U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS
-------
EPA's FY 2005
Performance and
Accountability Report
The FY 2005 report is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2005par
EPA's FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
Information on the development of EPA's
2006-2011 Strategic Plan is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
The FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2005/2005ap/
2005ap.htm
Information about EPA's programs:
http://www.epa.gov
Para informacion acerca de los programas de EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/espanol
WE WELCOME
YOUR COMMENTS!
Thank you for your interest in the
Environmental Protection Agency's
FY 2005 Performance and Accountability
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 com-
ments on the usefulness of the information
and the manner in which it is presented.
Please send your comments to:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning, Analysis, and
Accountability
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 PennsyIvaniaAve., NW
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov/ocfopage
EPAI90-R-05-OOI
November 2005
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
November 15, 2005
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to present the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Fiscal Year 2005
Performance and Accountability Report. This report reviews EPA's programmatic and financial
performance over the past fiscal year. It meets the requirements of the Government Performance
and Results Act and other management legislation. This report demonstrates EPA's commitment
to be accountable for results measured against the annual performance goals presented in our
FY 2005 Annual Plan.
With the help of our state, local, and tribal partners, EPA has made considerable progress
toward each of the five long-term goals for protecting human health and the environment
established in our 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. Our accomplishments in FY 2005 are evidence of our
commitment to accelerate the pace of environmental progress. We continue to adopt innovative
approaches, focus on results, and use the best available science in making decisions.
In addition, I give my assurance that the performance and financial data included in this
report are complete and reliable, consistent with guidance provided by the Office of Management
and Budget. EPA and its partners are proud of our achievements in improving the quality of
air and water and protecting the land. We intend to learn from our experience, adjust our
approaches as necessary, and build on our FY 2005 results to fulfill our responsibility for
protecting human health and the environment.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Johnson"
Enclosure
-------
About
This Report
PURPOSE OF THE
REPORT
The Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
FY 2005 Performance and
Accountability Report provides
performance and financial infor-
mation that enables Congress, the
President, and the public to assess
the progress EPA is making in
achieving environmental results—
improving the quality of air and
water and preserving and protect-
ing the land—and using taxpayer
dollars efficiently and effectively.
This document also satisfies
reporting requirements of the
following legislation:
• Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act of 1982
(FMFIA)
Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988
Chief Financial Officers Act
of 1990
Government Performance and
Accountability Act of 1993
(GPRA)
Government Management
Reform Act of 1994
Federal Financial
Management Improvement
Act of 1996 (FFMIA)
Reports Consolidation Act of
2000
Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002
Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002
HOW THE REPORT IS
ORGANIZED
Transmitted Letter to the
President
This letter transmits EPA's
FY 2005 Performance and
Accountability Report from the
Administrator to the President,
Congress, and Office of
Management and Budget.
Message from the Administrator
The Administrator's message
briefly describes EPA's mission and
highlights some of the Agency's
FY 2005 accomplishments. It pro-
vides an assessment of the
reliability and completeness of the
financial and performance data
contained in the report and a
statement of assurance, as required
by the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982
(FMFIA), indicating whether the
Agency's management controls
and financial systems meet the
objectives of the Act.
Message from the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO)
The CFO's message describes
progress and challenges pertaining
to EPA's financial management. It
discusses EPA's efforts to integrate
budget and performance informa-
tion, and it provides information
on the Agency's management
controls program under FMFIA
and financial management systems
under the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of
1996 (FFMIA).
-------
Section I—Management's
Discussion and Analysis
(MD&A)
The MD&A presents an
overview of the entire report. It
includes an organizational
overview; a summary of the most
significant performance results
and challenges for FY 2005; infor-
mation on the Agency's progress
in implementing the President's
Management Agenda; and a brief
analysis of financial performance.
It also discusses EPA's progress in
strengthening its management
practices and compliance with
laws and regulations (FMFIA,
FFMIA and others) to assure the
integrity of its programs and oper-
ations. Lastly, the MD&A
includes the Administrator's assur-
ance statement on the soundness
of the Agency's internal controls.
The MD&A is supported and sup-
plemented by detailed information
contained in the Performance
Section, Management
Accomplishments and Challenges
Section, Financial Section, and
Appendices.
Section II—Performance
Section
This section presents the
annual program performance
information required by GPRA
and, combined with the
Appendices, addresses all of the
required elements of an annual
program performance report as
specified in "OMB Circular A-ll,
Preparing, Submitting and
Executing the Budget."
Performance results are presented
for each of the Agency's five
strategic goals and for its enabling
and support programs. For more
information on this section, please
contact EPA's Office of Planning,
Analysis and Accountability at
(202) 564-9327.
Section III—Management
Accomplishments and
Challenges
This section discusses
EPA's progress in strengthening
management practices to achieve
program results. It includes the
Inspector General's list of top
management challenges and the
Agency's progress in responding to
each issue. For more information
on this section, please contact
EPA's Office of Planning,
Analysis and Accountability at
(202) 564-9327.
Section IV—Financial Section
This section contains the
Agency's financial statements and
related Independent Auditor's
Report, as well as other informa-
tion on the Agency's financial
management. For more informa-
tion on this section, please
contact EPA's Office of Financial
Management at (202) 564-4905.
Appendices
The Appendices provide
more detailed information on the
Agency's performance results,
including prior year performance
data summaries of program evalua-
tion results, and data quality.
They also include a glossary of
acronyms and a list of relevant
EPA internet links.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Contents
Message from the Administrator v
Message from the Chief Financial Officer vii
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction 2
Mission and Organization 2
Highlights of FY 2005 Performance 5
—Significant Environmental Accomplishments and Challenges 5
—Homeland Security 10
—The President's Management Agenda 12
—Summary of Performance Data 15
Improving Results 18
—Strengthening Collaboration with Partners 18
—Using Program Evaluation and the PART 19
—Improving Environmental Indicators, Performance Measurement, and Data Quality 20
—Considering Future Trends and Looking Ahead 21
Internal Controls, Financial Management Systems, and Compliance with Laws and Regulations 22
—Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act 22
—Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 23
—Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 24
—Federal Information Security Management Act 25
—Government Management Reform Act 25
Financial Analysis 26
—Measuring Financial Management Results 26
—Resources and Outlays 27
—Innovative Financing: Partnerships and the Environmental Finance Program 28
—New Financial Management Initiatives 28
SECTION II—PERFORMANCE RESULTS
Introduction to Performance Section 32
Goal I: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 35
—Objective I: Healthier Outdoor Air 39
—Objective 2: Healthier Indoor Air 40
—Objective 3: Protect the Ozone Layer 41
—Objective 4: Radiation 42
—Objective 5: Greenhouse Gas Intensity 43
—Objective 6: Science and Research 44
—Annual Performance Goals 46
—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 64
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 66
—Objective I: Protect Human Health 69
—Objective 2: Protect Water Quality 71
—Objective 3: Enhance Science and Research 73
—Annual Performance Goals 74
—PART Measures Without Corresponding FY 2005 Goals 89
—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 89
-------
INTRODUCTION—CONTENTS
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 92
—Objective I: Preserve Land 95
—Objective 2: Restore Land 96
—Objective 3: Enhance Science and Research 97
—Annual Performance Goals 98
—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 109
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 110
—Objective I: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks 115
—Objective 2: Communities 116
—Objective 3: Ecosystems 118
—Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research 119
—Annual Performance Goals 121
—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 149
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 151
—Objective I: Improve Compliance I 55
—Objective 2: Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and Innovation I 56
—Objective 3:Tribal Capacity I 57
—Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research 158
—Annual Performance Goals I 59
—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005 I 69
Enabling and Support Programs 172
—Annual Performance Goals 174
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Introduction to Management Section I 80
OIG's 2005 Key Management Challenges and EPA Responses 181
GAO's 2005 Key Management Challenges and EPA Responses 192
SECTION IV—FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Introduction to Financial Section 194
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis 196
Principal Financial Statements 198
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) 234
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited) 240
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited) 242
—Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes 242
—Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-1 I, Section 52.4a) 249
—Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report 256
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements 260
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Annual Performance Goals Results for PriorYears A-1
Appendix B—Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2005 B-1
Appendix C—Data Quality C-1
Appendix D—Acronyms D-1
Appendix E—Public Access E-1
-------
Administrator's
Message
am pleased to present
EPA's FY 2005 Performance
JL, and. Accountability Report.
This report demonstrates the
progress EPA has made with the
help of our state, local, and tribal
partners to provide people with
cleaner air, purer water, and better
protected land. It also provides an
accounting of the resources we
used to meet our goals and fulfill
our mission of protecting human
health and the environment.
Since its inception 35 years
ago, EPA's environmental accom-
plishments have been remarkable.
The air is the cleanest it has been
in 30 years. Emissions of six prin-
cipal air pollutants are down, and
we estimate that the new Clean
Air Interstate Rule, put in place
in FY 2005, will result in the
greatest health benefits of any rule
since the phase-out of lead in
gasoline. More Americans have
reliably safe drinking water, and
more people can safely fish and
swim in waters that were once
polluted. Working with our state
and tribal partners, we have
restored more than 8,000 acres of
wetlands. Through our brown-
fields program, we are cleaning up
contaminated properties and
returning them to productive use.
Brownfields grantees have assessed
7,752 properties and leveraged
$7.2 billion in cleanup and rede-
velopment funding, creating
33,599 jobs. Waste recycling is
up, with over 50 percent of all
aluminum cans, steel packaging,
and major appliances now being
recycled. Finally, as a result of
enforcement actions, 1.1 billion
pounds of pollutants were
reduced, treated, or eliminated.
In the aftermath of the hurri-
canes, EPA is committed to help
the citizens of the affected states
safely restore their communities
and to provide the public and
emergency personnel with the
most accurate environmental
information possible. After the
storms passed, EPA national and
regional emergency operations
centers were activated 24 hours a
day to coordinate response activi-
ties. Our headquarters and
regional offices are working as part
of a highly coordinated effort with
our federal, state and local part-
ners. We have assessed damage,
monitored environmental effects,
and assisted efforts to protect
human health and the environ-
ment—part of which includes
helping to restore the vital drink-
ing water and waste water
infrastructure systems.
EPA also has significant
responsibilities in providing for
the security of our nation's home-
land. We play a lead role in
supporting the protection of criti-
cal water infrastructure and
coordinating development of
national capabilities and strategies
to address chemical, biological,
and radiological contamination
from a terrorist event. In FY 2005,
EPA established health effects
guidelines for exposure to haz-
ardous chemicals, developed a
web-based system to identify
hazards and characterize risks
in emergencies, continued to
assist the nation's drinking water
systems in protecting their
-------
infrastructure from terrorist
and other intentional attacks,
enhanced national decontamina-
tion capabilities, and trained EPA
field responders.
Performance information pre-
sented in this report is complete
and reliable as defined by OMB in
Circular A-l 1. In FY 2005, EPA
continued work to detect and
correct errors in environmental
data, standardize reporting, and
exchange and integrate electronic
data and data quality information
with our partners and the regulated
community.
EPA is committed to achieving
the goals set under the President's
Management Agenda (PMA) for
delivering environmental results to
our customers—the American pub-
lic—effectively and efficiently. We
continually assess our management
practices and structure to identify
and address issues. Under the
PMA, EPA has attained the high-
est rating possible for financial
management, where we are focused
on providing program managers
with the performance and cost
information they need to set priori-
ties and make sound decisions. EPA
is a leader in e-government, where
we have worked to reduce the
reporting burden on the regulated
community and improve informa-
tion sharing and data security. We
are also making progress in other
initiative areas: identifying our
workforce needs and developing
recruitment strategies to ensure
that we maintain a highly skilled
workforce, as well as refining our
environmental goals and develop-
ing measures to gauge efficiency of
our programs.
For the fourth year, EPA has
no material weaknesses to report
under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA),
a law focused on safeguarding
against fraud, waste, abuse, and
misappropriation of federal funds.
During FY 2005, the Agency did
resolve two of its less severe, inter-
nal Agency-level weaknesses in
the areas of data management and
water permitting.
We must continue to focus on
achieving environmental out-
comes and program efficiencies.
Building on our FY 2005 accom-
plishments, we will strive to
accelerate environmental progress;
promote environmental steward-
ship within the United States and
abroad; drive economic growth;
and approach new challenges with
enthusiasm, while meeting our
responsibilities for enforcing envi-
ronmental laws and regulations.
As we look to the future, these
priorities will help us meet our
goals for cleaner air, purer water,
better protected land, and healthy
communities.
Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
-------
CFO's
Message
:•*,-*
As I begin my
tenure as EPA's
Chief Financial
Officer, I am impressed by the
progress the Agency has made
toward its goals of protecting
human health and the environ-
ment. This report reviews the
goals we set for ourselves for
FY 2005, describes our achieve-
ments, and discusses some of the
work that remains before us. On
behalf of the Agency, I thank our
partners—state and local govern-
ments, tribes, businesses, and
other federal agencies—for their
contribution to these FY 2005
results and for their continued
participation and collaboration as
we address the challenges that lie
ahead.
PERFORMANCE AND
AUDIT RESULTS
The Administrator's Message,
which introduces this report,
highlights some of the Agency's
accomplishments this year in pro-
tecting human health and the
environment. These results are
discussed in this report. We offer a
broad perspective on the progress
toward the goals and objectives
established in EPA's 2003-2008
Strategic Plan and discuss each of
the 84 annual performance goals
set out in EPA's FY 2005 Annual
Plan. This report also reflects the
improved alignment of the meas-
ures associated with the
Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) and the
Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART).
EPA is committed to manag-
ing our programs in a fiscally
responsible manner, ensuring that
government resources are used
wisely and efficiently to protect
human health and the environ-
ment. The Agency's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) issued
an unqualified opinion in its
FY 2005 Financial Statements
Audit. As part of the audit, OIG
noted nine reportable conditions
and one noncompliance issue.
We continue our efforts to
address areas of weakness proac-
tively. We submitted corrective
action plans for all reportable con-
ditions and compliance issues
within ten months of the OIG's
FY 2004 Financial Statements
Audit. We have already initiated
corrective actions to address this
year's issues and are dedicated to
correcting audit recommendations
in a timely manner.
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
AND OTHER
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In addition to meeting federal
financial requirements, we assess
our own financial management
goals and our progress in achiev-
ing them. EPA's success also is
measured by our continued ability
to meet the President's
Management Agenda (PMA)
standards. We have received a
green status score for our accom-
plishments in the area of
Improved Financial Performance
and green progress scores for
-------
Budget and Performance
Integration and Eliminating
Improper Payments. To demon-
strate sound financial
management, we continue to
focus on improving our ability to
meet and exceed government-
wide financial performance
metrics.
Additionally, we are modern-
izing our financial system
infrastructure to help us manage
the resources that support our
environmental mission more effi-
ciently, measure the costs of
environmental programs more
precisely, and inform the public
about our activities more effec-
tively. The enhanced internal
control requirements under the
Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-123 will strengthen
our existing management integrity
efforts.
In FY 2005, as part of EPA's
efforts to institute competitive
sourcing, we placed the Agency's
vendor payment services in com-
petition against private sector
businesses. EPA demonstrated that
its process for handling the
Agency's vendor payments was
the most cost effective. We will be
consolidating all vendor pay-
ments, saving approximately $3.5
million over five years.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Readers should note that the
Agency does not yet have all the
data necessary to present a full
picture of our FY 2005 perform-
ance. In many cases, the data will
not be available until 2006. This
FY 2005 PAR does, however,
report information from past years
that only became available this
year.
LOOKING AHEAD
EPA has recently launched
initiatives to sharpen its focus on
environmental outcomes and
results; to strengthen regional,
state and tribal planning; and to
enhance accountability at every
level. As we develop our 2006-
2011 Strategic Plan, we will be
building on these efforts. We will
consider emerging challenges and
opportunities and take advantage
of recent efforts to develop better
environmental indicators as we
develop our measures of success.
Our experience in measuring per-
formance under GPRA and
program effectiveness under the
PART process will guide our plan-
ning. Like other agencies, we can
anticipate tight budgets, compli-
cated by rising fixed costs, in the
years ahead. We intend to link
performance and costs to inform
our decision making and ensure
that we use resources as efficiently
and effectively as possible.
In closing, I also want to
thank the dedicated EPA staff
who contributed to the progress
we have achieved this year and
who assisted in developing this
report.
Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
-------
Section I.
Management s
Discussion
and
3?
-------
Management's
i
and
SIS
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and its state
and local partners are making great
progress in improving air quality; ensur-
ing clean, safe water; and restoring and
protecting the land. For example:
• Today, the air is the cleanest it
has been in 30 years: total emis-
sions of the six principal air
pollutants—lead, ozone, particu-
late matter, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
dioxide—decreased by more
than 48 percent.
• More than 90 percent of the
nation's population served by
community water systems
receives drinking water that
meets all health-based stan-
dards—up from 79 percent a
decade ago.
• Two percent of America's children
have blood lead levels above 10
micrograms per deciliter, com-
pared to 90 percent in the 1970s.
• In the last decade, more than
1,000 contaminated sites began
cleanup operations, and recy-
cling and composting of
municipal solid waste has
increased more than ten-fold.
EPA's Long-Term
Strategic Goals
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Clean and Safe Water
Land Preservation and Restoration
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
• Industrial releases of 332 chemi-
cals tracked since 1988 are down
by nearly 50 percent, a reduction
of 1.55 billion pounds.
• Pesticides that pose the greatest
risks to human health and the
environment have been regulat-
ed to meet tough new health
standards.
Mission and Organization
The nation's environment is
steadily improving; however, there is
more to do and much of it is very
complex and costly. This report
reviews progress EPA made toward
its goals during FY 2005. It fulfills
the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act and
other management legislation! for
reporting on performance and
demonstrating results.
To help measure EPA's annual
progress, Agency leaders established
84 annual performance goals at the
beginning of FY 2005. The chapters
that follow describe EPA's progress
toward meeting these annual goals.
This report also presents a picture of
the Agency's financial activities and
achievements during the year,
because managing taxpayer dollars
efficiently and effectively is critical
to delivering the greatest results to
the American people.
EPA's mission is: "To protect
human health and the environ-
ment." To achieve its mission, the
Agency assesses environmental con-
ditions and works with its partners
and stakeholders to identify, under-
stand, and solve current and future
environmental problems. EPA devel-
ops and enforces regulations that
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
implement environmental laws to
protect America's air, water, and
land. It works with the regulated
community to provide assistance
and incentives for complying with
environmental laws.
EPA employs approximately
18,000 people across the country,
including its headquarters offices
in Washington, DC, 10 regional
offices, and more than a dozen
laboratories. The Agency's staff is
highly educated and technically
trained; more than half are engi-
neers, scientists, and policy
analysts. In addition, EPA
employs legal, public affairs, finan-
cial, information management,
and computer specialists. EPA
Administrator, Stephen L.
Johnson, who was appointed by
the President of the United
States, is the first career scientist
to lead the Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment.
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resource Management
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator
for Prevention. Pesticides.
and Toxic Substances
Region I
Boston, MA
I
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
I
Region 6
Dallas, TX
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator
for International Affairs
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
T
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
I
Region 7
Kansas City, KS
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator
for Environmental
Information
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Region 8
Denver, CO
Region 9
San Francisco, CA
Region 10
Seattle, WA
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Offices
Office of the Administrator
Provides overall supervision of the Agency and is
responsible directly to the President of the United
States.
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Manages EPA's human, financial, and physical
resources.
Office of Air and Radiation
Oversees the air and radiation protection activities,
including national programs, technical policies, and
regulations.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Manages and coordinates EPA's planning, budgeting,
and accountability processes and provides financial
management services.
Office of Enforcement & Compliance
Assurance
Delivers compliance with U.S. environmental laws and
promotes pollution prevention.
Office of Environmental Information
Advances the creation, management, and use of infor-
mation as a strategic resource at EPA.
Office of General Counsel
Provides legal service to all organizational elements
of the Agency.
Office of Inspector General
Conducts audits, evaluations, and investigations of
Agency programs and operations.
Office of International Affairs
Manages Agency involvement in international policies
and programs that cut across Agency offices and
regions and acts as the focal point on international
environmental matters.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Regulates pesticides and chemicals to protect public
health and the environment, and promotes innovative
programs to prevent pollution.
Office of Research and Development
Meets programs' research and development needs
and conducts an integrated research and develop-
ment program for the Agency.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Provides policy, guidance, and direction for safely
managing waste; preparing for and preventing chemi-
cal and oil spills, accidents, and emergencies; and
cleaning up and reusing contaminated property.
Provides technical assistance to all levels of govern-
ment to safeguard the air, water, and land from the
uncontrolled spread of waste.
Office of Water
Develops national programs, technical policies, and
regulations relating to drinking water, water quality,
ground water, pollution source standards, and the
protection of wetlands, marine, and estuarine areas.
Research Triangle Park (RTP), North
Carolina
The Agency's center for research on how humans
and ecosystems are exposed to various pollutants,
the extent of that exposure, and the health and eco-
logical effects which result from such exposure. RTP
is also the hub of EPA's air pollution programs under
the Clean Air Act and home of the EPA National
Computer Center.
Regional Offices
EPA has 10 regional offices, each responsible for sev-
eral states and territories.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Highlights of FY 2005 Performance
In FY 2005, with resource obli-
gations of $10.13 billion and 17,486
full-time-equivalent employees,
EPA achieved significant results
under each of the five long-term
environmental goals established in
its 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. This
section highlights the Agency's
accomplishments and continuing
challenges under each of its strate-
gic goals. It also discusses progress
under the Agency's homeland secu-
rity programs and the President's
Management Agenda. Detailed per-
formance information is presented
in Section II of this report.
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND CHALLENGES
Goal I: Clean Air and Global
In FY 2005,
EPA issued the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), which
when fully implemented is expect-
ed to dramatically reduce
pollution in the eastern United
States by cutting power plant
emissions of sulfur dioxide by
more than 70 percent and nitro-
gen oxides by more than 60
percent. EPA estimates that CAIR
could result in annually prevent-
ing approximately 17,000
premature deaths, 1.7 million lost
workdays, 500,000 lost school
days, 22,000 nonfatal heart
attacks, and 12,300 hospital
admissions at full implementation
in 2015.2
EPA also released a rule
designed to reduce mercury emis-
sions from power plants. This rule,
known as the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR), is intended to pro-
vide a flexible multi-pollutant
approach to reducing mercury
emissions from power plants. Like
CAIR, the CAMR limits emissions
by using a market-based, cap and
trade program that will permanent-
ly cap utility mercury emissions in
two phases. The first phase is
expected to reduce emissions from
48 tons to 31 tons by 2010, and
the second phase is expected to
achieve a reduction of 70 percent
from current levels. As a result of
this action, the United States is
now the only country in the world
to regulate mercury emissions from
coal-burning power plants.3
EPA launched a "Clean Diesel
Campaign" in FY 2005 as well.
The Clean Diesel Campaign con-
sists of both regulatory and
voluntary efforts to reduce emis-
sions from new and existing diesel
engines by 2014. Many geographic
areas in the country have not met
the national standards for particu-
late matter and/or ozone. The
campaign contains components to
help those areas reduce emissions
of these pollutants from diesel
engines used in construction, agri-
culture and port equipment, waste
haulers, locomotives, fire trucks,
and ambulances. EPA's campaign
is expected to help reduce the
impacts of pollution on popula-
tions that are especially
susceptible to the effects of diesel
exhaust, including children, the
elderly, and the chronically ill.
EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which will result in the greatest
health benefits of any rule EPA issued since the phase-out of lead in gasoline.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Responds to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
In August and September of 2005 EPA emergency response personnel
partnered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and state
and local agencies to assess damages, test health and environmental con-
ditions, and coordinate cleanup from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. EPA
served as the lead agency for cleaning up hazardous materials, including
oil and gasoline. National and regional Emergency Operations Centers
were activated 24 hours a day.Additional information about EPA's hurri-
cane response activities can be found at
Environmental Health Needs & Habitability Assessment.
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
formed a joint task force to advise local and state officials of the
potential health and environmental risks associated with returning to
the city of New Orleans.The initial Environmental Health Needs &
Habitability Assessment was issued September 17,2005.
Air Sampling. Soon after Hurricane Katrina, EPA began collecting
air quality data to assess possible health risks to clean-up workers
and inhabitants of New Orleans.
Water Sampling. EPA and local agencies sampled and performed a
variety of biological and chemical tests on floodwaters. EPA made
the results of these tests available to the public.
Fuel Waivers. EPA issued emergency waivers of certain fuel stan-
dards in affected areas to address disruptions to the fuel supply due
to refinery and pipeline infrastructure damage in the Gulf Region.
Supet-fund Sites. EPA's emergency response team conducted initial
assessments of the status of Superfund sites in areas affected by
Hurricane Katrina. EPA teams are currently conducting more
detailed, on-site inspections at these sites.
Disposal of Hazardous Waste and Other Debris. Along with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA worked on the disposal of
the enormous amounts of hazardous waste and other debris left
behind by Hurricane Katrina, establishing several sites for debris col-
lection. During September 2005, the EPA team collected over 50,000
^wisecgfed 'or abandoned containers of potentially hazardous wastes.
EPA's CAIR and CAMR
rules are critical components of
the Agency's strategy to achieve
the greatest reductions in air
toxics emissions. The Agency's
Air Toxics Program is also work-
ing to address requirements of
the Clean Air Act Amendments
(e.g., issuance of final standards
for 70 stationary area source cat-
egories of toxic air pollution).
EPA has completed 15 area
source standards and is working
to develop standards for an addi-
tional 25 area source categories,
projected for completion in
2008. These 40 standards will
address more than 90 percent of
the 1990 baseline of toxic air
pollutant emissions from area
sources. The Agency has been
and will continue to monitor
progress in this area through its
management integrity process,
which tracks important manage-
ment challenges.4
In FY 2005, EPA helped
owners and managers of office
buildings understand and
achieve the benefits of good
indoor air quality, thereby
improving the health and pro-
ductivity of office workers. The
national cost of poor indoor air
quality, including lost worker
productivity, direct medical costs
for those whose health is
adversely affected, and damage
to equipment and materials, runs
to tens of billions of dollars per
year.5 EPA estimates that
approximately 150,000 office
workers experienced improved
air quality in their workplaces,
meeting the Agency's FY 2005
annual performance goal.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water.
The importance of safe drinking
water supplies for protecting pub-
lic health has never been more
evident than in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, which
occurred late in FY 2005. In early
September, EPA, state and local
officials, systems operators, and
volunteers worked around the
clock to assist more than 895
drinking water systems in
repairing their infrastruc-
ture and restoring sources of
safe drinking water for all
people in the affected
region. In FY 2006, EPA
will assess the impact of
Hurricane Katrina on the
Agency's progress towards
achieving its 2008 drinking
water protection goal.
EPA and its state part-
ners attained water quality
standards in eight percent of
waters previously identified
by the states as impaired,
exceeding the Agency's
FY 2005 annual perform-
ance goal of two percent.
Also in 2005, permits
implementing effluent
guidelines under EPA's
National Pollution
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) prevented
the discharge of 26 billion pounds
of pollutants, nearly double the
amount removed in 2002 before
new storm water and
The NPDES Program
prevented the discharge
of 26 billion pounds of
pollutants.
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations regulations as well as
new effluent guidelines took effect.
EPA issued the National
Coastal Condition Report II
(NCCR II) in January 2005.6 The
second in a series of environmen-
tal assessments of U.S. coastal
waters and the Great Lakes, the
report assesses 100 percent of the
nation's estuaries in the contigu-
ous 48 states and Puerto Rico.
The NCCR II is based on data
gathered by a variety of federal,
state, and local sources, including
more than 50,000 samples taken
between 1997 and 2000 in all
continental seacoasts and Puerto
Rico. The NCCR IPs data for
FY 2005 indicate that the overall
ecological health of coastal waters
improved, meeting the Agency's
FY 2005 annual performance goal.
The overall ecological
health of coastal
waters improved.
Finally, in addition to improv-
ing the quality of drinking and
surface water data and informa-
tion (see Section III of this report
for more information on these
data improvements), EPA
completed data collection
for the first wadeable
streams assessment. This is
the first time a national
assessment of ecological
conditions in small streams
has been conducted using a
random sampling, statisti-
cally valid approach. States
worked with EPA to con-
duct monitoring using the
same methods at each sam-
pling site so that the results
can be compared across the
country. A report on small
stream conditions, sched-
uled to be released in
March 2006, will establish
baseline conditions for
tracking ecological trends
over time in small streams
nationwide. EPA intends to
follow this report with
nationwide assessments of
lakes, large rivers, wetlands,
and other water types.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and
Restoration. In FY 2005, EPA
completed the cleanup ("construc-
tion completes") of 40 sites on the
Superfund National Priorities List
(NPL), for a cumulative total of
966 sites—more than 64 percent
of the sites on the NPL. At sites
with groundwater contamination,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
migration of contamination was
brought under control at an addi-
tional 23 sites in FY 2005, for a
cumulative total of 898, or 70 per-
cent, of such sites on the NPL.7
Among the challenges facing the
Agency in FY 2006 is the need to
balance limited resources between
beginning construction at an
increasing number of Superfund
projects, and continuing long-
term remedial actions at several
ongoing, large and complex sites.
Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Program, the Agency
met its FY 2005 goal for increas-
ing the number of RCRA
hazardous waste management
facilities with permits or other
approved controls in place, and
EPA expects to bring 95 percent
of facilities under approved con-
trols by FY 2008. Under the
RCRA corrective action program,
more than 96 percent of high-pri-
ority RCRA hazardous waste
facilities have met Agency goals
for having controls in place to
prevent any human exposures
from occurring under current land
and groundwater use, and more
than 78 percent have met goals
for having controls in place to
prevent groundwater migration.
Under the Agency's Leaking
Underground Storage Tank
Program, 6,181 cleanups were
with manufacturers, communities,
and governments to: (1) foster a
new recycling infrastructure,
which will reclaim valuable
materials, and (2) address the
increasing variety and volume of
obsolete electronic products enter-
ing the waste stream. Although
recycling rates were lower than
expected in FY 2003 (the last year
for which the Agency has data),
EPA expects that these collabora-
tive efforts will encourage higher
recycling rates in future years. In
FY 2006, EPA will be initiating a
challenge to major industries to
encourage the "early retirement"
of devices containing mercury.
The Agency's state partners completed 14,583
underground storage tank cleanups.
completed by the end of March
2005.8 Data for the end of the
year, which were undergoing a
quality assurance/quality control
check at the time this report was
published, indicate that the
Agency's state partners completed
14,583 underground storage tank
cleanups, meeting the Agency's
FY 2005 goal of 14,500.9
While recycling has increased
in this country in general,
recycling of specific materials has
grown even more: 42 percent of
all paper, 40 percent of all plastic
soft drink bottles, 55 percent of
all aluminum beer and soft drink
cans, 57 percent of all steel
packaging, and 52 percent of
all major appliances are now
recycled.10 To achieve national
recycling goals, the Agency
continued to develop alliances
Goal 4: Healthy Communities
cos/stems. To protect
human health and the environ-
ment from pesticide use, EPA
reassessed risks posed by older
chemicals and established new risk
mitigation measures where needed.
By the end of FY 2005, the
Agency had reassessed 80 percent
of the 9,721 pesticide tolerance
levels requiring reassessment under
the Food Quality and Protection
Act.11 In addition, EPA registered
14 new reduced risk pesticides,
increasing the number of safer
alternatives to older, more danger-
ous pesticides to 143.12
EPA identifies and addresses
risks posed by chemicals already in
commerce through its High
Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge Program. Under
this program, the Agency will
complete work by the end of
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
calendar year 2005 to provide the
public with critical health and
environmental effects data on
more than 2,200 chemicals
encountered in communities every
day. In FY 2005, more than 360
chemical companies and 100
industry consortia volunteered
to provide data for 1,397 HPV
chemicals directly to EPA, and to
provide data for 854 chemicals to
the European component of the
program—the International
Council of Chemical Associations
HPV Initiative13. Data for 300 of
those chemicals will be
publicly available by the
end of 2005. EPA contin-
ues to encourage
companies to sponsor
additional HPV chemicals,
and is obtaining data on
un-sponsored "orphan"
chemicals by issuing Test
Rules under the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
In FY 2005, EPA led a
collaborative effort to
develop guidelines on the
potential health effects
from various levels of expo-
sure to hazardous chemicals
during an accidental spill
or a terrorist incident. The
Agency partnered with
nine federal agencies,
numerous state agencies, private
industry, academia, emergency
medical associations, unions, and
other organizations in the private
sector as well as international par-
ticipants on this project. In FY
2005, Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels (AEGLs) were proposed for
32 highly hazardous chemicals,
bringing the cumulative total to
165 chemicals. These guideline
levels are meant to address the
millions of pounds of highly toxic
chemicals used in industry and
routinely stored at fixed sites or
shipped over road or rail in single
containers of 50,000 to 300,000
pounds or more. AEGL values,
including those proposed in 2005,
were used in responding to the
environmental devastation caused
by Hurricane Katrina.
In 2005, the Centers for
Disease Control released data
demonstrating major reductions in
the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning—from approximately
900,000 children with elevated
blood lead levels in the early
1990s to 310,000 children from
EPA increased the number of registered safer
pesticides to 143.
EPA and its partners
protected and restored
103,959 acres of
estuarine habitat.
1999 to 2002.H To virtually elimi-
nate childhood lead poisoning by
2010, EPA focused its FY 2005
outreach and education efforts on
remaining "hot spots," often dis-
advantaged urban areas where the
incidence of childhood lead poi-
soning remains high. In FY
2006, the Agency will be
revamping its strategies and
expanding its regulatory and
voluntary tools to address
the remaining population
of children at risk for lead
poisoning.
EPA continues to make
progress on improving and
protecting the health of
ecosystems in the Great
Lakes. The Great Lakes
Index, indicating overall
ecosystem condition in the
Great Lakes, improved in
FY 2005. Long-term concen-
trations of PCBs in predator
fish and trends of toxic
chemicals in the air are
declining faster than target-
ed. Cumulatively, 3.7 million
cubic yards of contaminated sedi-
ments have been remediated,
including 345,000 cubic yards in
2004. However, phosphorus con-
centrations in the Lake Erie Basin
increased slightly. Although EPA
has not met the target of delisting
three Areas of Concerns (AOC),
significant progress has been made
towards delisting of two AOCs for
FY 2006.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA and its partners also pro-
tected and restored 103,959 acres
of estuarine habitat within the 28
estuaries of the National Estuary
Program in FY 2005. This acreage
includes critical estuarine, ripari-
an, and coastal wetlands, which
help support many commercially
valuable fisheries and the eco-
nomic, environmental, and
aesthetic functions on which
coastal populations depend for
their livelihood. EPA faces signifi-
cant challenges in continuing to
restore and protect estuaries as
more difficult projects remain.
Goal 5: Compliance and
Environmental Stewardship. In
FY 2005, more than 1.1 billion
pounds of pollutants were
reduced, treated, or eliminated as
a result of Agency enforcement
actions. For example, EPA settled
a Clean Air Act enforcement case
against the Ohio Edison Company
that will reduce more than
212,000 tons per year of emissions
of harmful sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides from several of its
plants. The company is required
to install pollution controls and
carry out other measures expected
to cost approximately $1.1 billion.
In addition, three enforcement
actions taken in FY 2005 under
the Clean Water Act will signifi-
cantly reduce pollutants entering
the Chesapeake Bay. One of the
actions was taken with the
New York. More than 500 workers
were exposed to potentially deadly
asbestos-related diseases. The com-
pany owners received the two
longest jail sentences in environ-
mental crimes history, 25 and \9l/i
years, along with almost $23 mil-
lion in restitution.16
More than I. I billion pounds of pollutants were
reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
Agency enforcement actions.
District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority and will lead to
the elimination of 3.2 billion gal-
lons a year of untreated sewage to
the Anacostia and Potomac
Rivers and cost the company an
estimated $1.5 billion. 15
In an example of one of the
Agency's criminal enforcement
actions, criminal prosecution was
taken against the owners of AAR
Contractors, Inc. for conducting
illegal asbestos operations at more
than 1,500 sites, including schools,
hospitals, and churches, in upstate
Finally, EPA has been working
to replace the Agency's Permit
Compliance System (PCS), which
tracks Clean Water Act results for
use in permitting, compliance and
enforcement programs^. This
project has been a top manage-
ment challenge for a number of
years and the Agency is now close
to resolving it. Actions taken
include working with states on
interim solutions during develop-
ment of the new system and
adding capabilities to better track
pollutant loadings, capture infor-
mation on storm water sources of
pollution, and assess the health of
individual watersheds. In
September 2005, EPA completed
development of the replacement
system (ICIS-NPDES) and offi-
cially moved into the testing
phase. The first states are sched-
uled to begin accessing the system
by March 2006.
HOMELAND SECURITY
Three years ago EPA assumed
significant new responsibilities in
homeland security work needed to
protect human health and the
environment from intentional
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
harm. EPA now plays a lead role
in supporting the protection of
critical water infrastructure and
coordinating development of
national capabilities and strategies
to address chemical, biological
and radiological contamination
from a terrorist event. In FY 2005,
the Agency conducted the follow-
ing key work to understand and
communicate the potential health
effects of exposure to hazardous
chemicals during an accidental
spill or terrorist incident; to help
water systems understand and
address their vulnerability to
intentional attacks; and, to
enhance the nation's decontami-
nation and emergency response
capabilities:
•
System to Identify Hazards
and Characterize Risks in
In 2005, EPA
began developing a Web-
based system to quickly
identify hazards, assess expo-
sure to humans, and
characterize risks during an
emergency response. This
Emergency Consequence
Assessment Tool (ECAT) will
help in preparing for and rap-
idly responding to terrorist
incidents by integrating a
variety of relevant informa-
tion on the hazards and
exposures for a specific situa-
tion. ECAT will be expanded
to include a variety of scenar-
ios and contaminants and will
eventually be used to inform
the general public and scien-
tific community.
Protecting Critical Water
Infrastructure from Terrorist
Acts: EPA continued to assist
the nation's drinking water sys-
tems in protecting their
infrastructure from terrorist
and other intentional attacks.
By the end of FY 2005, all of
the 467 publicly and privately
owned drinking water systems
serving at least 100,000 people,
and 100 percent of the nation's
444 medium-sized drinking
water systems (those that serve
50,000 to 99,999 people) had
completed vulnerability assess-
ments. Furthermore,
approximately 95 percent of
the nation's small-sized com-
munity drinking water systems
that serve populations of 3,301
to 49,999 people had complet-
ed vulnerability assessments.
The Agency will continue to
work with the small drinking
water systems and its partners
to ensure 100 percent of these
systems have completed vul-
nerability assessments.
Enhancing the Nation's
Decontamination
During FY 2005,
EPA worked with other federal
agencies, including the
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Department of Homeland
Security, to enhance the
nation's decontamination
capabilities by establishing a
National Decontamination
Team and by developing and
implementing a National
Decontamination Strategy.
Additionally, EPA improved
hazardous chemicals. Some of
these guideline levels are criti-
cal for responding to terrorist
incidents when making deci-
sions on evacuation,
shelter-in-place, worker entry,
decontamination, protective
equipment, and monitoring
and detection efforts.
EPA has attained the highest rating possible for
financial management.
capabilities for characterizing
chemical components that
might be intentionally released
during incidents of national
significance by standardizing
analytical method validation
and determining laboratory
training requirements.
Training EPA Field
Responders: In 2005, EPA
improved the Agency's capa-
bility to respond to multiple
chemical, biological, and radi-
ological incidents. EPA field
responders and National
Response System personnel
received extensive response-
related training: scientific and
technical training for detect-
ing, analyzing and responding
to chemical, biological, and
radiological agents and train-
ing in managing incident
command system responses.
Establishing Health Effects
Guidelines for Exposure to
Hazardous Chemicals:
In FY 2005, Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGLs)
were proposed for 32 highly
THE PRESIDENT'S
MANAGEMENT AGENDA
Since 2001, the President's
Management Agenda (PMA) has
challenged federal agencies to
improve performance, manage
for results, and better serve
the American people (see
www. whitehouse .gov/results).
During FY 2005, EPA made
progress under each of the seven
PMA initiatives: Human Capital,
Competitive Sourcing, Expanded
EGovernment, Improved
Financial Performance, Budget
and Performance Integration,
Eliminating Improper Payments,
and Research and Development.
Each quarter, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
releases an executive scorecard
that rates progress and overall
status under each of the PMA ini-
tiatives using a color-coded
"stop-light" system. As of
September 2005, the EPA
achieved three green scores for
progress on implementation and
one green score on the status of
Improved Financial Performance
initiatives. In addition to tracking
PMA progress on a quarterly basis,
each federal agency establishes
yearly goals for where they would
be "Proud to Be" on the status of
PMA initiative implementation.
The Proud to Be milestones and
goals are set every July and
assessed during the third quarter
PMA Scorecard process. More
information about the Agency's
work under the PMA is available
at www.epa.gov/pmaresults.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
EPA's FY2005 PROGRESS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
(SCORECARD RATINGS CURRENT AS OF THE 4TH QUARTER OF FY 2005)
INITIATIVE STATUS'S PROGRESS BE II (07/05)
RESULTS
Human
Capital
^
Yellow
£
Yellow
"Yellow" EPA did
not meet its goal of
"Green" for P2B2
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B3
— In FY 2005, EPA transitioned its employees to a new five-level Performance
Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS). During Q4, EPA trained all Agency
leaders on the new system, and assessed the system against OPM required
elements to identify areas in need of improvement.
— EPA revised and updated the HC Accountability plan to integrate assessments
of office level HC activities and compliance with the Merit System Principles.
— EPA analyzed the results of the FY 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey and
developed and began implementing a plan of action for disseminating results
and targeting areas for improvement to leadership Agency-wide.
— As of the end of the Q4 FY 2005, EPA demonstrated that 1 00 percent of
Agency employees are covered by the PARS.
EPA's Challenges in Human Capital — A cultural change is needed to strengthen EPA executives', managers', and employees' understanding of the connection
between personal "on the job" performance and the Agency's ability to meet its strategic environmental goals. Additionally, the Agency must clearly differen-
tiate levels of performance among employees and reward employees appropriately, based on the results they deliver and the way those results contribute
the Agency's overall mission
Competitive
Sourcing
Yellow
Yellow
"Yellow" EPA met its
goal for P2B2
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B3
— The Agency completed six "streamlined" competitions for small activities that
covered about 26 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in the areas of informa-
tion technology and clerical services. The Agency retained the work in all six
competitions.
— EPA also announced an additional seven "streamlined" competitions encom-
passing the work of about 39 FTE performing information technology services.
— The Agency completed a standard competition for vendor payments, which
involved 26 FTE. As a result, the work will continue to be performed by EPA
employees at the Finance Center in NC and achieve about $3.5 million in sav-
ings over the next five years.
— EPA completed creation of a Competitive Sourcing Plan identifying and sched-
uling approximately 800 FTE for competition between 2005 and 2008.
EPA's Challenges in Competitive Sourcing — EPA must overcome cultura reluctance to consider competitive sourcing as a means of more efficiently and
effectively delivering government services. Once decisions are made to compete a particular organizational function, managers involved in the competitions
must be held accountable for timely follow-through on their commitments.
Expanded E-
Government
0
Yellow
0
Yellow
"Green" EPA met its
goal of "Green" for
P2B2"
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B3
— Cost, schedule and performance for adherence with earned value management
for major IT investments are less than 1 0%.
— EPA's E-Gov Implementation Plan is approved and accepted.
— 1 00% of EPA's IT systems are secure.
— EPA's IT systems are installed in accordance with security configurations.
— E-Rulemaking deployed four agencies in the Federal Docket Management
System. Late deployment of the fifth agency is the sole reason for the yellow
score in progress and status.
— To date E-Payroll completed scheduled modifications and testing of all neces-
sary interfaces to ensure a migration to the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service by March 2006.
EPA's Challenges in E-Gov — Successful performance in Human Capital, Competitive Sourcing, Budget and Performance Integration, Financial Performance,
and Research and Development Investment will require development and integration of government-wide solutions embedded in numerous E-Gov projects.
These interdependencies create special challenges for ensuring that EPA adopts E-Gov solutions as part of its strategic plan for success in each PMA area.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's FY2005 PROGRESS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA (CONTINUED)
(SCORECARD RATINGS CURRENT AS OF THE 4TH QUARTER OF FY 2005)
INITIATIVE STATUS'S PROGRESS BE II (07/05)
Improved
Financial
Performance
^
Green
^
Green
RESULTS
"Green" EPA met its
goal of "Green" for
P2B2"
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B3
HIGHLIGHTS
— EPA maintained a green rating for both progress and status for all four quar-
ters of FY 2005. EPA is one of only three federal agencies to maintain a
green rating for 1 0 or more successive quarters (since FY 2003).
— The Agency delivered its FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
with audited financial statements by the required November 1 5, 2005, dead-
line and met all required deadlines for the its quarterly financial statements.
— EPA is expanding the use of financial information by integrating additional
financial information into EPA's decisionmaking processes, with an initial
focus on grants.
EPA's Challenges in Improved Financial Performance — No challenges at this time
Budget and
Performance
Integration
Yellow
•
Green
"Yellow" EPA did not
meet its goal of
"Green" for P2B2.
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B3.
— The Agency received green progress scores for all four quarters in FY 2004.
— EPA worked cooperatively with OMB on the FY 2005 Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) process, completing 43 PART assessments to date.
— At the conclusion of the FY2005 PART Appeals process, EPA has developed
efficiency measures for 35 of 43 completed PART programs.
— Held meetings with EPA's senior leadership throughout the year to discuss
the integration of budget, performance, and in particular the PART as a
means to better manage the Agency's resources and deliver environmental
results.
— EPA has developed a process in alignment with the Enacted Budget identify-
ing impacts of Congressional action on planned performance; specifically
related to the targets associated with EPA's GPRA/PART annual and long-
term performance measures. EPA senior leaders assess these impacts as
part of their decisionmaking.
EPA's Challenges in Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) — EPA must continue to develop appropriate OMB-approved measures that gauge the effi-
ciency of an environmental program's administration. Each program evaluated by the PART is required to have at least one OMB-approved efficiency
measure. Currently 35 of 43 PARTed programs have OMB-approved efficiency measures.
Eliminating
Improper
Payments
Yellow
Green
EPA did not have a
goal for P2B2.
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B3.
— EPA successfully demonstrated that it has a low incidence of erroneous pay-
ments and was upgraded to a "yellow" status and "green" progress score
during FY 2005.
— EPA's FY 2005 error rate for its two State Revolving Funds was 0. 1 6 per-
cent, which surpassed the target error rate of 0.45 percent.
— EPA documented its approach for conducting a statistical sample of sub-
recipient payments in two states in FY 2006.
EPA's Challenges in Eliminating Improper Payments: No challenges at this time.
Research and
Development
Investment
Criteria
Red
Yellow
"Red" EPA did not
meet its goal of
"Yellow" for P2B2
EPA has set a goal of
"Yellow" for P2B3
— EPA held four independent, external reviews of the following research pro-
grams: Drinking Water, Human Health, Ecological and Particulate Matter
— The Agency participated in the FY 2005 (formerly known as the FY 2007)
PART process with two new PART assessments for Human Health Research
and Drinking Water Research, and two PART reassessments for PM Research
and Ecological Research.
— EPA's FY 2007 Annual Research Planning process expanded to include regular
discussions about resources and performance in the context of the R&D
Investment Criteria.
EPA's Challenges in Research and Development — EPA's research and development programs do not yet have acceptable performance and efficiency meas-
ures for research programs. This has resulted in less than successful performance on the PMA Scorecard for the Research and Development Investment
Criteria Initiative and a negative impact on EPA's performance on the Budget and Performance Integration Initiative. EPA continues to work with its
research community and OMB to develop measures that are meaningful to environmental program managers and clearly illustrate performance overtime.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF
PERFORMANCE DATA
let. In its
FY 2005 Annual
Plan, EPA commit-
ted to 84 annual
performance goals
(APGs).InFY2005,
the Agency met 34
of these APGs, 67 percent of the
APGs for which data were avail-
able at the time this report was
published. FY 2005 results to date
reflect a decrease in the number of
APGs met from FY 2004 results;
last year, EPA met 76 percent of its
APGs for which data were avail-
able. EPA has significantly
exceeded its targets for a number of
its FY 2005 APGs. For example,
the Agency restored eight percent
of the nation's impaired waterbod-
ies in accordance with Water
Quality Standards, significantly
exceeding its FY 2005 goal of two
percent (APG 2.13). This achieve-
ment is partly due to the work EPA
and states have done to refine
water quality assessments, which
now more accurately reflect
improvements in impaired water-
bodies. In another case, EPA
greatly exceeded its cumulative
goal of reducing by 11 percent the
households on tribal lands lacking
access to basic sanitation. By
increasing coordination with other
federal agencies to more effectively
fund and implement infrastructure
programs, the Agency and its part-
ners have achieved a cumulative
34 percent reduction in the num-
ber of households lacking access to
wastewater sanitation (APG 2.15).
Goals Not Met.
Despite their best
efforts, however,
EPA and its
partners were not
able to meet all
planned targets for
FY 2005. EPA did
not meet 17 of the
51FY 2005 APGs
for which perform-
ance data were
available. The
Agency is consider-
ing the various
causes of these
shortfalls as it
adjusts its annual
goals and program
strategies for FY
2006 and beyond.
There are a
number of reasons
for these missed
goals. In some cases the APGs
were new in
FY 2005—a part of EPA's effort to
develop more meaningful goals
and measures—and the Agency
overestimated its ability to
achieve annual results. For exam-
ple, EPA anticipated
improvements in water quality to
reduce the levels of contaminants
in fish, leading to a one percent
decrease in waterbodies with fish
consumption advisories (APG
2.8). EPA fell short of achieving
this APG, and the Agency is
assessing the information it has
received to determine a more real-
istic future target.
External factors also con-
tributed to missing APGs. For
example, the Agency had antici-
pated reducing nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment load-
ings from entering the
Chesapeake Bay (APG 4.18).
However, such external factors as
continued growth in human and
EPA's FY 2005 Performance Results
farm animal populations in the
region and rainfall levels affect
the Agency's success in reducing
existing nutrient loading levels. In
other cases, EPA relies on the
efforts of its federal, state and
local partners to help achieve
annual goals, and the actions of
the Agency's partners are a signifi-
cant factor in performance results.
For example, the Agency and its
partners did not meet the goal for
improving water and sanitation
systems in the US-Mexico border
region; funding for this effort was
delayed pending development of a
new system for setting project pri-
orities in the region (APG 4.12).
EPA recognizes that, as a result of
missing several such APGs, the
Agency may not be on track for
reaching its longer term objective
for protecting ecosystems. Despite
these difficulties, EPA and its
partners continue to work togeth-
er to ensure progress in meeting
these goals and achieving the
objective.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Summary of FY 2005 Performance Results by Goal
Result
Met
Not Met
Goal 1
5
0
Goal!
6
1
Goal3
1
3
Goal 4
13
7
GoalS
1
4
ESP
6
Total
34
1 17
Data Available
After November
15,2005
Total
14
19
10
18
2
7
6
26
1
7
0
33
7 84
Improved data can also con-
tribute to missed goals. For
example, EPA set a cumulative
goal that by FY 2005 water quality
assessed in 80 percent of the water
segments in each of 462 water-
sheds across the nation would
meet water quality standards
(APG 2.12). In fact, however, the
number of watersheds meeting
these standards has decreased
slightly since FY 2002. EPA attrib-
utes this regression to new data
that more accurately reflect water-
shed condition, including
adjustments for fish consumption
advisories and increased environ-
mental stresses on watersheds that
not only impair waters that were
once clean, but also further
degrade waters already impaired.
As its data improve, EPA is gain-
ing a more accurate picture of
environmental baseline conditions
and progress achieved. Based on
this information, the Agency
expects to continue adjusting its
performance goals and targets to
achieve results.
Data Unavailable.
Because final end-
of-year data were
not available when
this report went to
press, EPA is not yet
able to report on 33 of its 84
APGs, an increase over the 25
APGs for which data were not
available in EPA's FY 2004 report.
This difference
is largely due to
the Agency's
increased focus
on achieving
longer-term
environmental
and human
health out-
comes, rather
than activity-
based outputs.
Environmental
outcome results
may not
become appar-
ent within a
federal fiscal
year, and
assessing envi-
ronmental
improvement
often requires multiyear informa-
tion. As a result, EPA may not yet
have the data required to deter-
mine whether an FY 2005 APG
such as improving water quality to
reduce contaminates in fish, lead-
ing to higher consumption of safe
fish (APG 2.8), has been met.
Many variables are involved in
evaluating progress toward this
goal, including the bioaccumula-
tive nature of mercury, which
affects the time it takes fish to rid
their bodies of this contaminant.
In many cases, reporting
cycles — including some which are
legislatively mandated — do not
correspond with the federal fiscal
year on which this report is based.
Data reported biennially or on a
calendar year basis, for example,
are not yet available for this
report. In some cases, such as for
certain compliance and enforce-
ment information, the Agency has
adjusted data collection and
QA/QC processes to meet the
November
15 date for
submitting
this report.
To provide
as much
information
as possible
on its
progress
toward
achieving its
goals, how-
ever, EPA
continues to
present the
most current
data avail-
able.
Furthermore, EPA obtains
performance data from local, state,
and tribal agencies, all of which
require time to collect the infor-
mation and review it for quality.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Often, EPA is unable to obtain
complete end-of-year information
from all sources in time to meet
the deadline for this report. The
Agency is working to reduce such
delays in reporting, however, by
capitalizing on new information
technologies to exchange and
integrate electronic data and
information, improve data quality
and reliability, and reduce the bur-
den on its partners.
ow Available The
Agency is now able, however, to
report data from previous years
that became available in FY 2005.
Final performance results data
became available for 20 of the 25
FY 2004 APGs on which the
Agency did not report in its
FY 2004 Annual Report. Of these
20 FY 2004 APGs, EPA met 14.
For example, the Agency met its
FY 2004 goals for reducing green-
house gas emissions and SO2
emissions, as well as sulfur and
nitrogen deposition and ambient
concentrations. EPA can now
report achieving 56 (76 percent)
of the 79 FY 2004 APGs for
which it has data. For FY 2003,
EPA can now report achieving 45
(79 percent) of the 64 APGs for
EPA's Updated Performance Results
(Annual Performance Goals for Which Final Data Are Available)
100
80
<60
*5
4->
§40
20
2000
2001 2002
Fiscal Year
2003
2004
Note: During FY 2005, final performance results data became available for a
number of APGs from prior years: 20 for FY 2004, three for FY 2003,
one for FY 2002, one for FY 2001, two for FY 2000, and one for FY 1999.
which it has performance data.
Delays in reporting cycles and tar-
gets set beyond the fiscal year
continue to affect one APG in
FY 2003, FY 2002, and FY 1999.
Improving Measures and
Adjusting Targets. EPA is
continuing to develop better and
more meaningful measures of its
performance. In FY 2005, for
example, the Agency introduced
more than 30 new or improved
performance measures. Equipped
with better data, EPA is also
adjusting performance targets to
reflect an improved understanding
of current conditions and the out-
comes to be achieved. For
example, the Agency is adjusting
its target for the improvement in
air quality over time for the fine
particle (PM25) standard (APG
1.3). This goal was established in
FY 2004 using initial targets while
the Agency collected baseline
data. Based on the FY 2004 results
which significantly exceed the tar-
get, however, the Agency will
adjust its target for FY 2006.
Similarly, in FY 2006 EPA will be
adjusting targets for reducing
exposure to unhealthy levels of
ozone (APG 1.6). EPA will con-
tinue to benefit from improved
data, revising annual performance
measures and adjusting targets to
provide a more useful assessment
of its progress.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA is continuing its efforts to
focus more clearly on the results it
wants to achieve, orient its pro-
grams around environmental
outcomes, and develop better meas-
ures for assessing performance.
Building on previous years' work,
the Agency strengthened its collab-
oration with states and tribes
to improve joint planning and
priority-setting; develop innovative,
effective approaches to environ-
mental problems; and track and
assess progress. In addition, EPA is
working to expand its use of pro-
gram evaluation; address data gaps
and other information issues;
strengthen its strategic planning;
and resolve its management chal-
lenges reported by the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) and
Government Accountability Office.
STRENGTHENING
COLLABORATION WITH
PARTNERS
Protecting human health and
the environment is a shared respon-
sibility. In FY 2005, EPA continued
important work with its partners in
environmental protection—states,
tribes, and other federal agencies—
to ensure a national focus on the
most important problems and the
most efficient and effective use of
scarce resources.
• In FY 2005, EPA and the
Environmental Council of the
States (EGOS) established a
"Partnership and Performance
Workgroup" to continue the
Agency's work to improve joint
state-EPA planning and priori-
ty-setting. The workgroup
explored ways to support state
strategic planning, expand the
use of Performance Partnership
Grants as a planning and man-
agement tool, and improve
states' and EPA regional offices'
dialogue on regional planning
and priority-setting.
• EPA also funded a second
Cooperative Agreement with
EGOS for conducting pilot
projects in 15 states to
strengthen states' capabilities
to manage for results and
improve joint regional-state
planning. For example, an
Illinois pilot project is develop-
ing a stakeholder consultation
process for considering innova-
tive environmental programs.
• The Agency enhanced its
Annual Commitment System
(ACS), launched in FY 2004 to
assist EPA managers in engag-
ing states and tribes in setting
annual regional performance
goals. In FY 2005, the Agency
improved the system to track
actual regional performance
against agreed-upon program
measures and commitments.
EPA's regional offices are also
able to use the ACS to track
state and tribal contributions to
regional performance.
• On September 26, 2005, EPA
Administrator Steven Johnson
reaffirmed the Agency's formal
Indian Policy, established in
1984. By this action, EPA rec-
ognized that the United States
has a unique legal relationship
with tribal governments based
on the Constitution, treaties,
statues, Executive Orders,
and court decisions. This
relationship includes recogni-
tion of the right of tribes as
sovereign governments to
self-determination, and an
acknowledgment of the
federal government's trust
responsibility to tribes.
• In FY 2005 EPA continued
to work with tribes on a
Enhancing Tribal Environmental Management
EPA is providing funding to enhance tribal capacity for environmental
management. Strengthening tribal programs improves the Agency's
program implementation and enables tribes to develop holistic multi-
media programs that reflect their traditional use of natural resources.
As of FY 2005, 96 percent of tribes (549 tribes) have access to EPA
funds for hiring environmental program staff, managing environmental
activities, and implementing multimedia environmental programs in
Indian country. This represents an increase of approximately 7 per-
cent a year since 1996, when 36 percent of tribes had access.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
government-to-government
basis to protect the land, air,
and water in Indian country.
In June, the Grand Traverse
Band of Chippewa Indians
hosted the seventh National
Tribal Environmental
Conference for Environmental
Management, attended by
more than 750 tribal, federal,
the indoor air, lead, oceans, surface
water protection, oil spill and other
programs, and reassessments from
previous years.
The PART assessment was
first used in 2002 in developing
EPA's FY 2004 budget. During that
year, only 1 of EPA's 11 assessed
programs was rated able to demon-
strate results. In EPA's third year of
EPA senior managers used the results of PART
assessments to identify opportunities for program
improvement and guide decisionmaking.
and state officials to share
solutions on ongoing environ-
mental and public health
problems in Indian country.
USING PROGRAM
EVALUATION AND
THE PART
EPA uses the results of pro-
gram assessments, audits, and
evaluations to adjust approaches,
improve results, allocate resources,
and ensure the most effective and
efficient use of taxpayer dollars. In
recent budget processes, for exam-
ple, EPA senior managers used the
results of Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments
to identify opportunities for
program improvement, justify
resource requests, and guide
decisionmaking.
The PART is a series of diag-
nostic questions used to assess and
evaluate programs across a set of
performance-related criteria, includ-
ing program design and purpose,
strategic planning, program man-
agement and results. To date, EPA
and OMB have conducted PART
reviews for 43 of the Agency's pro-
grams. PART reviews in 2005
included both new assessments of
PART assessments (2004 for the
FY 2006 budget) 24 of 32 pro-
grams were rated "adequate or
"moderately effective." This
improvement in PART ratings
shows EPA's commitment to
designing and implementing pro-
grams that maximize resource
efficiency and deliver environmen-
tal results. Section II of this report
lists PART assessments conducted
under each of the Agency's five
strategic goals, identifies perform-
ance measures associated with the
PART, and reports FY 2005 results
for the measures where data are
currently available. Future PART
measures are listed in a separate
table in Section II, along with the
year EPA expects to begin report-
ing data against them. Ratings for
programs assessed during 2005 for
the FY 2007 budget will be avail-
able in February 2006. Additional
information on PART assessments
and EPA's progress in making
program improvements will be
available in February 2006 at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part.
EPA and its OIG also conduct-
ed other types of program
evaluations and audits (Appendix B
contains a list by strategic goal of
program evaluations and audits
completed in FY 2005). For exam-
ple, working with the Compliance
Committee of EGOS and
Achieving Results
Through Grant
Programs
Grants are a key tool for
achieving EPA's mission.
Each year EPA awards
approximately one-half of its
budget in grants to state,
tribal, and local govern-
ments; educational
institutions; and nonprofit
organizations. The Agency
has been working to ensure
the grants EPA awards sup-
port its strategic goals, and
that results achieved
through grants are closely
tracked and monitored.
In FY 2005, EPA issued a
policy for awarding grants
(EPA Order No.: 57007)
that requires EPA offices to:
• Link results to EPA's
Strategic Plan.
• Describe expected out-
puts and outcomes in
grant announcements,
work plans, and perform-
ance reports.
• Consider how the results
from completed grant
projects contribute to the
Agency's programmatic
goals and objectives.
In addition, for the first
time, this report lists specif-
ic grants that contributed to
the achievement of EPA's FY
2005 annual performance
goals (see Section II).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
representatives from state agencies,
EPA completed an evaluation of
an enforcement tool—the State
Review Framework—which the
Agency developed to assess state
enforcement performance. The
evaluation found that, overall, the
framework is effective as a tool for
evaluating state enforcement and
compliance assurance programs on a
nationwide basis. The evaluation
also recommended ways to improve
data collection and state perform-
ance interpretation under the
framework. EPA intends to make
the recommended improvements
and apply the framework across all
50 states to: (1) evaluate whether
state enforcement and compliance
assurance programs are providing a
consistent level of environmental
and public health protection across
states; and, (2) work collaboratively
with states to ensure that authorized
state agencies meet agreed-upon
enforcement performance goals.
The Agency's OIG contributes
to EPA's mission to improve
human health and environmental
protection by assessing the effec-
tiveness of EPA's program
management and results, develop-
ing recommendations for
improvement, and ensuring that
Agency resources are used as
intended. In FY 2005, an OIG
report found that air toxic moni-
toring was conducted in only ten
percent of areas with the estimated
highest health risks from exposure
to toxic air pollutants. EPA has
since begun using the National
Air Toxics Assessment to identify
and prioritize high-risk areas to be
monitored. The Agency also mod-
ified its air toxics grant criteria to
better address high-risk areas and
emphasize methods for analyzing
ambient air toxics conditions.
IMPROVING
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS,
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT,
AND DATA QUALITY
In June 2003, EPA's Draft
Report on the Environment
established baseline information on
environmental conditions in the
United States and their potential
effects on human health. Since
then, the Agency has been working
to improve the indicator informa-
tion, fill key gaps in environmental
data, and make the information
more accessible to the public.
In FY 2005, EPA issued for pub-
lic comment a set of indicators for
the Agency's next Report on the
Environment, to be released in 2006.
A scientific peer-review conducted
in July elicited expert opinion on
whether the indicators are support-
ed by data that are technically
sound, meet the established indica-
tor definition and criteria, and help
answer key questions on the current
state of the environment. Over the
next year, EPA plans to use these
indicators in developing the
Agency's long-term measures of suc-
cess for its 2006-20 J J Strategic Plan.
More information on the Agency's
"Indicators Initiative" is available at
www.epa.gov/indicators.
EPA also continued to focus
annual performance goals and
measures on environmental out-
comes and program efficiencies,
instead of on activity-based out-
puts. In EPA's FY 2006 Annual
Performance Plan, approximately
65 percent of the annual perform-
ance goals track environmental or
intermediate outcomes.
In addition, the Agency worked
to align its annual performance
measures with new performance and
efficiency measures developed dur-
ing OMB's 2005 PART process. In
FY 2005, EPA developed a strategy
for implementing new PART meas-
ures while reporting on the goals
and measures in the Agency's
FY 2005 Annual Plan. This process
is another step in EPA's ongoing
efforts to establish a set of measures
that clearly defines environmental
outcomes and achieves EPA's
Budget and Performance
Integration goals under the PMA.
In FY 2005, EPA continued to
improve its ability to collect and
use reliable and complete perform-
ance and financial data. EPA
worked to detect and correct errors
in environmental data, standardize
reporting, and exchange and inte-
grate electronic data and data
quality information among its fed-
eral, state, and local data-sharing
partners. Over the past year, the
Agency completed all corrective
actions for an Agency-level weak-
ness in data management practices.
Recent efforts include ensuring that
Data in FY 2005
Performance and
Accountability
Report Are Complete
and Reliable
EPA determined that the
performance information in
this report is complete and
reliable and no material
inadequacies are present,
as defined by OMB Circular
A-1 1.2° For more informa-
tion on the data sources
used in FY 2005 perform-
ance measures, see Section
II of this report. Appendix C
contains additional informa-
tion on the quality of the
data in this report.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Improved Performance Measures Developed in FY 2005
These new measures will help EPA describe trends over time, and
demonstrate the results of specific environmental programs.
Tribal Access to Safe Drinking Water: EPA will measure the num-
ber of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
Water Pollutant Loadings Per Program Dollar Spent: EPA
will estimate loadings of water pollutants removed per program dol-
lar spent, including discharges to surface water such as municipal
storm water and combined sewer overflows.
Contamination Levels at Superfund Sites: EPA will determine
whether contamination levels at a Superfund site fall within the levels
specified by EPA as safe, or if they do not, whether adequate controls
are in place to prevent unacceptable human exposure to contamination.
data management policies and pro-
cedures are planned, maintained,
and revised as appropriate. For
example, the Agency changed the
structure and operating procedures
of its Quality Information Council
to better fulfill its role as the infor-
mation policymaking body.
CONSIDERING FUTURE
TRENDS AND LOOKING
AHEAD
As EPA looks to the future,
Agency managers are focusing on
several priorities. First, the Agency
is striving to accelerate the pace of
environmental progress by looking
beyond rules and regulations to
consider other solutions. Effective
legislation, such as Clear Skies, puts
mechanisms in place to achieve
large-scale national protections.
The Agency is committed to work-
ing cooperatively with its partners
to support legislation over regula-
tion, results over methods, and
partnerships over conflicts to accel-
erate progress and usher in a new
area of environmental protection.
EPA is also working to foster a
culture of environmental steward-
ship through partnerships and
innovative approaches to environ-
mental issues. In the coming
years, the Agency will promote
collaboration, voluntary programs,
and outreach as tools for strength-
ening stewardship. EPA will also
focus on opportunities to leverage
environmental protection actions
to create opportunities for eco-
nomic growth. Efforts such as
Brownfields, for example, not only
reduce pollution, but revitalize
valuable land and strengthen local
economies. In the coming years,
while the Agency will maintain
its vigilance in enforcing existing
laws and regulations, it will also
strive to approach new challenges
with flexibility and enthusiasm.
To meet these challenges and
make informed decisions in a rap-
idly changing, complex world,
EPA leaders need to be aware of
the environmental consequences
of future social, economic, and
technological change. Several
years ago, the Agency began con-
ducting "futures analysis" to help
its leaders anticipate future envi-
ronmental challenges and plan
strategically to avoid problems.
In FY 2005, EPA continued to
identify significant environmental
and industrial trends, demographic
issues, and transformative tech-
nologies that have implications for
environmental protection. EPA
senior managers and staff identi-
fied areas for increased focus under
each of the Agency's five strategic
goals—for example: (1) interna-
tional increases in transboundary
pollution, especially particulate
matter; (2) water scarcity and its
impact on water quality; (3)
increased levels of pharmaceuticals
in the waste stream due to the
nation's aging population; and, (4)
the environmental implications of
genomics. In the spring of 2005,
the Agency sought input on future
issues from state environmental
commissioners at an EGOS meet-
ing and from tribal environmental
professionals at the Seventh
National Tribal Conference on
Environmental Management. All
of this input will be vital as the
Agency considers the most signifi-
cant future issues and develops its
2006-20JJ Strategic Plan.
EPA continued to identify significant
environmental and industrial trends, demographic
issues, and transformative technologies that have
implications for environmental protection.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Internal Controls, Financial
Management Systems, and
Regu
Dliance with Laws and
ations
This section discusses EPA's
progress in strengthening its
management practices and the
internal controls the Agency
relies on to assure the integrity of
its programs and operations. It
includes the Administrator's
unqualified Statement of
Assurance for FY 2005.
