to oversight of public
participation issues or perform a
thorough on-site review at LDEQ.
By November 5, 2002,
EPA will have in
place an Action Plan
that responds to the
OIG report. In
addition, Region 6
will conduct an in-
depth program
review by the end of
December 2002.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
the Inspector General
01351-2002-P -00011
August 7, 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/
ereading room/
2002P00011.pdf
Goal 1, Objectives 1 and 2
Evaluation Report: EPA and State
Progress in Issuing Title V
Permits
The objectives of this OIG evaluation
•were to identify (1) factors delaying
the issuance of Title V permits by
selected state and local agencies
and (2) practices contributing to
more timely issuance of permits by
selected state and local agencies.
The basic findings of this OIG
report are as follows: (1) lack
of state resources, complex EPA
regulations, and conflicting
priorities contributed to permit
delays; (2) EPA oversight and
technical assistance had limited
impact; and (3) management
support, partnerships, and site
visits contributed to more
timely issuance of Title V
permits.
In general, OAR
agreed with the
OIG's conclusion that
more could be done
to improve EPA and
state progress in
issuing Title V
permits. On July 11,
2002, EPA issued a
memorandum to the
OIG that responds to
the OIG's recommen-
dations and docu-
ments the OAR action
plan for implement-
ing the recommenda-
tions. OAR has
continued to support
the implementation
of state operating
permit programs, and
at the end of FY 2002
more than 14,000
sources (73 percent)
are operating under
Title V permits.
U.S. EPA, Office of
the Inspector General
2002-P-00008
March 29, 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/
ereading room/
TitleV.PDF
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-3
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 1, Objectives 1, 2, and 4
Estimating the Public Health
Benefits of Proposed Air
Pollution Regulations
In 2000 Congress directed EPA to
have the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) conduct a study on
health benefits analysis methodology
and recommend to the Agency a
common methodology to be
followed in all future analyses.
Specifically, the Committee was asked
to do the following: (1) consider
issues important in estimating the
health-risk-reduction benefits of air
pollution regulations, including the
scientific data, risk assessment
approaches, populations affected,
baseline used, assumptions, analysis
of uncertainty, and identification of
key indicators of exposure and
population health status; (2) critically
review methods used for recent
estimates of regulatory health benefits;
(3) identify methods used by federal
regulatory agencies and others,
recommend standard good-practice
guidelines and principles for
estimating health benefits, and
delineate the data-gathering required
to better assess health benefits in the
future; (4) identify approaches to
estimating regulatory health benefits
when relevant information is
limited; and (5) 'where applicable,
recommend areas for further
research and monitoring.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The findings of the National
Research Council are centered
around the key methodological
issues in benefits analyses,
including (1) regulatory
options, boundaries, and
baselines; (2) exposure assess-
ment; (3) health outcomes;
(4) concentration-response
function; (5) analysis of
uncertainty; and (6) presenta-
tion of results. Overall, the
committee found that EPA has
generally used a reasonable
framework for conducting
health benefits analysis when
estimating the health benefits of
proposed air pollution control
regulations. In addition, the
committee made recommenda-
tions on how EPA's implemen-
tation of the steps could be
improved.
Although there is no
formal response to this
study, EPA is
encouraged by NAS's
affirmation of the
methodology that EPA
uses in its health
benefits analyses of air
pollution regulations.
Estimating the health
benefits of EPA's rules
is an important
component of the
Agency's air quality
management program,
and EPA continuously
•works to ensure that it
uses the best available
methods to determine
how its actions •will
protect the American
public. The report
confirms that EPA is
doing a good job of
analyzing the benefits
of its regulations and
gives the Agency a
number of suggestions
on how to further
improve those
analyses. EPA will
study the recommend-
ations and talk further
•with Academy
members as it works
to make its health
benefits analyses the
best possible.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
National Academies,
National Research
Council, Committee
on Estimating the
Health-Risk-Reduction
Benefits of Proposed
Air Pollution
Regulations and Board
on Environmental
Studies and
Toxicology
September 2002
Located at:
http://www.nap.edu/
books/0309086094/
html/
Goal 1, Objectives 1, 2, and 4
Tribal Air Capacity Evaluation
The purpose of this evaluation
•was to assess how effectively the
program is using its resources to
achieve the key objectives of
building tribal capacity, addressing
air quality problems, and
providing the necessary tools.
Contributors included numerous
tribes across the United States;
several tribal non-governmental
organizations (the American
Indian Science and Engineering
Society, the Institute for Tribal
Environmental Professionals, and
the National Tribal Environmental
Council); and EPA headquarters,
regional, and program office staff.
The evaluation findings focused
partly on the success the program
has had since 1995, increasing
the number of participating
tribes from 9 to 117, and partly
on the significant remaining
needs for support, expertise,
and coordination. The report
provided 30 recommendations
in the areas of building capac-
ity, guidance and policy
development, resources, and
technical assistance.
Resource issues •were noted as
constraints, but not specifically
addressed.
Many of the
recommendations
•were being imple-
mented before the
evaluation was
complete, and several
more will be imple-
mented over time.
EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR) is
also holding discus-
sions with regional
offices to ensure that
the appropriate
recommendations are
adopted. Most
recommendations
have been or •will be
adopted or incorpo-
rated into the program
in an ongoing manner.
Industrial Economics,
Incorporated, and
Ross & Associates
June 2002
Located at:
http://www. epa.gov/
oar/tribal/
announce .html
A-4
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 1, Objectives 1, 2, and 4
Memorandum Report: Clean Air
Design Evaluation Results
The purpose of this evaluation was
to (1) identify and document the
design of the Clean Air Program to
achieve its Government
Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) goals; (2) identify any
opportunities for improving the
design of the program; and
(3) recommend specific evaluations
and audits to be conducted over a
period of time to evaluate EPA's
success in meeting Clean Air goals.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The OIG report presents
several broad findings: (1) EPA
might not be able to demon-
strate achievement of long-term
strategic goal under the current
GPRA structure; (2) outcome
information is available but not
used within the GPRA frame-
work for the Acid Rain Goal;
(3) EPA's Annual Performance
Report could be more focused
on environmental outcomes;
and (4) the role of enforcement
is not linked to the Clean Air
program.
EPA has made no
formal response to the
OIG report. OAR is
continuing to work on
demonstrating the link
between annual work
and long-term strategic
goals in various
documents. The work
under way to revise
the Agency's Strategic
Plan will provide the
key platform for
improving these
linkages.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
the Inspector General
2002-M-000013
April 23, 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/
ereading room/
AirEvalQ42302.pdf
Goal 1, Objective 4
Air Pollution: Emissions from
Older Electricity Generating
Units
In May 2001 the administration
issued National Energy Policy, a
report that cited needs forecast by
the Energy Information
Administration for additional power
plants over the next 20 years. In
September 2001 the Committee on
Environment and Public Works
asked GAO to provide information
on air emissions from future
electricity generation. This report
transmits information on emissions
in 2000 (the most current data
available at the time) from existing
units that burned fossil fuel.
In this report, GAO identified
(1) the proportions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
carbon dioxide emitted and
electricity generated by older
fossil-fuel units (as a group)
relative to newer units (as a
group) in 2000, as well as the
locations and type of fuel burned
by units responsible for the
majority of the emissions, and
(2) the proportions of older
fossil-fuel units that, in 2000,
emitted sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides at rates above
the new source standards
applicable to newer units, the
location of these additional
emissions, and the type of fuel
burned by these units. GAO
analyzed data on air emissions
and electricity generation from
units with a generating capacity
greater than 15 megawatts. GAO
obtained these data from Platts/
RDI, a private vendor that
integrates data on air emissions
from EPA •with data on electricity
generation and the age of
individual units from the Energy
Information Administration.
Although these data were the most
comprehensive available, they
might understate the total emis-
sions from fossil-fuel units because
some units are not required to
report their emissions to regulatory
agencies. The units that did not
report emissions, however,
generated less than 1 percent of
the electricity from older units in
2000. Of the 1,396 operating older
units, 1,157 (83 percent) reported
emissions data in 2000.
There is no planned
response.
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-709
June 12, 2002
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-5
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 2, Objective 1
Drinking Water: Key Aspects of
EPA's Revolving Fund Program
Needed to Be Strengthened
The purpose of the evaluation •was
to assess (1) the accuracy of EPA's
assessment of drinking •water
infrastructure needs; (2) EPA's
efforts to monitor states'
implementation of the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) program; and (3) the
extent to which states use the
optional disadvantaged assistance
provision in the DWSRF program.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
GAO reported that (1) users of
the needs assessment cannot
get a sense of the estimate's
accuracy because EPA did not
calculate the level of precision
achieved; (2) EPA is not taking
full advantage of oversight tools
because it has not yet finalized
and consistently applied
financial management and other
program measures to assist in
the annual review of state
performance; (3) untimely and
inconsistent preparation of
program evaluation report
reviews has hampered the
Agency's ability to identify
common or recurring problems;
and (4) gaps in the financial
audit coverage and a limited
review of the completed audits
undermine EPA's ability to fully
assess the financial conditions
of state DWSRF programs.
GAO also noted that states
•were making limited use of the
disadvantaged assistance
provisions under the DWSRF,
but made no recommendations
in this area.
First, EPA has gone to
great lengths to ensure
accuracy in the surveys
by requiring extensive
documentation for
reported needs and
costs, conducting site
visits to small systems,
and performing quality
assurance reviews of
the responses to the
survey questionnaire.
With respect to the
second and third
findings, EPA has
finalized financial
measures and is
developing program
measures to assist in
program oversight and
is also working with
its regional offices to
address review
shortcomings identi-
fied by GAO. Finally,
the Office of Water is
•working with the
Inspector General to
initiate DWSRF audit
coverage and improve
interoffice communica-
tion of results of
independent audit
quality reviews.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-135
January 24, 2002
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
A-6
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 2, Objectives 1, 2, and 3
A Review of Statewide Watershed
Management Approaches
EPA's Office of Water (OW)
conducted an evaluation of eight
states' experiences with different
models of the statewide watershed
management approach. The study
focused on the impact of the
•watershed approach on federal and
state program management and
coordination, public involvement,
and the implementation of six core
programs under the CWA and the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The evaluation approach consisted
of discussion sessions with managers
and staff in selected states, EPA
regions, and state •watershed
organizations.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The evaluation found that most
state managers •were positive
about their states' experience
with the •watershed approach
and identified specific benefits:
(1) an increase in the quality
and quantity of monitoring data,
(2) better-focused •water quality
assessments and planning,
(3) more efficient and equitable
permitting programs,
(4) improved coordination and
integration of state •water
program functions and goals,
and (5) greater public involve-
ment in state water quality
program decision making. State
water quality monitoring and
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting programs are most
involved and have received the
greatest benefits from a state-
wide watershed approach. States
identified several constraints,
however, to effective implemen-
tation of statewide watershed
approaches: (1) programmatic
requirements under the CWA
and SDWA can sometimes
conflict with states' efforts to
plan and implement core
programs on a basin or •water-
shed basis and (2) more EPA
involvement at the watershed
level •would enhance states'
•watershed efforts and provide
EPA with a better understanding
of local/basin issues.
EPA's OW plans to
integrate a number of
the study's recom-
mendations into its
current strategies and
planning documents.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
Water
April 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
owow/watershed/
approaches fr.pdf
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-7
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 2, Objective 2
2002 National Estuary Program
Implementation Review
The purpose of this evaluation was
to assess the progress made by 19
of 28 National Estuary Programs in
implementing their Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plans
developed under section 320 of the
CWA. The findings are used to
determine whether an estuary
program is eligible for continued
funding under CWA section 320.
The next implementation review
for these estuary programs will take
place in 2005.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The evaluation findings
identified one estuary program
that was required to respond to
substantial concerns raised by
EPA in order to be eligible for
continued funding under
section 320. The other 18 estu-
ary programs were found to be
making substantial progress
implementing their manage-
ment plans and therefore are
eligible for continued funding.
The review results are docu-
mented in letters to each of the
estuary programs and include
EPA's recognition of outstand-
ing achievements as well as
identification of challenges each
program faces in its continued
efforts to implement manage-
ment plans to protect and
restore its estuary.
Some challenges are
common to most, if
not all, of the estuary
programs. For ex-
ample, most estuary
programs are strug-
gling with developing
a user-friendly system
to track their progress
in implementing their
management plans.
Another common
challenge is finding
the financial resources
needed to implement
the numerous recom-
mended estuary
protection and
restoration action plans
contained in the
management plans. To
help the estuary
programs address
common challenges
such as these, EPA
provides training and
technical assistance.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
Various headquarters
and regional NEP
Coordinators
The 2002 National
Estuary Program
Implementation
Review results are
documented in letters
addressed to each of
the estuary programs.
Copies of the letters
are kept on file in the
Coastal Management
Branch (CMB) of EPA.
Contact:
202-566-1240
Goal 5 Objective 1
Information Technology—
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Data Quality Report
The objective of this audit was to
determine whether CERCLIS data
for active and archived sites were
accurate and reliable (timely,
complete, and consistent).
This audit evaluated the accuracy,
completeness, timeliness, and
consistency of the data entered
into CERCLIS. The weaknesses
identified were caused by the
lack of an effective quality
assurance process and adequate
internal controls over CERCLIS
data quality.
The report provided 11 recom-
mendations to improve controls
over CERCLIS data quality.
OSWER concurs with
the recommendations
contained in the audit.
Due to the extended
period of time since
the inception of this
audit, many of the
identified problems
have been corrected
or actions that would
address these recom-
mendations are under
•way.
U.S. EPA, Office of the
Inspector General
2002-P-00016
September 30, 2002
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/eroom.htm
Goal 5, Objective 1
Lessons Learned in the
Aftermath of September 11, 2001
Challenges Faced During the
Environmental Protection
Agency's Response to Anthrax
and Recommendations for
Enhancing Response Capabilities:
A Lessons Learned Report
The reports were commissioned so
EPA could examine the successes
and shortfalls of technical and
oversight activities following the
responses to September 11 and the
detection of anthrax contamination
across the United States and apply
that knowledge to future responses.
These reports conclude that
overall the Agency did an
excellent job responding to
these unprecedented acts of
terrorism and successfully
carried out its mission to
protect human health and the
environment.
Recommendations were
provided in the reports to help
improve the Agency's response
to similar situations in the
future.
The Agency has
taken numerous key
actions to respond to
the recommendations
in the reports. In
addition, many
recommendations
•were incorporated
into the Agency's
Strategic Plan for
Homeland Security,
•which •was released
October 2, 2002.
U.S. EPA, Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
September 11 Report:
February 2002
Anthrax Report:
September 2002
Contact:
Barbara Grimm-
Crawford
202-566-0177
Helen DuTeau
703-603-8761
A-8
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 5, Objective 1
RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting:
The First 20 Years—Outcomes
and Impacts of the Hazardous
Waste Delisting Program Under
the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
This evaluation describes the
rationale for conducting a program
evaluation, the results and outcomes
of the delisting program. This
evaluation was undertaken as part
of EPA's implementation of GPRA.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The delisting program distinctly
demonstrates a significant
economic impact: reductions in
deadweight loss to the economy
totaling over $100 million each
year. Continued efficiencies and
refinements in the delisting
petition review process should
only improve those results. The
environmental impacts are not
as clear, although EPA does not
have reason to suspect that
delisted •wastes are causing
environmental problems.
None currently
identified.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste
EPA-530-R-02-014
June 2002
http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/
id/delist/index. htm
Goal 5, Objective 1
Superfund Mega-Sites
The preliminary research was
directed toward answering the
following questions: (1) How does
achievement of the new GPRA
environmental indicators for
Superfund affect management of
mega-site cleanups? (2) What
resources are being spent and have
been spent? What criteria are used
in determining when and how
resources are to be spent? How
effectively are resources being
spent? (3) What management
practices have been used at
mega-sites? Which management
practices are best in efficiency,
effectiveness, and cost?
The evaluation focused on two
draft Superfund Environmental
Indicators (Els). Els are specific
measures of program perfor-
mance used to assess progress
toward cleaning up a hazardous
•waste site. This review •was the
initial component of the OIG's
program evaluation of
Superfund mega-sites. The draft
Els, Human Exposure Under
Control and Contaminated
Groundwater Migration Under
Control, are measures of
interim progress of Superfund
program goals for all Superfund
sites, including mega-sites. In
general, the IG found that the
indicators meet the needs of
the program but gave specific
implementation
recommendations.
Many of the
recommendations
•were being imple-
mented before the
evaluation was
complete, and several
more will be imple-
mented over time.
Most recommenda-
tions have been or
will be adopted or
incorporated into the
program in an
ongoing manner.
U.S. EPA, Office of the
Inspector General
2002-P-3
December 27, 2001
Contact:
202-566-2888
Goal 5, Objective 2
Underground Storage Tank
Operation and Maintenance: An
Assessment of Available Training
and Outreach
The purpose of the evaluation •was
to determine the greatest training
needs for underground storage tank
(UST) inspectors, owners, and
facility operators, and to recommend
approaches for meeting those
training needs.
The evaluation identified a
number of training needs,
including a need for facility-
specific training/guidance,
training that can reach people
throughout the country, and
practical field experience along
•with classroom training. The
report provided numerous
recommendations, with primary
emphasis on developing
computer-based training and
customized outreach/education
material.
Many of the
recommendations are
being implemented
or are being seriously
considered. EPA is
developing a state/
EPA •work group to
determine short-term
and long-term
training priorities.
This report •will serve
as a foundation for
the •work group's
discussions.
Industrial Economics,
Incorporated, and
Marasco Newton
Group, with assistance
from various EPA and
state inspectors and
program managers, as
•well as UST industry
contacts and trainers.
May 2002
Contact:
703-603-7141
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-9
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 5, Objective 2
Environmental Contamination—
Many Uncertainties Affect the
Progress of the Spring Valley
Cleanup
The purpose of this evaluation was
to obtain information about the roles
and responsibilities of the government
entities involved in addressing
Spring Valley, assess the progress of
environmental restoration, and
estimate the cost of cleanup.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The government entities
involved in the cleanup of
Spring Valley have formed an
active partnership to make
cleanup decisions. Continued
progress at the site •will depend
on this partnership.
The government entities have
identified and removed a large
number of hazards, but the
extent of remaining hazards is
unknown. The primary health
risks at Spring Valley are the
possibility of injury or death
from exploding or leaking
ordnance and containers of
chemical •warfare agents and
potential long-term health
problems from exposure to
arsenic-contaminated soil.
The U.S. Army estimated that
the remaining cleanup activities
at Spring Valley •would cost
$71.7 million and take 5 years
to complete, but the reliability
of these estimates is uncertain.
The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is the
lead agency at the
site, and it is respon-
sible for addressing
the recommendations.
EPA •will continue to
support the partner-
ship and •work
closely with the U.S.
Army Corps of
Engineers and the
District of Columbia.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-556
May 20, 2002
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
Goal 5, Objective 2
Chemical Safety: Emergency
Response Community Views on
the Adequacy of Federally
Required Chemical Information
The purpose of this GAO report
•was to satisfy a mandate under
Public Law 106-40 requiring GAO
to report to Congress on the
adequacy of chemical information
required to be submitted to local
emergency response personnel to
help them respond to chemical
incidents, the adequacy of delivery of
that information, and the level of
compliance with the requirement to
submit the information.
GAO found that local
responders in most of the
communities contacted believe
federal information required to
be reported under section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act and
Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act generally meets their
needs, but a few said that it
•was not adequate to help them
respond to chemical incidents;
representatives of national
organizations •were divided in
their opinions on the adequacy
of the information. Both local
responders and national
organization representatives
made suggestions that they
believe •would improve the
usefulness of the information.
Other than reporting recom-
mendations from survey
respondents, GAO did not
provide specific recommenda-
tions to EPA or Congress to
address any of its findings.
As noted, the report
generally finds that
EPA is succeeding in
its mission to provide
chemical hazard
information. The
report does not
contain specific GAO
recommendations for
Agency action. Some
recommendations
from members of the
public are contained
in the report, but
GAO does not
indicate which of
those recommenda-
tions are appropriate
for Agency action.
Nevertheless, EPA is
already acting on
some of those
recommendations to
the extent they are
consistent •with
Agency policies and
resources (e.g.,
electronic reporting
and availability of
chemical inventory
forms).
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-799
July 2002
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
A-10
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 6, Objective 1
Great Lakes: EPA Needs to Define
Organizational Responsibilities
Better for Effective Oversight and
Cleanup of Contaminated Areas
Determination of EPA progress
developing and implementing
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and
assessing effectiveness of EPA's RAP
efforts.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
All of the Great Lakes "Areas of
Concern" have defined their
environmental problems and half
have selected measures to
address the problems; however,
none have been fully restored.
EPA is not effectively fulfilling its
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement responsibilities to
ensure that RAPs are developed
and implemented and has not
clearly delineated RAP oversight
responsibility. Oversight was
transferred from the Great Lakes
National Program Office
(GLNPO) to regional offices, and
resources were reduced.
GAO recommends that the EPA
Administrator (1) clarify which
office •within EPA is responsible
for ensuring RAP implementation
and (2) identify actions, time
periods, and resources for EPA
to fulfill its RAP oversight
responsibilities.
On September 25, 2002,
EPA determined that
GLNPO would assume
overall program
management by
providing oversight,
coordination, and
reporting on RAP
implementation. EPA
proposes to identify
additional means of
enhancing RAP
progress, being
cognizant of existing
fiscal constraints,
Agency priorities and
requirements, and the
need to consult with
Great Lakes states.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-563
May 2002
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
Goal 6, Objective 1
The Challenge to Restore and
Protect the Largest Body of Fresh
Water in the World
Biennial assessment by the
International Joint Commission (IJC)
of progress of the governments of
the United States and Canada under
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA).
The United States and Canada
should continue to make progress
under the GLWQA, particularly
on (1) monitoring, assessing,
and reporting on the state of the
Great Lakes ecosystem;
(2) cleanup of contaminated
sediments; and (3) prevention
and control of alien aquatic
invasive species. The IJC report
also includes findings regarding
persistent, bioaccumulative toxic
(PBT) goals on discharge
reduction and elimination,
persistent air toxics transport and
deposition, groundwater protec-
tion, aging nuclear power plants,
and other major GLWQA issues
where EPA and Environment
Canada work cooperatively •with
the public and private sectors.
EPA's Great Lakes
National Program
Office •will draft a
formal U.S. Government
policy response to the
recommendations.
International Joint
Commission
September 2002
Located at:
http: //www. ijc.org/
iicweb-e.html
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-ll
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 6, Objective 1
2002 LakeWide Management
Plans (LaMP) Updates
Assessment of goals, progress to
date, and next steps in restoration
and protection of the Great Lakes.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
Progress has been made in the
past 2 years in areas such as
publication of fish advisories
and beach closures, decreased
toxics, and contaminated
sediment cleanup. Governmen-
tal partners on LaMP commit-
tees have identified and
prioritized "next steps" to
achieve long-term goals,
including addressing exotic
species, restoring natural flow
to tributaries, continuing to
address contaminated sedi-
ments, and addressing air toxics
from outside the basin.
EPA will work with
state and local
partners to identify
additional means of
enhancing LaMP
progress, being
cognizant of existing
fiscal constraints and
Agency priorities and
requirements.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
LaMP Committees
April 2002
Located at:
http://www. epa.gov/
glnpo/gl2000/lamps/
index.html
Goal 6, Objective 1
Mining Ideas 2
Evaluation of 106 GLNPO habitat
projects totaling more than
$17 million awarded 1992-2001.
The projects were to protect,
restore, inventory, assess,
classify, monitor, and study
more than 17 million acres of
the Great Lakes Basin. The
projects were supported by
650 federal, state, local, tribal,
non-governmental, and
academic partners. Thus, for
about a dollar an acre, more
than 6,400 acres were protected
from a variety of threats; the
process of restoring more than
7,300 acres was begun; more
than 900 people volunteered
more than 3,800 hours for
project activities; 1,250
schoolchildren and adults were
educated and informed about
Great Lakes ecosystems, and
62 full- and part-time jobs were
created.
Response •will be
developed in early
2003.
U.S. EPA, Great Lakes
National Program
Office, Ecosystem
Team
EPA-905-R-02-006
September 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
glnpo/
A-12
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 6, Objective 5
An Evaluation of EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Program in
Central America
This evaluation looks at the four
components of the Program that
•were implemented in three
countries—El Salvador, Nicaragua,
and Honduras.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The Program led to improvements
in four main areas of drinking
water quality improvement. For
instance, it (1) helped improve
drinking water laboratories
technically and managerially and
(2) effectively demonstrated and
taught the use of an analytical
tool necessary for the national
water utility to collect and
analyze information needed to
make sound decisions regarding
existing plant operations and
priorities for plant improve-
ments.
Example of recommendation
regarding specific Program
components: Additional support
should be provided to strengthen
the technical capacity of key
drinking water analytical
laboratories and assist these
laboratories in achieving
accreditation for analyses of
critical importance to public
health.
Example of lessons learned
regarding Program transferability:
Develop aid programs through
use of partnerships rather than
top-down approaches.
The implementation
of the recommenda-
tions related specifi-
cally to the Central
America Program •will
depend on available
funds and office
priorities and are to
be determined.
These lessons
learned are being
applied and •will be
applied to future
international water
programs.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
International Affairs,
•with consulting
support from
Industrial Economics,
Incorporated, Marasco
Newton Group, and
U.S. EPA, Office of
Policy, Economics,
and Innovation
December 2002
Contact:
Eric Marsh
202-566-2198
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-13
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 7, Objective 1
Regulatory Reform: Compliance
Guide Requirement Has Had
Little Effect on Agency Practices
The purpose of this study was to
examine the implementation of
section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) in selected agencies, one
of which was EPA.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The evaluation findings focused
on whether the agencies have
published small entity compli-
ance guides (SECGs) for each
covered rule published in
selected years and described
how the agencies developed
the guides and made them
available to small entities
affected by the rules, focusing
on rules published during years
1999 and 2000.
Although GAO found that "EPA
had the narrowest view of the
scope of the Regulatory Flexibil-
ity Act (RFA) and section 212,"
EPA provided GAO with SECGs
for "three rules that appeared to
have been prepared in recogni-
tion of the compliance guide
requirement and meticulously
described how to satisfy the
rules' provisions."
GAO found that "there needs to
be greater clarity and consis-
tency with regard to how key
terms in the RFA are defined
and implemented." They also
stated that "changes are needed
•with regard to the requirements
in section 212."
GAO's recommendations
•were directed at
Congress; EPA does
not need to respond.
EPA found the report
to be mostly favorable
to the Agency.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-172
December 2001
Located at:
http: //www. gao. gov
A-14
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 7, Objective 2
Evaluation of Laboratory Quality
Systems and Practices
The Quality Staff coordinated and
led technical reviews of EPA's
National Program Office and Office
of Research and Development
Laboratories. The purpose of the
assessments was to document
implementation of quality practices
supporting the data used by the
Agency to make programmatic
decisions and determine management
and staff awareness of the Agency's
position on improper laboratory
practices.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The technical reviews identified
(1) laboratory quality system and
performance •weaknesses that
produce inadequate-quality
analytical data, (2) inconsisten-
cies in practices used to promote
implementation, and perfor-
mance, and (3) lack of estab-
lished methods to detect and
deter misconduct in laboratories.
The findings identified
•weaknesses in the laboratory
quality systems. In corrective
action, a •work group consisting
of both EPA and non-EPA
members developed a training
course, Tools to Detect Improper
Laboratory Practices, to assist
laboratory assessors in evaluating
laboratory systems and practices.
The training course •was pre-
sented for the first time in
July 2002 at the National
Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference
(NELAC) annual conference, and
it •was repeated at the Region 6
Annual Quality Assurance
Conference and the joint New
York and Pennsylvania
Environmental Laboratory
Association Conference. A
measurable outcome of this
evaluation and training is
evidenced in the NELAC stan-
dards, which now require ethics
programs for all accredited
laboratories.
The Quality Staff
continues to work
with the environmen-
tal laboratory commu-
nity, including the
industry trade associa-
tion, and the American
Council of Independent
Laboratories to ensure
that laboratory
managers and staff
understand the
Agency's position on
laboratory Quality
Systems and their role
in deterring and
detecting improper
practices. The course
materials are to be
posted on the Quality
Web Site, and
additional training
sessions will be
conducted as needed.
This effort supports
the Goal 7 objective of
providing access to
tools for using environ-
mental information
and ensuring that the
environmental data
collected and used by
the Agency are of the
appropriate quality for
their intended use.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
Final reports on the
technical reviews
•were issued in July
2002. Corrective
actions resulting from
the evaluations •will
rest with each
laboratory's parent
organization.
Evaluations will be
summarized in a
capping report,
•which is expected by
December 2002.
Contact:
Nancy Wentworth
202-564-6830
Fred Siegelman
202-564-5173
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-15
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 7, Objective 3
Government Information
Security Reform Act (GISRA)
Annual Security Program
Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency FY 2002
Report to OMB on the
Government Information
Security Reform Act (GISRA)
The purpose of this evaluation was
to review the effectiveness of the
Agency's security program in
accordance with requirements
included in GISRA.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
This evaluation consists of two
separate but related efforts. The
first is an assessment conducted
by the Chief Information
Officer, in conjunction with
EPA's senior program officials,
of the Agency's 168 general
support systems and major
applications. Agency system
owners, using the Security Self-
Assessment for Information
Technology Systems methodol-
ogy developed by the National
Institute of Standards and
Technology, assessed the status
of security of the systems under
their control. Simultaneously,
the OIG conducted an indepen-
dent evaluation of the Agency's
overall security program. This
assessment confirmed that the
Agency has continued to
improve its security program
and highlighted where re-
sources should be focused in
FY 2003 to ensure continued
progress.
The Agency is
developing a compre-
hensive Agency
corrective action plan
in response to the
•weaknesses identified
in the self-assess-
ments. The Agency's
action plan will
consist of individual
plans of action with
milestones (POA&Ms)
prepared in accor-
dance with OMB
direction. The
POA&Ms will define
specific tasks, •when
the work •will begin,
when the task •will
end, and resource
needs.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
Environmental
Information and Office
of the Inspector
General
2002-S-00017
September 16, 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
oigearth/
ereading room/
gisrafinalv2. pdf
Goal 8, Objective 7
Project XL 2001 Comprehensive
Report: Directory of Project
Experiments and Results
Summarizes objectives and results
for 51 innovative pilot projects.
Each project has made progress
in meeting the commitments
outlined in the formal Final
Project Agreements. However,
each project faces unique issues
and challenges in achieving the
innovations. The results are
based on data collected
between August and November
2001.
The Agency continues
to monitor and
address issues with
the individual
projects as appropri-
ate. The Agency
continues to seek
opportunities for
successful innova-
tions and lessons
learned to be applied
to broader system
change.
U.S. EPA, Office of
Policy, Economics
and Innovation
EPA-100-R-01-003
December 2001
Located at:
http://www. epa.gov/
proiectxl/
Olreport.htm
A-16
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 8, Objective 7
Project in Excellence and
Leadership: New England
Universities' Laboratories
Mid-Term Evaluation: Piloting
Superior Environmental
Performance in Labs
Garners lessons learned from the
unique approach to laboratory
management being tested and
highlights opportunities to improve
the overall environmental
performance of the universities for
the remainder of the project period.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
It was clear that a heavy
investment of time and resources
had resulted in progress. At the
same time, there was some
frustration at the lack of
movement in distinct areas of
the universities' Environmental
Management Plans that would
lead to improved environmental
performance.
The primary lesson learned is
that universities' environmental
health and safety staff, EPA, and
the states need to work within
the challenges of an academic
culture while also capitalizing
on the benefits of an academic
culture. It is evident that it is
extremely challenging to
achieve the stated pollution
prevention goals within the
culture of research, with its
demands for chemical purity
and scientifically acceptable
protocols.
The Agency is
•working with the
states and universities
to address the
challenges faced in
implementing this
innovation pilot.
Also, the Agency is
reviewing the results
of this evaluation to
assess how the
lessons learned in
this pilot should be
incorporated into a
proposed rulemaking
being planned for
FY 2003 under the
RCRA.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
Policy, Economics,
and Innovation and
EPA-New England
September 2002
Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/
evaluate
Goal 8, Objective 7
Evaluation of the Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model
An evaluation of the Environmental
Justice Collaborative Model currently
being used in demonstration
projects sponsored by the
Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice.
The Model provides an
important vehicle for the many
institutions that are seeking to
provide community assistance
but lack effective mechanisms
for doing so. Recognizing a
community's vision for redevel-
opment can enable service
providers to tailor their
programs and services to better
suit community needs and save
resources. Several of these
partnerships have faced and
continue to face challenges in
using the Model. Cooperation
and coordination in support of
partnership efforts within and
among federal agencies could
be enhanced. Much of the
success of these efforts can be
attributed to community,
regional non-governmental
organization, or government-
level individuals, •who pulled
together diverse groups.
The Federal Interagency
Working Group on
Environmental Justice
and the Office of
Environmental Justice
have used the results
described in the draft
report to make some
midcourse changes to
the criteria and
guidelines, which will
be used to review the
nomination proposals
for the Interagency
Working Group's
Environmental Justice
Revitalization Projects
in FY 2003.
Prepared for the
Federal Interagency
Working Group on
Environmental Justice
by U.S. EPA, Office of
Policy, Economics,
and Innovation
September 2002
(Draft for Public
Comment)
Located at:
http://www. epa.gov/
evaluate/DRAFT-
ETCM-Eval-
Rpt090402.pdf
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-17
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 8, Objective 7
Democracy On-Line: An
Evaluation of the National
Dialogue on Public Involvement
in EPA Decisions
Resources for the Future evaluates
the Dialogue as a case study of
electronic public participation. It
examines the dynamics of the
participation process and how
participants felt about it. It describes
the quality of communication when
public participation moves from the
meeting room to the computer
screen. Finally, it looks at how
participants and EPA benefitted from
the process.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The evaluation found that the
online public participation, the
Dialogue, was highly success-
ful. The Dialogue turned a
static commenting process into
an interactive and dynamic
discussion. It involved vastly
more (and different) people
than had previously provided
input in the Public Involvement
Policy. Unlike any other form
of public participation, it
allowed people to participate as
much or as little as they •wanted
to without any sort of selection
process or agency control.
Many of the problems that
arose during the Dialogue can
largely be addressed through
future changes in design,
software, and norms of partici-
pation. Others may be ad-
dressed through societal trends
in computer ownership, use,
and familiarity.
EPA agrees with
Resources for the
Future that like any
new format for
participation, online
dialogues need to
evolve through an
iterative process of
experimentation and
learning. The Agency
•will seek additional
opportunities to use
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
the approach as
appropriate.
Resources for the
Future
January 2002
Located at:
http: //www. rff. ore/
reports/PDF files/
democracvonline. pdf
Goal 8, Objective 7
Reinventing Environmental
Regulation: Lessons from
Project XL
Resources for the Future's
publication assesses the difficult
negotiations needed to implement
Project XL at a 3M tape
manufacturing plant.
The book discusses the
conflicting goals of participants,
the influences of personality
and organizational culture, and
complications caused by
changes in 3M's external
business environment. The 3M
case is compared with EPA
negotiations with Intel, Merck,
and Weyerhaeuser. Stressing the
need for continued innovation,
it suggests more successful
outcomes through clearer
definitions and expectations,
better communication, and a
negotiation process that keeps
pace with changes in the world
beyond.
The Agency continues
to assess lessons
learned about
developing successful
innovation projects.
The Agency contin-
ues to seek opportu-
nities for successful
innovations and ways
to apply lessons
learned to broader
system change.
Resources for the
Future
August 2002
Located at:
http: //www. rf f. ore/
A-18
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 8, Objective 7
Environmental Protection:
Overcoming Obstacles to
Innovative State Regulatory
Programs
GAO identifies the major avenues
that states have used to obtain
EPA's approval of innovative
approaches to environmental
protection and the major obstacles
that impede states from pursuing
innovative approaches needing
EPA's concurrence. The report also
discusses EPA's recent efforts to
facilitate innovative approaches to
environmental protection.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
Officials in most of the states
contacted stated that they faced
significant challenges before
they were in a position to
submit proposals to EPA,
including resistance from within
the state environmental agency
and a lack of adequate re-
sources to pursue innovative
approaches. But although
obstacles at the state level
played an important role,
environmental officials from
12 of the 15 states said that
federal obstacles—including the
need to comply with detailed
EPA regulations, policies, and
guidance, as •well as a per-
ceived cultural resistance to
change among EPA staff—were
more significant.
EPA has recognized
the need to improve
its strategy to encour-
age innovative
environmental ap-
proaches by states and
other entities. Toward
this end, the Agency
has (1) issued a broad-
based strategy on
Innovating for Better
Environmental Results
and (2) adopted the
recommendations of
an internal Task Force
on Improving EPA
Regulations, •which,
among other things,
advocates the consid-
eration of innovative
alternatives as new
regulations are
developed.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
General Accounting
Office
GAO-02-268
January 2002
Located at:
http://www. gao. gov
Goal 10, Objective 2
Managing for Improved Results
A steering group of EPA senior
managers was convened to examine
the Agency's current management
practices—how EPA sets its priorities;
plans and budgets; tracks, measures,
and reports on its performance; and
uses performance and other
information to adjust its strategies—
•with an eye toward improvement.
The Steering Group recommended
that the Agency:
•Develop simplified strategic
goals, focused on end results.
• Collaborate with states on
developing out-year perfor-
mance targets and multiyear
strategies for achieving them.
• Commit to regional and goal-
specific strategic plans.
•Build regional/state priorities
into annual plan and budget
before submission to OMB and
Congress.
•Accelerate improvements to
performance measures.
•Streamline the process for
annual program guidance/
Memorandums of Agreement
(MOAs).
• Shift approach to accountability.
•Ramp-up support to national
programs, regions, and states to
build capacity for results-based
management.
The Agency will begin
implementation in
FY 2003.
U.S. EPA, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Fall 2002
Contact:
Wendy Lubbe
202-564-3827
www. epa.gov/ocfo
A-19
-------
EPA GOAL AND OBJECTIVE(S)
COVERED BY EVALUATION, TITLE
AND SCOPE
Goal 10, Objective 2
EPA Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds
The purpose of this evaluation •was
to review the processes and controls
over State Revolving Fund
disbursements and determine
whether any erroneous payments
had occurred.
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PLANNED RESPONSE
The evaluation found controls
to be effective and that based
on audits and performance
evaluation reviews, only
isolated instances of erroneous
payments have occurred in the
two State Revolving Funds. For
the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, the erroneous payment
rate •was 0.13 percent; for the
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund, the rate •was 0.04 percent.
Actions to correct these
erroneous payments have been
completed or are under way.
Recommendations are
aimed toward
ensuring that errone-
ous payments are
properly monitored
and the erroneous
payment rate remains
low. Once the report
is finalized, the Office
of Water and the
Office of the Chief
Financial Officer will
begin implementation.
AUTHOR, REPORT
NUMBER, ISSUE DATE
AND WHERE TO
OBTAIN A COPY
U.S. EPA, Office of
the Chief Financial
Officer
Fall 2002
Contact:
Bob Cluck
202-564-4917
Goal 10, Objective 2
Management Oversight/
Validations Reviews
In FY 2001 EPA designated an
Agency •weakness entitled
"Improved Management of
Assistance Agreements," and in
response the Office of Grants and
Debarment (OGD) conducted
validation reviews.
The evaluation reviews showed
that headquarters and regional
offices had made progress in
improving grants management;
however, the reviews found
that although post-award
monitoring is occurring, project
officers need to do a better job
of documenting monitoring in
the project file and proactively
identifying potential perfor-
mance issues. The reviews also
found that some offices had not
submitted their post-award
monitoring plans on time.
The OGD plans to
continue and expand
the Management
Oversight/Validation
Reviews in FY 2003.
OGD is using the
results of the FY 2002
reviews to develop a
long-term strategic
plan for grants
management. The
strategic plan •will
focus on enhancing
the skills of the grants
•workforce; promoting
grant competition;
participating in
e-government initia-
tives and making
effective use of
information technol-
ogy; improving
resource management,
accountability, and
oversight; providing
technical assistance
and training to
nonprofit and tribal
recipients; developing
grant •work plans that
address environmental
results; and strength-
ening the Agency's
internal evaluation
systems for grants
management.
U.S. EPA, Office
of Administration
and Resources
Management
Martha Monell
202-564-5387
A-20
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Data Quality for Assessments
of FY 2002 Performance
-------
APPENDIX B:
DATA QUALITY FOR ASSESSMENTS OF
FY 2002 PERFORMANCE
Appendix B describes the quality of the data used to measure EPA's performance. For each of the 10 EPA
Strategic Goals, this appendix describes (1) the performance measures (PMs), (2) the database(s)
supporting the PMs, (3) the source of the database(s), (4) the quality of the data, (5) planned
improvements to the data or database(s), and (6) any material inadequacies.