FEDERAL MANAGERS'
FINANCIAL INTEGRITY
ACT
The Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
requires agencies to establish and
maintain management controls
and financial systems that provide
reasonable assurance that federal
programs and operations are pro-
tected from fraud, waste, abuse,
and misappropriation of federal
funds. FMFIA holds agency
heads accountable for correcting
Based on EPA's self-assessment
of its internal controls and finan-
cial systems, Agency managers
have determined that the
Agency's controls are achieving
their intended objectives. The
Administrator's unqualified
Statement of Assurance for
FY 2005 is to the right.
To identify management issues
and monitor progress in addressing
them, EPA's senior leaders use a
system of internal program evalua-
tions and independent audit
reviews conducted by the
Government Accountability
Office, EPA's OIG, and other
oversight organizations to assess
program effectiveness. In FY 2005,
for the 4th year, EPA has no
material weaknesses to report
under FMFIA. Material weakness-
es are reportable conditions that
For the fourth year, EPA had no material
weaknesses to report under the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
deficiencies and requires them
annually to identify and report
internal control and accounting
systems problems and planned
remedies.
could significantly impair or
threaten fulfillment of the
Agency's mission and must be
reported to the President and
Congress. While the Agency
reported no new material
FISCAL YEAR 2005
ANNUAL ASSURANCE
STATEMENT
I am pleased to give an
unqualified statement of
assurance that the
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) programs
and resources are protect-
ed from fraud, waste,
abuse, and mismanage-
ment. Based on EPA's
annual self-assessment of
its internal controls, I can
reasonably assure that
there are no material
weaknesses in the
Agency's control.
Stephen L.Johnson
Administrator
October 28, 2005
weaknesses, EPA currently has a
number of less severe, internal
Agency-level weaknesses for
which it is tracking progress.
During the year, EPA added two
new Agency-level weaknesses to
its list and closed two of its exist-
ing Agency-level weaknesses in
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
5-Year Trend of Material and Agency Weaknesses
2001
2004
2005
Fiscal Year
the areas of data management and
water permitting. Half of the Key
Management Challenges identi-
fied by OIG are also current
Agency-level weaknesses. The
Reports Consolidation Act of
2000 requires the Inspector
General to identify, briefly assess,
and report annually the most seri-
ous management and performance
challenges facing the Agency (see
Section III of this report).
OMB has recognized EPA's
efforts to maintain effective and
efficient internal controls. Since
September 2003, EPA has main-
tained a green status score for
Improved Financial Performance
under the President's Management
Agenda. EPA has also received a
progress score of green for Budget
and Performance Integration for
all but one consecutive quarter
since June 2002.
INSPECTOR GENERAL
ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1 988
The Inspector General (IG)
Act Amendments require federal
agencies to report to Congress on
their progress in carrying out audit
recommendations.
EPA's Audit
Follow-up
Activities: In
FY 2005, EPA
was responsible
for addressing
OIG recom-
mendations
and tracking
follow-up
activities on
396 audits.
The Agency
achieved final
action (com-
pleting all corrective actions
associated with an audit) on
248 audits, including Program
Evaluation/Program Performance,
Assistance Agreement, Contracts,
and Single audits. EPA's FY 2005
audit management activities are
summarized below.
• Final Corrective Action
Taken. EPA completed final
corrective actions on 55 audits
with disallowed and better use
dollars. Of these 55 audits,
OIG questioned costs of more
than $14.8 million. After
careful review, OIG and the
Agency agreed to disallow
approximately $7.9 million of
these questioned costs. In
addition, the Agency also
completed final corrective
action on 193 audits.
• Final Corrective Action Not
Taken. At the end of FY
2005, 148 audits were without
final action and not yet fully
resolved. (This total excludes
audits with management deci-
sions under administrative
appeal by the grantee.)
• Final Corrective Action Not
Taken Beyond One Year. Of
the 148 audits, EPA officials
had not completed final
action on 30 audits within
1 year after the management
decision (the point at which
OIG and the Action Official
reach agreement on the
EPA's Key Management Challenges Reported by the
Office of Inspector General
I. Linking Mission and Management
2. Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
3. Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification
4. Information Resources Management and Data Quality
5. EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish Its Mission
6. Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Programs
7. Human Capital Management
8. Information Systems Security
Section III of this report provides
more detailed information on
OIG's Key Management
Challenges and EPA's response.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
corrective action plan).
Because the issues to be
addressed may be complex,
Agency managers often
require more than 1 year after
management decisions are
reached with OIG to com-
plete the agreed-upon
corrective actions.
Audits Awaiting Decision on
Appeal. EPA regulations allow
grantees to appeal manage-
ment decisions on financial
assistance audits that seek
monetary reimbursement from
the recipient. In the case of
an appeal, EPA must not take
action to collect the account
receivable until the Agency
issues a decision on the
appeal. In FY 2005, 33 audits
were in administrative appeal.
EPA Audits Involving
Disallowed Costs and Funds
2: As required
by the IG Act Amendments, the
following table presents informa-
tion on audits that involve
disallowed costs and funds put to
better use.
EPA uses audit management as
a tool in assessing its progress and
its ability to meet its strategic objec-
tives. The Agency is continuing to
strengthen its audit management
practices and is working to address
issues and complete corrective
actions in a timely manner.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENT ACT
The Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of
1996 (FFMIA) requires that agen-
cies' financial management
systems substantially comply with
federal financial management sys-
tem requirements, applicable
federal accounting standards, and
the U.S. Government Standard
General Ledger. In response to the
DISALLOWED COSTS & FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE
October 1,2004 - September 30,2005
• ^m
A. Audits with management decisions but without final action
at the beginning of FY 2005.
B. Audits for which management decisions were made during
FY 2005:
(i) Management decisions with disallowed
costs. (43)
(ii) Management decisions with no disallowed costs. (192)
C. Total audits pending final action during FY 2005. (A+B)
D. Final action taken during FY 2005:
(i) Recoveries
a) Offsets
b) Collections
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.
E. Audit reports needing final action at the end of FY 2005. (C - D)
67 $74,329,390
237 $ 4,488,195
304 $78,817,585
245 $ 7,560,083
$ 939,846
$ 3,849,707
$0
$ 1,526,025
$ 388,228
$ 856,277
59 $71,257,502
0 $0
4 $2,868,844
4 $2,868,844
3 $ 866,548
$0
$0
1 $2,002,296
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
FY 1999 financial statement audit,
EPA implemented an FFMIA
remediation plan to improve the
Agency's financial management
systems in order to comply with
federal financial system require-
ments. Currently, EPA has
completed all but two corrective
actions: security certification poli-
cy for contractor personnel, and
security certification policy for
grantee personnel. EPA antici-
pates completing these actions by
the first quarter of FY 2007. The
Agency continues to improve cost
accounting and reconciliation of
intragovernmental transactions.
EPA has no substantial noncom-
pliance findings.
The Agency is in the process
of developing a modern financial
system infrastructure to help EPA
better manage the resources that
support our environmental mis-
sion, more accurately measure the
true costs of environmental pro-
grams, and better inform the
public. The new system will be
provides a comprehensive frame-
work for ensuring the effectiveness
of information security controls
over information resources that
support Federal operations and
assets. Agencies must report annu-
ally to OMB on the effectiveness
of their information security pro-
grams, which includes an
independent evaluation by the
Inspector General. Agencies also
report quarterly to OMB on the
status of remediation of weakness-
es found.
For six consecutive years, the Agency submitted
timely financial statements with a clean audit
opinion.
implemented in FY 2008. Detailed
plans for this project are available
at www.epa.gov/ocfo/modernization
/index.htm.
FEDERAL INFORMATION
SECURITY
MANAGEMENT ACT
Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA)
directs federal agencies to conduct
annual evaluations of information
security programs and practices. It
EPA's FISMA Report for
FY 2005, dated October 7, 2005,
highlights the results of the
Agency's annual security program
reviews and was completed by
EPA's Chief Information Officer,
senior agency program officials,
and Inspector General. The report
reflects EPA's continued efforts to
ensure that information assets are
protected and secured in a manner
consistent with the risk and mag-
nitude of the harm resulting from
the loss, misuse, or unauthorized
access to or modification of infor-
mation. In FY 2005, EPA reported
no significant deficiencies in its
information security systems under
FISMA.
GOVERNMENT
MANAGEMENT REFORM
ACT—AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Government
Management Reform Act
(GMRA) of 1994 amended the
requirements of the Chief
Financial Officers (CFO) Act of
1990 by requiring the annual
preparation and audit of agency-
wide financial statements. EPA's
statements are audited by the
Inspector General, who issues an
audit report on the principal
financial statements, internal con-
trols, and compliance with laws
and regulations.
For six consecutive years, the
Agency submitted timely financial
statements with a clean audit
opinion—another important
aspect of accountability. These
statements (presented in Section
IV of this report) provide a snap-
shot of the Agency's financial
position at the end of fiscal year.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Financial Analysis
EPA's financial management
strategy focuses on running envi-
ronmental programs in a fiscally
responsible manner to assure that
resources are used wisely and
effectively to protect human
health and the environment. In
FY 2005, the Agency continued
its efforts to improve its financial
management systems and process-
es, data quality and accessibility,
and accountability. These
improvements strengthen EPA
managers' ability to use financial
analyses as well as performance
information to make priority-set-
ting decisions that influence
resource planning and environ-
mental results. (See Section
IV for more detailed information
on financial strategies and
initiatives.)
MEASURING FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT RESULTS
The Agency measures its
financial management effective-
ness against external and internal
standards. External standards
include the President's
Management Agenda (PMA) ini-
tiatives, the Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART), audited
financial statements, and
Government-wide Financial
Performance Metrics. Internally,
the Agency tracks its performance
in key financial management
areas: processing payments and
reconciling cash, as well as
managing accounts receivable,
obligations, budgets, contracts,
Superfund billings, and property.
EPA has maintained its green
score for the PMA Improved
Financial Performance initiative
by continuously setting and meet-
ing higher performance goals. In
FY 2005, EPA produced accurate
and timely accelerated interim
quarterly financial statements,
completed Quality Assurance
Reviews to ensure the accuracy
of Agency financial data, and
automated preparation of the
Statement of Net Costs by Goal.
The PMA initiative on
Eliminating Improper Payments is
focused on identifying, prevent-
ing, and eliminating erroneous
payments. As required by the
Improper Payments Information
Act (IPIA) of 2002 and the Office
of Management and Budget
(OMB) Memorandum M-03-07,
Financial Highlights
Maintained green status
score for Improved Financial
Performance PMA initiative.
Maintained "green" progress
score for
Budget/Performance
Integration and Eliminating
Improper Payments PMA ini-
tiatives.
Maintained a less than one
percent erroneous payment
Made progress integrating
budget and performance
data.
Supported E-Government
and Human Capital PMA ini-
tiatives.
Earned an unqualified audit
opinion on the FY 2005
financial statements.
Improper Payment Reduction Outlook for FY 2004-FY 2007
(dollars in millions)
Clean Water
and Drinking
Water SRFs
Payments % Payments
Payments % Payments Payments % Payments % Payments %
$2,182
.47%
$10.3*
$1,928
Actual 0.1 6%
Target .45%
$3.1
*Approximately $ 10 million of the $ 10.3 million identified as erroneous payments was attributable to states prematurely drawing down funds for allowable
expenses.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
EPA samples and annually reports on improper pay-
ments in the two State Revolving Funds (SRFs)
previously covered under OMB Circular A-ll,
Section 57. For FY 2005, the Agency assessed a statis-
tical sample of direct state payments and judgemental
sub-recipient payments. EPA's samples identified a
less than 1 percent error rate in payments. The chart
below provides 2 years of actual performance as well
as planned reduction targets.
In FY 2005, the Agency met or exceeded the stan-
dard for four of the government-wide performance
metrics and has an action plan to improve performance
for the other five metrics. Additionally, EPA generally
met or exceeded internal performance goals. Over 99.9
percent of the Agency's contracts were paid on time
and EPA received $330 thousand in purchase card
rebates from the purchase card contractor. The chart
immediately below presents results for three internal
Agency performance measures that support the EPA's
E-government and improved financial performance pri-
orities. To further improve efficiency and consistency,
EPA is realigning major accounting functions and cus-
tomer service responsibilities from 14 locations to four
Finance Centers of Excellence. The Agency reached
the 50 percent mark in the consolidation this year and
plans to complete it by December 2006.
Financial Management Performance Measures
98.8 99.1 99.2 99.0 99.4
2001
2002
2003 2004
Fiscal Year
2005
EPA Financial Trends
;Data from Statement of Budgetary Resources as of I I/IO/05J
10.2
RESOURCES AND OUTLAYS
In FY 2005 EPA received $8.03 billion in
Congressional appropriations.21 EPA Financial
Trends22 (shown at bottom left) shows a 5-year snap-
shot of the Agency's used resources. The Statement of
Budgetary Resources, included in Section IV, presents
additional information on the Agency's resources.
The table below shows EPA's FY 2005 obligations by
Congressional appropriation.
FY 2005 Obligations by Appropriation (Dollars in Millions)
(Data from Statement of Budgetary Resources as of I I /10/05)
State & Tribal Assistant Grants
Superfund
All Other
Total
$3,608.5
$1,544.9
$4,971.0
$10,124.4
(35.6%)
(15.3%)
(49.1%)
(100%)
EPA works with its partners in the public and
private sectors to accomplish its mission and uses a
variety of funding mechanisms—including grants,
contracts, innovative financing, and collaborative
networks—to protect human health and the environ-
ment. The pie chart below depicts EPA's costs
(expenses for services rendered or activities per-
formed) by spending category.23
The majority of EPA's costs are for grant programs
(see pie chart on next page). The Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRF grants supporting the Agency's
Clean and Safe Water goal account for 43 percent of
EPA's grant awards. Other major environmental grant
programs include assistance to states and tribes,
FY 2005 Cost Categories
Fiscal Year
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2005 Major Grant Categories
consistent with EPA's authorizing
statutes, and research grants
to universities and nonprofit
institutions. (See pie chart
above.)
INNOVATIVE FINANCING:
PARTNERSHIPS AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FINANCE PROGRAM
EPA leverages federal funds
through several innovative envi-
ronmental financing efforts,
mutually beneficial public-private
partnerships, such as SRFs and the
Environmental Finance Program,
and Superfund program cost
recoveries.
EPA uses collaboration and
partnerships with the states to wise-
ly manage its resources for keeping
the nation's water clean and safe.
As of early FY 2006, the Clean
Water SRF had leveraged nearly
$23 billion in federal capitalization
grants into more than $52 billion in
assistance to municipalities and
other entities for wastewater proj-
ects. As of early FY 2006, the
Drinking Water SRF had leveraged
$6.5 billion in federal capitalization
grants into more than $11 billion in
assistance for drinking water infra-
structure. (Note: The current FY
2005 Drinking Water SRF data
includes information from 50
DWSRF Programs, including partial
data from New York. The remain-
ing data for New York is expected at
the end of November 2005).
The Environmental Finance
Program helps regulated parties
find ways to pay for environmen-
tal activities. The program works
to lower costs, increase invest-
ments, and build financial
capacity. It provides leveraged
financial outreach to governments
and the private sector via an
Environmental Financial Advisory
Board, an online database, and a
network of nine university-based
Environmental Finance Centers
(EFCs). To date, this network has
provided educational, technical,
and analytic support in 48 states.
For every dollar that EPA has
invested in it, the network has
invested 3.67 dollars in project
work (see pie chart below).
Additional information on the
program is available at
www.epa.gov/efinpage.
EFCN Funding Sources
One of the Agency's compli-
ance and enforcement success
stories is its Superfund program,
which leverages funding to
increase cleanup of contaminated
sites. Under Superfund, EPA may
recover the cost of cleanups. Since
1980, EPA has collected $3.34 bil-
lion in cost recoveries ($63
million collected in FY 2005).
EPA also retains and uses the pro-
ceeds received under settlement
agreements to conduct cleanup
activities, placing these funds in
interest-bearing, site-specific spe-
cial accounts. With careful
management, EPA uses and lever-
ages these resources to the fullest
extent possible. As of September
30, 2005, EPA had established
540 special accounts with $1.5 bil-
lion in receipts. These accounts
have earned $206 million in
cumulative interest.24
NEW FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
INITIATIVES
Committed to providing man-
agers with timely, accurate
information critical for managing
resources wisely, the Agency
leverages technology and updates
its systems to produce the infor-
mation needed to make sound
decisions. In the near term, the
enhanced internal control require-
ments in OMB Circular A-123
will strengthen EPA's existing
management integrity efforts and
provide a platform to broaden our
scope and expand our focus on
programmatic efficiency and effec-
tiveness. This activity will
complement efforts planned or
underway to achieve economies of
scale and develop and enhance
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
financial information tools to
meet the decisionmaking needs of
EPA managers.
Additionally, the Agency is
expanding the use of financial
information by integrating addi-
tional financial information into
EPA's decisionmaking processes,
with an initial focus on grants
data. EPA also successfully con-
ducted the first Competitive
Sourcing "Standard Competition"
for vendor payment services. The
Agency's Research Triangle Park
Finance Center bested the private
sector contractors' bids for provid-
ing these services, resulting in
savings to the Agency of
$3.5 million over 5 years.
Leveraging Technology
E-government—leveraging technology to gain efficiencies across
government.
Financial accountability—integrating budget and performance
data, providing more precise information about program costs, and
identifying areas for improvement.
Modern resource management systems—implementing 21st
century tools to manage Agency resources.
Data warehousing and reporting—searching data for latent
correlations and providing easy access to useful data.
~urity—protecting data against today's "•'
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTES
1 The Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, the Inspector General Act Amendments, the Government Management Reform
Act, the Chief Financial Officers Act, and the Reports Consolidation Act.
T- EPA Announces Landmark Clean Air Interstate Rule (Agency Press Release, 3/10/05).
3 EPA Announces First-Ever Rule to Reduce Mercury Emissions from Power Plans (3/15/05).
4 For more information on the toxics program see www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/urban/urbanpg.html.
5 Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures. ISBN 0-309-06496. January 2000.
6 A copy of the report can be found at www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
7 More information on EPA's Superfund Program can be found at www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm.
8 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks Division Directors in EPA Regions 1-10, June 2, 2005, "FY 2005 Semi Annual Mid-Year Activity
Report."
9 Preliminary end-of-year data provided by EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks, November 9, 2005.
10 Additional information about EPA's recycling programs can be found at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/recycle.htm.
11 For additional information on EPA authorities for conducting work under the Food Quality Protection Act go to
www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm.
12 For additional information on pesticide registration and assessment go to www.epa.gov/pesticides/index.htm.
13 For additional information on the high production chemical program go to www.epa.gov/chemrtk/volchall.htm.
14 Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 1999-
2002: May 2005. More information is available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
15 More information can be found at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil.
16 More information can be found at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal.
17 More information on PCS is available at www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/water/pcssys.html.
18 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regularly releases an executive scorecard which rates each federal agency's overall
status and progress in implementing the PMA initiatives. The scorecard ratings use a color-coded system based on criteria
determined by OMB.
19 US EPA, American Indian Environmental Office. "Target 1 Program Performance Report." Goal 5, Objective 5.3 Reporting
System.
20 It is important to note that the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) has been identified as an Agency-level
Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, with corrective action to be completed in 2007. The data are not
considered materially inadequate, however, per OMB's definition. The Verification and Validation section of the Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification has details on data limitations associated with SDWIS.
21 Public Law 108-447 H.R. 4818.
22 Section IV, FY 2005 Statement of Budgetary Resources.
23 Section IV, FY 2005 Statement of Net Costs.
24 EPA's Integrated Financial Management System.
-------
Section II.
CONTENTS
Introduction
Goal I—Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Goal 2—Clean and Safe Water
Goal 3—Land Preservation and Restoration
Goal 4—Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Goal 5—Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Enabling and Support Programs
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
introduction
ERA'S PERFORMANCE
FRAMEWORK
EPA is committed to using the
taxpayer funds it receives from
Congress to produce meaningful
environmental results. The
Agency has established five long-
term strategic goals that describe
the results it is striving to achieve:
(1) Clean Air and Global Climate
Change, (2) Clean and Safe
Water, (3) Land Preservation and
Restoration, (4) Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems,
and (5) Compliance and
Environmental Stewardship.
These goals are supported by a
planning and budgeting frame-
work, or "architecture," of
long-term objectives and annual
performance goals and measures.
The strategic "architecture"
serves as a framework for EPA's
EPA's Performance Framework
FY 2005 Costs and Obligations Are Presented for Each Strategic Goal (in Thousands of Dollars)*
Strategic Goals
Clean Air &
Global Climate
Change
Cost: $990,489
Obligation: $987,796
Clean &
Safe Water
Cost: $3,507,201
Obligation: $3,578,976
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
Cost: $2,015,874
Obligation: $3,403,712
Healthy
Communities
& Ecosystems
Cost: $1,272,852
Obligation: $1,367,964
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Cost: $714,178
Obligation: $787,535
Outdoor Air
(8 APGs)
Cost: 62,7%
Obligation: 62,9%
Indoor Air
(3 APGs)
Cost: 5,3%
Obligation: 5,0%
The Ozone Layer
(1 APG)
Cost: 2,4%
Obligation: 1,8%
Radiation
(3 APGs)
Cost: 4,1%
Obligation: 4,0%
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
(2 APGs)
Cost: 1 1 ,3%
Obligation: 1 1,8%
(2 APGs)
Cost: 14,2%
Obligation: 14,5%
Contamination in
Drinking Water,
Shellfish, and
Recreational Waters
(1 1 APGs)
Cost: 33,2%
Obligation: 35,7%
Water Quality
(6 APGs)
Cost: 62,8%
Obligation: 60,3%
Science & Research
(1 APG)
Cost: 4,0%
Obligation: 4,0%
Strategic Objectives
Preserved Land
(2 APGs)
Cost: 12,1%
Obligation: 6,6%
Restored Land
(4 APGs)
Cost: 84,5%
Obligation: 90,4%
Science & Research
(1 APG)
Cost: 3,4%
Obligation: 3,0%
Chemical, Organism
& Pesticide Risks
(10 APGs)
Cost: 34,4%
Obligation: 33,4%
Communities
(3 APGs)
Cost1 1 8 8%
Obligation: 21,0%
Ecosystems
(6 APGs)
Cost: 13,0%
Obligation: 13,0%
Science & Research
(7 APGs)
Cost: 33,8%
Obligation: 32,6%
Improved Compliance
(3 APGs)
Cost: 61,1%
Obligation: 59,9%
Improved
Environmental
Performance through
P2 and Innovation
(2 APGs)
Cost: 16,7%
Obligation: 16,3%
Tribal Capacity
to Implement
Environmental
Programs
(1 APG)
Cost: 10,0%
Obligation: 10,8%
Science & Research
(1 APG)
Cost 122%
Obligation: 13,0%
Note: See Performance Results for each Goal and Strategic Objective for presentation of dollars associated with FY 2005 costs and obligations.
* Reconciles with SF-133, Lines 8a and 8b—Obligations.
-------
SECTION II—PERFORMANCE RESULTS
annual planning, budgeting and accountability work.
By integrating these activities under one framework,
the Agency has been better able to assess its perform-
ance, evaluate its programs, and use that information
to make budget and program improvement decisions.
EPA's strategic planning and budgeting architecture
comprises strategic goals, objectives, annual perform-
ance goals, and annual performance measures.
ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE SECTION
The Performance Section of this report provides
performance information for each of EPA's five strate-
gic goals and enabling and support programs. Each
goal chapter looks at EPA's FY 2005 performance
from three perspectives: at the goal, objective, and
annual performance goal (APG) levels. The more
general information provided at the goal and objec-
tive levels enables the reader to get a sense of how
EPA is performing in the goal area. Those who wish
to learn more can "drill down" into the more com-
plete and detailed information provided for each
APG.
The Performance Section also lists Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments con-
ducted under each of the strategic goals. It identifies
performance measures associated with the PART and
reports FY 2005 results for the measures for which
data are currently available. Future PART measures
are listed in a separate table for each strategic goal,
along with the year EPA expects to begin reporting
data against them. Ratings for programs assessed dur-
ing 2005 for the FY 2007 budget will be available in
February 2006. EPA is currently working to integrate
GPRA and PART measures to meet standards for per-
formance measurement established by both EPA and
OMB. This integration is another step in EPA's ongo-
ing efforts to establish a set of measures that clearly
defines environmental outcomes and achieves EPA's
Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) goals.
Additional information on PART assessments and
EPA's progress in making program improvements will
be available in February 2006 at ExpectMore.gov.
Each goal chapter is organized as follows:
1. Qoal Section: Provides a general overview of
EPA's efforts under the goal.
Chapter Organization
STRATEGIC GOAL
Annual
Performance
Goal
7
Performance
Measures
Annual
Performance
Goal
Performance
Measures
Annual
Performance
Goal
\
Performance
Measures
STRATEGIC GOAL: Identifies the overall envi-
ronmental result that EPA is working to achieve
in carrying out its mission to protect human
health and the environment.
OBJECTIVE: Supports EPA's strategic goals by
identifying more specific environmental outcomes
or results the Agency intends to achieve within a
given time frame, using available resources. EPA's
2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes 20 objectives.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL (APG):
Specific results EPA intends to achieve in a given
fiscal year.APGs represent the year-by-year
accomplishments that EPA believes are needed to
achieve its objectives. APGs generally include a
target to be achieved (relative to a baseline) and
performance measure. Some of EPA's APGs, how-
ever, are specific environmental outcomes or
results that may take longer than a year to real-
ize and quantify.As a result, data for a number of
EPA's FY 2005 APGs will not be available until FY
2006 or beyond.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE (PM): The metric
that EPA uses to evaluate its success in meeting
an annual performance goal. In many cases, the
APG is itself the measure.
Objective Section: Discusses the Agency's progress
toward meeting the objective and lists each of the
supporting APGs, noting which have been met,
missed, or are awaiting data. Also discusses future
challenges EPA faces in achieving the objective.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3. APQ Section: The most
detailed discussion of EPA's FY
2005 performance. Provides
results for each annual per-
formance goal. Includes trend
data, information on relevant
program evaluation and man-
agement integrity issues, and
plans for addressing perform-
ance issues. Also includes
performance measures devel-
oped as a result of Program
Assessment and Rating Tool
(PART) assessments.
DATA AND INFORMATION
QUALITY
The performance information
in this report is reliable and, as
defined by OMB, no material
inadequacies are present.1 Each of
EPA's program offices has certified
that the information it submitted
for this report is accurate, reliable
and unbiased; is transparent and
reproducible to an acceptable
degree of imprecision; and com-
plies with EPA's Information
Quality Guidelines
(http://www.epa.gov/oei/quali-
tyguidelines). The certifications,
signed by senior EPA managers,
are archived by the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer.
This section of the report
presents actual end-of-year per-
formance information, or the date
when it will become available.
Where a date is provided, prelimi-
nary performance may be reported
as estimates, projections, or
extrapolations of partial year data.
Based on OMB's definition of
completeness, therefore, the per-
formance data are considered
complete. The report references
data sources, including those
external to EPA.
Note that EPA reports more
detailed information on sources of
performance data error, data quali-
ty reviews, and data improvements
for each annual performance
measure in the "Verification and
Validation" section of its Annual
Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification. For
the 2006 version, see
"Program and Performance
Assessment," pages 162-355, at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/
budget/2006/ppa.pdf.
-------
INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE SECTION
EPA's Performance Framework
EPA is committed to using the taxpayer funds it receives from Congress to produce meaningful
environmental results. The Agency has established five long-term strategic goals that describe
the results it is striving to achieve: (1) Clean Air and Global Climate Change, (2) Clean and Safe
Water, (3) Land Preservation and Restoration, (4) Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and
(5) Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. These goals are supported by a planning and
budgeting framework, or "architecture," of long-term objectives and annual performance goals
and measures.
The strategic "architecture" serves as a framework for EPA's annual planning, budgeting and
accountability work. By integrating these activities under one framework, the Agency has been
better able to assess its performance, evaluate its programs, and use that information to make
budget and program improvement decisions. EPA's strategic planning and budgeting
architecture comprises strategic goals, objectives, annual performance goals, and annual
performance measures.
About the Performance Section
The Performance Section of this report provides performance information for each of EPA's five
strategic goals and enabling and support programs. Each goal chapter looks at EPA's FY 2005
performance from three perspectives: at the goal, objective, and annual performance goal
(APG) levels. The more general information provided at the goal and objective levels enables
the reader to get a sense of how EPA is performing in the goal area. Those who wish to learn
more can "drill down" into the more complete and detailed information provided for each APG.
The Performance Section also lists Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments
conducted under each of the strategic goals. It identifies performance measures associated
with the PART and reports FY 2005 results for the measures for which data are currently
available. Future PART measures are listed in a separate table for each strategic goal, along
with the year EPA expects to begin reporting data against them. Ratings for programs
assessed during 2005 for the FY 2007 budget will be available in February 2006. EPA is
currently working to integrate GPRA and PART measures to meet standards for performance
measurement established by both EPA and OMB. This integration is another step in EPA's
ongoing efforts to establish a set of measures that clearly defines environmental outcomes and
achieves EPA's Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) goals. Additional information on
PART assessments and EPA's progress in making program improvements will be available in
February 2006 at ExpectMore.gov.
Each goal chapter is organized as follows:
Sub-Section
Goal
Objective
APG
Purpose
Provides a general overview of EPA's efforts under the goal.
Discusses the Agency's progress toward meeting the objective and lists
each of the supporting APGs, noting which have been met, missed, or
are awaiting data. Also discusses future challenges EPA faces in
achieving the objective.
The most detailed discussion of EPA's FY 2005 performance. Provides
results for each annual performance goal. Includes trend data,
information on relevant program evaluation and management integrity
issues, and plans for addressing performance issues. Also includes
performance measures developed as a result of Program Assessment
and Rating Tool (PART) assessments.
-------
EBVs Performance Framework
FY2005 Costs and Obligations Are Resented for Each Strategic Gba/ (in Thousands of Dollars)*
Strategic Goals
Clean Air &
Global Climate
Change
Cost: $990,489
Obligation $987,796
Clean&
Safe Water
Cost: $3,507,201
Obligation $3,578,976
Land
Reservation &
Restoration
Cost: $2,015,874
Obligation $3,403,712
Healthy
Communities
& Ecosystems
Cost: $1,272,852
Obligation $1,367,964
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Cost: $714,178
Obligation $787,535
Out door Air
(SAFGs)
Cost: 62.7%
Obligation: 62.9%
Indoor Air
(SAFGs)
Cost: 5.3%
Obligation: 5.0%
The Ozone Layer
(1AFG)
Cost: 2.4%
Obligation: 1.8%
Radiation
(SAFGs)
Cost: 4.1%
Obligation: 4.0%
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
(2AFGs)
Cost: 11.3%
Obligation: 11.8%
(2AFGs)
Cost: 14.2%
Obligation: 14.5%
Contamination in
DrinkingWater,
Shellfish, and
Recreational Waters
(11AFGs)
Cost: 33.2%
Obligation: 35.7%
Water Quality
(6AFGs)
Cost: 62.8%
Obligation: 60.3%
Science & Research
(1AFG)
Cost: 4.0%
Obligation: 4.0%
Strategic O bjectives
Reserved Land
(2AFGs)
Cost: 12.1%
Obligation: 6.6%
Restored Land
(4AFGs)
Cost: 84.5%
Obligation: 90.4%
Science & Research
(1AFG)
Cost: 3.4%
Obligation: 3.0%
Chemical, Orgnism
& Pesticide Risks
(lOAFGs)
Cost: 34.4%
Obligation: 33.4%
Communities
(3 AFGs)
Cost: 18.8%
Obligation: 21.0%
Eco systems
(6 AFGs)
Cos:' 130%
Obligation: 13.0%
Science & Research
(7 AFGs)
Cost: 33.8%
Obligation: 32.6%
Improved Compliance
(SAFGs)
Cost: 61.1%
Obligation: 59.9%
Improved
Environment a1
Performance through
F2 aid Innovation
(2 AFGs)
Cost: 16.7%
Obligation: 16.3%
Tribal Capacity
to Implement
Environmental
Frog-ams
(1AFG)
Cost: 10.0%
Obligation: 10.8%
Science & Research
(1AFG)
Cost: 12.2%
Obligation: 13.0%
Note: See Performance Results for each Goal and Srategc Objective for presentation of dollars associated with FY 2005 costs and obligations.
* Reconciles with SF-133, Lines 8a and 8b—Obligations
Data and Information Quality
The performance information in this report is reliable and, as defined by OMB, no material
inadequacies are present.1 Each of EPA's program offices has certified that the information it
submitted for this report is accurate, reliable and unbiased; is transparent and reproducible to an
acceptable degree of imprecision; and complies with EPA's Information Quality Guidelines
(http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines). The certifications, signed by senior EPA managers,
are archived by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
1 It is important to note that the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) has been identified as
an Agency-level Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, with corrective action to
be completed in 2007. The data are not considered materially inadequate, however, perOMB's definition.
The Verification and Validation section of the Annual Performance Plan and CongressionalJustification
has details on data limitations associated with SDWIS.
-------
This section of the report presents actual end-of-year performance information, or the date
when it will become available. Where a date is provided, preliminary performance may be
reported as estimates, projections, or extrapolations of partial year data. Based on OMB's
definition of completeness, therefore, the performance data are considered complete. The
report references data sources, including those external to EPA.
Note that EPA reports more detailed information on sources of performance data error, data
quality reviews, and data improvements for each annual performance measure in the
"Verification and Validation" section of its Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification. For the 2006 version, see "Program and Performance Assessment," pages 162-
355, at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2006/ppa.pdf.
STRATEGIC GOAL
Performance
Measures
Performance
Measures
Annual
Performance
Measures
Strategic Goal: Identifies the overall environmental result that EPA is working to achieve in carrying out its mission to
protect human health and the environment.
Objective: Supports EPA's strategic goals by identifying more specific environmental outcomes or results the Agency
intends to achieve within a given time frame, using available resources. EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan includes 20
objectives.
Annual Performance Goal (APG): Specific results EPA intends to achieve in a given fiscal year. APGs represent the
year-by-year accomplishments that EPA believes are needed to achieve its objectives. APGs generally include a target to
be achieved (relative to a baseline) and performance measure. Some of EPA's APGs, however, are specific
environmental outcomes or results that may take longer than a year to realize and quantify. As a result, data for a number
of EPA's FY 2005 APGs will not be available until FY 2006 or beyond.
Performance Measure (PM): The metric that EPA uses to evaluate its success in meeting an annual performance goal.
In many cases, the APG is itself the measure.
-------
Strategic Goal 1:
Clean Air and
Global Climate Change
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe, and risks to human health and the environment are
reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
Overview of Goal
Since 1970, EPA has been work-
ing with its partners and stakeholders
to implement the Clean Air Act and
other environmental laws and
approaches to achieve cleaner,
healthier air for all Americans. The
Agency's strategy for protecting pub-
lic health relies on national
regulatory, voluntary, and market-
based programs carried out in
combination with state, tribal, and
local efforts. By phasing out lead in
gasoline, setting tougher standards
for vehicle emissions, and using
allowance trading to reduce acid rain
precursors, national programs have
contributed to reducing overall emis-
sion of air pollutants by 48 percent
since 1970; at the same time, eco-
nomic growth has increased by more
than 160 percent.2 Every year, state
and federal criteria air pollutant pro-
grams established pursuant to the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
significantly benefit human health
and the economy.
OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTION
A better understanding by gov-
ernment and industry of fine particle
pollution—including the role of sul-
fur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in forming fine partic-
ulate matter—and recent advances
in diesel engine and power plant
technologies are furthering EPA's
progress in addressing outdoor air
pollution. In FY 2005, the Agency
issued two rules expected to achieve
sizable improvements in air quality.
The new Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) is expected to dramati-
cally reduce pollution in the eastern
United States, cutting power plant
emissions of SO2 by more than 70
percent and NOX by more than 60
percent and permanently capping
emissions that lead to smog and soot.
When fully implemented, CAIR is
expected to provide nearly $2 billion
in visibility benefits, significantly
reducing haze in eastern national
parks. Most importantly, EPA
estimates suggest that CAIR will
result in significant health benefits.3
Contributing Programs
Acid Rain Program
AirNow
Air Toxics
Best Workplaces for Commuters
Clean Automotive Technology
Program
Climate Leaders Partnership
Combined Heat and Power
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Implementation
Energy Star Programs
Green Power Partnership
High GWP Gas Programs
Indoor Air Quality
International Programs
Methane
Mobile Sources
NOX Budget Program
Stratospheric Ozone Layer
Protection Program
Pollution Prevention
Radiation Programs
SmartWay New Source Review
Transport Program
Sunwise Schools Program
Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Programs
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Qoal 1 At a Qlance
FY 2OO5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS (APGs)
Met = 5 Not Met = 0*
Data Available After November 15, 2005 = 14
(Total APGs = 19)
FY 2005 Obligations
(in thousands)
GoalS
$787,535
FY 2005 Costs
(in thousands)
GoalS
$714,178
Goal 4
$1,367,964
(13.5%)
Goal 3
$3,403,712
(33.6%)
EPA Total = $10,125,983
Goal 2
$3,507,201
(41.3%)
Goal 4
$1,272,852
(15.0%)
Goal 3
$2,015,874
(23.7%)
EPA Total = $8,500,594
FY 2OO5 "REPORT CARD'
STRATEGIC OBJECTI
OBJECTIVE I-HEALTHIEROUTDOORAIR
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and
the environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-
quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
OBJECTIVE 2-HEALTHIER INDOORAIR
By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be
experiencing healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office
buildings.
OBJECTIVE 3-PROTECTTHE OZONE LAYER
By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in
the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun
the process of recovery and the risk to human health from
overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among sus-
ceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
OBJECTIVE 4-RADIATION
Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releas-
es of radiation, and be prepared to minimize impacts to human
health and the environment should unwanted releases occur
OBJECTIVE S-REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute
45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to
the President's 18% greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by
2012. (An additional 75 MMTCE to result from the sustained
growth in the climate programs are reflected in the administrations'
business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement.)
OBJECTIVE 6-ENHANCE SCIENCE & RESEARCH
Through 2010, provide and apply sound science to support
EPA's goal of Clean Air by conducting leading-edge research
and developing a better understanding and characterization of
environmental outcomes under Goal I.
OMet
0 Not Met
8TBD
I Met
0 Not Met
2TBD
OMet
0 Not Met
ITBD
2 Met
0 Not Met
ITBD
OMet
0 Not Met
2TBD
2 Met
0 Not Met
OTBD
The Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR) is designed to reduce
mercury emissions from power
plants. Working with CAIR, it
provides a flexible multipollutant
approach to air toxics, reducing
SO2, NOX, and mercury emissions.
Like CAIR, CAMR limits emis-
sions by using a market-based, cap
and trade program that will per-
manently cap utility mercury
emissions. The United States is
now the only country regulating
mercury emissions from coal-burn-
ing power plants.4
In FY 2005, EPA also
launched the Clean Diesel
Campaign, which relies on regula-
tory and voluntary efforts to
reduce emissions from new and
existing diesel engines by 2014.
Under this campaign, EPA is
developing and implementing
stringent emissions standards for
new engines and fuel. The Agency
is addressing the country's existing
fleet by promoting such voluntary
pollution-cutting measures as
retrofits, use of cleaner fuels,
replacement, and reduced idling.
EPA's Acid Rain Program and
NOX Budget Program employ mar-
ket-based allowance trading to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions
from the power industry. Now in
its 10th year, the Acid Rain
Program posted a cumulative
reduction in SO2 emissions of 7
million tons, a more than 40 per-
cent reduction from the 1980
baseline. EPA has measured
improvements in acid deposition
and other environmental indica-
tors, including an approximately
40 percent reduction in sulfate
deposition in some regions of the
country.5
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
SO2 Emissions Under the Acid Rain Program
20 ,
18-1
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
-I3.0— I3.I-
9.4 9.3
1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
INDOOR AIR POLLUTION
EPA's indoor air programs
focus primarily on environmental
management of asthma triggers,
improving indoor air quality in
schools, and reducing risks from
radon. For example, the Agency's
popular public service Goldfish
Campaign, which highlights
childhood asthma, has garnered
close to $150 million in donated
media time, generated nearly
50,000 calls to the "Asthma
Hotline," and sparked more than
1 million Web site visits. During
FY 2005, EPA trained more than
500 tribal environmental profes-
sionals, school nurses, school
administrators, local housing
authorities, respiratory health
therapists, and council members
servicing tribal nations on indoor
air quality and techniques for
reducing asthma risks. Under its
schools program, EPA recruited an
estimated 2,500 additional schools
to use approaches promoted by
the Agency's Tools for Schools
Program. EPA also collaborated
with five national school organiza-
tions on training, speaking
engagements, mailings, articles,
and other activities to make
indoor air quality a key priority
within the school community.
CLIMATE
CHANGE
Most global
climate change
is attributed
the buildup
of greenhouse
gases—primarily
CO2, methane,
and nitrous
oxide—in the atmosphere. These
gases trap heat in the Earth's atmos-
phere, decreasing snow cover and
floating ice, increasing precipita-
tion over land, and causing other
climate changes. Increasing con-
centrations of greenhouse gases
could accelerate the rate of
climate change.
EPA's climate protection
efforts are centered on reducing
emissions of CO2 and other green-
house gases such as methane and
perfluorocarbons and reducing
energy consumption. When con-
sumers and businesses use less
energy, power plants need gener-
ate less electricity, thereby
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and improving air quality. Energy
efficient products and practices
also benefit the economy by sav-
ing consumers and businesses
money on their utility bills.
EPA programs work to address the
most potent greenhouse gases
emitted from industrial and waste
management processes; challenge
businesses, public institutions, and
households to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by investing in ener-
gy efficiency, renewable energy,
and other climate-friendly tech-
nologies; and provide information,
technical assistance, and recogni-
tion to organizations taking
measurable steps to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, EPA's climate pro-
tection programs have secured
substantial energy conservation
and environmental benefits for the
next decade. Because many of the
investments the Agency has pro-
moted involve energy-efficient
equipment with 10-year or longer
lifetimes, investments made to
date are expected to deliver envi-
ronmental and economic benefits
through 2014 and beyond. EPA
estimates that organizations and
consumers will net savings of more
than $115 billion and reduce
greenhouse emissions by more
than 700 million metric tons of
carbon equivalent (MMTCE) over
the next 10 years. These programs
continue to be cost-effective: EPA
estimates that every dollar it spent
deploying technology reduced
Energy Goals and Achievements for Climate Protection Programs
^ 40
13 1719
A • I I
2005 2006
Year
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
greenhouse gas emissions by more
than 1 metric ton of carbon equiv-
alent (3.67 tons of CO2) and saved
more than $75 in energy bills.6
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
DEPLETION
EPA also implements pro-
grams to protect the ozone layer,
meeting requirements of the
Montreal Protocol and Title VI of
the Clean Air Act. The Agency
reviews substitutes for ozone -
depleting substances and develops
voluntary programs to reduce
emissions of gases that contribute
to global climate change. If reduc-
tion targets are met on schedule,
the Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion program could help to
prevent 6 million skin-cancer
deaths over the next 100 years.
RADIATION
EPA is responsible for protect-
ing the public and environment
from radiation. The Radiation
Monitoring Network (RadNet)
provides data that federal agencies
use to assess responses to nuclear
emergencies, provides data on
ambient levels of radiation in the
environment for baseline and
trend analysis, and informs deci-
sionmakers and the public in the
event of a nuclear incident. In FY
2005, EPA enhanced RadNet by
acquiring state-of-the-art fixed
and deployable radiation moni-
tors. The Agency also met its FY
2005 responsibilities for reviewing
and recertifying the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). EPA
oversees radiation waste shipped
to the WIPP from sites through-
out the United States.
Radiation Standards for Yucca Mountain
In FY 2005, EPA prepared a revised radiation health and safety standard
for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository that protects public
health for an unprecedented I million years.Yucca Mountain is a
potential permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste. Under the new proposed
standards, people living close to the facility would
not be exposed to total radiation levels
higher than the levels people in other
areas experience routinely.The pro-
posed standards set a maximum
dose level for the first 10,000
years.To ensure public safety to I
million years, EPA proposed a
separate, higher dose limit based
on current natural background
radiation levels in the United
States. EPA is accepting public
comments on the proposed
standard and will carefully con-
sider them before issuing a final
standard for Yucca Mountain.
RESEARCH
EPA's 2005 research findings
support the association between
exposure to particulate matter
(PM), illness, and even death.
Susceptible groups, including
asthmatic children, suffered such
adverse effects as impaired health
and hospitalization. People with
heart disease were found more
prone to fatal cardiac events as a
result of acute PM exposure.
Scientists also found that PM2 5,
the component of PM smaller
than 2.5 microns in diameter, eas-
ily penetrates indoor
environments, where people
spend much of their time. EPA's
Office of Research and
Development continues to inves-
tigate various hypotheses on how
PM causes disease and death and
will use the results to help the
Agency and its partners develop
targeted control strategies to
reduce human exposure. In addi-
tion, EPA will continue research
to help implement the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), using modeling and
monitoring data to determine
which states and regions are out of
compliance and developing new
analytical tools to help them meet
the standards.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Goal I Strategic Objectives
Strategic
Objective 1—
Healthier
Outdoor Air
Through 2010, working with part-
ners, protect human health and the
environment by attaining and main-
taining health-based air-quality
standards and reducing the risk from
toxic air pollutants.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA continues to make
progress in improving air quality
and is on track to meet its long-
term objective of healthier
outdoor air. The Agency's clean
air rules provide tools for attaining
and maintaining health-based
standards and reducing risk from
toxic air pollutants:
• The new Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) will help 28
eastern states meet national
health-based air quality stan-
dards and reduce pollution
that moves across state bound-
aries. When fully
implemented, CAIR is
expected to reduce power
plant emissions of SO2 by
more than 70 percent and
NOx by more than 60 per-
cent.
• The Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR) will reduce mercury
emissions from electric utili-
ties. CAMR limits mercury
emissions from new and exist-
ing coal-fired power plants
and creates a market-based
cap and trade program that
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1— HEALTHIER OUTDOORAIR
I.I
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Reduce CO, SO2, NO2, and Lead
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy
PM Levels— PM,0
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy
PM Levels— PM2 5
Reduce SO2 Emissions
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone
Levels — 8-hour
Acid Rain — Reduce Sulfur Deposition
Acid Rain — Reduce Nitrogen Deposition
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
X Not Met for FY 2004
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
X Not Met for FY 2004
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in 2015
X Not met for FY 2001
X Not met for FY 2000
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available late in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available late in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal I, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal I, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14.5%
($142.821.8)
Goal I Total = $987,795.9
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
^ 11.8%
($116.956.5)
Radiation
' 4.0%
($39.996.1)
The Ozone
> Layer
\ 1.8%
\ ($17.407.8)
Indoor Air
5.0%
($49.064.9)
Science
& Research
14.2%
($140.444.6)
Goal I Total = $990,489
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
— 11.3%
($112.261.3)
Radiation
4.1%
($40.532.4)
The Ozone
Layer
\ 2.4%
\ ($23.251.8)
Indoor Air
5.3%
($52.739.0)
will permanently cap utility
mercury emissions, initially at
38 tons beginning in 2010
and finally at 15 tons begin-
ning in 2018.
The Clean Air Fine Particle
Rule designated areas where
air does not meet the health-
based standards for
fine-particulate pollution.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
States are required to submit
plans for reducing the levels of
particulate pollution in these
designated areas.
The Clean Air Ozone Rules
(dealing with 8-hour ground-
level ozone designation and
implementation) designate
areas where air does not meet
the health-based standards for
ground-level ozone. The
ozone rules classify the seri-
ousness of the problem and
require states to submit plans
for reducing ozone levels in
designated areas.
CHALLENGES
CAIR, CAMR, the Clean Air
Ozone and Particulate Matter
Rules, and the Non-Road Diesel
and Tier 2 Rules lay the ground-
work for meeting health-based air
standards and reducing exposure
to harmful pollutants. Progress
requires effort at all levels of gov-
ernment. Delays in the
development of states' clean air
plans, for example, could lead to
delays in meeting the standards.
Strategic
Objective 2—
Healthier
Indoor Air
By 2008, 22.6 million more
Americans than in 1994 will be
experiencing healthier indoor air in
homes, schools, and office buildings.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA is on track to achieve its
objective for healthier air inside
homes, schools, and office build-
ings. EPA estimates that as of
2003, people suffering from asth-
ma avoided 42,000 emergency
room visits because they took
action to reduce their exposure to
indoor environmental asthma trig-
gers. The Agency expects that by
2007, 64,000 ER visits will be
avoided annually as a result of
reduced exposure to indoor envi-
ronmental asthma triggers.7 In
addition, EPA estimates that
radon mitigations and radon-
resistant new construction
through 2005 will help save 580
lives annually. The Agency pro] -
ects an additional 100,000 new
homes built with radon resistant
construction and more than
70,000 new working mitigation
systems in 2005.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—HEALTHIER INDOORAIR
1.10
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
(NEW IN FYOS)
ata available in FY 2006
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14.5%
($142,821.8)
Outdoor Air
62.9%
($621,548.8)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11.8%
($116,956.5)
Radiation
4.0%
_ ($39,996.1)
The Ozone
• Layer
I Q°/
1.0/0
($17,407.8)
Indoor Air
5.0%
($49,064.9)
Goal I Total = $987,795.9
As of 2002, more than 25,000
schools (22 percent of U.S.
schools) had Indoor Air Quality
(IAQ) management plans meeting
EPA's standard for effectiveness.8
EPA expects that in 2007, an
additional 1,100 schools will
implement effective indoor air
quality management plans, for a
total of more than 35,000 schools
implementing plans nationwide.
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14.2%
($140,444.6)
Outdoor Air
62.7%
($621,259.9)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
MTO/
.J A
/($! 12,261.3)
Radiation
4.1%
($40,532.4)
The Ozone
.— Layer
2.4%
($23,251.8)
Indoor Air
5.3%
($52,739.0)
Goal I Total = $990,489
CHALLENGES
EPA's non-regulatory Indoor
Environments program is designed
to promote voluntary actions by
the general public to improve
indoor air quality. While the pro-
gram has been effective using
education and outreach to change
behavior, in the future, increased
authority in some areas could
improve program results.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Healthier Indoor Air: Grant Projects
Through an EPA grant, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
worked with health plans to encourage the reduction of exposure to
indoor air asthma triggers.To date,AHIP has educated approximately
200 health plans on evidence-based environmental asthma manage-
ment; increased by 20 percent the number of health plans that
integrate environmental management; and trained approximately 200
case managers who can actively demonstrate increased knowledge of
indoor triggers and mitigation solutions.
In FY 2005, more than 4,000 school nurses through a grant to the
National Association of School Nurses were educated about ways to
encourage approximately 65,000 children with asthma and their fami-
lies on how to reduce exposures of indoor air asthma triggers.
In FY 2005, Habitat for Humanity International, a national leader in the
building construction industry, continued to include healthy indoor air
quality (IAQ) principles as part of its building ethic. IAQ factors
become integrated into Habitat builder training. At least 10 IAQ specif-
ic trainings occurred increasing the numbers of Habitat affiliates build
homes radon-resistant allowing improved IAQ in residences.
Radon is the leading cause of
lung cancer after smoking. The
World Health Organization
(WHO) estimates that radon
could cause up to 15 percent of
lung cancers globally. To address
this concern, WHO is collaborat-
ing with EPA and participating
countries on an International
Radon Project to increase public
awareness about this invisible
health threat and actions that can
be taken to reduce risks. For addi-
tional information on the
initiative, visit www.who.int/
mediacentre/news/notes/2005/
np!5/en/index.html.
Strategic
Objective 3—
Protect the
Ozone Layer
By 2010, through worldwide action,
ozone concentrations in the strato-
sphere will have stopped declining
and slowly begun the process of
recovery, and the risk to human
health from overexposure to ultravio-
let radiation, particularly among
susceptible subpopulations, such as
children, will be reduced.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
The Montreal Protocol on
Substances That Deplete the
Ozone Layer has reduced global
production and use of ozone-deplet-
ing substances (ODS). Developed
countries stopped producing chlo-
rofluorocarbons (CFCs), methyl
chloroform, and carbon tetrachlo-
ride in 1996, preventing emission
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER
1.12
Restrict Domestic Consumption of
Class II HCFCs
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
Met FY 2003 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14.5%
($142,821.8)
Outdoor Air
62.9%
($621,548.8)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11.8%
($116,956.5)
Goal I Total = $987,795.9
of 400,000 metric tons of ODS.
Developing countries are ahead of
schedule in reducing their produc-
tion, use, and emissions of ODS. As
a result of these prudent interna-
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14.2%
($140,444.6)
Outdoor Air
62.7%
($621,259.9)
Goal I Total = $990,489
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
MTO/
.J A
/r($M2,26l.3)
Radiation
4.1%
($40,532.4)
The Ozone
Layer
. 2.4%
' ($23,251.8)
Indoor Air
5.3%
($52,739.0)
tional actions, the rate of increase
of atmospheric concentrations of
ozone-depleting chemicals has
slowed, and in some cases,
declined.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Through the Multilateral
Fund, the United States helped
more than 120 developing
countries reduce their use of
ozone-depleting chemicals, pre-
venting emission of more than
150,000 metric tons of ODS. The
fund has reached long-term agree-
ments to eliminate more than
two-thirds of developing coun-
tries' capacity for producing CFC
and virtually all of their capacity
for producing halon.
U.S. industry is benefiting
from American leadership in this
international arena. In 2004, U.S.
firms exported ozone-friendly
chemical alternatives, generating
$80 million in revenue. In addi-
tion, the United States is
supplying recycling technology,
equipment, and technical assis-
tance to support developing
countries' phase-out activities.
CHALLENGES
To further progress in protect-
ing and restoring the ozone layer,
EPA must continue its efforts to
phase out ODS, while ensuring
that ODS remain available for spe-
cific uses when no alternatives
exist. In particular, with minor, lim-
ited exceptions, EPA must phase
out the use of hydrochlorofluoro-
carbons (HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b) by January 1, 2010, a
development that is expected to
provide largest economic and tech-
nical impact since the bulk of
CFCs were phased out in 1996.
Because these chemicals are so
widely used, minimizing the impact
on manufacturers and users will be
extremely challenging. This effort
will require in-depth research and
analysis and close consultation with
stakeholders around the world,
including other governments.
A second challenge is contin-
uing to phase out methyl bromide.
Developing an appropriate critical
use exemption, which allows pro-
duction and import of this
important agricultural chemical
while alternatives are developed, is
extremely difficult. EPA will need
to conduct thorough technical
analyses and carefully consider the
views of methyl bromide users,
state and local officials, other fed-
eral agencies, environmental and
other non-governmental organiza-
tions, and the international
community. Moreover, the window
of opportunity to assist methyl
bromide users in identifying and
adopting practical, effective alter-
natives is extremely narrow.
Farmers will need relevant, timely
information to help them produce,
ship, and store crops without using
methyl bromide.
Strategic
Objective
Radiation
Through 2008, working with part-
ners, minimize unnecessary releases
of radiation, and be prepared to min-
imize impacts to human health and
the environment should unwanted
releases occur.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA is making steady progress
toward its 2008 objective of mini-
mizing unnecessary releases of
radiation and impacts to human
health and the environment. The
Agency has conducted regular
radiological emergency response
exercises; recertified the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP);
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4—RADIATION
APG # APG Title
1.13
1.14
I.IS
Ensure WIPP Safety
Build National Radiation Monitoring
System
Homeland Security—Readiness and
Response (NEW IN FYOS)
APG Status
Met in FY 2005
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 4
fin thousands)
Science
& Research
14.5%
($142.821.8)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 4
fin thousands)
Outdoor Air
62.9%
($621.548.8)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
, , oo, '
I I .o/a
($116.956.5)
Science
& Research
14.2%
($140.444.6)
Outdoor Air
62.7%
($621.259.9)
Goal I Total = $987,795.9
The Ozone
\l_ayer
1.8%
($17.407.8)
Indoor Air
5.0%
($49.064.9)
Goal I Total = $990,489
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11.3%
($112.261.3)
Radiation
4.1%
($40.532.4)
"""•• The Ozone
Layer
\ 24%
\ ($23.251.8)
Indoor Air
5.3%
($52.739.0)
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
drafted guidance on acceptable
levels of radiation exposure
(Federal Radiation Guidance for
the General Public) and upgraded
and enhanced the radiation moni-
toring system.
In FY 2005, EPA continued
its work with other agencies to
ensure the nation's security and
readiness from terrorist incidents.
The Agency purchased monitors
for the Radiation Monitoring
Network (RadNet) and will site
the initial group of monitors in FY
2006. The initial RadNet plan
had called for the full monitoring
system to be in place by 2009.
However, given the complexities
of the system and technology, the
date for implementing the moni-
toring system has been pushed
back. Nonetheless, EPA expects
to substantially meet its original
target by providing radiation mon-
itoring coverage to approximately
65 percent of the U.S. population
by 2009. EPA worked with the
Department of Energy (DOE) to
ensure that the deliveries of radia-
tion waste to WIPP were fully
certified according to EPA stan-
dards. DOE did not ship as many
drums as it had planned this year;
however, due to over-shipments in
the past, EPA remains on track to
meet its long-term goal.
CHALLENGES
Ensuring the safety of
Americans in the event of a terrorist
event or other emergency is an
ongoing concern. Many agencies
contribute to this effort, making
coordination complicated. EPA's
role is critical but limited. Given the
real and perceived danger from radi-
ation, the range of radiation sources,
and the expertise needed for
cleanup, factoring radiation issues
into all plans will be an ongoing
challenge. Led by the Department of
Homeland Security, EPA will work
with other agencies to ensure the
nation's safety in nuclear incidents
as outlined in the Nuclear/
Radiological Incident Annex.
Strategic
Objective 5—
Reduce Qreenhouse
Qas Intensity
Through EPA's voluntary climate
protection programs, contribute 45
million metric tons of carbon equiva-
lent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's 18% greenhouse gas
intensity improvement goal by 2012.
(An additional 75 MMTCE to
result from the sustained growth in
the climate programs are reflected in
the administrations' business-as-
usual projection for GHG intensity
improvement.)
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA's voluntary climate pro-
tection programs have made
progress in reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases including carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane, and per-
fluorocarbons (PFCs). These
reductions contribute to progress
on the President's goal to reduce
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5—REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
1.16
1.17
Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Emissions
Reduce Energy Consumption
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 5
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 5
(in thousands)
Outdoor Air
62.9%
($621.548.8)
Goal I Total = $987,795.9
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11.8%
($116.956.5)
Radiation
— 4.0%
($39.996.1)
NThe Ozone
\ Layer
\ 1.8%
\ ($17.407.8)
Indoor Air
5.0%
($49.064.9)
Outdoor Air
62.7%
($621.259.9)
\T
Goal I Total = $990,489
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11.3%
($112.261.3)
Radiation
4.1%
($40.532.4)
*"^ The Ozone
Layer
\ 24%
\ ($23.251.8)
Indoor Air
5.3%
($52.739.0)
greenhouse gas intensity by 18
percent by 2012.
ENERGY STAR, EPA's flag-
ship program, realized substantial
economic and environmental
benefits through 2004. National
awareness of the ENERGY STAR
program has grown from 40 to 64
percent. More than 40 types of
products now carry the ENERGY
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STAR label, and 30 percent of
U.S. households knowingly pur-
chased an ENERGY
STAR-qualified product. In all,
consumers have purchased more
than 1.5 billion ENERGY STAR-
qualified products. In the
residential sector, more than 2,000
builders have constructed more
360,000 ENERGY STAR-qualified
homes, providing $200 million in
savings for homeowners annually.
Since 2002, the Agency has
offered leading organizations the
opportunity to be Climate Leaders,
partners who take aggressive steps
to reduce their impact on the
global environment. They invento-
ry their greenhouse gas emissions,
set aggressive long-term reduction
goals, report their progress to EPA,
and are recognized for their
achievements. EPA also provides
technical assistance to help them
assess the environmental and eco-
nomic benefits of clean energy
policies and programs, including
those that advance energy efficien-
cy, combined heat and power, and
renewable sources of energy.
CHALLENGES
EPA's climate change pro-
grams include both domestic and
international programs. The
domestic programs support the
Administration's goal of reducing
greenhouse gas intensity by 18
percent by 2012. The
Administration has also intro-
duced a number of international
initiatives, such as Methane to
Markets, in which EPA partici-
pates. EPA will continue to work
with its voluntary program part-
ners to ensure adequate progress
on domestic programs and with
other agencies and international
partners to support international
programs.
Strategic
Objective 6—
Enhance Science
and Research
Through 2010, provide and apply
sound science to support EPA's goal
of Clean Air by conducting leading-
edge research and developing a better
understanding and characterization
of environmental outcomes under
Goal I.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA is on track for meeting
this objective. The work being
done under the Clean
Automotive Technology program
supports the Agency's climate pro-
gram's goal to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions through significantly
improving fuel efficiency of vehi-
cles such as passenger cars, large
sport utility vehicles, pickup
trucks, urban delivery trucks,
school buses, shuttle buses, and
refuse trucks.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 6— ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
a
1.18
1.19
Clean Automotive Technology
PM Effects Research (NEW IN FYOS)
I/ Met in FY 2005
• Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 6
(in thousands)
Goal I Total = $987,795.9
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11.8%
($116.956.5)
Radiation
_^-- 4.0%
($39.996.1)
^The Ozone
Layer
\ 1.8%
\ ($17.407.8)
Indoor Air
5.0%
($49.064.9)
Additionally, in the area of
PM research, EPA developed data
on the chemical and physical
characteristics of significant pri-
mary PM sources. These data will
help states and others distinguish
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal I, Strategic Objective 6
(in thousands)
Outdoor Air
62.7%
($621.259.9)
Goal I Total = $990,489
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
^ 11.3%
($112.261.3)
Radiation
4.1%
($40.532.4)
^ The Ozone
Layer
\ 24%
\ ($23.251.8)
Indoor Air
5.3%
($52.739.0)
these from other sources of PM
contributing to ambient PM
burden, thereby enabling the
development of effective State
Implementation Plans (SIPs).
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Harvard School of Public Health
PM Center Study: Susceptibility to
Particulate Air Pollution
Convincing evidence exists that participate air pollution
exacerbates heart and lung disease, which can lead to
increased morbidity and mortality risks. However, scien-
tists have been uncertain about which populations are
most susceptible to these exposures. An understanding
of susceptibility is essential for effectively reducing the
adverse public health effects on those at greatest risk.
Under a grant from EPA, researchers at the Harvard PM
Center have conducted several studies on susceptibility,
using data from multiple cities. Study results show that:
• The risk of heart attacks from PM exposure is double
in subjects with a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia or
a previous admission for chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease.
• Elevated levels of particulate air pollution are associated with an increase in
the rate of hospital admissions for exacerbation of congestive heart failure.
Elevations in ambient particles can transiently increase the risk of ischemic, but not hemorrhagic, stroke.
CHALLENGES
The emphasis of Clean
Automotive Technology program
work for the next five to 10 years
will be research and collaboration
with the automotive, trucking,
and fleet industries. Through
Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements
(CRADA), EPA's unique
hydraulic hybrid technology and
advanced clean-engine technolo-
gies will be demonstrated in
vehicles such as large sport utility
vehicles, pickup trucks, urban
delivery trucks, school buses, shut-
tle buses, and refuse trucks. The
intent of these real world demon-
strations is to lead to the initial
commercial introduction of
significant elements of EPA's tech-
nologies by vehicle manufacturers.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal I Annual Performance Goals
Strategic Objective 1—Healthier Outdoor Air
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by
attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from
toxic air pollutants.
APG 1.1 Reduce CO, SO2, NO2, and Lead (Pb)
PERFORMANCE
Under this annual goal, EPA
measures improvements in air
quality over time associated with
the CO, SO2, Pb, and NOX area
standards. The Agency assesses
progress in terms both of popula-
tion and sources of air emissions
reduced. (Note: No areas
currently are designated as in
non-attainment for the NOX
standard.)
Available data indicate that
EPA did not meet its FY 2004
goal. EPA maintained healthy air
quality for 173 million people liv-
ing in 122 monitored areas
attaining the CO, SO2, NO2 or Pb
standards, falling slightly short of
its 174 million goal. Out of 24
non-attainment areas that remain,
EPA certified 14, five short of its
FY 2004 goal of 19. As a result,
the number of people living in
areas with healthy air increased by
5.4 million fewer than EPA's tar-
get of 6.2 million.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-3-C-4.
CHALLENGES
In reviewing these perform-
ance results, EPA recognizes that
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient
CO, SO2, NO2,and Pb concentrations below the NAAQS will increase
by less than 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative
to 1992).
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient CO, SO2,
NO2, and Pb concentrations below the level the
NAAQS as compared to 1992.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas
with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb concentrations
below the level of the NAAQS as compared to 1992.
• Total number of people who live in areas measur-
ing clean air for CO, SO2, NO? and Pb.
• Areas measuring clean air for CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb.
• Additional people living in new areas measuring
clean air for CO, SO2, NO? and Pb.
• Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Planned
53%
174.2 m
10 areas
4.1 m
-841,971
tons
Actual
Data avail 2006
GOAL NOT ^ 2004: Same goal, different targets of 4% relative to 2003 and a
MET FOR cumulative total of 53% relative to 1992.
FY 2004
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient CO, SO2,
NO2, or Pb concentrations below the level the
NAAQS as compared to 1 992.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas
with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb concentrations
below the level of the NAAQS as compared to 1 992.
• Total number of people who live in areas desig-
nated to attainment of the Clean Air Standards
for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb.
• Areas newly designated to attainment for CO,
SO2, NO2, or Pb standards.
• Additional people living in newly designated areas
with demonstrated attainment of the CO, SO2,
NO2, or Pb standards.
• Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Planned
53%
87%
174 M
1 9 areas
6.2 M
12.6 M
Actual
49%
99%
173.3 M
1 4 areas
5.4 M
I2.6M
X
•
X
X
X
•
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Mobile Source program related to this APG in the 2004
PART process.The program received a moderately effective rating. OMB is
assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Clean Air Act Section 105 grants fund state and local development of control
strategies and clean air plans for demonstrating attainment and maintenance of
the standards.The grants also support the ambient monitoring networks that
measure atmospheric concentrations of these pollutants.
an area may monitor ambient air
at a level meeting the standard,
yet not update its clean air plan
(a requisite for designation to
attainment). Therefore, to more
accurately assess progress in
meeting health-based standards,
EPA has changed this goal/
measure for FY 2006 to measure
areas that are monitoring clean air.
EPA is working with states on
other, unique areas that are not
monitoring clean air for one of
these standards to assist them in
developing local solutions that
reflect local geographic and eco-
nomic considerations.
APG 1.2 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels—PM1O
PERFORMANCE
Acute exposure to particles can
lead to various serious health
effects. Coarse and fine particles
pose the greatest problems. Many
scientific studies link breathing par-
ticulate matter (PM) to aggravated
asthma, respiratory symptoms like
coughing and difficult or painful
breathing, chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung function, and pre-
mature death. Coarse particles
(PM10) come from such sources as
wind-blown dust and unpaved
roads and can contribute to respira-
tory problems such as asthma and
bronchitis. Under this annual goal,
EPA measures the improvement in
air quality over time in meeting the
health-based standard for PM10.
In 1991, EPA designated 87
areas in the United States as not
meeting the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) estab-
lished for PM10. Under the Clean
Air Act, states were required to
develop and implement control
programs to reduce the emissions of
PM10 in order to achieve the stan-
dard. As a result of state PM,r
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient
PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM|0 standard will
increase by less than l% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7%
(relative to 1992).
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient PM|C
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS
as compared to 1992.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
areas with ambient PM|0 concentrations
below the level of the NAAQS as compared
to 1992.
• Total number of people who live in areas
measuring clean air for PM Q.
• Areas measuring clean air for PM Q.
• Additional people living in new areas measur-
ing clean air for PM Q.
• Tons of PA/I 10 reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Planned
7%
120.8 m
10
453 K
62,16I tons
Actual
Data avail 2006
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY 2004
FY 2004: Same goal, target of l% relative to 2003 and cumulative total
of 6% relative to 1992.
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient PM|0 con-
centrations below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 1992.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
areas with ambient PM|0 concentrations below
the level of the NAAQS as compared to 1992.
• Total number of people who live in areas
designated attainment of the Clean Air Standards
forPMm.
Planned
40%
120 M
Actual
54%
120.5 K
(Continued on next page)
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
control programs, 64 of the
original 87 areas designated as non-
attainment (75 percent) are now
measuring clean air with respect
to PM10.
EPA did not meet its FY 2004
goal. Although EPA made signifi-
cant progress in maintaining air
quality in FY 2004, it did not fully
meet this goal, in part because it
was also working with states to
meet the newly established goal
for particles less than 2.5 micros in
diameter. The Agency met its goal
of maintaining healthy air quality
for 120.5 million people living in
31 areas designated as attaining
the PM10 standard, EPA certified
only six (rather than nine) of the
remaining 54 non-attainment
areas as attaining the NAAQS,
increased the number of people
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY2004
FY 2004: Same goal, target of 1% relative to 2003 and cumulative total
of 6% relative to 1992. (continued)
Performance Measures (continued)
• Additional people living in newly designated areas
with demonstrated attainment of the PM |0 standard.
• Areas newly designated to attainment.
• Percent of areas with improving ambient PM |0
concentrations.
• Tons of PA/I IQ reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
• Tons of PA/125 reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Planned
380 K
9 areas
76%
1 8, 1 00
13,500
Actual
126 K
6 areas
62%
1 8, 1 00
13,500
X
X
X
•
•
living in areas with healthy air by
126,000, rather than the targeted
increase of 380,000. Additional
people are living in areas that are
monitoring clean air for PM1C
although these areas were not
designated. EPA will continue to
work with areas to ensure that
progress is made on reducing
ambient PM10. For FY 2005, EPA
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Mobile Source program related to this APG in the 2004
PART process.The program received a moderately effective rating. OMB is
assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Clean Air Act Section 103 and 105 grants support state, tribal, and local gov-
ernment development of control strategies and clean air plans for
demonstrating attainment and maintaining the standards.The grants also
support state ambient monitoring networks.
dropped the measure for the num-
ber of areas designated in favor of
the number of areas monitoring
clean air to emphasize the progress
in the ambient air monitoring.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-3-C-4.
CHALLENGES
EPA provides annual air quali-
ty reports to states and works with
them to address areas where viola-
tions of the PM10 NAAQS are
recorded. States are responsible for
developing action plans to address
the violations and provide their
plans to EPA. Challenges include
working with states to update
their clean air plans.
APG 1.3 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels—PM2>5
PERFORMANCE
Studies link breathing PM
to aggravated asthma, increased
coughing and difficult or painful
breathing, chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung function, and
premature death. In 1997, EPA
strengthened its health protection
standards for PM by adding an
indicator for even smaller-sized
or "fine" particles (PM25) that
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient
PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM25 standard will
increase by 1% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than 1%
(relative to 2001).
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient PMjq
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS
as compared to 2001.
• Percent increase in the number of areas with
ambient PM-^r concentrations below the level
of the NAAQS as compared to 2001.
• Tons of P/V\2 c reduced from mobile sources. (PART)
Planned
\%
6l,2l7tons
Actual
Data avail 2006
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
generally come from industrial fuel
combustion and vehicle exhaust.
The Agency designated non-attain-
ment areas for PM2 5 in December
2004. Under this annual goal, EPA
measures the improvement in air
quality over time for the PM2 5 or
fine particle standard. This goal was
implemented for the first time in
FY 2004 with initial targets while
the program collected baseline
data. Based on the FY 2004 results,
which significantly exceed the tar-
get, the program is working to
adjust these numbers for FY 2006.
EPA met this goal for FY
2004, achieving a 20 percent
increase in the number of people
who live areas with ambient PM
concentrations below the level of
the NAAQS and a 46 percent
increase in the number of areas
with ambient PM2 5 concentra-
tions below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 2001.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-3-C-5.
2.5
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent Increase in the number of
people who live in ambient PM25 concentrations
below the level of the NAAQS as compared to
2001.
• Cumulative percent Increase in the number of
areas with ambient PM25 concentrations below
the level of the NAAQS as compared to 2001.
Planned
2 emissions reduced. (PART)
Planned
6.9 M tons
Actual
Data avail 2006
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
5 M
Actual
7.IM •
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
cultural artifacts, such as buildings, statues and sculp-
tures. Under this annual goal, EPA measures the
progress of the acid rain allowance cap and trade pro-
gram in reducing SO2 emissions from electric utilities.
EPA met this goal for FY 2004, reducing SO2 emis-
sions by 7.1 million tons. SO2 emissions have been
reduced by approximately 41 percent from the 1980 level
of 17.4 million tons, and the Agency is approaching its
goal of a 50 percent reduction by 2010. In FY 2004, some
acid rain program sources voluntarily reduced their SO2
emissions below the level of their allowance allocation in
order to bank the allowance for use in future years or to
sell them. EPA exceeded the annual goal of 5 million
tons because of these voluntary over-reductions.
Data Quality: A description of the data used to
measure EPA's performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-l-C-3.
.004
Fiscal Year
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Acid Rain program related to this
APG in the 2003 PART process.The program received
a rating of moderately effective.
APG 1.5
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions
PERFORMANCE
Under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, EPA identi-
fied 187 compounds as hazardous
air pollutants. Over 10 years, EPA
has issued maximum available con-
trol technology (MACT) standards
to reduce or eliminate emissions of
these pollutants from specific
source categories. By calculating
the theoretical, expected emission
reductions associated with meeting
various MACT standards, EPA
plans its reduction targets.
In 2001, EPA did not meet
its goal of reducing air toxics
emissions nationwide from sta-
tionary and mobile sources
combined by an additional 5 per-
cent of the updated 1993 baseline
of 6.0 million tons for a cumula-
tive reduction of 37 percent.
Although there are annual slip-
pages, projections developed
through 2010 show that EPA will
still achieve the estimated cumu-
lative reductions in 2010.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY20IS
FY 2005: Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile
sources combined will be reduced by an additional 1% of the updated
1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 38%.
Performance Measures
• Mobile source air toxics emissions reduced.
• Major stationary source air toxics emissions
reduced.
• Area and all other air toxics emissions reduced.
Planned
.80 M tons
1.59 M tons
+.14 M tons
Actual
Data avail 201 59
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2012
^ 2004: Same goal,
1993 level.
Performance Measures
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
• Mobile source air toxics emissions reduced.
• Major stationary source air toxics emissions
reduced.
• Area and all other air toxics emissions reduced.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2009
^ 2003: Same goal,
1 993 level.
Performance Measures
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
• Mobile source air toxics emissions reduced.
• Major stationary source air toxics emissions
reduced.
• Area and all other air toxics emissions reduced.
Planned
2%
.71 M tons
1.59 M tons
+.13 M tons
Planned
\%
.68 tons
1.57 tons
+.12 tons
Actual
Data avail 2012
Actual
Data avail 2009
(Continued on next page)
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Air Toxics
program related to this APG
most recently in the 2002
PART process.The program
received a rating of adequate.
Program Evaluations
The Inspector General report:
"Progress Made in Monitoring
Ambient Air Toxics, But
Further Improvements Can
Increase Effectiveness" (Report
No. 2005-P-00008). Additional
information on this report is
available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B,
page B-2.
One factor contributing to
these results is that, since estab-
lishing its 2001 targets, EPA has
updated and expanded the inven-
tory of emission sources on which
the original projections were
based. EPA continues to refine its
tools for analyzing emissions to
provide better data with which to
assess the impact of the MACT
standards. Further, to address toxi-
cs emissions, EPA is required to
re-examine its MACT standards
to determine if any residual risk
remains after that compliance
period has passed. Finally, with
EPA's assistance, states are operat-
ing and maintaining an air toxics
monitoring network that includes
22 sites, strategically located and
designed to measure long-range
trends in ambient toxics levels.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
^ 2002: Same goal, cumulative target of 40% reduction from the
1993 level.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
5%
Actual
Data avail 2006
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY200I
Same goal, cumulative target of 35% reduction from the
1993 level.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
5%
Actual
I ~7°/
I .//o
GOAL NOT ^ 2000: Same goal, cumulative target of 30% reduction from the
MET FOR 1993 level.
FY 2000
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
3%
Actual
1.7%
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-5-C-7.
CHALLENGES
EPA issued technology-based
standards and has developed a
strategy for addressing concerns
about assessing and implementing
residual risk standards and issues
regarding the accuracy of air toxi-
cs data used to measure progress.
The Agency issued 96 MACT
standards that apply to 174 indus-
trial categories. This effort has
already resulted in estimated
annual reductions of 1.5 million
tons of toxic emissions and will
achieve even greater reductions by
2007, when all sources come into
compliance. To date, EPA has
completed 15 area source stan-
dards and is working to develop
standards for an additional 25 area
source categories projected for
completion in 2008. When com-
pleted, these 40 standards will
address more than 90 percent of
the 1990 baseline emissions from
area sources.
Plans for further improvement
include developing an innovative
approach to assessing low-risk
facilities quickly and assessing
impacts from entire facilities,
thereby grouping several source
categories. EPA also plans to use
ambient monitoring data from the
air toxic monitoring network as a
more direct measure of predicting
exposure and risk. (Relates to
management challenges discussed
in Section III, page 188).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.6 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels—8-hour
PERFORMANCE
Ozone is formed from motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions,
gasoline vapors, chemical solvents,
and natural sources that emit NOX
and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Sunlight and hot weather
cause ground-level ozone to form in
harmful concentrations. Ozone can
irritate lung airways, causing inflam-
mation, wheezing, coughing, pain
when taking a deep breath, and
breathing difficulties during exercise
or outdoor activities. In 1997, EPA
revised the air quality standards for
ozone to reflect scientific studies
showing that longer-term exposures
to moderate levels of ozone may
cause irreversible changes in the
lungs. Under this annual goal, EPA
measures the improvement in air
quality over time for the 8-hour
ozone standard.
EPA met its goal for FY 2004.
Based upon designations EPA made
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Mobile Source
program related to this APG in
the 2004 PART process.The pro-
gram received a moderately
effective rating. OMB is assessing
the NAAQS program related to
this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results will be included
in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This APG
ERA's Clean Air Act Section
103,105, and 106 grants support
state, tribal, and local government
air programs in developing con-
trol strategies and clean air plans
for demonstrating attainment
with the standards.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient
ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour standard will
increase by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative
to 2001).
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient 8-hour
ozone concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 2001.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
areas with ambient 8-hour ozone concentra-
tions below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 2001.
• Millions of tons of VOCs reduced from mobile
sources. (PART)
• Millions of tons of NOx reduced from mobile
sources. ("PART)
Planned
Actual
Data avail 2006
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient 8-hour
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 2001.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
areas with ambient 8-hour concentrations below
the level of the NAAQS as compared to 2001.
Planned
Actual
19% \/
31%
0.12
0.10
0.08
in April 2004, 126 areas of the
United States—encompassing 159.3
million people—were determined to
be in non-attainment for the ozone
standard. This goal
was implemented
for the first time in
FY 2004 with
initial targets while
the program col-
lected baseline
data. Based on the
FY 2004 results,
which significantly
exceed the target,
the program is
working to adjust
the annual targets
for FY 2006.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-3-C-4.
Ozone Concentration Levels at Lowest Level Since I960
2 0.06
I
J 0.04
0.02
0.00
Year
Based on 3-year rolling averages of annual average fourth maximum 8-hour ozone
concentration at 155 monitoring sites.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
APG 1.7 Acid Rain—Reduce Sulfur Deposition
PERFORMANCE
Acid deposition, or acid rain,
occurs when emissions of SO2 and
NOX react with water, oxygen and
oxidants in the atmosphere to form
various acidic compounds. These
acidic compounds (including small
particles such as sulfates and
nitrates) contribute to unhealthy
air and respiratory problems in
humans, particularly in children
and other sensitive populations.
Sulfur and nitrogen deposition can
also acidify lakes and streams, mak-
ing them unable to support fish
and other aquatic life. This goal
was met for FY 2004.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-l-C-3.
CHALLENGES
Implementation of the Acid
Rain Program has substantially
reduced emissions of SO2 and NOX
from power generation sources.
However, the NAPAP 2005
Report to Congress, recent model-
ing, and many published articles
indicate that SO2 and NOX emis-
sions reductions achieved under
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate
concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through
2010 is 1990 monitored levels. (PART)
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
27%
Actual
Data avail 2006
GOAL
MET FOR
FY2004
FY 2004: Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate
concentrations 25% from baseline. (PART)
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
25%
Actual
31% \/
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Acid Rain Program related to this APG in the 2003 PART
process.The program received a rating of moderately effective.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Grants made under CAA Sections 103 and 105 contribute to the achievement
of this goal. EPA has established an interagency agreement with National Park
Service, U.S. Department of Interior, for the operation of 30 CASTNET moni-
toring sites (approximately one-third of the network). EPA has also entered
into an interagency agreement with Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to support National
Acid Deposition Program (NADP) monitoring network operations.
Title IV are insufficient to achieve
full recovery or to prevent further
acidification in some regions.
Additional emissions reductions
will be achieved through imple-
mentation of existing or future
regulations to address transport of
ozone and fine particles.
APG 1.8 Acid Rain—Reduce Nitrogen Deposition
PERFORMANCE
EPA added this measure in
2003, when the Acid Rain Program
was evaluated under the PART
process. The new measure more
accurately tracks progress toward
EPA's environmental objectives
than did the previous program
measure of reduction in NCX
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient
nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up
through 2010 is 1990 monitored levels. (PART)
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
Actual
Data avail 2006
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL ^ 2004: Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient
MET FOR nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. (PART)
FY 2004
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
5%
Actual
7% ^
emissions from coal-fired utilities,
which was discontinued in 2003.
Reductions in nitrogen deposi-
tion recorded since the early 1990s
have been less dramatic than those
of sulfur. Emission trends from
source categories other than
the acid rain program sources
significantly affect air concentra-
tions and deposition of nitrogen.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-l-C-3.
CHALLENGES
In many areas, emissions
of nitrogen oxides from on- and
off-road vehicles, industrial
processes, and other sources not
controlled under the Acid Rain
Program, along with the use of fer-
tilizers, contribute to nitrogen
deposition and ambient nitrate
concentrations. Reductions in
NOX emissions achieved through
the Acid Rain Program, therefore,
may not result in improvements
under this measure.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Acid Rain
Program related to this APG in
the 2003 PART process.The pro-
gram received a rating of
moderately effective.
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This APG
Grants made under CAA Sections
103 and 105 contribute to the
achievement of this goal. An inter-
agency agreement with National
Park Service, U.S. Department of
Interior, has been established to
support the operation of 30
CASTNET monitoring sites
(approximately one-third of the
network). EPA has also entered
into an interagency agreement
with Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, to
support NADP monitoring net-
work operations.
Strategic Objective 2—Healthier Indoor Air
By 2008, 22.6 million more Americans than in 1994 will be experiencing healthier
indoor air in homes, schools, and office buildings.
APG 1.9
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
PERFORMANCE
To improve air inside
America's homes, EPA is focusing
its efforts on reducing radon and
asthma triggers related to indoor
environments. Radon, a colorless,
odorless, tasteless gas, is a signifi-
cant indoor air problem in homes
and is the second leading cause of
lung cancer in America. In 1992,
EPA estimated that nearly one out
of every 15 homes had radon con-
centrations above the EPA
recommended action level.10
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: 843,300 additional people will be living in homes with
healthier indoor air.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
843,300
Actual
Data avail 2006
(Performance measure Is Included In the annual
goal above.)
Planned
834,000
Actual
834,000
Data Source(s): An external survey produced by National Association of Home Builders Research Center and reviewed by
EPA to estimate the percentage of homes that are built radon resistant; Manufactures report their radon 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); EPA-developed telephone survey [National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma), which seeks
information about the measures LaKen 10 inn utilize exposure 10 inuoot eiivironineiiLai asiiinia Lugger s anu now many people
permit smoking in their home, Also see w>AV,epa,gov/radon/index,html,
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
Fiscal Year
Asthma afflicts about 20 million
Americans, including 6.3 million
children. Since 1980, the largest
growth in asthma cases has been
in children under five. In 2000
there were nearly 2 million emer-
gency room visits and nearly half
a million hospitalizations due to
asthma, at a cost of almost $2 bil-
lion, and causing 14 million
school days missed each year.
Under this annual goal, EPA
measures incremental changes in
the number of people with
improved indoor air in their
homes, schools, and
workplaces from
actions they took as
aresultofEPAs
radon and asthma
programs. EPA met
the annual target for
FY 2004; FY 2005
results for radon will
not be available until
late 2006, and asth-
ma results are not
available until several months
after the close of the fiscal year.
However, EPA believes it is on
track to achieve its 2005 goals.
Based on historical trends,
EPA estimates that 90,000 to
100,000 radon-resistant homes
were built in FY 2004, for a total
of 1.3 million homes with radon-
resistant new construction. Data
suggest that the number of active
mitigations increased to more
than 575,000. Together, all houses
with radon-reducing features
led to more than 520 future
premature cancer deaths prevent-
ed annually.
Results of EPA's 2003
National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
indicate that approximately 3
million people with asthma have
taken the essential actions recom-
mended by EPA to reduce
exposure to indoor triggers. These
actions result in an estimated
42,000 emergency room visits
avoided on an annual basis.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-7-C-8.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Indoor Air
program related to this APG in
the 2005 PART process. Results
will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
APG 1.10 Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
PERFORMANCE
In 1999, indoor air quality was
reported to be unsatisfactory in
about one in five U.S. schools;
ventilation was reported as unsat-
isfactory in about one-quarter of
the nation's public schools. These
figures translate to more than 11
million public school students
experiencing unsatisfactory indoor
air quality and about 14 million
attending schools with unsatisfac-
tory ventilation.11 EPA's Tools for
Schools Program is helping school
districts evaluate indoor air prob-
lems and develop strategies to
address them. Under this goal,
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: 1,312,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved
indoor air quality in their schools.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
1.3 M
Actual
Data avail 2006
(Performance measure Is Included In the annual
goal above.)
Planned
1.5 M
Actual
1.63
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Indoor Air program related to this APG in the 2005
PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA tracks increases in the
school-based populations with
better indoor air in their schools
as a result of EPA programs.
In recent years, 12 of the 15
largest U.S. school districts—
including the Los Angeles,
Miami, and Dallas districts—
implemented indoor air quality
management plans. EPA estimates
that 2,000 schools established
indoor air quality Tools for
Schools Programs in 2003, and
an additional 3,000 schools estab-
lished programs in 2004.
EPA estimates
that it met its FY 2004
goal: approximately
1.63 million students,
faculty, and staff expe-
rienced improved
indoor air quality in
their schools. While
data for FY 2005
achievements will be
not be available until
late 2006, the Agency
is on track to achieve its FY 2005
target of reaching approximately 1.3
million students and school staff in
approximately 2,500 schools.
Improved Indoor Air Quality in Schools
Fiscal Year
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-10-C-ll.
APG 1.11 Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
PERFORMANCE
Indoor air pollution can pose
high risks to human health, espe-
cially to sensitive populations.
The national cost of poor indoor
air quality, including lost worker
productivity, direct medical costs
for those whose health is adversely
affected, and damage to equip-
ment and materials, runs to tens
of billions of dollars per year. EPA
is helping owners and managers of
office buildings understand and
achieve the benefits of good
indoor air quality, thereby improv-
ing the health and productivity of
office workers.
•
GOAL
MET
(Performance
goal above.)
FY 2005: 150,000 additional office workers will experience improved
air quality in their workplaces. (NEW IN FYOS)
measure is included in the annual
Planned
1 50,000
Actual
1 50,000
In FY 2005, EPA met the
target for this measure, estimating
that approximately 150,000 office
workers experienced improved air
quality in their workplaces.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-ll-C-12.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Indoor
Air program related to this
APG in the 2005 PART process.
Results will be included in the
FY 2007 President's Budget.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Strategic Objective 3—Protect the Ozone Layer
By 2010, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have
stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery, and the risk to human health
from overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations,
such as children, will be reduced.
APG 1.12 Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
PERFORMANCE
When gases containing chlo-
rine and bromine, routinely
emitted through human activities,
are transported to the strato-
sphere, they can participate in
reactions that destroy ozone. The
Clean Air Act regulates ozone-
depleting compounds based on
their ozone depleting potential.
Ozone-depleting compounds
include chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), commonly used as refrig-
erants, solvents, and foam blowing
agents; halons, used as fire extin-
guishing agents; and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs), a class of chemicals
being used to replace CFCs
because they deplete stratospheric
ozone to a much lesser extent.
(The United States stopped pro-
ducing halons on December 21,
1993, due to their ozone-depleting
potential.) Under this annual
goal, EPA measures the annual
consumption and production of
these ozone-depleting compounds.
EPA met both its FY 2003 and
FY 2004 goals, verifying that
domestic consumption of Class II
HCFCs was less than the target
amounts. Progress on restricting
domestic exempted consumption of
Class I CFCs and halons for FY
2004 was tracked by monitoring
industry reports of compliance with
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II hydrochloro-
fluorocarbons (HCFCs) below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tons (OOP
NTs) and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly
produced class I chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons below 10,000
OOP NTs.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
< 9,906
< 10,000
Actual
Data avail 2006
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
<9,906
< 10,000
Actual
5,500
1,225
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
<9,906
< 1 0,000
Actual
7, 1 1 0 \/
2,049
EPA's Clean Air Act phase-out
regulations and U.S. obligations
under the Montreal Protocol. As a
result of excellent implementation
of the program and long-term,
effective communications with
industry, EPA exceeded its annual
performance goals.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-12.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the
Stratospheric Ozone program
in the 2004 PART process.The
program received a score of
adequate.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 4—Radiation
Through 2008, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation, and
be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted
releases occur.
APG 1.13 Ensure WIPP Safety
PERFORMANCE
The Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal
Act requires EPA to issue final reg-
ulations for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, and transuranic waste, and
it gives the Agency authority to
develop criteria for implementing
final radioactive waste disposal
standards for the WIPP EPA is
required to recertify the site every
5 years and oversee the wastes
shipped to the WIPP from sites
throughout the country. This
measure tracks the progress of the
Department of Energy (DOE) in
meeting the criteria set by EPA
and sending waste to WIPP
EPA expects to complete its
current review of the DOE
Recertification Request in late
winter 2006. During FY 2005, EPA
held WIPP stakeholder meetings
in New Mexico to discuss the first
WIPP recertification application.
FY 2005: Certify that 40,000 SS-gallon drums of radioactive waste
(containing approximately 120,000 curies) shipped by the Department
of Energy (DOE) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently dis-
posed of safely and according to EPA standards.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
40,000
drums
Actual
35,000
In FY 2005, DOE shipped
approximately 35,000 55-gallon
drums of radioactive waste (con-
taining approximately 108,000
curies) to the WIPP, and EPA certi-
fied that all were permanently
disposed of safely and accordance
with EPA standards. Because DOE
did not ship as many containers it
had originally planned, EPA's target
was unachievable, but the Agency
considers this goal to have been met
since EPA took action on all the
drums provided. EPA does expect
DOE to meet the long-term disposal
goal, however, and the Agency to
meet its inspection and certification
Ensure Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Safety
40,000
36,041 36,000 36,500 ^^35,000
goals. Having consulted with DOE,
EPA is already prepared to inspect
an additional 10,000 drums of waste
over the original target of 45,000
drums set for FY 2006.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-14.
CHALLENGES
This performance goal is
structured such that DOE must
meet its estimated shipments for
EPA to meet its performance tar-
get. Consequently, the Agency
may miss or far exceed its per-
formance goal, depending on
DOE shipments. In preparation
for the assessment of this program,
EPA is developing additional
measures to track the radiation
program's progress.
2003 2004
Fiscal Year
2005
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
•
GOAL
MET
(Performance
goal above.)
FY 2005: EPA will purchase SI additional state of the art monitoring units
and initiate deployment to sites selected based on populations and geograph-
ical coverage.
measure is included in the annual
Planned
5 1 units
Actual
52 units •
APG 1.14 Build National Radiation Monitoring System
PERFORMANCE
EPA consolidated a number of
existing radiation monitoring
activities to establish the
Radiation Monitoring Network
(RadNet, formerly ERAMS). The
RadNet program has three objec-
tives: to provide data for nuclear
emergency response assessments;
to provide data on ambient levels
of radiation in the environment
for baseline and trend analysis; and
to inform decision-makers and the
public in the event of a nuclear
incident. Measures under this
annual goal track EPA's progress in
expanding the network.
In FY 2005, EPA purchased
52 state-of-the-art monitors and
initiated the deployment to sites.
The first of the monitors will not
be delivered until the first quarter
of FY 2006. Most will be sited in
FY 2006. Additional monitors will
be delivered in FY 2006 and sited
in FY 2006 and subsequent years.
EPA will update its annual goals
for FY 2006 and beyond to reflect
the delay in obtaining the moni-
tors. Based on EPA's current
estimates, the full network will
not be completed until 2012.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-13.
CHALLENGES
The RadNet plan initially
called for the full monitoring system
to be in place by 2009. Given the
complexities of the system and the
technology, however, and the delay
in selecting a contractor and mak-
ing an award, the plan has been
pushed out to future years.
Nonetheless, EPA expects to sub-
stantially meet its original target by
providing radiation monitoring cov-
erage to approximately 65 percent
of the U.S. population by 2009.
APG 1.15 Homeland Security—Readiness and Response
PERFORMANCE
In the event of a radiological
emergency, EPA's Radiological
Emergency Response Team (RERT)
works with other federal agencies,
states, and international organiza-
tions to track, contain, and clean
up the releases, while protecting
people and the environment from
harmful exposure to radiation.
Under this annual goal, EPA tracks
progress in training RERT members
and implementing updated
response procedures. Performance
data will be available in late 2006.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-14.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
(Performance
goal above.)
FY 2005: Verify that 50% of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response
Team (RERT) members meet scenario-based response criteria.
(NEW IN FYOS)
measure is included in the annual
Planned
50%
Actual
Data avail
2006
CHALLENGES
While EPA has not identified
specific challenges to meeting its
goal for FY 2005, emergency
response preparedness continues to
pose unique issues. While the
Agency measures its performance
based on meeting scenario-based
response criteria, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has not
yet finalized those criteria. EPA is
developing standardized criteria
based on the functional requirements
identified in the National Response
Plan's Nuclear/ Radiological Incident
Annex and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 5-Reduce Qreenhouse Qas Intensity
Through EPAs voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons
of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the President's 18% greenhouse gas
(GHG) intensity improvement goal by 2012. (An additional 75 MMTCE to result
from the sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the administrations'
business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement.)
APG 1.16 Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
PERFORMANCE
EPA and its partners continue
to achieve reductions in emissions
of greenhouse gases, which con-
tribute to meeting the President's
greenhouse gas intensity reduction
goal for 2012. Measures under this
annual goal track greenhouse gas
emissions (measured in million
metric tons of carbon equivalent, or
MMTCE) that have been avoided
as a result of EPA programs.
In FY 2004, through EPAs part-
nerships with businesses, schools,
state and local governments, and
other organizations, greenhouse gas
emissions were reduced from pro-
jected levels by approximately 87.9
MMCTE per year. FY 2005 per-
formance data for this goal will be
available in October 2006, after
EPA assesses the data it receives
from companies.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPAs
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-15-C-16.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Climate
Change program related to
this APG in the 2004 PART
process.The program received
an adequate rating.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by
approximately 90 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with busi-
nesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
Performance Measures (all are MMTCE)
• Annual GHG reductions—all EPA programs.
• GHG reductions from EPAs Buildings Sector
Programs (ENERGY STAR). (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs Industrial
Efficiency/Waste Management Programs. (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs Industrial Methane
Outreach Programs. (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs HFC/PEC Programs.
(PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs Transportation
Programs. (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs State and Local
Programs.
Planned
90.2
23.8
8
19.1
34.4
2.9
2.0
Actual
Data avail 2006
Performance Measures
• Annual GHG reductions — all EPA programs data
available.
• GHG reductions from EPAs Buildings Sector
Programs (ENERGY STAR). (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs Industrial
Efficiency/Waste Management Programs. (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs Industrial Methane
Outreach Programs. (PART)
' GHG reductions from EPAs Industrial HEC/PFC
Programs. (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs Transportation
Programs. (PART)
• GHG reductions from EPAs State and Local
Programs.
Planned
81.0
21.4
7.3
18.1
29.6
2.6
2.0
Actual
87.9 \/
26.2 |/
9 •
19.9 •
28.2 X
2.6 •
2.0 •
Data Source(s): EPA maintains a "tracking system" for emissions reductions relative to appropriate baselines, Baseline data for
carbon emissions related to energy use come from the Energy '"formation Agency (EIA), Baseline data for non-carbon diox-
ide emissions, including nitrous owde and other global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA,The non-carbon
dioxide emissions data are compiled with input from industry and also independently from partners' information, EPA devel-
ops methane emissions baselines and reductions using information from industry partners, includin al gas, coal, and
landfill gas development industries, ti-7\ continues to develop annual inventories as well as update metnodoiogies as new
information becomes available, Also see www.erieigybLdt.gov,
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
APG 1.17 Reduce Energy Consumption
PERFORMANCE
As a result of the ENERGY
STAR program alone, Americans
saved a significant amount of
energy in 2004: 125 billion kilo-
watt-hours (kWh) and 25
gigawatts (GW) of peak energy
required for about 25 million
homes. Voluntary efforts also pre-
vented greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to those from 20 mil-
lion vehicles and saved
approximately $10 billion in ener-
gy bills. In FY 2004, as a result of
all climate change programs, EPA
reduced energy consumption from
the projected level by 145 billion
kWh, contributing to over $10
billion in energy savings for con-
sumers and businesses.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Climate
Change program related to this
APG in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an ade-
quate rating.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
(Performance
goal above.)
FY 2005: Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more
than 120 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), contributing to more than $8.5
billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses, (all are MMTCE)
measure is included in the annual
Planned
120
Actual
Data avail 2006
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
1 IOB
Actual
\/
Reduce Energy Consumption
FY 2005 data for
this performance goal
will be available in
October 2006.
Data Quality: A
description of the data
used to measure EPA's
performance can be
found in Appendix C,
page C-16.
04
Fiscal Year
Strategic Objective 6—Enhance Science and Research
Through 2010, provide and apply sound science to support EPA's goal of Clean Air by
conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characteriza-
tion of environmental outcomes under Goal 1.
APG 1.18 Clean Automotive Technology
PERFORMANCE
EPA's goal was to adapt tech-
nology originally developed for
passenger vehicles for use in SUV's
and urban delivery vehicles that
would achieve 30 percent improve-
ment in fuel economy, while also
meeting the size, performance and
durability requirements of these
vehicles. The Agency demonstrat-
ed through vehicle testing that its
hybrid powertrain could meet the
fuel economy improvement goal
for FY 2005. However, the towing
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
performance requirement was veri-
fied through modeling, as a
high-performance configuration
was not operationally tested. EPA
modeling results, combined with
vehicle testing, projects that the
average fuel economy of the typical
SUV with EPA-developed hybrid
technology would represent at least
a 30 percent increase over the
baseline of 20.2 mpg.12
EPA anticipates that its
'ork to facilitate industry's use
w
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Climate
Change program related to this
APG in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an ade-
quate rating.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
26.3 mpg
Actual
26.3 mpg
of innovative clean automotive
technology will lead to consumer
benefits, increasing consumers' abil-
ity to recoup higher initial vehicle
costs with lower operating costs.
Continued success is evidenced by
the International Truck and Engine
Corporation's and Ford Motor
Company's licensing of EPA's
hybrid technology. EPA is also
working with Autocar, to transfer
this technology to refuse trucks,
and with the Army, to demonstrate
the feasibility of hydraulic hybrid
technology on heavy vehicles.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-17.
APG 1.19 PM Effects Research
PERFORMANCE
When ambient air PM con-
centrations exceed the PM
NAAQS, states are required to
develop State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) to achieve PM
goals. Under this annual goal,
EPA develops data on the chemi-
cal and physical characteristics of
significant primary sources of
PM. States will use this informa-
tion to help distinguish primary
from other sources of PM,
enabling them to develop more
effective SIPs.
For example, EPA has charac-
terized the chemical and physical
properties of emissions from auto-
mobiles, aircraft engines, oil-fired
boilers, and residential appliances.
These characterizations allowed
scientists to profile the combustion
FY 2005: By FY 2005, deliver and transfer improved receptor models and
data on chemical compounds emitted from sources so that by 2006, EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation and the states have the necessary new data
and tools to predict, measure, and reduce ambient PM and PM emissions
to attain the existing PM NAAQS for the protection of public health.
(NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Improved receptor models and data on chemical
compounds emitted from sources.
Planned
09/30/05
models/
data
Actual
09/30/05
models/
data
sources of PM2.5 that need to be
developed or improved—informa-
tion that states can use develop
effective PM emission reduction
strategies in their SIPs. These
emissions profiles will be incorpo-
rated into EPA's SPECIATE
database as part of an incremental
process to upgrade emissions
profiles for a wide variety of air
pollution sources.
By the end of FY 2005,
EPA's Office of Research and
Development delivered improved
receptor models and data on
chemical compounds emitted from
sources so that, by 2006, EPA and
states will have the new data and
tools needed to predict, measure,
and reduce ambient PM and PM
emissions to attain the existing
PM NAAQS.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-17.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
CHALLENGES
EPA encountered the usual
research challenges in accomplish-
ing this work. The Agency
anticipated and overcame quality
assurance and data analysis issues.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the NAAQS Research program related to this APG in the
2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Program Evaluations
The Board of Science Counselors Report: "Managerial and Scientific Review
of the Particulate Matter (PM)/Ozone (Oz) Program." Additional informa-
tion on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix
B, page B-6.
Prior Year Annual Performance Qoals Without Corresponding FY 2005 Qoals
(Actual performance data available in FY 2004 and beyond)
PERFORMANCE
Ozone is formed from motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial emis-
sions, gasoline vapors, chemical
solvents, and natural sources that
emit NOx and VOCs. Sunlight
and hot weather cause ground-
level ozone to form in harmful
concentrations. Ozone can irritate
lung airways, causing inflamma-
tion, wheezing, coughing, pain
when taking a deep breath, and
breathing difficulties during exer-
cise or outdoor activities. In
1997, EPA revised the air quality
standards for ozone to reflect sci-
entific studies showing that
longer-term exposures to moderate
levels of ozone may cause irre-
versible changes in the lungs.
Qoal Not Met. Under this annual
goal, EPA measured the improve-
ment in air quality over time for
the 1 -hour ozone standard.
However, the 1 -hour standard has
been revoked in areas following
designation of 8-hour ozone non-
attainment areas. Because it now
tracks progress on the 8-hour stan-
dard, EPA will not tracking this
annual goal and associated meas-
ures in FY 2006 and beyond.
GOAL
NOT MET
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone con-
centrations below the NAAQS for the I -hour ozone standard will increase
by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 47% (relative to 1992).
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
people who live in areas with ambient 1 -hour
ozone concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 1 992.
• Cumulative percent increase in the number of
areas with ambient 1 -hour ozone concentra-
tions below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 1 992.
• Total number of people who live in areas des-
ignated to attainment of the Clean Air
Standards for ozone.
• Areas newly designated to attainment for the
ozone standards.
• Additional people living in newly designated
areas with demonstrated attainment of ozone
standards.
• Millions of tons of VOCs reduced from mobile
sources. (PART)
• Millions of tons ofNOx reduced from mobile
sources. ("PART)
Planned
47%
55%
1 67.3 M
5 areas
5.8 M
2.0 M
1.65 M
Actual
44%
96%
1 65.4 M
3 areas
3.9 M
2.0 M
1.65 M
X
•
X
X
X
^
•
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Mobile Source program related to this APG in the
2004 PART process.The program received a moderately effective rating.
OMB is assessing the NAAQS program related to this APG in the 2005
PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-3-C-4.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Qoal 1—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPAs budget and GPRA documents, including the
PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current estimate for
the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
PART Program PART Measure
AirToxics
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics.
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics.
Tons of toxidty-weighted emissions (for cancer and
noncancer risk) per total cost (EPA and industry dollars).
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Data Available
FY2008
FY2008
TBD
Climate Change
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented
per dollar spent—Industry
Collecting Data
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented
per dollar spent—Transportation.
Collecting Data
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions (MMTCE) prevented
per dollar spent—Buildings.
Collecting Data
FY2008
FY2008
FY2007
Mobile Sources
Cumulative reduction in tons of pollution from mobile
sources per dollar spent by EPA and industry
Collecting Data
Percentage reduction in time (days) per certificate
approval for large engines (Nonroad Cl, Heavy duty gas
and diesel engines).
Collecting Data
FY20IO
FY20I2
Stratospheric
Ozone Protection
Remaining US consumption of HCFCs, measured in tons
of ozone depleting potential (ODP).
Collecting Data
TBD
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
NOTES
1 It is important to note that the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) has been identified as an Agency-level
Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, with corrective action to be completed in 2007. The data are not
considered materially inadequate, however, per OMB's definition. The Verification and Validation section of the Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification has details on data limitations associated with SDWIS.
2 See www.epa.gov/airtrends/reports.html. Air pollutants include lead, CO, SO2, NOx, ozone, and PM.
3 EPA Announces Landmark Clean Air Interstate Rule (Agency Press Release, 3/10/05).
4 EPA Announces First-Ever Rule to Reduce Mercury Emissions from Power Plants, www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/.
5 More information is available in National Acid Precipitation Assessment Report to Congress: Integrated Assessment, August 2005.
The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) is a legislatively mandated cooperative effort among federal
agencies to coordinate acid rain research and assessment.
6 Investing in Our Future: Energy Star® and Other Voluntary Program. 2004 Annual Report
www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/annual_report2004.pdf.
7 2003 National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS
www.epa.gov/as thma/pdfs/survey_fact_sheet.pdf.
8 "IAQ Practices in Schools Survey," July 10, 2003. Prepared by Indoor Environments Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. 60 Wells Ave., Newton, MA 02459-3210. IAQ Practices in Schools
Survey, Office of Management and Budget Control No.: 2060-0436.
9 Approximately 3 years (from the end of the inventory) is required to compile/QA the inventory. The inventory is compiled on a 3-
year cycle (2002, 2005, and 2008).
10 National Residential Radon Survey, 1992 and U.S. Surgeon General Health Advisory on Radon, January 13, 2005,
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/pressreleases/sg01132005.html. Reiterates 1988 U.S. Surgeon General Health Advisory
recommending that all homes be tested below the third floor for radon. Also recommends fixing homes with radon levels at or
above 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), EPA's National Voluntary Action Level.
11 Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, NCES2000-032, June 2000.
12 The average fuel economy for a typical SUV is derived from EPA's Annual Fuel Economy Trends report.
-------
Strategic Goal 2:
can
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems
to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for
fish, plants, and wildlife.
Overview of Goal 2
In recent years, EPA and its fed-
eral, state, and tribal partners have
made significant progress in protect-
ing and restoring the nation's waters.
Contributing Programs
Analytical Methods
Beach Program
Coastal and Ocean Programs
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Drinking Water and Ground Water
Protection Programs
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Effluent Guidelines
Fish Consumption Advisories
Great Lakes National Program
Gulf of Mexico Program
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Pollutant Load Allocation
Targeted Watersheds
Wastewater Management
Water Efficiency
Water Quality Standards, Criteria,
and Methods
Watershed Information Network
Watershed Management
Wetlands Program
Today, more Americans have safe
and reliable drinking water, and
people can fish and swim safely in
rivers that were once polluted.
Challenges remain, however, and
EPA is using a variety of strategies to
address them.
PROTECTING HUMAN
HEALTH
Thirty years ago, many of the
nation's drinking water systems pro-
vided water to the tap with very
little treatment (usually disinfection)
or no treatment at all. Drinking
water was too often the cause of
acute illnesses linked to microbiolog-
ical contaminants or of longer term
health problems resulting from expo-
sure to low levels of toxins and other
contaminants.
Today, drinking water systems
monitor the quality of the water they
provide and treat water to ensure
that it complies with standards cov-
ering a wide range of contaminants.
EPA has established health-based
Safe Drinking Water:
Hoopa Valley Tribe
The Hoopa Valley Tribe's micro-
filtration surface water
treatment plant was construct-
ed in 2005 as part of a $4.3
million dollar project jointly
funded by the Indian Health
Service and the EPA Drinking
Water Tribal Set-Aside Program
($3.5 million).The project pro-
vides access to safe drinking
water for 719 tribal households
on the reservation.The project
included construction of the
treatment plant, the Trinity
River intake, and a transmission
line that included a highway
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
drinking water standards for more
than 90 contaminants.1 To help
drinking water systems implement
the standards, EPA, states, tribes,
and key stakeholders work togeth-
er to provide water systems with
extensive technical assistance and
training. Today, approximately 902
percent of the population served
by community water systems is
receiving drinking water meeting
drinking water standards.
The importance of safe drink-
ing water supplies for protecting
public health has never been more
evident than in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, which
occurred late in FY 2005. EPA,
state and local officials, systems
operators, and volunteers worked
around the clock to assist commu-
nities in repairing the
infrastructure of drinking water
systems and restore sources of safe
drinking water for all people in
the affected region.
In addition to ensuring the
safety of drinking water, EPA
works with states, tribes, and local
governments to protect and restore
waters for fishing, swimming, and
recreation. The Agency's work
under Goal 1 to reduce mercury
releases to the air should ultimate-
ly help to reduce unhealthy levels
of mercury in fish. Under Goal 2,
EPA's efforts to reduce discharges
from storm water systems, com-
bined sewer overflows, and
concentrated animal feeding oper-
ations are improving water and
sediment quality, making more
waters safe for swimming and more
fish safe to eat. EPA is expanding
the amount and type of informa-
tion about fish safety and making
this information available to the
public.
Qoal 2 At a Qlance
FY 2OO5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS (APGs)
Met = 6 Not Met = 2
Data Available After November 15, 2005 = 10
{Total APGs = 18)
FY 2005 Obligations
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$987,796 *787'535
FY 2005 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$990,489
$714,178
Goal 4
$1,367,964
(13.5%)
Goal 3
$3,403,712
(33.6%)
EPA Total = $10,125,983
EPA Total = $8,500,594
FY 2OO5 "REPORT CARD"
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE
APG
STATUS
OBJECTIVE I-PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in
drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and
shellfish, and in recreational waters.
^^
OBJECTIVE 2-PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed
basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
OBJECTIVE 3-ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPA's goal of
clean and safe water by conducting leading-edge research and
developing a better understanding and characterization of the
environmental outcomes under Goal 2.
I Met
I Not Met
9TBD
4 Met
I Not Met
ITBD
I Met
0 Not Met
OTBD
EPA is also working to protect
and restore the quality of beaches
and other recreational waters. The
Agency places high priority on
monitoring waters and beaches
and providing the public with cur-
rent information on their safety.
PROTECTING WATER
QUALITY
To protect water quality and
restore impaired waters, EPA,
states, interstate agencies, and
tribes employ a watershed
approach, which enables them to
collaborate, share information, and
leverage resources more effectively.
For example, EPA works with its
partners to help them establish
state water quality standards and
monitoring strategies. They are
also increasing efficiencies and
achieving better results by using a
watershed perspective to develop
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Managing Wastewater:
Block Island-Green
Hill Pond
Under EPA's Block
Island-Green Hill Pond
Demonstration Project to
protect coastal waters, EPA's
New England office is work-
ing with three Rhode Island
south shore coastal commu-
nities to comprehensively
manage all onsite sewage
treatment systems (such as
septic systems, cesspools, and
community treatment facili-
ties discharging to
groundwater). Under recent-
ly enacted ordinances to
restore and protect water
quality, Charlestown, South
Kingstown, and Block Island
now permanently employ
onsite wastewater managers
and require that all systems
be inspected on a recurring
three- to five-year basis. All
cesspools are banned and, if
discovered, must be replaced
within five years of the
inspection. More than 8,125
systems have been inspected,
and more than 700 cesspools
and 220 failed or substandard
systems identified.Towns will
enact treatment standards
for advanced systems to
reduce bacteria and nitrogen
loadings to the Green Hill
Pond embayment and Rhode
Island Sound.
Monitoring Coastal Water Quality
EPA promulgated water quality standards for those states and territories
bordering Great Lakes or ocean waters that have not yet adopted more
protective health-based bacteria standards in accordance with the
BEACH Act of 2000 (69 FR 67217).This rule provides greater assurance
that American families will be informed when pathogen levels at beaches
are unsafe. Americans take 910 million trips to coastal areas each year
and spend about $44 billion at those beach locations. Better indicators
will provide decisionmakers with better information for making decisions
about health risks in coastal recreation waters. Improved data are also
likely to spur investigations into upstream pollution sources, preventing
future contamination.
Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) and set permitting prior-
ities. EPA is working with its
partners to upgrade and increase
water quality onitoring, allowing
states and tribes to provide better
information on water conditions
and sources of impairment.
EPA is working with states to
evaluate the impact on water
quality of key point source pro-
grams, like the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Program. In collaboration with
industry and others, EPA is imple-
menting a strategy to help ensure
that the nation's water infrastruc-
ture is sustainable in the future.
This strategy is constructed
around four key pillars—better
t- -. ••-.•.••«•* — •*._ management of utility operations,
^^V-^Vjf^-v^s*''**! effective pricing of water and
-••;• . S'lf. ^3»_«*-
wastewater services, improve-
ments in water efficiency, and
watershed-based approaches to
solving water quality and water
quantity problems.
EPA works with a variety of
partners to improve the condition
of our nation's valuable coastal
and ocean waters. In FY 2005,
EPA focused its efforts on imple-
menting the National Estuary
Program (see Goal 4), reducing
vessel discharges, managing
dredged material, and managing
non-indigenous invasive species.
ENHANCING SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH
Finally, EPA's research pro-
grams under Goal 2 continue to
supply the information needed to
set and implement drinking water
and water quality criteria. EPA
provides scientific information
about contaminants and identifies
innovative approaches to develop
criteria to support states and tribes
in adopting standards that will
protect water for swimming, pub-
lic use, and fish and wildlife.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Goal 2 Strategic Objectives
Strategic
Objective 1—
Protect Human
Health
Protect human health by reducing
exposure to contaminants in drinking
water (including protecting source
waters), in fish and shellfish, and in
recreational waters.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
In collaboration with states,
tribes, and local governments,
EPA is working to protect human
health by reducing contaminants
in drinking water, fish and shell-
fish, and recreational waters.
Despite the serious problems in
the Gulf Coast resulting from
Hurricane Katrina, EPA and the
drinking water community at large
continue to make steady progress
in meeting the 2008 national goal
of providing safe drinking water to
95 percent of the approximately
268 million people in the United
States served by 54,000 communi-
ty water systems. Although final
2005 data will not be available
until January 2006, EPA has
worked diligently in 2005 to
sustain the 2004 level of 90
percent, an 11 percent
increase in population from
the 1993 level of 79 percent3.
EPA also continues to
provide the public with infor-
mation about fish
consumption and the quality
of recreational waters. In FY
2005, EPA improved the data-
base for reporting fish
consumption advisories.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.1 I
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I—PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
Safe Drinking Water Meeting All
Standards—Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing
Standards—Population (NEW IN FYOS)
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New
Standards—Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing
Standards—Systems (NEW IN FYOS)
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New
Standards—Systems (NEW IN FYOS)
Safe Drinking Water—Tribal Communities
(NEW IN FYOS)
Safe Drinking Water—Source Water
Protection (NEW IN FYOS)
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased
Fish Consumption (NEW IN FYOS)
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased
Shellfish Consumption (NEW IN FYOS)
Improve Water Quality to Allow Increased
Safe Swimming (NEW IN FYOS)
Increase Beach Safety (NEW IN FYOS)
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
X Not met for FY 2004
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
I/ Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
FY 2005 data available late in FY 2006
X Not met for FY 2005
Data not available
FY 2005 data available late in FY 2006
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 2, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 2, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Protect Water
Quality
60.3%
($2.156.736.7)
Enhance Science
and Research
($144.867.6)
Enhance Science
and Research /
($141.516.7)
Goal 2 Total = $3,578,976.0
Protect Water
Quality
62.8%
($2.202.896.0)
Goal 2 Total = $3,507,201.0
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Improving Tribal
Drinking Water:
Grants to Tribes
Until FY 2003, only about 60
percent of the tribal popula-
tion in EPA Region 6 was
receiving water meeting all
drinking water health-based
standards. Most violations of
health-based standards
involved the Total Coliform
Rule (TCR). In 2002, EPA
directed significant
resources—including more
than $1.1 million in drinking
water infrastructure,TCR
training, and direct technical
assistance through EPA-fund-
ed circuit riders—toward
tribes with the most viola-
tions. Discussions with tribal
leaders secured their com-
mitment to address
Compliance Agreement mile-
stones, which significantly
improved tribal drinking
water. Further compliance
assistance efforts through the
Region 6 tribal operator
training and certification pro-
gram and performance-based
training approach resulted in
a dramatic 30-percent
improvement in compliance,
to just more than 90 percent
in FY 2005.
EPA continues to monitor
improvements in water quality in
waters used for swimming. The
Agency and its partners are mak-
ing progress toward the goal of
reducing the risk of exposure to
disease-causing bacteria at recre-
ational beaches. Calendar year
Beach Water Monitoring: Grants to States
As part of the Bush Administration's Clean Beach Plan, EPA awarded
approximately $10 million in BEACH Act grants to all 35 eligible coastal
and Great Lakes states and territories for implementing beach monitor-
ing and notification programs.The grants support beach water
monitoring, which helps provide people with information they can use to
protect their health when visiting beaches. For example, officials use
beach water monitoring results to issue warnings and closures if bacteria
levels are unsafe and help identify actions needed to reduce pollution.
The data for the 2004 swimming season show that only 4 percent of
beach days were lost due to advisories or closures triggered by monitor-
ing. Of the 3,574 beaches that were monitored in 2004, 942, or 26
percent, had a least one advisory or closing during the 2004 season.4
-. -*»•.,
2004 data, reportable in FY 2005,
show that the percentage of days
during the beach season that
beaches were open and safe for
swimming increased from 94 per-
cent in 2003 to 96 percent in
2004, allowing EPA to exceed its
FY 2005 goal by 2 percent5.
CHALLENGES
Toward the end of FY 2005,
Hurricane Katrina rendered many
drinking water systems in the Gulf
States non-operational. In early
September, more than 895 public
water systems in Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi had no
water available to their customers
or had boil water advisories in
place6. EPA, state and local offi-
cials, systems operators, and
volunteers worked around the
clock to assist in repairing drink-
ing water system infrastructure so
that sources of drinking water
could be filtered, treated, and
declared safe to drink for all
people in the affected region. By
the end of October, less than 200
systems were still inoperable or
operating under boil water advi-
sories7. In FY 2006, EPA will
assess the impact of Katrina on
the Agency's progress towards
achieving the 2008 drinking water
protection goal. EPA is committed
to providing safe drinking water
nationally and restoring safe
drinking water access to commu-
nities affected by Katrina.
In its 2004 performance
report, EPA predicted that it
would not meet its 2005 target of
93 percent of the population
receiving drinking water meeting
all standards because of the num-
ber of standards and regulations
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
that have been implemented over
the past 7 years. EPA does not
expect progress toward its FY 2008
goal of 95 percent to be evident as
a straight line increase. As new
regulations are implemented, not
all systems will be able to gear up
to meet health-based standards in
the same time frame. In fact, a sig-
nificant decrease may occur in
2006, when the arsenic rule is
implemented. Many small systems
with insufficient managerial, tech-
nical, and financial capacity may
be out of compliance with the
arsenic in drinking water standard
every day in 2006. EPA, states,
and major stakeholders are provid-
ing extensive technical assistance
and training to drinking water sys-
tems operators on arsenic, as well
as on the next suite of pathogens
that will be regulated in the near
future. Through this continuing
effort, the gap between the ideal
target and actual results should
decrease, and the Agency expects
to meet its 2008 goal.
Increased monitoring of recre-
ational waters may identify more
problems, potentially leading to
more beach closures. While a
higher number of beach closures
may slow progress toward the goal,
the public exposure to contami-
nated beach water will be reduced.
Most fish consumption
advisories are attributable to
mercury and/or polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), both of which
are bioaccumulative toxins. Thus,
even once the source of the mer-
cury or PCBs has been lessened or
eliminated, fish will continue to
retain these contaminants in their
systems for years. Consequently,
EPA's actions to reduce mercury
air—emissions, the primary cause
of mercury in fish—may not show
results for several more years.
Strategic
Objective 2—
Protect Water
Quality
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes,
and streams on a watershed basis and
protect coastal and ocean waters.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA, states, and tribes contin-
ue to use a watershed approach to
protect water quality, including
that of coastal waters, nationwide.
EPA and states made progress
toward attaining water quality
standards in waters previously
identified as impaired. EPA's
2006 goal, as presented in its
Strategic Plan, is to restore
5 percent of the waters identi-
fied by states as impaired.
Current data indicate that
8 percent have been restored8.
This figure represents substan-
tial progress toward the 2012
goal of restoring 25 percent of
impaired waterbodies.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2— PROTECT WATER QUALITY
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
Watershed Protection
Watershed Protection — Waterbodies
(NEW IN FYOS)
State/Tribal Water Quality Standards —
Monitoring (NEW IN FYOS)
State/Tribal Water Quality Standards —
Sanitation Access (NEW IN FYOS)
Coastal Aquatic Conditions — Ecological
Health (NEW IN FYOS)
Coastal Aquatic Conditions — Use
Attainment (NEW IN FYOS)
X Not met for FY 2005
X Not met for FY 2004
• Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
I/ Met in FY 2005
• Met in FY 2005
• Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 2, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Protect Human
Health
35.7%
($1.277.371.8)
Enhance Science
and Research /
($144.867.6)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 2, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Protect Human
Health
33.2%
($1.162.788.3)
Enhance Science
and Research /
($141.516.7)
Goal 2 Total = $3,578,976.0
Goal 2 Total = $3,507,201.0
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA is committed to improv-
ing water quality for tribal
communities and continues to
expand monitoring of water quali-
ty on tribal lands. In FY 2005,
EPA exceeded its goal of provid-
ing tribal communities with access
to basic sanitation, reducing the
cumulative number of households
on tribal lands that lack access by
34 percent9. This figure represents
EPA's FY 2002
through FY 2005
cumulative
progress towards
the 2015 goal of
reducing the
number of
households lack-
ing access to
sanitation by
50%.
EPA also
continues to
provide nation-
ally consistent,
comparable,
quality data to
evaluate various
indicators of
estuarine condition in each U.S.
coastal region and across the
nation. Comparing data presented
in the 1990-1996 National Costal
Condition Report (NCCR) with
data reported in the 1997-2001
NCCR indicates that, while water
clarity declined (a result of episod-
ic, catastrophic events and
increased pollution), the overall
ecological health of coastal waters
has improved. These data reflect
monitoring results against multi-
ple indicators, including water
clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal
wetlands loss, eutrophic condi-
tions, sediment contamination,
benthic health, and fish tissue
contamination. Conditions in the
Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes
showed the greatest improve-
ment10.
CHALLENGES
Because many years of moni-
toring are required, and data are
often limited, documenting
progress in complying with water
quality standards is challenging.
For example, a state might identi-
fy a stream as impaired due to
elevated temperatures which pre-
vent it from supporting its
designated use as a coldwater fish-
ery. An appropriate restoration
action may be to replant the
stream's banks with trees which,
when mature, will provide shade
and restore stream temperatures.
In this case, while the correct
restoration action may have been
implemented, monitoring data
will not demonstrate full restora-
tion results for 10 or 20 years.
Other challenges include limited
resources such that, on average,
over a 2-year period, states moni-
tor and assess only about 20
percent of their stream miles and
40 percent of their lakes11. Thus
progress made in areas not
assessed during that 2-year period
is not reported. Limited monitor-
ing information
also makes it
difficult to
aggregate data
on individual
stream seg-
ments into a
meaningful
watershed scale
assessment that
can be used for
efficient
restoration
planning and
targeting
response
actions.
EPA is
working to
develop better measures for docu-
menting environmental
improvement on a watershed
basis, such as measures to track
incremental progress toward full
restoration and document the
results of the considerable effort
EPA and its partners devote to
maintaining water quality. EPA
expects to include some improved
measures in the 2006-2011
Strategic Plan and may present
plans for other potential measures
that will take longer to develop.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Strategic
Objective 3—
Enhance Science
and Research
Provide and apply a sound scientific
foundation to EPA's goal of clean
and safe water by conducting lead-
ing-edge research and developing a
better understanding and charac-
terization of the environmental
outcomes under Goal 2.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA continues to provide
crucial research for developing
effective water quality criteria.
The demonstration of a popula-
tion-based methodology for
water quality criteria for aquat-
ic and aquatic-dependent
wildlife has been developed. In
2005 ORD is providing methods
for developing water quality crite-
ria so that, by 2008, approaches
and methods are available to
states and tribes for their use in
developing and applying criteria
for habitat alteration, nutrients,
suspended and bedded sediments,
pathogens, and toxic chemicals
that will support designated uses
for aquatic ecosystems and
increase the scientific basis for
listing and delisting impaired
water bodies under Section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act.
For many of the waters
listed as impaired under Section
303(d) of CWA, the impairments
result from a number of stressors,
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
2.18
Water Quality Research (NEW IN FYOS)
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 2, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 2, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Protect Human
Health
35.7%
($1,277,371.8)
Enhance Scienc
and Research
($144,867.6)
Protect Water
Quality
60.3%
($2,156,736.7)
Protect Human
Health
33.2%
($1,162,788.3)
Enhance Science
and Research
($141,516.7)
Goal 2 Total = $3,578,976.0
Protect Water
Quality
62.8%
($2,202,896.0)
Goal 2 Total = $3,507,201.0
including chemicals, nutrients,
sediments, and loss of habitat.
Maintaining healthy populations
of aquatic life and aquatic depen-
dant wildlife is the objective of
the water quality criteria. APG
2.18 reports on the development
of a population-based approach for
a data rich case study, namely
loons in the Northeast. The eval-
uation and adoption of such an
approach will ultimately be appli-
cable to development of criteria
for a wide range of aquatic systems
that may be impacted by a combi-
nation of chemical and
non-chemical stressors.
EPA has conducted research
and developed a methodology to
assess the cumulative impact of a
number of stressors (e.g. loss of
habitat and exposure to mercury
through fish consumption) on
loon populations in order to
develop criteria supporting desig-
nated uses of waterbodies. The
method includes approaches for
extrapolating mercury toxicity
across wildlife species, predicting
population-level responses to mer-
cury exposure and habitat
alteration, and projecting risks to
loon population at spatial scales
ranging from watersheds to bio-
geographic regions.
CHALLENGES
EPA is making progress
toward meeting this strategic
objective and does not foresee
significant challenges.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 2 Annual Performance Goals
Strategic Objective 1—Protect Human Health
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including
protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
PERFORMANCE
This group of APGs measures
the percent of the population that
receive safe drinking water from
community water systems (CWSs)
in compliance with health-based
standards.
APG 2.1 includes all stan-
dards; APG 2.2 include older
standards that went into effect
before January 2002; and APG 2.3
tracks compliance with the new
standards that went into effect
January 2002 or later.
The FY 2005 data for these
APGs will be available in January
2006. It is not possible to deter-
mine the results before January
because they are based on a cumu-
lative, annual count of water
systems reporting at least one
health-based violation during the
year. Primacy agencies (states) his-
torically report more than a third
of all such violations in the last
quarter of the calendar year (regu-
lations allow primacy agencies 90
days for reporting data). In addi-
tion, primacy agencies are
required to annually update water
systems information by the end of
December.
In FY 2005, the target of 75
percent for APG 2.3 was set to
reflect challenges associated with
compliance with newer standards,
APG 2.1 Safe Drinking Water Meeting All
Standards—Population
DATA FY 2005: Percent population served by community water systems in compli-
AVAILABLE ance w/-j^ hea/th-foased drinking water systems in compliance with
FY 2006
health-based drinking water standards. (PART)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
93%
Actual
Data avail 2006
GOAL NOT ^ 2004: Population served by community water systems will receive
MET FOR drinking water meeting all health-based standards, up from 83% in 1994.
FY 2004
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
92%
Actual
90%
APG 2.2 Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing
Standards—Population
DATA FY 2005: 94% of the population served by community water systems
AVAILABLE wm recejve drjn|
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Public Water System Supervision Grant program and
reassessed the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program related to these
APGs in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
Program Evaluations
Inspector General report: "Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection
Efforts" (Report No. 2005-P-00021).Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-7.
Government Accountability Office report: "District of Columbia's Drinking
Water: Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain
in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead Levels." (GAO-05-344)
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Public Water System Supervision
Grant Program.
though EPA anticipates a higher
compliance level. Even though
newer standards are a sub-set of all
standards captured in APG 2.1,
the target for APG 2.1 was not
adjusted as low as the target for
APG 2.3. The target for APG 2.1
was kept at a level consistent with
previous years to encourage states
and regions to strive for better
compliance.
In FY 2004, APG 2.1 was not
met. Although the vast majority
of the nation's community water
systems supplied drinking water
that met all health-based stan-
dards, some very large systems
serving a large number of people
(e.g., Los Angeles and Phoenix)
reported short-term non-compli-
ance violations during the year.
The Agency is pursuing ways to
account for these short-term non-
compliance events to more
comprehensively and accurately
reflect the public health benefits
over the entire year.
In FY 2004, APG 2.3 was sig-
nificantly exceeded with 97
percent of the population served
by community water systems
receiving drinking water that met
health-based standards with a
compliance date of 1998 or later.
The APG was changed for 2005
to track with newer standards
(e.g., "Crytosporidium Rule"),
with compliance dates of January
2002 or later.
APG 2.1 is based on a base-
line of 94 percent of the
population in FY 2002 received
drinking water from CWSs in
compliance with all applicable
health-based standards. APG
2.2's baseline is the same except
compliance is based on standards
issued before January 2002.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-17-C-19.
CHALLENGES
Data for APGs 2.1 and 2.2
can fluctuate significantly year-to-
year if a single large population
system has even a short-term vio-
lation. Violation frequency,
duration, and other exposure and
risk factors (e.g., extent of distri-
bution system affected, acute
versus chronic contaminants,
exceedence levels) are not reflect-
ed in this measure. Despite the
limitations, these are widely rec-
ognized measures that reflect
program progress.
Newer standards are generally
based on tailored approaches that
allow for different circumstances
among localities rather than "one-
size-fits-all." It takes time at the
outset to determine the needs of
each particular system to be in
compliance with the rule. In addi-
tion, new standards are very
complex to implement and are a
challenging workload for states
and systems.
Population Served by Community Water Systems Will Receive Drinking
Water Meeting All Health-Based Standards, Up from 83% in 1994
40
91
t^
999
91 91 94
— • 1
I
Planned
1 1
^
1
90
90
2000 2001 2002 2003
Fiscal Year
2004
Source: US EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWISJ
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.4 and 2.5, water sys-
tem-based goals, provide an
important counter-balance to the
population-based measures, which
are highly sensitive to changes in
compliance for large population
centers, but are less reflective of
small communities. For FY 2007,
the Agency will be reporting on a
measure which combines the cur-
rent APGs 2.4 and 2.5. It
measures the percent of communi-
ty water systems in compliance
with all drinking water standards.
This measure arose from the
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund PART.
These APGs are weighted
more towards small communities.
Although most of the U.S. popu-
lation lives in large cities, most
CWSs serve fewer than 10,000
people. Measuring only the per-
cent of the population served by
CWSs that meet all applicable
health standards does not give a
full picture of public health pro-
tection through safe drinking
water. Approximately 8,000 medi-
um and large systems (those
serving no fewer than 3,301 peo-
ple up to more than 100,000)
provide drinking water to more
than 246 million people, and the
remaining 44,800 small systems
(those serving 3,300 or less peo-
ple) supply drinking water to
about 27 million people.
APG 2.4 measures the percent
of CWSs that are providing drink-
ing water that meets health-based
standards with a compliance date
before January 2002. APG 2.5
tracks the percent of CWSs that
are providing drinking water that
meets newer health-based stan-
APG 2.4 Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing
Standards—Systems
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: 94% of community water systems w/7/ provide drinking water that
meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of
December 2001. (PART) (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
94%
Actual
Data avail 2006
APG 2.5 Safe Drinking Water Meeting New
Standards—Systems
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: 75% of community water systems will provide drinking water
that meets health-based standards with a compliance date of January
2002 or later. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
75%
Actual
Data avail 2006
APG 2.6 Safe Drinking Water—Tribal Communities
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: 90% of the population served by community water systems
in Indian country will receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
90%
Actual
Data avail 2006
dards with a compliance date of
January 2002 or later. APG 2.6
covers all health-based standards
for tribal communities.
The FY 2005 data for these
APGs will be available in January
2006. It is not possible to calcu-
late it before then because it is
based on a cumulative, annual
count of water systems reporting
at least one health-based violation
during the year. Primacy agencies
historically report more than a
third of all such violations
between October and the end of
December 2005 (regulations allow
primacy agencies 90 days for
reporting data). In addition,
primacy agencies are required to
update water systems information
annually, by the end of December.
APG 2.4 is based on a base-
line of 92 percent of the
community water systems in FY
2002 that supplied drinking water
in compliance with all applicable
health-based standards issued
before January 2002.
APG 2.6 is based on a base-
line of 91 percent of the
population in Indian country in
FY 2002 that received drinking
water from CWSs in compliance
with all applicable health-based
standards.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Public Water System Supervision Grant program and
reassessed the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program related to these
APGs in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
Program Evaluations
Inspector General report: "Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection
Efforts" (Report No. 2005-P-00021).Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-7.
Government Accountability Office report: "District of Columbia's Drinking
Water: Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Key Challenges Remain
in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead Levels." (GAO-05-344)
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Public Water System Supervision Grant Program and Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-17-C-19.
CHALLENGES
Small drinking water systems,
including those supplying drinking
water to Indian tribes, often do
not have the resources to obtain
needed infrastructure improve-
ment and capacity to meet
existing standards and they face
an even larger obstacle in meeting
the new standards. Specific chal-
lenges include the following:
• Smaller customer base means
fewer opportunities for scale
economies.
• Competing priorities, such as
historic under-pricing versus
affordable service, which
means establishing rates at an
appropriate level to allow sys-
tems to fully recover their total
cost. The total cost of business
for water utilities includes not
only ongoing operations and
management expenses and
debt service but also estimates
of future infrastructure needs
and investment.
• Rising costs of drinking water
infrastructure.
• Difficulty in gaining outside
access to capital.
To strengthen and enhance
technical, managerial, and finan-
cial capacities of small water
systems, EPA and the states are
implementing the capacity devel-
opment program, which provides
a wide range of tools to help own-
ers and operators of small water
systems to understand Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reg-
ulatory requirements. States and
water systems played major roles
in shaping this program, widely
recognized as a model for coopera-
tive and collaborative efforts
under SDWA.
APG 2.7 Safe Drinking Water—Source Water Protection
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.7 tracks the percent-
age of community water systems
that have implemented source
water protection plans. The
SDWA source water protection
program focuses federal, state, and
local resources on protecting
CWSs by encouraging the sub-
stantial implementation of source
water protection plans. Each of
the 52,800 CWSs has completed
an initial assessment consisting of
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005:20% of source water for community water systems w/7/ achieve
minimized risk to public health. (PART) (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
20%
Actual
Data avail 2006
delineating the water supply,
inventorying actual and potential
sources of contamination, deter-
mining susceptibility, and
informing the public. EPA is
working with states, water sys-
tems, associations, and nonprofit
organizations to improve these
protection strategies for drinking
water sources through supporting
development and implementation
of source water protection plans.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the DIG Grant program related to this APG in the 2004
PART process.The program received an adequate rating.
Program Evaluations
Inspector General report: "Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs Show Initial Promise, But Obstacles Remain" (Report No. 2005-P-
0001 3). Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-8.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grant Program and Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund.
The goal of a protection plan is to
prevent contamination of sources
of drinking water and to achieve
minimized risk to public health.
A critical component of safe-
guarding the health of the
American public is protecting
drinking water resources.
Preventing contaminants from
getting into surface and ground
waters that are used, or could be
used, as drinking water supplies
requires a broad, integrated pre-
vention approach that relies on
participation at the federal, state,
and local levels. When imple-
mented, this approach minimizes
the risk of exposure to contami-
nants in drinking water. An
additional benefit of a contamina-
tion prevention approach is that
provides opportunities to lower
the cost of drinking water treat-
ment at the local level.
The SDWA also established
the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Program to protect
current and future ground water-
based drinking water resources
from unsafe injection practices.
This regulatory program is
designed to ensure that none of
the more than 800,000 injection
wells impact these drinking water
resources. The UIC Program has
identified source water areas as a
critical focus of implementation
efforts, particularly for shallow
injection wells. Source water areas
are targeted for identifying,
inspecting, permitting, and closing
of injection wells. Protection of
drinking water resources requires a
comprehensive, coordinated effort
across numerous EPA and other
federal programs. EPA's drinking
water program is working actively
to integrate with other federal
programs to enhance source water
protection at the local level.
APG 2.7 is based on a base-
line of 5 percent of source water
for community water systems in
FY 2002 achieving minimized risk
to public health.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-20.
CHALLENGES
Since protection activities are
voluntary, and consistent funding
at the state and local level is
uncertain, states have expressed
concern that meeting the national
goal of 20 percent will be particu-
larly challenging.
The UIC Program is also fac-
ing challenges. Deep well
injection technology is being
expanded to new uses such as dis-
posal of drinking water treatment
residuals and geologic sequestra-
tion of carbon dioxide to mitigate
the effects of climate change.
These new needs for injection
wells are putting intense pressure
on state programs that already
safely manage more than 800,000
injection wells. In addition, states
are also increasing their invento-
ries of shallow injection wells
through inspection and compli-
ance assistance efforts. Increases
in the number of deep injection
wells and newly identified shallow
wells will require UIC Programs to
issue more permits, conduct addi-
tional well testing, and ensure
compliance with the requirements
to protect underground sources of
drinking water. These actions
have significant new costs; how-
ever, funding for the program has
not increased in more than 15
years.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
APG 2.8 Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Fish Consumption
PERFORMANCE
This measure tracks changes
in fish consumption advisories in
the universe of waters that had
such advisories in 2002.