Goal 1: Clean Air
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart pages II-9-IM1)
• Total number of people who live in areas designated in attainment of the clean air standards for
ozone, PM, CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb. (APG 1 & 4)
• Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated attainment of the ozone,
PM, CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb standards. (APG 1 & 2)
• Total number of people living in areas with demonstrated attainment of the NO2 standard. (APG 4)
[Note: PM = particulate matter, PM-10 = particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter,
PM-2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter CO = carbon monoxide,
SO2 = sulfur dioxide, NO2 = nitrogen dioxide, Pb = lead.]
Performance Database: The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS). AQS stores ambient air quality data used
to evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The Findings and Required Elements Data System (FREDS). FREDS is used to track the
progress of states and regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state will take to
improve the air quality in areas that do not meet NAAQS.1 FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: AQS - State and local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).
Population - Data from Census Bureau/Department of Commerce. FREDS - Data are provided by
EPA's regional offices.
Data Quality: AQS - The quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) of the national air monitoring
program has several major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and
equivalent methods program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits,
and network reviews. To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following:
(1) each site must meet network design and siting criteria; (2) each site must provide adequate QA
assessment, control, and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements;
(3) all sampling methods and equipment must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements;
(4) acceptable data validation and record-keeping procedures must be followed; and (5) data from
SLAMS must be summarized and reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that
regularly review the overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or
corrections. FREDS - No formal QA/QC procedures. Populations - No additional QA/QC beyond
that done by the Census Bureau/Department of Commerce. The data included in AQS are based
on EPA performance specifications. EPA has stringent QA/QC procedures in place that minimize
data limitations. Populations - No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census Bureau/
Department of Commerce. FREDS - Potential data limitations include incomplete or missing data
from EPA's regional offices.
Improvements: AQS - EPA recently completed the process of reengineering the AQS to make it a
more user-friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data will be more easily accessible
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-l
-------
Goal 1: Clean Air (continued)
via the Internet. AQS has been enhanced to include data standards (e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical
nomenclature) developed under the Agency's Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) Initiative.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart pages II-9-IM1)
• Reduction in mobile source PM-10. (APG 2)
• Reduction in mobile source PM-2.5. (APG 2)
• Reduction in mobile source volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. (APG 1)
• Reduction in mobile source NOx emissions. (APG 1)
• CO reduced from mobile sources. (APG 4)
Performance Database: The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS). AQS stores ambient air quality data (used
to evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS).2 FY 2002 performance data are
complete for FY 2002.
Data Source: AQS - State and local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS). Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only
if there is a rationale and a readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway Administration types),
temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of inspection/maintenance programs are updated
each year. The age mix of highway vehicles is updated using state registration data, thereby
capturing the effect of fleet turnover. Emission factors for all mobile sources and activity estimates
for nonroad sources are changed only when the Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests
that this be done and is able to provide the new information in a timely manner. This new
information includes new models such as MOBILE6 and the latest version of the nonroad model.
Data Quality: AQS - The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major
components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, the reference and equivalent methods
program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network reviews.
To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: (1) each site must meet
network design and siting criteria; (2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment, control,
and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements; (3) all sampling
methods and equipment must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; (4) acceptable data
validation and record-keeping procedures must be followed; and (5) data from SLAMS must be
summarized and reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the
overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or corrections.
Any limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come from limitations in the
modeled emission factors (based on emission factor testing and models predicting overall fleet
emission factors in grams per mile) and also in the estimated vehicle miles traveled for each
vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation data). For nonroad emissions, the
estimates come from a model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of
work, and an estimate of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for more than 200 types
of nonroad equipment. Any limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations in the
emission inventory estimates.
It is important to have the current and future year emission reduction estimates generated using
consistent methods. The EPA Emission Trends report dated December 1997 has mobile source
emission inventories for the 1995 base year as well as for years 2000, 2002, 2005, and 2007. The
B-2 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 1: Clean Air (continued)
base year emissions in 1995 for mobile sources are 8,134,000 tons VOC; 70,947 tons CO;
11,998 tons NOx; 878,000 tons PM-10; and 659,000 tons PM. These data were used to predict the
emission reductions in the year 2000 and later.
Improvements: AQS - EPA recently completed the process of reengineering the AQS to make it a
more user-friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data will be more easily accessible
via the Internet. AQS has been enhanced to include data standards (e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical
nomenclature) developed under the Agency's Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) Initiative.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-11)
Combined stationary and mobile source reduction in air toxics emissions. (APG 5)
Performance Database: National Toxics Inventory (NTI).
Data Source: The NTI includes emission estimates from large industrial or point sources, smaller
stationary area sources, and mobile sources. The baseline NTI (for base years 1990-1993) includes
emission estimates for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary source
categories and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected during the development of
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state and local data, Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted emission inventory methodologies.
Additional information on the development of the baseline NTI is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. The baseline NTI contains county level
emissions data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain facility-specific data.
The 1996 and the 1999 NTI contain major point sources, area sources, and mobile source estimates
that are used as input to National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) modeling. The 1996 and 1999 NTI
contain estimates of facility-specific hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions and their source-
specific parameters necessary for modeling such as location and facility characteristics (stack height,
exit velocity, temperature, etc.).
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 NTI is state and local air pollution control agencies
and tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and quality. EPA evaluates these data and
supplements them with data gathered while developing MACT and residual risk standards, industry
data, and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. Then EPA estimates emissions for approximately 30
area source categories such as wildfires and residential heating sources not included in the state,
local, and tribal data to produce a complete model-ready national inventory. Mobile source data are
developed using data provided by state and local agencies and tribes and onroad and nonroad models
developed by EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. The draft 1996 and 1999 NTI undergo
extensive review by state and local agencies, tribes, industry, EPA, and the public.3
In the intervening years between updates of the NTI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling
System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate annual emissions of air toxics. EMS-HAP is
an emissions processor that performs the steps needed to process an emission inventory for input
into the model. These steps include spatial allocation of area and mobile source emissions from
the county level to the census tract level, and temporal allocation of annual emission rates to annually
averaged (i.e., same rate for every day of the year) 3-hour emission rates. In addition, EMS-HAP, a
model processor, can project future emissions by adjusting point, nonpoint, and mobile emission data
to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios.4
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-3
-------
Goal 1: Clean Air (continued)
Data Quality: The NTI is a database designed to house information from other primary sources. EPA
performs extensive QA/QC activities to improve the quality of the emission inventory. EPA conducts
a variety of internal activities to QC the 1999 NTI data provided by other organizations, including
(1) the use of an automated format QC tool to identify potential errors with data integrity, code
values, and range checks; (2) use of geographic information system (GIS) tools to verify facility
locations; and (3) content analysis by pollutant, source category, and facility to identify potential
problems with emission estimates such as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage of a
source category, etc. The content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical analyses.
The comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and pollutants to review
in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior inventories. The statistical
analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by providing the minimum, maximum, average,
standard deviation, and selected percentile values based on current data. EPA is currently developing
an automated QC content tool for data providers to use prior to submitting their data to EPA. After
investigating errors identified using the automated QC format tool and GIS tools, EPA follows specific
guidance, available on the Internet Chttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmemo final.pdf).
on augmenting missing data fields. The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has
been augmented and identifies the augmentation method.
After performing the content analysis, EPA contacts data providers to reconcile potential errors. The
draft NTI is posted for external review and includes a README file with instructions on review of
data and submission of revisions, documentation, state-by-state modeling files with all modeled data
fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data. One of the summary files includes a
comparison of point source data submitted by different organizations.
During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, tribes, and industry provide external
QA of the inventory. EPA evaluates proposed revisions from external reviewers and prepares memos
for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of revisions and explanations if revisions were not
incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the database with the source of original data and sources of
subsequent revision. The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory result in significant changes to
the initial emissions estimates. Additional information on QA/QC of the NTI is documented in a paper
titled QA/QC—An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs
(Anne Pope et al.). Presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta; available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eill/qa/pope.pdf.
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the draft 1996 national-scale assessment, NATA, during
2001. It was published in 2002. The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose,
methods, and presentation; the committee considers this an important step toward a better
understanding of air toxics. Many of the SAB comments related to possible improvements for future
assessments (additional national-scale assessments are being planned for the base year 1999 and for
every 3 years thereafter) or raised technical issues that merit further investigation. In response to the
technical issues, EPA plans to improve the modeling methodology and conduct additional analyses
and studies per SAB recommendation. Also, as a result of the SAB meeting, industry provided
revisions to the draft 1996 NTI, which were incorporated in the final inventory used for NATA
modeling. EPA will follow up on all the issues raised by SAB and plans to publish a series of
technical reports addressing the results of these investigations. Information on the scientific peer
review of the national-scale assessment is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa. eov/ttn/atw/nata/peer. html.
B-4 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 1: Clean Air (continued)
Improvements: The 1996 and 1999 NTI are a significant improvement over the baseline 1993 NTI
because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it
more useful for dispersion model input. Future inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to
improve significantly because of increased interest in the NTI by regulatory agencies, environmental
interests, and industry, and the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the
development of the 1999 NTI, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit
their data and revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange
(CDX). Information on CDX is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-12)
• SO2 emissions reduction. (APG 6)
• NOx emissions reduction. (APG 7)
Performance Database: The following are the databases used to support the performance measures
in the Acid Rain Program: Emissions Tracking System (ETS), SO2 and NOX emissions collected by
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (GEMS), CASTNet for dry deposition, and National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) for wet deposition. Data are collected on a calendar year
basis. FY 2002 data will be available in mid-2003 and will be reported in the FY 2003 Annual Report.
Data Source: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of SO2, NOx,
volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters from more than 2,500 fossil fuel-fired
utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain Program. For the 5-month ozone season (May 1—
September 30), ETS receives and processes hourly NOx measurements from electric generation
units (EGUs) and certain large industrial combustion units affected under the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) NOx Budget Program, the NOx SIP Call, and/or the section 126 programs for
controlling regional transport of ozone in the eastern United States. In 2004 the initial compliance
year for the NOx SIP Call, up to 2,000 units in as many as 20 states and the District of Columbia
will report seasonal NO data to ETS. More than 900 units have been reporting these data since
1999 under the OTC NO*x Budget Program.
CASTNet measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically, CASTNet measures
sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at approximately 70 active
monitoring sites. CASTNet is primarily an eastern, long-term dry deposition network funded,
operated, and maintained by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR).
The NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation chemistry
and provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and deposition of major
cations and anions. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of sulfate and nitrate wet
deposition at approximately 200 active monitoring sites. EPA, along with several other federal
agencies, states, and other private organizations, provides funding and support for NADP. The
Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois, maintains the NADP database.
Data Quality: Quality assurance and quality control requirements dictate performing a series of
quality assurance tests of CEMS's performance. For these tests, emissions data are collected under
highly structured, carefully designed testing conditions, which involve either high-quality standard
reference materials or multiple instruments performing simultaneous emission measurements. The
resulting data are screened and analyzed using a battery of statistical procedures, including one that
tests for systematic bias. If GEMS fails the bias test, indicating a potential for systematic underestimation
www.epa.gov/ocfo B-5
-------
Goal 1: Clean Air (continued)
of emissions, either the problem must be identified and corrected or the data are adjusted to minimize
the bias.
In November 2001 CASTNet established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).5 The QAPP
contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy and precision.
NADP has established data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy,
precision, and representativeness. The intended use of these data is to establish spatial and
temporal trends in wet deposition and precipitation chemistry. The NADP methods of determining
wet deposition values have undergone extensive peer review, handled entirely by the NADP
housed at the Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP
methods are developed primarily through the academic community and reviewed through the
technical literature process.
The ETS provides instant feedback to the data sources (e.g., the electrical utilities) to identify data
reporting problems, format errors, and inconsistencies. EPA staff then conduct data quality review
on each quarterly ETS file. In addition, states or EPA staff conduct random audits on selected
sources' data submission. The electronic data file QA checks are described in EPA's Quarterly
Report Review Process.6
Improvements: To improve the spatial resolution of the Network (CASTNet), additional
monitoring sites are needed. However, at this time EPA has no plans to add sites.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-10)
Report on the effects of concentrated ambient PM on humans and animals believed most susceptible
to adverse effects (e.g., elderly, people with lung disease, or animal models of such diseases).
(APG3)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-10)
Report on animal and clinical toxicology studies using Utah Valley particulate matter (UVPM) to
describe biological mechanisms that may underlie the reported epidemiological effects of UVPM.
(APG3)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-23)
Provide method(s) for CCL related pathogens in drinking water for use in the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule. (APG 11)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
B-6 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-22)
Percent of population served by community drinking water systems with no violations during the year
of any federally enforceable health-based standards that were in place by 1994 and population
served by community water systems providing drinking water meeting health-based standards
promulgated in or after 1998. (APG 8 & 9)
Performance Database: Safe Drinking Water Information System-Federal Version (SDWIS or SDWIS-
FED).
Data Source: Agencies with primacy for the Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program,
including states, EPA regional offices with direct implementation (DI) responsibility for states and
Indian tribes, and the Navajo Nation Indian Tribe (the Navajo Nation is expected to begin reporting
directly to EPA in FY 2003). Primacy agencies (states) collect the data from the regulated water
systems, determine compliance, and report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily inventory and
violations). EPA is the secondary user of these data. Water quality data from other collectors of data
(third parties) related to drinking water, such as source water or waste water discharge, are not used
in PWSS program measures. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Quality: The analytical methods for drinking water sample analysis are specified in technical
guidance associated with each drinking water regulation. Laboratories must be certified by the
primacy agency (state) to analyze drinking water samples and are subject to periodic performance
audits by the state. The performance measures are based on data reported by individual systems to
states, which supply the information to EPA through SDWIS. EPA then verifies and validates the data
for 10 to 12 states per year, according to the PWSS Data Verification Protocol (Version 9.0, 1999).7 To
measure program performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS data into a national statistic on overall
compliance with health-based drinking water standards. This statistic compares the total population
served by community water systems meeting all health-based standards to the total population served
by all public water systems (which includes non-community water systems).
SDWIS-FED has numerous edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data. There are
quality assurance manuals for states and regions to follow to ensure data quality. The manuals
provide standard operating procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the
data, communication and follow-up actions to be conducted with the state to achieve timely
corrective action(s). EPA offers training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data
retrieval, and error correction. User and system documentation is produced with each software
release and is maintained on EPA's Web site. SDWIS-FED documentation includes data entry
instructions, data element dictionary application, Entity Relationship Diagrams, a user's manual,
and regulation-specific reporting requirements documents. System, user, and reporting
requirements documents can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater.
System and user documents are accessed via the database link, and specific rule reporting
requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy documents link. In
addition, EPA provides specific error correction and reconciliation support through a troubleshooter's
guide, a system-generated summary with detailed reports that document the results of each data
submission, and an error code database for states to use when they have questions on how to enter or
correct data. A user support hotline is available 5 days a week to answer questions and provide
technical assistance. At least one EPA staff person in each EPA regional office serves as the SDWIS-
FED Regional Data Management Coordinator to provide technical assistance and training to the states
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-7
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
on all aspects of information management and required reporting to EPA. State primacy agencies'
information systems are audited on an average schedule of once every 3 years. EPA also completed a
data reliability assessment (QA audit) of the 1996-1998 SDWIS-FED data in FY 2000. The Data
Reliability Action Plan (DRAP, described below),8 completed in FY 2000, was developed to address
deficiencies identified in the 1999 data reliability assessment. The action plan was implemented in
2001 and continues to be implemented and revised as appropriate. The most recent revision was
made in October 2002.
EPA, states, and stakeholders have expanded on the DRAP through the development of a more
comprehensive OGWDW Information Strategy that tackles additional data quality problems.9
Components of the OGWDW Information Strategy include (1) simplifying and/or standardizing
regulatory reporting requirements where possible; (2) reevaluating EPA's philosophy of system edits;
and (3) continuing to improve tools and processes for creating and transferring data to EPA, such as
incorporating newer technologies, and adapting the Agency's Enterprise Architecture Plan, to
integrate data and the flow of data from reporting entities to EPA via a central data exchange (CDX)
environment. The Information Strategy could be considered Phase II of the DRAP, and it sets the
direction for a comprehensive modernization of SDWIS over the next 3 to 5 years.
Finally, individual data quality reviews are conducted by EPA and its contracted auditors on state
primacy agencies' information systems. The frequency of these audits are conducted between every
2 to 4 years depending on the resources available and programmatic need in the region. Each state's
overall information system is evaluated with special emphasis on its compliance determinations
(interpretation and application of regulatory requirements, which includes designation of
violations) and data flow (primacy agency's compliance with record-keeping and reporting
requirements to EPA). Continuous data quality reviews include data quality estimates based on the
results of data verifications, timeliness and completeness of violation reporting, completeness of
various required inventory data elements, and completeness of reporting for specific rules.
Currently SDWIS-FED is an "exceptions" database that focuses exclusively on public water systems'
noncompliance with drinking water regulations (health-based and program). Primacy states implement
drinking water regulations with the support of the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant
program and determine whether public water systems have violated maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs), treatment technique requirements, consumer notification requirements, or monitoring and
reporting requirements. Primacy agencies report those violations through SDWIS.
Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses indicate the most significant data
quality problem is under-reporting to EPA of monitoring and health-based standards violations and
inventory characteristics, such as water sources and/or latitude/longitude for all sources. The most
significant under-reporting occurs in monitoring violations. Even though these are not covered in the
performance measure, failures to monitor could mask treatment technique and MCL violations. Such
under-reporting of violations limits EPA's ability to precisely quantify the population served that are
meeting health based standards. Currently, the program office is assessing the percentage of
unreported health based violations and calculating adjustments to the performance data that might be
required for future annual reports. The population data has been determined to be of high quality.
The DRAP and the Information Strategy Plan address many of the underlying factors contributing to
the data limitations. Additional options under consideration include the following:
1. Increase the focus on state compliance determinations and reporting of complete, accurate, and
timely violations data.
2. Develop incentives to improve the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of state reporting.
B-8 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
3. Continue to analyze the quality of the data.
4. Require the reporting of parametric data (analytical results used to evaluate compliance with
monitoring regulations and compliance with treatment techniques and maximum contaminant
levels), monitoring schedules, and waiver information assigned to water systems by the state
primacy agency. This information would allow compliance determinations to be made by EPA
for quality assurance or state oversight purposes. Potential violation under reporting could be
identified through the availability of this information and appropriate corrective actions
implemented.
Improvements: With a newly developed information strategy developed by EPA in partnership
with the states and major stakeholders, several improvements to SDWIS are under way. The DRAP
is an integral part of the OGWDW Strategic Information Plan, currently under development.
First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP (previously referenced), a
multi-step approach to improve the quality and reliability of data in SDWIS-FED. The DRAP already
has improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in SDWIS-FED
through (1) training courses for SDWIS-FED data entry, error correction, and regulation-specific
compliance determination and reporting requirements; (2) specific DRAP analyses, follow-up
activities, and state-specific technical assistance; (3) increased number of data verifications
conducted each year; and (4) creation of various quality assurance reports to assist regions and
states in the identification and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or conflicting data.
Second, more states will use SDWIS-STATE,10 a software information system jointly designed by states
and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water program. SDWIS-STATE is the
counterpart to EPA's federal drinking water information system, SDWIS-FED, and employs many of the
same edit criteria and enforces many of the mandatory data elements. If the SDWIS-STATE system
is fully utilized by a state, the information it holds would meet EPA's minimum data requirements.
SDWIS-STATE contains a utility that creates the necessary output to report to SDWIS-FED, which aids
in easing the states' reporting burden to EPA and in the process minimizes data conversion errors and
improves data quality and accuracy. In addition, a Web-enabled version of SDWIS-STATE and a data
migration application that can be used by all states to process data for upload to SDWIS-FED are being
developed. EPA estimates that 40 states will be using SDWIS-STATE for data collections by FY 2004.
Third, EPA is modifying SDWIS-FED to (1) streamline its table structure, which simplifies updates
and retrievals, (2) minimize data entry options that result in complex software and prevent
meaningful edit criteria, and (3) enforce compliance with permitted values and Agency data
standards through software edits, all of which will improve the accuracy of the data.
Fourth, EPA has developed a data warehouse system that is optimized for analysis, data retrieval,
and data integration from other data sources like information from data verifications, sample data,
source water quality data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] data), and indicators from
inspections conducted at the water systems. It will improve the program's ability to use
information to make decisions and effectively manage the program.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules on other drinking
water programs: the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control Program,
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be integrated with SDWIS to
provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the Nation's drinking water supplies, a
key component of the goal.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-9
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-25)
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) projects that have initiated operations. (APG 17)
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management System
(NIMS).11 FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Data are reported to EPA headquarters by state regulatory agency personnel and EPA's
regional staff. Data are collected and reported once yearly. State data are maintained in NIMS using a
standard Excel spreadsheet format.