Improvements in water quality
are expected to reduce the levels
of contaminants in fish, leading
to higher safe fish consumption
levels. Data are collected on a
calendar year (CY) basis and
reported on in the next fiscal year.
For example, CY 2004 data are
reported in FY 2005.
In CY 2002, 32.9 percent
of lake-acres (13,413,763 lake-
acres/94,715 individual lakes),
and 15.3 percent of river-miles
(544,036 river-miles) were under
fish advisories. This is the baseline
against which progress for this
APG is being measured. In CY
2004, there was no significant
change at the national level in
the percentage of waters under
fish consumption advisories.
Qoal Not Met: This is a new
APG, and the Agency misjudged
its ability to meet the target. Many
variables are involved in evaluat-
ing mercury deposition in fish,
such as the sources of mercury and
the bioaccumulative nature of mer-
GOAL NOT
MET
FY 2005: At least 1% of the water miles/acres identified by states or
tribes as having a fish consumption advisory in 2002 will have improved
water and sediment quality so that increased consumption offish and
shellfish is allowed. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
\%
Actual
0%
cury, which impacts the time that
it takes for fish to rid mercury from
their bodies. These factors resulted
in the Agency overestimating its
ability to meet the target. EPA is
assessing the information received
to date to determine a more realis-
tic future target.
In FY 2005, the Agency
improved the database to account
for changes in recommended meal
frequencies in state and tribal
advisories. This system documents
instances where advisories are
modified to allow increased fish
consumption. Recording modifica-
tions to advisories, as opposed to
only the initial advisories, may
lead to an increase in fish con-
sumption, which should
demonstrate progress. This is the
first year EPA has collected this
information, and it will provide a
baseline for measuring changes in
future years.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-21.
CHALLENGES
Improving water and sediment
quality to allow for increased fish
consumption has been difficult to
achieve. Most fish consumption
advisories are attributable to mer-
cury and/or polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), both of which
are bioaccumulative toxins. This
situation means that even after the
source of the mercury or PCBs has
been lessened or eliminated, the
fish continue to retain the contam-
inants in their systems for years.
Consequently, even though EPA
has taken actions to reduce mercu-
ry air emissions—the primary cause
of mercury in fish—it will take sev-
eral more years before the results of
these actions will be seen.
APG 2.9 Improved Water Quality to Support Increased Shellfish Consumption
PERFORMANCE
Data to support this APG
comes from past surveys of states
that are members of the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(ISSC). Surveys are conducted at
5-year intervals with periodic
DATA
UNAVAILABLE
FY 2005: 80% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are
approved or conditionally approved for use. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
ono/
oU/o
Actual
Data Unavailable
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
updates requested from the ISSC.
The most recent survey contain-
ing 2003 data was released in
2004. However, the ISSC recently
decided to stop conducting 5-year
surveys because the agency is in
the process of developing a cen-
tralized database system, called
the Shellfish Information
Management System (SIMS).
This will allow shellfish-producing
states to directly enter their shell-
fish data into the system. Thirteen
of the 22 shellfish-producing
states have entered or begun
entering their shellfish informa-
tion into the system.
The data for APG 2.9 are
unavailable due to the cessation of
the ISSC surveys. Consequently,
EPA cannot determine if the target
was achieved due to a lack of data.
It is uncertain whether the surveys
will be resumed and whether a
determination will be able to be
made as to the achievement status
of the APG. The Agency is
reviewing the APG to determine
the appropriateness of retaining,
changing, or deleting it.
APG 2.9 is tracked with base-
line data from the ISSC surveys.
According to the ISSC report,
there were a total of 15,273 estu-
arine shellfish-growing acres, of
which 11,268 acres (73.8 percent)
were approved or conditionally
approved for use in 1995. Data
indicate that the percentage of
monitored waters open for use
increased to 91 percent in 2003.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-22.
CHALLENGES
Because a high percentage (91
percent) of shellfish-growing acres
are currently approved or condi-
tionally approved for use, it will
be difficult to show progress in
future years. In addition, states'
participation in SIMS is volun-
tary, and due to state fiscal
constraints, some states may delay
or decide not to enter data into
SIMS. If this occurs, the Agency
will not have a complete picture
of shellfish conditions.
APG 2.1O Improve Water Quality to Allow Increased Safe Swimming
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.10 tracks the percent-
age of improvement in waters used
for swimming via the Assessment
Data Base (ADB), which incorpo-
rates water quality data reported
by states every 2 years. In 2002,
EPA summarized data submitted
for individual water bodies to
compile national statistics that
could be tied back to the individ-
ual waters.
The 2002 water body-specific
state data have been posted at
www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html.
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This APG
Clean Water Act Section 106
state program grants.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 2%
of the stream-miles and lake-acres identified by states in 2000 as having
water quality unsafe for swimming. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
Actual
Data avail 2006
A national summary of that data,
the National Water Quality
Inventory 2002 Report to Congress,
will be available in early 2006. The
summary of the 2004 state assess-
ments will be available in late 2006
at the earliest.
The 2005 target of 2 percent
restoration is based on state data
from 2000, which showed that
90,000 stream-miles and 2.6 mil-
lion lake-acres had water quality
unsafe for swimming.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-23-C-24.
CHALLENGES
State assessments of water
quality conditions are due to
EPA every 2 years. Because some
states are late in submitting their
assessment findings, there can be
a significant gap between the
time water monitoring occurs
and when states report on water
quality.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
APG 2.11 Increase Beach Safety
PERFORMANCE
APG 2.11 tracks the percent-
age of days during the beach
season that coastal and Great
Lake beaches are open and safe for
swimming. As water quality
improves, beaches will be closed
fewer days. Data are collected on a
calendar year basis and reported
on in the next fiscal year. For
example, CY 2004 data are report-
ed in FY 2005.
Data trends are difficult to
establish due to the new reporting
requirements that began in 2003.
From 1997 to 2002, beach moni-
toring data were collected and
submitted to EPA on a voluntary
basis and included coastal, Great
Lakes, and some inland waters.
Beginning in 2003, reporting
became mandatory, and inland
waters were no longer part of the
FY 2005: Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach
safety programs will be open and safe for swimming in over 94% of the
days of the beach season. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
94%
Actual
96%
data set. As a result, the 2003 and
2004 data cannot easily be com-
pared to data compiled from 1997
to 2002.
Baseline information for APG
2.11 indicates that monitored
beaches were opened 94 percent
of the days during the beach sea-
son in 2001 and 95 percent in
2002. Data for the 2003 beach
season are under quality review
and are not currently available.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Over the past 5 years, EPA has provided a total of almost $42 million in
grants to 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and territories.These funds sup-
port state and local government beach monitoring and notification
programs that provide the public with information on whether the water is
safe to swim in. In CY 2004, 3,574 beaches were monitored.
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-23-C-24.
CHALLENGES
Past experience with other
programs has shown that
improved monitoring usually
results in the identification of
more problems. Consequently, the
Agency expects that more com-
prehensive monitoring of
recreational waters could result in
more beach closures, which will
make it difficult to show progress
for this measure. The risk of expo-
sure to disease-causing bacteria at
recreational beaches will be
reduced, however.
In addition, states use different
monitoring methods, making com-
parisons and tracking difficult. EPA
will encourage more consistent
monitoring by working with its
national network of state partners.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 2—Protect Water Quality
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis, and protect coastal
and ocean waters.
APG 2.12 Watershed Protection
PERFORMANCE
EPA works with states to
implement pollution prevention
and restoration approaches to
increase the number of watersheds
where water quality standards are
met in at least 80 percent of the
assessed water segments.
Achievement of this goal is large-
ly dependent on the efforts of
states to implement "core" CWA
programs, including development
of water quality standards, moni-
toring, development of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs),
issuance of permits for discharges,
and implementation of nonpoint
source control programs. EPA is
working on detailed strategies to
target and implement core pro-
grams with local watershed
protection efforts that will result
in increased and more efficient
restoration of waters.
Qoal Not Met: In FY 2005, the
cumulative goal of meeting stan-
dards in 462 watersheds was not
met. Although several EPA
regions did increase their water-
shed numbers, many other regions
showed either zero or negative
change in water quality, resulting
in an FY 2005 national total of
only 450 watersheds meeting
water quality standards. This
regression and zero change can
be attributed to new data that
more accurately reflect watershed
GOAL NOT
MET
FY2005:462 of the nation's watersheds have water quality standards
met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments.
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY 2004
FY 2004: By 2005, water quality will improve on a watershed basis
such that 500 of the nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greater than
80% of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards.
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
500
Actual
450
condition, including adjustments
for fish consumption advisories
and increased environmental
stresses on watersheds that not
only impair waters that were once
clean, but also further degrade
waters already impaired.
In 2002 state reports, 453
watersheds met the criteria that
greater than 80 percent of assessed
waters met all water quality stan-
dards. For a watershed to be
counted toward this goal, at least
25 percent of the segments in the
watershed must be assessed within
the past 4 years consistent with
assessment guidelines developed
pursuant to section 305(b) of the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Surface Water Protection and State Pollution Control
Grants (106) programs related to this APG in the 2005 PART process.
Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
APG 2.12 is supported by Clear Water Act (CWA) Section 106 grants,
which fund the full gamut of state water quality programs. CWA Section
319 grants also support APG 2.12 by reserving $100 million for developing
and implementing comprehensive watershed plans that function to restore
impaired waters on a watershed basis while protecting healthy waters.
Additionally, the Targeted Watershed Grants (TWG) Program encourages
collaborative, community-driven approaches to meet clean water goals.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Clean Water Act. The projection
for 2005 was lowered from 500 to
462 watersheds following work
with states to develop realistic
2005 targets based on actual work-
plans. This more detailed analysis
resulted in the estimate that an
additional nine watersheds would
attain the "80 percent" goal.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-24-C-27.
CHALLENGES
Showing progress toward
attainment of the environmental
improvements described above is
challenging because it often requires
many years before implementation
of specific program activities (e.g.
re-issuing permits, approving
TMDLs) can reduce pollutant dis-
charges, leading to improved water
quality. Further, there is a lag in
reporting data that can show
progress in meeting this goal.
APG 2.13 Watershed Protection—Waterbodies
PERFORMANCE
In 2000, states identified some
21,632 total waterbodies in the
United States as impaired (i.e.,
not attaining state water quality
standards). APG 2.13 intends to
track the percentage of those
waterbodies that are restored (i.e.,
meet state water quality stan-
dards) at the close of FY 2005.
Nationally, EPA has adopted a
strategic target of restoring 25 per-
cent of those 21,632 waterbodies
by 2012. APG 2.13 is the single
most revealing indicator of the
fundamental goal of the Office of
Water's CWA implementation,
including ensuring waters are fish-
able, swimmable, and drinkable.
Interim goals include restoration
of 5 percent of these waters (i.e.,
1,082 waterbodies) by the end
of FY 2006 and 2 percent (i.e.,
432 waterbodies) by the end of
FY 2005.
In FY 2005, we significantly
exceeded our 2 percent national
goal by restoring 8 percent of
impaired waterbodies. This success
is partly due to our efforts in
improving water quality assess-
ments. We anticipate that in
future years this success rate
may not be as high as reported in
FY 2005.
FY 2005: Water Quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of
miles/acres of waters by 2012, with an interim milestone of restoring
2% of these waters—identified in 2000 as not attaining standards by 2005.
(PART) (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
2%
Actual
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-27-C-28.
CHALLENGES
Although 2005 data indicate
that the waterbodies listed in
2000 are being quickly removed
from the list of impaired waters,
we expect waterbodies that are
more easily restored to be
removed from the list first. Also,
as part of the process of develop-
ing a TMDL, regions and states
examine the conditions of waters
more closely than at the time of
initial assessment and listing. In
some cases regions and states find,
upon reviewing more complete
data, that waters listed as impaired
based on the best data available in
2000 are in fact meeting standards
and can be removed from the list
of impaired waters without
lengthy cleanup actions. We
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Surface Water Protection and State Pollution Control
Grant (106) programs related to this APG under the 2005 PART process.
Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
This goal is supported by CWA Section 106 grants, which fund the full
range of state water quality programs. CWA Section 319 Program also sup-
port APG 2.1 3 by reserving $100 million for developing and implementing
comprehensive watershed plans that function to restore impaired waters
on a watershed basis while protecting healthy waters. Additionally theTWG
Program encourages collaborative, community-driven approaches to meet
clean water goals.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
anticipate that delistings due to
the availability of better quality
data will soon decline, as will
delistings of waters with problems
that are relatively easy to address.
As regions and states work to
restore the large subset of waters
with significant water quality
problems, we anticipate that
progress towards the long-term
goal will become much more diffi-
cult to achieve. Many of these
waterbodies are subject to increas-
ing stress as a result of population
growth and changing land use.
APG 2.14 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards—Monitoring
PERFORMANCE
All of the monitoring stations
originally included in the baseline
for APG 2.14 (900) are U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) sta-
tions with USGS station
identification numbers. Since the
900 sites were originally identi-
fied, additional monitoring
stations on tribal lands have been
located. The water quality moni-
toring results for the additional
stations on tribal lands are record-
ed in the USGS National Water
Information System (NWIS) and
EPA's Storage and Retrieval data-
base (STORET). Through
STORET and NWIS, EPA and
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This APG
CWA Section 106,Tribal General
Assistance Program (GAP) Grants.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Water quality in Indian country will be improved at not less
than 35 monitoring stations in tribal waters for which baseline data are
available (i.e. show at least a 10% improvement for each of four key
parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and fecal
coliforms). (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
35 Stations
Actual
Data avail 2006
USGS have established standard-
ized formats for reporting water
quality data and information.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-28-C-29.
CHALLENGES
Monitoring activities at the
sampling stations included in
APG 2.14 are not conducted or
reported by tribes. Sampling is
performed at these monitoring sta-
tions by a variety of entities, for a
variety of purposes and with dif-
fering frequencies. The proximity
of these stations to watersheds
undergoing restoration/protection
activities may not be included as
part of the information included
in the STORET database or
NWIS. The use of these monitor-
ing stations for APG 2.14 is
opportunistic, and thus sampling
results may not necessarily reflect
the impacts of restoration activi-
ties performed as part of the
implementation of CWA pro-
grams by tribes.
APG 2.15 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards—Sanitation Access
PERFORMANCE
In August, 2002, at the World
Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg,
South Africa, the United States
was a signatory to the plan of
implementation. This plan estab-
lished a goal of reducing by half
the proportion of people in devel-
oping countries who lack access to
FY 2005: In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 11%,
households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation between
2002 and 2005. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Actual
34%
safe drinking water and basic sani-
tation. The target date for
achieving this goal is 2015.
Access to water and waste-
water services is one of the
strongest barometers of public
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
health and environmental condi-
tions, and represents one of the
most fundamental needs for popu-
lations at risk. In the United
States, the Native American pop-
ulation lacks access to water and
wastewater services at a rate seven
times higher than the population
as a whole (7 percent of the tribal
population vs. 1 percent of the
U.S. population).12 For this
reason, EPA adopted in its 2003-
2008 Strategic Plan the goal of
meeting the Johannesburg com-
mitment for the tribal segment of
the U.S. population.
APG 2.15 tracks the reduction
in the number of households on
tribal lands that lack access to basic
sanitation. The baseline of 71,000
households was established in 2002
and is based upon 2000 data. The
long-term goal, with other federal
partners, is to reduce the number of
households on tribal lands that lack
access to basic sanitation by 50 per-
cent by 2015. The 34 percent
represents EPA's cumulative accom-
plishments in FY 2002 through FY
2005 against the 50 percent goal.
The Agency has significantly
exceeded its target because this
is a new measure and the Agency
did not know how many
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Alaska Native Village program related to this APG in the
2004 PART process.The program received a rating of ineffective due to the
systemic management of deficiencies.
Program Evaluations
The Office of Inspector General report: "Region 10's Grant for Alaska
Village Safe Water Program Did Not Meet EPA Guidelines" (Report No.
2005-P-OOO15). Additional information on this report is available in the
Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-IO.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
• Northern Arizona University—Tribal Wastewater Professional Training
Center (builds capacity for tribes to effectively operate and maintain
wastewater facilities).
• Clean Water Indian Set Aside Grant Program (1.5 percent set-aside from
the CWSRF, for the purpose of planning, design and construction of
wastewater facilities for tribal populations).
• Alaska Native Village and Rural Community Infrastructure Grant Program
(this matching grant program supports the Alaska Village Safe Water
Program, which provides grants to rural and Native villages in Alaska to
plan, design and construct both drinking water and wastewater facilities).
households would qualify for assis-
tance when it established the
initial target for 2005, it proved to
be a low estimate. Based on this
year's results, the target will be
adjusted accordingly.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-29-C-30.
Tribal Lands Is Increasing
Baseline: 71,000
5,341
(7.5%)
12,024
(16.9%)
18,204
(26.6%)
24,272
(34.2%)
Fiscal Year
CHALLENGES
Deficiencies in the adminis-
tration and implementation of the
Alaska Native Village and Rural
Community Infrastructure
Program were identified in an
audit conducted by the Office of
Inspector General last year ("EPA
Oversight for the Alaska Village
Safe Water Program Needs
Improvement," Report No. 2004-
P-00029, September 21, 2004).
These deficiencies are being
addressed by EPA through the
implementation of a series of steps
under the plan of action, which
was cooperatively developed by
EPA's Office of Wastewater
Management and Region 10.
Region 10 also anticipates execut-
ing a memorandum of
understanding with Alaska in
November 2005, to formalize pro-
gram requirements that address
the weaknesses.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2.16 Coastal Aquatic Conditions
—Ecological Health
FY 2005: Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters
nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the good/fair/poor
scale of the National Coastal Condition Report by at least O.I point.
(NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Score for overall aquatic system health of coastal
waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is
improved (cumulative).
• Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in
coastal waters at the national levels reported in
the 2002 National Coastal Condition Report.
Planned
2.5 Scale
score
4.3/4.5
Scale score
Actual
2.7
2.61
4.6
•
X
•
^
APG 2.17 Coastal Aquatic Conditions
—Use Attainment
FY 2005: Improve ratings reported on the national good/fair/poor scale
of the National Coastal Condition Report for: coastal wetlands loss by
at least O.I point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at
least O.I point; benthic quality by at least O.I point;and eutrophic condi-
tion by at least O.I point. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale for the National Coastal
Condition Report for coastal wetlands loss.
• Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale for the National Coastal
Condition Report for contamination of sediments
in coastal waters.
• Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale for the National Coastal
Condition Report for benthic quality
• Improve ratings reported on the national
"good/fair/poor" scale for the National Coastal
Condition Report for eutrophic condition.
Planned
1 .5 Scale
score
1 .4 Scale
score
1 .5 Scale
score
1 .8 Scale
score
Actual
1.7 •
2.1 •
2.0 •
3.0 •
PERFORMANCE
The National Coastal
Condition Report (NCCR) pro-
vides a comprehensive, national
assessment of ecological condition
of 100 percent of U.S. coastal
waters, exclusive of Alaska and
Hawaii. NCCR I was published in
2001; NCCR II was published in
2005 and is based on data collect-
ed from 1997 through 2000. The
NCCR ratings are based on com-
prehensive, comparable, and
nationally consistent data used to
evaluate various indicators of estu-
arine condition in each U.S.
coastal region. The national rating
of "fair/poor" is based on a 5-point
system where 1 is poor and 5 is
good. The scores are weighted to
take into account the relative
number of estuaries in a region
and the portion of the regions to
the nation using the NCCR indi-
cators of water clarity, dissolved
oxygen, coastal wetlands loss,
eutrophic conditions, sediment
contamination, benthic health,
and fish tissue contamination.
The baseline values from the
NCCR I are: 4.3 for water clarity;
4.5 for dissolved oxygen; 1.4 for
coastal wetlands loss; 1.4 for con-
tamination of sediments in coastal
waters; 1.4 for benthic quality;
and, 1.7 for eutrophic condition.
APG 2.16 measures the over-
all ecological health of U.S.
coastal waters and two indicators
of water quality condition, dis-
solved oxygen and water clarity.
APG 2.17 measures the ecological
health of our coastal waters for
the various aquatic life that spend
all or part of their life cycles in
these waters. The four indicators
(wetlands loss, sediment quality,
benthic quality, and eutrophic
condition) are used to assess
aquatic life use attainment.
There was a significant
decline in water clarity between
the publication of the NCCR I
and the NCCR II. Instead of
maintaining the 4.3 rating, water
clarity declined to 2.6. The causes
for this decline could be episodic
(e.g., floods, landslides) or cata-
strophic (e.g., hurricanes, tropical
storms) events, or it could reflect
increased pollution during the
index period (1997-2000).
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-30-C-32.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
CHALLENGES
The NCCR is a valuable tool
providing the general public with
understandable, scientifically
based, quantified information
about the health of our coastal
and ocean waters. The broad base-
line overview of coastal condition
contained in the NCCR does not
relate to particular federal and
state ocean/coastal and broader
water quality programs and their
effect on the indicators measured
by the NCCR, however.
In addition, the nature of the
NCCR's rating scale (1 — 5, where
1 is poor and 5 is good) does not
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB and EPA are currently assessing the Oceans and Coastal Protection
program related to this APG in the 2005 PART process. Results will be
included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
The National Estuary Grant Program (CFDA 66.456).
provide much opportunity for
incremental progress. This also
contributes to the challenge of
setting annual targets for the vari-
ous NCCR indicators.
As stated above, episodic
(e.g., floods, landslides) or cata-
strophic (e.g., hurricanes, tropical
storms) events or increased pollu-
tion during the index period
(1997-2000) may have con-
tributed to the decline in water
clarity. Future monitoring and
trend analyses will enable us to
determine if this is a trend or a
temporary aberration.
Overall National Coastal Condition
Overall [
Gulf W
Source: US EPA National Coastal Condition Report II, December 2004. More information available at http://vwvw.epa.gov/owow/oceas/nccr2
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 3—Enhance Science and Research
Provide and apply a sound scientific foundation to EPAs goal of clean and safe water by
conducting leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characteriza-
tion of the environmental outcomes under Goal 2.
APG 2.18 Water Quality Research
PERFORMANCE
For many of the waters listed
as impaired under Section 303 (d)
of CWA, the impairments result
from a number of stressors, includ-
ing chemicals, nutrients, sediments
and loss of habitat. Maintaining
healthy populations of aquatic life
and aquatic-dependent wildlife is
the objective of water quality cri-
teria. APG 2.18 reports on the
development of a population-based
approach for a data rich case study,
namely loons in the Northeast.
The evaluation and adoption of
such an approach will ultimately
be applicable to development of
criteria for a wide range of aquatic
systems that may be impacted by
a combination of chemical and
non-chemical stressors.
EPA has conducted research
and developed a methodology to
assess the cumulative impact of a
number of stressors (e.g. loss of
FY 2005: By 2005 provide methods for developing water quality crite-
ria so that, by 2008, approaches and methods are available to states and
tribes for their use in developing and applying criteria for habitat alter-
ation, nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic
chemicals that will support designated uses for aquatic ecosystems and
increase the scientific basis for listing and delisting impaired water bod-
ies under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. (NEW IN FYOS)
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
9/30/05
Actual
9/30/05
habitat and exposure to mercury
through fish consumption) on loon
populations in order to develop cri-
teria supporting designated uses of
waterbodies. The method includes
approaches for extrapolating mer-
cury toxicity across wildlife species,
predicting population-level
responses to mercury exposure and
habitat alteration, and projecting
risks to loon populations at spatial
scales ranging from watersheds to
biogeographic regions.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
In 2001, EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program funded a proposal
for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to conduct research to
improve predictions of loon population dynamics in regions impacted by multi-
ple stressors, including habitat loss, mercury exposures, and human disturbance
in the upper midwest United States (EPA Grant Number: R829085).The STAR
grant was converted to a cooperative agreement to continue work on mercu-
ry and loons in New England.This work constituted databases and models for
loon populations across the northern United States, ultimately strengthening
the development of robust water quality criteria protective of wildlife under a
range of ecological and habitat conditions.The project validated a loon mercu-
ry exposure model to calculate a dose for mercury that will be protective of
loon populations subject to a range of stressors. An interim report is available
at: cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/
abstract/1916/report/0. A final report will be posted in 2005.
In FY 2005, EPA made
progress toward developing water
quality criteria by 2008. This work
is on track to deliver a methodolo-
gy in support of water quality
criteria for aquatic life and aquat-
ic-dependent wildlife. The
described methodology was an ele-
ment of the review of Aquatic Life
Criteria Guidelines by the Science
Advisory Board (September 21,
2005: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
EPA-SAB/ 2005/August/Day-
30/sabl 7198.htm). The results will
inform Office of Water's first
revision of the Aquatic Life
Guidelines since 1985.
This work contributes to the
long-term objectives of protecting
the quality of rivers, lakes, and
streams on a watershed basis and
protects coastal and ocean waters.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Qoal 2—PART Measures Without Corresponding FY 2005 Qoals
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. Although data are available to report progress toward the targets for these PART measures, the
measures were not included in the FY2005 budget documents that guide the content for the performance sec-
tion of the PAR. These measures have been incorporated into the FY 2007 budget documents and will be fully
integrated into the performance section beginning in the FY 2007 PAR.
PART Program PART Measure FY 2005 Target FY 2005 Result
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF
CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billion/yr).
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF
DWSRF long-term revolving level ($ billion per year).
Number of additional projects initiating operations.
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project
nitiating operations.
90%
$3.4 Billion
81.9%
$1.2 billion
4 1 5 projects
$1.69 million
95%
$3.4 Billion
84.4%*
$1.2 billion*
439 projects*
$1.71 million*
Qoal 2—PART Measures With Data Available Beyond FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPAs budget and GPRA documents, including the
PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current estimate for
the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
PART Program
Alaska Native Villages
PART Measure
Percent of Alaska rural and Native households with
drinking water and wastewater systems.
Number of households served with wastewater
and drinking water systems per million dollars
(EPA and State).
Under Development
Under Development
Data Available
4th quarter; FY 2006
4th quarter; FY 2006
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Number of waterbodies protected per million
dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.
Under Development
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per
million dollars of CWSRF assistance provided.
Under Development
4th quarter; FY 2007
4th quarter; FY 2007
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 PART Program PART Measure Status Data Available
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
(continued)
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund &
Public Water Supply
System Grants
Nonpoint Source
Grants
Public Water Supply
System Grants
Underground Injection
Control Grants
Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributa-
ble to swimming in, or other recreational contact
with, the ocean, rivers, lakes, or streams measured as
a five year average.
Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted
wastewater discharge standards.
Percent community water systems in compliance
with drinking water standards.
People receiving drinking water in compliance with
health-based drinking water standards per million of
dollars (Federal and State).
Dollars per community water system in compliance
with health-based drinking water standards.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to total
phosphorus loadings.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to total
nitrogen loadings.
Additional tons of reduction to total sediment
loadings.
Section 3 1 9 funds ($million) expended per partially
or fully restored waterbody
Percent of States conducting sanitary surveys at
community water systems once every three years.
Dollars per well to move Class V wells back into
compliance.
Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells closed or permitted.
Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority
identified, potentially endangering Class V wells
closed or permitted in ground water-based source
water areas.
Percentage of Class 1, II, and III wells that maintain
mechanical integrity without a failure that releases
contaminants to underground sources of drinking
water
Under Development
Under Development
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Targets are under
development
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
TBD
4th Quarter; FY 2007
0 1 /2006
0 1 /2006
0 1 /2006
0 1 /2006
0 1 /2006
0 1 /2006
FY2006
0 1 /2006
1 2/2005
1 2/2005
1 2/2005
1 2/2005
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
NOTES
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. List of Contaminants and Their MCLs. Available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html-2mcls.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004." EPA 816-K-05-001
Washington, D.C. May 2005. Available at www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data_factoids_2004.pdf.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004." EPA 816-K-05-001
Washington, D.C. May 2005. Available at www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data_factoids_2004.pdf.
4 U.S. EPA. "EPA's Beach Program: 2004 Swimming Season Update." EPA-823-F-05-006. Washington, DC, July 2005. Available at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/2004fs.html.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Available at
www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hurricane Response 2005: Week 2." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website.
Available at www.epa.gov/katrina/activities/week2.html.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Hurricane Response 2005: Current Activities (October 26, 2005)." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Website. Available at www.epa.gov/katrina/activities.html-2oct26.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National TMDL [total maximum daily load] Tracking System (NTTS) and Assessment
Data Base (ADB) within Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results (WATERS).
9 Indian Health Service Sanitation Deficiency System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program records for Clean Water
Indian Set-Aside Program.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Coastal Condition Report II, December 2004. More information available at
www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 National Water Quality Inventory Report, August 2002. More information available
at www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/toc.pdf
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of American Indian Environmental Office. "Measures of Access to Drinking Water
and Sanitation Facilities for American Indians and Alaska Natives." 2003.
-------
Strategic Goal 3:
Overview of Goal 3
Under this goal, EPA works to
ensure proper management of haz-
ardous and solid wastes; promote
recycling, waste minimization, and
energy recovery; assess and clean up
contaminated sites; revitalize con-
taminated land and restore it to
beneficial use; and bolster home-
land security. The Agency works
closely with its state, tribal, and
local government partners, as
well as with many stakeholders—
nongovernmental organizations,
industry associations, Federal
Advisory Committee Act groups,
and others—to implement and
oversee these efforts.
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund) and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) provide the legal
authority for most of this work. The
Agency and its partners use
Superfund authority to clean up
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites and return the land to
productive use. Under RCRA, EPA
works with states and tribes to
address risks associated with leaking
Contributing Programs
RCRA Waste Management
RCRA Corrective Action
RCRA Waste Minimization
Superfund Emergency Preparedness
Superfund Remedial
Superfund Enforcement
Superfund Removal
Federal Facilities
Oil Spills
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Underground Storage Tank
Compliance
Land Science and Research Program
Homeland Security
underground storage tanks and with
the hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes generated or managed at
industrial facilities. EPA also uses
authorities provided under the Clean
Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 to protect
against spills and releases of haz-
ardous materials.1
Working with its partners and
stakeholders, EPA made progress
toward meeting its hazardous waste
cleanup and prevention goals for
FY 2005. The Agency's waste man-
agement and emergency response
programs are restoring contaminated
land to make it economically produc-
tive or available as green space. Like
the Brownfields program discussed
under Goal 4, these revitalization
efforts complement traditional
cleanup programs and enable affected
communities to reuse contaminated
lands in beneficial ways. EPA contin-
ues to review how revitalization
efforts are measured across its
cleanup programs and exploring
opportunities for new or improved
ways to capture these accomplish-
ments.2
•
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
EPA's waste management pro-
grams work to reduce the amount
of waste generated and increase
recycling. The Agency and its
partners are focusing their efforts
on large waste streams that offer
the greatest opportunities for
increased recycling—such as
paper, organics, and packaging
and containers. EPA's Resource
Conservation Challenge (RCC) is
a voluntary program that increases
regulatory flexibility, promotes
opportunities for converting waste
to economically viable products,
and encourages resource conserva-
tion through efficient materials
management.3 The RCC encour-
ages participants to reduce more
waste, reuse and recycle more
products, buy more recycled and
recyclable products, and reduce
toxic chemicals in waste.
Under Goal 3, EPA also
strives to prevent releases of haz-
ardous wastes that could harm the
land and to clean up accidental
and intentional releases when
they do occur. To help prevent
releases at hazardous waste man-
agement facilities, the Agency and
its partners issue RCRA hazardous
waste permits that mandate appro-
priate controls for each site. EPA
met its FY 2005 goal to increase
to 80 percent the number of
RCRA hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities with permits or
other approved controls in place,
and the Agency expects to bring
95 percent of its facilities' baseline
under approved controls by
FY 2008. To help detect and pre-
vent releases from underground
storage tanks (USTs) containing
gasoline and other petroleum or
chemical products, EPA is work-
ing to increase tank owners' and
Qoal 3 At a Qlance
FY 2OO5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS (APGs)
Met = 2 Not Met = 3
Data Available After November 15, 2005 = 2
CTotal APGs = 7)
FY 2005 Obligations
(in thousands)
Goal I G°l5
$987,796 *787'535
FY 2005 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$990,489
(11.6%)
Goal 2
$3,507,201
(41.3%)
EPA Total = $10,125,983
EPA Total = $8,500,594
FY 2OO5 "REPORT CARD"
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE
APG
STATUS
OBJECTIVE I-PRESERVE LAND
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste gen-
eration, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management
of waste and petroleum products and facilities in ways that
prevent releases.
OBJECTIVE 2-RESTORE LAND
By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment
by mitigating the impact of accidental or intentional releases and
by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites or properties to
appropriate levels.
• i
OBJECTIVE 3-ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring
land by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of the environmental
outcomes under Goal 3.
0 Net
0 Not Met
2TBD
I Met
3 Not Met
OTBD
I Met
0 Not Met
OTBD
operators' compliance with UST
leak prevention and detection
requirements. Additionally, EPA's
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) program completed
6,181 cleanups through the end of
March 2005,4 and end-of-year data
that are currently undergoing
quality assurance/quality control
indicate that EPA's state partners
completed 14,583 UST cleanups,
thus meeting the target of 14,500s.
By the end of FY 2005,
cleanups have also been complet-
ed at 966 Superfund sites on the
National Priority List (NPL). EPA
expects to continue completing
construction at NPL sites at the
current rate of 40 sites per year. In
addition, the Agency conducts
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and/or supports removal assess-
ments and emergency responses
and completes approximately 195
Superfund-led removal actions
every year.
EPA is improving its emer-
gency preparedness and response
capabilities, particularly in terms
of homeland security. During
FY 2005, for example, EPA sup-
ported the Department of
Homeland Security in implement-
ing the National Response Plan,
the National Information
Management System, and the
National Approach to Response.
The Agency has also enhanced
the nation's decontamination
capabilities by establishing a
National Decontamination Team
and developing and implementing
a National Decontamination
Strategy. Finally, EPA's research in
support of this goal helps to accel-
erate development of scientifically
defensible, cost-effective waste
management and remediation
methods.
Response to Hurricane Katrina
In an ongoing response to the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina, hun-
dreds of EPA's emergency response personnel have been working virtually
nonstop along the Gulf Coast as an integral part of the federal team imple-
menting the National Response Plan. Many others have been providing the
on-scene responders with 24-hour-a-day support from the Emergency
Operations Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
EPA teamed with the U.S. Coast Guard to respond to reported spills
and releases of oil and chemicals. By the end of FY 2005, EPA had
responded to more than 150 reported spills.
EPA took hundreds of floodwater samples to determine the kinds and
extent of possible contamination, both biological and chemical. In late
September 2005, EPA's ocean water testing vessel, the Bold, began tak-
ing samples of water quality, benthos, and fish tissues in the Gulf of
Mexico in the plume of the Mississippi River.
Along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA worked on disposing
of the enormous amounts of hazardous waste and other debris left
behind by Hurricane Katrina, establishing several sites for debris collec-
tion. During September 2005, the EPA team collected more than 50,000
unsecured or abandoned containers of potentially hazardous wastes.
<*^C\.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Goal 3 Strategic Objectives
Strategic
Objective 1—
Preserve Land
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to
land by reducing waste generation,
increasing recycling, and ensuring
proper management of waste and
petroleum products and facilities in
ways that prevent releases.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
While recycling in the
United States has generally
increased, recycling of specific
materials has grown even more:
42 percent of all paper, 40 per-
cent of all plastic soft drink
bottles, 55 percent of all alu-
minum beverage cans, 57 percent
of all steel packaging, and 52 per-
cent of all major appliances are
now recycled. To achieve nation-
al recycling goals, the Agency has
developed alliances with manufac-
turers, communities, and
governments to foster a new
recycling infrastructure to reclaim
valuable materials. As a result,
EPA expects that these collabora-
tive efforts will encourage higher
recycling rates in future years.
EPA's waste management pro-
grams are focusing on the largest
waste streams offering the
greatest opportunities to increase
recycling: paper, organics, and
packaging and containers. The
Agency expects that the nation
will meet the 2008 challenge of
recycling 35 percent of municipal
solid waste and generating a level
of no more than 4.5 pounds of
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I—PRESERVE LAND
3.1
3.2
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum
Products Properly
FY 2005 data available in
and FY 2009
X Not met in FY 2003
X Not met in FY 2002
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
X Not met in FY 2004
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 3, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 3, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
($69,216.6)
Restore Land
90.4%
($3,077,921.0)
Enhance Science
and Research
/ 3.0%
($101,822.3)
Restore Land
84.5%
($1,703,458.2)
Goal 3Total = $3,403,71 1.5
waste per capita daily.
EPA's primary strategy for pre-
venting hazardous waste releases is
issuing hazardous waste permits,
which mandate appropriate con-
trols for each site. EPA exceeded
its long-term 2005 goal of bring-
ing 80 percent of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)-regulated hazardous
waste facilities under approved
controls.
EPA expects to meet its
FY 2005 goal for increasing the
combined compliance rate by
1 percent from 64 to 65 percent
for significant operational compli-
ance with leak prevention and
Goal 3 Total = $2,015,874.0
leak detection requirements for
underground storage tanks, and
was on track to meet this goal at
mid-year.
CHALLENGES
EPA is developing partner-
ships with manufacturers,
communities, and governments to
address the increasing variety and
volume of obsolete electronic
products entering the waste
stream and increase recycling.
Also, EPA will initiate a challenge
to major industries to encourage
the "early retirement" of devices
containing mercury.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic
Objective 2—
Restore Land
By 2008, control the risks to human
health and the environment by miti-
gating the impact of accidental or
intentional releases and by cleaning
up and restoring contaminated sites
or properties to appropriate levels.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
The Superfund Remedial
Program and Federal Facilities
Response Program manage the
risks to human health and the
environment at contaminated
properties or sites through
cleanup, stabilization, or other
action, making land available for
reuse. The Superfund program has
met or exceeded its FY 2005 goals
for which data are available.
Under the RCRA corrective
action program, final remedies are
the long-term objective. These will
be tracked beginning in FY 2006.
Currently the program uses two
indicators to assess the quality of
the environment in relation to cur-
rent human exposures to
contamination and the migration
of contaminated ground water. For
FY 2005, the program achieved its
annual target for the human expo-
sure indicator, but did not meet the
target for the groundwater migra-
tion indicator. However, through
the efforts of EPA's state partners,
the program achieved both of its
long-term cumulative goals.
The Superfund Enforcement
Program's "Enforcement First"
strategy allows EPA to focus limit-
ed trust fund resources on sites
where potentially responsible par-
ties do not exist or lack the funds
or capabilities needed to conduct
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—RESTORE LAND
APG # APG
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Assess and Clean Up Contaminated Land
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party
Participation
Superfund Cost Recovery
Prepare For and Respond to Accidental
and Intentional Releases
X Not met in FY 2005
tr Assessment goal met in FY 2004
X Cleanup goal not met in FY 2004
Met in FY 2005
Met FY 2004 goals
X Not met in FY 2005
Met FY 2004 goals
X Not met in FY 2005
Met FY 2004 goals
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 3, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 3, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
($101,822.3)
Preserve Land
6.6%
($223,968.2)
Enhance Science
and Research
($69,216.6)
Preserve Land
12.1%
($243,199.2)
Goal 3Total = $3,403,711.5
the cleanup. The "Smart
Enforcement" strategy focuses
resources on the most significant
problems and uses the most appro-
priate enforcement or compliance
tools to achieve the best outcomes.
Based on current data, EPA
expects to meet both Superfund
enforcement goals for FY 2005.
Oil and chemical accidents
can devastate communities and
the environment. EPA continues
to improve the capacity of our
national responders to plan for
and respond to both accidental
and intentional releases.
Goal 3 Total = $2,015,874.0
CHALLENGES
EPA faces challenges in bal-
ancing limited resources between
beginning construction at an
increasing number of projects and
maintaining an optimal pace of
remedial action at several ongo-
ing, large, and complex sites. In
addition, as the Superfund pro-
gram has matured, the Agency has
needed to devote more resources
toward post-construction activi-
ties, including long-term remedial
actions and 5-year reviews.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Strategic
Objective 3—
Enhance Science
and Research
Provide and apply sound science for
protecting and restoring land by con-
ducting leading-edge research and
developing a better understanding
and characterization of the environ-
mental outcomes under Goal 3.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA conducts sound, leading-
edge scientific research to provide
a foundation for preserving land
quality and remediating contami-
nated land. The research program
focuses the important issues of
contaminated sediments, ground
water contaminated transport and
remediation, and site characteriza-
tion. In addition, the research
program provides site-specific
technical support. Research on
waste management, resource con-
servation, and multimedia
modeling supports the Agency's
regulatory activities in areas such
as waste-derived products, model-
ing to support risk assessment
activities, landfill issues, and the
Resource Conservation
Challenge.
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
demonstrations are performed to
independently document innova-
tive remediation technology or
monitoring and measurement
approaches so that project
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
3.7
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for
the Site Cleanup
|r Goal met in FY 2005
Met FY 2004 goals
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 3, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 3, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Restore Land
90.4%
($3.077.921.0)
Enhance Science
and Research
($101.822.3)
Restore Land
84.5%
($1.703.458.2)
X
Enhance Science
and Research
3.4%
($69,216.6)
Preserve Land
12.1%
($243.199.2)
.Preserve Land
^ 6.6%
($223.968.2)
Goal 3Total = $3,403,71 1.5
managers can more confidently
select new technologies.
Through June 2005, EPA has
completed 137 remediation tech-
nology demonstrations and 40
measuring and monitoring demon-
strations (www.epa.gov/ORD/
SITE/quarterly/022005/stats.htm).
Demonstration reports are posted
on the SITE Web site
(www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/), and
results from the projects are incor-
porated into REACH IT
(www.epareachit.org/), a Web-
accessible technology selection
tool that provides project man-
agers with information on
characterization and remediation
technologies by contaminant type
and site type.
Goal 3 Total = $2,015,874.0
CHALLENGES
As the Superfund program has
matured, innovative approaches
evaluated through the SITE pro-
gram have become standard tools
for remediation. As a result, the
program will conclude demonstra-
tions of innovative remediation,
monitoring, and measurement
approaches in FY 2006. The
research program will continue to
conduct problem-driven research
to produce methods and models to
meet the target for developing or
evaluating 40 scientific tools in
the FY 2010 long-term goal, estab-
lished in FY 2003.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 3 Annual Performance Goals
Strategic Objective 1—Preserve Land
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing
recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products and
facilities in ways that prevent releases.
APG 3.1
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
PERFORMANCE
APG 3.1 focuses on increasing
the nation's recycling efforts to
conserve resources, reduce energy
consumption, and reduce green-
house gases associated with
materials that are disposed of,
rather than recycled.
Data reported in FY 2005
show that EPA did not meet its
FY 2003 target of 74 million tons
of municipal solid waste (MSW)
diverted. EPA exceeded its goal of
maintaining the amount of waste
generated to 4.5 pounds per per-
son per day. Recycling, including
composting, diverted 72 million
tons of material away from dispos-
al in 2003, up from 15 million
tons in 1980, when the recycling
rate was just 10 percent and 90
percent of MSW was being dis-
posed. Furthermore, U.S.
residents, businesses, and institu-
tions produced more than 236
million tons of MSW in 2003,
which is approximately 4.4
pounds of waste per person per
day. In response, EPA is directing
its efforts toward large quantity
waste streams that present oppor-
tunities to increase recycling—
paper, organics (yard trimmings
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2007
AND FY 2009
FY 2005: Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 35% or
82.7 million tons) of municipal solid waste from landfilling and combu
tion, and maintain per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid wastes
at 4.5 pounds per day.
Performance Measures
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
• Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted.
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid
waste. (PART)
Planned
82.7M
SIM
4.5 Ibs
Actual
Data avail 2009
Data avail 2007
DATA
AVAILABLE FY 2004: Same goal, different targets.
FY 2006 6 6
(Performance measures are included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
79 M
4.5 Ibs
Actual
Data avail 2006
X
GOAL NOT FY 2003: Same goal, different targets.
FY 2003
(Performance measures are included in the annual
goal above.)
mam
Planned
74 M
4.5 Ibs
Actual
72.3 X
4.4 Ibs •
Mf °roR FY 2002: Same goal, different targets.
FY 2002
(Performance measures are included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
69 M
4.5 Ibs
Actual
70M |/
4.5 Ibs. •
Data Source(s): Data are provided via a methodology that utilizes m Aerials production and consumption data from various
industnes.This informatioi i is conected by the u .\ tment of Comn lerce, Additional facts and figures about municipal solid
waste (MSW) generation and recycling in the United c ~e found in the following Web sites, Also, intimation about
specific EPA programs such as WasteWise and environmentally beneficial landscapes (Greenscapes) is available as follows:
wwvvepa.gov/msw, wwwepa.gov/epr, wwwepa.gov/wastewise, www,epa.gov/greenscapes, http //yosemiteepa.gov/oar/
globalwarming.nsf/content/ActionsWaste.html, wwwepa.gov/ef ^r/non-hw/muncpl/msw99,htm,
wwwepa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/action-plan/act-p I ,htm,
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling, 2000-2003
Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 1960-2003
and food scraps), and packaging
and containers.6 Furthermore,
U.S. residents, businesses and
institutions produced more than
236 million tons of MSW in
2003, which is approximately
4.4 pounds of waster per person
per day.
To implement this strategy,
the Agency is: (1) establishing
and expanding partnerships with
businesses, industries, states,
communities, and consumers;
(2) stimulating infrastructure
development, new technologies,
and environmentally responsible
behavior by product manufactur-
ers, users, and disposers; and
(3) providing education, outreach,
and technical assistance to
businesses, government, institu-
tions, and consumers. For
example, EPA is working with
communities, industry, and gov-
ernment to make paper recycling
a routine business practice. To
address the increasing variety and
volume of obsolete electronic
products entering the waste
stream and increase recycling,
EPA is allied with manufacturers,
communities, and governments to
foster a new recycling infrastruc-
ture that will reclaim valuable
materials. As a result of these
efforts, EPA anticipates meeting
the 2008 challenge of recycling 35
percent of MSW and generating a
level of no more than 4.5 pounds
of waste per capita daily.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-33-C-34.
CHALLENGES
A number of factors influence
the national recycling rate,
including the economy, the
increase in convenience packag-
ing, and the increase in waste
generated away from the home.
EPA achieved a 30.6 percent
recycling rate for 2003, an
increase of 0.7 percent over the
2002 recycling rate of 29.9 per-
cent. If the Agency can maintain
a 0.7 percent increase each year,
it should reach a 32 percent
recycling rate in 2005. However,
to reach the goal of 35 percent
recycling by 2008, the rate would
need to increase by 1 percent
per year.
As recycling increases each year,
achieving additional incremental
increases becomes more difficult.
EPA continues to foster progress
through non-regulatory activities
that leverage and mobilize public
and private organizations across
the United States.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the RCRA Base
Permits and Grants program
related to this APG in the 2004
PART process.The program
received an adequate rating.
Program Evaluations
EPA report: "Evaluation of Three
RCRA Regulations Designed to
Foster Increased Recycling."
Additional information on this
report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B.
Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation report: "Evaluation of
the Interagency Open Dump
Cleanup Program for Tribes."
Additional information on this
report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix B,
page B-14.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 3.2
Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Properly
PERFORMANCE
EPA's primary approach to pre-
venting releases of hazardous waste
is issuing facility permits that man-
date appropriate controls for each
site. EPA exceeded its long-term
2005 strategic target of bringing 80
percent of facilities approved con-
trols, primarily due to focused state
efforts to permit backlogged facili-
ties. As appropriate, many of these
facilities were able to "have
approved controls to prevent dan-
gerous releases" by means other
than permits. EPA assisted states
in identifying solutions for unusual
situations (such as applying the
post-closure rule in lieu of a per-
mit) and resolved many data issues
while assessing facilities to bring
them under approved controls.
The cumulative status at the end
of FY 2005 was 90 percent. During
FY 2005 alone, 3.1 percent (or 84)
of 2,751 regulated facilities were
brought under approved controls.
EPA is currently on target to
have 95 percent of these facilities
under approved controls by the
end of 2008. The baseline for this
measure has been updated for the
FY 2006-2008 cycle, eliminating
double-counting of about 300
facilities that had both operating
units and post-closure units,
including facilities that came on
the permitting track after October
1, 1997, and removing facilities
that do not fit the criteria. In the
future, most modifications to the
baseline will be made at the unit
level; however, a few changes at
the facility level are likely due to
facilities splitting, data corrections,
or other unforeseen activities.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous
wastes and petroleum products properly.
Performance Measures
• Percent increase of RCRA hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities with permits or other approved
controls. (PART)
• Number of confirmed UST releases nationally
• Percent increase of UST facilities that are in signifi-
cant operational compliance with both release
detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection requirements).
Planned
2.8%
< 10,000
+1 % from
baseline of
64%
Actual
3.1%
Data avai
FY2006
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY 2004
FY 2004: Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous
wastes and petroleum products properly.
Performance Measures
• RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with
permits or other approved controls. (PART)
• Confirmed UST releases nationally.
• Increase in UST facilities in significant operational
compliance with leak detection requirements.
• Increase in UST facilities in significant operational
compliance with spill, 4% overfill and corrosion
protection regulations.
Planned
2.4%
4%
Actual
3.7%
7,848
X
X
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the RCRA Base Program, Permits and Grants program related to
this APG in the 2004 PART process.The program received an adequate rating.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
301 I State and Tribal Grants (STAG)—RCRA authorizes EPA to assist
states through the Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants program,
which provides for implementing an authorized hazardous waste manage-
ment program.These programs authorize permits to industrial facilities that
generate, transport, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous wastes, and
include corrective action to control and clean up releases at facilities that
manage hazardous waste. STAG funding also supports tribes, where appro-
priate, in conducting hazardous waste work on tribal lands.
To prevent releases from
underground storage tanks
(USTs), EPA and its partners
ensure that UST systems are in
significant operational compliance
with required release detection
and release prevention equipment
and that the equipment is used,
functioning, and properly main-
tained. In FY 2004, the two
performance measures for UST
facility compliance were not met;
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
RCRA Permitting Progress
-Progress Toward the FY 2005 Goals
(National Results: 90%)
Confirmed Releases: Nationwide
therefore, the APG was not met.
Nationally, the compliance rate of
UST facilities was 7 7 percent for
release prevention (or 6 percent
below the target rate of 83 per-
cent), and 72 percent for leak
detection (or 4 percent below the
target rate of 76 percent). Because
these rates represent a snapshot in
time such that some UST facili-
ties that are compliant 1 year may
be out of compliance the follow-
ing year, reporting of a new
combined significant operational
compliance measure began in FY
2004. The new measure was
developed jointly by EPA and the
states, setting a target of increas-
ing the combined leak prevention
and leak detection measure for
USTs nationwide by
1 percent each year through
FY 2008, using the baseline com-
pliance rate of 64 percent for that
year. End-of-year performance
data for the UST compliance pro-
gram will be available in
December 2005; however, as of
midyear, EPA was on track to
meet the target compliance rate.
Additionally, as of March 2005,
there were only 1,574 confirmed
releases, indicating the continuing
decline in releases nationwide.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-33-C-35.
CHALLENGES
Hazardous waste facilities that
remain to be brought under con-
trol often present complex
management issues. For example,
a relatively large percentage of
boilers and industrial furnaces
(BIFs) need to be brought under
control, and many have been
waiting for the Hazardous Waste
Combustion Maximum
Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) rule to be finalized
before they complete permitting.
Furthermore, because BIFs are
complex and controversial facili-
ties, more time is required to
evaluate technical information,
address risks, and deal with public
concerns. Large federal facilities,
particularly those with nontradi-
tional treatment units, also prove
difficult to bring under approved
controls. EPA is working with
states to develop strategies for
addressing these types of facilities.
Strategic Objective 2—Restore Land
By 2008, control the risks to human health and the environment by mitigating the impact
of accidental or intentional releases and by cleaning up and restoring contaminated sites
or properties to appropriate levels.
APG 3.3 Assess and Clean Up Contaminated Land
PERFORMANCE
Qoal Not Met: In FY 2005, the
Superfund program met most of its
performance measures. The graph
below shows the number of con-
struction completions annually
and final deleted NPL sites by the
program since its inception. In
FY 2005, 40 construction
completions were achieved.
The efficiency measure
(percentage of Superfund spend-
ing obligated site-specifically) was
not met. During FY 2003, when
the measure and targets were
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
developed, the Agency relied on
preliminary, internally generated
data that did not use formally
accepted data extraction or calcu-
lation methods. As a result, the
FY 2003 site-specific percentage of
55 percent was used as a starting
point for future year targets. Since
then, the methodology for deter-
mining the Agency site-specific
percentage was finalized and
applied to FYs 2004 and 2005
data. Results indicate that EPA
increased its Agency-wide site-
specific obligations from 53.6
percent in FY 2004 to 54.3 per-
cent in FY 2005, but did not meet
the target of 56 percent. However,
formal data extraction methods
were not developed until FY 2005
and could not be applied to prior
year (neither FY 2003 nor FY
2004) data. Consequently, EPA
recommends establishing a new
baseline of 54.3 percent and is
working with OMB to establish
new out-year targets.
EPA also conducted a compre-
hensive reassessment of the data
used to determine the number of
Superfund sites with human expo-
sures controlled in order to
improve how actual conditions are
accounted for at these sites.
Because the reassessment process
continued through November
2005, no end of year result for this
measure is available. The program
expects to revise the definition of
the performance measure to
include achieving more perma-
nent, long-term control and
protection at these sites, and set a
new baseline by the end of calen-
dar year 2005.
The RCRA Corrective
Action Program uses two indica-
tors to assess the quality of the
k FY 2005: Control the risks to human health and the environment at
GOAL contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other
NOT MET action, and make land available for reuse.
Performance Measures
• Number of Superfund final site assessment decisions.
(PART:
• Number of Superfund construction completions.
(PART:
• Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with
human exposures controlled. (PART)
• Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with
ground water migration controlled. (PART)
• Percentage of Superfund spending obligated site-
specifically. (PART)
• Number of final remedies (cleanup targets)
selected at Superfund sites.
• Number of high priority RCRA facilities with human
exposures to toxins controlled. (PART)
• Number of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic
releases to ground water controlled. (PART)
• Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed
state risk-based standards for human exposure and
ground water migration. (Tracked as: Number of
leaking underground storage tank cleanups complet-
ed.) (PART)
• Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed
risk-based standards for human exposure and
ground water migration in Indian country. (Tracked
as: Number of leaking underground storage tank
cleanups completed in Indian country.) (PART)
Planned
500
40
10
10
56%
20
190
203
14,500
Actual
55
below
23
54.3%
39
209
142
50
X
X
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY 2004
FY 2004: Control the risks to human health and the environment at
contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other
action, and make land available for reuse.
Performance Measures
• Superfund final site assessment decisions. (PART)
• Superfund construction completions. (PART)
• Superfund hazardous waste sites with human expo-
sures controlled. (PART)
• Superfund hazardous waste sites with ground water
migration controlled. (PART)
• Final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at
Superfund sites.
• High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures
to toxins controlled. (PART)
• High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to
ground water controlled. (PART)
• LUST cleanups completed.
Planned
500
40
10
10
20
166
129
2 1 ,000
Actual
548
40
15
18
31
195
150
14,285
•
•
X
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Number of Construction Completions
and Final/Deleted NPL Sites
Decreasing UST National Cleanup Backlog
:3^i
^^TJ
Fiscal Year
environment in relation to cur-
rent human exposures to
contamination and the migration
of contaminated ground water. In
FY 1998, the program set long-
term cumulative goals for these
two indicators to be achieved by
the end of FY 2005. These goals
are to control human exposures at
95 percent of the 1,714 highest
priority facilities and to control
the migration of contaminated
ground water at 70 percent of
these facilities. For FY 2005, the
program achieved its annual target
for the human exposure indicator,
but did not meet the target for the
ground water migration indicator.
However, through the efforts of
our state partners, the program
achieved both of its long-term
cumulative goals.
Human Exposure
In FY 2006, the program will
expand its focus to stabilizing only
the highest priority facilities (as
measured by the two environmen-
tal indicators) to putting final
remedies in place. The program's
goals for FY 2008 are to have final
remedies selected at 30 percent of
the 1,968 highest priority facilities
(represents new baseline) and
final remedies constructed at 20
percent of these facilities.
For FY 2005, data currently
undergoing quality assurance/qual-
ity control indicate that EPA's
state partners completed 14,583
UST cleanups, thus meeting the
target of 14,500.7 The Agency has
been working with state partners
to evaluate cleanup targets for
future years in light of new
RCRA Environmental Indicators
Fiscal Year
pressures that have slowed the
pace of cleanups in recent years,
including a backlog of more com-
plex sites, the more frequent
discovery of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) contamination,
and increased administrative and
legal burdens associated with site
cleanup. In FY 2004, EPA's state
partners completed 14,285 of the
targeted 21,000 UST cleanups;
therefore the APG was not met.
Through March 2005, 6,181 UST
cleanups had been completed,
thereby decreasing the UST
national cleanup backlog to
125,221.8
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-36-C-39.
Groundwater Migration
if
u
•5
I
£
230
205
1971
195
209
172
179
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
2004
2005
2005
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Superfund
Remedial program related to this
APG in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an adequate
rating. OMB is assessing the
Superfund Federal Facilities pro-
gram related to this APG in the
2005 PART process. Results will be
included in the FY 2007 President's
Budget. OMB assessed the RCRA
Corrective Action program related
to this APG in the 2003 PART
process.The program received an
adequate rating. OMB reassessed
the LUST program related to this
APG most recently in the 2004
PART process.The program
received an adequate rating.
Program Evaluations
Details on the following evaluations
completed during FY 2005 are
available in Appendix B—Program
Evaluations, pages B-12-B-15.
• The Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) report: "EPA Can
Better Manage Superfund
Resources."
• OIG report: "Response Action
Contracts: Structure and
Administration Needs
Improvement."
• OIG report: "EPA Practices for
Identifying and Inventorying
Hazardous Sites Could Assist in
Similar Department of the
Interior Efforts."
• GAO evaluation: "Improved
Effectiveness of Controls at Sites
Could Better Protect the
Public."
• Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation evalu-
ation: "An Internal Review of
Procedures for Community
Involvement in Superfund Risk
Assessments."
Additional program evaluation
information:
• Super-fund's Federal Facilities
Response Program completed an
evaluation entitled "Measuring
ERA's Value-Added to the
Department of Defense (DoD)
Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) Program."
• ERA's Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Innovation conducted an evalua-
tion entitled "Superfund
Community Involvement Impact
Assessment of the Woolfolk
Chemical Works Site in Fort
Valley, Georgia."
• The Superfund program initiated
evaluations on site-specific payroll
charging practices and processes,
long-term ground water monitor-
ing plans using newly developed
optimization tools, and communi-
ty involvement in risk assessment.
• OIG report:"The Role of
Superfund NPL: State Cleanup
Program."
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This APG
EPA awards six types of Superfund
cooperative agreements to states,
political subdivisions of states, fed-
erally recognized Indian tribes, and
U.S. territories.These intergovern-
mental partners help EPA achieve
its strategic goals by sharing the
responsibilities for cleaning up sites
on the NPL.
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
are an important tool for involving
the local community meaningfully in
the cleanup process. By providing
independent technical expertise to
local communities,TAGs help com-
munity members better understand
the technical issues affecting site
cleanups, the risks associated with
site contamination, and options for
effective and safe site remediation.
The Technical Outreach Services for
Communities (TOSC) Program pro-
vides free, independent, university-
based technical assistance to
communities facing hazardous waste
contamination issues that do not
qualify for TAGs. Created in 1994,
TOSC has provided more than 200
communities with an independent
understanding of technical issues
related to hazardous substance
contamination, enabling them to
participate substantively in the
decision-making process.
STAG grants support the RCRA
Corrective Action Program and
help to control human exposure
to toxins and toxic releases to
ground water at high priority
RCRA facilities.
Under LUST Cooperative
Agreements, EPA awarded funds to
50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, four U.S. territories,
and 10 tribes. Funding to tribes
helped to address a contaminated
LUST site on the Onondaga Indian
Nation, provide equipment for tribal
inspectors, build LUST program
capacity, and oversee LUST program
implementation.
Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tank. EPA provides funding
to states,Tribes, and/or Intertribal
Consortia through these grants to
encourage owners and operators
to properly operate and maintain
their USTs. Major activities focus
on ensuring that owners/ operators
routinely and correctly monitor all
regulated tanks and piping in accor-
dance with UST regulations as well
as developing state programs with
sufficient authority and enforce-
ment capabilities to operate in lieu
of the Federal program.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
CHALLENGES
While the Superfund program
met most of its FY 2005 perform-
ance targets, it faced significant
challenges. EPA must address a
large and increasing number of
projects ready to begin construc-
tion while maintaining the pace
of ongoing cleanups at several
large, complex sites. In addition,
as the program has matured, it has
been required to increase post-
construction activities, including
long-term remedial actions and
5-year reviews. To meet these
challenges, the Agency has pro-
posed to focus additional resources
toward construction beginning in
FY 2007 by redirecting resources
from other response and response-
support activities in earlier phases
of the Superfund cleanup process
into construction. (Relates to
management challenges discussed
in Section III, page 184.)
The RCRA Corrective Action
Program also faced complexities
in addressing remaining facilities.
During FY 2005, many of the
facilities posed difficult challenges
to controlling human exposures
such as addressing wide-spread
contamination, intrusion of toxic
vapors, ingestion of contaminated
fish, and bankrupt or nonexistent
owners. As a result, EPA and
authorized states shifted their
resources from controlling migra-
tion of contaminated ground water
to ensuring that humans were not
exposed to contamination at as
many facilities as possible.
APG 3.4 Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participation
PERFORMANCE
EPA met this goal for FY 2005.
EPA is committed to identifying
liable Potential Responsible Parties
(PRPs) at contaminated sites and
to taking enforcement actions at
90 percent of those sites before
remedial action begins. By securing
private party commitments to
clean up hazardous waste sites,
EPA ensures that trust fund money
is used only when absolutely neces-
sary. Settlements or enforcement
actions included Consent Decrees,
Administrative Orders on
Consent, Consent Agreements,
Unilateral Administrative Orders,
^ FY 2005: Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the
GOAL MET start °f Remedial Action (RA) at 90 percent of non-federal Superfund
sites that have viable, liable parties.
Performance Measure
• Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement
or enforcement action is taken before the start of
an RA.
Planned
90%
Actual
100% |/
voluntary cost recovery actions, or
litigation referral.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-40.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Civil
Enforcement program, which
includes Superfund Enforcement,
most recently in 2004. The pro-
gram received an adequate rating.
APG 3.5 Superfund Cost Recovery
PERFORMANCE
Qoal Not Met: Through enforce-
ment, settlement, or compromise/
write-off, cost recovery was
addressed at 195 NPL and non-
NPL sites, of which 94 of the 95
cost recovery cases had outstand-
ing unaddressed past costs greater
than $200,000 and pending
statute of limitations (SOL)
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund
the work and recover 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.
Performance Measure
• Refer to Department of Justice, settle, or write
off 100% of Statute of Limitations cases for
Superfund sites with total unaddressed past costs
equal to or greater than $200,000 and report
value of costs recovered.
Planned
100%
Actual
99%
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annual Response and Cost Recovery Settlements, FY 1996-FY 2005
,336—1,329"
concerns. Decision documents for
the remaining case were signed
soon after the end of the fiscal
year, and costs associated with it
were written-off because the attor-
neys concluded that there were no
viable, liable parties at the site. In
FY 2005, EPA secured private
party commitments for cleanup
and cost recovery that exceeded
$1.1 billion.
Fiscal Year
EPA continues to pursue the
"Enforcement First" strategy to
focus limited trust fund resources
on sites where PRPs do not exist
or lack the funds or capabilities
needed to conduct the cleanup.
By taking enforcement actions at
sites where viable, liable parties
exist, EPA will continue to lever-
age private-party dollars to clean
up hazardous waste sites so that
trust fund money is used only
when absolutely necessary.
EPA relies on "Smart
Enforcement" to focus program
resources on the most significant
problems and to use the most
appropriate enforcement and com-
pliance tools to achieve the best
outcomes.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-40.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Civil
Enforcement program, which
includes Superfund Enforcement,
most recently in 2004. The pro-
gram received an adequate rating.
APG 3.6
Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
PERFORMANCE
Qoal Not Met: Although this
annual performance goal was not
met, it includes several new per-
formance measures that better
track environmental progress for
the Superfund removal and oil
spill programs as a result of PART
reviews. Among the existing
measures, the Agency missed the
target for responding to or moni-
toring 300 oil spills, however, the
program participated actively in
the 260 that occurred within
EPA's jurisdiction. Given that the
number of oil spills that require
EPA's participation fluctuates from
year to year, the Agency cannot
accurately predict a target for this
measure. However, EPA ensured
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and inten-
tional releases of harmful substances by improving our nation's capability
to prepare for and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
Performance Measures
• Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.
• Number of inspections and exercises conducted
at oil storage facilities that are required to have
Facility Response Plans (FRP).
• Number of Superfund lead removal response actions
completed. (PART)
• Voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, complet-
ed. (PART)
• Superfund removal actions completed annually per
million dollars. (PART)
• Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
regulations. (PART)
• Compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to FRP
regulations. (PART)
• Percentage of emergency response readiness
improvement. 2003 Baseline: 82%
Planned
300
360
195
1 10
0.9
100%
100%
10%
Actual
260
335
172
137
1.54
100%
77%
10%
X
X
X
X
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
that all oil spills within its juris-
diction were properly evaluated
and addressed.
With respect to the newly
external measure that tracks FRP
facility inspections, the target to
inspect 6 percent of these facilities
nationwide was set in FY 2003
using an inaccurate estimate of
the universe of facilities. Recent
data assessment efforts with EPA's
regional offices have indicated
that there are approximately 5,000
facilities subject to FRP regula-
tions rather than 6,000; thus the
target should have been set at 300
rather than 360. The actual num-
ber of facilities inspected was 335.
The Agency also missed the
target for completing 195
Superfund-lead removal actions.
EPA completed 23 less than
expected due to the difficulty of
predicting accurately the number
of time-critical and emergency
response actions that are identi-
fied and referred to EPA by the
states or other agencies; an
increase in the scope of response
needed at several actions follow-
ing the initiation of field work;
and greater than anticipated par-
ticipation by Agency staff in
support of emergency preparedness
activities and response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The compliance rate of facili-
ties subject to FRP regulations was
77 percent primarily because the
determination of compliance is
not consistent among EPA region-
al offices. The program will issue
national guidance next year to
provide a consistent definition for
compliance at these facilities.
EPA continues to improve the
capacity of our national respon-
ders to plan for and respond to
accidental and intentional releas-
es. The Agency is identifying and
monitoring the key elements and
standards of an emergency
response and homeland security
program, inspecting and conduct-
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is reassessing the
Superfund Removal program and
assessing the Oil Spill program
related to this APG in the 2005
PART process. Results will be
included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
ing response plan exercises at
higher risk oil storage facilities,
and tracking the number of chem-
ical and oil incidents to which
EPA responds or monitors.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-35.
CHALLENGES
EPA will strive to maintain an
effective and efficient emergency
planning and response program
while addressing any new home-
land security issues that arise.
Strategic Objective 3—Enhance Science and Research
Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-
edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of the
environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
APG 3.7
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for the Site Cleanup
PERFORMANCE
EPA conducts sound, leading-
edge scientific research to provide
a foundation for preserving land
quality and remediating contami-
nated land. The research program
focuses on the important issues of
contaminated sediments, ground
water contaminant transport and
remediation, and site characteriza-
tion. In addition, the research
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Complete at least four SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs) and sediments, in order to, by 2010,
develop or evaluate 40 scientific tools, technologies, methods, and models,
and provide technical support that enables practitioners to: I) character-
ize the nature and extent of multimedia contamination; 2) assess, predict,
and communicate risks to human health and the environment; 3) employ
improved remediation options; and 4) respond to oil spills effectively.
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
Planned
4
Actual
6
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
program provides site-specific
technical support. Research on
waste management, resource con-
servation, and multimedia
modeling supports OSW regulato-
ry activities in areas such as
waste-derived products, modeling
to support risk assessment activi-
ties, landfill issues, and the
Resource Conservation
Challenge.
SITE demonstrations are per-
formed to independently
document innovative remediation
technology or monitoring and
measurement approaches so that
project managers can more confi-
dently select new technologies.
EPA completed six demon-
stration projects in FY 2005,
including two sediment technolo-
gies and three NAPL technologies
to document the performance of
new or improved technologies in
field situations. A dioxin demon-
stration involving six regions has
already significantly influenced
decisions in choosing a screening
method: the tested methods cost
about 40 percent of the conven-
tional method. Regional offices
now have the documented results
they need to justify selecting one
of these methods. This will realize
significant savings in time and
cost, since each region requires
Program Evaluations
EPA Science Advisory Board
panel report: "Advisory on the
Office of Research and
Development's Contaminated
Sites and RCRA Multi-Year
Plans." Additional information on
this report is available in the
Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix B, page B-16.
Waste Management of Kentucky won a 2005 Gold Award from the Solid
Waste Association of North America for the Outer Loop Landfill. The
award was made in large part for the ongoing landfill bioreactor research
being carried out at the site by Waste Management of Kentucky and EPA
under a cooperative research and development agreement.An article in
MSW Management described the research as "unique and significant" and
noted the potential for "significant environmental and economic benefits
in the years to come". (MSW Management, September/October 2005, pp.
52-55; www.mswmanagement.com)
many hundred dioxin analyses
every year.
Products and activities for the
land research program in FY 2005
included the completion, peer-
review, and implementation of a
customer-focused research plan to
address the ecological effects of
contaminated sediments. Among
the first products of this plan is a
model for extrapolating predic-
tions about bioaccumulation of
toxic chemicals across species,
time and/or ecosystems. When
fully validated, this model will
greatly simplify the task and
improve the scientific certainty of
ecological risk assessments per-
formed at contaminated sediment
sites.
Also, the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) review of the
Multimedia, Multipathway, and
Multireceptor Risk Assessment
(3MRA) modeling system con-
cluded that 3MRA provided a
scientifically defensible framework
that gives reproducible results for
determining national exit levels
for RCRA-listed hazardous wastes.
The research program on 3MRA
is responding to SAB recommen-
dations.
A report on vapor intrusion
modeling titled "Uncertainties in
Vapor Intrusion Calculation," was
also produced in FY 2005. The
results of this work indicated that
the uncertainties that exist in
input parameters result in expect-
ed uncertainties in the model
outputs and that synergies between
these parameters can amplify the
uncertainties. Sensitivity analysis
identified the input parameters
that were the most important to
reduce uncertainty.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-40.
CHALLENGES
As the Superfund program has
matured, innovative approaches
evaluated through the SITE pro-
gram have become standard tools
for remediation, and as a result,
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
the program will conclude
demonstrations of innovative
remediation, monitoring, and
measurement approaches in
FY 2006. The entire research pro-
gram will continue to conduct
problem-driven research to pro-
duce methods and models to meet
the target for developing or evalu-
ating 40 scientific tools in the
FY 2010 long-term goal, estab-
lished in FY 2003.
Qoal 3—PART Measures With Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPAs budget and GPRA documents, including the
PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current estimate for
the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
PART Program PART Measure Status Data Available
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tanks
RCRA Base
Program, Permits
and Grants
RCRA Corrective
Action
Comparison of LUST cleanups completed over a three
year rolling average with public and private sector
cleanup costs.
Facilities under control (permitted) per total permitting
costs.
Percentage of high priority RCRA facilities with human
exposures to toxins controlled using 2005 baseline.
Percentage of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic
releases to groundwater controlled using 2005 baseline.
Number of final remedy components constructed at
RCRA Corrective Action facilities per federal, state, and
private sector cost.
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Establishing Baseline
Establishing Baseline
Collecting Data
FY2008
FY2008
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007
NOTES
1 Statutory authorities can be found in the FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification,
www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2005/2005ap/goal3.pdf.
2 General information for the revitalization program is found at www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/index.htm.
3 General information for the Resource Conservation Challenge is found at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/index.htm.
4 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks Division Directors in EPA Regions 1-10, June 2, 2005, "FY 2005 Semi Annual Mid-Year Activity Report.1
5 Preliminary end-of-year data provided by EPAs Office of Underground Storage Tanks, November 9, 2005.
6 General information for EPAs municipal solid waste program is found at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non'hw/muncpl/facts.htm.
7 Preliminary end-of-year data provided by EPAs Office of Underground Storage Tanks, November 9, 2005.
8 Memorandum from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks to Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks Division Directors in EPA Regions 1-10, June 2, 2005, "FY 2005 Semi Annual Mid-Year Activity Report.'
-------
omrnumties
^Mu IH ^OQ\7Q
• j I . V / ^ o
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, one
comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
Overview of Goal 4
EPA's work to achieve healthy
communities and ecosystems relies
on both regulatory and collaborative
approaches. To accomplish its objec-
tives under Goal 4, EPA reviews
pesticides according to the latest
health and safety standards and regis-
ters them for use. The Agency also
screens and manages new and exist-
ing chemicals. The Agency leads a
wide range of community, geographi-
cal, and international initiatives,
from restoring and redeveloping con-
taminated properties and
communities; to working collabora-
tively with local organizations, states,
tribes, and other federal agencies to
make America's most significant
water bodies safe for swimming and
fishing; to reducing risks to health
and the environment for people liv-
ing along U.S. border areas. EPA also
conducts research to bring the best
scientific expertise to bear on the
nation's environmental challenges.
CHEMICALS AND
PESTICIDES
EPA is committed to ensuring
that chemicals and pesticides enter-
ing the home, the work
environment, and agricultural or
recreational settings are safe. Under
Contributing Programs
Brownfields
Chesapeake Bay
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
OPPTS' Community Assistance Program
Consumer Labeling Initiative
Computational Toxicology Research
Program
Ecosystems Protection Research Program
Environmental Monitoring for Public
Access and Community Tracking
(EMPACT)
Endocrine Disrupters Research Program
Energy Star Programs
Envirofacts
Environment and Trade
Environment Information Exchange
Network Grant Program
its Pesticides Program, the Agency
identifies and assesses potential risks
posed by pesticides, sets priorities for
addressing these risks, develops
strategies for reducing them, and pro-
motes innovative and alternative
methods of pest control. Gradually,
Environmental Justice Initiative
Fellowships
Global Change Research
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Homeland Security Research
Human Health Research Program
Human Health Risk Assessment Research
Program
International Capacity Building
Lead Programs
Mercury Research Program
National Environmental Monitoring
Initiative
National Estuary Program
National Library Network Program
Pesticides and Toxics Research Program
US-Mexico Border
Wetlands
I 10
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
old pesticides are being replaced
by newer pesticides that EPA has
reviewed to ensure that they do
not pose unreasonable risks.
EPA continues to develop
and improve programs to review
and address risks posed by new and
existing chemicals. The Agency
has targeted particular effort
toward assessing potential risks of
new substitutes for existing chemi-
cals; as a result, new industrial
chemicals are making consumer
products and industry processes
safer. EPA has screened approxi-
mately 80 percent of the 612
pesticide cases eligible for reregis-
tration and more than 23 percent
of the more than 82,378 commer-
cial and/or industrial chemicals in
the U.S. inventory.1 The Agency
reviews approximately 1,700
industrial chemicals each year.
One of EPA's key strategies for
identifying and addressing risks
posed by chemicals already in
commerce is its High Production
Volume (HPV) Challenge
Program. Under this program,
"sponsor" companies provide the
public with critical health and
environmental data for 2,800
HPV chemicals—chemicals man-
ufactured in quantities of a
million or more pounds per year
and routinely encountered in
workplaces, homes, and schools.
More than 360 chemical compa-
nies and 100 industry consortia
voluntarily provide EPA with data
on 1,397 of these HPV chemicals,
and the Agency expects to make
these complete data available to
the public by the end of 2005.2
In recent years, EPA has been
collaborating with industry to
move new, safe chemical products
to the marketplace more quickly
and efficiently. The Agency has
made its advanced risk screening
tools available and provided train-
ing to help companies assess
chemical risks in the earliest
stages of product design and
development. As a result, manu-
facturers can screen out chemicals
that would require regulated man-
agement or extended review by
EPA. Similarly, the Agency has
worked with the pesticide industry
to establish a more efficient regis-
tration process and allow safer
pesticide products to reach the
market quickly.
Qoal 4 At a Qlance
FY 2OO5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS (APGs)
Met = 13 Not Met = 7
Data Available After November 15, 2005 = 6
CTotal APGs = 26)
FY 2005 Obligations
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
FY 2005 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$7,4,78
Goal 2
$3,578,976
(35.3%)
Goal 3
$3,403,712
(33.6%)
Goal 2
$3,507,201
(41.3%)
Goal 3
$2,015,874
(23.7%)
EPA Total = $10,125,983
EPA Total = $8,500,594
FY 2OO5 "REPORT CARD'
STRATEGIC OBJECTIV
OBJECTIVE I-CHEMICAL, ORGANISM.AND PESTICIDE RISKS
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engi-
neered biological organism risks to humans, communities, and
ecosystems.
OBJECTIVE 2-COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological
systems that support them.
OBJECTIVE 3-ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and
ecosystems.
n
OBJECTIVE 4-ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's
goal of protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge
research and developing better understanding and characteriza-
tion of environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
2 Met
4 Not Met
4TBD
I Met
I Not Met
I TBD
3 Met
2 Not Met
I TBD
7 Met
0 Not Met
OTBD
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
Great Lakes Legacy Act
With the signing of a project
agreement in September 2004
and initiation of dredging in
October, EPA began implement-
ing the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
The Act represents an important
step in addressing some of the
75 million cubic yards of contam-
inated sediments within the 31
US geographic areas designated
as Areas of Concern.These are
severely degraded geographic
areas within the Great Lakes
Basin with impairments to one
or more of 14 beneficial uses; for
example, these areas may have
restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption, dredging activities,
or drinking water consumption.
Under the Act, EPA and its part-
ners are working to remove
beneficial use impairments and
delist Areas of Concern.
Through the first Great Lakes
Legacy Act sediment remediation
project, Black Lagoon (Detroit
River, Michigan), EPA has remedi-
ated approximately I 16,000
cubic yards of sediment contami-
nated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, oil,
and grease.5 In FY 2005, EPA
signed agreements with the
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources for the reme-
diation of Newton Creek/
Hog Island Inlet in Superior,
Wisconsin, and with the Michigan
Department of Environmental
Quality for assessment and
remediation of Ruddiman Creek
in Muskegon, Michigan.
Protecting
children's health
is another key
focus of Goal 4.
Certain hazardous
pesticides have
been virtually
eliminated from
residences,
schools, and parks
where children
might be exposed. In 2005, the
Centers for Disease Control
released data demonstrating major
reductions in the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning—from
approximately 900,000 children
with elevated blood lead levels in
the early 1990s to 310,000 chil-
dren in its 1999-2002 survey.3 To
support the nation's goal of elimi-
nating childhood lead poisoning
by 2010, EPA is focusing its out-
reach and education efforts on
remaining "hot spots," often dis-
advantaged urban areas where the
incidence of childhood lead poi-
soning remains high. EPA is also
reassessing pesticide tolerance lev-
els established years ago,
emphasizing foods most frequently
consumed by children.
HURRICANE KATRINA
RESPONSE
EPA co-leads the Gulf State
Partnership, which has developed
a five-state strategy to better
address coastal hazards and coordi-
nate federal and state monitoring
and assessment in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. EPA is coordi-
nating with the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, and the
U.S. Geological Survey to develop
an environmental impact assess-
ment of Hurricane Katrina's effect
on coastal waters of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. The
Agency is supporting local, state,
and national efforts to assess
aquatic resources, identify stressors
that harm or cause deterioration
of these resources, document
changes over time, restore ecologi-
cal conditions, and protect human
health.
COMMUNITY AND
GEOGRAPHICAL
INITIATIVES
EPA also collaborates with
state, tribal, and local govern-
ments; community, industry, and
other stakeholder groups; and
other nations to address larger
geographical issues. For example,
the Agency is coordinating the
federal effort to improve water
quality for the more than 30 mil-
lion people living in the Great
Lakes basin.4 EPA leads efforts to
improve habitat and ecosystems in
the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of
Mexico.
Wetlands are among the
nation's most critical and produc-
tive natural resources, providing a
variety of benefits and serving as
the primary habitat for many
species. The President has called
for restoring, improving, and pro-
tecting 3 million acres of wetlands
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
over 5 years. EPA believes that
the way to achieve "net gain" is
through partnerships and by build-
ing state, tribal, and local
governments' capacity to protect
and manage their wetlands.
Toward this end, EPA has awarded
$15 million in Wetland Program
Development Grants to support
states and tribes in restoring,
improving, and protecting wet-
lands. Wetlands data provided in
the April 2005 Council on
Environmental Quality report,
Preserving America's Wetlands,
Implementing the President's
Goal, indicate that since April
2004, 832,000 acres of wetlands
have been restored, created,
improved, or protected.6
RESTORING
COMMUNITIES
In addition to preventing
potential new risks to the envi-
ronment, EPA is working to
protect and restore communities
affected by past contamination.
The Agency provides states,
tribes, local governments, and
stakeholders with the tools and
financial assistance they need to
assess, clean up, and redevelop
brownfields properties.
Brownfields are an economic issue
across the country; reusing these
properties increases local tax
bases, facilitates job growth, uses
existing infrastructure, takes
development pressure off undevel-
oped land, and improves and
protects the environment.
INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS
EPA continues to make signif-
icant progress toward reducing
risks to human health and the
environment internationally by
investing in efforts to reduce lead,
reduce emissions, and provide safe
clean water. For example, the
Agency collaborated with Russia,
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan to
reduce and avoid emissions of
approximately 260,000 tons of air
pollutants, 7.9 millions metric
tons of greenhouse gases, and 20
pounds of mercury from coal-fired
power plants.7
As a result of EPA's leadership
through the World Summit on
Sustainable Development, all 49
sub-Saharan countries will have
phased out leaded gasoline by the
end of 2005, 2 years earlier than
anticipated, affecting the health of
733 million people. In addition,
EPA forged an agreement with the
United Nations Environment
Programme to address global
mercury and announced a U.S
Long Island Sound
The Long Island Sound Program has reduced point source nitrogen load
to Long Island Sound by approximately 6,000 pounds per day from 2003
levels, significantly improving water quality. As of December 2004, the
program has reduced point source nitrogen loads to the Sound by
59,000 pounds per day, or 26.7 percent from baseline levels.This repre-
sents 47.3 percent of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) goal to
reduce nitrogen pollution to the sound by 58.5 percent by 2014.
government focus on five partner-
ship areas: chloralkali facilities,
mercury in products, coal combus-
tions, artisanal gold mining, and
research.
Along the US-Mexico border,
residents have suffered dispropor-
tionately from Hepatitis A and
other water-borne diseases due to
inadequate potable water and
sewage treatment infrastructure.
EPA is reducing health risks to
border residents by increasing the
number of homes connected to
safe drinking water systems and
with access to basic sanitation.
EPA grant funds, together with
local, state, and Mexican govern-
ment contributions, are providing
and improving drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure for more
than 6 million residents of the
US-Mexico border area.8
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*
No More Pesticide
Dumping
EPA helped Russia prevent the
release of 1,500 metric tons
of obsolete pesticides to the
arctic environment.Work
included inventorying stocks of
obsolete pesticides, analyzing
the stocks for heavy metals
and chlorinated compounds,
and moving them to safe stor-
age. As a result of this EPA
investment, Russian authorities
now prohibit dumping of these
toxic pesticides in trenches,
and they are collaborating with
the United States and other
arctic nations to implement
environmentally sound options
for destroying the pesticides.
SCIENCE AND
RESEARCH
To achieve healthy communi-
ties and ecosystems, EPA
continues to make significant sci-
entific and technological progress
in monitoring ecological condi-
tion, homeland security, and
nanotechnology.
Programs such as the
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program develop indi-
cators to monitor the condition of
ecological resources, assess the
success of programs and policies,
and advance the science of eco-
logical monitoring and risk
assessment. In 2005, EPA released
the first report of its kind describ-
ing the condition of streams in
the western United States. This
report establishes a baseline
against which future ecological
changes and trends in stream con-
dition can be measured.
Federal, state, and local emer-
gency personnel rely on EPA for
tools that will assist in decision-
making in the event of a terrorist
attack. In 2005, EPA research sci-
entists developed a Web-based
system to identify hazards quickly,
assess human exposure, and char-
acterize risks during an emergency
response. The Emergency
Consequence Assessment Tool
(ECAT) integrates hazard and
exposure information for specific
situations. ECAT is being expand-
ed to cover a wider range of
scenarios and contaminants, and
it will eventually be used to pro-
vide information to the public and
scientific community.
Through its own research and
by participating in the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, EPA
has taken a leadership role in
directing research on the environ-
mental applications and
implications of nanotechnology.
The Agency is conducting 38
research grants to develop nan-
otechnology applications to
protect the environment and 26
research projects to study the pos-
sible harmful effects of
manufactured nanomaterials.
EPA's Small Business Innovation
Research Program has let con-
tracts to more than 25 small
companies for developing and
commercializing clean technolo-
gies, some of which use
nanomaterials.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Goal 4 Strategic Objectives
Strategic
Objective 1—
Chemical,
Organism,
and Pesticide Risks
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemi-
cal, and genetically engineered
biological organism risks to humans,
communities, and ecosystems.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
Although EPA did not meet
all of its annual performance com-
mitments for pesticide
reregistration and tolerance
reassessments, the Agency is con-
fident that it will meet future year
commitments for ensuring that
appropriate tolerance levels are
established and safer pesticides are
introduced. Much of the Agency's
effort to finish hundreds (772) of
tolerance reassessment has been
completed. The only task remain-
ing is the cumulative risk
assessment for these tolerances.
The Agency must also finalize 23
Interim Registration Eligibility
Decisions, which EPA expects to
complete early in FY 2006.
EPA is on target for prevent-
ing or reducing chemical and
genetically engineered biological
organism risks to humans, com-
munities, and ecosystems through
mix of targeted regulatory and
voluntary programs. EPA did not
meet its FY 2005 goal for stan-
dardizing and validating screening
assays, but believes that it will
meet the future target.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I— CHEMICAL, ORGANISM,AND PESTICIDE RISKS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
Exposure to Industrial/Commercial
Chemicals
Process and Disseminate Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) Information
Risks from Industrial/Commercial
Chemicals
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
(NEW IN FYOS)
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
(NEW IN FYOS)
X Not met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2007
Met FY 2000 goals in FY 2005
X Not met FY 1999 goals in FY 2005
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in 2007
X Not met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available late in FY 2006
Met in FY 2005
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
X Not met in FY 2005
X Not met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
32.6%
($446.194.6)
Ecosystems Communities
13.0% 21.0%
($178.2243) ($287.372.8)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
33.8%
($438.464.0)
Ecosystems
13.0% 18.8%
($165.297.8) ($239.133.4)
Goal 4 Total = $1,367,963.8
Goal 4 Total = $1,272,852.0
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Agency has made consid-
erable progress in preventing or
reducing chemical risks. EPA has
now screened more than 23 percent
of the 82,000 commercial and/or
industrial chemicals in the U.S.
inventory, and it reviews an aver-
age of 1,700 new chemicals each
year.9 EPA exceeded 2005 targets
for closing the gap in providing the
public with risk screening data for
more than 2,200 of the chemicals
that have been in the marketplace
prior to 1978.10 EPA also made
progress in assessing risks of perfluo-
roctanoic acid, completing a draft
risk assessment, negotiation
enforceable consent orders, and
memoranda of understanding with
industry. With respect to children,
the incidence of childhood lead
poisoning decreased from approxi-
mately 900,000 cases in the early
1990s to 310,000 cases in the
1999-2002 Centers for Disease
Control survey."
Communities need informa-
tion on toxic chemical releases to
make informed decisions about
protecting their environment. In
March 2005, the Agency released
the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) annual Public Data Release
(PDR) report containing informa-
tion on toxic chemical releases
and other waste management
activities by certain industries, as
well as by federal facilities. EPA is
continuing to focus resources on
modernizing TRI data collection,
processing, and dissemination
processes with the goal of releas-
ing more reliable information
sooner to all communities.
CHALLENGES
Emerging issues, such as using
human study data, registering new
biopesticides, managing resistance,
and protecting endangered species
may affect pesticides program
priorities.
While the updated Centers for
Disease data that show continued
declines in the incidence of child-
hood lead poisoning are
encouraging, the data also reveal
that the reduction trend is taper-
ing off, jeopardizing achievement
of the national goal to virtually
eliminate this disease by 2010.
Accordingly, EPA is revamping
strategies and using a variety of
regulatory and voluntary tools to
address the remaining population
of at-risk children.
Nanotechnology poses unique
challenges for assessing the risk of
materials manufactured at the
nano scale. EPA has been coordi-
nating with other federal agencies
and is considering developing a
voluntary notification pilot pro-
gram for nano-scale materials
under TSCA.
Strategic
Objective 2—
Communities
Sustain, clean up, and restore com-
munities and the ecological systems
that support them.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
In addition to preventing
potential new risks to the envi-
ronment, EPA is working to
protect and restore communities
affected by past contamination.
The Agency provides states,
tribes, local governments, and
stakeholders with the tools and
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—COMMUNITIES
APG#
4.1 I
4.12
4.13
Assess and Cleanup Brownfields
US-Mexico Border Water/Wastewater
Infrastructure
Sustain Community Health
(NEW IN FYOS)
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006
Met FY 2004 goals in FY 2005
X Not met in FY 2005
Met in FY 2005
financial assistance to assess, clean
up, and redevelop brownfields
properties. In 2005, EPA
announced $76.7 million in
brownfields grant funding to
recipients in 45 states. The grants
included 176 Assessment Grants,
13 Revolving Loan Fund Grants,
11 Job Training Grants, and 106
Cleanup Grants. In 2005, EPA
also distributed $49.7 million to
49 states, two territories, and 49
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
33.4%
($456,171.1)
Enhance Science
and Research
32.6%
($446.194.6)
Ecosystems
13.0%
($178,224.3)
Goal 4 Total = $1,367,963.8
tribes to enhance their response
capabilities. From 1995 through
FY 2004, EPA grantees assessed
5,021 brownfields properties,
leveraging $6.7 billion in cleanup
and redevelopment funding and
31,337 jobs. Additionally, EPA
has conducted 1,369 targeted
brownfields assessments.
EPA, states, and partners from
both sides of the US-Mexico bor-
der are making significant progress
in providing safe drinking water
and sanitation services to border
residents. To ensure that the most
critical public health and environ-
mental problems are addressed
first, EPA delayed new project
funding in FY 2005 while it devel-
oped a process for establishing
project priorities. As a result,
progress towards achieving the FY
2005 goal was delayed. Work on
high-priority projects resumed
after the prioritization process was
implemented in summer 2005.
US-Mexico Border Program
achievements will be reflected
under a new measure being devel-
oped in FY 2006.
In FY 2005, EPA assisted
three Free Trade Area of the
Americas countries—Colombia,
Ecuador, and Peru—in conducting
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
33.8%
($429.956.8)
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
34.4%
($438.464.0)
Goal 4 Total = $1,272,852.0
environmental reviews of trade
liberalization. EPA supported a
workshop in El Salvador to allow
representatives from Central
American countries to share expe-
riences and lessons learned in
conducting environmental reviews
of trade agreements. The Agency
also made a presentation on the
benefits of environmental reviews
at a May 2005 Organization of
American States workshop on the
effects of trade on sustainability.
CHALLENGES
Fluctuations in real estate
marketplaces, general economic
conditions, and local issues signifi-
cantly affect the Brownfield
Program's ability to demonstrate
its effectiveness, particularly with
regard to leveraged jobs and
investments measures. EPA is
evaluating the feasibility of using
additional environmental meas-
ures to demonstrate program
effectiveness.
Patagonia's New Wastewater Treatment Plant
In October 2004, the town of Patagonia, Arizona, on the US-Mexico
border completed a new wastewater treatment plant, which is now
serving a community of 900 residents. EPA grants of $1.3 million lever-
aged an additional $1.2 million in other state and federal funds for the
project.The I 10,000-gallon wastewater treatment plant and improved
collection lines will help prevent discharge of raw sewage to ground and
surface waters on the border.
Replacement
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic
Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, and restore the health
of natural habitats and ecosystems.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA's ecosystem protection
programs encompass a wide range
of approaches, targeting specific
geographic areas as well as broad
categories of threatened ecosys-
tems, such as estuaries and
wetlands. Pollution, generated
locally or transported by rivers
and streams and through air depo-
sition, collects in these closed and
semi-closed ecosystems and
degrades them over time.
Community interest and
involvement, as well as EPA's and
its partners' increased capability for
collecting and reporting data
depicting protection and restora-
tion achievements, enabled EPA to
make significant progress towards
restoring and protecting habitats in
estuaries. Since 2001, more than
400,000 acres have been protected
or restored; of these, 103,959 acres
of estuarine habitat within the 28
estuaries of the National Estuary
Program (NEP) were protected
and/or restored in FY 2005.u
In partnership with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and
states, EPA is working to increase
wetlands acreage and maintain
and restore its biological and func-
tional integrity. Wetlands data
from 1987 to the 1990s will be
available at the end of 2005 to
indicate whether there has been
a net gain in wetlands. EPA's
regulatory programs help to ensure
that there is no overall net loss in
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—ECOSYSTEMS
APG # APG Title
4.I4
4.IS
4.I6
4.I7
4.I8
4.I9
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
Increase Wetlands (NEW IN FYOS)
Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
Chesapeake Bay Habitat (NEW IN FYOS)
Gulf of Mexico
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2008
Met in FY 2005
X Not met for FY 2004
X Not met for FY 2003
X Not met in FY 2005
X Not met in FY 2005
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
32.6%
($446,194.6)
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
33.4%
;456,I7I.I)
Enhance Science
and Research
33.8%
($429,956.8)
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
34.4%
($438,464.0)
Goal 4 Total = $ 1,367,963.8
wetlands, and a regulatory pro-
gram report on gains and losses of
wetland acreage will be available
at the end of 2007.
EPA continues to make
progress in improving and protect-
ing the health of ecosystems in
the Great Lakes. Based on the
most current data, the Great
Lakes Index, indicating overall
ecosystem condition in the Great
Lakes, improved in FY 2005."
Long-term concentrations of
PCBs in predator fish and trends
of toxic chemicals in the air are
meeting targeted goals, although
cleanup efforts are still necessary
to address PCB concentrations
which substantially exceed human
Goal 4 Total = $1,272,852.0
health and wildlife protection val-
ues. Cumulatively, 3.7 million
cubic yards of contaminated sedi-
ments have been remediated,
including 345,000 cubic yards in
2004.14 Phosphorus concentrations
in the Lake Erie Basin are still too
high to avoid algal blooms and
the related "dead zone".15
Although EPA has not met the
target of delisting three Areas of
Concerns (AOC), significant
progress has been made towards
delisting of two AOCs.16
EPA has not met its goals for
the Chesapeake Bay. Although
the Chesapeake Bay Program is
making progress towards protect-
ing acres of submerged aquatic
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
vegetation, current pollutant loads
continue to exceed the level
needed to meet water quality stan-
dards adopted by states. The FY
2005 nutrient (phosphorus and
nitrogen) and sediment pollution
load reduction goals were not met;
current pollutant loads exceed
levels needed to meet WQS in
many areas.17
In the Gulf of Mexico, the size
of the hypoxic zone was reduced in
FY 2005.18 EPA will evaluate the
impact of Hurricane Katrina on
the size of the hypoxic zone in FY
2006 as part of the more compre-
hensive impact assessment on
public health and water quality.
CHALLENGES
Future restoration and protec-
tion of estuaries present challenges
as EPA faces more difficult projects,
requiring longer lead time, as well
as remaining smaller study areas.
The United States also faces daunt-
ing challenges in conserving coastal
wetlands. Recognizing that collabo-
ration is critical, EPA continues to
work with partners on new strate-
gies for protecting and restoring
these areas.
Although EPA is making
progress, challenges remain for the
Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and
the Gulf of Mexico programs.
Growing human and animal popu-
lations in the Chesapeake Bay
area continue to challenge efforts
to reduce pollutant loads. Damage
from Hurricane Katrina will affect
improvements made in the health
of the Gulf of Mexico. Most
immediately, states and EPA must
assess the impact of the hurricane
and plan for recovery.
National Estuary
Program Success
In 2005, the six National Estuary
Programs (NEPs) in EPA's Region
4, working with their federal, state,
and local partners, restored and/or
protected approximately 80,000
acres of habitat, including critical
estuarine, riparian, and coastal wet-
lands.The NEPs used Clean Water
Act Section 320 and matching dol-
lars to leverage additional funding
for this effort.These restored and
protected natural habitats and
ecosystems will contribute to
improving the quality of coastal
waters in the region.
Strategic
Objective 4—
Enhance
Science and Research
Through 2008, provide a sound sci-
entific foundation for EPA's goal of
protecting, sustaining, and restoring
the health of people, communities,
and ecosystems by conducting lead-
ing-edge research and developing
better understanding and characteri-
zation of environmental outcomes
under Goal 4.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
The Agency is making consid-
erable progress toward its 2008
objective of providing a sound sci-
entific foundation to support its
work under Goal 4.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4— ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
Conduct Relevant Research to Support the
Food Quality Protection Act
(NEW IN FYOS)
Conduct Relevant Research: Mercury
(NEW IN FYOS)
Conduct Relevant Research: Exposures and
Environmental Effects (NEW IN FYOS)
Conduct Relevant Research: Riparian Zone
Restoration (NEW IN FYOS)
Risk Assessment Research
Conduct Relevant Research: Homeland
Security (NEW IN FYOS)
Conduct Relevant Research: Regional Scale
Ecosystem Assessment Methods
(NEW IN FYOS)
APG Status
• Met in FY 2005
• Met in FY 2005
I/ Met in FY 2005
I/ Met in FY 2005
I/ Met in FY 2005
• Met in FY 2005
• Met in FY 2005
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In 2005, EPA provided meth-
ods and models to enable risk
assessors and risk managers to
measure and evaluate exposure to,
and effects of, environmental
stressors in children. The objec-
tive of this research is to reduce
children's exposure to harmful
agents and reduce the cost of
treating environment-related
diseases.
EPA demonstrated its com-
mitment to restoring the health of
ecosystems by providing clear and
concise information on the utility
and effectiveness of vegetative
riparian buffers to reduce nitrogen
loadings to streams. Decision-
makers will use this information
to design vegetative buffers that
will most effectively reduce nitro-
gen impacts on streams.
On March 15, 2005, EPA
issued the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR) to permanently
cap and reduce mercury emissions
from coal-fired power plants for
the first time. This rule, com-
bined with EPA's Clean Air
Interstate Rule, will significantly
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective 4
(in thousands)
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
33.4%
($456,171.1)
Ecosystems Communities
13.0% 21.0%
($178,224.3) ($287,372.8)
Goal 4 Total = $1,367,963.8
reduce emissions from the
nation's largest remaining source
of human-caused mercury emis-
sions. The mercury research
program supported CAMR by
producing essential scientific
information about the status and
costs of mercury control tech-
nologies for coal-fired utility
boilers. This work contributed to
a larger effort that considered
emissions, control technologies,
health effects, and the impacts
on our electrical system and eco-
nomic competitiveness.
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 4, Strategic Objective 4
(in thousands)
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
34.4%
($438,464.0)
cos/stems Communities
13 n°/ i Q Q°/
IJ.UA) lO.OA)
($165,297.8) ($239,133.4)
Goal 4 Total = $1,272,852.0
CHALLENGES
EPA is working to identify
meaningful outcome and efficiency
measures for its research programs.
Nanotechnology has the
potential to improve the assess-
ment, management, and
prevention of environmental risks.
As products made from nanoparti-
cles become more numerous and
nanoparticles become more preva-
lent in the environment, EPA is
considering how nanotechnology
will affect its environmental pro-
grams, policies, research needs,
and approaches to decisionmaking.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Goal 4 Annual Performance Goals
Strategic Objective 1—Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to
humans, communities, and ecosystems.
APG 4.1
Reassess Pesticide Tolerances
PERFORMANCE
To ensure that food remains
safe, EPA reviews and reassesses
tolerance levels. In cases where
tolerance levels do not meet cur-
rent safety standards, the Agency
pursues approaches to achieve safe
pesticide levels as required by the
Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA). In much the same way,
EPA's reregistration program
assures that currently registered
pesticide products are used in ways
that protect people, communities,
and ecosystems. These reviews are
conducted through a public
process that promotes transparen-
cy and builds partnerships with
stakeholders inside and outside
the federal government.
FY 2005: Ensure that through on-going data reviews, pesticide active
f ingredients and the products that contain them are reviewed to assure
GOAL adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into
NOT MET consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native
Americans.
Performance Measures
• Tolerance Reassessment.
• Reregistration Eligibility Decision (REDs).
• Product Reregistration.
• Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten
by children.
• Number of inert ingredients tolerances
reassessed.
• Reduce decision time for REDs.
Planned
87.7%
88.2%
400
93%
100
7%
Actual
80.4%
82.3%
50
74.4%
168
75%
X
X
•
X
Qoal Not Met. Although EPA did
not meet all of its annual perform-
ance commitments for pesticides
reregistration and tolerance
reassessments, it
Performance Measure: % Tolerance Reassessment and Tolerance
Reassessments for Top 20 Foods Eaten by Children Completed
(Cumulative) and % Registration Eligibility Decisions
Completed (Cumulative)
82.3
36.S
% Reassessed
• % REDs Completed
• % 20 Children's Food
remains on target
for achieving its
long-term goal.
During FY 2005,
the Agency com-
pleted reassessing
80 percent of the
9,721 tolerances
that FQPA
requires be
reassessed, includ-
ing tolerances on
foods most com-
monly eaten by
Year
children.19 In addition to those
fully reassessed in FY 2005, the
Agency evaluated approximately
782 additional tolerances; these
are not counted as reassessed
because cumulative risk assess-
ment has not yet been
accomplished. These evaluations,
combined with the 2005 comple-
tions, place the Agency over its
FY 2005 target.
EPA expects to complete the
cumulative risk assessment early
in 2006; therefore, the Agency
feels confident that it is on target
to meet the statutory deadline of
reassessing all of the 9,721 toler-
ances by August 2006. The
deadline for completing REDs is
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Pesticide Registration program most recently in the
2003 PART process and the Pesticide Reregistration program most recently
in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Pesticides programs are supported by the Categorical Grant: Pesticide
Implementation Program. Responsibility for regulating pesticide use is in
large part delegated to states and tribes.These grant resources assist states
and tribes in pesticide certification and training/worker protection pro-
grams, endangered species activities, and environmental stewardship.
also on target for 2008; in
FY 2005 the Agency completed
more than 82 percent and an
additional 23 Interim REDs, near-
ly 86 percent of the 612 required.
EPA greatly exceeded its FY 2005
target for RED decision time,
reducing the time for decisions
from a baseline of 40 months to
10 months in FY 2005. Times vary
according to the chemicals being
evaluated. The program is current-
ly reviewing data to isolate
anomalies that resulted in this
dramatic reduction of time. Of
importance is that this is an
anomaly, and does not represent a
future commitment to either
maintain or further reduce the
time involved.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-41.
CHALLENGES
Completing cumulative risk
continued to be a challenge during
FY 2005, delaying issuance of final
reregistration eligibility decisions
(REDs). However, the Agency
anticipates meeting its mandatory
deadlines for this program.
APG 4.2
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
PERFORMANCE
Through its registration pro-
gram EPA makes reduced risk
pesticides available for use as alter-
natives to riskier existing
pesticides. Reregistration ensures
that older pesticides which remain
in the marketplace continue to be
safe and meet the latest safety stan-
dards. As necessary, the Agency's
regulatory programs continued to
impose mitigation conditions dur-
ing registration and reregistration
to provide for proper/safe use of
pesticides and further reduce risk.
Continued outreach, education,
and training for the general public
and agricultural community ensure
that pesticides will be appropriately
and safely used, reducing pesticide
exposure and risk.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-44.
AVAILABLE ^ 2005: Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of
FY 2006 reduced-risk pesticides.
Performance Measures (all are MMTCE)
• Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk
pesticides
Performance Measures
• Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumu-
lative).*
• New Chemicals (cumulative).*
• New Uses (cumulative).*
• Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk
pesticides.
• Occurrences of residues on a core set of 19
foods eaten by children relative to occurrence
levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.**
74
3,079
8.5%
25%
79
3,142
3%
34%
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Pesticide Registration program most recently in the 2003 PART process and the Pesticide
Reregistration program most recently in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Pesticides programs are supported by the Categorical Grant: Pesticide Implementation Program. Responsibility for regulat-
ing pesticide use is in large part delegated to states and tribes.These grant resources assist states and tribes in pesticide
certification and training/worker protection programs, endangered species activities, and environmental stewardship.
APG 4.3 Exposure to Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
PERFORMANCE
These quantitative perform-
ance measures for APG 4.3 track
EPA's progress in managing risks
associated with the high profile
chemicals Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) and lead. EPA's
historic annual performance tar-
gets for PCB disposal were
established using uncertain and
outdated information. EPA
expects to meet its targets for FY
2004, FY 2005 and FY 2006,
which are based on concerted
efforts to improve baseline data
through campaigns to persuade
companies to retire PCB-contain-
ing equipment ahead of schedule.
In FY 2005 EPA initiated a
new effort to reach vulnerable
populations of children most
at-risk of exposure to lead-based
paint. The Agency also developed
new long-term goals for eliminat-
ing demographic disparities in
blood levels, in addition to elimi-
nating childhood lead poisoning.
EPA also began work
to develop rules establishing
lead-safe work practice standards
for renovation and remodeling
projects.
The most recent NHANES
data estimated 310,000 children
with elevated blood lead levels in
DATA
AVAILABLE pY 2005: Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industri-
FY 2007 AND a|/commercial chemicals.
FY 2008
Performance Measures (all are MMTCE)
• Annual number of transformers safely disposed.
• Annual number of large capacitors safely dis-
posed.
• Number of children aged 1 -5 years with elevated
blood levels (> 1 0 ug/dl).
Planned
5,000
9,000
9,000
Actual
Data avail
09/2007
Data avail
06/2008
DATA
AVAILABLE ^ 2004: Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industri-
FY 2007 al/commercial chemicals.
Performance Measures
• Number of individuals certified nationally through
federal administered programs to perform lead-
based paint abatements.
• Number of participants in Hospitals for a Healthy
Environment (cumulative).
• Children aged 1 -5 years with elevated blood lead
levels (>IOug/dl).
• Safe disposal of transformers.
• Safe disposal of capacitors.
Planned
1 8,000
2,000
26 1 ,000
8,000
6,000
Actual
24,000 •
2,930 •
Data avail
FY 2007
PCB Capacitors and Transformers Safely Disposed
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Lead pro-
gram related to this APG in the
2005 PART process. Results will
be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This
APG
This program is supported by the
Categorical Grant: Lead.These
resources assist states and tribes
in developing and maintaining
authorized programs for training
individuals engaged in lead-based
paint remediation, accrediting
training programs for those indi-
viduals, and certifying contractors
engaged in lead-based paint
remediation.
1999-2002, a steep reduction of
the more than 900,000 cases esti-
mated in the early 1990V. This
information demonstrates signifi-
cant progress in meeting EPA's
2008 goal of reducing elevated
blood lead level incidences to
90,000 cases and the national goal
to virtually eliminate childhood
lead poisoning by 2010.
The 1999 APG was missed;
however, it counted only state lead-
based paint abatement certification
and training programs. This does
not mean that there was a lack of
protection because EPA imple-
ments the program in the absence
of a state program. The 2000 meas-
GOAL
MET FOR
FY 2000
FY 2000: Administer federal programs and oversee state implementa-
tion of programs for lead-based paint abatement certification and
training in SO states, to reduce exposure year is to lead-based paint and
ensure significant decreases in children's blood levels by 2005.
Actual
50
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY 1999
FY 1999: Complete the building of a lead-based paint abatement certifi-
cation and training in SO target states, to ensure significant decreases in
children's blood lead levels by 2005 through year is reduced exposure
to lead-based paint.
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
35
Actual
30
X
ure captures both state and federal
programs, demonstrating that there
is either a federal or state program
in place in all 50 States.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-42-C-43.
CHALLENGES
Recently released NHANES
data reveal that the rate of reduc-
ing childhood blood lead
poisoning is slowing, and that
there is a higher than average inci-
dence of elevated blood lead levels
among low-income children3. To
counter this trend, EPA has
employed targeted outreach and
educational strategies to reach
these vulnerable communities.
Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children of the United States
Actual number of children with
elevated blood lead levels (>IOug/dL)
A Target projection to meet 2010
Elimination Goa
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
APG 4.4 Process and Disseminate Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Information
PERFORMANCE
EPA believes that electronic
reporting is easier and less time
consuming for facilities required
to submit these reports and should
improve their compliance.
Additionally, electronic reporting
improves the quality and timeli-
ness of the data in TRI. TRI-ME
provides reporting facilities with
electronic forms that help detect
some types of errors and eliminate
the need for EPA to enter the
data from paper submissions.
In FY 2004, 3 8 percent of all
reports on chemical releases and
other waste management data
were submitted to EPA via the
internet and EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX), a 73 percent
increase over FY 2003. EPA is
aggressively trying to increase
CDX submissions through
such efforts as targeted training
and outreach to the reporting
GOAL MET
FY 2005: The increased use of theTRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result
in a total burden reduction of 5% for FY 2005 from FY 2004 levels.
Performance Measures
• Percentage increase ofTRI chemical forms
submitted over the Internet using TRI-ME and
the CDX.
Planned
10%
Actual
2.9%
community. EPA set
a goal of increasing
the percentage of
electronic submis-
sions by 10 percent
per year, beginning
in FY 2005. The
Agency met that
goal in FY 2005: 42.9
percent were submit-
ted electronically, a
12.9 percent increase over
FY 2004. To achieve the FY 2006
goal, more than 47 percent of the
reports must be submitted elec-
tronically.
TRI Submissions by Media Type
16
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fiscal Reporting Year
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-49.
APG 4.5 Risks from Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
PERFORMANCE
Under this goal, EPA tracks its
progress in identifying risks present-
ed by new and existing chemicals
and addressing them quickly and
effectively. Annual targets for the
RSEI measure are based on the
Agency's long-term strategic target
of reducing relative risks to chronic
human health associated with envi-
ronmental releases of industrial
chemicals in commerce by 21 per-
cent from 2001 levels, equating to a
3 percent annual reduction over a 7
year period. The FY 2002 results
showed that the Agency exceeded
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2007
FY 2005: Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with
industrial/commercial chemicals.
Performance Measures
• Reduction in the current year production-
adjusted risk screening environmental indicators
(RSEI) risk-based score of releases and transfers
of toxic chemicals.*
• Percentage of chemicals identified as highest
priority by the Acute Exposure Guidelines
Levels (AEGLs) Program with short-term expo-
sure limits established*
Planned
1% annual
52%
Actual
Data avail 2007
70%
its target of a 2 percent reduction
in the RSEI risk value from the
2001baseline, achieving a 5.7
percent actual reduction.
AEGLs are short-term exposure
limits applicable to a wide range of
extremely hazardous substances.
First responders use AEGL values
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
in dealing with chemical emergen-
cies, increasing EPA's ability to deal
with threats of chemical terrorism
and assist with homeland security.
EPA exceeded its FY 2005 goal for
developing Proposed AEGL values
for additional chemicals, in part
because the program was able to
address several chemicals as a cate-
gory. Category opportunities can
not be predicted in advance.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-45-C-46.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Existing
Chemicals program related to
this APG in the 2002 PART
process.The program received
an adequate rating.
DATA
AVAILABLE FY 2004: Same Goal.
FY 2006
Performance Measures
• Reduction in the current year production-adjust-
ed risk screening environmental indicators (RSEI)
risk-based score of releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals.*
Planned
2%
Actual
Data avail 2006
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model (RSEI)
Year
APG 4.6 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
PERFORMANCE
The endocrine disrupters
screening program (EDSP) is
required to test all pesticides and
determine if they may have an
endocrine disrupting effect in
humans. EDSP will accomplish
this goal by developing appropriate
testing techniques, establishing the
approach for selecting chemicals
for testing, and developing proce-
dures on how the Agency will
require testing.
GOAL ^ 2005: Standardization and validation of screening assays.
Performance Measures
• Screening assays completed.
Planned
1 1
Actual
Not measured in
FY 2005
X
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Qod Not Met. This APG was not
achieved in FY 2005 due to the
numerous steps required to com-
plete an assay screening. The
Agency's goal of completing assay
screenings within 1 year's time
was too ambitious, and intends to
complete all 11 assay screenings
by the end of FY 2006.
Nonetheless, in FY 2005 the
Agency can point to incremental
progress in each of the 11 cases.
The Agency uses five internal per-
formance measures to track
progress toward overall program-
matic goals. To highlight a few,
EPA completed 15 detailed review
papers, 42 prevalidation studies,
and 42 validations by multiple
laboratories in FY 2005. These are
necessary steps prior to peer-
review and completion of assays
ready for use.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Endocrine Disrupters program, which is comprised of
components from the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
and the Office of Research and Development in the 2004 PART process.
The program received an adequate rating.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Results achieved in FY 2005 are due in part to the following Interagency
Agreements and Grants with the following entities: U.S.Army Center of
Environmental Research (IAG), Smithsonian (IAG); National Research
Council (Cooperative Agreement), National Older Workers Career Center
(Grant), National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (Grant), and
Senior Service America, Inc. (Grant).
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-43.
CHALLENGES
Each phase of assay
development may uncover new
issues to be resolved before an
assay is ready for use. For example,
EPA may plan on 4 studies to
address prevalidation issues. An
additional study will be required if
it's determined that an ambiguity
exists. The need for additional
study will then require additional
time before the assay is complete
and ready for use.
APG 4.7 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
PERFORMANCE
Children's health will be
protected from pesticide risk
through the reduction of pesticide
residues in the foods eaten by
children.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-47.
CHALLENGES
PDF does not survey the
same foods every year, nor do
they analyze the same pesticides
every year.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and
cholinesterase-inhibiting neurotic pesticides on foods eaten by children
from their average 1994-1996 levels. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Reduce occurrence of residues on a core set of
19 foods eaten by children relative to detection
levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Planned
27%
Actual
Data avail 2006
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Pesticide Reregistration program related to this APG
most recently in the 2004 PART process.The program received an ade-
quate rating.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
This program is supported through an interagency agreement with USDA
which funds state grants.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4.8 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
PERFORMANCE
This goal tracks EPA's efforts to
prevent the release of chemicals
from hazardous facilities.
Monitoring of high risk chemical
facility through risk management
plan (RMP) audits is an important
step to ensuring these facilities
have the best prevention technolo-
gies and procedures in place to
prevent a chemical accident.
Conducting RMP audits allow EPA
to determine the completeness and
accuracy of the RMP, understand
the various processes used in chem-
ical facilities, review the policies,
procedures, and processes in place
to prevent chemical accidents, and
learn from accidents and follow-up
actions at RMP facilities. These
audits also help EPA disseminate
accident prevention techniques and
technologies currently used in a
limited number of chemical facili-
ties to facilities nationwide.
The number of RMP audits and
inspections completed in FY 2004
was 730. In FY 2004, the number
was 885. Actual performance signifi-
cantly exceeded the target number
of 400 in both years. While all of
our regions slightly exceeded their
FY 2005: Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from
^^., K-ii-T- chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction efforts and
GOAL MET , , , ,
building community infrastructures.
Performance Measures
• Number of risk management plan audits com-
pleted.
Planned
400
Actual
885
(Performance measure is included in the annual
goal above.)
Planned
400
Actual
730
specific target for RMP audits and
inspections, one of our regions
exceeded its target by nearly 400
audits and inspections, due to one of
its states with which they have a
contract conducting those audits
and inspections on behalf of the
region. The numbers for FY 2004
and FY 2005 would have been 530
and 496, respectively, without these
additional audits and inspections,
which are closer to our target. Based
on estimates from our regions, we
should complete 400 to 500 audits
and inspections in FY 2006.
EPA is working to identify
improved measures for audits to
gain a more complete understand-
ing of improvements in chemical
safety resulting from the RMP
program. This information along
with an analysis of the new infor-
mation submitted by facilities to
the EPA on their RMP programs
should provide a better under-
standing of the prevention
activities taking place nationally
as well as the state of chemical
safety in the country.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-49.
APG 4.9 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
PERFORMANCE
Qoal Not Met. The availability
and proper use of less toxic pesti-
cides will result in the reduction
of incidents and mortalities to
wildlife. Decreased wildlife mor-
tality rates also indicate that the
regulatory programs are contribut-
ing to achievement of our long
GOAL FY 2005: Standardization and validation of screening assays.
NOT MET
Percent reduction in number of incidents
and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife caused by the 15 pesticides
responsible for the greatest mortality to
such wildlife. (PART)
Planned
I I % reduction
Actual
Insufficient data
for analysis
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
term goal of protecting human
health and the environment.
Outreach, education and
training provided to the general
public and targeted audiences
offer assurance that pesticides will
be appropriately and safely used
resulting in a reduction in inci-
dents and mortalities to wildlife.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-47-C-48.
CHALLENGES
The basis of available infor-
mation provided is insufficient to
determine the actual risk reduc-
tion. Consequently, the data to
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Pesticide Registration program most recently in the
2003 PART process and the Pesticide Reregistration program most recently
in the 2004 PART process. Both programs received adequate ratings.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
The pesticide programs are supported by the Categorical Grant: Pesticide
Program Implementation. Responsibility for regulating pesticide use is in
large part delegated to states and tribes.These resources provide assistance
to states and Tribes in the areas of pesticides certification and
training/worker protection, endangered species activities, and environmental
stewardship.
report on the measure may not be
available in the future. EPA
awarded a cooperative agreement
to the American Bird
Conservancy (ABC) to collect
information on avian mortalities.
EPA's laboratory at
Fort Meade, Maryland, is per-
forming tissue analyses of
pesticides for bird carcasses col-
lected under the agreement with
ABC. The Agency expect to com-
plete a final report in 2006.
APG 4.1O Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
PERFORMANCE
These performance measures
track regulatory actions that iden-
tify risks and set mitigation
requirements prior to registration
of an approved pesticide. They
demonstrate EPA's progress in
assuring that registered pesticides
meet appropriate standards to pro-
tect human health and the
environment.
Additionally, new pesticide
products may substitute for older,
more toxic pesticides. Through
use of the newer, less toxic prod-
ucts, the Agency continues to
ensure that risk from pesticides
is minimized. Through expeditious
review of the newer, reduced risk
pesticides, EPA seeks to maintain
the availability of potential
substitutes for the older, more
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new
active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are envi-
ronmentally safe. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Register safer chemicals and biopestiddes
(cumulative).
• New chemicals (active ingredients) (cumulative).
(PART)
• New uses (cumulative).
• Maintain timeliness of S 1 8 decisions.
• Reduce registration decision times for new
conventional chemicals. (PART)
• Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk
chemicals. (PART)
Planned
135
84
3,479
45 days
7%
3%
Actual
154
79
3,332
45 days
7%
3%
X
X
toxic pesticides such as
organophosphates.
Qoal Not Met. In FY 2005, the
Agency exceeded its target for
registering reduced risk pesticides
and met the targets for reducing
decision times on new conven-
tional pesticides and reduced risk
pesticides, providing additional
alternatives for higher risk
pesticides faster.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-41.
CHALLENGES
During 2005, the ethical
acceptability of using human stud-
ies for regulatory purposes
presented a challenge to the pro-
gram. EPA is drafting a rule to
provide guidance in this area.
Protecting the health of sus-
ceptible populations such as
children and Native Americans
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Pesticide Registration program related to this APG
most recently in the 2003 PART process.The program received an ade-
quate rating.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
The registration program is supported with implementation activities
through the Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation.
Responsibility for regulating pesticide use is in large part delegated to states
and tribes.These resources provide assistance to states and Tribes in the
areas of pesticides certification and training/worker protection, endangered
species activities, and environmental stewardship.
continues to be a challenging
endeavor, particularly in the areas
of developmental neurotoxicity,
non-dietary pesticide exposure
and subsistence lifestyles.
Strategic Objective 2—Communities
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
APG 4.11 Assess and Cleanup Brownfields
PERFORMANCE
EPA's Brownfields Program
empowers states, tribes, local gov-
ernments, and other stakeholders
in economic redevelopment to
work together to prevent, assess,
safely clean up, and reuse brown-
fields sustainably. Reinvesting in
brownfields increases local tax
bases, facilitates job growth, and
takes development pressures off of
undeveloped land.
To date, Brownfields grantees
have assessed 5,752 properties,
leveraging $7.2 billion in cleanup
and redevelopment funding, and
33,599 jobs. Additionally, EPA
has conducted 1,406 targeted
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006
FY 2005: Leverage or generate funds through revitalization efforts.
Performance Measures (all are MMTCE)
• Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
(PART)
• Number of Brownfields cleanup grants award-
ed.
• Number of properties cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
• Number of acres of Brownfields property avail-
able for reuse.
• Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields
activities.
• Percentage of Brownfields jobs training trainees
placed.
• Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds
leveraged at Brownfields sites.
Planned
1,000
25
60
No target
5,000
65%
Actual
Data avail 2006
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
brownfields assessments. EPA will
not be able to provide FY 2005
performance due to grantee
reporting delays.
Since FY 2001, the
Brownfields Program has exceeded
its target for leveraged investment
in brownfields properties. In FY
2004, the Brownfields Program
did not achieve its target of lever-
aging $0.9 billion in cleanup and
redevelopment funding, however,
grantees continue to succeed in
efforts to cleanup and redevelop
brownfields properties. Program
grantees did not report the antici-
pated leveraged figures, because
brownfields cleanup and redevel-
opment projects are ongoing and
will be completed in future years.
Additionally, the Brownfields
Program did not achieve the FY
2004 target of 65 percent job
training participants who are
trained and find employment. The
program did not meet its target for
job placement due to prevailing
national economic conditions
beyond the program's control.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-50.
CHALLENGES
The Brownfields Program is
still collecting information on
grantee activities but anticipates
reaching its FY 2005 goal.
FY 2004: Assess, cleanup, and promote the reuse of Brownfields prop-
erties, leveraging cleanup and redevelopment funding and jobs.
Performance Measures
• Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
• Brownfield properties assessed.
• Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
• Brownfield property acres available for reuse or
continued use.
• Jobs generated from Brownfields activities
(annual).
• Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees
placed.
• Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds
leveraged at Brownfield sites.
Planned
25
1,000
No target
No target
2,000
65%
$0.9 B
Actual
75
1,076
17
129
2,250
61%
$0.7B
•
•
X
X
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the Brownfields program related to this APG in the 2003
PART process.The program received an adequate rating.
Program Evaluations
• Office of Inspector General: "EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields
Administrative Resources." Additional information on this report is avail-
able in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-17.
• Government Accountability Office report: "Brownfield Redevelopment:
Stakeholders Report That EPA's Program Helps to Redevelop Sites, but
Additional Measures Could Complement Agency Efforts." Additional
information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix B, page B-17.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
The Brownfields Program has awarded more than 1,000 Assessment,
Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, Job Training, and State and Tribal Voluntary
Response Program Grants.The Brownfields Program reports on the num-
ber of properties assessed, cleaned up, the number of acres made ready for
reuse, as well as the amount of cleanup and redevelopment jobs and dollars
leveraged by these grantees thus far.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4.12 US-Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
PERFORMANCE
The purpose of the APG is to
track the number of people with-
out adequate water service on the
border that have been and will be
supported by the planning, design
and construction of drinking
water and wastewater infrastruc-
ture construction with capital
funding. The funding helps reduce
raw sewage and provide safe
drinking water to residents on the
U.S.-Mexico Border.
To date, drinking water and
sanitation service have been pro-
vided for 1,163,000 people who
previously had no service. This
effort requires considerable coordi-
nation among six Mexican and
four U.S. states, municipalities
with varying capacity, and two
international organizations that
certify the projects and issue sub-
grants for individual projects.
Qoal Not Met. In FY 2005, EPA
stopped the certification process
to develop and implement a prior -
itization system to streamline the
planning and development process
and better target EPA resources to
EPA objectives. Planned accom-
plishments were not achieved in
FY 2005 because funding for new
projects was delayed until the pri-
oritization system was put in
place. The first certifications from
the prioritized project list are
anticipated in the second quarter
of FY 2006.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-51.
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: In the US-Mexico Border Region, sustain and restore
community health, and preserve the ecological systems that
support them.
Performance Measures
Protect the health of 1.5 A/I people in the Mexico
border area by providing adequate water and waste-
water sanitation systems funded through the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund, (cumulative) (PART)
Planned
I.5M
Actual
I.I63M
Additional People on the US-Mexico Border with
Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
2005
Fiscal Year
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB assessed the US-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure program related
to this APG in the 2004 PART process.The program received an adequate
rating.
Program Evaluations
Board of Directors of the North American Development Bank report:
"North American Development Bank Border Environment Cooperation
Commission Business Process Review." Additional information on this
report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-18.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
This APG is supported by grants provided to the Border Environment
Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank for
water infrastructure. In FY 2005, the funding for the U.S-Mexico Border
water infrastructure grants was $49.6 million. Although no new projects
were certified in FY 2005 due to the development of the prioritization sys-
tem, progress on existing projects continued to provide safe drinking water
and sanitation to citizens on the border.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
CHALLENGES
The Brownfields Program is
still collecting information on
grantee activities but anticipates
reaching its FY 2005 goal.
The need to better prioritize
projects to ensure alignment with
the Agency's Strategic Plan
required the Agency to develop
and implement a new prioritiza-
tion system for funding projects in
FY 2005. The new prioritization
process will streamline the plan-
ning and development process
and better target EPA resources
to EPA objectives starting in
FY 2006.
APG 4.13 Sustain Community Health
PERFORMANCE
This measure seeks to increase
the degree to which other coun-
tries assess and understand
possible environmental implica-
tions of economic growth
resulting from trade liberalization.
Such understanding should lead to
development and implementation
of capacity building measures to
better address likely environmen-
tal impacts, as well as increased
commitment on the part of trade
partner countries to enforce their
existing environmental laws and
regulations.
In FY 2005 EPA concluded
most of the required work on a
new training course on conduct-
ing environmental reviews. By
delivering this training course in
developing countries and continu-
ing our efforts to facilitate such
reviews, EPA expects to see more
developing countries—both in the
western hemisphere and more
broadly—improve their capacity
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Assist trade partner countries in completing environmental
reviews. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Number of environmental reviews initiated by
FTAA countries following the enactment of the
2002 Trade Promotion Act.
Planned
3 countries
Actual
3
to anticipate and address major
potential environmental impacts
associated with trade liberaliza-
tion.
Our baseline (2002) is for zero
reviews conducted by the thirty
one countries with market
economies in Latin America and
the Caribbean that—combined
with the US, Canada and
Mexico—make up the negotiating
parties for the FTAA.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-51.
CHALLENGES
The primary challenge we face
is uncertainty felt by many devel-
oping countries of conducting
such reviews. Many countries
view environmental considera-
tions or measures in a trade
context, even an environmental
review of trade liberalization, as a
hidden barrier employed by devel-
oped countries to limit imports
from developing countries. Finally,
many such countries have neither
the knowledge of procedures nor
the data required for generating a
meaningful environmental review
of trade liberalization.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 3—Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
APG 4.14 Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
PERFORMANCE
The health of the nation's
estuaries depends in part on the
maintenance of high-quality habi-
tat. This APG tracks the acreage
of habitat protected or restored
through the National Estuary
Program (NEP). Such acreage
contributes to the ability of the 28
NEP estuaries to support healthy
populations of wildlife and marine
organisms, including many com-
mercially valuable fisheries, and to
perform the economic, environ-
mental, and aesthetic functions
on which coastal populations
depend for their livelihood. In FY
2005, the NEPs, working with
their partners, protected and
restored 103,959 acres of habitat,
significantly exceeding the goal of
25,000 acres. This success is partly
due to substantial local bond
measures that passed, allowing
several of the NEPs to significant-
ly exceed their goals. Also, an
improved peer process has been
established where successes and
lessons learned are more readily
transferred among the NEPs.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-52.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional
25,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that
are part of the National Estuary Program.
Performance Measures Planned
• Acres of habitat restored and protected | 25,000
nationwide as part of the National Estuary
Program, (incremental)
Actual
03,959
CHALLENGES
Based on the fact that most of
the NEPs have been implement-
ing protection and restoration
projects for 15 years now, it
appears that most of the "easier"
projects have been tackled.
Remaining projects are expected
to be more difficult—at a mini-
mum, require more lead time. In
addition, in some of the NEPs
with smaller study areas, there is
less and less land available for
and/or in need of protection or
restoration.
We continue to work with our
partners to ensure that everyone is
using consistent definitions to
identify the appropriate acreage
for tracking under this APG.
Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the
Oceans/Coastal program related
to this APG in the 2005 PART
process. Results of this assess-
ment will be included in the FY
2007 President's Budget.
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This
APG
Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act provides for annual grants to
NEPs. NEPs have been very effec-
tive at leveraging this "base"
grant funding by building relation-
ships with diverse private, local,
state, and federal partners. Base
funding for FY 2005 totaled
approximately $17 million.
Estimates indicate that approxi-
mately $ 160 million was
leveraged in FY 2005.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
APG 4.15 Increase Wetlands
PERFORMANCE
Wetlands are among our
Nation's most critical and produc-
tive natural resources. They
provide a variety of benefits, such
as water quality improvements,
flood protection, shoreline erosion
control, and ground water
exchange. Wetlands are the pri-
mary habitat for fish, waterfowl,
and wildlife, and as such, provide
numerous opportunities for educa-
tion, recreation, and research.
EPA recognizes that the chal-
lenges the Nation faces to
conserve our wetland heritage are
daunting and that many partners
must work together for this effort
to succeed. This APG acknowl-
edges the joint nature of the task
to not only increase acreage of
wetlands but maintain and restore
their biological and functional
integrity.
The challenges the Nation
faces to conserve our wetland her-
itage are daunting; many partners
must work together for this effort
to succeed. This APG acknowl-
edges the joint nature of the task
to not only increase acreage of
wetlands but maintain and restore
their biological and functional
integrity.
The "net gain" element of
the wetland goal will be primarily
accomplished by other Federal
programs (Farm Bill agriculture
incentive programs and wetlands
acquisition and restoration
programs, including those admin-
istered by Fish and Wildlife
Service) and non-Federal
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006 AND
FY 2008
FY 2005: Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
(NEWINFYOS)
Performance Measures
• Working with partners, achieve an
increase of wetlands with additional focus
on biological and functional measures.
• Annually in partnership with the Corps of
Engineers and states, achieve no net loss
of wetlands in the CWA Section 404 reg-
ulatory program.
Planned
100,000 acres/yr
No net loss
Actual
Data avail 2006
Data avail 2008
programs. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Status and
Trends Report provides the data
necessary to measure achievement
of this APG.
EPA contributes to achieving
no overall net loss in wetlands
through EPA's regulatory pro-
grams, including Clean Water Act
Section 404/401 permit review,
compliance and enforcement, and
other programs, such as Sections
402 and 311. EPA will continue
to work with the COE to ensure
application of the 404(b)(l)
guidelines, which require that dis-
charges into waters of the U.S. be
avoided and minimized to the
extent practicable.
Additionally, in FY 2005 EPA
continued to work with states to
build their capability to monitor
trends in wetland condition using
biological metrics and assessments
and has the goal of at least 14
states using these methods by
2008. Five grants were awarded in
FY 2004 to promote the develop-
ment of methods to be used to
monitor trends in wetland condi-
tion in five states. Work was
continued under those five grants
in FY 2005, as well as technical
support provided to these and
other states in fulfillment of this
annual goal.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-53-C-55.
CHALLENGES
In April 2004, the President
announced a performance-based
goal to restore, enhance, and pro-
tect at least 3 million wetland
acres over the next 5 years. The
link between this new goal and
the existing APG is described in
EPA's FY 2006 National Water
Program Guidance.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Status and Trends Report
provides the data necessary to
measure achievement of this APG
and typically is only produced
every 10 years. The most recent
report was in January 2001 and
was not due to be produced again
until 2010. Additional funding
was provided to produce a report
at the end of 2005.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Delays in reporting on "no net
loss" in the CWA Section 404 reg-
ulatory program are due to budget
constraints at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. While EPA
and other federal agencies have
provided extra funds to the COE,
implementation of the Corps' new
permit tracking database has been
delayed until end of 2006 which
will postpone obtaining data and
information to report on acreage
gains and losses in the regulatory
program until end of 2007.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) are critical for building
State/Tribal and local government's capacity to protect and manage their wet-
lands. Established in 1990, the WPDG program provides $15 million in funds
to states,Tribes, and local governments to develop programs that increase
their participation in wetland restoration, improvement, and protection activi-
ties. In FY 2005, EPA initiated a grant pilot under the WPDGs to demonstrate
the environmental outcomes of implementing comprehensive State and Tribal
wetland programs. Funds used in these demonstration projects are designed
to determine the extent to which wetland program implementation achieves
no net loss, net gain, and protection of vulnerable wetlands.
APG 4.16 Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
PERFORMANCE
Measures under this APG
assess the overall progress U.S.
environmental programs are mak-
ing in protecting and restoring the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Improvements in the
index and measure for this APG'
would indicate that fewer toxics
are entering the food chain,
ecosystem and human health is
better protected, fish is safer to
eat, water is safer to drink, and
beaches are safer for swimming.
The Great Lakes Index shows
overall progress in Great Lakes
ecosystem condition. Improve-
ments in coastal wetlands,
drinking water quality, and air
toxics deposition are reflected in
increased annual index scores. In
FY 2005, EPA reported an index
score of 21.9 out of a possible 40,
more than the one-point increase
over the baseline score of 20. Of
this increase, 0.5 points resulted
from additional information that
was not available at the time the
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so
that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved by at
least I point.
Performance Measures
(Performance measure is included in the annual goal above.)
• Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term) in
the Lake Erie Central Basin.
• Average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake
trout and walleye samples will decline.
• Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the
air in the Great Lakes basin will decline.
• Restore and delist Areas of Concern (AOC)
within the Great Lakes basin.
• Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sedi-
ment remediated in the Great Lakes, (cumulative
from 1997)
Planned
21
IOMg/1
5%
7%
3AOC
2.9M
Actual
21.9
1
6.2%
7.1%
OAOC
3.7M
GOAL NOT
MET FOR
FY2004
FY 2004: Great Lakes ecosystem component will improve, including
progress on the fish contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and
trophic status.
Performance Measures
• Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs)
in Great Lakes top predator fish
• Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemi-
cals in the air
• Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, ug/l)
in the Lake Erie Central Basin.
Planned
5%
7%
10
Actual
5.8%
8.4%
21.2
X
baseline was calculated, and thus,
may not reflect actual environ-
mental improvement. The overall
increase in index score for FY
2005 might have been even
greater, were it not for high phos-
phorus concentrations in Lake
Erie. Thus, while two performance
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
measures under this APG were
not met for FY 2005, the more
comprehensive measure based on
the Great Lakes Index indicates
that EPA met its goal for FY 2005.
Phosphorus is the limiting
nutrient in the Great Lakes that
controls algae growth. Lake Erie
exceeded phosphorus guideline
levels in recent years, particularly
its central basin which is most
representative of the Lake's anoxia
problems. Elevated phosphorus
concentrations in Lake Erie are
linked to the increased "dead
zone," or zone of limited dissolved
oxygen. FY 2005 data indicate
that the targeted concentration
level was not met. Further explo-
ration of this problem, identified
by GLNPO, is being augmented
by work with NOAA and
Environment Canada.
Analysis in 2005 indicate that
on average, total PCB concentra-
tions in whole Great Lakes top
predator fish have declined 6.2
percent annually between 1990
and 2003; meeting the target for
declines in concentration trends.
Cleanup efforts, such as the reme-
diation of contaminated sediments
GOAL NOT FY 2003: Same goal as FY 2004.
FY 2003
Performance Measures
• Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs)
in Great Lakes top predator fish.
• Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemi-
cals in the air
• Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, (jg/l)
in the Lake Erie Central Basin.
Planned
5%
7%
10
Actual
Data avai
1 1 /2005
8.3%
18.4
X
X
and the reduction of PCB loadings
to the Great Lakes, need to be
continued and enhanced to con-
tinue the declining trend. Based
on Lake Michigan data, current
concentrations in lake trout are
approximately 8 times the wildlife
protection value (0.16ppm) and
current concentrations in game
fish fillets are approximately ten
times the unlimited consumption
level for protection of human
health (.05ppm).
Atmospheric deposition has
been shown to be a significant
source of pollutants to the Great
Lakes. From 1992 to 2003, U.S.
concentrations of PCBs in the air
measured at stations on Lakes
Total Phosphorus—Central Basin, Lake Erie
2L
W
| Target Concentration |
il 11 11
11
._.
s s
z z
s s
Q Q
Superior, Michigan, and Erie
decreased an average of 7.1 per-
cent annually, meeting the
targeted commitment1.
The 31 U.S. or binational
Areas of Concerns (AOC) are the
most polluted geographic areas in
the Great Lakes. EPA is working
with the states to restore their
impaired beneficial uses (such as
restrictions on fish consumption
due to high contaminant levels)
in order to "delist" ten AOCs by
2010 and all AOCs by 2025.
While EPA has not met the target
of delisting three AOCs in FY
2005, significant progress has been
made toward delisting of two
AOCs in FY 2006.
In FY 2005, EPA reported
that the commitment to remedi-
ate 300,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments in calen-
dar year 2004 had been met
through the combined efforts of
EPA, states, and other partners,
including the first Great Lakes
Legacy Act project. EPA and its
partners have already substantially
exceeded the 2008 goal of remedi-
ating 3.3 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Total PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish, Odd Year Sites
Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
1991 -2003
Year
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-55-C-62.