Data Quality: States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual
memoranda. After the states enter data, EPA headquarters and its contractor compile the data. EPA
headquarters and its regional office staff query the states as needed to ensure data quality and
conformance with expected trends. Quality control measures verify that data are complete, data
collected are consistent with data stored in NIMS, and data in NIMS are unique. The process of
validating the data takes several weeks.
After discrepancies have been resolved and the data are determined to be complete, EPA headquarters
prepares a detailed analysis, which the regional offices use during their yearly on-site reviews of each
state program. In addition, independent auditors or the EPA Inspector General's office conduct their
own annual audits, at which time they evaluate each state's financial data quality. Finally, every other
year, headquarters staff visit each regional office to examine files and to check data quality procedures.
There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit voluntarily. Erroneous
data can be introduced into the NIMS database by typographic or definitional error. Typographic
errors are controlled or corrected through data testing performed by EPA and its contractor.
Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have
been virtually eliminated in the past 2 years through EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions.12
It takes several weeks to quality-check the data and make them available for public use.
Improvements: This system has been operative since 1996. It is updated annually, and data fields
are changed or added as needed. The federal budget cycle demands that EPA set program
performance targets 2 years in advance. The NIMS has effectively shown the success of the CWSRF
program. The NIMS shows that the number of projects being financed and built has exceeded the
Agency's targets by an average of 12 percent per year.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-24)
Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide since 1987 as part of the National Estuary Program
(NEP). (APG 14)
Performance Database: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, are displayed numerically, graphically, and by
habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT).13 PIVOT
highlights habitat loss, alteration, protection, and restoration in an educational fashion with graphics
and images that reflect specific NEP reports. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: NEP program documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements made
in the previous year) and annual progress reports are used, along with other implementation tracking
materials, to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. EPA then aggregates
B-10 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
the data for each NEP to arrive at a national total for the entire program. EPA conducts regular
reviews of NEP implementation to help ensure that information provided in these documents is as
accurate as possible and that progress reported is in fact being achieved.
Data Quality: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their own reports and from
data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are responsible for implementing the
action resulting in habitat protection and restoration). The NEP staff are required to follow guidance
provided by EPA to prepare their reports and to verify the numbers they provided. EPA then confirms
that the national total accurately reflects the information submitted by each program. The Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds has developed a standardized format for data reporting and
compilation and guidance with definitions for habitat protection, restoration activities, and habitat
categories.14
Current data limitations include information that may be reported inconsistently (based on different
interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage that maybe miscalculated or
misreported, and acreage that may be double-counted (same parcel may also be counted by
partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, although
measuring the (quantitative) number of acres of habitat protected or restored provides an indicator
of on-the-ground progress made by NEPs, it does not necessarily correlate to an indication of the
overall health of that habitat (e.g., changes in ecological function).
Improvements: EPA is continuing to work with the NEPs and their partners to improve consistency
and accuracy of reporting.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-23)
Cumulative number of beaches for which monitoring and closure data are available. (APG 10)
Performance Database: National Health Protection Survey of Beaches Information Management
System.15 FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Data are obtained from National Health Protection Survey of Beaches, which is a
voluntary collection of beach data along the coastal and Great Lake states and territories. State and
local governments voluntarily provide the information. The survey began in 1997 with information
on 1,021 beaches and now includes records on 2,445 beaches. The database includes fields
identifying the beaches for which monitoring and notification information is available. The
database also identifies those states that have received a BEACH (Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health) Act grant. Information is updated annually.
Data Quality: A standard survey form, approved by OMB, is distributed to coastal and Great Lake
state and county environmental and public health beach program officials by mail in hard copy and is
available on the Internet for electronic submission. In 2001 survey respondents comprised
42% county, 31% city, 12% state, 6% district, 4% region, 2% National park, 2% state park, 1% other.
When data are entered over the Internet by a state or local official, a password is issued to ensure
the appropriate party is completing the survey. EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the
information is complete, then follows up with the state or local government to obtain additional
information where needed. However, because the data are submitted voluntarily by state and local
officials, the Agency cannot verify the accuracy of the information provided.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-ll
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
Participation in this survey and collection of data is voluntary, and information has not been collected
on the universe of beaches. The voluntary response rate was 88% in 2001 (237 out of 269 contacted
agencies responded). The number of beaches for which information was collected increased from
1,021 in 1997 to 2,445 in 2001. Participation in the survey will become a mandatory condition for
grants awarded under the BEACH Act program (described below); however, state and local
governments are not required to apply for a grant.
Improvements: With the passage of the BEACH Act of 2000, P.L. 106-284, the Agency is authorized
to award grants to states to develop and implement monitoring and notification programs consistent
with federal requirements. As the Agency awards these implementation grants, it will require
standard program procedures, sampling and assessment methods, and data elements for reporting. To
the extent that state governments apply for and receive these implementation grants, the amount,
quality, and consistency of available data will improve. In addition, the BEACH Act requires the
Agency to maintain a database of national coastal recreation water pollution occurrences. The Agency
will fulfill this requirement by revising the current database to include this new information. In
revising the database, the Agency has been investigating modes for electronic exchange of
information and reducing the number of reporting requirements.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-25)
• Major point sources are covered by current permits. (APG 16)
• Minor point sources are covered by current permits. (APG 16)
Performance Database: Permit Compliance System (PCS).16 FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: EPA's regional offices and states enter data into PCS.
Data Quality: PCS is the official repository of NPDES program data. The Office of Water (OW) uses
PCS to determine the extent of the NPDES universe and the percentage of permits that have
exceeded their expiration date (i.e., the percentage of permits that are backlogged). States that
have been delegated the NPDES program are required to maintain PCS. In cases where EPA
remains the permitting authority, the region is responsible for maintenance of PCS. However, many
states have developed their own systems to manage NPDES data. While these states are still
required to input data into PCS, either through direct entry or batch upload, their own systems
often contain more complete and accurate programmatic data.
OW has been working with states and regions on a PCS Clean-Up Project to ensure that the data in
PCS provide an accurate representation of the NPDES universe and are reconciled with state system
data. As part of the QA/QC process, OW generates monthly national and state-by-state reports listing
key facility and outfall data elements appearing in PCS for all active permits. The data elements
include permittee and facility name, facility address, issuance date, expiration date, application
received date, effective date, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, facility and outfall latitude/
longitude, flow, etc. These reports are available on a password-protected Web site17 maintained by an
OW contractor. In addition to the actual data elements listed above, the site includes summary reports
of missing and available data nationally and for every state.
OW has been working with states and regions to identify and correct discrepancies between state and
PCS data and to populate fields in PCS that are currently blank with existing state-level data provided
by states. A contractor is available to provide states with support in the review, comparison, upload
and entry of data. OW anticipates completion of the project during FY 2003.
B-12 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
Improvements: The PCS Clean-Up project has resulted in significant changes to the PCS database.
OW has inactivated over 25% of the individual permits in PCS when states indicated that, according to
their own updated records, those permits were no longer or had never been active. Many of the
permits that were inactivated had been included as part of the NPDES permit backlog. OW has also
worked with states to populate many facility-level data fields that had been blank. While EPA has
progressed with the PCS Clean-Up, significant data gaps remain. Many minor permit records still do
not contain basic facility-level data such as address or latitude/longitude.
Material Inadequacy: Minor permit data elements remain poorly populated in PCS; however, there
is sufficient information upon which to base management decisions.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-24)
• Loading reductions of toxics by facilities subject to effluent guidelines promulgated between
1992 and 2000, as predicted by model projection. (APG 15)
• Loading reductions of conventional pollutants by facilities subject to effluent guidelines
promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as predicted by model projection. (APG 15)
• Loading reductions of non-conventional pollutants by facilities subject to effluent guidelines
promulgated between 1992 and 2000, as predicted by model projection. (APG 15)
Performance Database: This measure is calculated using a spreadsheet18 that draws from several
data sources. An average "per facility" value is assigned to each permittee according to the
industrial type of the facility. Each region reports the actual number of permits issued in the past year
for each sector, typically drawn from PCS.19 Using both the average per facility value and the number
of permits issued, the spreadsheet then generates the value for the total pollutants reduced.
Data Sources: For direct dischargers subject to effluent guidelines, the average per facility value for
pollutant reduction is derived from the Technical Development Documents produced at the time of
the effluent guideline (ELG) rulemaking.20 TDDs are available for Pulp & Paper, Pharmaceuticals,
Landfills, Industrial Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment, Transportation Equipment
Cleaning, Pesticide Manufacturing, Offshore Oil & Gas, Coastal Oil & Gas, Synthetic Based Drilling
Fluid, and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
Data Quality: (For a discussion of the PCS data that provide the number of permittees in each sector,
please see the discussion in the previous measure on backlog.) The Technical Development
Documents that provide pollutant data for each industrial sector are based on extensive research and
undergo public review and comment.
Improvements: (For a discussion of activities to improve PCS data, please see the discussion in the
previous measure on backlog.)
For other sources, such as POTWs, CSOs, and storm water, that were not included as of 2002, other
sector-specific modeling is being developed in order to more fully characterize the pollutant loading
reductions resulting from the entire NPDES program. For 2003 EPA added an estimation for CSOs
using a model21 that draws information from the Clean Water Needs Survey.22 EPA is also developing
a model,23 to estimate pollutant reductions from POTWs, both with and without pretreatment
programs. EPA expects that model to draw information from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
contained in PCS, as well as other annual reports by POTWs to EPA and states, including information
about permitted Significant Industrial Users where there are pretreatment programs. In the future,
EPA also expects to develop a model to estimate pollutant reductions from storm water.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-13
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures. There is
sufficient information upon which to base management decisions.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-23)
Watersheds that have greater than 80% of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards. (APG 12)
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System
(WATERS)24 is used to summarize water quality information at the watershed level. For purposes of
this national summary, "watersheds" are equivalent to 8-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUCs), of which
there are 2,262 nationwide.25 State CWA 305(b) data26 are submitted every 2 years and many states
provide annual updates.27 Data to be used for the FY 2003 Annual Performance Report will include
state submissions expected in the spring of 2002.28 510 eight-digit HUCs were reported with greater
than 80% of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards in the 2000 305(b) report. FY 2001
performance data are used to assess FY 2002 performance; this is a biennial measure, and no new
data were planned this year.
Data Source: State CWA 305(b) reporting. The data used by the states to assess water quality and
prepare their 305(b) reports include ambient monitoring results from multiple sources (state, USGS,
volunteer, academic) as well as predictive tools like water quality models.29 States compile diverse
data to support water quality assessments; EPA uses these data to present a snapshot of water quality
as reported by the states, but does not use them to report trends in water quality. EPA's Office of
Water and Office of Research and Development have established a monitoring and design team that
is working with states on a 3- to 5-year project to recommend a design for a national probability-
based monitoring network that could be used to provide both status and trends in water quality at a
state and national level. Future data will be accompanied by quality assurance plans as part of the
State's Assessment Methodology,30 and data coming into the OW database, Storage and Retrieval
system (STORET), will have the necessary accompanying metadata.
Data Quality: QA/QCProcedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state
assessments (under 305(b)) is dependent on individual state procedures. Numerous system-level
checks are built into WATERS based upon the business rules associated with assessment information.31
States are then given the opportunity to review the information in WATERS to ensure it accurately
reflects the data that they submitted. Detailed data exchange guidance and training are also provided
to the states. Sufficiency threshold for inclusion in this measure requires that 20% of stream miles in
an 8-digit HUG be assessed. The OW Quality Management Plan (QMP) was approved in July 2001.32
(QMPs need to be renewed every 5 years.)
Data Quality Review: Numerous independent reports have cited that weaknesses in monitoring
programs and the reporting of monitoring data undermine EPA's ability to depict the condition of
the Nation's waters and to support scientifically sound water program decisions. The most recent
reports include the 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) Program,^ the March 15, 2000, General Accounting Office report,34 and the 2001
National Academy of Sciences Report.35
In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other stakeholders to
improve (1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of all waters of the state; (2) data
consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of state data to the national level; and
(3) documentation so that data limitations and discrepancies are fully understood by data users. First,
EPA enhanced two existing data management tools (STORET and the Assessment Database) that
include documentation of data quality information.36 Second, EPA has developed a GIS tool called
B-14 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water (continued)
WATERS that integrates many databases including STORET, the Assessment database, and a new water
quality standards database. These integrated databases facilitate comparison and understanding of
differences among state standards, monitoring activities, and assessment results. Third, EPA and states
have developed a guidance document intended to facilitate increased consistency in monitoring
program design and the data and decision criteria used to support water quality assessments.37 And
fourth, OW and the regions have developed the Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program?9 which is currently under review by EPA's state partners. This guidance describes 10
elements that each state water quality monitoring program should contain and proposes time-frames
for implementing all 10 elements.
Data Limitations: Data are not representative of comprehensive national assessments because states
do not yet employ a monitoring design that characterizes all waters in each reporting cycle. States do
not use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment with water quality standards.
For example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community assessments to
levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants. Several factors relating to variations
in state practices limit how the assessment reports provided by states can be used to describe water
quality at the national level. States, territories, and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of
their water bodies. There are differences among their programs, sampling techniques, and standards.
State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or modeled data.
Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the Agency from aggregating
water quality assessments at the national level with known statistical confidence. States, territories,
and authorized tribes monitor to identify problems and typically place a higher priority on problem
solving than on characterization of all water resources. Lag times between data collection and
reporting can vary by state.
Improvements: OW is currently working with states, tribes, and other federal agencies to improve
the database that supports this management measure by addressing the underlying methods of
monitoring water quality and assessing the data. Also, OW is working with partners to enhance
monitoring networks to achieve comprehensive coverage of all waters, use a consistent suite of core
water quality indicators (supplemented with additional indicators for specific water quality questions),
and document key data elements and decision criteria in electronic data systems and assessment
methodologies. OW is using a variety of mechanisms to implement these improvements including
data management systems, guidance, stakeholder meetings, training and technical assistance, program
reviews, and negotiations.
EPA is working with states to enhance their monitoring and assessment programs, with a particular
emphasis on the probabilistic approach. These enhancements, along with improving the quality and
timeliness of data for making watershed-based decisions, will also greatly improve the Agency's
ability to use state assessments in consistently portraying national conditions and trends. Specific state
refinements include developing rigorous biological criteria to measure the health of aquatic
communities (and attainment with the aquatic life use) and designing probability-based monitoring
designs to support statistically valid inferences about water quality. The EPA Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) design team has been instrumental in helping states
design the monitoring networks and analyze the data. Initial efforts have focused on streams, lakes,
and coastal waters though wetlands and large rivers are next in line. States are implementing these
changes incrementally and in conjunction with traditional targeted monitoring. At last count 16 states
have adopted probability-based monitoring designs, several more are evaluating them, and all but
10 are collaborating in an EMAP study.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-15
-------
Goal 3: Safe Food
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-36)
Register safer chemicals and biopesticides. (APG 18)
Performance Database: PRATS. OPP maintains PRATS. The system is designed to track regulatory
data and studies submitted by the registrant (pesticide manufacturer/producer) in support of the
registration application for a pesticide. OPP staff update the data regularly. Output counts are
available in October of the next fiscal year.
Data Source: OPP staff update the status of the submissions and studies as they are received and
as work is completed by the reviewers. The status indicates whether the application is ready for
review, the application is in the process of review, or the review has been completed.
Data Quality: These are program outputs. OPP staff and management review the program outputs
in accordance with established policy for the registration of reduced-risk pesticides as set forth in
Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997.
Improvements: OPPIN, which is in the initial stages of implementation, will consolidate various OPP
program databases. EPA is working internally and with stakeholders from environmental organizations
and industry to develop outcome data and measures that more accurately depict risk from pesticides.
Quantitative assessment of human risks from pesticide exposure is challenging in part because
pesticides are pervasive in the environment and there are many routes of exposure. Furthermore, in
many cases, a means of distinguishing whether an effect is the result of pesticide use or of some
other condition is difficult to verify. Therefore, the risk assessors must make assumptions to estimate
results that are attributable to pesticide use.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-37)
• Product reregistration. (APG 22)
• Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs). (APG 22)
Performance Database: PRATS. OPP maintains PRATS. The system is designed to track regulatory
data and studies submitted by the registrant (pesticide manufacturer/producer) in support of a
pesticide's registration application. OPP staff update the data regularly. Output counts are available in
October of the next fiscal year.
Data Source: OPP staff update the status of each action as it is completed by the reviewer.
Data Quality: These are program outputs. OPP staff and management review the program outputs in
accordance with established policies in place for the reregistration program.
Improvements: OPPIN is being implemented in late 2002 and will consolidate various OPP program
databases. EPA is working internally, as well as with stakeholders from environmental organizations
and industry, to develop outcome data and measures that more accurately depict risk from pesticides.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-37)
• Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children. (APG 21)
• Tolerance reassessments. (APG 21)
B-16 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 3: Safe Food (continued)
Performance Database: Tolerance Reassessment Tracking System (TORTS). TORTS is an OPP
in-house system that contains records on all 9,721 tolerances subject to reassessment. It includes
the total number of tolerances reassessed by fiscal year, the outcomes of reassessments (number of
tolerances raised, lowered, revoked, or unchanged), and the appropriate priority group for the tolerance.
Additionally, it breaks out the tolerances for specific chemical groups such as organophosphates,
carbamates, organochlorines, carcinogens, high-hazard inerts, children's foods, and minor uses. OPP
staff update the data regularly. Output counts are available in October of the next fiscal year.
Data Source: OPP staff update the status of each tolerance reassessment action as it is completed by
the reviewer.
Data Quality: These are program outputs. OPP staff and management review the program outputs in
accordance with established policies in place for reregistration/tolerance reassessment activities.
Improvements: EPA is working internally, as well as with stakeholders from environmental
organizations and industry, to develop outcome data and measures that more accurately depict risk
from pesticides.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-37)
Number of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. (APG 20)
Performance Database: Two non-EPA databases are used for this measure. One is the Doane
Marketing Research data; the other is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National
Agricultural Statistical Survey (NASS) database. FY 2002 performance data are expected to be
complete in November 2002.
Data Source: Doane Marketing Research (a private-sector research database) and USDA surveys
(e.g., NASS data).
Data Quality: A reduced-risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in Pesticide Registration
Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk pesticides include those which reduce the risks to
human health; reduce the risks to nontarget organisms; reduce the potential for contamination of
groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental resources; and/or broaden the adoption of
integrated pest management strategies or make such strategies more available or more effective. In
addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus reduced-risk). All registration actions
must employ sound science and meet the new safety standard of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA). All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer review. Doane data and USDA's
NASS data are subject to extensive QA/QC procedures, documented at their Web sites. Additionally,
Doane and NASS information are compared as a cross-reference.
OPP statistical and economics staff review data from Doane and NASS. Information is also compared
to prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the variability.
Doane data are proprietary; thus, to release any detailed information, the Agency must obtain
approval. The NASS data include only major crops for annual surveys. Other crops are surveyed
biannually. Not all states are included; however, states included are deemed representative of a
national estimate.
Improvements: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements are not known in any detail.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-17
-------
Goal 3: Safe Food (continued)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-36)
Occurrence of residues on core set of 19 foods eaten by children. (APG 19)
Performance Database: U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (POP).
FY 2002 performance data expected to be complete in FY 2003.
Data Source: Data collection is conducted by states.
Data Quality: The information is collected by the states and includes statistical information on
pesticide use, food consumption, and residue detections, which provides the basis for realistic dietary
risk assessments and evaluation of pesticide tolerance. Information is coordinated within USDA
agencies and cooperating state agencies. Pesticide residue sampling and testing procedures are
managed by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). AMS also maintains an automated
information system for pesticide residue data and publishes annual summaries of residue
detections.
Participation in PDP sites is voluntary. Sampling is limited to 10 states but designed in a manner to
represent the food supply nationwide. The number of sampling sites and volume vary by state.
Uncertainties and other sources of error are minor and not expected to have any significant effect
on performance assessment.
Improvements: PDP is not an EPA database; thus improvements are not known in any detail.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-46)
Model agricultural partnership pilot projects. (Through voluntary cooperation among EPA, states, and
private grower groups, implement model agricultural partnership pilot projects that demonstrate and
facilitate the adoption of farm management decisions and practices that provide growers with a
"reasonable transition" away from the highest risk pesticides.) (APG 23)
Performance Database: EPA's regional offices report new model agricultural partnership pilot
projects implemented during the year, and the information is compiled by the Office of Pesticide
Programs. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Reports from EPA's regional offices.
Data Quality: FY 2002 performance data are simple counts of projects implemented and are
considered accurate.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-47)
Number of certified individuals nationally (federal-administered and state-administered programs).