CHALLENGES
Great Lakes restoration and
protection, including delisting of
Areas of Concern, is dependent
upon core EPA programs and
organizations outside of EPA's
control, such as (i) Departments
of State, Interior, Agriculture,
Commerce, Housing and Urban
Development, Transportation, the
Army, and Homeland Security;
Cumulative Sediment Volume Remediated in Great Lakes Since 1997*
4,C
Program Evaluations
EPA Report: "Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program (GLFMP)
Review." Additional information
on this report is available in the
Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix B, page B-18.
Grants Supporting the
Achievement of This
APG
Great Lakes National Program
Office programs; state grants for
Lakewide Management Plans and
Remedial Action Plans; competi-
tive grants addressing
Contaminated Sediments,
Pollution Prevention and
Reduction, Habitat (Ecological)
Protection and Restoration,
Invasive Species, and Strategic or
Emerging Issues; and, competitive
monitoring grants regarding
Atmospheric Deposition, Fish
Contaminants, and Biology.
(ii) Great Lakes states and Tribes;
and (iii) municipalities. The
President's Executive Order and
the Regional Collaboration are
improving coordination and col-
laboration, but EPA does not have
the authority to direct the activi-
ties that would result in achieving
this APG.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
APG 4.17 Chesapeake Bay Habitat
PERFORMANCE
Submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) is one of the most impor-
tant biological communities in the
Bay, producing oxygen, nourishing
a variety of animals, providing
shelter and nursery areas for fish
and shellfish, reducing wave
action and shoreline erosion,
absorbing nutrients such as phos-
phorus and nitrogen, and trapping
sediments. Trends in the distribu-
tion and abundance of SAV over
time are useful in understanding
trends in water quality.
Beginning in FY 2005,
achievement of SAV targets will
be based on the "single best year"
of acreage as observed through the
most recent 3 years of data from
the aerial survey. This new
method for reporting performance
more accurately captures the natu-
ral fluctuations in acreage due to
annual changes caused by weather.
Baywide, the single best year in
the CY 2002-2004 period was
89,659 acres in 2002.24
Qod Not Met. The FY 2005 goal
of restoring the acres of SAV to
GOAL NOT
MET
FY 2005: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that
the overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved
enough so that there are 90,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation
(cumulative).
Performance Measures
• Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
present in the Chesapeake Bay (cumulative).
Planned
90,000
Actual
89,659
X
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
This goal is supported by CWA Section I I7(e) grants, which fund the full
range of state water quality nutrient reduction programs. In FY 2005, EPA
awarded a total of $7,628,000 in Chesapeake Bay Program State
Implementation Grants to Maryland,Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District
of Columbia. The funds are used to reduce nutrients and sediments enter-
ing the Bay for a variety of land uses. The grants have a particular emphasis
on state tributary strategy implementation to improve water quality and
help meet the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
In FY 2005, EPA awarded $1,984,000 to National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to administer the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants. This
funding goes to local governments and watershed organizations to restore
wetlands, create riparian buffers, protect undeveloped lands, and improve cit-
izen awareness. All of these outcomes will reduce nutrients and sediments
that will help improve water clarity, which will improve SAV habitat.
90,000 was not met, in part
because pollution reduction strate-
gies for reducing nutrient and
sediment pollution loads were not
Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
implemented to levels envisioned
by the partners in tributary strate-
gies. Challenges to achieving
nutrient and sediment pollution
loads are discussed under APG
4.18. In addition, population
growth in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed continues to make
restoration of the SAV difficult.
While the program plans to begin
a full re-evaluation in 2007, it
continues to pursue strategies to
accelerate nutrient-sediment
reduction: the reduction of nutri-
ent (phosphorus and nitrogen) and
sediment pollution loads plays a
crucial role in restoring SAV.
CalendarYear
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-62-C-63.
CHALLENGES
Meeting the SAV performance
goal is dependent on the reducing
phosphorus, nitrogen, and sedi-
ments loadings to the Bay and its
tributaries. Challenges to accom-
plishing these reductions are
described in APG fact sheet 4.18.
APG 4.18 Chesapeake Bay Habitat
PERFORMANCE
Indicators used to measure
environmental improvement in
the Bay are reductions in the
pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment entering the Bay.
Implementation of best manage-
ment practices has reduced these
pollutants, offsetting significant
load increases that would have
resulted from population growth.
The current pollutant-loading
rate continues to exceed the level
needed to meet the Bay water
quality standards adopted by the
states in 2005.
The targets in EPA's Strategic
Plan for nutrient and sediment
reductions are scientifically based
and reflect a multi-state consen-
sus. Bay Program partners have
committed to meet target load
allocations by the end of calendar
year 2010.
In FY 2005, states adopted
enforceable Bay-specific water
quality standards and implement-
ed an innovative basin-wide
NPDES permitting strategy for
nitrogen and phosphorus. The
Chesapeake Executive Council
also adopted measures to reduce
nutrient pollution from animal
manure. With animal manure
and poultry litter accounting for a
significant amount of the non-
point nutrient pollution flowing
into the Bay, the Executive
GOAL NOT
MET
FY 2005: Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year; phos-
phorus loads by 8.7 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 1.06
million tons per year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 lev-
els. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per
yean
• Reduce phosphorus loads by 8.7 million pounds
per yean
• Reduce sediment loads by 1.06 million tons pen
yean
s per
>unds
s per
Planned
74
8.7
1.06
Actual
67
8.4
0.92
X
X
X
Council took action to minimize
manure nutrients reaching local
waters.
Qoal Not Met. The FY 2005
nutrient (phosphorus and nitro-
gen) and sediment pollution load
reduction goals were not met
because the goals are ambitious
and the level of effort and expen-
diture needed to meet them far
exceed initial estimates made by
federal and state partners. The
annual targets were aligned to
reflect the goal of restoring water
quality standards by 2010.
While the program plans to
conduct a full re-evaluation begin-
ning in 2007, it continues to
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
This goal is supported by CWA Section I I7(e) grants, which fund the full
range of state water quality nutrient reduction programs. In FY 2005, EPA
awarded a total of $7,628,000 in Chesapeake Bay Program State
Implementation Grants to Maryland,Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District
of Columbia. The funds are used to reduce nutrients and sediments enter-
ing the Bay for a variety of land uses. The grants have a particular emphasis
on state tributary strategy implementation to improve water quality and
help meet the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
In FY 2005, EPA awarded $1,984,000 to National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to administer the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants. This
funding goes to local governments and watershed organizations to restore
wetlands, create riparian buffers, protect undeveloped lands, and improve cit-
izen awareness. All of these outcomes will reduce nutrients and sediments
that will help improve water clarity, which will improve SAV habitat.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
pursue strategies to accelerate
nutrient-sediment reduction.
Strategies include: (1) state adop-
tion of enforceable Bay-specific
water quality standards by the end
of summer 2005; (2) implementa-
tion of an innovative basin-wide
NPDES permitting strategy for
nitrogen and phosphorus; and (3)
the development of a strategy to
address excess animal manure and
poultry litter for Chesapeake
Executive Council endorsement
in 2005.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-63-C-64.
CHALLENGES
Maintaining the existing
nitrogen, phosphorus and sedi-
ment loading levels will be a
challenge due to the continued
expected growth in human and
farm animal population in the
region. In addition, the current
pollutant-loading rate continues
to exceed the level needed to
meet the bay water quality stan-
dards adopted by the states in
2005. In order to achieve the
necessary nitrogen, phosphorus
and sediment load reductions,
states will need to fully implement
their pollution reduction
strategies.
APG 4.19 Gulf of Mexico
PERFORMANCE
Efforts to improve the overall
health of the entire Gulf of
Mexico must include a focused
effort to reduce the size of the
zone of hypoxic conditions (i.e.
low oxygen in the water) in the
northern Gulf. The hypoxic zone
results in the failure to capture
fish, shrimp, and crabs in bottom-
dragging trawls when the oxygen
falls below the critical level of 2
ppm. The seasonal formation and
persistence of hypoxia are influ-
enced by discharges and nutrient
loads of the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya Rivers. The fresher
water forms a layer above the
saltier Gulf waters. Nitrogen and
phosphorus in the river water
stimulate the growth of micro-
scopic plants or phytoplankton.
These algae are either transferred
into the food web or end up as
organic debris on the sea floor.
Their decomposition by bacteria
depletes oxygen in the lower
waters until they no longer sustain
the life of most marine animals.
FY 2005: Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order
to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
Performance Measures
• Reduce releases of nutrients throughout
the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the
size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of
Mexico, as measured by the 5-year run-
ning average.
Planned
14,128 km sq
Actual
2,700 km sq •
The coast wide extent of the
hypoxic zone mapped in 2005 was
11,840 square kilometers or 4,564
square miles. The low oxygen
waters extended from near the
Mississippi River to the
Louisiana/Texas border. The
long-term average since mapping
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
• Targeted Watershed Initiative grants support nitrogen reduction in the
Mississippi River Basin, with a special emphasis on support for innovative
programs allowing trading of nutrient reductions. Although there were
no Targeted Watershed Initiative grants in the Mississippi River Basin in
FY 2005, funding of $943,000 supported a point source inventory, ship-
time and monitoring support, modeling, wetlands and water quality
trading, sub-basin team support, and nutrient science workshop.
• Grants supporting Gulf States in their efforts to develop nutrient stan-
dards for estuaries and near coastal waters. In FY 2005, grants for
$375,000 supported Gulf States in their efforts to develop nutrient stan-
dards for estuaries and near coastal waters, included the development of
a nutrient TMDL model, provided real-time monitors near the mouth of
the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico to better understand the
dynamics of the hypoxic zone that forms each year in this area.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
began in 1985 is 12,700 km (or
4,800 square miles).
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-65.
CHALLENGES
The smaller than predicted
size was expected because of a
tropical storm and hurricane that
affected the area between the
Mississippi and the Atchafalaya
rivers earlier in July. The effects
of Hurricane Katrina on the
hypoxic zone will not be deter-
mined until research cruises are
conducted in FY 2006.
Strategic Objective 4—Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting, sustaining, and
restoring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research and.
developing better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes, under Goal 4-
APG 4.2O Conduct Relevant Research to Support the Food Quality Protection Act
PERFORMANCE:
This research provided proto-
cols, data and models that EPA's
Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) can use to conduct expo-
sure assessments for pesticides.
The products will be used as OPP
conducts risk assessments for pes-
ticides for the first time or as
pesticides that have previously
been evaluated are reassessed as
required under the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA). Under
FQPA, OPP is required to take
into consideration multiple path-
ways of exposure to pesticides and
the cumulative risks they may
pose. FQPA also mandates ensur-
ing the protection of sensitive
subpopulations such as children.
By having tools to be able to
understand children's residential
exposures to pesticides, OPP will
have the sound scientific under-
pinnings to incorporate this
information in setting allowable
levels of pesticide residues on
crops (tolerances) through its
assessments and reassessments.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Provide high quality exposure, effects and assessment
research results that support the August 2006 reassessment of current-
use pesticide tolerances to EPA so that, by 2008, EPA will be able to
characterize key factors influencing children's and other subpopulations'
risks from pesticide exposure. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Children's exposure data and tools for assessing
aggregate exposure to residential-use pesticides
Planned
9/30/05
Actual
9/30/05
Before this research was con-
ducted, the data available in the
scientific literature characterizing
children's exposures to residential-
use pesticides were extremely
limited and of unknown or vary-
ing quality. Validated protocols
for collecting the data to assess
children's aggregate exposures to
pesticides through all routes and
pathways did not exist. The mod-
els that were available for
characterizing children's exposures
only examined one route or path-
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Human Health Research program related to this APG
in the 2005 PART process. Results of this assessment will be included in
the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Program Evaluations
Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors report:
"Review of the Computational Toxicology Research Program Directions."
Additional information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix B, page B-19.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
way at a time, based on single
point estimates. There were no
probabilistic models for describing
distributions of exposure and
addressing uncertainty and vari-
ability.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-66.
APG 4.21 Conduct Relevant Research: Mercury
PERFORMANCE
On March 15, 2005, EPA
issued the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR) to permanently
cap and reduce mercury emissions
from coal-fired power plants for
the first time ever. This rule, com-
bined with EPA's Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), will sig-
nificantly reduce emissions from
the nation's largest remaining
source of human-caused mercury
emissions. The work performed to
fulfill this APG supported the
development of the CAMR. The
results of the work also will be
used in the future to support effec-
tive implementation of the
CAMR by EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation, EPA's Office of Water,
and the States, and to evaluate
the rule's effectiveness.
The work conducted under
this APG culminated in the pro-
duction of a white paper (February
18, 2005) that summarizes the sta-
tus of mercury control
technologies for coal-fired utility
boilers was produced to support
development of the new Clean
Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). The
paper documented the current sta-
tus of mercury controls and
directly informed the regulatory
proposals contained in the
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Provide information on managing mercury and other co-pollu-
tants from utility boilers so that, by 2010, there is an extensive set of data
and tools available to help industry and federal, state, and local environ-
mental management officials make decisions on the most cost-effective
ways to reduce or prevent mercury releases into the environment. (NEW
IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Information on managing mercury and other co-
pollutants from utility boilers
Planned
1 report
Actual
Program Evaluations
Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors
report: "Review of the Mercury Multi-Year Research Plan." Additional
information on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix B, page B-21.
CAMR. The paper was placed in
the regulatory docket to support
the CAMR.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-66.
CHALLENGES
No major challenges were
encountered in FY 2005 that
adversely affected performance
under this APG. An earlier white
paper on the status of mercury
control technologies for electric
utility boilers was released in
February 2004 by EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
Subsequently, much new informa-
tion became available on these
technologies. Despite the limited
time available to revise the white
paper to reflect the best-available
scientific information, the revised
white paper was finalized on
February 18th and placed in the
regulatory docket. This revised
paper successfully documented the
most current status of mercury
controls and helped inform the
regulatory process.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4.22 Conduct Relevant Research: Exposure and Environmental Effects
PERFORMANCE
The intent of this APG is to
provide methods and models so
that risk assessors and risk man-
agers will be able to measure and
evaluate exposure to and effects of
environmental stressors in chil-
dren. The objective of this
research is to reduce children's
exposure to harmful agents. The
public will benefit from the
reduced cost of treating environ-
mental-related diseases and by
having a safer environment for
children.
Research included evaluating
new, less invasive approaches for
assessing children's exposures and
developing models for assessing
aggregate exposure to environ-
mental stressors in a residential
setting. Research also demon-
strated approaches to reduce the
exposure of children with respira-
tory problems to indoor
contaminants. These findings are
essential to the long-term goal of
this work: to provide methods and
models so that risk assessors and
risk managers can characterize and
provide adequate protection for
susceptible subpopulations,
including children. Guidance on
conducting risk assessments for
children as a sensitive subpopula-
tion was also provided. This work
is part of a larger program of
research that focuses on character-
izing how sensitivity or
vulnerability to environmental
stressors varies as a function of
age. This research contributes to
understanding how behavior and
environments specific to home
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Provide risk assessors and managers with methods and tools for
measuring exposure and effects in children, and characterizing and reducing
risks to children from environmental agents in schools so that, by 2014,
EPA will be able to demonstrate why some groups of people, defined by
life stage, genetic factors, and health status, are more vulnerable than oth-
ers to adverse effects from exposure to environmental agents. (NEW IN
FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Methods and tools for measuring exposure and
effects in children, and characterizing and reduc-
ing risks to children from environmental agents in
school
Planned
9/30/05
Actual
9/30/05
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB is assessing the Human Health Research program related to this APG
in the 2005 PART process. Results of this assessment will be included in
the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Program Evaluations
Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors report:
"Human Health Research Program Review." Additional information on this
report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-22.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
• Chloroatrazine protein binding: Biomarkers of exposure and susceptibility
(EPA grant R8286IO).The purpose of this research is to develop a non-
invasive method for measuring environmental stressors to be used as
biomarker of exposure of children.
• Methods development for exposure-related behaviors (EPA grant
R83l540).The purpose of this research is to provide information for
ERA's Consolidated Human Activity Database, which can be used to
assess exposure to environmental stressors in children.
• A longitudinal assessment study of human exposure to pesticides due to
variations of dietary consumption patterns (EPA grant R832244).This
research focuses on dietary consumptions patterns, dietary exposures
and body burdens to environmental stressors for a database to predict
exposure among individuals on a national level.
• Data collection platforms for integrated longitudinal surveys of human
exposure (EPA grant 831541 ).The purpose of this research is to develop
and test methods to facilitate the collection and processing of longitudi-
nal data for exposure models to environmental stressors.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
and school may make children dif-
ferentially vulnerable to the
effects of common environmental
stressors.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-66.
APG 4.23 Conduct Relevant Research: Riparian Zone Restoration
PERFORMANCE
In-stream and near-stream
restoration actions are being
actively pursued by local, state,
and non-governmental organiza-
tions by utilizing a range of
expertise. This expertise is tapped
from contractors, consultants,
local and state personnel, land
owners, as well as many volunteers
to design, construct, and imple-
ment restoration plans and
strategies. To date, very little sci-
entifically sound information has
been established as to actual effec-
tiveness of the in-stream and
near-stream restoration actions in
meeting the goals and objectives
for these restoration plans.
The purpose of the APG is to
provide clear and concise informa-
tion on the utility and
effectiveness of vegetative riparian
buffers to reduce nitrogen loadings
to streams. This knowledge, pro-
vided in the form of a technical
guidance, will be utilized by deci-
sion makers in the design and
implementation of vegetative
buffers that stand a greater proba-
bility than past practices of being
effective at reducing nitrogen
impacts on streams.
The performance measure pro-
duces quantifiable results
demonstrated by a number of
studies as to the influence of vege-
tative buffers on nitrogen loading.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Provide technical guidance for implementing and evaluating proj-
ects to restore riparian zones, which are critical landscape components for
the restoration of aquatic ecosystems and water quality, so that, by 2010,
watershed managers have state-of-the-science field-evaluated tools, techni-
cal guidance, and decision-support systems for selecting, implementing, and
evaluating cost-effective and environmentally-sound approaches to restore
ecosystem services as part of watershed management. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Technical guidance for implementing and evaluat-
ing projects to restore riparian zones.
Planned
\ tech
guidance
Actual
This information provides a signif-
icant step toward a more
comprehensive guideline for
watershed management, which is
a future PM for the Ecological
Research Program.
The performance measure sup-
porting this APG incorporates
scientifically derived and pub-
lished research data regarding the
effectiveness of vegetative buffers
to reduce the impact of a number
of stressors. The collection of this
information in a concise manner
makes the information more use-
ful, while providing the client
with sufficient information to
apply the knowledge, as well as
explore new methods for buffer
design and construction.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
In-stream and riparian zone restoration research is a component of ORD's
Ecological Research Program. OMB reassessed this program most recently
in the 2005 PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007
President's Budget.
Program Evaluations
Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors report:
"Ecological Research Program Review." Additional information on this
report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-20.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
A Watershed Classification System for Improved Monitoring and Restoration:
Landscape Indicators ofWatershed Impairment. EPA STAR Program Grant to
Stephen D. Prince, University of Maryland. (This grant was related to the
general research area.)
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-66.
CHALLENGES
It was anticipated that this
technical guidance document
would have been more inclusive
and would have been developed as
material for future training
workshops and seminars, and
related technology transfer
actions. To be able to meet this
need, the document was to have
included additional guidelines for
in-stream and riparian restoration.
However, this was not possible for
several reasons, including the
inability to extend the deadlines
for the product.
APG 4.24 Risk Assessment Research: Human Health Risk Assessment Research
PERFORMANCE
The Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) is
EPA's primary electronic database
containing agency consensus haz-
ard identification and
dose-response assessments of the
human health effects that might
result from exposure to various
substances found in the environ-
ment. The toxicity information
and values in this database are
used by EPA Program Offices,
Regional Offices, States and
Tribes to support risk-based deci-
sions, such as clean-up at
Superfund sites and as an input
toward regulatory decision-making
on environmental pollutants.
The APG relates to the progress
of IRIS in preparing and submit-
ting assessments for peer review
under Agency guidelines, and to
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Through FY 2005, initiate or submit to external review 28
human health assessments and complete 12 human health assessments
through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).This information
will improve EPA's and other decision-makers' ability to protect the public
from harmful chemical exposure.
Performance Measures
• Complete 8 human health assessments and pub-
lish their results on the IRIS website.
• Initiate or submit to external peer review human
health assessments of 8 high priority chemicals.
Planned
8
8
Actual
8
8
process these to internet dissemi-
nation at www.epa.gov/iris.
In 2005, EPA completed eight
human health assessments and
published results on the IRIS web-
site cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac/
index.cfm. EPA also initiated or
submitted to external peer review
human assessments of 8 high pri-
ority chemicals.
Results achieved in FY 2004-
2005 represent the result of
increased IRIS resources and
efforts to deliver assessments, cou-
pled with additional peer review
requirements and quality assur-
ance.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-66.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
APG 4.25 Conduct Relevant Research: Homeland Security
PERFORMANCE
First responders have been,
and will continue to be, called
upon to deal with situations
involving the introduction of haz-
ardous chemical or biological
materials into the environment.
Since 9/11, there has been recog-
nition of the need to develop
tools and technologies to enhance
security and to mitigate the effects
of such incidents. These complet-
ed products are the first in a series
offered to first responders, deci-
sion-makers, water utilities, and
communities. They will be
expanded and improved to
include new developments in this
arena.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: By FY 2005, provide tools, case studies, and technical guidance
so that, by FY 2006, first responders and decision-makers will have the
methods, guidance documents, and technologies to enhance safety and to
mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous
chemical or biological materials into the environment. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce
the consequences of chemical/biological attacks
in U.S. cities.
• Technical guidance for water system owners
and operators on methods/strategies for mini-
mizing damage from intentional introduction of
biological/chemical contaminants.
• Water system-related case studies that provide
a spectrum of contingency planning situations
and responses, including one specifically focused
on the National Capital area.
Planned
I toolbox
9/30/05
3 guidance
documents
9/30/05
I set of case
studies
9/30/05
Actual
Data Quality: A description of performance can be found in
the data used to measure EPA's Appendix C, page C-66.
APG 4.26 Conduct Relevant Research: Regional Scale Ecosystem Assessment
Methods
PERFORMANCE
EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) develops statis-
tically rigorous, scientifically
defensible monitoring designs and
responsive biological indicators to
determine the condition of the
nation's aquatic resources. The
purpose of this APG was to: (1)
demonstrate the feasibility of the
EMAP approach for use nationally
by working with the states and
regions (EPA Regions 8, 9, and
10) of the Western US to estab-
lish the ecological condition of
their wadeable streams; (2) estab-
lish a baseline against which
future ecological changes and
trends in stream condition in the
west could be measured; and, (3)
GOAL MET
FY 2005: By FY 2005, the baseline ecological condition of Western
streams will be determined so that, by 2008, a monitoring framework is
available for streams and small rivers in the Western U.S. that can be used
from the local to the national level for statistical assessments of condition
and change to determine the status and trends of ecological resources.
(NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Baseline ecological condition of Western streams
determined
Planned
1 report
Actual
transfer the technology to our
state partners.
In 2005, EPA completed a
report on the statistical baseline
for ecological condition of
Western Streams. The ecological
research program is in the process
of working with the EPA Regions
and Western states to help them
analyze data for assessments of the
condition of streams (CWA
305(b)) within their jurisdiction.
Because of the ecological
research program's success in the
Western US, EPA's Office of
Water requested that EMAP
design and assist in the develop-
ment and implementation of a
National Wadeable Streams
Assessment. The purpose of this
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
assessment would be to establish
the first estimate of national
wadeable stream condition. It
would integrate EPA's Western
EMAP work with a stream condi-
tion assessment for the remainder
of the lower 48 states. The sam-
pling was completed in 2004 for
this, and the ecological research
program is currently working with
the Office of Water to produce a
report on the overall condition of
wadeable streams in the United
States.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-66.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
Western EMAP streams research is a component of ORD's Ecological
Research program. OMB reassessed this program most recently in the 2005
PART process. Results will be included in the FY 2007 President's Budget.
Program Evaluations
Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors report:
"Ecological Research Program Review." Additional information on this
report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B, page B-20.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
• Space-Time Aquatic Resources Modeling and Analysis Program
(STARMAP).
• EPA STAR Program Grant to N. Scott Urquhart, Colorado State
University.
• An Empirical Evaluation of the Performance of Different Approaches to
Classifying Reference Conditions in Streams EPA STAR Program Grant to
Charles Hawkins, Utah State University.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Qoal 4—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget and GPRA documents, including the
PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current estimate for
the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
PART Program PART Measure
Endocrine
Disrupters
Detailed Review Papers Completed.
Validation Studies Completed.
Peer Reviews.
Prevalidation Studies Completed.
Reduction in uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure,
assessment, and management of endocrine disrupters so
that EPA has a sound scientific foundation for environmen-
tal decision-making.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine
disrupters on humans, wildlife, and the environment to
better inform the federal and scientific communities.
Provide OPPTS with screening and testing assays using
rats, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates.
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Data Available
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2009
FY2009
TBD
Pesticide Field
Program
Cumulative percent reduction in poisoning incidents
Under Development
Cumulative reduction in the number of occupational poi-
soning incidents associated with exposure from pesticides
as reported and confirmed since 1998.
Under Development
Cumulative reduction in the number of systemic poisoning
incidents associated with exposure from organophosphate
pesticides as reported to Poison Control Centers since
1996.
Under Development
Annual number ofTSCA Section 5 PMNs received that
are self audited using complete battery of P2
Framework/PBT Profiler ScreeningTools.
Under Development
Percentage of pesticides managed to reduce leaching/per-
sistence.
Under Development
TBD
FY2007
FY2007
TBD
TBD
U.S.-Mexico
Border
Percentage of homes connected to potable water supply
and wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Under Development
Additional people served per million dollars (US and
Mexico federal expenditures).
Under Development
Percentage of water quality standards met in shared and
transboundary surface waters.
Under Development
4th Quarter/FY
2006
4th Quarter/FY
2006
4th Quarter/FY
2006
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTES
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "TSCA New Chemicals Program" Internal
monthly report by Chemical Abstract Services.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "High Production Volume Challenge Program,
HPV Commitment Tracking System." Available at www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvchmlt.htm.
3 Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 1999-
2002: May 2005. More information is available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
4 U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office and Government of Canada. The Great Lakes Atlas. 1995. EPA 905-B-95-001.
Online at www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/index.html.
5 U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. Volume of Sediment Remediated in the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program.
Available from GLNPO Sediment Files.
6 U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Status and Trends Report, Corps of Engineers ORM Database.
7 See www.npaf.ru for results from an environmental finance project, www.vti.ru for results from an electrostatic precipitator
performance project, and www.cenef.ru for results from an energy-efficient building codes project.
8 North American Development Bank project files for the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "TSCA New Chemicals Program." Internal
monthly report by Chemical Abstract Services.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "High Production Volume Challenge Program,
HPV Commitment Tracking System." Available at www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvchmlt.htm.
11 Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 1999-
2002: May 2005. More information is available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Estuary Program GPRA Habitat Report. More information available at
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office analysis of select Great Lakes State of the Lakes
Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue
contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition) and internal files.
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office. Volume of Sediment Remediated in the Great
Lakes Legacy Act Program, August, 2005. Available from Great Lakes National Program Office Sediment Files and from:
www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/sediments/remediatea.html.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office: Phosphorus Monitoring Program. More information
available at www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/water/phosphorusa.html.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office internal tracking and communications with Great
Lakes States, the US Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC).
17 State/district data provided to the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
18 Data from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
19 For additional information on EPA authorities for conducting work under the Food Quality Protection Act go to
www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/tolerances.htm.
20 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, National Program Chemicals Program, Internal
PCB Annual Report for Storage and Disposal of PCB Waste. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 1999-2002: May 2005. More information is available at
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm.
21 May 27, 2005 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
22 Source: Great Lakes National Program Office—Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, Great Lakes Environmental Database
Wildlife Protection Value reference—Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative technical support document for the procedure to
determine bioaccumulation factors, EPA-820-B-95-005. Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory—
Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force. September 1993.
23 Source: Great Lakes National Program Office—Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network. Before the end of calendar year
2005, Environment Canada is expected to provide concentration information from stations on Lakes Huron and Ontario in order
that the complete performance measure can be evaluated.
24 USEPA. April 2003. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake
Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries (EPA 903-R-03-002). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency Region III,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office and Water Protection Division, and Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology. Available
on the Internet: www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/baycriteria.htm.
-------
Strategic Goal 5:
Complianc
Environmental Stewardship
JT
f r _._, 0 Compliance with environmaitd requirements, preventing pollution,
and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human health and the environment by encouraging innovation
and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship.
Overview of Goal 5
Under Goal 5, EPA continues to
improve national environmental
performance by ensuring compliance
with environmental laws and pro-
moting environmental stewardship
to conserve natural resources, pre-
vent pollution, and reduce waste.
The Agency uses a wide spectrum
of regulatory and nonregulatory
strategies, including compliance
assistance, incentives, monitoring,
data analysis, pollution prevention,
and civil and criminal enforcement
to achieve performance goals. EPA
Millions of Pounds of Pollutants Reduced Through Enforcement Actions
helps businesses, particularly small
businesses, achieve and maintain
compliance1 and provides incentives2
for facilities to conduct voluntary
audits, correct problems, and return
to compliance. EPA also conducts
research to identify innovative
approaches to environmental
protection and encourages states,
tribes, and regulated entities to
develop new approaches, ideas,
and techniques.
Fiscal Year
EPA's compliance programs
work to ensure that regulated entities
understand and
comply with require-
ments set forth in
environmental laws.
The Agency reduced,
treated, or eliminated
3.5 billion pounds of
pollution over the
last 4 fiscal years.
From FY 2001 to
2005 more than
6,000 facilities took
advantage of EPA's
2005
Contributing Programs
Office of Compliance
Office of Criminal Enforcement
Forensics and Training
Office of Civil Enforcement
Federal Facilities Enforcement
Office of Federal Activities
Pollution Prevention Program
State and Tribal Pollution Prevention
National Center for Environmental
Innovation
American Indian Environmental Office
Tribal General Assistance Program
Environmental Technology Verification
Program
Resource Conservation Challenge
National Partnership for
Environmental Priorities
incentive policies to voluntarily
disclose and correct environmental
problems in a timely manner.
Seventy-eight percent of the
Compliance Assistance Centers' sur-
vey respondents from the regulated
community improved environmental
management practices as a result of
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Qoal 5 At a Qlance
FY 2OO5 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS (APGs)
Met = 2 Not Met = 4
Data Available After November 15, 2005 = 1
{Total APGs = 7)
FY 2005 Obligations
(in thousands)
FY 2005 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal 2
$3,578,976
(35.3%)
Goal 3
$3,403,712
(33.6%)
Goal 2
$3,507,201
(41.3%)
Goal 3
$2,015,874
(23.7%)
EPA Total = $10,125,983
EPA Total = $8,500,594
FY 2OO5 "REPORT CARD'
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE
APG
STATUS
OBJECTIVE I-IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and
environment through compliance assistance, compliance incen-
tives, and enforcement by achieving a 5% increase in the
pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achiev-
ing a 596 increase in the number of regulated entities making
improvements in environmental management practices.
OBJECTIVE 2-IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE THROUGH P2AND INNOVATION
By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natu-
ral resource conservation on the part of government, business,
and the public through the adoption of pollution prevention
and sustainable practices that include the design of products
and manufacturing processes that generate less pollution, the
reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption of results-
based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
OBJECTIVE 3-TRIBAL CAPACITY
Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing
the condition of their environment, help in building their capaci-
ty to implement environmental programs where needed to
improve tribal health and environments, and implement pro-
grams in Indian country where needed to address
environmental issues.
OBJECTIVE 4-ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research
supporting environmental polices and decisions on compliance,
pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
I Met
2 Not Met
OTBD
OMet
I Not Met
ITBD
OMet
I Not Met
OTBD
I Met
0 Not Met
OTBD
information provided by the com-
pliance assistance centers.3
EPA uses enforcement actions
to correct and deter violations.4
In FY 2005, 72.5 percent of
enforcement actions resulted in
implementation of improved envi-
ronmental management practices;
28.8 percent of enforcement
actions required that pollutants be
reduced, treated, or eliminated
and populations and ecosystems
be protected.5 In settling civil
cases, the Agency often negotiates
supplemental environmental proj-
ects that improve health and the
environment in affected commu-
nities. 6 The use of compliance
assistance, incentive programs,
and monitoring and enforcement
activities all contribute to
improved environmental condi-
tions, management practices, and
performance.
To promote environmental
stewardship under Goal 5, EPA
and its partners used a variety of
collaborative, non-regulatory
approaches to prevent pollution at
the source, conserve natural
resources, and save businesses
money through more efficient
practices. To achieve these results,
the Agency's pollution prevention
(P2) programs employ such strate-
gies as:
• Collaborating with companies
to develop and commercialize
cleaner and safer products.
• Leveraging the market influ-
ence of large manufacturers to
improve the environmental
performance at numerous,
widely distributed suppliers.
• Expanding state and tribal
program capacity to help small
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
and medium-sized businesses apply P2
technologies.
• Promoting environmentally preferable purchas-
ing, green building construction standards, and
facility management.
• Reducing the impact of EPA government facility
operations.
Each year, these P2 strategies reduce hundreds of
millions of pounds of pollution, save billions of gal-
lons of water and BTUs of energy, and save tens of
millions of dollars in business costs. EPA is working
collaboratively with states to improve capabilities to
measure P2 results and to focus future intervention
efforts on high priority environmental concerns, such
as developing safer flame retardant products.
Under Goal 5, EPA works with 572 federally rec-
ognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages or
consortia to assess environmental conditions, build
tribal capacity, and, in limited cases, implement pro-
grams to protect health and the environment in
Indian country. The number of tribes developing
their own environmental programs has steadily
increased, and EPA has increased its presence in
Indian country by directly implementing environ-
mental programs and developing EPA-tribal
environmental agreements. In FY 2005, the Agency
implemented a new reporting system that enables
better performance tracking. In addition, the
Agency's Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
is improving data quality, closing data gaps, and
integrating data systems to better reflect environmen-
tal conditions in Indian country.8
EPA works with its partners to encourage innova-
tive approaches to environmental protection and to
evaluate these and other efforts. Through its State
Innovation Grant Competition, for example, EPA
supported 22 state innovation projects over the last 3
years. In FY 2005, the Agency awarded $1.5 million
in grants to fund seven state projects on innovative
approaches to environmental permitting. The Agency
continues to promote testing of such innovative
efforts as the National Environmental Performance
Track Program, use of Environmental Management
Systems, Environmental Results Programs for small
businesses, watershed-based permitting, and others.
EPA also works with states and other federal agencies
Chevron Phillips Chemical
The Chevron Phillips Chemical Settlement Team nego-
tiated a settlement that included a $ 1.8 million penalty
and a benchmark Supplemental Environmental Project
(SEP).The agreement will directly benefit Houston-
Galveston citizens in this non-attainment area by
reducing the production of NOX by at least 20 tons
per year, as well as reducing production of ozone and
particulate matter.As part of its SEP Chevron Phillips
Chemical agreed to procure and install a fuel cell to
provide electricity for Moody Gardens, one of the
largest publicly owned tourist attractions in the
Houston/Galveston area. Moody Gardens will use the
fuel cell as part of a pollution prevention/reduction sys-
tem that employs an anaerobic digester as the
feedstock for biogas power to reduce solid waste that
would otherwise be sent to a landfill. Biogas from the
digester will power the fuel cell, and heat from the fuel
cell will make the digester operate more efficiently. By
using electricity generated by the fuel cell, Moody
Gardens will reduce its reliance on an existing boiler,
thereby reducing air emissions. Moody Gardens uses
treated wastewater to irrigate its rain forest exhibit,
and organic matter from the irrigation will also be used
in the digester. Moody Gardens will experience some
emission offsets e.g., NOX from its boilers, because
some of the fuel cell heat will offset steam production
from the boiler.The fuel cell provided under this SEP
will be an important component of a multimedia proj-
ect that relies on the principles of alternative energy,
reuse, and recycling to reduce pollution.7
to conduct program evaluations designed to verify
environmental outcomes and provide information
that can help improve results.
EPA also works directly with the regulated com-
munity, recognizing and encouraging outstanding
environmental leadership and performance through
innovative programs. The Performance Track Program
is building a culture of corporate environmental
responsibility and superior performance by recognizing
and rewarding high-performing environmental leaders
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Performance Track Highlights Corporate
U.S. Steel Clairton Works of Clairton, Pennsylvania, was the first U.S.
"smokestack" facility certified as meeting ISO 14001, an international
standard for environmental management systems.The largest metallurgical
coke plant in the country, Clairton Works produces blast furnace coke,
coke oven gas, light oil, anhydrous ammonia, elemental sulfur, and crude
coal tar. When Clairton Works joined Performance Track in 2001, it
committed to reduce energy use by 12,000 million British Thermal Units
(MMBTUs) per year over its 3 year membership period. Clairton reduced
its use of steam each year, and, in 2003, showed a particularly impressive
reduction of 64,432 MMBTUs-a level far above the facility's initial
commitment. By identifying opportunities to reduce steam use and
conducting various energy conservation projects, such as repairing steam
leaks, Clairton saved energy and reduced the adverse effects on air quality
associated with combustion emissions. (More information about
Performance Track is available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf.)
that go well beyond complying
with environmental law. Through
its Sectors Strategy Program, EPA
works with business to identify
cost-effective methods for reducing
energy use and protecting the
environment.
The need for innovative
design and production techniques
increases as EPA increasingly
turns to pollution prevention to
address high-risk human health
and environmental problems.
Research that EPA conducts to
support compliance and environ-
mental stewardship informs
government officials, industry,
academia, citizen groups, and
other stakeholders about P2, new
technology opportunities, and
approaches that employ environ-
mental sustainability. EPA is
currently restructuring its P2
research program to introduce sus-
tainability concepts and
approaches. This research will
enable the Agency, as well as
state, community and other deci-
sionmakers, to include risk
reduction and pollution preven-
tion as quantifiable, measurable,
and scientifically defensible com-
ponents of a holistic approach to
risk management.
One of the challenges for this
goal is accurately predicting future
levels of performance based on
past performance trends because
the Agency does not set enforce-
ment targets and cannot compel
individuals, businesses, or units of
government to participate in vol-
untary activities, such as pollution
prevention or Performance Track.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Goal 5 Strategic Objectives
Strategic
Objective 1—
Improve
Compliance
By 2008, maximize compliance
to protect human health and
environment through compliance
assistance, compliance incentives,
and enforcement by achieving a 5%
increase in the pounds of pollution
reduced, treated, or eliminated, and
achieving a 5% increase in the
number of regulated entities making
improvements in environmental
management practices.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA activities under the
compliance objective contribute
to the strategic goal of improved
environmental performance by
reducing, treated, or eliminating
an estimated 1.1 billion pounds of
pollution in FY 2005. Seventy-
two and a half percent of the
FY2005 concluded enforcement
cases required implementation of
improved environmental manage-
ment practices.9
Compliance assistance
activities also contribute to the
strategic targets. Seventy-one
percent of facilities receiving
direct compliance assistance
improved environmental manage-
ment practices.10
Compliance incentives
prompted 90 percent of facilities
using audits to improve environ-
mental management practices.
Incentives programs, such as the
Agency's FY 2005 initiative with
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1— IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
S.I
5.2
Compliance Assistance (NEW IN FYOS)
Compliance Incentives (NEW IN FYOS)
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
(NEW IN FYOS)
X Not met in FY 2005
Met in FY 2005
Not met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
13.0% \
($102.786.2)
Tribal
Capacity
10.8%
($85.191.8)
Improve
Environmental
Performance "
16.3%
($128.063.1)
Goal 5 Total = $787,535.3
health care facilities in Region 2,
can reach an entire industry sector
or multi-facility company, increas-
ing understanding, improving
EMPs and, in some cases, reduc-
ing, treating or eliminating the
release of pollutants.
CHALLENGES
EPA is working on several
fronts to address its Agency-level
Permit Compliance System (PCS)
weakness as specified under
Federal Managers Financial
Integrity Act. (See discussion of
management challenges in
"Management's Discussion and
Analysis.") This system tracks
Clean Water Act National
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective I
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
12.2% \
($87.270.9)
Tribal
Capacity
10.0%
($71.344.1)
Improve
Environmental
Performance
16.7%
($118.997.7)
Goal 5 Total = $714,178.0
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) results. Through
system modernization, the Agency
will ultimately improve informa-
tion on pollutant loading,
storm water sources, and the
health of individual watersheds
and increase public access to this
information. The target date for
PCS modernization has been
extended by three months to the
end of the second quarter of
2006."
Pounds of pollutants reduced,
treated or eliminated vary from
year to year, because a few cases
with extremely large pollutant
reduction can have a significant
impact on annual results.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Accurately predicting the number
and type of cases that will be
settled in a given year is difficult,
making it challenging to gauge
the magnitude of pollutant
reductions that will be achieved
from one year to the next.
EPA also faces challenges
in expanding the outcomes of
compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities for hazard
and risk (e.g., human health and
monetary impacts) in response to
PART findings.
Strategic Objective
2—Improve
Environmental
Performance
Through P2 and Innovation
By 2008, improve environmental
protection and enhance natural
resource conservation on the part of
government, business, and the public
through the adoption of pollution pre-
vention and sustainable practices that
include the design of products and
manufacturing processes that gener-
ate less pollution, the reduction of
regulatory barriers, and the adoption
of results-based, innovative, and
multimedia approaches.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
Through EPA's P2 programs,
the Agency and its state and tribal
partners use a variety of innova-
tive, non-regulatory approaches to
reduce pollution, conserve water
and energy, and save business
costs. For example, under EPA's
Performance Track program,
member facilities commit to mak-
ing improvements that exceed the
environmental law requirements
in one or more of six areas.
In 2005, EPA implemented a
comprehensive national results
measurement system to track, col-
lect, and aggregate P2
environmental results achieved
through federal, state, and tribal
programs. The system will allow
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
5.4
5.5
Improve Environmental Performance
Through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation (Performance Track)
(NEW IN FYOS)
Improve Environmental Performance
Through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
X Not met in FY 2005
FY 2005 data available in FY 2006 and
FY 2007
Met FY 2003 goals in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
13.0% \
($102,786.2)
Tribal
Capacity
10.8%
($85,191.8)
Improve
Environmental
Performance
16.3%
($128,063.1)
Improve
Compliance
59.9%
($471,494.2)
Goal 5 Total = $787,535.3
the Agency to demonstrate core
environmental outcomes and its
ability to assess strategies and
make adjustments to improve per-
formance and efficiency.
Initial results suggest that P2
programs are on track for this
objective. While complete data
will not be available until 2007,
data already in hand for 2005 indi-
cate that the Green Chemistry
Challenge and Design for the
Environment programs eliminated
more than 30 million pounds of
hazardous chemicals and conserved
500 million gallons of water.
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
12.2% \
($87,270.9)
Tribal
Capacity
10.0%
($71,344.1)
Improve
Environmental
Performance
16.7%
($118,997.7)
Improve
Compliance
61.1%
($436,565.3)
Goal 5 Total = $714,178.0
CHALLENGES
Aggregate numbers are highly
sensitive to the results achieved
by a few large facilities. Even
when most facilities show
improvements in preventing pol-
lution or conserving natural
resources, negative results for one
large facility in a small voluntary
program can mask all the positive
results achieved by others.
Results data do not reflect
changes in eco-efficiency. In many
cases, companies achieving the
environmental results under this
objective institute practices and
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
technologies that also reduce
waste or resources used per unit
produced. When production
increases, however, the overall
waste and resource use may
increase as well, albeit at a much
slower rate. Actual results show
only the increase in environmen-
tal footprint, not improvements in
efficiency.
Performance Track Facilities
voluntarily make their own envi-
ronmental commitments and, as a
result, the number of results con-
tributing to any given indicator
can vary widely over the years.
Performance Track: Andersen Corporation
Andersen Corporation of Bayport, Minnesota, manufactures windows and
patio doors. During its first three years as a Performance Track member,
Andersen reduced its emissions of volatile organic compounds (which
contribute to ground-level ozone air pollution and can cause serious
health problems) from 1,775 to 1,391 tons.Andersen achieved this
significant reduction by improving the efficiency of its wood treating
processes and incorporating a slower evaporating solvent into its window
paint line pretreatment process. Over the next three years (2004 through
2006). Anderson plans to further reduce its emissions by at least 200
tons through process improvements to solvent-borne preservative and
coating operations. Andersen continues to improve its processes to
promote the principles of lean manufacturing, for example, by increasing
transfer efficiencies in its paint line coating processes and reducing
solvent-based wood preservation treatment. (More information about
Performance Track is available at hi isf.)
Strategic
Objective 3—
Tribal Capacity
Through 2008, assist all federally
recognized tribes in assessing the
condition of their environment,
help in building their capacity to
implement environmental pro-
grams where needed to improve
tribal health and environments,
and implement programs in
Indian country where needed to
address environmental issues.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
EPA is working to develop
core tribal environmental protec-
tion programs and establish the
infrastructure needed to assess
environmental conditions in
Indian country.
Working with the tribes, the
Agency met or exceeded nine of
the 10 tribal capacity building
performance measures. These
results reflect significant progress
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—TRIBAL CAPACITY
5.6
Build Tribal Capacity (NEW IN FYOS)
Not met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
13.0% \
($102,786.2)
Tribal
Capacity
10.8%
($85,191.8)
Improve
Environmental
Performance "
16.3%
($128,063.1)
Improve
Compliance
59.9%
($471,494.2)
Goal 5 Total = $787,535.3
in developing and integrating data
systems, eliminating data gaps,
improving environmental moni-
toring and assessment activities,
implementing programs, and
expanding the holistic multimedia
approach to programs that reflects
traditional use of natural resources
in Indian country.
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
12.2% \
($87,270.9)
Tribal
Capacity
10.0%
($71,344.1)
Improve
Environmental
Performance *
16.7%
($118,997.7)
Improve
Compliance
61.1%
($436,565.3)
Goal 5 Total = $714,178.0
CHALLENGES
Compared to states, tribes
have been in the business of
developing capacity for a relative-
ly short period. Measuring tribal
capacity in terms of environmen-
tal, health, and behavioral
outcomes is a challenge.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA is making significant
progress toward overcoming this
challenge by improving data qual-
ity through EPA approved quality
assurance plans, providing train-
ing in environmental monitoring
and assessment techniques, clos-
ing data gaps, and integrating data
systems through the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture
to better reflect environmental
conditions in Indian country.
ii
Strategic
Objective
Enhance Science
and Research
Through 2008, strengthen the sci-
entific evidence and research
supporting environmental polices
and decisions on compliance, pol-
lution prevention, and
environmental stewardship.
OVERVIEW OF
PERFORMANCE
By providing objective,
quality-assured, credible perform-
ance data on commercial-ready
technologies, the Agency can
aid permitting and purchasing
decisions on new, innovative
technology.
In FY 2005, EPA completed
25 verifications and two testing
protocols for new environmental
technologies. These technologies
apply to treatment of arsenic in
drinking water, stormwater treat-
ment, stormwater modeling, fuel
efficiency for transportation, dis-
tributed energy generation, dust
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
5.7
Enhance Science and Research
Met in FY 2005
FY 2005 Obligations:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective 4
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Resea
13.0%
($102,786.2)
Tribal
Capacity
10.8%
($85,191.8)
Improve
Environmental
Performance "
16.3%
($128,063.1)
Improve
Compliance
59.9%
($471,494.2)
Goal 5 Total = $787,535.3
suppressants, diesel retrofits, nutri-
ent monitors, pollution reduction,
and improvements in detection of
pollutants.
CHALLENGES
EPA is working to institution-
alize approaches for identifying
future environmental problems
and opportunities. These anticipa-
tory approaches will enhance the
FY 2005 Costs:
Goal 5, Strategic Objective 4
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
Tribal
Capacity
10.0%
($71,344.1)
Improve
Environmental
Performance "
16.7%
($118,997.7)
Improve
Compliance
61.1%
($436,565.3)
Goal 5 Total = $714,178.0
Agency's ability to respond appro-
priately and potentially influence
tomorrow's events and conditions
in a positive way.
Nanotechnology, computational
toxicology, biotechnology,
genomics, and information tech-
nology are just a few of the areas
that EPA is exploring for their
potential benefits and conse-
quences.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Goal 5 Annual Performance Goals
Strategic Objective 1—Improved Compliance
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and environment through compli-
ance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5% increase in the
pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% increase in the
number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices.
APG 5.1 Compliance Assistance
PERFORMANCE
EPA provides assistance to
help members of the regulated
community understand environ-
mental regulations, improve their
environmental management prac-
tices (EMPs), and reduce the
amount of pollution they produce
or discharge. The Agency offers
compliance assistance both direct-
ly through, for example, onsite
visits, workshops and training, and
through its Compliance
Assistance centers. EPA conducts
assistance activities in partnership
with state, local, and tribal envi-
ronmental compliance programs
and collaborates with industry and
trade associations to provide infor-
mation and materials.
Qoal Not Met: This is the first
year EPA has collected the three
GPRA measures for direct compli-
ance assistance, and the Agency
had no trend data to help estab-
lish the initial targets.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-69-C-70.
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the under-
standing of regulated entities, improve environmental management
practices (EMPs), and reduce pollutants. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance
from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance (CA)
centers and clearinghouse reporting that they
improved EMPs as a result of their use of the
centers or the clearinghouse.
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct
compliance assistance from EPA reporting that
they improved EMPs as a result of EPA assistance.
• Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance
from EPA-sponsored CA centers and clearing-
house reporting that they reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution as a result of that resource.
• Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance
from EPA-sponsored CA centers and clearing-
house reporting that they increased their
understanding of environmental requirements as a
result of their use of the resources.
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct
CA from EPA reporting that they increased their
understanding of environmental requirements as a
result of EPA assistance.
• Percent of regulated entities receiving direct assis-
tance from EPA reporting that they reduced,
treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA
assistance.
Planned
60%
50%
25%
75%
65%
25%
Actual
78%
72%
91!
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
The initial PART rating for Civil Enforcement was not adequate. An ade-
quate rating was received in FY 2004 based on preparation of a Measure
Implementation Plan.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Categorical Grant: Sector Program.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 5.2 Compliance Incentives
PERFORMANCE
EPA encourages facilities to
identify, disclose, and correct vio-
lations for reduced or eliminated
penalties. Incentives increase
compliance and establish
improved environmental manage-
ment practices that can reduce
the chance of future non-compli-
ance or unpermitted discharges. In
some cases correcting the viola-
tions directly reduces pollutant
discharges.
In 2005, 1.9 million pounds of
pollutants were estimated to be
reduced treated or eliminated by
facilities using compliance incen-
tives policies. Ninety percent of
audits resulted in improved EMPs,
while 6% resulted in reduction of
pollutants. Since 2001, more than
6,000 facilities have disclosed and
corrected violations.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the per-
centage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants or improving
environmental management practices. (NEW IN FY200S)
Performance Measures
' Percentage of audits or other actions that result
in the reduction, treatment, or elimination of pol-
lutants and the protection of populations or
ecosystems.
• Percentage of audits or other actions that result
in improvements in environmental management
practices.12
• Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated,
as a result of audits or other actions. (PART)
' Dollars invested in improved environmental per-
formance or improved environmental
management practices as a result of audits or
other actions.
Planned
5%
0.25 M Ibs
$2M
Actual
6%
90%
.9 M Ibs •
$3.4 M
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Civil Enforcement program related to this APG most
recently in the 2004 PART process. The program received an adequate rating.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-66-C-67.
APG 5.3
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
PERFORMANCE
Qoal Not Met: EPA fell slightly
short of the target for the percent-
age of cases that require pollutant
reductions. In FY 2005, EPA
added a new category of compli-
ance actions called "preventative
actions." These are actions that do
result in pollutant reductions by
preventing pollution from occur-
ring. Many complying actions
that previously were counted as
part of the 30 percent target are
now counted as preventative com-
plying actions. In FY 2005, 17
percent of EPA's cases had a pre-
ventative benefit, which is
reflective of this change. A con-
tributing reason for missing the
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will
increase complying compliance actions, pollutant reduction or treatmc
and improve environmental management practices. (NEW IN FY 2005)
Performance Measures
' Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treat-
ed, and eliminated as a result of concluded
enforcement actions.13 (PART)
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requir-
ing that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated
and protection of populations or ecosystems.
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requir-
ing implementation of improved environmental
management practices. (PART)
' Number of inspections, civil investigations, and
criminal investigations conducted.
• Dollars invested in improved environmental per-
formance or improved EMPs as a result of
concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief
and supplemental environmental projects (SEPs).14
• Percentage of regulated entities taking complying
actions as a result of onsite compliance inspec-
tions and evaluations.
Planned
300 M Ib
18,500
$4 billion
Actual
I.I billion Ibs
22,000
$10 billion
9%
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
target is that the number of cases
with the potential to require pol-
lutants to be reduced varies
depending on the mix of cases in
a given year. EPA was still able
to achieve significant pollutant
reductions from case settlements,
which is a more meaningful out-
come with regard to protection of
human health and the environ-
ment. In fact, EPA far exceeded
its pollution reduction FY 2005
goal of 300 million by achieving
1.1 billion pounds of pollutants
estimated to be reduced, treated,
or eliminated.
EPA uses inspections, investi-
gations, and enforcement actions
to identify egregious violations
and return violators to compliance
as quickly as possible. EPA targets
these activities to achieve the
greatest reduction in pollution
and impacts on sensitive popula-
tions.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-66-C-68.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
Initial PART ratings for Civil Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement were
not adequate. An adequate rating was received in FY 2004 based on
preparation of Measure Implementation Plans. The Pesticide Enforcement
Grants program received an ineffective rating.
Program Evaluations
Industrial Economics Corporation conducted an Evaluation of the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/Environmental Council of the
States State Review Framework in Pilot States. Additional information on
this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix B,
page B-23.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement; Categorical Grant:Toxics
Substances Compliance.
CHALLENGES
The February 2005, 2nd
Circuit Court decision in
Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA vacat-
ed two key provisions in the 2003
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFO) rule that no
longer require all CAFOs to apply
for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
OECA Enforcement Efficiency Measures
317,067
2,882,426
,426/
173,145,
1,118,504
1,382,767
74,854
836,868
surface water permits. The CAFO
sector is one of the national prior-
ities for the enforcement and
compliance assurance program.15
The Agency must now clarify to
states and the regulated communi-
ty which CAFOs must apply for a
permit and when applications are
due. As a result of this court find-
ing, the Agency anticipates that
more compliance and enforce-
ment activities will need to be
directed at finding CAFOs and
taking appropriate follow up
action at facilities that are dis-
charging, but have failed to apply
for a permit.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 2—Improve Environmental Performance
Through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conservation on
the part of government, business, and the public through the adoption of pollution preven-
tion and sustainable practices that include the design of products and manufacturing
processes that generate kss pollution, the reduction of regulatory barriers, and the adoption
of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
APG 5.4 Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation (Performance Track)
PERFORMANCE
The Performance Track results
shown above reflect changes in
Performance Track facilities' envi-
ronmental footprint in terms of
pollution and consumption of nat-
ural resources (materials, energy,
and water). Performance data
reflect the quantitative results of
Performance Track members that
commit to making improvements
in one or more of the six listed
environmental areas. All improve-
ments exceed environmental legal
requirements.
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: In FY 2005 Performance Track members collectively will
achieve an annual reduction of 600 million gallons of water use; 2.5
MMBTUs of energy use; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air
releases; 10,000 tons of water discharges; and 15,000 tons of materials use.
(NEW IN FY05)
Performance Measures
• Specific annual reductions in six media/resource
areas: water use, energy use, solid waste, air
releases, water discharges, and materials use.
2001 Baseline: 475 million gallon reduction in
water use; 240,000 MMBTU reduction in energy
use; I 50,000 ton reduction in solid waste
generated; a 2,1 54-ton increase in materials
use; a I, I I 3-ton reduction in air releases; and a
6,870 ton reduction in water discharges water
discharges. l6
Planned
6 media
reductions
Actual
1 media
reduction
Not Met: In FY 2005,
Performance Track members col-
lectively reduced water use by 528
million gallons, increased energy
use by 22 million MMBTUs,
increased solid waste by 22,000
tons, reduced air releases by 7700
tons, reduced water discharges by
7700 tons, and increased materials
use by 125,000 tons.
Program Evaluations
The Office of Inspector General report: "Ongoing Management
Improvements and Further Evaluation Vital to EPA Stewardship and
Voluntary Programs" (Report Number: 2005-P-00007). Additional infor-
mation on this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix B, page B-23.
Indicator-specific activities at
the regional level are anticipated
to help the program accomplish
its goals. For example, the Energy
Challenge that EPA New England
(Region 1) instituted in 2004 led
New England Performance Track
members to increase their focus
on reducing greenhouse gases. Of
the 33 current members, 17 have
commitments to reduce green-
house gases, and seven more have
committed to reducing their total
energy use.17
In terms of environmental
impact per unit of product pro-
duced, Performance Track
members improved their perform-
ance for all six of the reported
environmental categories in
FY2005. Performance Track mem-
bers tend to be innovative,
growing facilities. Consequently,
in those cases where the aggregate
environmental footprint increased
(as shown in the table above), the
primary cause was increased pro-
duction. When changes in
production between FY2004 and
FY2005 are taken into account,
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
the data show that in FY2005
members' efforts resulted in an
avoidance of 4.3 billion gallons of
water use; 19 million MMBTUs of
energy use; 451,000 tons of solid
waste generation; 77,000 tons of
air emissions; 14,000 tons of water
discharges, and 3800 tons of mate-
rials use.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-74-C-76.
CHALLENGES
Aggregate numbers are highly sen-
sitive to the results of a few large
facilities. Even when most
Performance Track facilities show
improvements in a given environ-
mental area, negative results for
one large facility member in that
same area can mask all the posi-
tive results achieved by others.
Performance Track's solid waste
results are a good example. 180
different facilities contributed
results to the aggregate result
shown in the table. If the results
of just one large facility are
removed from the total, the results
would change from an increase of
22,000 tons to a reduction of
221,000 tons.
These results show only
changes in actual results ("foot-
print") and do not reflect changes
in eco-efficiency. In many cases,
Performance Track members insti-
tute practices and technologies
that reduce waste or resources
used per unit produced. When
production increases, however, the
overall waste and resource use
may increase as well, albeit at a
much slower rate. Actual results
show only the increase in foot-
print, not the improvement in
efficiency.
Performance Track devel-
oped its strategic and annual
performance targets after its first
year of operations. At that time,
the program did not have nor-
malized data on which to base
the targets. Additionally, over
the next few years, the program
adjusted its measurement and
reporting requirements in order
to ensure better accuracy of data
and transparency in reporting.
Performance Track will be devel-
oping new targets that will take
into account changes in facili-
ties' production and the stricter
measurement requirements. This
process should lead to more
meaningful data by which to
evaluate program progress.
Facilities make their own
selection as to environmental
commitments and, as a result, the
number of results contributing to
any given indicator can vary wide-
ly over the years.
APG 5.5 Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention
and Innovation
PERFORMANCE
The TRI federal facility meas-
ure examines reductions in total
onsite and offsite disposals or
other releases from federal facili-
ties. TRI 2003 results available in
2005 show that total onsite and
offsite disposal or other releases
from federal facilities decreased by
8 percent from 2002 to 2003, indi-
cating that the Agency is on track
to meet future annual targets and
the associated long-term strategic
target to reduce federal facility
releases by 40 percent by 2006.18
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006 AND
FY 2007
FY 2005: Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial
chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
Performance Measures
• Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI)—reported toxic chemical releases at
federal facilities.
2001 Baseline: 0% releases (cumulative)
• Percent reduction in both TRI chemical
releases to the environment from the busi-
ness sector per unit of production ("Clean
Index").
2001 Baseline: 0% releases (cumulative)
• Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in produc-
tion-related wastes generated by the business
sector per unit of production ("Green
Index").
2001 Baseline: 0% waste (cumulative)
Planned
32% Releases
20% Releases
10% Waste
Actual
Data avail 2007
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The TRI Clean Index tracks
the total quantity of TRI-reported
toxic chemicals released to the
environment across all environ-
mental media (air, water, and
land), adjusted to account for
changes in production. TRI 2003
results made available in 2005
show an 8.1 percent decrease in
the production-normalized pounds
of toxics released, suggesting that
the Agency is on track to achieve
the associated long-term strategic
target, which calls for a 40 percent
reduction from 2001 levels by
2008.19
The TRI Green Index meas-
ures the total quantity of
TRI-reported toxic chemicals in
production-related wastes, adjust-
ed to account for changes in
production. TRI 2003 results
made available in 2005 reveal a
7.5 percent decrease in the pro-
duction-normalized pounds of
toxic chemicals in production-
related wastes. The significant
improvements in 2003 results sug-
gest the Agency will be on track
to achieve the associated long-
term strategic target, which calls
for a 20 percent reduction from
2001 levels by 2008.20
Performance measures for
overall pounds of pollution pre-
vented and energy and water
conservation are new in 2005,
and because key contributing
results are subject to up to two-
year data lags, comprehensive
results for 2005 and prior years
are not yet available. Partial
results for these measures are:
• 167 billion pounds of pollu- >
tion reduced from state
pollution prevention pro-
grams during the 1990s.
DATA
AVAILABLE
FY 2006 AND
FY 2007
FY 2005: Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial
chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
Performance Measures (continued)
• Reduction in overall pounds of pollution.
(PART!
2001 Baseline: 0 pounds (cumulative)
• Millions of dollars saved through reductions
in pollution.
2001 Baseline: $0.00
Billions ofBTUs of energy conserved. (PART)
2001 Baseline: 0 BTUs
Annual number of pre-screened new chemical
alternatives generated through industries par-
ticipation during the earliest stages of
research and development (PART)
Planned
24.6 Billion Ibs
$97 M
1.1 Billion gals
104 Billion BTUs
Actual
Data avail 2006
GOAL
MET FOR
FY 2003
FY 2003: Prevent, reduce, and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial
chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
Performance Measures
• The quantity ofTRI pollutants released, disposed
of, treated or combusted for energy recovery in
2002 (normalized for changes in industrial pro-
duction) will be reduced by 200 million pounds,
or 2%, from 2002.
Planned
-200M
Actual
-622M
• 830 million pounds of haz-
ardous chemicals (cumulative).
• 500 million gallons of water
saved.21
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-71-C-74.
CHALLENGES
The most significant challenge
faced by the pollution prevention
program under this APG in 2005
Waste Quantities of All Chemicals Except PBT Chemicals Reported by All
Industry Sectors Including Mining Industry, 1998-2003
Off-site Release
Air Release
•SSTr
• Land Relase
••• Annual Total of
Waste Quantities
Waste
Management
200
Reporting Year
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
was the establishment of the four
new common outcome measures
tracking their results and negotia-
tion of acceptance of those
measures by the state pollution
prevention programs that generate
substantial portions of those
results. Success was achieved by
balancing information require-
ments against the costs of
developing and reporting the
necessary data.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention (P2)—The P2 Grant Program
provides grant funds to states, state entities (e.g., colleges and universities),
and federally recognized tribes and intertribal consortia to help small and
medium-sized businesses and industries identify improved environmental
strategies and solutions for reducing waste at the source. The program
effectively demonstrates that source reduction can be a cost-effective way
of meeting or exceeding federal and state regulatory requirements.
Strategic Objective 3—Tribal Capacity
Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their envi-
ronment, help in building their capacity to implement environmental programs where needed
to improve tribal health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country
where needed to address environmental issues.
APG 5.6 Build Tribal Capacity
PERFORMANCE
The purpose of this APG is to
develop tribal environmental pro-
gram capacity critical to
protecting human health and the
environment in Indian country as
required by the Indian
Environmental General
Assistance Program (GAP) and
the EPA Indian Policy. Tribal
capacity-building performance
measures under Goal 5 track EPA's
progress toward building the
capacity of Indian tribal govern-
ments and intertribal consortia to
administer environmental man-
agement activities and implement
multimedia programs that address
environmental issues in Indian
country. In addition, the Agency
works to establish the internal
infrastructure needed to assess
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005: Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition
of their environment, help in building their capacity to implement envi-
ronmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and
environments, and implement programs in Indian country where needed
to address environmental issues. (NEW IN FYOS)
Performance Measures
• Percent of tribes with delegated and non-
delegated programs (cumulative). (PART)
' Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitor-
ing and assessment occurring (cumulative).
(PART)
• Percent of tribes with EPA-opproved multi-
media workplans (cumulative). (PART)
• Increase tribes' ability to develop environ-
mental program capacity by ensuring that
federally recognized tribes have access to
an environmental presence.
2002 Baseline: 82%
Universe: 100% (572 tribes)
• Develop or integrate EPA and intera-
gency data systems to facilitate the use of
EPA's Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture (TPEA) information in set-
ting environmental priorities and
informing policy decisions.
2002 Boseiine: 2 systems
Universe: 15 systems
Planned
44%
5 Systems
Actual
47%
6 Systems tr
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
environmental conditions and
improve environmental steward-
ship in Indian country.
EPA met or greatly exceeded
the majority of tribal capacity-
building measures, demonstrating
significant progress toward devel-
oping and integrating high-quality
environmental data and data sys-
tems, and in building the capacity
to implement environmental pro-
grams. The Agency will continue
to focus on methods to increase
the percent of EPA-approved mul-
timedia workplans to be able to
meet this performance measure in
future years.
Qocd Not Met: Several factors
contributed to not meeting the 39
percent target for EPA-approved
multimedia workplans.22 The new
Objective 5.3 Reporting System
improved baseline data and
revealed that some EPA-approved
multimedia workplans are with
intertribal consortia representing
multiple tribes; however, these
count only once in the reporting
system. In addition, many tribes
are in the initial stages of program
development and do not yet have
GOAL
NOT MET
FY 2005 (continued): Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing
the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to
implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal
health and environments, and implement programs in Indian country
where needed to address environmental issues.
Performance Measures (continued)
• Eliminate data gaps for environmental
conditions for major water; land, and air
programs as determined through the
availability of information in the EPA Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture.
2002 Baseline: 0% data gaps
Universe: 100% data gaps
• Increase implementation of environmental
programs in Indian country as deter-
mined by program delegations, approvals,
or primacies issued to tribes and direct
implementation activities by EPA.
2002 Baseline: 149 programs
• Increase the number of EPA-approved quali-
ty assurance plans for tribal environmental
monitoring and assessment activities.
2002 Baseline: 243 plans
• Increase the percent of EPA agreements
with tribes that refect holistic (multimedia)
program integration and traditional use of
natural resources.
2002 Baseline: 45 agreements
• Number of environmental programs imple-
mented in Indian country per million dollars.
(PART)
2005 Baseline: 12.3 programs
Planned
5% Data Gaps
159 Programs
271 Plans
Programs
Actual
5% Data Gaps
233 Programs •
321 Plans
2.3 Programs •
the capacity to manage multimedia
workplans. The Agency's Indian
Environmental GAP is continuing
Percent of Tribes with Access to an Environmental Presence
2000 2001 2002
Fiscal Year
2004 2005
to expand the number of tribes
with the capacity to manage multi-
media workplans by providing
access to an environmental pres-
ence and anticipates reaching the
39 percent target by March 2006
and 42 percent by October 2006.
In FY 2005, 47 percent of
tribes (269 tribes) have delegated
and non-delegated programs.
These tribes operate 233 environ-
mental programs such as
"treatment in a manner similar to
a state" designations under the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and other statutes and more than
100 solid and hazardous waste pro-
gram implementation activities.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Tribal General Assistance program related to this APG
most recently in the 2003 PART process. The program received an ade-
quate rating.
Grants Supporting the Achievement of This APG
Categorical Grant:Tribal General Assistance Program.
Twenty-nine percent of tribes
(169 tribes, cumulative) have
EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment activities occurring
under Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QAPPs) in FY 2005. By
the end of FY 2005, EPA
approved a cumulative 321
QAPPs, ensuring the highest stan-
dards of environmental
monitoring and assessment. This
program measure reflects
improved tribal capacity in envi-
ronmental data collection and
interpretation, and provides the
Agency with better information
about environmental conditions
in Indian country.
Three performance measures
under this APG were significantly
exceeded during FY 2005 due to
several factors:
• A rapid increase in the num-
ber of tribes using GAP
funding to conduct solid and
hazardous waste program
implementation activities (a
consequence of declining
resources from other parts of
EPA and other federal agen-
cies).
• Increasing tribal environmen-
tal capacity.
• Variations in how some EPA
regional offices calculate
QAPP results—cumulatively
versus non-cumulatively.
• Development and implemen-
tation of the Objective 5.3
Reporting System, which
allows the Agency to count
significantly more multimedia
agreements. The Agency
greatly exceeded the measure
for the increase in the percent
of EPA agreements with tribes
that reflect holistic (multime-
dia) program integration and
traditional use of natural
resources because the
Objective 5.3 Reporting
System incorporates new
information not available in
2003 on the number of multi-
media, holistic agreements
reached through other cate-
gories of agreements, such as
Tier I Tribal Environmental
Agreements, Tier II Tribal
Environmental Agreements,
Memoranda of
Understanding, and
Memoranda of Agreement.
Initially the 2003 baseline
only incorporated information
on Tier III Tribal
Environmental Agreements
and Performance Partnership
Grants. In the future, the
Agency will reassess and raise
its baseline to include all six
categories of agreements,
which include Tier I, II, and
III Tribal Environmental
Agreements, Performance
Partnership Grants,
Memoranda of
Understanding, and
Memoranda of Agreement.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-76-C-78.
CHALLENGES
Calculating the number of
QAPPs is difficult due to differ-
ences in how EPA regional offices
approve and manage their records.
Some regions report cumulative
numbers (all QAPPs approved,
even those that have expired)
while other regions report non-
cumulative numbers. The
Agency's 2002 baseline for this
measure did not take into account
these differences.
To compensate for differences
in QAPP results measurement,
the Agency will establish a new
baseline number based only on
current, active QAPPs rather than
a running cumulative total.
This new approach to reporting
QAPPs will provide a more accu-
rate picture of EPA-approved
environmental monitoring and
assessment activities taking place
throughout Indian country.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective 4—Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental
polices and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
APG 5.7
Enhance Science and Research
PERFORMANCE
Verifying commercial-ready
innovative technology assists the
American public by providing
objective, quality-assured, credible
performance data on which to
base permitting and purchasing
decisions. Use of better monitor-
ing and treatment technologies
can improve detection and reduc-
tion of pollutants, reducing
exposure and improving human
health and the environment.
In FY 2005, EPA verified 25
environmental technologies to
support the long term goal to pro-
vide tools and technologies that
advance environmental manage-
ment systems designed to prevent
and control pollution and reduce
human health and ecological risks
Verifications were completed
in the following categories: arsenic
drinking water treatment,
stormwater treatment, stormwater
modeling, fuel efficiency for trans-
portation, distributed energy
generation, dust suppressants,
diesel retrofits, nutrient monitors,
hydrogen sulfide monitors, and,
protocols were completed for
hydrogen sulfide monitors testing
and for distributed generation/
combined heat and power testing.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-78.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: By FY 2005, complete 15 verifications and two testing proto-
cols for a program cumulative total of 280 verifications and 83 testing
protocols for new environmental technologies so that, by 2009, appro-
priate and credible performance information about new,
commercial-ready environmental technology is available that influences
users to purchase effective environmental technology in the United
States and abroad.
Performance Measures
Verifications completed.
Testing protocols completed.
Planned
I 5 verifications
2 protocols
Actual
25 verifications tr
2 protocols
CHALLENGES
PA increasingly seeks to share tech-
nology verification and testing costs
with vendors and other verification
program collaborators. These are
often the eventual users of the
information, which allows them to
have immediate access to results.
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE
GOALS WITHOUT
CORRESPONDING FY
2005 GOALS (ACTUAL
PERFORMANCE DATA
AVAILABLE IN FY 2004
AND BEYOND):
FY 2003—Reduce waste mini-
mization priority list chemicals in
hazardous waste streams by 43
percent to 86 million pounds by
expanding the use of state and
industry partnerships and region-
al pilots.
FY 2004 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE GOALS
(No Longer Reported for
FY 2005):
• EPA will conduct inspec-
tions, criminal investigations,
and civil investigations tar-
geted to areas that pose risks
to human health, or the envi-
ronment, display patterns of
noncompliance, or include
disproportionately exposed
populations.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
OMB reassessed the Pollution Prevention Research program related to
the ETV program most recently in the 2003 PART process. The program
received a results not demonstrated rating.
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
• Identify noncompliance and
focus enforcement and com-
pliance assurance on human
health and environmental
problems, by maintaining and
improving quality and accura-
cy of data.
• Improve capacity of states,
localities, and tribes to con-
duct enforcement and
compliance assurance pro-
grams. EPA will provide
training as well as assistance
with state and tribal inspec-
tions to build capacity
• Reduce waste minimization
priority list chemicals in haz-
ardous waste streams an
additional 3 percent from
1991 levels (for a cumulative
total of 46 percent or 81 mil-
lion pounds) by expanding
the use of state and industry
partnerships and regional
pilots.
• Percent of tribes will have an
environmental presence (e.g.,
one or more persons to assist
in building tribal capacity to
develop and implement envi-
ronmental programs.)
• Verify 35 air, water, green-
house gas, and monitoring
technologies (through the
ETV program) so that states,
technology purchasers, and the
public will have highly credi-
ble data and performance
analyses from which to make
technology selection decisions.
Qoal 5—PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2005
EPA and OMB established the annual and efficiency measures included on this table through PART
Assessments. These measures will be incorporated into EPAs budget and GPRA documents, including the
PAR, as data becomes available. The column titled "Data Available" provides the most current estimate for
the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
PART Program PART Measure Status °at* . ,
: Available
Civil Enforcement
Criminal
Enforcement
Environmental
Education
Pounds of pollutants reduced,
treated, or eliminated per FTE.
Pounds of pollution reduced,
treated, or eliminated.
Reduction in recidivism.
Percentage of concluded
enforcement cases requiring
implementation of improved
management practices.
Pollutant Impact.
Pounds of pollutants reduced,
treated, or eliminated per FTE.
Number of NNEMS fellows
who pursue environmental
careers
Ratio of number of students/
teachers that have improved
environmental knowledge per
total dollars expended.
TBD
Baseline will be established Dec '05 (based on 3-yr average,
data collected FY 03-05)
Baseline will be established Jul '06 (based on 3-yr average,
merge of existing OECA data FY 03-05)
Baseline will be established Dec '06 (based on 3-yr average,
merge of existing OECA data FY 04-06)
Baseline will be established Dec '07 (based on 3-yr average,
data collected FY 05-07)
Baseline will be established Dec '05 (based on 3-yr average,
data collected FY 03-05)
Baseline will be established 2007 (based on 3-yr average, data
collection FY 05-07)
The Office of Environmental Education is currently soliciting
stakeholder input on the draft measure. Data collection should
start in 2007.
1 0/2007
1 0/2006
1 0/2006
1 0/2007
1 0/2008
1 0/2006
2007
2008
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PART Program PART Measure
Environmental
Education
Number of states adopting
learning curricula and standards.
Percentage of all students and
teachers targeted demonstrate
increased environmental knowl-
The Office of Environmental Education is currently soliciting
stakeholder input on the draft measure. Data collection
should start in 2007.
The Office of Environmental Education is currently soliciting
stakeholder input on the draft measure. We anticipate initiat-
ing data collection in 2007 and reporting results in 2008.
Data
Available
2008
2008
Pesticide
Enforcement Grants
Percent of complying actions
taken as a result of grantee
compliance monitoring and
enforcement.
In FY 2005, finalized measures and negotiated with states to
collect data. Data collection will begin in 2006. Baseline will be
based on a three year rolling average.
Percent of recipients of enforce-
ment actions receiving
subsequent enforcement
actions.
In FY 2005, finalized measures and negotiated with states to
collect data. Data collection will begin in 2006. Baseline will b
based on a three year rolling average.
Number of enforcement actions
taken (federal and state) per
million dollars of cost (federal
and state).
In FY 2005, finalized measures and negotiated with states to
collect data. Data collection will begin in 2006. Baseline will b
based on a three year rolling average.
1/2007
1/2007
RCRA Base program,
Permits and Grants
Pounds of priority chemicals
reduced in waste streams per
federal and private sector costs.
TRI data collection to support this efficiency measure began
1/2005. Preliminary private sector cost data will be available
6/2006
I /2007
Tribal GAP
Percent decrease in the number
of households in Indian Country
with inadequate wastewater
sanitation systems.
Data Collection will begin January 1, 2006. The Indian Health
Service Sanitation Facilities Construction Program Annual
Report to Congress is the data source.
Percent decrease in the number
of households on tribal lands
lacking access to safe drinking
water
Data Collection will begin January 1, 2006. The Indian Health
Service Sanitation Facilities Construction Program Annual
Report to Congress is the data source.
Show at least a 10% improve-
ment in for each of four
parameters—total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, dissolved oxy-
gen, and fecal coliforms—at not
fewer than 90 monitoring sta-
tions in Tribal waters.
Data collection will begin January 1, 2006. U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water Information System and EPA's
STORET water quality databases are the data sources.
I /2007
I /2007
I /2007
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
NOTES
1 More information on compliance assistance programs is available at www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html.
2 More information on compliance incentives programs and the self-audit policy is available at
www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/index.html.
3 More information on the EPA's Compliance Assistance Centers available at www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/centers/index.html.
4 More information on compliance monitoring and civil enforcement is available at www.epa.gov/compliance.
5 More information on settled cases and the environmental benefits achieved, including pounds of pollutants reduced, is available at
cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/index.cfm and at epa.gov/compliance/data/index.html.
6 More information on supplemental environmental projects is available at www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/seps/index.html
7 More information on settled cases and the environmental benefits achieved available at cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/index.cfm.
8 More information on EPA's tribal program is available at www.epa.gov/indian.
9 More information on compliance monitoring and civil enforcement is available at www.epa.gov/compliance ,
www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/enforcement.html , and epa.gov/compliance/data/index.html.
10 More information on compliance assistance is available at www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html.
11 More information on PCS is available at epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/water/pcssys.html.
12 This is the first year EPA has a GPRA measure for audits resulting in improvements in environmental management practices. EPA
will use the FY 2005 result as the baseline from which to set future targets.
13 Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated vary from year to year, because a few cases with extremely large pollutant
reductions can have a significant impact on annual results. Accurately predicting the number and type of cases that will be settled
in a given year is difficult, making it challenging to gauge the magnitude of pollutant reductions that will be achieved from one year
to the next.
14 Dollars invested in improved environmental performance can vary from year to year, because a few cases with high injunctive relief
amounts can have a significant impact on annual results. Accurately predicting the number and type of cases that will be settled in
a given year is difficult, making it challenging to gauge the dollar amount of injunctive relief and SEPs achieved from one year to
the next.
15 For additional information on OECA's National Priorities, visit epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/priorities/index.html.
16 US EPA. Performance Track Progress Report: Top Performers, Solid Results. EPA Report: EPA400-R-03-004. Washington, DC: US
EPA, 2003.
17 US EPA. "PTrack Online." Internal Database. Updated: September 12, 2005. The New England.
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Releases Inventory Database.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Releases Inventory Database.
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Releases Inventory Database.
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Green Chemistry Challenge and Design for
Environment internal databases. Continually updated. National Pollution Prevention Roundtable: A Decade of Results: 167
Billion Pounds of Prevention. 2002.
22 Multimedia workplans include Tier III Environmental Agreements, Performance Partnership Grants, and other agreements.
-------
Enabling
Support Program
Results
Many of EPA's efforts—improv-
ing the quality and availability of
environmental and health informa-
tion, strengthening management
practices, implementing human capi-
tal strategies—contribute to the
Agency's results across all of its
goals and objectives. The following
FY 2005 results for EPA's enabling
and support programs reflect progress
achieved by such organizations as
EPA's Office of Administration and
Resource Management, Office of
Environmental Information, Office
of the Inspector General (OIG), and
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
Sample highlights of FY 2005 per-
formance include:
STRENGTHENING
FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
EPA consistently met accelerated
financial reporting goals, maintaining
"green" status and progress scores on
the President's Management Agenda
(PMA) scorecard. The Agency
attained an unqualified opinion for
FY 2004 financial statements, and did
so by November 15, 2004, an acceler-
ated reporting goal established by the
Office of Management and Budget.
EPA also satisfied Government-
wide Financial Reporting System
requirements by the accelerated
November 18, 2004, deadline. During
FY 2005, EPA continued its support
of the consolidated government-wide
reporting effort by issuing its interim
financial statements within 21 days
after each quarter.
The Agency identified opportu-
nities and strategies for enhancing
financial information provided to
decisionmakers across the Agency.
Efforts are underway in partnership
with the Office of Grants and
Debarment to address key grants
management risk areas and chal-
lenges integrating grants and
financial management data, create
single point data entry, and have bet-
ter information to assess the
capabilities of nonprofit grantees.
See Improving Grants Management.
EPA continued to enhance the
Annual Commitment System (ACS)
it launched last year to assist nation-
al programs and regional managers in
negotiating and agreeing on annual
regional performance commitments.
In FY 2005, the Agency developed
and implemented a new ACS per-
formance tracking feature to support
the entry and tracking of actual
performance data against annual
regional performance commitments.
An investigation conducted joint-
ly by EPA's OIG and a number of other
federal organizations resulted in a
contractor (PricewaterhouseCoopers)
repaying the government $42 million
to settle allegations that it made false
claims for travel reimbursement.
IMPROVING GRANTS
MANAGEMENT
To ensure that grant funds are
being used properly, EPA began
implementing a new policy for assess-
ing the financial management
capabilities of nonprofit recipients.
Under the policy, every nonprofit
grantee receiving an award greater
than $200,000 must complete a ques-
tionnaire on its capability to
administer the grant. Should EPA
determine that a grantee lacks this
capability, the grantee must take
action to address its weaknesses
before the grant can be awarded.
EPA revised its Order 5700.5
(now Order 5700.5Al, effective
January 15, 2005) to further increase
competition for assistance agree-
ments. The revised order clarifies
requirements for noncompetitive
justifications, provides guidance for
identifying possible conflicts of
interest, requires statements from
172
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAM
reviewers that they do not have
any unresolved conflicts of interest,
and reinforces grant management
officers' responsibilities.
MANAGING HUMAN
CAPITAL
EPA's Human Capital
Strategy has increased personal
accountability and linked job
requirements to the Agency's mis-
sion and goals. The strategy
provides the framework to fill
mission-critical positions, ensure
that planning and budgeting
anticipate and address workforce
needs, and train its diverse
workforce.
EPA implemented a new five-
level performance management
system for general service/general
manager employees. By linking
job performance standards to the
Agency's strategic goals and objec-
tives, the Performance Appraisal
and Recognition System (PARS)
promotes increased accountability
and productivity among all
employees. PARS provides a
framework within which EPA
employees will be able to demon-
strate excellence in delivering
effective and efficient government
services.
ADDRESSING
INFORMATION
CHALLENGES
EPA conducted an Agency-
wide planning process to rank key
data gaps (identified in the
Agency's 2003 Draft Report on the
Environment1 and through input
provided by the Agency's partners
and stakeholders) and establish
priorities for filling them. EPA is
integrating results from this data
gaps analysis into its process for
ji.. Performance Targets and Current Results
developing its ..„.., _6 ..,
Under EPA s Grants Management Plan
7006-701 I
BBBmBmBmai^^B Performance Measure Target Progress in FY 2005
and expects
that many
of the data
gaps will be
addressed in
its next draft
Report on the
Environment,
scheduled for
2006.
Managed
by EPA, the
E-Rulemaking
Initiative is
overcoming
barriers to
public partici-
Percentage of grants managed
by certified project officers
Percentage of new grants
subject to the competition
order that are competed
Percentage of new grants to
non-profit recipients subject
to the competition order that
are competed
* Percentage of active
recipients who receive
advanced monitoring
Percentage of regional grant
packages submitted
electronically
Percentage of eligible grants
closed out
**Percentage of grant
workplans that include a
discussion of environmental
100%
85%
75%
10%
100%
99% in 2003
90% in 2004
80%
97.7%
92.7%
87.5%
94%
99.3%
97.7% in 2003
76.6% in 2004
Evaluation in progress
nation in the * Tnese performance measures are tracked on a calendar year basis.
federal re0n1a ** EPA is currently conducting an evalution, expected to be completed in January 2006.
^ This evaluation is of the Agency's progress under EPA Order 5700.7, "Environmental
tOry prOCeSS Results Under EPA Assistance Agreements".
by improving resources. In FY 2005, EPA and
the public's ability to access,
understand, and comment on fed-
eral regulatory actions. In its
September 2005 report, Electronic
Rulemaking, Progress Made in
Developing Centralized E-
Rulemaking System, the
Government Accountability
Office cited EPA for successfully
integrating the needs of its federal
partners. EPA's effective collabora-
tion was critical to the successful
launching of the Federal Docket
Management System.2
ADVANCING
COLLABORATION
EPA continues to work collab-
oratively with its partners—states,
tribes, and other federal agencies,
to ensure a national focus on the
most important environmental
problems and the most efficient
and effective use of limited
the Environmental Council of the
States (EGOS) established a
Partnership and Performance
Workgroup to provide a forum for
collaboration. The workgroup
explored ways to support state
strategic planning and improve
dialogue around planning and pri-
ority setting.
EPA continued to work with
tribes on a government-to-govern-
ment basis to protect the land, air,
and water in Indian country. In
June, the Grand Traverse Band of
Chippewa Indians hosted the
Sixth Annual National Tribal
Environmental Conference for
Environmental Management.
During this conference, more than
750 tribal, federal, and state offi-
cials shared solutions on ongoing
environmental and public health
problems in Indian country.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ESP Annual Performance Goals
APG ESP-1 Information Exchange Network
PERFORMANCE
Under this APG, EPA pro-
vides a centralized approach to
receiving and distributing informa-
tion and improves access to timely
and reliable environmental infor-
mation. EPA believes that these
efforts will allow for the exchange
of secure, accurate, and timely
information that supports environ-
ment and health decisions.
In FY 2005, EPA added fea-
tures to the Central Data
Exchange (CDX), including user
registration and increased security.
The Agency continues to work on
easing reporting burden by bring-
ing more states on line and adding
more systems to the CDX. Shared
services are allowing external
groups to leverage the CDX's
capabilities more efficiently and
have increased the number of
CDX users to 45,000.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages C-79-C-80.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environ-
mental data for sound environmental decision-making through the
Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Baseline: The CDX program began in FY 2001.
Performance Measures
• CDX will fully support electronic data exchange
requirements for major EPA environmental sys-
tems, enabling faster receipt, processing, and
quality checking of data.
• States will be able to exchange data with CDX
through state nodes in real time, using new Web-
based data standards that allow for automated
data-quality checking.
• States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose
to use CDX to report environmental data elec-
tronically to EPA, taking advantage of automated
data quality checks and on-line customer support.
• Customer help desk calls are resolved in a timely
manner
Planned
12 Systems
40 States
20,000
Users
Actual
22 Systems
40 States \/
45,000
Users
96%
Growth in Registered Users of EPA's Central Data Exchange
1
g
C
o>
D
Fiscal Year
APG ESP-2 Data Quality and Accessibility
PERFORMANCE
EPA monitors progress in pro-
viding environmental data to a
variety of users in forms that are
accessible and available. In 2005,
EPA updated the list of proposed
indicators for the 2007 Report on
the Environment (ROE)
Technical Document based on
comments from the July 2005 pub-
lic peer review. The additional
GOAL MET
FY 2005: EPA will improve the quality and scope of information avail-
able to the public for environmental decisionmaking.
Baseline: An effort to develop a State-of-the-
Environment report based on environmental indicators
was initiated in FY 2002.
Performance Measures
• Establish an improved suite of environmental indi-
cators for use by EPA's programs and partners in
the Agency's strategic planning and performance
measurement process.
Planned
I Report
Actual
Report3
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAM
proposed indicators were
announced in the Federal Register.
In addition, EPA is updating its
Strategic Plan (2006-2011 update)
and has included consideration of
the proposed 2007 indicators and
data and information needs identi-
fied during development of the
2003 Draft Report on the
Environment in its deliberations.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-80.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: EPA will improve the quality and scope of information
available to the public for environmental decisionmaking.
Baseline: An effort to develop a State-of-the-
Environment report based on environmental
indicators was initiated in FY 2002.
Performance Measures (continued)
• Responders to the baseline questionnaire on cus-
tomer satisfaction on the EPA Web site report
overall satisfaction with their visit to EPA.GOV
Planned
60%
Actual
63%
APG ESP-3 Information Security
PERFORMANCE
Under this APG, EPA tracks
its compliance with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
security criteria. EPA believes that
constant system and network mon-
itoring is necessary to detect and
identify any potential weaknesses
or vulnerabilities that compromise
its information assets. These proac-
tive efforts will allow the Agency
to develop cost effective solutions
that support EPA's long-term goal
of building and analytical capacity.
EPA's Security Program has contin-
uously implemented security
measures to comply with OMB
requirements. The Agency has
GOAL MET
FY 2005: OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed
established standards for security.
Baseline: In FY 2002, the Agency started planning
an effort to expand and strengthen its information
security infrastructure.
Performance Measures
• Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB
to assess Agency security programs reported
annually to OMB under Federal Information
Security Management Act/Government.
Information Security Reform Act.
Planned
75%
Actual
90%
exceeded this target for the past
several fiscal years, and it has
adjusted the target for FY2 006 to
better align with performance.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-80.
APG ESP-4 Fraud Detection and Deterrence
PERFORMANCE
The OIG has begun including
the non-monetary results of
"Single Audits" and audits per-
formed for OIG in its targets
and results by acknowledging
the increasing number and
significance of actionable recom-
mendations in these audits to
improve the management of
assistance agreements. Therefore,
OIG adjusted its original targets
submitted to OMB to account for
the large increase in the expected
and actual number of improved
business practices and systems and
the number of business recom-
mendations, risks, and best prac-
tices identified. OIG is constantly
seeking ways of improving how it
plans and measures the value of its
work, and will continue to refine
its targets and actions with data
and experience in recognizing
these opportunities. OIG work is,
by its nature, responsive to com-
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
peting priorities of risks and stake-
holder need; therefore, OIG
results may be variable or time-
lagged by measure in relation to
annual targets. For example, the
number of criminal, civil and
administrative actions has
increased, reflecting a greater
number of debarments and sus-
pensions of contractors, and the
number of cases involving labora-
tories, which are time-lag results
of prior years' performance. The
285 percent return on the dollar
investment in OIG represents
$143.8 million in questioned
costs, recommended efficiencies
and fines, recoveries, and penalties.
Data Quality:
A description of the
data used to measure
EPA's performance can
be found in Appendix
C, page C-81.
CHALLENGES
OIG is attempting to
balance current and ^
emerging priorities, |
especially those from z
an increasing number
of Congressional
requests, expanding
management and
financial quality con-
trol requirements, and
exigent responses to
EPA's emergency hurri-
cane actions.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying
240 recommendations; potential savings and recoveries equal to 150% of the
annual investment in the OIG; 102 actions for better business operations; and
80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing risk or loss of integrity.
Baseline: In FY 2002, OIG established a
baseline of 150 business recommendations;
70 improved business practices; 50 criminal,
civil, and administrative actions for improv-
ing Agency management; and a 100%
potential dollar return on the investment in
the OIG from savings and recoveries.
Performance Measures
• Number of improved business prac-
tices and systems.
• Number of criminal, civil, and adminis-
trative actions.
• Number of business recommenda-
tions, risks, and best practices identified.
• Return on the annual dollar invest-
ment in OIG.
Planned
2204 Improvements
80 Actions
8005 Recommendations
150%
Actual
724
125
1,1 19
285%
EPA's OIG Helps Improve Agency Management,
Accountability, and Program Operations
• FY 2005
• FY 2004
• FY 2003
• FY 2002
• FY 200 1
1,1 19
_-
800
724
240
.
5
1,25
108
' 83
50 HI 07
•so •'"'
1102 |133 155
100 138 150
•70 II97
•65 mt7 150
390
269
Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
Criminal, Cml, Improvements in Recommendations, Be
AdministrativeActions Business Processes, and Practices, Management a
Resole Public Concerns FMFIA Challenges Identi
EPA's OIG's Questioned Costs,
Efficiencies, Savings, Fines, Recoveries
800
700
600
100
Planned
Data obtained from OIG infer
Actual
systems, IGOR and PMRS.
APG ESP-S Audit and Advisory Services
PERFORMANCE
Qoal Not Met: These performance
results generally represent complex
environmental actions to be taken
subsequently to OIG recommenda-
tions, risks, and best practices
identified. While the results for
Environmental Actions and
Improvements indicate the measure
was not met, the system used to
track this information currently
does not capture actions taken by
-------
SECTION II, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAM
EPA program managers prior to the
issuance of the Inspector General's
final report, which means the num-
ber of actions taken (35) is
probably artificially low from errors
of omission. Further, there are a
considerable number of primary
and secondary actions and
improvements that are time lagged,
occurring beyond the immediate
scope of recognition as reportable
results because of their complexity
and expanded residual effect, there-
by making them difficult to track.
Therefore, the reported results for
this measure are conservative and
do not fully reflect the scope or
number of actions taken and
improvements made. The OIG is
working to provide greater follow-
up to ensure better accountability
and recognition of agreed to actions
by the Agency and its partners on
OIG recommendations, and is also
developing measures that capture
actions and results accruing prior to
report issuance. As mentioned in
ESP APG 4, there are competing
priorities for OIG resources based
largely on external factors. Due to
the responsive nature
of OIG work and the time-lag
nature of its results, performance
evaluated over several fiscal years,
better demonstrates the OIG's sig-
nificant strategic achievements in
relation to its APGs.
GOAL NOT
MET
FY 2005: OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality and human
health by identifying 95 environmental recommendations, best practices,
risks, or opportunities for improvement; contributing to the reduction or
elimination of 23 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and 45
actions influencing environmental improvements or program changes.
Baseline In FY 2002, OIG established a baseline
of 75 recommendations, best practices and risks
identified contributing to improved Agency envi-
ronmental goals; established 15 environmental
actions; and reduced 15 environmental risks.
Performance Measures
• Number of environmental risks
reduced.
• Number of environmental actions.
• Number of environmental recommenda-
tions, risks, and best practices identified.
Planned
23 Risks
45 Improvements
95 Recommendations
Actual
35
35 X
12 •
CHALLENGES
OIG is attempting
to balance current
and emerging pri-
orities, especially
those from an
increasing number
of Congressional
requests and exi-
gent responses to
EPA's emergency
hurricane actions.
Additionally,
obtaining the
needed staff skill
mix to perform
complex program
evaluations is a
continuing
challenge.
EPA's OIG Contributes to Improved Human
Health and Environmental Quality
Planned Actual
Environmental
Improvements .Actions,
Changes
Planned Actual
Environmental or
Infrastructure Risks
Reduced or Eliminated
Planned Actual
Environmental
Recommendations, Best
Practices, Risks Identified
APG ESP-6 Strengthen EPA's Management
PERFORMANCE
EPA prepared timely accurate
financial statements which earned
an unqualified (clean) opinion. The
auditors identified nine reportable
conditions, one non-compliance
issue and no material weaknesses.
GOAL MET
FY 2005: Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the
Agency's mission while addressing the challenges included in the
President's Management Agenda.
Baseline: Financial statements will be submitted on
time to OMB and receive an unqualified opinion.
Performance Measures
• Agency audited financial statements are timely,
and receive an unqualified opinion.
Planned
Actual
I
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, page C-82.
APG ESP-7 Energy Consumption and Reduction
PERFORMANCE
EPA complied with Executive
Order 13123 "Greening the
Government through Efficient
Energy Management" that
requires the Agency to reduce its
reportable energy use by 20 per-
cent in FY 2005 from an FY 1990
baseline. Reduced energy con-
sumption reduces greenhouse gas
production and other environ-
mental impacts associated with
conventional energy sources. It is
also important that EPA lead by
example to reduce energy/operat-
ing costs by demonstrating energy
efficient mechanical systems and
operations to the public.
EPA relied heavily on green
power purchases to meet this goal.
EPA is currently implementing
several building commissioning
and mechanical system upgrades
that will significantly reduce actu-
al energy consumption. The data
from onsite consumption logs are
compared to invoices to verify
that reported consumption and
GOAL MET
FY 2005: EPA will achieve a 20% energy consumption reduction from
1990 in its 29 laboratories, which is in line to meet the 2005 require-
ment of a 20% reduction from the 1990 base contained in EO 13123.
This includes green power purchases.
Baseline: In FY 1990, energy consumption is
357,864 BTUs per square foot.
Performance Measures
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy
consumption (from FY 1990).
• FY 2004: Cumulative percentage reduction in
energy consumption (from FY 1990).The data
lag was due to the reported billing cycle.
Planned
20%
16%
Actual
25%
7%
cost data are correct. EPA's
Sustainable Facilities Practices
Branch compares reported energy
use at each facility against previ-
ous billing data to see if there are
any significant and unexplainable
increases or decreases in energy
quantities and costs.
EPA exceeded this goal. Based
on the data available (through the
third quarter of FY 2005), EPA
should show a reduction of
reportable energy to the
Department of Energy and OMB
of 25 percent for FY 2005. The
fourth quarter information will
not be available until December
2005.
Data Quality: A description of
the data used to measure EPA's
performance can be found in
Appendix C, pages XXX-XXX.
CHALLENGES
While EPA's new main laboratory
facility at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, continues to
improve, its operations have not
yet fully stabilized.
NOTES
1
2
3
See www.epa.gov/indicators.
See www.gao.gov/.
This document is only an interim status update, not a full report on approved indicators.
4 OIG revised its target from 102 to 220 by including non-monetary results of Single Audits, which will also be included in FYs 2006
and 2007.
5 OIG revised its target from 240 to 800 by including non-monetary results of Single Audits, which will also be included in FYs 2006
and 2007.
-------
Section III.
Accomplishments
and
CONTENTS
Introduction to Management Section
OIG's 2005 Key Management Challenges and EPA's Response
GAO's 2005 Key Management Challenge
-------
Management
Introduction
The Reports Consolidation
Act of 2000 requires the Inspector
General to identify, briefly assess,
and report annually the most serious
management and performance
challenges facing the Agency.
Management challenges represent
vulnerabilities in program operations
and their susceptibility to fraud,
waste, abuse and mismanagement.
This section includes a discussion of
areas that the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) iden-
tified as EPA's 2005 management
challenges. It also includes a discus-
sion of the Agency's response to the
challenges and progress in addressing
the issues.
In FY 2005, OIG and GAO
identified nine areas they consider
EPA's most pressing management
challenges. While OIG identified
the majority of these areas, GAO
raised a number of the same issues,
such as human capital and assistance
agreements. Notably, neither OIG
nor GAO suggested elevating any of
the issues to the level of a material
weaknesses—a reportable condition
that could adversely impact the
integrity of Agency programs and
activities. Most of the challenges
identified are recurring issues that
take time to resolve. EPA has been
working to address these long-stand-
ing issues for the past several years
and has made good progress during
FY 2005.
EPA's senior managers are com-
mitted to resolving current issues and
identifying and addressing emerging
issues before they become serious
problems. To sustain management
attention to issues raised by OIG,
GAO, and other external evaluators,
EPA maintains a system of internal
controls to ensure that program
activities are carried out effectively
and in accordance with applicable
laws and sound management policy.
Currently, EPA has elevated three of
the nine management challenges to
the level of an Agency weakness
under FMFIA. EPA leaders meet
periodically to review and discuss the
progress the Agency is making to
address the issues, and each year the
Agency reports on the status of its
efforts in its Performance and
Accountability Report and Budget
Submission.
The material that follows
includes a table of the management
challenges identified by OIG and
their relationship to EPA's Strategic
Plan and the President's
Management Agenda. This section
also includes OIG's description of
these issues and EPA's summary of
actions it has taken to address them.
180
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Office of Inspector General
2005 Key Management Challenges
(Prepared by the Agency's Office of Inspector General)
The table below includes issues identified by OIG as the 2005 key management challenges facing EPA and
the relationship of the issues to the Agency's Strategic Plan and the President's Management Agenda. Following
the table is a brief discussion of the challenges. A more detailed discussion of each challenge can be found in
OIG's memorandum to EPA's Administrator, EPA's Key Management Challenges 2005, dated April 25, 2005.
EPA's TOP MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
REPORTED BY THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
^Y LINK TO EPA
2005 STRATEGIC GOAL
LINK TO PRESIDENT'S
MANAGEMENT
AGENDA
Linking Mission and Management*:
Development of more outcome-based strategic and
annual targets in collaboration with partners.
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security:
Implementing a strategy to effectively coordinate
and address threats.
Superfund Evaluation and Policy Identification:
Improving the usefulness of internal evaluations, and
implementing program policy decisions.
Information Resources Management and Data
Quality:
Improving the quality of data used to make deci-
sions and monitor progress.
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish
Its Mission:
Improving the management of the billions of dollars
of grants awarded by EPA.
Challenges in Addressing Air Toxics Program:
Reducing air toxic emissions by improving measure-
ment of risk assessment and progress.
Human Capital Management:
Implementing a strategy that will result in a compe-
tent, well-trained, and motivated workforce.
Information Security:
Protecting information systems by preventing intru-
sion and abuse of systems, and protecting integrity of
data.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal 3
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal 1
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Integrating
Performance & Budget
E-Gov
Financial Performance
Human Capital
E-Gov
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OIG's FY 2005 Key Management Challenges for EPA
LINKING MISSION AND MANAGEMENT
EPA faces a continuing chal-
lenge in demonstrating
accomplishment of its environ-
mental mission through programs
with clear objectives, measurable
results, and accurate cost informa-
tion. We have considered Linking
Mission and Management as a top
management challenge since
2001. While the Agency is mak-
ing progress, we continue to
observe weaknesses across various
activities, programs, and offices.
EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan
is superior to preceding plans;
however, it does not contain suffi-
cient substantive strategies or
resource and schedule commit-
ments leading to the attainment
of its stated goals. In a series of
reviews of various Agency activi-
ties, we have observed a
systematic disconnect between
program goals, performance objec-
tives developed in response to the
Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), and meas-
ures of effectiveness.
As noted in prior years, devel-
oping outcome based performance
measures linked to Agency activi-
ties is a challenging undertaking.
EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2006
Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) Assessments continue to
cite a need for improved measures
in a number of programs. Past
Office of Management and Budget
PART assessments have noted
that the absence of valid outcome
performance data has hindered
EPA in evaluating the impacts of
its programs on the environment
and public health.
As EPA works to develop
more outcome-oriented perform-
ance measures, it must continue
improvements to track the cost of
achieving environmental results.
A March 2005 policy change will
allow EPA to more closely link
costs by familiar program or
project names instead of broader,
more abstract categories. It is
important for EPA to collect and
integrate data for tracking the cost
of organizational performance. A
recent OIG report on Superfund
expenditures re-enforces this need
through findings that all costs
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA has made significant progress over the past years in linking program
performance with resource decisions; developing outcome-oriented
goals and measures; and providing managers with timely, reliable, and
consistent cost information.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Issued EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, which moved the Agency from
ten to five strategic goals centered on environmental and human
health results.
• Increased the use of performance information and trend data in devel-
oping the FY 2005 budget.
• Developed more outcome-oriented annual performance goals and
measures as well as efficiency measures.
• Developed a new accounting framework to track resources across
the five goals.
• Released a Draft Report on the Environment, which is intended to help
assess the current state of the environment and to provide a baseline
against which future performance can be measured.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Developed and implemented a new performance tracking feature in
the Agency's Annual Commitment System that supports the entry and
tracking of annual performance data against annual regional perform-
ance commitments.
• Continued to improve PART scores by developing efficiency measures
for environmental programs. (As of July 2005, 6 of the 32 EPA pro-
grams assessed show results not demonstrated.)
• Enhanced the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Reporting and
Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT) functionality by expanding the pro-
grammatic and performance reporting capability and adding additional
data sources (Administrative Data Mart).
• Began to develop the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, including out-
reach to partners and stakeholders and consultation with state and
tribal partners.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
incurred by the Superfund pro-
gram cannot be identified or
isolated.
Once accurate and current
cost information is available, EPA
managers need to consider it
when making operational and
strategic decisions. With the
right information at hand, they
can analyze organizational and
programmatic performance. EPA's
success in implementing cost
accounting will rely, to a great
extent, on how well the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer works
with program offices. An essential
aspect of this challenge will be
persuading EPA managers to
incorporate use of cost accounting
data into the normal course of
managing their programs. In
addition, EPA continues to work
with its Federal, State, and Tribal
partners to develop appropriate
outcome measures and accounting
systems that track environmental
and human health results across
the Agency's revised goal struc-
ture. This information must then
become an integral part of the
Agency's decision-making process.
AGENCY EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
While the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) main-
tains the lead for the unified
national response to terrorist
threats, many other Federal, State,
and local agencies, including EPA,
play a vital role in implementing
homeland security efforts. EPA
has developed chemical, biologi-
cal, and radiological, technical
and scientific expertise that
enhances the ability of DHS to
address potential terrorist threats.
EPA also possesses emergency
response capabilities that comple-
ment the efforts of other Federal
agencies. The Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act
(Public Law 107-188) specifically
tasked EPA with funding and
overseeing water system vulnera-
bility assessments and resulting
emergency response plans. In
addition, several Homeland
Security Presidential Directives
direct EPA to support and develop
the preparedness of state, local,
and tribal governments, and pri-
vate industry, to respond to,
recover from, and continue opera-
tions after a terrorist attack.
Over the past year, OIG ana-
lyzed several of EPA's actions to
address its homeland security
responsibilities. We found that the
Agency has showed continued
improvement on several fronts
such as establishing the EPA
Homeland Security Collaborative
Network and updating its
Homeland Security Strategy. The
agency must continue to work
with stakeholders to develop per-
formance measures for water
security and to identify impedi-
ments that are preventing water
systems from successfully reducing
or mitigating vulnerabilities in
computer systems used to control
water equipment (Supervisory
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA plays an important role in protecting the environment from potential
threats such as chemical, biological, and radiological contamination and
must be prepared to respond to these threats effectively and efficiently.
In FY 2005, EPA declared Homeland Security an Agency weakness.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Established the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) within the
Administrator's Office.
• Established the Homeland Security Collaborative Network to coordi-
nate and directly address high-priority, cross-Agency technical and
policy issues related to homeland security programs.
• Supported federal law enforcement agencies at Nationally Significant
Events (e.g., U.S. Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigations
during the G-8 Nations Summit).
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Updated EPA's Homeland Security Strategic Plan to identify the range of
EPA's homeland security activities, taking into consideration the evolv-
ing role of the DHS.
• Assisted drinking water systems in protecting their infrastructure
from terrorist attacks by completing vulnerability assessments.
• Drafted a policy that promotes consistency across the regions in
implementing BioWatch consequence management activities, while
accommodating region-specific needs.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Control and Data Acquisition,
SCADA systems). The Agency
must also take steps to ensure that
it is performing all Bio Watch des-
ignated responsibilities and
develop a better process for identi-
fying, obtaining, maintaining, and
tracking response equipment nec-
essary for Nationally Significant
Incidents.
EPA has undertaken a number
of efforts to work with Federal,
State and local counterparts to
enhance critical infrastructure
protection. As new threats to the
Nation continue to evolve, EPA's
success will require simultaneous
attention to questions of risk,
capabilities and deficiencies, pre-
paredness, management and
oversight, as well as effective coor-
dination with EPA's partners at all
levels of government and industry.
SUPERFUND EVALUATION AND POLICY IDENTIFICATION
The Agency can be credited
with reducing risks at hazardous
waste sites across the Nation,
identifying and implementing
needed reforms, instituting pro-
gram infrastructure, and making
progress in cleaning up the
nation's most contaminated sites.
However, troubling obstacles have
been identified to the Agency's
ability to effectively meet the
Nation's current and future needs
for hazardous waste cleanup.
Despite having its own processes
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA's Response: The Superfund program is complex, dealing with
cleanup requirements that have been changing since its inception over
20 years ago. However, despite the program's complexity and unique
administrative structure, it has made and continues to make significant
progress in cleaning up Superfund sites and reducing risks to human
health and the environment.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Initiated an internal review of the Superfund program (120-Day
Study) to identify opportunities for program efficiencies that would
enable the Agency to begin and ultimately complete remedial actions
with current resources.
• Completed data collection and analysis on hazardous sites impacting
Indian country.
• Established the EPA tribal forum to work collaboratively on issues
involving tribes.
• Worked to increase oversight of the Tribal Association on Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (TASWER) cooperative agreement, in
accordance with commitments to OIG.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Published Superfund: Building on the Past, Looking to the Future, an inter-
nal review of the Superfund program that contains recommendations
for program improvements.
• Developed a 120-Day Study Action Plan which outlines how EPA will
carry out the recommendations.
• Completed the Superfund Tribal Strategy and implementation plan.
(Relates to APG 3.3 in Section 2, Page 101.)
for evaluating and reforming the
Superfund program, EPA has
failed to proactively identify, or
communicate, the current fiscal
and other program management
challenges that are causing great
pressure and attention on the pro-
gram. EPA has had mixed success
in implementing reforms.
The EPA should continue its
important internal evaluation and
reform activities that have charac-
terized the Superfund program
since 1989. However, changes or
modifications in its evaluation
and policy identification process
are needed to respond to new
challenges. In the future, the
Agency will need to identify and
provide solutions for major pro-
gram challenges and policy
decisions, including (1) lack of
Trust Fund appropriations and
decreasing general appropriations;
(2) the inability to fund all sites
that require funding, including
increasing expectations to identify
and implement program efficien-
cies, account for and explain
costs, and establish site prioritiza-
tion processes; (3) determining
potential future financial and
environmental liability from sites
that have not yet formally entered
the Superfund program; (4) lack
of viable, or fully cooperative,
responsible parties, inadequate
financial assurance for site
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
cleanup, and the inability to con-
sistently rely on other programs
to support Superfund needs; and
(5) use of credible measures of the
ecological benefits that result from
Superfund cleanups.
Recognizing that tribes are
important partners in implement-
ing the Agency's environmental
programs, the Agency has under-
taken three major initiatives since
1998. These initiatives have pro-
duced some positive results and
lessons have been incorporated
into the Agency's current strategy
for managing the role of the tribes
in the Superfund program. The
Agency's tribal strategy has fal-
tered because it does not have a
detailed implementation plan with
milestones, priorities, resource
needs, and corresponding measures
to track progress and effects of the
strategy. In addition, the strategy
cannot be effectively implemented
without critical information,
including an inventory of haz-
ardous waste sites on Indian lands.
A strong working relationship
between EPA and the States and
Tribes is necessary if environmen-
tal goals are to be achieved.
If the Agency is to maintain
the public's trust and confidence in
its ability to effectively manage the
Superfund program and protect
human health and the environ-
ment at the Nation's most
contaminated waste sites, it needs
to demonstrate the ability to
proactively identify and address the
program's most serious challenges.
This is particularly important when
the Agency has processes in place
to accomplish this. In addition,
effective and credible program
planning, budgeting, and resource
allocation are accomplished when
the Agency is informed of what
the program's current and future
challenges and needs are.
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) AND DATA QUALITY*
EPA acknowledges IRM data
management practices as an
Agency-level weakness under the
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act and has specifically
targeted various components for
improvement. The Agency faces a
number of challenges with the
data it uses to make decisions and
monitor progress against environ-
mental goals. These challenges
cover a broad range of interrelated
activities including: using enter-
prise and data architecture
strategies to guide the integration
and management of data and to
make investment decisions; imple-
menting data standards to
facilitate data sharing; and estab-
lishing quality assurance practices
to improve the reliability, accura-
cy, and scientific basis of
environmental data, including
data derived from laboratories.
EPA and most States often apply
different data definitions, and
sometimes collect and input dif-
ferent data, resulting in
inconsistent, incomplete, or obso-
lete, consolidated national data.
While EPA has developed
several core registry systems and
metadata registries, it has yet to
implement a 1998, agreed-upon,
OIG recommendation to formally
revise its policies and procedures
supporting an Agency standards
program. EPA has developed and
formally approved ten data stan-
dards, and continues to partner
with the Environmental
Data Standards Council to
develop additional standards for
environmental information collec-
tion and exchange. However, the
true challenge lies in the imple-
mentation of the approved
standards, because many parties
must follow through for EPA and
others to realize the benefits.
Some of the approved
standards will not be fully imple-
mented until Fiscal Year 2006,
and some have been implemented
only in a targeted set of national
EPA systems. If EPA's exchange
network infrastructure is to work
effectively, timely implementation
should be required for all applica-
ble systems. Moreover, the use of
data standards should be a
required condition for receiving
money under the Exchange
Network Grant Program. In addi-
tion, while EPA is focusing its
efforts on standards for data
shared with external partners,
additional attention is needed for
*This challenge was also identified by GAO.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
internal data. Standards for inter-
nal data are necessary to facilitate
the efficient and effective devel-
opment and implementation of
truly integrated systems within
EPA. These data standards would
help to reduce reliance on inter-
faces and data warehouses to allow
for the sharing and integration of
internal data.
Data reliability is another
major aspect of data management
needing continued attention. The
Government Accountability
Office noted that although EPA
has made some progress in
addressing critical data gaps in the
agency's environmental informa-
tion, the Agency still has further
to go in obtaining the data it
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged both laboratory quality system practices and
data management practices as Agency weaknesses. In FY 2004, the Agency
corrected its laboratory quality system practices as a FMFIA weakness.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Provided tools, technical evaluations, and training to help environmen-
tal laboratory managers ensure that their operations produce data of
documented quality.
• Developed a policy directive focused on ensuring and documenting
the competency of Agency laboratories.
• Conducted discussions with Agency and outside representatives on
how to assure the quality of laboratory data. EPA incorporated the
results of these discussions into training courses and recommenda-
tions for best practices for laboratory quality systems.
• Validated the effectiveness of corrective actions by summarizing audit
reports, documenting guidance for detecting and deterring miscon-
duct, and documenting the review process for the modified Quality
Assurance Annual Reports and Work Plans.
EPA has made significant progress in addressing data management.
Specifically, EPA developed an effective data standard program and prom-
ulgated six Reinventing Environmental Information data standards for
the Agency. In FY 2005, the Agency completed the final corrective
actions for the data management practices weakness.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Developed a process for ensuring data management policies and pro-
cedures are planned, maintained, and revised as appropriate (e.g.,
changed the structure and operating procedures for the Quality
Information Council to better fulfill its role as the information policy-
making body for the Agency).
• Developed an Agency-approved planning process to identify key data
gaps by building on data-gap information included in EPA's Draft
Report on the Environment.
• Proposed a new Agency weakness, Implementation of Data Standards,
to ensure that new standards adopted by the Agency are fully imple-
mented in a cost effective and timely manner.
needs to manage for environmen-
tal results. EPA should establish
clear lines of responsibility and
accountability among the agency's
various organizational compo-
nents, and identify specific
requirements for developing and
using environmental indicators.
Data quality concerns extend
to questionable analyses by labora-
tories. The number of ongoing lab
fraud investigations increased by
more than 150% between Fiscal
Years 2001 and 2003 due to com-
plaints received. The method of
fraud employed by all but two of
the involved laboratories dealt
with some form of altered or
fraudulent test results. The
Agency has taken significant
action to address the quality of
laboratory data and decided that
Laboratory Quality System
Practices was corrected as a
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act in FY 2004. Follow-
up activities will determine if
weaknesses in Agency laboratory
practices have been corrected.
EPA's ability to manage its
business processes, enforce envi-
ronmental laws, evaluate the
impact of its programs in terms of
environmental improvement, and
accurately inform the public about
the status of the environment may
continue to be limited by gaps and
inconsistencies in the quality of
its data. EPA needs to continue its
efforts to identify what data is
necessary to manage its programs,
and work, both internally and
with its partners, to ensure that
such information is captured and
reported in a timely, accurate, and
consistent manner.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
ERA'S USE OF ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS TO ACCOMPLISH ITS MISSION*
Assistance agreements are a
primary means EPA uses to carry
out its mission of protecting human
health and the environment. More
than half of EPA's fiscal 2004 budg-
et, approximately $4.4 billion, was
awarded to organizations through
assistance agreements. Because the
amount is large, and because the
work involved is critically impor-
tant to fulfilling EPA's mission, it is
imperative that the Agency use
good management practices in
awarding and overseeing these
agreements to ensure they cost-
effectively contribute to attaining
environmental goals.
Since 1996, EPA has reported
Management of Assistance
Agreements as a material or
agency weakness under the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
Recent OIG reports show that
grant management challenges con-
tinue to exist. In March 2005, we
reported on the implementation of
EPA's new grant competition order
and concluded that EPA needs to
compete more assistance agree-
ments. The order was ineffective
because it included too many
exemptions and, therefore, only
applied to $161 million of more
than $835 million of discretionary
grants awarded in 2003.
We also continue to identify
pre-award and monitoring weak-
nesses that waste money and
weaken program effectiveness.
While EPA issued a Grants
Management Plan in April 2003,
EPA has not completed all of the
proposed actions in its Plan. To
address many of our recommenda-
tions, EPA has issued several
Orders since January 2005
containing new requirements for
1) identifying environmental
results under assistance agreements,
2) competing grants, and 3) assess-
ing capabilities of non-profit
applicants for managing such
agreements. Because these signifi-
cant policies are so new, EPA has
no data to show that the problems
that precipitated the issuance of
these policies have been corrected.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
Over the past several years, OIG and GAO continued to raise concerns
about the Agency's grant management practices. EPA acknowledges
Assistance Agreements as an Agency weakness and has a strategy in
place to address concerns. EPA established a long-term Grants
Management Plan which serves as a roadmap of the Agency's approach
for improving grants management.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Issued a long-term Grants Management Training Plan that outlines the
Agency's strategy for ensuring that employees and grant applicants are
understand their grant management obligations.
• Modified the Agency's Compliance Monitoring Policy to require that
EPA offices use a standard format to collect and itemize information
on problem areas.
• Instituted three types of internal reviews that provide EPA an early
warning system to detect emerging grant weaknesses.
• Revised employees' performance standards to reflect grants manage-
ment responsibilities.
• Deployed the Integrated Grants Management System in all 10 regions.
• Issued an interim policy requiring program offices to document how
grant proposals further EPA's Strategic Plan goals.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Issued a new policy on the internal review of discretionary grants
that requires senior managers to certify that noncompetitive discre-
tionary grants and competitive announcements have appropriate
environmental outcomes and support of program goals.
• Issued policy on roles and responsibilities that strengthens accounta-
bility for effective grants management.
• Issued a pre-award policy to help ensure that grants are not awarded
to nonprofit organizations with weaknesses in their administrative
capability to manage grant funds or programmatic capability to carry
out a project.
• Issued a revised competition policy to increase the number and
improve the quality of competitions.
• Issued an EPA Order on Environmental Results to ensure that assistance
agreement solicitations, work plans, and decision memoranda discuss
anticipated environmental results and their linkage to EPA's Strategic Plan.
*This challenge was also identified by GAO.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING AIR TOXICS PROGRAM GOALS
EPA's goal is to reduce emis-
sions and implement area-specific
approaches to reduce the risk to
public health and the environment
from air toxics by 2010. To achieve
its goal, the Agency has increased
its efforts to address air toxics in
recent years as evidenced by a
nearly 41 percent increase in fund-
ing from $90.7 million in FY 1999
to $127.7 million for FY 2004. The
Agency has also completed its
Clean Air Act requirement to issue
technology-based standards,
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards,
for categories of major stationary
sources. This area remains a man-
agement challenge, among other
reasons, because of the difficulties
and uncertainties associated with
developing Phase II risk-based
standards for major stationary
sources; EPA is years behind statu-
tory deadlines for developing
standards for area sources; and
identifying risk-based strategies and
measuring progress is difficult
because of the uncertainties associ-
ated with characterizing air toxics
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
The Air Toxics Program faces significant challenges because much remains to
be done to address requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments
(e.g., issuance of final standards for 70 stationary area source categories).
However, the Agency has made great progress in reducing air toxic emis-
sions. In FY 2004, EPA closed AirToxics Program as an Agency weakness
because it had developed a strategy for achieving toxic risk reductions.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Promulgated all remaining Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards, as of February 2004.
• Completed 15 area source standards.
• Developed a comprehensive, integrated air toxics program that better
meets long-term goals by addressing risks from all sources of toxics.
• Worked with partners to design a national toxics monitoring network
and completed the data analysis phase of the initial assessment work.
• Initiated work on an efficiency measure on the cause-and-effect rela-
tionships between the air toxics program and environmental
conditions or cancer incidence, as part of the effort to address con-
cerns about data gaps for toxicity and data collection and analysis.
• As of March 2004, toxic emissions from large industrial facilities have
decreased by 1.7 million tons per year, a 35 percent reduction since 1990.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Completed the first residual risk standard for coke ovens in March 2005.
• Promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury
Rule, two rules that will reduce mercury emissions from power plants,
the largest remaining uncontrolled sources of mercury in the U.S.
• Working to develop standards for an additional 25 area source cate-
gories (5 of which are under court-ordered deadlines).
(Relates to APG 1.5 in Section 2, Page 50.)
emissions, ambient concentrations,
human exposure, and health risks
from exposure.
Persistent bio-accumulative
toxics, such as mercury, present
challenges because of their ability
to be transported over great dis-
tances before they are deposited
into water bodies. For example,
atmospheric deposition of mercury
has contributed to impaired listings
of numerous waters and widespread
fish consumption advisories. At
least 44 states have issued fish con-
sumption advisories related to the
accumulation of mercury in fish
tissue. In some States, a substantial
proportion of the atmospheric dep-
osition of mercury derives from
sources located outside the State's
boundary, and State-specific efforts
to reduce mercury in water may
have limited success in reducing
mercury fish-tissue concentrations
to safe levels. In these cases, water
bodies may attain water quality
standards only with additional
reductions of mercury air emissions
from other states, regions, and
countries. Addressing this problem
will require EPA to work national-
ly and internationally across
traditional program boundaries of
water and air.
Finally, hundreds of new chemi-
cals are introduced into the
environment every year, yet no new
air toxics have been added to the
original list of 188 since it was
established in 1990. Some of these
recently introduced chemicals could
be more harmful than those cur-
rently regulated through the air
toxics program. We will continue to
monitor the progress EPA makes in
addressing these important issues.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT*
EPA continues to face chal-
lenges in developing and
sustaining a highly skilled, diverse,
results-oriented workforce with
the right mix of technical expert-
ise, experience, and leadership
capabilities. EPA also faces chal-
lenges in more thoroughly
integrating human capital man-
agement activities and measures
into its core business processes.
Such integration will help
strengthen accountability and
ensure alignment of strategic
human capital goals with environ-
mental and human health goals as
well as achievement of all these
goals. Additionally, the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM)
and Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) are concerned
about EPA's efforts to achieve
"Green Status" under the
President's Management Agenda
(PMA) human capital initiative.
Specifically, OPM and OMB are
concerned about EPA's ability to
address skill gaps for mission criti-
cal occupations and its ability to
achieve a green status by July
2005 based on its current Proud to
Be (P2B) milestones. OPM and
OMB have indicated that they
will work with the Agency to help
resolve their concerns.
The Agency remains commit-
ted to ensuring that it addresses
these challenges through its various
human capital initiatives. In the
past year, EPA made substantial
progress in addressing human capi-
tal concerns by implementing many
of the initiatives presented in its
human capital strategic plan,
Investing in Our People II, EPA's
Strategy for Human Capital: 2004
and Beyond. During the year, EPA
also linked employee performance
standards to the Agency's five
strategic goals; developed a compre-
hensive strategic workforce strategy
and deployment plan; provided
restructuring options to all EPA
senior managers; and monitored
and reported diversity statistics to
address under representation.
Although EPA has made
progress, it still needs to do more
to ensure successful Agency-wide
implementation of strategic
human capital management activ-
ities. In a recent report, the OIG
concluded that while EPA's head-
quarters and regional offices are
prepared to implement strategic
human capital management activ-
ities, the offices have not aligned
their human capital activities to
the Agency's Strategy for Human
Capital. The report emphasized
that senior executives vary in
their recognition of the impor-
tance of human capital
management and have not fully
integrated human capital manage-
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA is committed to addressing its human capital challenges. Currently,
EPA acknowledges Human Capital as an Agency weakness and will con-
tinue to implement its corrective action plan to ensure that deficiencies
identified do not impair the Agency's ability to accomplish its mission.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Established a senior Human Capital Official.
• Aligned human capital planning activities with strategic planning and
budgeting processes.
• Completed the Strategic Workforce Planning Pilot with nine EPA
organizations.
• Continued to implement and enhance training programs for all levels
of EPA staff and maintain SES development and rotation programs.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Established a human capital accountability system to monitor and
report on the Agency's progress and to develop vulnerability assess-
ments.
• Revised its approach to Agency-wide strategic workforce planning and
presented a workforce plan to the Administrator.
• Developed a comprehensive National Recruitment and Outreach
Strategy that coordinates outreach activities for a variety of positions
and Agency programs.
• Integrated human capital with the Agency's planning and budgeting
process during the FY 2007 budget formulation cycle by making the
issue a critical factor in resource discussions.
• Developed "local" human capital plans at the national program and
regional office level to identify workforce needs and skill gaps in
greater detail.
*This challenge was also identified by GAO.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ment activities into the Agency's
core management processes. These
variations hamper the Agency's
ability to measure Agency-wide
progress on strategic human capi-
tal management activities.
In another report, the OIG
emphasized the need for the
Office of Acquisition
Management (OAM) to identify
skill and full-time equivalent gaps
within its workforce. The OIG
recommended that OAM com-
plete its workload analysis and
then perform a workforce analysis.
These analyses will allow OAM to
identify needed skills so that any
skill gaps or surpluses can be
addressed. OAM indicated that it
had previously attempted to con-
duct a workload analysis partly to
compare full-time equivalents
usage against workload processes.
However, OAM was unable to
complete the analysis because of
the poor quality of data in their
information systems and the appli-
cation of subjective weighting to
the data.
In summary, while EPA is
steadily progressing in its efforts to
address human capital manage-
ment, it continues to be a
challenge and should remain as an
Agency-level weakness under the
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act.
ERA'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY
EPA must implement ade-
quate security measures to help
ensure the smooth functioning of
information systems and protect
the Agency from loss or embar-
rassment caused by security
failures. Under the leadership of
the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI), EPA's goal is
to make information on its com-
puter systems available, while
protecting the confidentiality and
integrity of the information. As
indicated in its FY 2004 Annual
Report, EPA continues to
enhance its security program by
strengthening management con-
trols to improve implementation
of the Agency's security program.
For example, EPA implemented a
testing and evaluation program to
measure the effectiveness of
implemented controls. In addi-
tion, EPA continues to enhance
its program through risk assess-
ments, penetration testing, and
monitoring of the Agency's fire-
wall. The dynamic nature of
security, however, requires contin-
ued emphasis and vigilance.
We believe EPA needs to
take the following additional
actions to protect its information
and systems:
• Implement processes to ensure
system Certification and
Accreditation (C&A) are
complete and up to date. OEI
needs to do more to ensure
EPA program officials assess
the risks to operations and
assets under their control and
determine the level of security
appropriate to protect such
assets and operations. Without
regular, effective, oversight
processes, EPA will continue
to place unsubstantiated trust
in the many components
involved in implementing,
practicing, and documenting
security requirements.
• Develop and ensure imple-
mentation of a training
program to provide informa-
tion security training to EPA
employees with significant
information security responsi-
bilities. This includes OEI's
plans to implement a system
to aid in the tracking of such
training.
• Establish a process to com-
plete timely background
investigations on contractor
personnel who, by the nature
of their work, have access to
sensitive and/or confidential
files. At this time, EPA has
contract employees with such
access who have not received
any clearance. EPA has not
established a target date for
correcting security weaknesses
in the Fiscal 1999
Remediation Plan regarding
security screening for contrac-
tor personnel. Until the
Agency addresses this issue, it
will be vulnerable to informa-
tion leaks, theft, tampering,
and destruction.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
• Develop and implement over-
sight processes to increase
security surrounding remote
access servers. EPA needs to
establish processes to inde-
pendently verify and validate
that remote access servers
comply with published poli-
cies and standards. Without
an effectively implemented
process for securing remote
access servers, the confiden-
tiality and integrity of EPA's
data, as well as the availability
of the network, is at risk.
We recognize that EPA has
made significant strides to secure
its data resources. Last year, the
Agency decided to consider this
weakness under the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act
as corrected. While progress has
been made, we still consider infor-
mation security to be a weakness
given the evolving nature of tech-
nology, the magnitude of system
development activities, and new
technology implementation efforts.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA continues to improve the management and oversight of the Agency
information security program and has successfully demonstrated a high
level of security for its information resources and environmental data. In
FY 2004, EPA closed Information Security as an Agency weakness.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Finalized an interim System Life Cycle Policy and Interim Procedures
document.
• Enhanced security programs through risk assessments, penetration
testing, and monitoring of firewalls and intrusion detection systems.
• Implemented a comprehensive strategy to address security-related
deficiencies systematically.
• Validated the effectiveness of management controls developed to
address security-related deficiencies.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Established a robust training program that requires all EPA employees
with significant security responsibilities to complete at least two role-
based security training courses.
• Developed a draft EPA Certification & Accreditation (C&A) Guide, a
tool designed to help assist EPA staff in conducting a C&A for EPA
information systems.
• Completed all corrective action plans for previously identified securi-
ty-related Automated Security Self Evaluation and Remediation Tool
(ASSERT) weaknesses.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GAO's FY 2005 Key Management
Challenges for EPA
INCONSISTENCY AMONG ERA'S REGIONAL OFFICES
For each of its program activi-
ties, EPA attempts to achieve some
level of consistency to ensure that:
(1) the public is afforded equal pro-
tection under environmental laws,
and (2) regulated parties, taxpay-
ers, and ratepayers are not
subjected to widely varying costs of
environmental compliance.
Nonetheless, EPA has long main-
tained that some variation is to be
expected—and even encouraged—
in the way its ten regional offices
oversee their respective states, take
direct enforcement action, provide
technical assistance, and carry out
a host of other responsibilities.
Such variation is often necessary to
reflect the wide diversity among
very different parts of the coun-
try—diversity in ecology, economic
development, and immediate
attention, and how they can be
most effectively implemented. A
recurring finding among many of
our reviews, however, have been
that the inconsistencies in program
delivery among EPA's regional
offices have often gone beyond the
level that should be expected to
take into account geographical
diversity. For example, during the
past few years, we have reported on
inconsistencies among regional
offices in their approaches toward
approving or disapproving propos-
als by states to change their water
quality standards and wide varia-
tions in regional offices'
enforcement programs because of
differences in their philosophical
approaches, differences in the
resources devoted to enforcement,
and a lack of adequate enforce-
ment data that hampered the
Agency's ability to accurately char-
acterize the extent of variation.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
While EPA has mechanisms in place to ensure basic consistency in environ-
mental programs, the Agency expects and encourages some variation in
regional-state interaction. States and regions have differing ecological, eco-
nomic, and other factors that influence which environmental laws and
regulations require the most immediate attention and how they can be
most effectively managed. EPA has s significant effort underway with the
states to improve alignment of the budget and planning process and to bet-
ter define performance expectations.
Highlights from PriorYears:
• Improved alignment of EPA and state planning and budgeting process
to better define performance expectations.
• Developed the State Enforcement Program Review Framework to
achieve greater consistency among state and regional enforcement
program.
• Established various internal and external working groups to improve
program consistency, communication and coordination on water qual-
ity standards issues across regions and states.
Highlights of FY 2005 Progress:
• Continued to convene monthly meetings of the WQS Managers
Association, Regional WQS Coordinators, and Regional Endangered
Species Act Coordinators to discuss issues of national significance and
ensure an appropriate level of consistency.
-------
Section IV.
CONTENTS
Introduction
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis
Principal Financial Statements
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited) .
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements
-------
•
'l 1
15,65*'** ;
500-00 +
Introduction
EPA earned a clean opinion on the financial state-
ments. The auditors identified nine reportable conditions,
one non-compliance issue and no material weaknesses.
The Chief Financial Officer's Analysis provides com-
ments on the audit results.
This section of the Performance and Accountability
Report contains the Agency's financial statements,
required supplementary information and related
Independent Auditor's Report, as well as other informa-
tion on the Agency's financial management. Information
presented here satisfies the reporting requirements of
OMB Circulars A-ll (Section 52.4a) and A-136,
Financial Reporting Requirements, as well as the following
legislation:
• Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
• Government Management Reform Act of 1994
• Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
The first portion of this section contains the
Principal Financial Statements. The statements provide a
comparison of FY 2005 and 2004 data. EPA prepares the
following required statements:
• Balance Sheet — presents, as of a specific time,
amounts of future economic benefits owned or man-
aged by the reporting entity exclusive of items
subject to stewardship reporting (assets), amounts
owed by the entity (liabilities), and amounts which
comprise the difference (net position).
Statement of Net Cost — presents the gross cost
incurred by the reporting entity less any exchange
revenue earned from its activities. EPA also prepares
a Statement of Net Cost by Goal to provide cost
information at the strategic goal level.
Statement of Changes in Net Position — reports the
change in net position during the reporting period.
Net position is affected by changes to its two com-
ponents: Cumulative Results of Operations and
Unexpended Appropriations.
Statement of Budgetary Resources — provides infor-
mation about how budgetary resources were made
available as well as their status at the end of the
period.
Statement of Financing — serves as a bridge between
an entity's budgetary and financial (i.e., proprietary)
accounting. The statement articulates the relation-
ship between net obligations derived from an
entity's budgetary accounts and net cost of opera-
tions derived from the entity's proprietary accounts
by identifying and explaining key differences
between the two numbers.
Statement of Custodial Activity — reports collection of
nonexchange revenue for the General Fund of the
Treasury, trust funds, or other recipient entities.
EPA, as the collecting entity, does not recognize
these collections as revenue. Rather, the Agency
accounts for sources and disposition of the collec-
tions as custodial activities on this statement.
194
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INTRODUCTION
The accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
provide a description of significant accounting poli-
cies as well as detailed information on select
statement lines. These Notes and the principal state-
ments are audited by EPA's Inspector General.
The Required Supplementary Information portion of
this section provides the following unaudited infor-
mation:
• Deferred Maintenance — reports maintenance
that was not performed when it should have
been or was scheduled to be and which, there-
fore, is put off or delayed for a future period.
• Intragovernmental Amounts — reports assets, lia-
bilities, and revenues and costs related to
transactions between Federal entities.
• Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources —
provides information by Agency fund group
about how the budgetary resources were made
available as well as their status at the end of the
period.
• Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements —
provides Balance Sheet and Statement of Cost
for EPA's Working Capital Fund.
The Required Supplementary Stewardship
Information portion provides information on substan-
tial investments made by the Federal Government for
the benefit of the nation—physical assets not owned
by the Government. EPA reports on Stewardship
Land (land and easement acquisitions/withdrawal) as
well as Stewardship Investments for Non-Federal
Physical Property (clean water and drinking water
facilities), Human Capital (awareness training and
fellowships), and Research and Development.
The Supplemental Information portion of Section
IV presents the following unaudited information:
• Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
— provides information on the Superfund Trust
Fund.
• Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB
Circular A-1 I, Section 52.4a) — reports on the
Agency's financial management goals and strate-
gies, performance, and systems framework.
• Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA)
Report — reports on EPA's efforts to identify and
eliminate erroneous payments.
The Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal
2005 and 2004 Financial Statements provides the fol-
lowing information:
• auditor's opinion on the financial statements,
• audit findings and/or recommendations,
• evaluation of internal controls,
• test of compliance with laws and regulations,
and
• Agency comments on the audit findings and the
Inspector General's evaluation.
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS REGARDING
THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The principal financial statements have been pre-
pared to report the financial position and results of
operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements
of31U.S.C. 3515 (b).
While the state-
ments have been
prepared from the
books and records of
the entity in accor-
dance with U.S.
generally accepted
accounting principles
(GAAP) for Federal
entities and the for-
mats prescribed by
OMB, the statements
are in addition to the
financial reports used
to monitor and con-
trol budgetary resources which are prepared from the
same books and records.
The statements should be read with the realiza-
tion that they are for a component of the U.S.
Government, a sovereign entity.
-------
Section IV.
CONTENTS
Introduction
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis
Principal Financial Statements
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited) .
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements
-------
•
'l 1
15,65*'** ;
500-00 +
Introduction
EPA earned a clean opinion on the financial state-
ments. The auditors identified nine reportable conditions,
one non-compliance issue and no material weaknesses.
The Chief Financial Officer's Analysis provides com-
ments on the audit results.
This section of the Performance and Accountability
Report contains the Agency's financial statements,
required supplementary information and related
Independent Auditor's Report, as well as other informa-
tion on the Agency's financial management. Information
presented here satisfies the reporting requirements of
OMB Circulars A-ll (Section 52.4a) and A-136,
Financial Reporting Requirements, as well as the following
legislation:
• Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
• Government Management Reform Act of 1994
• Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
The first portion of this section contains the
Principal Financial Statements. The statements provide a
comparison of FY 2005 and 2004 data. EPA prepares the
following required statements:
• Balance Sheet — presents, as of a specific time,
amounts of future economic benefits owned or man-
aged by the reporting entity exclusive of items
subject to stewardship reporting (assets), amounts
owed by the entity (liabilities), and amounts which
comprise the difference (net position).
Statement of Net Cost — presents the gross cost
incurred by the reporting entity less any exchange
revenue earned from its activities. EPA also prepares
a Statement of Net Cost by Goal to provide cost
information at the strategic goal level.
Statement of Changes in Net Position — reports the
change in net position during the reporting period.
Net position is affected by changes to its two com-
ponents: Cumulative Results of Operations and
Unexpended Appropriations.
Statement of Budgetary Resources — provides infor-
mation about how budgetary resources were made
available as well as their status at the end of the
period.
Statement of Financing — serves as a bridge between
an entity's budgetary and financial (i.e., proprietary)
accounting. The statement articulates the relation-
ship between net obligations derived from an
entity's budgetary accounts and net cost of opera-
tions derived from the entity's proprietary accounts
by identifying and explaining key differences
between the two numbers.