(APG 24)
Performance Database: EPA's regional office records. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
B-18 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
Data Source: Currently, all information is received through informal reporting from regional offices
and originates from information submitted through certification applications. In the future, EPA will
track certifications centrally.
Data Quality: The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' Quality Management Plan
(QMP) is under review; approval is scheduled by December 31, 2002. Data quality reviews of
records maintained at the test centers are conducted during routine compliance monitoring of the
centers using Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance procedures. The reviews have
found occasional discrepancies, but no regional or national trends requiring modifications to any
record-keeping or QA/QC procedures have come to light.
Improvements: EPA hopes to have a centralized, contractor-run tracking system in place by 2003.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-47)
TSCA Premanufacture Notice reviews. (APG 25)
Performance Database: New Chemicals Management Information Tracking System (MITS), which
tracks information from beginning of Premanufacture Notice (PMN) program (1979) to present.
Information includes number of PMNs submitted and final disposition (whether regulated or not) and
number of low-volume and test market exemptions. The performance data for FY 2002 are complete
and final.
Data Source: As industry develops new chemicals, it submits data related to the new chemicals for
review to the Agency, including information on chemicals to be manufactured and imported,
chemical identity, manufacturing process, use, worker exposure, environmental releases, and
disposal.
Data Quality: The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' Quality Management
Plan (QMP) is under review; approval is scheduled by December 31, 2002. EPA reviews industry
data; Agency staff scientists and contractors perform risk screening and assessments, which could lead
to regulation. This is an output measure tracked directly through OPPT record-keeping systems. No
models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed. Data are aggregated nationally and
suitable for cross-year comparisons.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-47)
After reviewing submissions from companies, make screening quality health and environmental
effects data publicly available for 2,800 HPV chemicals. (APG 26)
Performance Database: EPA is developing an electronic chemical right-to-know database system,
called the U.S. High Production Volume (US HPV) database, which will allow organized storage and
retrieval of all available information on high-production-volume chemicals in commerce in the United
States. The US HPV database will be designed to store, in a systematic fashion, physical chemistry,
fate, exposure, and toxicity data on listed chemicals for Agency and public use. The performance
data for FY 2002 are complete and final.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-19
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
Data Source: Industry submits test plans and robust summaries of risk screening data in response to
the voluntary HPV Challenge program or EPA promulgated test rules.
Data Quality: The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances' Quality Management Plan
(QMP) is under review; approval is scheduled by December 31, 2002. Data undergo quality
assurance/quality control by EPA before being uploaded to the database. EPA reviews industry
submissions of robust summaries of hazard data on individual chemicals and chemical categories, and
test plans based on those summaries. EPA determines whether industry data adequately support the
summaries and test plans. Data review does not include new information received as a result of new
testing. Data are primarily hazard data, not exposure data. Data are suitable to support screening-level
assessments only.
Improvements: Data will be integrated with other Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) databases in
an Oracle environment.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-48)
People living in healthier indoor air. (Note: The following three supporting performance measures
below are used for tracking progress toward this overarching Congressional performance measure.)
(APG 27)
• People living in radon resistant homes.
Performance Database: Survey. The results are published by the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB) Research Center in annual reports of radon-resistant home building practices.39
FY 2002 performance data are currently unavailable. Data are expected in 2003.
Data Source: The survey is an annual sample of home builders in the United States, most of
whom are members of NAHB. NAHB members construct 80 percent of the homes built in the
United States each year. Using a survey methodology reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center
estimates the percentage of these homes that are built radon-resistant. The percentage built radon-
resistant from the sample is then used to estimate what percent of all homes built nationwide are
radon-resistant. To calculate the number of people living in radon-resistant homes, EPA assumes
an average of 2.67 people per household. NAHB Research Center has been conducting this annual
builder practices survey for nearly a decade and has developed substantial expertise in the
survey's design, implementation, and analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a
95 percent confidence interval.
NAHB Research Center conducts an annual survey of home builders in the United States, to assess a
wide range of builder practices. NAHB Research Center voluntarily conducts this survey to maintain an
awareness of industry trends in order to improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs
of the home building industry. The annual survey gathers information such as types of houses built, lot
sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used, and so forth. The
NAHB Research Center Builder Survey also gathers information on the use of radon-resistant design
features in new houses; these questions constituted about 2 percent of the overall survey.
In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year is typically
mailed out to home builders. For the most recently completed survey, on building practices during
calendar year 2000, NAHB Research Center reported mailing the survey to about 39,000 active
B-20 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
United States home building companies and receiving about 2,200 responses, which translates to a
response rate of about 5.6 percent. This is the response rate for the entire survey. The survey
responses are analyzed with respect to state market areas and Census Divisions in the United States
and are analyzed to assess the percentage and number of homes built each year that incorporate
radon-reducing features. The data are also used to assess the percentage and number of homes built
with radon-reducing features in high-radon-potential areas in the United States (high-risk areas). Other
analyses include radon-reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different
techniques for radon-resistant new home construction. The data are suitable for year-to-year
comparisons.
Data Quality: Because data are obtained from an external organization, data quality review
procedures are not entirely known. According to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC procedures have
been established, which includes QA/QC by the vendor that is used for key entry of data.
NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is manually reviewed, a process that requires
several months to complete. The review includes data quality checks to ensure that the
respondents understood the survey questions and answered the questions appropriately. NAHB
Research Center also applies checks for open-ended questions to verify the appropriateness of the
answers. In some cases where open-ended questions request numerical information, the data are
capped between the upper and lower 3 percent of the values provided in the survey responses.
Also, a quality review of each year's draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the
EPA project officer.
The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The NAHB Research Center survey
also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are not members of NAHB. Home builders that
are not members of NAHB are typically smaller, sporadic builders that in some cases build homes as
a secondary profession. To augment the list of NAHB members in the survey sample, NAHB
Research Center sends the survey to home builders identified from mailing lists of builder trade
publications, such as Professional Builder magazine. There is some uncertainty as to whether the
survey adequately characterizes the practices of builders that are not members of NAHB. The effects
on the findings are not known.
Although an overall response rate of 5.6 percent could be considered low, it is the response rate for
the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are only a very small
portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be doing so principally due to their radon
activities. Thus, a low response rate does not necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive bias
under the speculation that builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely to respond
to the survey. NAHB Research Center also makes an effort to reduce the potential for positive bias in
the way the radon-related survey questions are presented. EPA recognizes that there are limitations to
these data; however, the data are the best available at this time.
Improvements: None.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
• People living in radon mitigated homes.
Performance Database: External. See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html for
national performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985-1999) on radon,
measurement, mitigation, and radon-resistant new construction.40 FY 2002 performance data are
currently unavailable. Data are expected in 2003.
www.epa.gov/ocfo B-21
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
Data Source: Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per
radon-mitigated home and then multiplies it by the assumed average of 2.67 people per
household.
Data Quality: Because data are obtained from an external organization, QA/QC procedures are not
known. Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and might underestimate the number of
radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the number of homes
mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate radon, including passive mitigation techniques of
sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed covers over sump pits,
installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static venting and ground covers
in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods, there is
again the possibility that the number of radon-mitigated homes has been underestimated. When
EPA produces an updated version of its Radon Results (1985-1999) report, it will use more/most
recent census data, as appropriate. No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker, or
distributor is required to report to EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are
only four radon vent fan manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated
70 percent of the market.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
• Children under 6 not exposed to ETS in the home.
Performance Database: The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Use Supplement to the
Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (GPS) data for 1992-2000 will be made available to
EPA by the end of the calendar year. There is no Web site specifically related to the survey;
however, ETS information can be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/ets. FY 2002 performance
data are currently unavailable. Data are expected in 2003.
Data Source: NCI and the Census Bureau.
Data Quality: Data are from external organizations.
Improvements: EPA has developed an asthma survey that includes questions about the presence
of environmental tobacco smoke in homes with small children. The information is obtained during the
screening phase of the larger asthma survey. This survey has received Office of Management and
Budget clearance. The survey will be conducted by a contractor in late fall 2002, and results will be
available in early 2003.
EPA has designed the asthma survey questionnaire, in which the respondents are asked to provide
primarily yes/no responses. By using yes/no and multiple-choice questions, the Agency has
substantially reduced the amount of time necessary for the respondent to complete the survey and
has ensured consistency in data response and interpretation.
The survey instrument was developed in consultation with EPA staff and the National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions asked and will
provide the types of data necessary to measure the Agency's objectives.
The survey will be designed, conducted, and analyzed in accordance with approved Agency
procedures. Random-digit dialing methodology is used to ensure that a representative sample of
households has been contacted; however, the survey is subject to the inherent limitations of voluntary
telephone surveys of representative samples. Limitations of phone surveys include (1) inconsistency
of interviewers following survey directions (for example, an interviewer might ask the questions
B-22 uww.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
incorrectly or inadvertently lead the interviewee to a response) and (2) calling at an inconvenient
time (for example, the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and may
resent the intrusion of the phone call; the answers will reflect this attitude).
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-48)
Students/staff experiencing improved indoor air quality (IAQ) in schools. (APG 28)
Performance Database: Survey of representative sample of schools using a comprehensive
database of private and public schools. The survey will help determine the number of schools
adopting and implementing good indoor air quality (IAQ) practices consistent with EPA's Tools for
Schools (TfS) guidance.41 FY 2002 performance data are currently unavailable. Data are expected in
early 2003.
Data Source: EPA-developed questionnaire. Other supporting data from the U.S. Department of
Education National Center for Education Statistics. The design of the IAQ Practices in Schools Survey
is a random sample with stratification by geography and school type. Such stratification is expected to
decrease the variances of sample estimates, and, because of interest in these specific strata, add
strength to the survey design. Additional data from other sources, such as the U.S. Department of
Education's National Center for Education Statistics, will facilitate analysis and interpretation of survey
results.
Data Quality: The survey is designed, conducted, and analyzed in accordance with approved
Agency procedures. EPA will review the data for completeness and quality of responses. The data
are subject to inherent limitations of voluntary surveys of representative samples.
Improvements: Prior to the survey, EPA tracked the number of schools receiving the kit and
estimated the population of the school to determine the number of students/staff experiencing
improved IAQ. With this survey, EPA is querying a statistically representative sample of schools to
estimate the number of schools that have actually adopted and implemented good IAQ management
practices consistent with the TfS guidance.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-49)
Reduction of TRI non-recycled wastes. (APG 29)
Performance Database: Toxics Release Inventory Modernization (TRIM), formerly TRIS (Toxics
Release Inventory System)—Contains aggregate data on toxic chemical releases by individual
reporting facilities.42 The aggregate data are used to provide a measure of national performance.
Performance data are not available currently; data will be available in spring 2003.
Data Source: Data reported to EPA from facilities meeting criteria specified in section 313 of the
Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act. Following thorough quality control
review and data processing, data are made publicly available through an annual Public Data Release
report and associated publicly accessible databases.
Data Quality: The quality of TRI data depends on the quality of the data submitted by the reporting
facilities. Although EPA has no direct control over the quality of the submitted data, the Agency does
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-23
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
assist reporting facilities in improving their estimates. EPA also verifies that the facilities' information
is correctly entered in TRIM. The Office of Environmental Information's (OEI) Quality Management
Plan (QMP) was approved on February 14, 2001.
Improvements: EPA is developing regulations for improving reporting of source reduction activities
by TRI releasers.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-49)
• Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted. (APG 30)
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste. (APG 30)
Performance Database: In the nonhazardous waste program, no national databases are in place or
planned. Data currently unavailable; expected September 30, 2003.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste source reduction and recycling are
developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely from the Department of
Commerce, which can be found in an EPA report titled Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste
in the United States.4^
Data Quality: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the Department of
Commerce's internal procedures and systems. The report prepared by the Agency is then reviewed
by a number of experts for accuracy and soundness. The report, including the baseline numbers
and annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted
among experts. There are various assumptions factored into the analysis to develop progress on
each measure.
The quality of TRI data is dependent on the quality of the data submitted by the reporting
facilities. Although EPA has no direct control over the quality of the submitted data, the Agency
does assist reporting facilities in improving their estimates. EPA also verifies that the facilities'
information is correctly entered into the TRI database.
Improvements: Because these numbers are widely reported and accepted by experts, no new
efforts to improve the data or the methodology have been identified or are necessary. EPA is
developing regulations for improving reporting of source reduction activities by TRI releasers.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-49)
Number of environmental assessments for tribes. (APG 31)
Performance Database: The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has made tremendous
progress in developing an electronic baseline assessment system used to access tribal environmental
information. The Tribal Information Management System (TIMS) is a Web-based application that
allows access to these data. This information system will draw together environmental information on
tribes from the existing EPA databases, such as those from the Office of Water and EPA regions, as
well as databases from other federal agencies. All the data will be accessed on a per-tribe basis, so
environmental information can be queried by tribe, by state, by EPA region, or nationally. Information
that is geo-referenced will be displayed graphically on an electronic map of tribal reservation
B-24 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 4: Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risks in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces, and Ecosystems (continued)
boundaries. The information system will also have a narrative profile description by tribe of
environmental information and management activities. The structure of this system is complete and is
expected to be fully populated with profiles for all federally recognized tribes by FY 2005. Public
access to this information via the Web cannot be given until EPA completes consultation with the
tribes, but is expected within the next year. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: The data sources will be existing federal atabases that are available from EPA
headquarters and its regional offices, as well as from other agencies. The data sources will be
identified and referenced in EPA's information system application.
Data Quality: Quality of the external databases will be described but not ranked. Tribes will have
the opportunity to review and comment on their tribal profiles. Mechanisms for adjusting data will
be supplied. Errors in the tribal profiles are subject to errors in the underlying data.
Improvements: Statistical assessments are planned on a national level using the data collected
and reported on a per-tribe basis. EPA will report on whether tribes are underserved or overserved
compared to the nation as a whole in a number of categories, such as wastewater treatment
service, drinking water facilities, and solid waste facilities.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-58)
Superfund construction completions. (APG 32)
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Automated EPA system; headquarters and regional offices enter data into CERCLIS on a
rolling basis.
Data Quality: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in place:
(1) Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual that details what
data must be reported; (2) Report Specifications, which are published for each report detailing how
reported data are calculated; (3) Coding Guide, which contains technical instructions to such data
users as regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, report owners,
and data input personnel; (4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive QA check against
report specifications; (5) QA Third Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA
tester to ensure that the report produces data in conformance with the report specifications;
(6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry Internal Control Plan, which includes (a) regional policies and
procedures for entering data into CERCLIS, (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund
accomplishments are supported by source documentation, (c) delegation of authorities for approval of
data input into CERCLIS, and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet
accomplishment definitions; and (7) a historical lockout feature that has been added to CERCLIS so
that changes in past fiscal year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and
are logged to a change-log report.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-25
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
Two audits, one by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the other by the Government
Accounting Office (GAO), were done to assess the validity of the data in CERCLIS. The OIG audit
report, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No. E1SGF7-05-0102- 8100030), was
performed to verify the accuracy of the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and
the public. The OIG report concluded that the Agency "has good management controls to ensure
accuracy of the information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can rely upon the
information EPA provides regarding construction completions." The GAO's report, Superfund
Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RECD-98-241), estimates that the cleanup status of National
Priorities List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data supporting the performance
measures. Typically, there are no published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) is currently under review by the Office of Environmental Information.
Improvements: In 2004 the Agency will continue its efforts begun in 1999 to improve the
Superfund program's technical information by incorporating more site remedy selection, risk, removal
response, and community involvement information into CERCLIS. Efforts to share information among
the federal, state, and tribal programs to further enhance the Agency's efforts to efficiently identify,
evaluate, and remediate Superfund hazardous waste sites will continue. In 2005 the Agency will also
establish data quality objectives for program planning purposes and to ascertain the organization's
information needs for the next 5 years. Adjustments will be made to EPA's current architecture and
business processes to better meet those needs.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-59)
Refer to DOJ, settle, or writeoff 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases for Superfund sites with
total unaddressed past costs equal to or greater than $200,000 and report value of costs recovered.
(APG 34)
Performance Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). Data are complete for assessment of FY 2002 performance.
Data Source: Automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA regional offices enter data into CERCLIS.
Data Quality: The data used to support this measure are collected on a fiscal year basis only.
Enforcement reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support this measure are
extracted from the reports.
The Quality Management Plan for the Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement was approved on
April 11, 2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are in
place: (1) Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management manual that details
what data must be reported; (2) Report Specifications, which are published for each report detailing
how reported data are calculated; (3) Coding Guide, which contains technical instructions to such data
users as regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, report owners,
and data input personnel; (4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an extensive QA check against
report specifications; (5) QA Third Party Testing, an extensive test made by an independent QA
B-26 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
tester to ensure that the report produces data in conformance with the report specifications;
(6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry Internal Control Plan, which includes (a) regional policies and
procedures for entering data into CERCLIS, (b) a review process to ensure that all Superfund
accomplishments are supported by source documentation, (c) delegation of authorities for approval of
data input into CERCLIS, and (d) procedures to ensure that reported accomplishments meet
accomplishment definitions; and (7) a historical lockout feature that has been added to CERCLIS so
that changes in past fiscal year data can be changed only by approved and designated personnel and
are logged to a change-log report.
The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLA data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no published results.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart pages 11-58,11-60)
• PRPs conduct 70 percent of the work at new construction starts. (APG 33)
• Percentage of Federal facility NPL sites for which final offers have been made that meet Agency
policy and guidance. (APG 38)
• Percentage of Federal facilities with final offers made within 18 months. (APG 38)
Performance Database: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS).
Data Source: Automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's regional offices enter data into
CERCLIS. The data used to support these measures are collected on a fiscal year basis.
Enforcement reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support the measures
are extracted from the report. Data are complete for assessment of FY 2002 performance.
Data Quality: The Quality Management Plan for the Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
was approved on April 11, 2001. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative
controls are in place: (1) Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual (SPIM), the program management
manual that details what data must be reported; (2) Report Specifications, which are published for
each report detailing how reported data are calculated; (3) Coding Guide, which contains technical
instructions to such data users as regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program
personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; (4) Quality Assurance (QA) Unit Testing, an
extensive QA check against report specifications; (5) QA Third Party Testing, an extensive test
made by an independent QA tester to ensure that the report produces data in conformance with
the report specifications; (6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry Internal Control Plan, which includes
(a) regional policies and procedures for entering data into CERCLIS, (b) a review process to ensure
that all Superfund accomplishments are supported by source documentation, (c) delegation of
authorities for approval of data input into CERCLIS, and (d) procedures to ensure that reported
accomplishments meet accomplishment definitions; and (7) a historical lockout feature that has been
added to CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data can be changed only by approved and
designated personnel and are logged to a change-log report.
The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLA data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-27
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-59)
• High priority RCRA facilities with human exposure to toxins controlled. (APG 35)
• High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater controlled. (APG 35)
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program. RCRAInfo contains
information on entities (generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW)
generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for
regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including a Corrective Action
Module that tracks the status of facilities that require, or may require, corrective actions. A "yes" or
"no" entry is made in the database with respect to meeting corrective action indicators. Supporting
documentation and reference materials are maintained in regional and state files.
Human exposures controlled and toxic releases to groundwater controlled are used to summarize and
report on the facility-wide environmental conditions at the RCRA Corrective Action Program's highest-
priority facilities. The environmental indicators are used to track the RCRA program's progress on
getting highest-priority contaminated sites under control. Known and suspected site (-wide) conditions
are evaluated using a series of simple questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable,
defensible determination. These questions were issued as Interim Final Guidance on February 5, 1999.
Lead regulators for the site (authorized state or EPA) make the environmental indicator determination;
however, facilities or their consultants may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on
the current environmental conditions. FY 2002 performance data are complete.44
Data Source: EPA regions and authorized states enter data on a rolling basis.
Data Quality: States and regions, which create the data, manage data quality control related to
timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations are correctly reflected
by the data). Within RCRAInfo the application software enforces structural controls that ensure that
high-priority national components of the data are properly entered. RCRAInfo documentation, which
is available to all users online, provides guidance to facilitate the creation and interpretation of data.
Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending on the
nature of systems changes and user needs.
GAO's 1995 report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System reviewed whether national RCRA
information systems support meeting the primary objective of helping EPA and states manage the
HW program. Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve
the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information, and minimize
the burden on states.
No data limitations have been identified. As discussed above, environmental indicator determinations
are made by the authorized states and EPA regions based on a series of standard questions and
entered directly into RCRAInfo. EPA has provided guidance and training to states and regions to help
ensure consistency in those determinations. High-priority facilities are monitored on a facility-by-
facility basis, and the QA/QC procedures identified above are in place to help ensure data validity.
The Quality Management Plan for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is
currently under review by the Office of Environmental Information.
Improvements: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing environmental
information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems (the Resource
B-28 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting System) with RCRAInfo.
RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste
handlers and for characterization of facility status, regulated activities, and compliance histories. The
system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity
generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
RCRAInfo is Web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for federal, state, and local
managers and encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost. RCRAInfo uses
commercial off-the-shelf software to report directly from database tables.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-61)
Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved controls in
place. (APG 40)
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo)
is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program. RCRAInfo contains information on
entities (generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and
management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of
hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including status of RCRA facilities in the
RCRA permitting universe. FY 2002 performance data are complete.45
Data Source: EPA regions and authorized states enter data on a rolling basis.
Data Quality: States and regions, which create the data, manage data quality control related to
timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations are correctly reflected
by the data). Within RCRAInfo the application software enforces structural controls that ensure that
high-priority national components of the data are properly entered. RCRAInfo documentation, which
is available to all users on-line, provides guidance to facilitate the creation and interpretation of data.
Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending on the
nature of system changes and user needs.
GAO's 1995 report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System reviewed whether national RCRA
information systems support meeting the primary objective of helping EPA and states manage the
HW program.46 Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve
the definitions of data collected, ensure that data collected provide critical information, and minimize
the burden on states.
The Quality Management Plan for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is
currently under review by the Office of Environmental Information.
Improvements: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing environmental
information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems (the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting System) with
RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated universe of RCRA
hazardous waste handlers and for characterization of facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance histories. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is Web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for federal,
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-29
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
state, and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost.
RCRAInfo uses commercial off-the-shelf software to report directly from database tables.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-59)
LUST cleanups completed. (APG 36)
Performance Database: EPA does not maintain a database for this information. FY 2002
performance data are complete.
Data Source: Designated state agencies submit semiannual progress reports to the EPA regional
offices.
Data Quality: EPA regional offices verify and then forward the data to EPA headquarters, where
staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with regional offices. The data are displayed
in a document on a region-by-region basis, which allows regional staff to again verify their data. The
process relies on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) is currently under review by the Office of Environmental Information.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-60)
• Cumulative site assessments. (APG 37)
• Cumulative jobs generated. (APG 37)
• Cumulative leveraging of cleanup and redevelopment funds. (APG 37)
Performance Database: The Brownfields Management System (BMS) records the results, both
environmental and economic, achieved by the Brownfields Pilots. BMS data are gathered from the
Brownfields Pilots' quarterly reports. EPA Regional Pilot Managers review the data for consistency
and accuracy. The BMS database contains information such as the number of properties with Pilot-
funded assessment, the number of properties cleaned up, the number of properties not requiring
cleanup, and jobs generated.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) records regional accomplishments on Brownfields assessments in the Brownfields module.
This module tracks Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs) on a property-specific basis. FY 2002
performance data are complete.
Data Source: Data are reported by Brownfields Pilots in their quarterly reports as submitted under
cooperative assistance agreements. Data are entered into BMS by EPA contractor support and forwarded
to EPA Regional Pilot Managers for review and approval. Edits are made as appropriate. EPA regional
staff enter the results achieved through Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs) into CERCLIS.
Data Quality: Verification relies on reviews by regional staff responsible for Brownfields pilot
cooperative agreements.
Several data quality reviews have been conducted by the program and external organizations. In its
report, GAO recommended that EPA continue to review data reported by recipients in anticipation of
B-30 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
EPA's guidelines for results and make any corrections needed to ensure that the data are consistent
with the current guidelines.47 They also recommended that EPA regions monitor and work to improve
recipients' reporting of data on key results measures.
The reporting of results of the Brownfields Pilots is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and
attendant OMB regulations governing information collection requests (ICRs), as well as the
Agency's assistance regulations. Consequently, the Agency is limited to obtaining information from
Pilot recipients on specific accomplishments attained with grant funds, such as properties assessed
(40 CFR 35.6650(b)(l)). In addition, EPA cannot require private sector entities, which do not receive
EPA financial assistance, to provide information related to such accomplishment measures as
redevelopment dollars invested or numbers of jobs created. These constraints may lead to an
underreporting of accomplishments.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) is currently under review by the Office of Environmental Information.
Improvements: In February 2000 EPA headquarters issued guidance to the regions to standardize
quarterly reporting of accomplishment measures. This guidance was developed to ensure that the
standardized information collected fell within the scope of regulations and applicable OMB
controls for quarterly reporting by assessment Pilot recipients. EPA is also working with recipients to
encourage the use of this standardized reporting through workshops and training. To improve
recipients' reporting of data on key results measures, EPA has implemented GAO's
recommendation that the Agency make it clear to recipients that follow-on awards depend on
reported results.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-61)
Number of 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste disposed of according to EPA standards.
(APG 41)
Performance Database: The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities and placed in
the DOE WIPP. The DOE National TRU Waste Management Plan Quarterly Supplement contains
information on the monthly volumes of waste that are received at the DOE WIPP.48 FY 2002
performance data from both databases are complete.
Data Source: Department of Energy.
Data Quality: The performance data used by EPA are collected and maintained by DOE. Under EPA's
WIPP regulations, all DOE WIPP-related data must be collected and maintained under a comprehensive
quality assurance program meeting consensus standards developed by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. EPA conducts regular inspections to ensure that these quality assurance systems
are in place and functioning properly; no additional QA/QC of the DOE data is conducted by EPA.
The DOE WIPP database contains the number of drums shipped by DOE waste generator facilities
and placed in the DOE WIPP.
Before DOE waste generator facilities can ship waste to the WIPP, EPA must approve the waste
characterization controls and quality assurance procedures for waste identification at these sites. EPA
conducts frequent independent inspections and audits at these sites to verify continued compliance
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-31
-------
Goal 5: Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and
Emergency Response (continued)
with radioactive waste disposal standards and to determine whether DOE is properly tracking the
waste and adhering to specific waste component limits. Once EPA gives its approval, the number of
drums shipped to the WIPP facility per year is dependent on DOE priorities and funding. EPA volume
estimates are based on projecting the average shipment volumes over 40 years with an initial start-up.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-60)
Annual Site Report to Congress detailing 4-6 innovative approaches, their cost savings and future
direction; reports summarizing pilot scale evaluation of in-situ remedies for solvents. (APG 39)
Performance Database: Program output, no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-70)
People in the Mexico border area protected from health risks because of adequate water and
wastewater sanitation systems funded through border environmental infrastructure funding
(cumulative). (APG 42)
Performance Database: There is no formal EPA database. Performance is tracked and reported
quarterly by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADBank.) The unit of measure is "population served." FY 2002 performance
data are complete.
Data Source: (1) Population figures from the 1990 U.S. Census,49 (2) data for both U.S. and Mexican
populations served by "certified" water/wastewater treatment improvements from the BECC, (3) data
on projects funded from the NADBank.
Data Quality: Headquarters is responsible for evaluation of reports from BECC and NADBank on
drinking water and wastewater sanitation projects.50 Regional representatives attend meetings of the
certifying and financing entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of
projects under way to ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-73)
Assist in the development or implementation of improved environmental laws or regulations in
developing countries. (APG 48)
Performance Database: None. Manual collection. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Project-specific.
Data Quality: Verification does not involve any pollutant database analysis, but will require objective
assessment of tasks completed, of compliance with new regulations, and of progress toward project
goals and objectives.
B-32 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 6 - Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
EPA works with developing countries to improve environmental laws and regulations. Tracking
development and implementation of legislation presents few challenges because EPA project staff
maintain close contact with their counterparts and because any changes become part of a public
record. Assessing the quality of the new or revised laws/regulations, the level of public
participation and support for stronger regulations, and the long-term social impacts of legislation is
more subjective. Aside from feedback from Agency project staff, EPA relies in part on feedback from
its counterparts in the target countries and regions and from non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and other third parties in gauging the efficacy of its work on international legal and regulatory
capacity-building. Because EPA works to establish long-term relationships with priority countries, the
Agency is often able to assess environmental improvement in these countries and regions for a
number of years following legal assistance efforts.
Improvements: Under its cooperative programs with USAID in Central America, EPA is developing
a set of indicators to measure progress for each activity undertaken.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-73)
Increase the transfer of environmental best practices among the U.S. and its partner countries and
build the capacity of developing countries to collect, analyze, or disseminate environmental data.
(APG 48)
Performance Database: None. Manual collection. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Project-specific.
Data Quality: Verification does not involve any pollutant database analysis but will require objective
assessment of tasks completed, of compliance with new regulations, and of progress toward project
goals and objectives. Data and information related to the outputs and goals of EPA's international
urban projects are forwarded to the EPA project officer by the grantee after bimonthly consultation
with local, regional, and national urban environmental practitioners.
Improvements: Activities in support of this project may result in new or improved data collection
systems in developing countries.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-73)
Increase the capacity of programs in Latin America or Africa to address safe drinking water quality
issues. (APG 48)
Performance Database: None. Manual collection. FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Project-specific.
Data Quality: Verification does not involve any pollutant database analysis but will require objective
assessment of tasks completed, of compliance with new regulations, and of progress toward project
goals and objectives. EPA is currently tracking output data for the International Safe Drinking Water
Program (ISDWP) in Central America and has plans to begin looking at measuring the longer-term
outcomes. On a quarterly basis, EPA collects data through EPA teams, in-country partners, and
cooperators on outputs such as number of people trained, number of pilot projects completed, and
www.epa.gov/ocfo B-33
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
number of workshops held. This information is validated through constant contact with the
aforementioned groups and through on-site visits by EPA program managers. The information is also
shared with donors, specifically USAID, through quarterly reports. The outcome measures of
improved capacity of in-country partners and stakeholders to ensure safe drinking water for the
communities are under development and will provide indicators of the long-term sustainability
potential of the program.
Improvements: EPA's ISDWP in Africa is currently in the start-up phase, and the data collection
process is under development.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-70)
Concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top predator fish. (APG 43)
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) base monitoring program.51
FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: Data are collected as part of GLNPO's ongoing base monitoring program, which has
included work with cooperating organizations such as the Great Lakes states, U.S. Geological
Survey, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (no longer participating).
Data Quality: This indicator provides concentration of selected organic contaminants in sport fish
from the Great Lakes to determine time trends in contaminant concentrations, assess impacts of
contaminants on the fishery, and assess potential wildlife exposures from consuming
contaminated fish.
This indicator includes data from 600- to 700-mm lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush} whole fish
composites (five fish) from each of the lakes (walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, in Lake Erie).
These data are used to assess time trends in organic contaminants in the open waters of the Great
Lakes, using fish as biomonitors. These data can also be used to assess the risks of such
contaminants on the health of this important fishery and on wildlife that consume them.
GLNPO's quality management system has been given "outstanding" ratings in previous peer and
management reviews. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency quality standards. GLNPO's quality management system conforms to the EPA
quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with federal policy for quality
management. The current Quality Management Plan that describes this program is undergoing
revision and should be approved by December 2002. The quality assurance (QA) plan that supports
the fish contaminant analysis program is approved and available on request.52 The plan that describes
the field sampling program is in draft form and should be completed by April 2003.
The top predator fish (lake trout) program was designed specifically for lakewide trends. It is not
well suited to portray localized changes. One of the objectives of the fish contaminant program is
to be able to detect a 20 percent change in contaminant concentrations in a particular species of
fish between consecutive sampling periods and to compare relative changes in contaminant
concentrations between Great Lakes. Achieving this can be difficult when taking into account the
rather large variance occurring in contaminant concentrations between individual fish. Variance is
reduced by compositing five fish for each sample.
B-34 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
Improvements: During FY 2002 EPA documented and developed a draft field sampling QA plan
that documents field collection procedures. During FY 2003 EPA plans to implement a peer review of
the overall program and hopes to conduct on-site review of various aspects of the field and laboratory
operations. Additionally the Agency plans to upload the analytical data into its GLENDA database for
easy access of analytical results and corresponding quality-assured/quality-controlled data.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-70)
Concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air. (APG 43)
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated atmospheric
deposition network (IADN) operated jointly with Canada.53 FY 2002 performance data are
complete. (Preliminary, awaiting 1999 and 2000 loadings calculations before finalizing.)
Data Source: GLNPO and Canada are the principal data sources. The database includes data from
1990 to present (with some earlier available data). Concentrations of persistent toxic substances
(polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], organochlorine pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
[PAHs]) are measured at 15 stations around the Great Lakes. Environment Canada (Meteorological
Service of Canada and Ecosystem Health Division) operates 10 IADN stations. EPA (through a grantee
at Indiana University) operates five U.S. stations. These U.S. stations are in Eagle Harbor, Michigan:
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Michigan; Sturgeon Point, New York; IIT-Chicago, Illinois; and Brule River,
Wisconsin. Because data from the Brule River site have been very similar to those from Eagle Harbor,
EPA is in the process of moving equipment from Brule River to Cleveland, Ohio, to further examine
impacts of urban areas on atmospheric deposition.
Data Quality: There are five master IADN stations, one for each lake, which are supplemented by
satellite stations. The master stations are in remote areas and are meant to represent regional
background levels. Concentrations from the master stations are used for the performance measure.
Data from the satellite station in Chicago are used to demonstrate the importance of urban areas to
atmospheric deposition to the Lakes.
Air samples are collected for 24 hours using high-volume samplers containing an adsorbent.
Precipitation samples are collected as 28-day composites. Laboratory analysis protocols generally call
for solvent extraction of the organic sampling media with addition of surrogate recovery standards.
Extracts are then concentrated followed by column chromatographic cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen
blow-down to small volume (about 1 mL), and injection (typically 1 uL) into gas chromatograph
(GC)-ECD or GC-MS instruments. A regular set of laboratory and field blanks are taken and recorded
for comparison to the IADN field samples. In addition, a suite of chemical surrogates and internal
standards are used extensively in most analyses. Details of these analyses can be found in the
laboratory protocol manuals or the Agency project plans.54
Overall results of the project can be found in Technical Summary of Progress under the Integrated
Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996 and the Draft Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 1997-2002. The former can also be found on the IADN
resource page.
A centralized database was established in 1995. All IADN data are loaded and quality-controlled using
the Research Database Management System (ROMS), an SAS program. ROMS provides a unified set of
quality-assured data, and additional information for each data point that can be used to evaluate the
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-35
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
usability of the data. Statistical summaries of annual concentrations are generated by the program and
used as input into an atmospheric loadings calculation. The loadings calculation is described in detail
in the Technical Summary mentioned above. However, the averaged concentrations rather than the
loadings are used in the performance measure.
Multiple quality assurance personnel and a scientific peer review panel have judged the IADN data
to be of good quality for the purposes for which they are used. IADN data have been collected for
the same purposes throughout the program—to calculate atmospheric loadings and to examine
spatial and temporal trends in concentrations and loadings to the Great Lakes. GLNPO has in place
a quality management system that conforms to the EPA quality management order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with federal policy for quality management, currently being revised.
Approved Quality Assurance Project Plans are in place for the laboratory grantee, as well as for the
network as a whole. A jointly funded QA contractor conducts laboratory audits and intercomparisons
and tracks QA statistics.
The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that underemphasize urban contributions to
deposition; thus, although the data are very useful for trends information, there is less assurance of
the representativeness of deposition to the whole lake. The performance measure examines the long-
term trend. There are gaps in open lake water column organics data, thus limiting EPA's ability to
calculate atmospheric loadings.
Error estimate: Concentrations have an error of +/- 40 percent, usually less. Differences between
laboratories have been found to be 40 percent or less. This is outstanding given the very low
levels of these pollutants in the air and the difficulty in analysis.
Improvements: A quality assurance work group was formed during FY 2002 to develop a
systematic plan for reporting on quality assurance statistics and information. The group is also
investigating differences in protocols, trying to pinpoint stages in sampling and analytical
processes where interlaboratory data comparability is reduced. The IADN Steering Committee is
also looking into ways to reduce time frames for release of information.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-70)
Trophic status and phosphorus concentrations in the Great Lakes. (APG 43)
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) base monitoring program.
FY 2002 performance data are complete.55
Data Source: Data are part of GLNPO's ongoing base monitoring program for the open waters of
the five Great Lakes. GLNPO is the principal source of those data.
Data Quality: GLNPO has in place a quality management system that conforms to the new EPA
quality management order and is audited every 3 years in accordance with federal policy for
quality management. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency QA standards.
Data are gathered from the open-water, central areas of the Great Lakes. Although representative of
the main volume of each lake, the data provide little information on the shallower, nearshore areas of
the lakes. The open-water environment is an area of relatively low nutrient concentrations, and in
some lakes, particularly Lakes Superior and Huron, total phosphorus and total dissolved phosphorus
measurements are sometimes at or below the limits of detection.
B-36 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
Improvements: EPA tries for continuous improvement through implementation of a survey Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which includes an annual update to standard operating procedures
(SOPs). To complement this, there is a training session for those involved with field work and
laboratory work. EPA has made efforts to implement data entry aboard ship, with preloading of
sample information in the database to ease data entry. The Agency is developing procedures for
internal review of the data and a process for uploading and merging the various components of the
data (field and laboratory results).
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-71)
• Reductions from EPA's buildings sector programs (ENERGY STAR). (APG 44)
• Greenhouse gas reductions from EPA's industrial efficiency/waste management programs.
(APG 44)
• Greenhouse gas reductions from EPA's industrial methane outreach programs. (APG 44)
• Greenhouse gas reductions from EPA's industrial HFC/PEC programs. (APG 44)
• Greenhouse gas reductions from EPA's transportation programs. (APG 44)
• Greenhouse gas reductions from EPA's state and local programs. (APG 44)
Performance Database: Baseline data on greenhouse gas emissions are from the Climate
Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System. Performance data lag by approximately 9 months
and are not currently available. Data will be reported in the FY 2003 Annual Report.
Data Source: Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use come from the Energy
Information Agency (EIA). Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide emissions, including nitrous oxide
and other global warming potential gases, are maintained by EPA. EPA develops the methane
emissions baselines and projections using information from industrial partners, which include the
natural gas, coal, and landfill gas development industries. EPA continues to develop annual inventories
as well as update methodologies as new information becomes available.
EPA's voluntary programs collect partner reports on facility-specific improvements (e.g., space
upgraded, kilowatt-hours reduced.) A carbon-conversion factor is used to convert this information to
estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. EPA maintains a "tracking system" for emissions
reductions based on the reports submitted by partners.
Data Quality: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to
evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs. For example, EPA has a quality assurance
process in place to check the validity of partner reports.
Peer-reviewed carbon-conversion factors are used to ensure consistency with generally accepted
measures of GHG emissions. The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate
programs through interagency evaluations. The first such interagency evaluation, chaired by the White
House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the status of the Climate Change Action Plan. The
review included participants from EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Commerce
(DOC), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
results were published in U.S. Climate Action Report—199 7 as part of the United States' submission to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of the Inspector
General concluded that the climate programs examined "used good management practices" and
"effectively estimated the impact their activities had on reducing risks to health and the environment. . . ."
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-37
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon-conversion factors and methods to convert
material-specific reductions to GHG emissions reductions). The voluntary nature of the programs might
affect reporting. Further research will be necessary to fully understand the links between GHG
concentrations and specific environmental impacts, such as impacts on health, ecosystems, crops,
weather events, and so forth.
Improvements: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate programs
through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and methodologies as new
information becomes available.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-72)
Annual energy savings. (APG 45)
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System.
Data Source: Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility-specific
improvements (e.g., space upgraded, kilowatt-hours reduced), national market data on shipments of
efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power levels and usage patterns.
Performance data lag by approximately 9 months and are not currently available. Data will be
reported in the FY 2003 Annual Report.
Data Quality: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to
evaluate energy savings from its voluntary programs. For example, EPA has a quality assurance
process in place to check the validity of partner reports and peer-reviewed methodologies are
used to calculate energy savings from these programs.
The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate programs through
interagency evaluations. The second such interagency evaluation, led by the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate change programs. The review
included participants from EPA and the Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, Transportation,
and Agriculture. The results were published in U.S. Climate Action Report—2002 as part of the United
States' submission to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).56 The previous
evaluation had been published in U.S. Climate Action Report—1997. A 1997 audit by EPA's Office of
the Inspector General concluded that the climate programs examined "used good management
practices" and effectively estimated the impact their activities had on reducing risks to health and the
environment.
Improvements: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its climate programs
through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to update inventories and methodologies as new
information becomes available.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-72)
Assistance to countries working under Montreal Protocol. (APG 46)
Performance Database: Database is maintained by the Global Programs Division (GPD). FY 2002
performance data are complete and final.
B-38 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
Data Source: The progress of international implementation goals is measured by tracking the number
of countries receiving assistance, dollars allocated to each, and the expected reduction in ozone-
depleting substances in assisted countries. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the
GPD maintain the data.
Data Quality: The GPD receives periodic reports on the financial status of participating countries
from UNEP. This information is then cross-checked with GPD records to ensure the accuracy of the
performance data.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-73)
Domestic consumption of Class II hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). (APG 47)
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained by GPD.
Performance data lag by approximately 6 months and are not currently available. FY 2002
performance data will be reported in the FY 2003 Annual Report.
Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic consumption of Class II HCFCs is tracked by
monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations. Monthly information
on domestic production, imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is
maintained in the ATS.
Data Quality: Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A, sections 92.9 through 82.13. These sections of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rule
specify the required data and accompanying documentation that companies must submit or maintain
onsite to demonstrate their compliance with the regulation.
The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan. In addition, the data are subject to an annual
quality assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff separate from
those on the team normally responsible for data collection and maintenance. The ATS is
programmed to ensure consistency of the data elements reported by companies. The tracking
system flags inconsistent data for review and resolution by the tracking system manager. This
information is then cross-checked with compliance data submitted by reporting companies. The GPD
maintains a user's manual for the ATS that specifies the standard operating procedures for data entry
and data analysis. Regional inspectors perform inspections and audits onsite at the facilities of
producers, importers, and exporters. These audits verify the accuracy of compliance data submitted
to EPA through examination of company records.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-73)
Domestic exempted production and import of newly produced Class I chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
halons. (APG 47)
Performance Database: ATS database is maintained by GPD. Performance data lag by approximately
6 months and are not currently available. Data will be reported in the FY 2003 Annual Report.
Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class I CFCs and halons is
tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phaseout regulations. Monthly
www.epa.gov/ocfo B-39
-------
Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks (continued)
information on domestic production, imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is
maintained in the ATS.
Data Quality: Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A,
sections 82.9 through 82.13. These sections of the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rule specify the
required data and accompanying documentation that companies must submit or maintain onsite to
demonstrate their compliance with the regulation.
The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan. In addition, the data are subject to an annual
quality assurance review, coordinated by OAR staff separate from those on the team normally
responsible for data collection and maintenance. The ATS is programmed to ensure consistency of the
data elements reported by companies. The tracking system flags inconsistent data for review and
resolution by the tracking system manager. This information is then cross-checked with compliance
data submitted by reporting companies. The GPD maintains a user's manual for the ATS that specifies
the standard operating procedures for data entry and data analysis. Regional inspectors perform
inspections and audits on-site at the facilities of producers, importers, and exporters. These audits
verify the accuracy of compliance data submitted to EPA through examination of company records.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
Goal 7: Quality Environmental Information
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-82)
Make 90 percent of enforcement and compliance policies and guidance issued this fiscal year
available on the Internet within 30 days of issuance. (APG 49)
Performance Database: Output measure; internal tracking system. FY 2002 performance data are
complete.
Data Source: Manual system. Headquarters tracks date document was issued and uploaded to the
Internet.
Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-82)
Total electronic reporting of all chemical submissions processed. (Includes diskette submissions
created by ATRS, TRI-ME, and other reporting software programs, as Web-based submissions.)
(APG 50)
Performance Database: Toxic Release Inventory System.
Data Source: TRI chemical reports provided by reporting facilities.
Data Quality: Data are simple frequencies, checked informally for accuracy.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-83)
States using the Central Data Exchange to send data to EPA. (APG 51)
Performance Database: Output measure; no database.
B-40 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 7: Quality Environmental Information (continued)
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-83)
Award 90 grants to organizations which address environmental problems in communities
disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards. (APG 52)
Performance Database: Each region awards the grants from funds transferred from the Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ). Upon completion of each year's cycle, the regions submit their award
selections to OEJ, from which a master list is compiled. OEJ maintains the annual lists.
Data Source: The OEJ compiles lists of annual grant awards, based on information submitted by
the regions.
Data Quality: Prior to award, each grant application is reviewed in accordance with EPA quality
management protocols in each region. Each grant is for a maximum of $20,000, and most do not
involve data collection or manipulation. The few that do are required to have a Quality
Management Plan.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-83)
Hold meetings with the NEJAC, all stakeholders involved in the environmental justice dialogue, and
communities disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards. (APG 52)
Performance Database: Output measure; internal manual tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-84)
Publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems, accessible on the EPA Web site, will be
part of the Integrated Error Correction Process. (APG 53)
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-84)
Critical financial systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented and transmitted to
systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment document. (APG 54)
Performance Database: Output measure; no database.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-84)
Critical infrastructure systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented and transmitted to
systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment document. (APG 54)
Performance Database: Output measure; no database.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-41
-------
Goal 7: Quality Environmental Information (continued)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-84)
Mission critical environmental systems risk assessment findings will be formally documented and
transmitted to systems owners and managers in a formal Risk Assessment document. (APG 54)
Performance Database: Output measure; no database.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
Goal 8: Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and
Greater Innovation to Address Environmental Problems
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-93)
Trends in acidity in lakes and streams in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic Regions of the United States.
(APG 55)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-94)
Enhance the Waste Reduction Algorithm environmental impact assessment tool used to design or
retrofit chemical processes with (1) a better assessment methodology and (2) new features (costing).
(APG 56)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-94)
Prepare a pest resistance management framework to prolong the effectiveness of
genetically-modified corn pesticide characteristics for the Office of Pesticide Programs during product
registration. (APG 56)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-94)
Provide a PC-based tool for use by EPA and the metal finishing sector in evaluating exposure and
inhalation health risks to workers and residents living near metal finishing facilities. (APG 56)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-94)
Complete 20 stakeholder approved and peer-reviewed test protocols in all environmental technology
categories under ETV, and provide them to testing organizations world-wide. (APG 57)
B-42 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 8: Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and
Greater Innovation to Address Environmental Problems (continued)
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart pages 11-105,11-108)
• 75 percent of concluded enforcement actions identify pollutant reductions and/or changes in
facility management or information practices. (APG 58)
• Millions of pounds of pollutants required to be reduced through enforcement actions settled
this fiscal year. (APG 58)
• Facilities voluntarily self-disclose and correct violations with reduced or no penalty as a result
of EPA self-disclosure policies. (APG 64)
Performance Database: ICIS, which tracks EPA civil, judicial, and enforcement actions. FY 2002
performance data are complete.57
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS are collected through the
use of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which Agency staff prepare after the conclusion of
each civil (judicial and administrative) enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to
capture relevant information on the results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement
cases.58 The information generated through the CCDS is used to track progress for several of the
performance measures. The CCDS form consists of 27 specific questions which, when completed,
describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case was concluded;
the compliance actions required to be taken by the defendant(s); the costs involved; information
on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the settlement; the
amounts and types of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered through the action, if
applicable. The CCDS requires that the staff identify whether the facility/defendant, through
injunctive relief, must (1) reduce pollutants and (2) improve management practices to curtail,
eliminate, or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future. For actions that result in pollution
reductions, the staff estimate the amounts of pollution reduced over the lifetime of the
enforcement action. There are established procedures for the staff to calculate, by statute (e.g.,
Clean Water Act), the pollutant reductions or eliminations. The procedure first entails the
determination of the difference between the current "out of compliance" concentration of the
pollutant(s) and the post enforcement action "in compliance" concentration. This difference is then
converted to mass per time using the flow or quantity information derived during the case.
Data Quality: Quality assurance/quality control procedures are in place for both the CCDS and ICIS
entry. A Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training Booklet and a Case Conclusion Data Sheet Quick Guide
have been distributed throughout regional and headquarters offices. Separate CCDS Calculation and
Completion Checklists are required to be filled out at the time the CCDS is completed. A Quality
Management Plan for ICIS is under development.
Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS is reviewed by regional and headquarters staff for
completeness and accuracy. The pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in the CCDS are
estimates of what will be achieved if the defendant carries out the requirements of the settlement.
The estimates are based on information available at the time a case is settled or an order is issued. In
some instances, this information will be developed and entered after the settlement in continued
discussions over specific plans for compliance. There may be delay. Because of unknowns at the
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-43
-------
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
(continued)
time of settlement, level of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, the enforcement office's
expectation is that based on information on the CCDS, the amount of pollutant reduction/elimination
will be underestimated. Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement is not available.
Improvements: In November 2000 EPA completed a comprehensive guidance package on the
preparation of the CCDS. This guidance, issued to headquarters and regional managers and staff, was
made available in print and CD-ROM, and was supplemented in FY 2002. The guidance contains
work examples to ensure better calculation of the amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated
through concluded enforcement actions. EPA trained each of its 10 regional offices during FY 2002.
Additionally, OECA began implementing an Information Quality Strategy in FY 2002.59 The Office of
Compliance's (OC) Information Quality Strategy is a plan, developed with participation across OC,
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI), EPA's regional offices, and states, to ensure that
information used and produced from national data systems and associated information are reviewed
for quality, that preventive processes are adhered to, and that problems are identified and corrective
steps followed. It includes an implementation plan that describes a series of projects OC is
undertaking to carry the strategy forward. These projects will be updated annually. Additionally, the
IQS provides the basis for OC's Quality Management Plans produced in accordance with the Agency's
data quality requirements.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-105)
Develop and use valid compliance rates or other indicators of compliance for selected populations.
(APG 58)
Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System (PCS) tracks National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and enforcement actions, as well as reporting and scheduling
requirements. The Airs Facility Subsystem (AFS) captures emission, compliance, and permit data
for major stationary sources of air pollution. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) supports permit, compliance, and corrective action activities carried
out by hazardous waste handlers. Performance data are preliminary and should be finalized late first
quarter or early second quarter of FY 2003.
Data Source: EPA regional offices and delegated states.
Data Quality: All of the systems have been developed in accordance with the Office of Information
Management's Lifecycle Management Guidance,60 which includes data validation processes, internal
screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third-
party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are calculated.
Regarding AFS, EPA Inspector General (IG) reports in 1997 and 1998 highlighted states' problems
with identifying and reporting significant violators of the Clean Air Act, impairing EPA's ability to
assess noncompliance.61 EPA issued High Priority Violator Guidance to improve tracking of sources of
violations.62 As a result of the reports, EPA has enhanced oversight and headquarters' outreach to
regions, states, and local governments.
Improvements: PCS modernization is under way and will near completion in FY 2004. EPA is
preparing Quality Management Plans (data quality objectives, quality assurance project plans,
baseline assessments) for all major systems. A new Integrated Compliance Information System
B-44 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
(continued)
(ICIS) supports core program needs and consolidates and streamlines existing systems. A pilot project
to develop statistically valid compliance rates for selected universes of regulated facilities will be
completed in 2003. A National Congressional Performance Measure Strategy project on the impact of
EPA strategies on recidivism focuses attention on better compliance assurance targeting (i.e., monitoring,
compliance assistance, incentives, and enforcement).
For all systems, there are concerns about quality and completeness of data and the ability of existing
systems to meet data needs. Incompatible database structures/designs and differences in data
definitions impede integrated analyses. Additionally, there are incomplete data available on the
universe of regulated facilities because not all such facilities are inspected/permitted. System
modernization will resolve many of these problems. There are also issues of programmatic scheduling
that influence when statistically valid compliance measures can be calculated. For example, rates based
on self-reported Discharge Monitoring Reports in the NPDES program cannot be calculated until more
than a fiscal quarter after the reports are received because of programmatic and associated system
rules for determining significant noncompliance.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-105)
• Reduce by 2 percentage points overall the level of significant noncompliance recidivism among
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs from
FY 2000 levels. (APG 58)
• Increase by 2 percentage points over FY 2000 levels the proportion of significant noncomplier
facilities under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
which returned to full physical compliance in less than two years. (APG 58)
Performance Databases: PCS tracks NPDES permit and enforcement actions, as well as reporting
and scheduling requirements. AFS captures emission, compliance, and permit data for major stationary
sources of air pollution. RCRAInfo supports permit, compliance, and corrective action activities
carried out by hazardous waste handlers. FY 2002 performance data will be available in FY 2003.
Data Source: EPA regional offices and delegated states.
Data Quality: All the systems have been developed in accordance with the Office of Information
Management's life cycle management63 guidance, which includes data validation processes, internal
screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit reports, third-
party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are calculated.
Regarding AFS, EPA's OIG reports in 1997 and 1998 highlighted states' problems with identifying and
reporting significant violators of the Clean Air Act, impairing EPA's ability to assess noncompliance.64
EPA issued High Priority Violator Guidance to improve tracking of sources of violations.65 As a result
of the reports, EPA has enhanced oversight and headquarters' outreach to regions, states, and local areas.
Improvements: PCS modernization is under way. EPA is preparing QMPs (data quality objectives,
quality assurance project plans, baseline assessments) for all major systems. A new system, ICIS, will
support core program needs and consolidate and streamline existing systems. A pilot project to
develop statistically valid compliance rates for selected universes of regulated facilities will be
completed in 2003. A National Congressional Performance Measure Strategy project on the impact
of EPA strategies on recidivism focuses attention on better compliance assurance targeting (i.e.,
monitoring, compliance assistance, incentives, and enforcement).
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-45
-------
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
(continued)
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for any of these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart pages 11-105,107)
• Produce a report on the number of civil and criminal enforcement actions initiated and
concluded. (APG 58)
• Have Phase I of the Integrated Compliance Information System fully operational in March
2002. (APG 61)
• Operate 14 information systems housing national enforcement and compliance assurance data
with a minimum of 95 percent operational efficiency. (APG 61)
Performance Database: Output measures; internal tracking.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-106)
Number of criminal investigations. (APG 59)
Performance Databases: The Criminal Docket System (CRIMDOC) is a criminal case management,
tracking, and reporting system. Information about criminal cases investigated by EPA's Criminal
Investigation Division (CID) is entered into CRIMDOC at case initiation, and investigation and
prosecution information is tracked until case conclusion. Performance data are preliminary and should
be finalized late first quarter or early second quarter of FY 2003.
Data Source: EPA-CID offices.
Data Quality: The system administrator performs regularly scheduled quality assurance/quality
control checks of the CRIMDOC database to validate data and to evaluate and recommend
enhancements to the system.
Improvements: A new case management, tracking, and reporting system (Case Reporting System)
that will replace CRIMDOC is being developed. This new system will be a more user-friendly
database with greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-106)
• Number of EPA inspections conducted. (APG 59)
• Number of civil investigations. (APG 59)
Performance Databases: Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA). IDEA integrates data
from major enforcement and compliance systems, such as PCS, AFS, RCRAInfo, and the Emergency
Response Notification System (ERNS). FY 2002 performance data are complete.
Data Source: EPA regional offices.
Data Quality: All the systems have been developed in accordance with the Office of Information
Management's life cycle management guidance,66 which includes data validation processes,
internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user documents, data quality audit
reports, third-party testing reports, and detailed report specifications for showing how data are
calculated.
B-46 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
(continued)
Regarding AFS, EPA's OIG reports in 1997 and 1998 highlighted states' problems with identifying and
reporting significant violators of the Clean Air Act, impairing EPA's ability to assess noncompliance.67
EPA issued High Priority Violator Guidance to improve tracking of sources of violations.68 As a result
of the reports, EPA has enhanced oversight and headquarters' outreach to regions, states, and local areas.
Improvements: PCS modernization is under way. EPA is preparing QMPs (data quality objectives,
quality assurance project plans, baseline assessments) for all major systems. A new system, ICIS,
will support core program needs and consolidate and streamline existing systems. A pilot project
on developing statistically valid compliance rates will be completed in 2003.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for these performance measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-107)
Conduct EPA-assisted inspections to help build state program capacity. (APG 60)
Performance Database: Output measure; internal regional tracking system.
Data Source: Internal regional tracking system and ICIS.
Data Quality: EPA regional and headquarters' managers check information to confirm accuracy.
Improvements: ICIS has ability to assist regions in tracking inspections.
A new measurement tool, the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS), will be used to analyze the
results from inspections conducted under some of EPA's major statutes. Data on communication of
problems to industry, compliance assistance delivered by inspectors, and immediate corrections
made by industry will be analyzed by region, nationally, and by industry sector.
Material Inadequacy: There is no material inadequacy for this performance measure.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-107)
• Number of EPA training classes/seminars delivered to states, localities, and tribes to build
capacity. (APG 60)
• Total number of state and local students trained. (APG 60)
Performance Database: National Enforcement Training Institute's (NETI's) course information
management systems, the Automated Blue Form, and the registrar. Performance data are complete.
Data Source: Manual reports.
Data Quality: Managers ensure the quality assurance/quality control of information in the system.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-108)
Evaluate 100 percent of the notices for transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, ensuring their
proper management in accordance with international agreements. (APG 62)
Performance Database: Waste Import Tracking System (WITS), Hazardous Waste Export System
(HWES). Performance data are complete.
www.epa.gov/ocfo B-47
-------
Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with the Law
(continued)
Data Source: Manual reports (notifications) submitted by U.S. exporters and by foreign governments
for imports.
Data Quality: EPA reviews the notifications, manifests, and annual reports to ensure they are timely
and accurate before they are entered into the database.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-107)
• Train tribal personnel. (APG 60)
• Provide tribal governments with 50 computer-based training (CBT) modules. (APG 60)
Performance Database: National Enforcement Training Institute Registration System. FY 2002
performance data are complete.
Data Source: Data come from registration forms.
Data Quality: Managers ensure quality assurance/quality control of information in system.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page 11-109)
Increase Environmental Management Systems (EMS) use by developing tools, such as training and
best practice manuals that encourage improved environmental performance. (APG 65)
Performance Database: Internal tracking system is currently being developed.
Data Source: Headquarters will report on progress.
Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
Goal 10 - Effective Management
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-l 17)
Agency's audited financial statements and Annual Report are submitted on time. (APG 66)
Performance Database: There is no formal database.
Data Source: OMB acknowledgment of receipt of financial statements and reference in OMB
government-wide reports.
Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-l 17)
Agency's audited financial statements receive an unqualified opinion and provide information that is
useful and relevant to the Agency and external parties. (APG 66)
Performance Database: There is no formal database.
Data Source: OMB acknowledgment of receipt of financial statements and reference in OMB
government-wide reports.
Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
B-48 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Goal 10 - Effective Management (continued)
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-118)
Percentage of increase in outcome-oriented annual performance goals and performance measures
(APGs/PMs) in the Agency's FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
submission. (APG 67)
Performance Database: Performance and Environmental Results System (PERS) and Budget
Automation System (BAS) are used for internal tracking. The performance data are complete for
assessment of FY 2002 performance.
Data Source: PERS, BAS, and OCFO staff evaluation.
Data Quality: Because PERS and BAS are databases that primarily house information from Agency
program databases, most of the quality assurance and control efforts focus on ensuring effective
data entry. However, internal staff evaluation allows the Agency to develop trend data and analyze
information submitted to these centralized databases.
Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-118)
Percentage of EPA personnel consolidated into headquarters complex. (APG 68)
Performance Database: Program output measure; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-118)
Percentage of complete build out of Customs and Connecting Wing buildings. (APG 69)
Performance Database: Program output measure; no internal tracking system.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-119)
Percentage of fuel cell components in place. (APG 70)
Performance Database: No relevant database used to track this performance measure.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-119)
Percentage of structure completed. (APG 70)
Performance Database: No relevant database used to track this performance measure.
Data Source, Data Quality, Improvements, Material Inadequacy: Not applicable.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE: (Refer to Performance Data Chart page II-119)
Number of environmental improvements made, reductions in environmental risks, and best
environmental practices identified. (APG 71)
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-49
-------
Goal 10 - Effective Management (continued)
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Results and Measurement System is used to capture
and aggregate information on an array of measures in logic model format, linking immediate outputs
with longer-term intermediate outcomes and results. Database69 measures include numbers of
(1) recommendations for environmental improvement; (2) legislative and regulatory changes;
(3) policy, directive, or process changes; (4) environmental risks identified, reduced, or eliminated;
(5) best practices identified and transferred; and (6) examples of environmental improvement.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff are responsible for entering data into the system. Data are from
OIG independent follow-up, performance evaluations, audits, and research and from EPA data
systems and reports to determine the extent of environmental improvements, risks reduced or
avoided, and best practices transferred, as well as from certifications of actions taken by EPA
officials. OIG also collects independent data from EPA's partners.
Data Quality: All performance data submitted to the database require at least one verifiable source
assuring data accuracy and reliability. OIG products and services are subject to rigorous
compliance with the Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General70 and are regularly
reviewed by OIG management, an independent OIG Management Assessment Review Team, and
external independent peer reviewers. The statutory mission of the OIG is to conduct independent
audits, evaluations, and investigations to promote, among other things, integrity in Agency
operations and reporting systems.
All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and services. However, there is the
possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the system due to human error. Data
supporting achievement of results are often from indirect or external sources, with their own
methods or standards for data verification/validation.
Improvements: The OIG developed the Performance Results and Accountability System as a
prototype in FY 2001 and continued enhancing it in FY 2002 by refining measures, refining targets,
and expanding OIG-wide understanding of the system. The system was enhanced to sort results by
OIG Strategic Areas and improve the linkages of measures. The use of the system and the quality of
the data were improved by refining the definitions of measures, developing a comprehensive system
handbook, publishing the results of the data collected in the system, and providing tutorials to all OIG
staff. EPA expects the quality of the data to improve with greater familiarity with the new system and
definitions of measures.
Material Inadequacy: There are no material inadequacies for this performance measure.
B-50 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
Notes:
1. For additional information about criteria pollutant data, nonattainment areas, and other related information, see
U.S. EPA, Air Trends, at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends.
2. For additional information about mobile source programs and NOx and VOC emissions in particular, see U.S. EPA,
Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, at
http://www.epa. gov/otaq.
3. Information on the development of the 1996 and 1999 NTI is available, respectively, on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/tto/chief/nti/index.html-frnti and www.epa.gov/tto/chief/net/index.htmlfrl999.
4 Information on EMS-HAP is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/tto/scram/tt22.htmfraspen.
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) Quality
Assurance Project Plan (Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/castoet/library/qapp.html.
6. U.S. EPA, Acid Rain Program, Quarterly Report Review Process for Deter mining Final Annual Data. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/arp/closurearp2001nov.pdf.
7. R. Enyeart, EPA Protocol for Participation in a PWSS Program Data Verification, Version 9.0. Internal document in
perpetual draft referred to as the PWSS Data Verification Protocol (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, revised June 1999).
8. F. Haertel, Data Reliability Action Plan, Agency internal work plan document (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of
Groundwater and Drinking Water, October 2002).
9. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Options for OGWDW Information
Strategy (working draft), EPA 816-O-01-001 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, February 2001). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/informationstrategy.html.
10. SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle database application available for use by states and EPA regions
to support implementation of their drinking water programs. See U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Drinking Water Data & Databases (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, July 2002). Information available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html.
11. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Information Management System Reports: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, November 7, 2000). Available at http://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwsrf/.
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Clean Water SRF Program: Data Definitions for the National Information
Management System (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). Available at http://www.epa. gov/r5water/cwsrf/pdf/
nimsdef.pdf.
13. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Performance Indicators Visualization and
Outreach Tool Introduction (PIVOT) (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/
estuaries/pivot/overview/intro. htm.
14. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Estuary Program FY2002 Funding Guidance and Requirements for Grants
(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, March 2002).
15. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2001 Swimming Season, EPA823-F-02-008 (Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, May 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/.
Id U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), Permit Compliance System (database)
(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 2002).
17. U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, Permit Compliance System reports (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA,
2002). Available (with password) at http://clients.limno.com/protected/pcscleanup.
18. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Loadings Reduction Spread Sheet for Direct
Dischargers from Point Sources Subject to Effluent Guidelines (unpublished Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet)
(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, updated 2002).
19. U.S. EPA, OECA, Permit Compliance System (database).
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-51
-------
20. The Technical Development Documents produced at the time of the effluent guidelines are the following:
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. June 2000. Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category. EPA-821-R-00-012. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. December 1998. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA 821-R-98-020. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. January 2001. Development Document for the Proposed Revisions to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations. EPA-821-R-01-003. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. January 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA-821-R-99-020. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. January 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-99-019. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. September 1998. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-98-005.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. October 1997. Technical Support Document for Best Management Practices for Spent
Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control. EPA-821-R-97-011. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. 1993. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards for the Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category,
Final. EPA821/R-93-016. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. 1996. Development Document for Best Available Technology, Pretreatment
Technology, and New Source Performance Technology for the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and
Repackaging Industry, Final. EPA821/R-96-019. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. December 2000. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for Synthetic-based Drilling Fluids and Other Non-aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category. EPA-821-B-00-013. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. January 1993. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category. EPA-821-AR-93-003. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. October 1996. Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. EPA-82 l-R-96-021. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA.
21. U.S. EPA. Verification of Pollutant Loadings Reduction Estimation Methodology, draft summary of findings, 68-C-
00-174, prepared for U.S. EPA by Parsons. (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, September 2002). K. Metchis, Tetra Tech,
Inc., Assessment of Potential Pollutant Reductions for Renewed CSO Permits (Year 2003) (October 17, 2002).
22. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Clean Water Needs Survey 2000 (electronic database) (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, 2000).
23. U.S. EPA, Verification of Pollutant Loadings Reduction Estimation Methodology.
24. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS) (Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA), Available only on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waters.
B-52 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
25. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Geography of WATERS: Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results
(WATERS) (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA), Available only on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waters/about/
geography.html.
26. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act), Section 305(b)(l).
27. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (305(b) report), EPA-841-R-02-001
(Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, August 2002). Current and prior year reports (from 1992) available on the Internet at
http://www.epa. gov/305b/.
28. Ibid
29. Ibid
30. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (Draft) (Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, August 2002). Available only on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
elemstwtrprgm.pdf.
31. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Assessment Data Base: Reference (Washington, DC: Office of Water). Available only on
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waters/adb/docs.htm.
32. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, 2001 Quality Management Plan (Washington, DC: July 31, 2001).
33. U.S. EPA, The National Advisory Council ForEnvironmental Policy andTechnology (NACEPT),
EPA 100-R-98-006 (July 1998).
34. General Accounting Office, Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data,
GAO/RCED-00-54 (Washington, DC, March 2000).
35. National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach
to Reduce Water Pollution, Water Sciences and Technology Board, Division of Earth and Life Sciences, Assessing
the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
36. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, STORETSystem Updates (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA). Available only on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/storet/updates.html. U.S. EPA, Assessment Data Base: Reference.
37. U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology:
Toward a Compendium of Best Practices, 1st ed. (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, July 31, 2002). Available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.
38. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program (Draft) (Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA, August 2002). Available only on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
elemstwtrprgm.pdf.
39. NAHB Research Center, Inc., A Builder Practices Report: Radon Reducing Features in New Construction 2000,
Annual Builder and Consumer Practices Surveys (January 24, 2002). Available at http://www.nahbrc.org. Similar
report titles exist for prior years.
40. U.S. EPA, Radon-Specific Publications, National Radon Results—1985-1999. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html.
41. See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Information available on the Internet
at http://www.nces.ed.gov. U.S. EPA, Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit, 402-K-95-001. Available on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools.
42. U.S. EPA, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Available at http://www.epa.gov/tri.
43. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 2000 Update, EPA-530-R-02-001 (June 2002). Available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/
44. U.S. EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAInfo) Query Form, available at
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/rcris query iava.html.
45. Ibid
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-53
-------
46. U.S. General Accounting Office, Accounting and Information Management Division, Hazardous Waste Benefits of
EPA's Information System Are Limited, GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, GAO/AIMD-95-16? (August 1995). Available at http://www.gao.gov.
47. U.S. General Accounting Office, Brownfields: Information on the Programs of EPA and Selected States, Report to
the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, GAO-01-52. Available at
http ://www. gao.gov.
48. U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, National TRU Waste Management Plan, Quarterly Supplements.
Available on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Web site at http://www.wipp.ws/library/caolib.hlmfrControlled.
49. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates for States, Counties, Places and
Minor Civil Divisions (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990). Institute Nacional de Estadistica,
Geografia y Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total Population by State (1990).
50. Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American Development Bank
(NADRank),BEIFFunding Summary (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
51. U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Environmental Indicators, Fish Indicators, Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html.
52. D. Swackhammer, Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants (January 29, 2001).
53. U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Environmental Indicators, Air Indicators, Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/air.html.
54. U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, LADN Resources, Available at http://www.msc.ee.gc.ca/iadn/resources/
resources e.html.
55. U.S. EPA, Limnology Program, Great Lakes Monitoring, Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/
indicators/limnology/index.htm.
56. U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Third National Communication of the United States
of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of State, May 2002). Available at http://www.epa. gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html.
57. U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I, internal EPA database, non-enforcement
sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act (May 2002).
58. U.S. EPA, Case Conclusion Data Sheet, training booklet (November 2000). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning. U.S. EPA, Quick Guide for Case Conclusion
Data Sheet (November 2000). Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/planning.
59. Final Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality Strategy and Description of FY2002 Data Quality Strategy
Implementation Plan Projects (March 25, 2002).
60. Life Cycle Management Guidance, IRM Policy Manual 2100 (September 28, 1994). See Chapter 17 for Life Cycle
Management
6l. U.S. EPA, 1997 EPA IG Reports. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm.
Validation of Air Enforcement Data reported to EPA by Massachusetts (7100305).
EPA Region 3's Oversight of Maryland's Air Enforcement Data (7100302).
Region 6's Oversight of Arkansas Air Enforcement Data (7100295, September 26, 1997).
1998 EPA IG Reports available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm.
Region 6's Oversight of New Mexico Air Enforcement Data (8100078, March 13, 1998).
Idaho's Air Enforcement Program (8100249, September 30, 1998).
62. U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Issuance of Policy on Timely and Appropriate Enforcement
Response to High Priority Violators (HPVs) (February 22, 1999). Available at http://www.epa. gov/compliance/
resources/policies/civil/caa.
63. Life Cycle Management Guidance.
B-54 tmvw.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
64. U.S. EPA. 1997 EPA IG Reports.
65. U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
66. Life Cycle Management Guidance.
67. U.S. EPA, 1997 EPA IG Reports.
68. U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
69. U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General. The accumulated component and sum results of the database are
available at www.epa.gov/oigearth.
70. Office of Management and Budget, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C.; Section 6, OMB Circular
A-73, Audit of Federal Operations and Programs.
mvw.epa.gov/ocfo B-55
-------
This Page Intentionally Blank
B-56 www.epa.gov/ocfo
-------
- J /-M
— r r '^ f
'
'
-------
APPENDIX C:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental
Appeals Board
Regional
Operations
Children's Health
Protection
Executive Support
Executive
Secretariat
Administrative
Law Judges
Cooperative
Environmental
Management
Small and
Disadvataged
Business Utilization
Civil Rights
Science Advisory
Board
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator
for Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances
Region 1
Boston, MA
Region 5
Chicago, IL
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Inspector General
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
Region 2
New York, NY
Region 6
Dallas, TX
Region 9
San Francisco, CA
Associate Administrator for
Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations
Associate Administrator
for Public Affairs
Associate Administrator for Policy,
Economics, and Innovation
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator
for International
Affairs
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
Region 7
Kansas City, KS
Region 10
Seattle, WA
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator
for Environmental
Information
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Region 8
Denver, CO
www. epa.gov/ocfo
C-l
-------
_Q^lz ID
Acronyms and Abbreviations
-------
APPENDIX D:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AA Assistant Administrator
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level
AFS AIRS Facility Subsystem
AIEO American Indian Environmental
Office
AMS Agricultural Marketing Service
APG annual performance goal
AQCD Air Quality Criteria Document
AQI air quality index
AQS Air Quality Subsystem
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
ASPEN Assessment System for Population
Exposure Nationwide
ASTHO Association of State and Territorial
Health Officials
ATS Allowance Tracking System
BDMS Biosolids Data Management
System
BEACH Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health
BECC Border Environment Cooperative
Commission
BMP best management practice
BMS Brownfields Management System
BPP Bakery Partnership Program
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation
CAS Center of Applied Science
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee
CBT computer-based training
CCDS Case Conclusion Data Sheet
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring
System
CEP Cumulative Exposure Project
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCIIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
QD Criminal Investigation Division
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPM core performance measure
CPS Current Population Survey
CRIMDOC Criminal Docket System
CSO combined sewer overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
CWS community water system
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Dffi Design for the Environment
DI direct implementation
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
www. epa.gov/ocfo
D-l
-------
DOC Department of Commerce
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
DOT Department of Transportation
DQO data quality objective
DRAP Data Reliability Action Plan
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving
Loan Fund
ECOS Environmental Council of the
States
EDC endocrine disruptor chemical
EFAB Environmental Financial Advisory
Board
EEC Environmental Finance Center
ECU electric generation unit
El environmental indicator
EIA Energy Information Agency
EJ environmental justice
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
EMS Environmental Management
System
EMS-HAP Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
ERNS Emergency Response Notification
System
ERP Environmental Results Program
ETS environmental tobacco smoke
ETS Emissions Tracking System
ETV Environmental Technology
Verification
FAIR Federal Activities Inventory Reform
FCCC Framework Convention on Climate
Change
FedBizOpps Federal Business Opportunities
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
Federal Managers Financial
Integrity Act
Food Quality Protection Act
Findings and Required Elements
Data System
FIFRA
FMFIA
FQPA
FREDS
FY fiscal year
GAO General Accounting Office
GAP General Assistance Program
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
GISRA Government Information Security
Reform Act
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program
Office
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
GPD Global Programs Division
GPRA Government Performance and
Results Act
GWR groundwater exposure
H2E Hospitals for a Healthy
Environment
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HE human exposure
D-2
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
HPV High Production Volume
HUC hydrologic unit code
HW hazardous waste
HWES Hazardous Waste Export System
1/M inspection/maintenance
IADN Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network
LAG interagency agreement
IAQ indoor air quality
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
ICDS Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet
ICK Integrated Compliance Information
System
ICR Information Collection Request
IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement
Analysis
IECP Integrated Error Correction Process
IG Inspector General
IJC International Joint Commission
IMC Information Management
Coordinator
IPM integrated pest management
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISDWP International Safe Drinking Water
Program
ISO Information Security Officer
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
LDEQ Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MACT Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
MCL maximum contaminant level
MIRA Multi-criteria Integration Resource
Assessment
MTTS Management Information Tracking
System
MMTCE million metric tons carbon
equivalent
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MSR Management System Review
MSW municipal solid waste
MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether
MVP2 Most Valuable Pollution Prevention
NAAG National Association of Attorneys
General
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NACEPT National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and
Technology
NADBank North American Development
Bank
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition
Program
NAHB National Association of Home
Builders
NAPAP National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASS National Agricultural Statistical
Survey
NATA National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment
NCA National Coastal Assessment
www. epa.gov/ocfo
D-3
-------
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics
NCI National Cancer Institute
NEIEN National Environmental
Information Exchange Network
NEJAC National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council
NEIAC National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPPS National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
NGO nongovernmental organizations
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NO nitrogen oxide
X O
NPAP National Performance Audit
Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Research Council
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NRT National Response Team
Nil National Toxic Inventory
O3 ozone
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OATS On-line Allowance Tracking
System
OC Office of Compliance
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial
Officer
OCIR Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations
ODP-MT ozone depletion potential-
weighted metric tonnes
ODS ozone-depleting substance
OECA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
OEI Office of Environmental
Information
OGD Office of Grants and Debarment
OHS Office of Homeland Security
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OP organophosphate
OPPIN Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OTC Ozone Transport Commission
OW Office of Water
P2 pollution prevention
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PART Program Assessment Ratings Tool
Pb lead
PBDE polybrominated diphenyl ether
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative toxic
PC personal computer
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCS Permit Compliance System
PDD Presidential Decision Directive
PDP Pesticide Data Program
PERS Performance and Environmental
Results System
PFOS perfluorooctanyl sulfonate
PIVOT Performance Indicators
Visualization and Outreach Tool
D4
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
EM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers
or less in diameter
PM
2.5
particulate matter 2.5 micrometers
or less in diameter
PMA President's Management Agenda
PMN Premanufacture Notice
POA&M plan of action and milestones
POP persistent organic pollutant
PPG performance partnership grants
PRATS Pesticide Regulatory Action
Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
PWSS Public Water System Supervision
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QMP Quality Management Plan
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCC Resource Conservation Challenge
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RCRAInfo Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Information System
RDMS Research Database Management
System
RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision
REI Reinventing Environmental
Information
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGI Regional Geographic Initiative
RGM reactive gaseous mercury
RS&T Regional Science & Technology
RTA Regional Transit Authority
[Cleveland, Ohio]
RTP Research Triangle Park
SAB
SARA
SBREFA
SDWA
SDWIS
SDWIS-FED
SDWIS-STATE
SECG
SEP
SES
SIC
SIP
SITE
SLAMS
SMJR
S02
SOL
SOP
s°x
SRF
Science Advisory Board
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Flexibility Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information
System
Safe Drinking Water Information
System-federal version
Safe Drinking Water Information
System-state version
small entity compliance guide
supplemental environmental
project
Senior Executive Service
Standard Industrial Classification
State Implementation Plan
Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
State and Local Air Monitoring
Stations
Significant New Use Rules
sulfur dioxide
statute of limitations
standard operating procedure
sulfur oxides
State Revolving Fund
TBA Targeted Brownfields Assessment
TERA Toxicology for Excellence in Risk
Assessment
www. epa.gov/ocfo
D-5
-------
Tfi Tools for School
TIMS Tribal Information Management
System
TIP Tribal Implementation Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TORTS Tolerance Reassessment Tracking
System
TPPC Tribal Pesticide Program Council
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TRI-ME TRI Made Easy
TRIM Toxics Release Inventory
Modernization
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
UNEP United Nations Environment
Programme
USHPV U.S. High Production Volume
[database]
USAID United States Agency for
International Development
USDA United States Department of
Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
LIST underground storage tank
UV ultraviolet
UVPM Utah Valley particulate matter
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WAR Waste Reduction [Algorithm]
WATERS Watershed Assessment, Tracking &
Environmental Results
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
WITS Waste Import Tracking System
WQS water quality standard
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable
Development
WTC World Trade Center
XL excellence and Leadership
1X6
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
PUBLIC ACCESS TO
EPA'S PROGRAMS; LOCAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL NEWS;
AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
The public is invited to access http://www.epa.gov to obtain the latest environmental news,
browse EPA topics, discover what is happening in your community, obtain information on interest
groups, research laws and regulations, search specific program areas, learn how to get information,
or access EPA's historical database.
EPA Newsroom Headlines, Press Releases, Speeches and Testimony, News Around the
Nation, Activities Update-Announcements, EPA Activities at the World Trade
Center and Pentagon
Browse EPA Topics Air, Cleanup, Compliance & Enforcement, Economics, Ecosystems,
Emergencies, Environmental Management, Human Health, Industry,
International Cooperation, Pesticides, Pollutants/Toxics, Pollution Prevention,
Research, Treatment & Control, Wastes, Water
Laws, Regulations Introduction, EPA Dockets, Major Environmental Laws, Current Legislation
in Congress, U.S. Code, Regulations and Proposed Rules, Code of Federal
Regulations, Non-Binding Guidance Documents
Where You Live
Search Your Community, EPA Regional Offices, State Environmental
Agencies, Learn More About Your Community
Information Sources Libraries & Information Centers, Hotlines, Clearinghouses, Dockets,
Employee Directory, Publications, Newsletters & Listservs, FOIA Office,
Databases and Software, Test Methods & Models, Frequently Asked
Questions
Educational
Resources
About EPA
Programs
Business
Jobs
Recursos en
Espanol
For Kids
Kids, Students, Teachers, Office of Environmental Education, Researchers
Our Mission, Who We Are, Jobs, Mailing Addresses, What We Do,
Organization, Budget and Performance, Contracting Opportunities, Grants
and Environmental Funding, Our History, EPA Regional Offices
Programs by Media and Topic, General Interest, Regional & Program Offices,
Research, Programs with a Geographic Focus, State, Local, and Tribal,
Innovation Activities, Industry Partnerships, Offices & Organization Chart
Business and Industry, Contracts and RFPs, Small Business Gateway, Small
Business Opportunities, Grants and Environmental Financing, State, Local,
and Tribal
Ezhire@EPA, Internships, Fellowships & Student Employment, Attorney and
Law Clerk Jobs, Senior Executive Service Jobs, USA Jobs, EPA's Employment
Benefits, Anti-Discrimination Policy, People with Disabilities, U.S. Citizenship
Requirements, EPA Career Fields, Qualification Standards
Vida Diaria, Vida Profesional, Protegiendo a los Ninos, Emergencias en el
Medio Ambiente, Otros Recursos en Espanol, Leyes y Tratados en Espanol
Explorer's Club
www. epa.gov/ocfo
-------
WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS!
Thank you for your interest in the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2002 Annual Report.
We welcome your comments on how we can make this report a more informative document
for our readers. We are particularly interested in your comments on the usefulness of the
information and the manner in which it is presented. Please send your comments to
2002AR.OCFO@epa.gov or write to:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability (2721A)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
ORDERING INFORMATION
This report is available on OCFO's homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage,
through EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198,
or by ordering online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihoni.
Cover Photo/Section Dividers
Mt. Rainier National Park
John H. McShane, Office of Water
EPA- 190-R-O 3-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report
------- |