Statement of Custodial Activity — reports collection of
nonexchange revenue for the General Fund of the
Treasury, trust funds, or other recipient entities.
EPA, as the collecting entity, does not recognize
these collections as revenue. Rather, the Agency
accounts for sources and disposition of the collec-
tions as custodial activities on this statement.
194
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INTRODUCTION
The accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
provide a description of significant accounting poli-
cies as well as detailed information on select
statement lines. These Notes and the principal state-
ments are audited by EPA's Inspector General.
The Required Supplementary Information portion of
this section provides the following unaudited infor-
mation:
• Deferred Maintenance — reports maintenance
that was not performed when it should have
been or was scheduled to be and which, there-
fore, is put off or delayed for a future period.
• Intragovernmental Amounts — reports assets, lia-
bilities, and revenues and costs related to
transactions between Federal entities.
• Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources —
provides information by Agency fund group
about how the budgetary resources were made
available as well as their status at the end of the
period.
• Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements —
provides Balance Sheet and Statement of Cost
for EPA's Working Capital Fund.
The Required Supplementary Stewardship
Information portion provides information on substan-
tial investments made by the Federal Government for
the benefit of the nation—physical assets not owned
by the Government. EPA reports on Stewardship
Land (land and easement acquisitions/withdrawal) as
well as Stewardship Investments for Non-Federal
Physical Property (clean water and drinking water
facilities), Human Capital (awareness training and
fellowships), and Research and Development.
The Supplemental Information portion of Section
IV presents the following unaudited information:
• Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
— provides information on the Superfund Trust
Fund.
• Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB
Circular A-1 I, Section 52.4a) — reports on the
Agency's financial management goals and strate-
gies, performance, and systems framework.
• Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA)
Report — reports on EPA's efforts to identify and
eliminate erroneous payments.
The Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal
2005 and 2004 Financial Statements provides the fol-
lowing information:
• auditor's opinion on the financial statements,
• audit findings and/or recommendations,
• evaluation of internal controls,
• test of compliance with laws and regulations,
and
• Agency comments on the audit findings and the
Inspector General's evaluation.
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS REGARDING
THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The principal financial statements have been pre-
pared to report the financial position and results of
operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements
of31U.S.C. 3515 (b).
While the state-
ments have been
prepared from the
books and records of
the entity in accor-
dance with U.S.
generally accepted
accounting principles
(GAAP) for Federal
entities and the for-
mats prescribed by
OMB, the statements
are in addition to the
financial reports used
to monitor and con-
trol budgetary resources which are prepared from the
same books and records.
The statements should be read with the realiza-
tion that they are for a component of the U.S.
Government, a sovereign entity.
-------
Chief Financial Officer's Analysis of EPA's
Fiscal Year 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements
Below is the Chief Financial Officer's analysis of
EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 and 2004 Financial
Statements reportable conditions, and noncompli-
Reportable Conditions
1. PAYROLL INTERNAL CONTROLS
OIG found that EPA made payroll payments to sepa-
rated employees. OIG recommends that OCFO work with
EPA's Administration and Resources Management office
to ensure proper processing of personnel actions, modify
automated controls, and reinforce existing controls.
At the beginning of FY 2005, OCFO implemented a
new time and attendance system. OCFO made significant
strides to assure system transparency to the Agency and
compliance with established payroll policies and proce-
dures. In FY 2006, OCFO will continue to validate
payroll system internal controls, enforce existing proce-
dures, and take further corrective actions as necessary.
2. EXCESS SALARY PAYMENTS
OIG found the OCFO's payroll system made excess
salary payments to employees totaling $14,891 of a $54
million bi-weekly payroll, which equates to 0.04% of total
payroll.
OCFO has automated internal controls in place for
the majority of potential causes for salary overpayments
and manual controls in place for many others. OCFO
is initiating enhancements to broaden the scope of
ance issues. During the audit, OIG observed and
noted nine reportable conditions and one noncom-
pliance issue, none of which are material.
196
automated controls to replace existing manual controls.
We will continue to evaluate the results as part of our
bi-weekly payroll review process.
3. SUPERFUND STATE CONTRACT (SSC) AND
SUPERFUND UNBILLED OVERSIGHT ACCRUALS
The OIG noted areas where increased oversight
would improve the management of SSC and Superfund
unbilled oversight accruals.
In the past year, OCFO made considerable progress
towards assuring consistency with SSC and Superfund
unbilled oversight accrual calculations. As OCFO contin-
ues its efforts to consolidate accounting operations, we will
explore options for centralizing these accrual processes.
4. GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENTS
FOR RECEIVABLES TRANSFERRED TO
CINCINNATI FINANCE CENTER
OIG identified regional offices' accounts receivable
and allowance for doubtful accounts that needed adjust-
ment during an OCFO functional consolidation process.
As part of the process to consolidate EPA's financial
operations into four finance centers, the Agency
-------
SECTION 3. FY 2004 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—CFO's ANALYSIS OF FY 2004 AND 2003 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
successfully transferred five of the ten regions'
accounts receivable functions to one finance center.
An account analysis identified accounting point bal-
ances that required adjustments that are reflected in
the financial statements. As the Agency progresses in
transferring the accounts receivable functions from
the remaining five regions, OCFO will continue to
monitor appropriate general ledger accounts and
assist the Financial Management Officers in resolving
account balance issues.
5. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) REVIEWS
The OIG recommends increased oversight of
the QA program activity to ensure comprehensive
reviews and adequate documentation.
In FY 2005, OCFO made significant progress
with the QA program. OCFO updated and published
the QA Guide on the EPA intranet. It reflects cur-
rent policies, procedures, and approaches to
evaluating accounting functions. In addition, OCFO
conducted a specialized session on QA reviews and
their relationship to the revised OMB Circular A-123
requirements. To continue the QA program's success,
OCFO is conducting a training class in December
2005 for Agency finance personnel.
6. DISTRIBUTION OF THE BUDGET
CLEARING ACCOUNTS
OIG identified interagency transactions that
were inappropriately distributed.
In this instance, EPA billed other agencies and
two transactions were returned two days prior to the
close of the fiscal year. EPA reissued the bills in
October 2005 and the FY 2005 financial statements
reflect the appropriate accounting adjustments.
7. DOCUMENTATION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO
THE INTEGRATED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (IFMS) ENTRIES
The OIG noted instances of adjusting entries
made without proper or adequate documentation.
OCFO's Policy Announcement 93-02, dated
November 13, 1992, requires adequate source docu-
mentation to support all financial transactions.
OCFO will insist that Financial Management Officers
ensure that all adjusting transactions entered into the
Agency's accounting system be adequately document-
ed and easily accessible in accordance with the Policy
Announcement.
8. CORRECTING REJECTED TRANSACTIONS
OIG observed instances of rejected data transfers
between PeoplePlus (PPL) and IFMS that were not
resolved in a timely manner.
OCFO took action to identify and correct the
rejected data for 16 employees. The Office of Human
Resources implemented a control that should prevent
a reoccurrence.
9. CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR FINANCIAL
APPLICATIONS
OIG noted instances where contingency plans for
financial systems did not fully comply with Federal or
EPA continuity guidelines.
OCFO remains firmly committed to securing its
system and data in a cost effective manner and in com-
pliance with Federal guidance, EPA policy, and best
practices. In FY 2006, OCFO will revise current con-
tingency plans to clearly state the critical operations,
supporting resources, and alternate processing proce-
dures for the financial systems identified by the OIG.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Noncompliance Issues
1O. INTRAGOVERNMENTAL TRANSACTIONS
As OIG acknowledged, OCFO greatly improved rec-
onciliations of its intragovernmental transactions
during FY 2005. However, at year end, EPA was
unable to reconcile a large difference with one
Federal agency.
EPA believes this is a result of differing accounting
methodologies between agencies. EPA will continue
efforts to reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental
transactions to comply with Federal financial report-
ing requirements.
-------
Principal Financial Statements
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
I. Consolidated Balance Sheet
2. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
3. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
4. Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
5. Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
6. Consolidated Statement of Financing
7. Statement of Custodial Activity
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note I. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2. Fund Balances with Treasury
Note 3. Cash
Note 4. Investments
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
Note 6. Other Assets
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net—Non-Federal
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Note 9. General Plant, Property and Equipment
Note 10. Debt
Note I I. Custodial Liability
Note 12. Other Liabilities
Note I 3. Leases
Note 14. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
Note 15. Cashout Advances
Note I 6. 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. State Credits
Note 22. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Note 23. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Note 24. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 25. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of
Budgetary Resources
Note 26. Unobligated Balances Available
Note 27. Offsetting Receipts
Note 28. Statement of Financing
Note 29. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
Note 30.Transfers-ln and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 3 I. Imputed Financing
Note 32. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 33. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 34. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net
Position
Note 35. Other, Statement of Financing
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
(UNAUDITED)
I. Deferred Maintenance (Unaudited)
2. Intragovernmental Assets (Unaudited)
3. Intragovernmental Liabilities (Unaudited)
4. Intragovernmental Revenues and Costs (Unaudited)
5. Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
6. Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements (Unaudited)
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY STEWARDSHIP
INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
I. Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
2. Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-1 I,
Section 52.4a)
3. Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
198
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Balance Sheet
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
FY 2004
ASSETS
Intragovernmental
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Notes 4 and 17)
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—Non-Federal (Note 7)
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9)
Other (Note 6)
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note I I)
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 (Note 15)
Commitments and Contingencies (Note 18)
Payroll and Benefits Payable (Note 33)
Other (Notes 12 and I 3)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations (Note 16)
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
12,139,207 $
4,8 1 1 ,065
66,060
2,335
17,018,667 $
10
374,668
39,347
708,716
2,789
18,144,197 $
119,836 $
2 1 ,744
142,347
106,530
390,457 $
730,278
39,380
6,989
270,81 1
1,950
190,394
98,064
1,728,323 $
1 1 ,007,589 $
5,408,285
1 6,4 1 5,874
18,144,197 $
12,065,145
4,534,498
42,770
1,320
16,643,733
10
4 1 4,495
48,927
673,363
1,508
17,782,036
1 04,664
24,101
52,216
78,121
259,102
881,851
40,28 1
8,407
259,361
1,625
1 80,746
103,916
1,735,289
10,860,136
5,186,61 1
1 6,046,747
17,782,036
IM
8
>
I
H
m
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
COSTS
I ntragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal (Note 19)
Earned Revenues, Non-Federal (Note 19)
Total Earned Revenues
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
FY 2005
1,238,395
7,259,027
FY 2004
8,033,945 $
1,205,696
7,649,867
$ 8,497,422 $ 8,855,563
$ 105,653 $
357,824
463,477 346,361
8,509^02
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2005
Dollars in Thousands
Clean Air
Clean and
Safe Water
Healthy Compliance &
Land Preservation Communities & Environmental
& Restoration Ecosystems Stewardship
3,507,201 $
2,015,874 $
280,492 $
992,360
1,272,852 $
174,321
539,857
20,295 $
2,205
22,500 $
1 5,444 $
2,570
18,014 $
42,567 $
3 1 2,487
355,054 $
15,638 $
32,509
48,147 $
12,000
1,353
13,353
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS
967,989 $
3,489,187 $
1,660,820 $
1224,705 $
700,825
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
3. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
Not Assigned to Consolidated
Goals Total
(3,172) $ 8,497,422
105,653
357,824
6,409 $
463,477
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS
(9,581) $ 8,033,945
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
3. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air
Clean and
Safe Water
Healthy
Land Preservation Communities &
& Restoration Ecosystems
4,012,619 $
8,316 $
2,021,673 $
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
257,208 $
885,982
159,492
557,567
717,059
19,877 $
227,936
247,813 $
7,117 $
33,556
40,673 $
1 3,857
1,498
15,355
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS
920,773 $
4,004,303 $
1,773,860 $
1,102,517 $
701,704
COSTS
I ntragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue
NET COST OF
OPERATIONS
3. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Not Assigned to Consolidated
Goals Total
31,146
(12,959)
18,187
(2,001)
14,143
12,142
6,045
$
$
$
$
$
1 ,205,696
7,649,867
8,855,563
66,262
280,099
346,361
8,509202
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net Position—Beginning of Period
Prior Period Adjustments
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 30)
Other Adjustments (Note 33)
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue (Note 34)
Transfers In/Out (Note 30)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out (Note 30)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 31)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Net Position—End of Period
Cumulative Cumulative
Results of Results of Unexpected Unexpected Consolidated Consolidated
Operations Operations Appropriations Appropriations Totals Totals
FY200S FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2004 FY 2005
5,186,611 $ 5,124,926 $ 10,860,136 $ 10,768,236 $ 16,046,747$ 15,893,162
8,117,043 $
5,124,926 $
10,860,136
10,768,236 $ 16,046,747
8,442,462 $
147,453
91,900 $ 8,264,496
15,893,162
- $
7,787,245
318,662
1 1,136
- $
8, 1 62,544
299,725
(19,807)
8,005,446 $
4,702
(75,450)
(7,787,245)
8,322,860 $
152
(68,568)
(8, 1 62,544)
8,005,446 $
4,702
(75,450)
318,662
1 1,136
8,322,860
152
(68,568)
299,725
(19,807)
8,534,362
436 $
138,140
138,576 $
(8,033,945)
221,674
(436) $
128,861
1 28,425 $
(8,509,202)
61,685
- $ - $ 436 $
138,140
- $ - $ 138,576 $
(8,033,945)
147,453 91,900 369,127
(436)
128,861
128,425
(8,509,202)
153,585
$ 5,408^85 $ 5,186,611 $ 11,007,589 $ 10,860,136 $ 16,415,874 $ 16,046,747
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
FY 2004
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriations Received
Borrowing Authority
Net Transfers
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period
Net Transfers, Actual
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Transfers from Trust Funds Collected
Transfers from Trust Funds, Anticipated
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Recoveries of PriorYear Obligations (Note 25)
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 25)
Permanently Not Available (Note 25)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 24)
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 24)
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 26)
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 26)
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 24)
8,032,620 $
436
1,348,725
13,231,189 $
10,124,433 $
13,231,189 $
9, 1 82,350 $
1 1 ,207,776
64,972
422,0 1 2
(10,636,009)
(987,090)
8,353,924
5,554
1,336,786
471,777
(23,156)
37,615
1 18,144
69,572
(20,890)
767,444 $
174,641
(1 1,141)
(78,244)
(31,207)
7,288
67,959
( 1 6,293)
476,368
194,775
(8,254)
(71,203)
13,152,089
9,745,606
409,775
10,155,381
13,152,089
9,484,238
I 1,420,719
80,554
303,869
(10,467,637)
(1,124,560)
Net Outlays
7,919,503 $
8,346,342
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Financing
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(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
Less; Offsetting Receipts (Note 27)
Net Obligations
Other Resources:
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 31)
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 28)
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts that Do Not Affect
Net Cost of Operations:
Liabilities for Guarantees of Subsidy Allowances
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
Resources that Finance Asset Acquisition
FY 2005
10,124,433
(942,084)
$ 9,182,349 $
(1,334,508)
$ 7,847,841 $
138,140
$ 138,140 $
$ 7,985,981 $
FY 2004
10,155,381
(671,143)
9,484,238
(1,350,841)
8,133,397
128,861
192,871
(13,855)
170,277
8,432,535
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Financing
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
WILL NOT REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES
IN THE CURRENT PERIOD
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability (Note 28)
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability (Note 28)
Increase in Unfunded Contingencies (Note 28)
Up/Downward Reestimates of Subsidy Expense (Note 28)
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivable
Other (Note 35)
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Requires
or Generates Resources in the Future
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization
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
FY 2005
FY 2004
3,889 $
99
1,525
3
(101,645)
1,969
222,654 $
128,494
1,244
22,425
(36,268)
47,791
65,144
I 12,935
8,033,945 $
8,509,202
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Statement of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Collections
Fines and Penalties
Other
Total Cash Collections
Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 23)
FY 2005
FY 2004
141,087 $
(53,836)
$ 87,251
63,565
162,948
24,463
187,411
(24,865)
162,546
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund)
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred
Total Disposition of Collections
$ 87,334
63,482
162,546
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 23)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Notes to Financial Statements (Dollars in Thousands)
Note I. Summary of
Significant Accounting
Policies
A. BASIS OF PRESENTATION
These consolidated financial state-
ments have been prepared to report
the financial position and results of
operations of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) 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
financial system and records of the
Agency in accordance with Financial
Reporting Requirements, OMB Circular
A-1 36, and the EPA's accounting poli-
cies which are summarized in this
note. In addition to the reports
required by OMB Circular A-1 36, the
Statement of Net Cost has been pre-
pared by the Agency's strategic goals.
B. REPORTING ENTITIES
The EPA was created in 1970 by
executive reorganization from various
components of other federal agencies
in order to better marshal and coordi-
nate 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 2005, the accompanying finan-
cial statements are grouped and
presented in a consolidated manner
The accompanying financial statements
include the accounts of all funds
described in this note by their respec-
tive Treasury fund group.
Qeneral Fund Appropriations
(Treasury Fund Qroups 0000 -
3999)
a. State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) Appropriation: The STAG
appropriation,Treasury fund group
0103, provides funds for environmental
programs and infrastructure assistance
including capitalization grants for State
revolving funds and performance part-
nership 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
Sto rm Wate r; Bette r Waste
Management; Preventing Pollution and
Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes,
Workplaces and Ecosystems; and
Reduction of Global and Cross Border
Environmental Risks.
b. Science and Technology (S&T)
Appropriation: The S&T appropriation,
Treasury fund group 0107, finances
salaries, travel, science, technology,
research and development activities
including laboratory and center sup-
plies, certain operating expenses,
grants, contracts, intergovernmental
agreements, and purchases of scientific
equipment.These activities provide the
scientific basis for the Agency's regula-
tory actions. In FY 2005, Superfund
research costs were appropriated in
Superfund and transferred to S&T to
allow for proper accounting of the
costs. Environmental scientific and
technological activities and programs
include Clean Air; Clean and Safe
Water; Americans Right to Know
About Their Environment; Better
Waste Management; Preventing
Pollution and Reducing Risk in
Communities, Homes, Workplaces, and
Ecosystems; and Safe Food.
c. Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM) Appropriation:
The EPM appropriation,Treasury fund
group 0108, includes funds for salaries,
travel, contracts, grants, and coopera-
tive agreements for pollution
abatement, control, and compliance
activities and administrative activities of
the Agency's operating programs.
Areas supported from this appropria-
tion include: Clean Air, Clean and Safe
Water, Land Preservation and
Restoration, Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems, and Compliance and
Environmental Stewardship.
d. Buildings and Facilities
Appropriation (B&F):The B&F appro-
priation,Treasury fund group 0110,
provides for the construction, repair;
improvement, extension, alteration, and
purchase of fixed equipment or facili-
ties that are owned or used by the
EPA.
e. Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Appropriation: The OIG appropria-
tion,Treasury fund group 0112,
provides funds for audit and investiga-
tive functions to identify and
recommend corrective actions on
management and administrative defi-
ciencies that create the conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud,
waste and mismanagement. Additional
funds for audit and investigative activi-
ties associated with the Superfund and
the LUSTTrust Funds are appropriated
under those Trust Fund accounts and
transferred to the Office of Inspector
General account.The audit function
provides contract, internal controls and
performance, and financial and grant
audit services.The appropriation
includes expenses incurred and reim-
bursed from the appropriated trust
funds accounted for underTreasury
fund group 8145 and 8153.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
f. Payments to the Hazardous
Substance Superfund Appropriation:
The Payment to the Hazardous
Substance Superfund appropriation
Treasury fund group 0250, authorizes
appropriations from the General Fund
of the Treasury to finance activities
conducted through the Hazardous
Substance Superfund Program.
g.Asbestos Loan Program: The
Asbestos Loan Program is accounted
for underTreasury fund group 0118
for the subsidy and administrative sup-
port; underTreasury fund group 4322
for loan disbursements, loans receiv-
able and loan collections on post
FY 199 I loans; and underTreasury
fund group 29 17 for pre FY 1992
loans receivable and loan collections.
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 disburs-
es 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.
h. Allocations and Appropriations
transferred to the Agency: Allocations
and appropriations transferred to the
Agency from other federal agencies
include funds from the Appalachian
Regional Commission, which provides
economic assistance to state and local
developmental activities, and the
Agency for International Development,
which provides assistance on environ-
mental matters at international levels.
The transfer allocations are accounted
for underTreasury fund group 0200
and the appropriation transfers are
accounted for under 0108.
i. Treasury Clearing Accounts:
The EPA Department of the Treasury
Clearing Accounts include: (I) the
Budgetary Suspense Account, (2) the
Unavailable Check Cancellations and
Overpayments Account, and (3) the
Undistributed Intra-agency Payments
and Collections (IPAC) Account.
These are accounted for under
Treasury fund groups 3875, 3880 and
3885, respectively.
j. General Fund Receipt Accounts:
General Fund Receipt Accounts
include: Hazardous Waste Permits;
Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and
Forfeitures; General Fund Interest;
Interest from Credit Reform Financing
Accounts; Downward Reestimates of
Subsidies; Fees and Other Charges for
Administrative and Professional
Services; and Miscellaneous Recoveries
and Refunds.These accounts are
accounted for underTreasury fund
groups 0895, 1099, 1435, 1499,2753.3,
3200 and 3220, respectively.
Revolving Funds (Treasury Fund
Qroup 4000 - 4999)
a. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
RodenticideAct (FIFRA):The FIFRA
Revolving Fund,Treasury fund group
43 10, was authorized by the FIFRA Act
of 1972, as amended in 1988 and as
amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996. Pesticide
Maintenance fees are paid by industry
to offset the costs of pesticide reregis-
tration and reassessment of tolerances
for pesticides used in or on food and
animal feed, as required by law.
b.Tolerance Revolving Fund: The
Tolerance Revolving Fund,Treasury
fund group 431 I, was authorized in
1963 for the deposit of tolerance fees.
Fees are paid by industry for federal
services to set pesticide chemical
residue limits in or on food and animal
feed.The fees collected prior to
January 2, 1997 were accounted for
under this fund. Presently these fees
are being deposited in the FIFRA fund
(see above).
c. Asbestos Loan Program: The
Asbestos Loan Program is accounted
for underTreasury fund group 4322
for loan disbursements, loans receiv-
able and loan collections on post
FY 1991 loans. Refer to General Fund
Appropriations paragraph g. for details.
d.Working Capital Fund (WCF):
The WCF.Treasury fund group, 4565,
includes two activities: computer sup-
port services and postage.The WCF
derives revenue from these activities
based upon a fee for services. WCF's
customers currently consist primarily
of Agency program offices and a small
portion from other federal agencies.
Accordingly, those revenues generated
by the WCF from services provided to
Agency program offices and expenses
recorded by the program offices for
use of such services along with the
related advances/liabilities, are eliminat-
ed on consolidation.
Special Funds (Treasury Fund
Qroup 5000 - 5999)
a. Environmental Services Receipt
Account: The Environmental Services
Receipt account,Treasury fund group
5295, was established for the deposit
of fee receipts associated with environ-
mental programs, including radon
measurement proficiency ratings and
training, motor vehicle engine certifica-
tions, and water pollution permits.
Receipts in this special fund will be
appropriated to the S&T and the EPM
appropriations to meet the expenses
of the programs that generate the
receipts.
b. Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund,Treasury
fund group 5297, 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 an oil spill.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
c. Pesticide Registration Fund: The
Pesticide Registration Fund,Treasury
fund group 5374, was authorized in
2004 for the expedited processing of
certain registration petitions and asso-
ciated establishment of tolerances for
pesticides to be used in or on food
and animal feed. Fees covering these
activities, as authorized under the
FIFFIA Act of 1988, are to be paid by
industry and deposited into this fund
group.
Deposit funds (Treasury Fund
Qroup 6000 - 6999)
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.These funds
are accounted for underTreasury fund
groups 6050, 6264, 6265, 6266, 6275
and 6500.
Trust Funds (Treasury Fund
Qroup 8000 - 8999)
a. Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the
Superfund Trust Fund,Treasury fund
group 8 145, 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 emer-
gencies and abandoned, uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites.The Superfund
Trust Fund financing is shared by feder-
al and state governments as well as
industry.The EPA allocates funds from
its appropriation to other federal agen-
cies to carry out CERCLA. 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. NPL cleanups and removals
are conducted and financed by the
EPA, private parties, or other federal
agencies.The Superfund Trust Fund
includes Treasury's collections and
investment activity.
b. Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund:The LUSTTrust
Fund,Treasury fund group 8 I 53, 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 pro-
vides 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 coop-
erative agreements to clean up those
sites posing the greatest threat to
human health and the 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 201 I.
c. Oil Spill Response Trust Fund: The
Oil Spill Response Trust Fund,Treasury
fund group 8221, was authorized by
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).
Monies were appropriated to the Oil
Spill ResponseTrust 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 com-
pliance with OPA and Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure require-
ments, 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 bioremedia-
tion. Funding for oil spill cleanup
actions is provided through the
Department ofTransportation under
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
reimbursable funding from other fed-
eral agencies.
d. Miscellaneous Contributed Funds
Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous
Contributed FundsTrust Fund,Treasury
fund group 8741, includes gifts for pol-
lution control programs that are
usually designated for a specific use by
donors and/or deposits from pesticide
registrants to cover the costs of peti-
tion hearings when such hearings
result in unfavorable decisions to the
petitioner
C. BUDGETS AND
BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING
Qeneral Funds
Congress adopts an annual appropria-
tion for STAG, B&F, and for Payments
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund
to be available until expended, as well
as annual appropriations for S&T EPM
and for the OIG to be available for 2
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 com-
mercial activity financed from a
combination of two sources, one for
the long term costs of the loans and
another for the remaining non-subsi-
dized portion of the loans. Congress
adopted a I year appropriation, avail-
able 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
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
the estimated cash flows associated
with the loans.The portion of each
loan disbursement that did not repre-
sent long term cost is financed under
permanent indefinite borrowing
authority established with the Treasury.
A permanent indefinite appropriation
is available to finance the costs of sub-
sidy re-estimates that occur after the
year in which the loan was disbursed.
Funds transferred from other federal
agencies are funded by a nonexpendi-
ture transfer of funds from the other
federal agencies. As the Agency dis-
burses the obligated amounts, the
balance of funding available to the
appropriation is reduced at Treasury.
Clearing accounts and receipt accounts
receive no appropriated funds.
Amounts are recorded to the clearing
accounts pending further disposition.
Amounts recorded to the receipt
accounts capture amounts collected
for or payable to the Treasury General
Fund.
Revolving Funds
Funding of the FIFFlA and Pesticide
Registration 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 collec-
tions of industry fees.
Funding of the WCF is provided by
fees collected from other Agency
appropriations and other federal agen-
cies to offset costs incurred for
providing Agency administrative sup-
port for computer support and
postage.
Special Funds
The Environmental Services Receipt
Account obtains fees associated with
environmental programs that will be
appropriated to the S&T and EPM
appropriations.
Exxon Valdez uses funding collected
from reimbursement from the Exxon
Valdez settlement.
Deposit Funds
Deposit accounts receive no appropri-
ated funds. Amounts are recorded to
the deposit accounts pending further
disposition.
Trust Funds
Congress adopts an annual appropria-
tion amount for the Superfund, LUST
and the Oil Spill Response Trust Funds
to remain available until expended. A
transfer account for the Superfund and
LUSTTrust Fund has been established
for purposes of carrying out the pro-
gram activities. As the Agency
disburses obligated amounts from the
transfer account, the Agency draws
down monies from the Superfund and
LUSTTrust Fund at Treasury to cover
the amounts being disbursed.The
Agency draws down all the appropriat-
ed monies from the Treasury's Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund to the Oil Spill
Response Trust Fund when Congress
adopts the appropriation amount.
D. BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
Transactions are recorded on an accrual
accounting basis and on a budgetary
basis (where budgets are issued). Under
the accrual method, revenues are rec-
ognized 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.
Material interfund balances and transac-
tions are eliminated.
E. REVENUES AND OTHER
FINANCING SOURCES.
The following EPA policies and proce-
dures to account for inflow of revenue
and other financing sources are in
accordance with Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS)
No. 7, "Accounting for Revenues and
Other Financing Sources."
The Superfund program receives most
of its funding through appropriations
that may be used, within specific
statutory limits, for operating and capi-
tal expenditures (primarily equipment).
Additional financing for the Superfund
program is obtained through: reim-
bursements from other federal
agencies, state cost share payments
under Superfund State Contracts
(SSCs), and settlement proceeds from
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs),
under CERCLA Section I 22(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 + I 22 (b)(3) settle-
ments could be placed in special
accounts. Cost recovery settlements
that are not placed in special accounts
continue to be deposited in the Trust
Fund.
The majority of all other funds receive
funding needed to support programs
through appropriations, which may be
used, within statutory limits, for operat-
ing and capital expenditures. However,
under Credit Reform provisions, the
Asbestos Loan Program received fund-
ing 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 por-
tion of the loan.The last year Congress
provided appropriations to make new
loans was 1993.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The FIFRA and Pesticide Registration
funds receive funding through fees col-
lected for services provided and
interest on invested funds.The WCF
receives revenue through fees collect-
ed for services provided to Agency
program offices. Such revenue is elimi-
nated with related Agency program
expenses upon consolidation of the
Agency's financial statements.The
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund receives
funding through reimbursements.
Appropriated funds are recognized as
Other Financing Sources expended
when goods and services have been
rendered without regard to payment
of cash. Other revenues are recog-
nized when earned, i.e., when services
have been rendered.
F. FUNDS WITH THE
TREASURY
The Agency does not maintain cash in
commercial bank accounts. Cash
receipts and disbursements are han-
dled by Treasury.The major funds
maintained with Treasury are
Appropriated Funds, Revolving Funds,
Trust Funds, Special Funds, Deposit
Funds, and Clearing Accounts.These
funds have balances available to pay
current liabilities and finance author-
ized obligations, as applicable.
G. INVESTMENTS IN U.S.
GOVERNMENT SECURITIES
Investments in U.S. Government secu-
rities are maintained by Treasury and
are reported at amortized cost net of
unamortized discounts. Discounts are
amortized over the term of the invest-
ments 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
The Agency records notes receivable
at their face value and any accrued
interest as of the date of receipt.
I. MARKETABLE SECURITIES
The Agency records marketable secu-
rities 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 (see Note 6).
J. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
AND INTEREST RECEIVABLE
The majority of receivables for non-
Superfund funds represent penalties
and interest receivable for general fund
receipt accounts, unbilled intragovern-
mental reimbursements receivable,
allocations receivable from Superfund
(eliminated in consolidated totals), and
refunds receivable for the STAG
appropriation.
Superfund accounts receivable repre-
sent recovery of costs from PRPs as
provided under CERCLA as amended
by SARA. However, cost recovery
expenditures are expensed when
incurred since there is no assurance
that these funds will be recovered (see
Note 5).
The Agency records accounts receiv-
able 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 SSCs, cost
sharing arrangements may vary
according to whether a site was pri-
vately or publicly operated at the time
of hazardous substance disposal and
whether the Agency response action
was removal or remedial. SSC agree-
ments are usually for 10 percent or 50
percent 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.
K. ADVANCES AND
PREPAYMENTS
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.
L. LOANS RECEIVABLE
Loans are accounted for as receivables
after funds have been disbursed. Loans
receivable resulting from obligations on
or before September 30, 199 I, are
reduced by the allowance for uncol-
lectible loans. Loans receivable resulting
from loans obligated on or after
October 1, 199 I, are reduced by an
allowance equal to the present value
of the subsidy costs associated with
these loans.The subsidy cost is calcu-
lated 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
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
other estimated cash flows associated
with these loans.
M. APPROPRIATED
AMOUNTS HELD BY
TREASURY
For the Superfund and LUSTTrust
Funds and for amounts appropriated
from the Superfund Trust Fund to the
OIG, cash available to the Agency that
is not needed immediately for current
disbursements remains in the respec-
tive Trust Funds managed by Treasury.
N. PROPERTY, PLANT, AND
EQUIPMENT
EPA accounts for its personal and real
property accounting records in accor-
dance with SFFAS No. 6, "Accounting
for Property, Plant and Equipment." For
EPA-held property, the Fixed Assets
Subsystem (FAS) automatically gener-
ates depreciation entries monthly
based on acquisition dates.
A purchase of EPA-held or contractor-
held personal property is capitalized if
it is valued at $25 thousand or more
and has an estimated useful life of at
least 2 years. Prior to implementing
FAS, depreciation was taken on a mod-
ified straight-line basis over a period of
6 years depreciating 10 percent the
first and sixth year, and 20 percent in
years 2 through 5.This modified
straight-line method is still used for
contractor-held property; detailed
records are maintained and accounted
for in contractor systems, not in FAS.
All EPA-held personal property pur-
chased before the implementation of
FAS was assumed to have an estimat-
ed useful life of 5 years. New
acquisitions of EPA-held personal
property are depreciated using the
straight-line method over the specific
asset's useful life, ranging from 2 to
I 5 years.
Superfund contractor-held property
used as part of the remedy for site-
specific response actions is capitalized
in accordance with the Agency's capi-
talization 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 10 years or
less, and will transfer its
interest in the facility to the
respective state for manda-
tory 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 trans-
ferred to a state in a year or less, this
property will be charged to expense. If
any property is sold prior to EPA relin-
quishing interest, the proceeds from
the sale of that property shall be
applied against contract payments or
refunded as required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
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 capi-
talized 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 dur-
ing and after FY 1997 is valued at
actual cost. Depreciation for real prop-
erty is calculated using the straight-line
method over the specific asset's useful
life, ranging from 10 to 102 years.
Leasehold improvements are amor-
tized over the lesser of their useful life
or the unexpired lease term. Additions
to property and improvements not
meeting the capitalization criteria,
expenditures for minor alterations, and
repairs and maintenance are expensed
as incurred.
Software forWorking Capital Fund, a
revenue generating activity, is capital-
ized if the purchase price was $100
thousand or more with an estimated
useful life of 2 years or more. All other
funds capitalize software whose acqui-
sition value is $500 thousand 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 asset's useful life ranging from 2
to 10 years.
O. LIABILITIES
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
collections. 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 sover-
eign capacity.
R BORROWING PAYABLE TO
THE TREASURY
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
The Asbestos Loan Program makes
periodic interest payments to Treasury
based on its debt to Treasury. At the
end of FY 2004 and FY 2005, there
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
was no outstanding interest payable to
Treasury since payment was made
through September 30.
R. ACCRUED UNFUNDED
ANNUAL LEAVE
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 unfund-
ed liability. Accrued unfunded annual
leave is included in the Statement of
Financial Position as a component of
"Payroll and Benefits Payable."
S. RETIREMENT PLAN
There are two primary retirement
systems for federal employees.
Employees hired prior to January I,
1984, may participate in the Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS).
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 auto-
matically covered by FERS and Social
Security. Employees hired prior to
January I, 1984, elected to either join
FERS and Social Security or remain in
CSRS. A primary feature of FERS is
that it offers a savings plan to which
the Agency automatically contributes
one percent of pay and matches any
employee contributions up to an addi-
tional four percent of pay.The Agency
also contributes the employer's match-
ing share for Social Security.
With the issuance of SFFAS No. 5,
"Accounting for Liabilities of the
Federal Government," 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 (OPM), 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 federal agencies with
the actuarial cost factors to compute
the 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."
Specifically, prior period adjustments
will only be made for material prior
period errors to: (I) the current peri-
od financial statements, and (2) the
prior period financial statements pre-
sented for comparison. Adjustments
related to changes in accounting prin-
ciples will only be made to the current
period financial statements, but not to
prior period financial statements pre-
sented for comparison.
Note 2. Fund Balances with Treasury
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2005 and 2004, consist of the following
Non-Entity
Assets
FY 2004
Non-Entity
Assets
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill & Misc.
Revolving Funds:
FIFRA/Tolerance
Working Capital
Cr. Reform Finan.
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
213,797 $
17,613
9,169
7,970
69,401
489
I 1,655,287
157,303
4,913
53,560
492
,639,189
136,646
199,406
14,825
10,222
Total
12,131,029 $
8,178 $ 12,139^07 $
12,059253 $
5,892 $ 12,065,145
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Entity fund balances, except for special fund receipt accounts, are available to pay current liabilities and to finance authorized
purchase commitments (see Status of Fund Balances below). Entity Assets for Other Fund Types consist of special purpose
funds and special fund receipt accounts, such as the Pesticide Registration funds and the Environmental Services receipt
account.The Non-Entity Assets for Other Fund Types consist of clearing accounts and deposit funds, which are either awaiting
documentation for the determination of proper disposition or being held by EPA for other entities.
Status of Fund Balances:
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
Available for Obligation
Unavailable for Obligation
Net Receivables from Invested Balances
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund (Note 17)
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed
Non-Budgetary FBWT
FY 2005
$ 3,018,690 $
88,066
(2,278,343)
19,965
1 1,136,1 12
154,717
FY 2004
2,903,849
92,861
(2,471,574)
201,438
1 1 ,207,766
130,805
Totals
$ 12,139^07 $ 12,065,145
The funds available for obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the beginning of the following fiscal
year Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly balances in expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing
obligations. For FY 2005 and FY 2004 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's statements for fund bal-
ances with Treasury.
Note 3. Cash
As of September 30, 2005 and 2004, cash consists of an imprest fund of $ 10 thousand.
Note 4. Investments
As of September 30, 2005 and 2004 investments consist of the following
Unamortized
Intragovernmental Securities:
Non-Marketable
Non-Marketable
FY 2005 $
FY 2004 $
Cost
4,762,154
4,459,647
(Premium) Interest Investments,
Discount Receivable Net MarketValue
$
$
(16,261) $
(47,536) $
32,650 $ 4,811,065 $ 4,811,065
27,315 $ 4,534,498 $ 4,534,498
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to recover monies to clean up Superfund sites from responsible parties (RP).
Some RPs file for bankruptcy underTitle I I 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 them to cash as soon as practicable. (See Note 6.)
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30, 2005 and 2004, consist of the following
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable
Non-Federal Assets:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable
Accounts & Interest Receivable
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles
Total
66,060 $
42,770
89,818 $
1 ,092,376
(807,526)
374,668 $
93,440
1 ,0 1 5,72 1
(694,666)
414,495
The Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts is determined both on a specific identification basis, as a result of a case-by-case
review of receivables, and on a percentage basis for receivables not specifically identified.
Note 6. Other Assets
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies
Advances to WCF
Advances for Postage
Total Intragovernmental Assets
Non-Federal Assets:
Travel Advances
Letter of Credit Advances
Grant Advances
Other Advances
Operating Materials and Supplies
Inventory for Sale
Securities Received in Settlement of Debt
Total Non-Federal Assets
1,102 $
827
406
2,335 $
2,789 $
767
553
1,320
1,508
Other Assets for September 30, 2005 and 2004, consist of the following:
Note 7. Loans Receivable, Net—Non-Federal
Asbestos Loan Program loans disbursed from obligations made prior to FY 1992 are net of allowances for estimated uncol-
lectible loans, if an allowance was considered necessary. Loans disbursed from obligations made after FY 1991 are governed by
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FY 2005
FY 2004
Direct Loans Obligated
Prior to FY 1992
Direct Loans Obligated
After FY 1991
Total
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
Allowance*
26,427
Value of Assets Loans
Related to Receivable,
Direct Loans Gross
18,118 $
21,229
Allowance*
44,545 $
(5,198) $
39,347 $
Value of Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
$ 25,243
(6,782) 23,684
55,709 $
(6,782) $
48,927
* 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 199 I) is the Allowance for Subsidy Cost (present value).
the Federal Credit Reform Act, which mandates that the present value of the subsidy costs (i.e., interest rate differentials, inter-
Interest Rate Technical
Re-estimate Re-estimate Total
Downward Subsidy Reestimate — FY 2005
Upward Subsidy Reestimate— FY 2005
FY 2005 Totals
Downward Subsidy Reestimate — FY 2004
FY 2004 Totals
$
$
$
$
(233) $
129
(104)
(2,660) $
(2,600) $
(203) $
128
(75)
(2,894) $
(2,894) $
(436)
257
(179)
(5,554)
(5,554)
est subsidies, anticipated delinquencies, and defaults) associated with direct loans be recognized as an expense in the year the
loan is made.The net loan present value is the gross loan receivable less the subsidy present value.The amounts as of
September 30, 2005 and 2004, are as follows:
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
FY 2005 FY 2004
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable to other Federal Agencies
Liability for Allocation Transfers
Accrued Liabilities, Federal
Total Intragovernmental
Non-Federal:
Accounts Payable, Non-Federal
Advances Payable, Non-Federal
Interest Payable
Grant Liabilities
Other Accrued Liabilities, Non-Federal
$ 774 $
19,878
99, 1 84
$ 1 19,836 $
$ 105,027 $
24
7
449,206
176,014
1,808
31,286
7 1 ,570
104,664
93,262
19
41
594,124
1 94,405
Total Non-Federal
730278 $
881,851
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 8. Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
The Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities are current liabilities and consist of the following amounts as of September 30,
2005 and 2004.
FY 2005
FY 2004
EPA-Held Equipment
Software
Contractor Held Equip.
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
Total
Acquisition Accumulated Acquisition Accumulated
Value Depreciation Net Book Value Value Depreciation Net Book Value
194,410
146,132
56,746
558,689
50,1 II
84,727
126,355
34,040
436,677
26,917
1,006,088 $ (297,372) $
708,716 $
188,844
105,634
61,571
547,876
49,956
953,881 $ (280,518) $
673,363
Note 9. General Plant, Property and Equipment
Plant, property and equipment consist of software; real, EPA-Held and Contractor-Held personal, and capital lease property.
All Others Funds
Intragovernmental:
Debt to Treasury
Beginnin
Balance
Net Borrowing Ending Balance Balance Net Borrowing Ending Balance
24,101 $ (2,357) $ 21,744 $ 21,189 $ 2,912 $ 24,101
As of September 30, 2005 and 2004, Plant, Property and Equipment consist of the following
Note 10. Debt
The debt due to Treasury consists of the following as of September 30, 2005 and 2004:
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note I I. Custodial Liability
Custodial Liability represents the amount of net accounts receivable that, when collected, will be deposited to the Treasury
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Not Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Other Liabilities—Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
WCF Advances
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
Total Intragovernmental
Other Liabilities—Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Other Liabilities
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal
1 2,73 1 $
17,392
4,737
4 1 ,207
60
(82)
1
76,046 $
59,388 $
(70)
59,318 $
$ 1 2,73 1
17,392
4,737
4 1 ,207
60
(82)
1
8,484 8,484
22,000 22,000
30,484 $ 106,530
- $ 59,388
(70)
30 30
38,716 38,716
38,746 $ 98,064
General Fund. 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
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2005:
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2004:
Covered by Not Covered by
Budgetary Budgetary
Resources Resources
Other Liabilities—Intragovernmental
Current
Employer Contributions & Payroll Taxes
Other Advances
Advances, HRSTF Cashout
Deferred HRSTF Cashout
Liability for Deposit Funds
Resources Payable to Treasury
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund*
Total Intragovernmental
Other Liabilities—Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal
1 0,760 $
3,522
32,724
3
(30)
1
437
47,417 $
56,824 $
5,601
62,425 $
$ 1 0,760
3,522
32,724
3
(30)
1
437
8,704 8,704
22,000 22,000
30,704 $ 78,121
$ 56,824
5,601
4 1 ,49 1 4 1 ,49 1
41,491 $ 103,916
Note I 3. Leases
Capitol Leases:
The Capital Leases:
Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease:
Real Property
Personal Property
Software License
Total
Accumulated Amortization
FY 2005
$ 40,9 1 3
2,761
6,437
$ 50,1 1 1
$ 23, 1 94
FY 2004
$ 40,9 1 3
2,606
6,437
$ 49,956
$ 1 9,275
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 LaborThe real property leases terminate in FYs 2010, 201 3, and 2025.These charges are
expended out of the EPM appropriation.
EPA also has capital leases terminating in FY 2007 for seven shuttle buses.These leases are expended out of the EPM appro-
priation.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
EPA has two capital leases expended out of the Working Capital Fund.The capital leases are for an IBM Supercomputer and
MicroSoft Office software.These leases terminate in 2006 and 2009, respectively.
During FY 2005, EPA entered into a capital lease for a Storage Area Network The lease terminates in FY 2007 and payments
are expended from the EPM appropriation.The total future minimum capital lease payments are listed below.
Future Payments Due:
Fiscal Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
After 5 Years
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments
Less: Imputed Interest
Net Capital Lease Liability
Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources (See Note 12)
Capital Leases
102,209
(63,493)
38,716
38,716
Operating Leases:
The GSA provides leased real property (land and buildings) as office space for EPA employees. GSA charges a Standard Level
User Charge that approximates the commercial rental rates for similar properties.
EPA has three direct operating leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories and/or computer facilities. 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.Two of these leases expire in FYs 2017 and 2020. A third lease, originally expired in FY 2001, was
extended until FY 2007.These charges are expended from the EPM appropriation.The total minimum future operating lease
costs are listed below.
Fiscal Year
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments
Operating
Leases, Land &
Buildings
87
81
74
74
74
624
1,014
Note 14. Pension and Other Actuarial Liabilities
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) 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 employ-
ees whose death is attributable to a job-related injury or occupational disease. Annually, EPA is allocated the portion of the
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 method-
ologies are provided by the Department of Labor
The FECA Actuarial Liability at September 30, 2005 and 2004, consists of the following:
FECA Actuarial Liability
39,380 $
40,281
The FY 2005 present value of these estimated outflows are calculated using a discount rate of 4.528 percent in the first year,
and 5.02 percent in the years thereafterThe estimated future costs are recorded as an unfunded liability.
Note 15. Cash out Advances
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree)
to finance response action costs at a specified Superfund site. Under CERCLA +Section I 22(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, 2005 and 2004, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the following
Unexpended Appropriations:
Unobligated
Available
Unavailable
Undelivered Orders
Total
FY 2005 FY 2004
i,
40,328
9,079,377
11,007,589 $
1,91 1,797
39,591
8,908,748
10,860,136
Note 17. Amounts Held by Treasury
Amounts Held by Treasury for Future Appropriations consist of amounts held in trusteeship by Treasury in the Superfund Trust
Fund and the LUSTTrust Fund.
Superfund (Unaudited)
Superfund is supported primarily by general revenues, cost recoveries of funds spent to clean up hazardous waste sites, inter-
est income, and fines and penalties. Prior to December 3 I, 1995, the fund was also supported by other taxes on crude oil and
petroleum and on the sale or use of certain chemicals.The authority to assess those taxes and the environmental tax on cor-
porations 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.
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by Treasury as of September 30, 2005 and 2004.The amounts con-
tained in these notes have been provided by Treasury and are audited. As indicated, a portion of the outlays represents
amounts received by EPA's Superfund Trust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the Superfund Trust Fund
maintained by Treasury.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SUPERFUND FY 2005 ^^B
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
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
Total Outlays
Net Income
EPA Treasury
$ - $ 7,212
7,212
4,180
2,204,850 88,163
$ 2,204,850 $ 99,555
$ 2,204,850 $ 99,555
$ 2,204,850 $ 99,555
$ - $ 3,663
62,978
2,428
69,069
1 ,247,477
52,540
$ - $ 1,369,086
$ 1,261,913 $ (1,261,913)
1,261,913 (1,261,913)
$ 1,261,913 $ 107,173
Combined ^^1
$ 7,212
7,212
4,180
2,293,013
$ 2,304,405
$ 2,304,405
$ 2,304,405
^^B 8
2,428
un
>
69,069
1 ,247,477
52,540
$ 1,369,086
1
$
$ 1,369,086
In FY 2005, the EPA received an appropriation for Superfund of $1,260.6 million.Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt (BPD).the
manager of the Superfund Trust Fund assets, records a liability to EPA for the amount of the appropriation. BPD does this to
indicate those trust fund assets that have been assigned for use and, therefore, are not available for appropriation. As of
September 30, 2005 and 2004, the Treasury Trust Fund has a liability to EPA for previously appropriated funds of $2,204.9
million and $2,402.1 million, respectively.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND FY 2004
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Liability for Allocation to CDC
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to EPA
Transfers to CDC
Total Outlays
Net Income
Treasury Combined
188,182
77,748
1,257,536
27,380
1,362,664 $
(1,256,790)
(30,763)
1,256,790
8,182
2,402,074
2,402,074 $
2,402,074 $
2,402,074 $
188,182
(184,778)
3,442 $
1 1,061
(7,619) $
3,442 $
188,182
2,217,296
2,405,516
1 1,061
2,394,455
2,405,516
77,748
1,257,536
27,380
1,362,664
(30,763)
1,256,790 $
75,111 $
1,331,901
During FY 2004, the SuperfundTrust Fund revenue from cost recoveries and investment interest was less than anticipated. In
addition, in FY 2003 the Internal Revenue Service issued approximately $99.4 million in corporate net tax refunds that were
previously deposited in the Trust Fund. Due to these circumstances, the amount appropriated to EPA for Superfund activities
exceeded the assets available for appropriation in the Trust Fund by $7.6 million at the end of FY 2004.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
LUST (Unaudited)
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In FYs 2005 and 2004 there were no
fund receipts from cost recoveries. The following represents the LUSTTrust Fund as maintained by Treasury. The amounts con-
tained in these notes have been provided by Treasury and are audited. Outlays represent appropriations received by EPA's
LUSTTrust Fund; such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the LUSTTrust Fund maintained by Treasury.
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
HighwayTFTax
AirportTFTax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Fuel
Refund Aviation Tax
Cost Recoveries
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Total Outlays
Net Income
LUST FY 2005
EPA Treasury
$ - $ 12,754
12,754
28,470
86,584 2,398,823
$ 86,584 $ 2,440,047
$ 86,584 $ 2,440,047
$ 86,584 $ 2,440,047
$ - $ 182,953
1 1 ,034
456
(1,760)
(2,643)
(342)
(30)
1 ,455
191,123
77,666
$ - $ 268,789
$ 69,440 $ (69,440)
69,440 (69,440)
$ 69,440 $ 199,349
Combined
$ 1 2,754
12,754
28,470
2,485,407
$ 2,526,631
$ 2,526,631
$ 2,526,631
$ 182,953
1 1 ,034
456
(1,760)
(2,643)
(342)
(30)
1,455
191,123
77,666
$ 268,789
$
$ 268,789
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LUST FY 2004
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
HighwayTFTax
AirportTFTax
Inland TFTax
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
Treasury Combined
89,725 $
13,256
89,725 $ 2,240,698
13,256
1 3,256
27,277
2,200,165
2,240,698 $
1 3,256
27,277
2,289,890
2,330,423
2,330,423
89,725 $
$
- $
75,552 $
75,552
75552 $
2,240,698 $
1 80,763 $
1 1 ,678
454
(1,535)
(2,136)
(227)
188,997
66,762
255,759 $
(75,552) $
(75,552)
180,207 $
2,330,423
1 80,763
1 1 ,678
454
(1,535)
(2,136)
(227)
188,997
66,762
255,759
255,759
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. CER.CLA
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.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
As of September 30, 2005, there are currently four CERCLA Section I06(b) administrative claims and one contract claim. If
the claimants are successful, the total losses on the administrative and judicial claims could amount to approximately $38.2
million.The Environmental Appeals Board has not yet issued final decisions on any of the administrative claims; therefore, a
definite estimate of the amount of the contingent loss cannot be made.The claimants' chance of success overall is character-
ized as reasonably possible.
AH Other Funds:
As of September 30, 2005, there are five claims which may be considered threatened litigation involving all other appropriated
funds of the Agency. If the claimants are successful, the total losses of the claims are estimated to range from $5.9 to $ I 5.9
million.The largest claim (estimated range from $2 to $ 12 million, deemed reasonably possible) is a Fifth Amendment taking
claim arising out of a Clean Water Act enforcement action.
Judgment Fund:
In cases that are paid by the U.S.Treasury Judgment 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 judgment is assessed and the Judgment Fund is deter-
mined 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 judgment, the liability will be reduced and an
imputed financing source recognized. See Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 2, "Accounting for
Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions."
As of September 30, 2005, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury Judgment Fund. However, EPA has a $22
million liability to the Treasury Judgment Fund for a payment made by the Fund to settle a contract dispute claim.
Note 19. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Exchange revenues on the Statement of Net Cost include income from services provided, interest revenue (with the excep-
tion of interest earned on trust fund investments), and miscellaneous earned revenue.
Note 20. Environmental Cleanup Costs
As of September 30, 2005, EPA has two sites that require clean up stemming from its activities. Costs amounting to $ I 8
thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgment Fund. (The $18 thousand represents the lower end of a range estimate,
of which the maximum of the range will total $30 thousand.) Both claimants' chance of success is characterized as reasonably
possible. Additionally EPA has one site ($80 thousand) characterized as remote chance of success. 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 General
Services Administration will bear all or most of the cost of remediation. In addition, EPA has one site that has an unfunded
environmental liability of $30 thousand.
Accrued Cleanup Cost:
The EPA has I 3 sites that will require future clean up associated with permanent closure.The estimated costs will be approxi-
mately $7 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 2005 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs decreased by $ 1.4 million from the FY 2004 estimate.This decrease is due
in large part to completion of cleanup at one facility. EPA could also be potentially liable for cleanup costs, at a GSA-leased
site; however, the amounts are not known.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 21. State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related federal regulations require states to enter into 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 10 percent cost share for remedial action costs incurred at privately owned or operated sites,
and at least 50 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 non-federal 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, 2005,
the total remaining state credits have been estimated at $ 10.1 million.The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,
2004 was $5.4 million.
Note 22. 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 +CERCLA Section I I I (a)(2). Under +CERCLA Section I 22(b)(l), as
amended by SARA, PRPs 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, 2005, EPA had
I 5 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $3 I 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. 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 RPs' willingness and ability to pay.
Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
150,816 $
Accounts Receivable
Less: Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
Total
167,533
(51,954)
I 15,579 $
162,546
103,847
(51,630)
52,217
Note 24. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2005 Statement of Budgetary Resources,
will be reconciled to the amounts included in the FY 2006 Budget of the United States Government when they become avail-
able.The Budget of the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2005 has not yet been published. We expect it
will be published by March 2006, and it will be available on the OMB website at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006.The
actual amounts published for the year ended September 30, 2004 are included in EPA's FY 2005 financial statement disclosures.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FY 2004
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations, Unfilled Customer Orders and Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Superfund payment received from BPD recorded in 68X2050
Rounding Differences**
Reported for Budget of the U. S. Government
Budgetary
Resources
Obligations
Outlays
11,829,000 $ 10,165,000 $
9,703,000
* Expired funds are not included in Budgetary Resources Available for Obligation and Total New Obligations in the Budget Appendix (lines
23.90 and 10.00). Also, minor funds are not included in the Budget Appendix.
** Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
Note 25. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary
Resources
Recoveries of PriorYear Obligations,Temporarily Not Available, and Permanently Not Available on the Statement of Budgetary
Resources consist of the following amounts:
Recoveries of PriorYear Obligations-downward adjustments of prior years' obligations
Temporarily Not Available-rescinded authority
174,641 $
(I 1,141)
Total Permanently Not Available
(78,244) $
194,775
(8,254)
(71,203)
Note 26. Unobligated Balances Available
The availability of unobligated balances consists of the following as of September 30, 2005 and 2004. Unexpired unobligated
balances are available to be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the beginning of the following fiscal yearThe
expired unobligated balances are only available for upward adjustments of existing obligations.
Unexpired Unobligated Balance
Expired Unobligated Balance
Total
3,106,756 $
2,996,708
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 27. Offsetting Receipts
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund receipt accounts offset gross outlays. For
FYs 2005 and 2004, the following receipts were generated from these activities:
Trust Fund Recoveries
Special Fund Environmental Service
Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies
Trust Fund Appropriation
Total
1,334,508 $
74,063
20,176 13,688
436 5,554
1,247,477 1,257,536
1,350,841
Note 28. 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 FYs 2005 and 2004, the following line
items are reconciled to the increases or decreases in those liabilities.
Statement of Financing lines:
Resources that fund prior period expenses
Components requiring or generating resources in future periods:
Increases in environmental liabilities
Increase in contingencies
Increase in annual leave liabilities
Up/downward re-estimates of subsidy exp.
Total
Increases (Decreases) in Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources
and Reconciling Items
Unfunded Annual Leave Liability
Unfunded Contingent Liability
Unfunded Judgment Fund Liability
Unfunded Workers Compensation Liability
Actuarial Workers Compensation Liability
Unfunded Clean-up Costs Liability
Unfunded Environmental Liability
Allowance for Subsidy
Subsidy re-estimates
Total
(13,855)
99
1,525
3,889
3
4,396 $
4,092 $
325
(220)
(901)
1,269
30
(199)
4,396 $
1,244
22,425
9,814
(7,029)
1,607
22,000
664
(3,815)
61
(3,097)
(577)
9,814
Note 29. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
FY 2005's Statement of Net Cost by Goal has $3 million in gross costs not assigned to goals.This amount is comprised of
decreases of $0.2 million in overhead costs, $22 million in operating expenses, $0.7 million in unfunded expenses; offset by
increases of $16 million in undistributed payroll costs, $0.3 in depreciation expenses, $0.6 million in other expenses, and
$3 million in loss on disposition of assets.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FY 2004's Statement of Net Cost by Goal has $ I 8.2 million in gross costs not assigned to goals.This amount is comprised of
decreases of $5.7 million in unfunded cleanup costs, $5.6 million in overhead costs, $27.0 million in other unfunded expenses
and $2.9 in subsidy expense; offset by increases of $13.8 million in undistributed federal payroll costs, $3.7 million in deprecia-
tion expense, $40.1 million in operating expenses, and $1.8 million change in actuarial liability.
Note 30.Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FYs 2005 and 2004, the Appropriation Transfers under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in Net
Position are comprised of nonexpenditure transfers that affect Unexpended Appropriations for non-invested appropriations.
These amounts are included in the Budget Authority, Net Transfers and PriorYear 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
GSA Building Fund
Appalachian Regional Commission
S&T
EPM
Total Appropriation Transfers
Net Transfers from Invested Funds
Transfers to Other Agencies
Allocations Rescinded
Total of Net Transfers on Statement of Budgetary Resources
FY 2005
FY 2004
4,702 $
1,328,667
4,736
10,620
1,348,725 $
152
1,332,342
(5,157)
7,91 I
1,335,248
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
For FYs 2005 and 2004Transfers In/Out under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in Net Position
consist of transfers to or from other federal agencies and between EPA funds.These transfers affect Cumulative Results of
Type of Transfer/Funds
Transfers-out, nonexpenditure to other federal agencies
Transfers-out, nonexpenditure, from Treasury trust fund to CDC
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure, Oil Spill
FY 2005
FY 2004
Total Transfers in (out) without Reimbursement, Budgetary
1,136 $
(19,807)
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Operations. Detail of the transfers-in and transfers-out, expenditure and nonexpenditure, follows:
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FYs 2005 and 2004Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement under Other Financing Sources on the Statement of
Type of Transfer/Funds
Transfers of negative subsidy, transfer-in paid and funded in year following transfer-(out)
Transfers-out of prior year negative subsidy to be paid following year
Total Transfers in (out) without Reimbursement, Budgetary
FY 2005 FY 2004
$ $ (436)
436
$ 436 $ (436)
Changes in Net Position are comprised 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:
Note 3 I. Imputed Financing
In accordance with SFFAS 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 OPM trust funds.These amounts are recorded as imput-
ed costs and imputed financing for each agency. Each year the OPM provides federal agencies with cost factors to calculate
these imputed costs and financing that apply to the current yearThese 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 2005 were $ I 29.7 million. For FY 2004, the estimates were $ 126 million.
In addition to the pension and retirement benefits described above, EPA also records imputed costs and financing forTreasury
Judgment Fund payments on behalf of the agency. Entries are made in accordance with the Interpretation of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 2, "Accounting forTreasury Judgment Fund Transactions." For FY 2005 entries for Judgment Fund
payments totaled $8.4 million. For FY 2004, entries for Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.8 million.
Covered by Not Covered by
Budgetary Budgetary
Resources Resources Total
FY 2005 Payroll and Benefits Payables
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable — TSP
Other Post-employment Benefits Payable
Accrued Unfunded Leave, WCF
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total — Current
FY 2004 Payroll & Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable — TSP
Other Post-employment Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Leave, WCF
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
$ 30,881 $
26,977
1,896
36
320
$ 60,110 $
$ 29,845 $
22,771
1,583
36
320
- $ 30,881
26,977
1,896
36
320
1 30,284 1 30,284
130,284 $ 190,394
$ 29,845
22,771
1,583
36
320
126,191 126,191
Total—Current
54,555 $
126,191 $
180,746
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 32. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30, 2005 and 2004, consist of the following:
Rescissions to General Appropriations
Canceled General Authority
Total Other Adjustments
64,017 $
I 1,433
75,450 $
49,105
19,463
68,568
Note 33. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Other Adjustments under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement of Changes in Net Position consist of rescis-
sions to appropriated funds and cancellations of funds that expired five years earlierThese amounts affect Unexpended
FY 2005 FY 2004
Interest on Trust Fund Investments
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
Fines and Penalties Revenue
Special Receipt Fund Revenue
Total Nonexchange Revenue
$ 1 30,206 $
1 94,786
(26,506)
20,176
$ 318,662 $
94,142
189,864
1,973
1 3,746
299,725
Appropriations.
Note 34. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in Net Position for FYs 2005 and
2004 consists of the following items:
Note 35. Other, Statement of Financing
The Other balance of $1.9 million in the Statement of Financing represents a portion of the 1993 Cost Recovery received
from the Uniroyal bankruptcy judgment that was transferred from the Treasury Managed Receipt Account 20X8 145.4 to the
Superfund Trust Account 68-20X8145 in FY 2005.The transfer was necessary in order to execute an expenditure that was
ordered from a February 2005 consent decree.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
As of September 30, 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
The EPA classifies tangible property, plant, and equipment as follows: (I) 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 prac-
tices. 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 2005).
Trading
Partner
Code Agency
4 Government Printing Office
I I Executive Office of the President
12 Department of Agriculture
13 Department of Commerce
14 Department of Interior
15 Department of Justice
16 Department of Labor
17 Department of the Navy
18 U. S. Postal Service
19 Department of State
20 Department of theTreasury
21 Department of the Army
29 Federal Trade Commission
31 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
36 Department ofVeteran Affairs
45 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
47 General Services Administration
49 National Science Foundation
57 Department of the Air Force
61 Consumer Product Safety Commission
64 Tennessee Valley Authority
69 Department ofTransportation
70 Department of Homeland Security
71 Overseas Private Investment Corporation
72 Agency for International Development
75 Department of Health and Human Services
80 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
86 Department of Housing and Urban Development
89 Department of Energy
91 Department of Education
95 Independent Agencies
96 US Army Corps of Engineers
97 US Department of Defense
99 Treasury General Fund
00 Unassigned
Total
Accounts
Investments Receivable Other Assets
957
4,81 1,065
406
$ 4,811,065
66,060
2,335
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL
3.
Intragovern mental Liabilities
STATEMENTS — PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
Trading
Partner
Code
3
4
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
31
33
36
45
47
49
50
57
59
63
64
69
70
72
73
75
80
86
89
93
95
96
97
99
00
Agency
Library of Congress
Government Printing Office
The Judiciary
Executive Office of the President
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of the Navy
United States Postal Service
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Department of the Army
Office of Personnel Management
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Smithsonian Institution
Department ofVeterans Affairs
EEOC
General Services Administration
National Science Foundation
Securities and Exchange
Department of the Air Force
Nat'l Foundation on Arts and Humanities
Labor Relations Board
Tennessee Valley Authority
Department ofTransportation
Department of Homeland Security
Agency for International Development
Small Business Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Energy
Federal Mediation Service
Independent Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Treasury General Fund
Unassigned
Total
Accounts Accrued
Payable Liabilities
107
1,040
41
785
888 4,704
901 5,612
617 5,858
2,258 1 ,220
836
164
22
155
625
13
28
506
22
42,299
539
33
54
4,077
15,178 2,303
121
1 6 8,773
336
3
5,149
9
6
782 11,531
2,323
12 (110)
$ 20,652 99,184
Other H
Liabilities ^H
98
1,957
(18)
16
1,851
4,468
4,894
9,865
8,506
2,641
97
36,425
2,992
10,170
17
125
147
28,323
50
(11,377)
9,936
3
375
1 1,441
(44,126)
183
100
1 0,684
153
615
2,530
1 6,632
(177)
(734)
3,318
(5,650)
106,530
For remaining intragovernmental liabilities $21,744 thousand in Debt is assigned to the Department of the Treasury (trading
partner Code 20), and $142,347 thousand in Custodial Liability is assigned to the Treasury General Fund (trading partner
Code 99).
EPA has confirmed the year-end intragovernmental fiduciary assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses with the BPD, DOL, and
OPM. EPA has also contacted several other federal agencies to confirm nonfiduciary intragovernmental balances for year-end
as required.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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.
Intragovernmental Earned Revenue
Associated Costs to generate above Revenue (Budget Functional Classification 304)
105,653
105,653
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
LUST OTHER
TOTAL
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriations Received
Borrowing Authority
Net Transfers
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period
Spending Authority—Offsetting
Collections
Earned and Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal
Sources
Transfers from Trust Funds Collected
Transfers from Trust Funds,
Anticipated
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Recoveries of PriorYear Obligations
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to
Public Law
Permanently Not Available
1,452,575
- $ 1,364,679 $ 8,032,620
436 436
70,000 1,274,023 1,348,725
285,394
2,533
7,801 $
7,801 $
42,734
(28,833)
63,476 $
5,651
2,107
1 32,679
203,913 $
14,880
(24,892)
8,758 $ 23,857 $
(155)
(334) 4, 1 59
(2,300)
55,942
(20, 1 34)
41,777 $ 28,016 $
4,994 101
(289)
(10,636)
17 $ 453,783 $
(185)
31,683
(12,235)
1 3,630
(756)
17 $ 485,920 $
376 111,556
(560) (10,292)
(13,883)
557,692
5,311
37,615
1 18,144
69,572
(20,890)
767,444
174,641
(1 1,141)
(78,244)
Total Budgetary Resources
76,120 $ 4,130,433 $ 13,231,189
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
5. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
LUST OTHER
TOTAL
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct $ 3,608,484 $ 2,315,355 $
Reimbursable 26 157,961
Total Obligations Incurred $ 3,608,510 $ 2,473,316 $
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned 1,469,949 297,045
Unobligated Balances Not Available - 74,568
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 5,078,459 $ 2,844,929 $
RELATIONSHIP OF OBLIGATIONS TO OUTLAYS
Obligations Incurred, Net
Obligated Balances, Net —
Beginning of Pd
Accounts Receivable
Unfilled Customer Orders from
Federal Sources
Undelivered Orders, Unpaid
Accounts Payable
Total Outlays
Disbursements
Collections
Less: Offsetting Receipts
3,557,975
8,272,160
2,254,523
690,182
3,578,989
^^^^^^^^^=
3,586,790
(7,801)
2,274,480 $
2,340,064 $
(65,584)
825,674 $
6,726
832,400 $
220,896
17,302
1,070,598 $
785,629 $
535,704
48,106
6,720
(530,333)
(97,460)
748,366 $
812,732 $
(64,366)
- $
25,663
25,663 $
4,987
30,650 $
(2,454) $
2,348
(1,413)
(1,536)
(3,055) $
24,961 $
(28,016)
70,660 $
70,660 $
5,460
76,120 $
70,267 $
85,008
(76,486)
(8,042)
70,747 $
70,763 $
(16)
2,753,523
360,361
3,1 13,884
1 ,020,352
(3,803)
4, 1 30,433
2,516,410
1 ,622,374
(804)
157,501
(1,425,248)
(285,749)
2,584,484
3,083,579
(499,095)
(1,334,508)
$ 9,573,696
550,737
$ 10,124,433
3,018,689
88,067
$ 13,231,189
$ 9,182,350
1 1 ,207,776
64,972
422,012
(10,636,009)
(987,090)
$ 9,254,0 1 1
$ 9,918,889
(664,878)
(1,334,508)
Net Outlays
7,919,503
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements
For the Year Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Balance Sheet
ASSETS
I ntragove rn m e ntal
Fund Balance With Treasury
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Receivable, Net
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
I ntragove rn m e ntal
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Payroll and Benefits Payable
Other
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
(Unaudited) (Audited)
FY 2005 FY 2004
$
$
$
$
$
$
69,401 $
55, 1 00
509
125,010 $
4
14,159
205
139,378 $
28,071 $
67, 1 9 1
95,262 $
14,226
1,556
4,986
116,030 $
53,559
27,874
555
81,988
20,426
53
102,467
29,788
30,4 1 3
60,201
1 1 , 1 08
1,451
6,726
79,486
$ 23,348 $ 22,981
$ 139,378 $ 102,467
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
Working Capital Fund Condensed Statements
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Statement of Cost
FY 2005 (Unaudited) Product or Business Line
Data Processing
Post
(Profit)/Loss from Operations
Imputed Costs
Net (Profit)/Loss
FY 2004 (Audited) Product or Business Line
Data Processing
Postage
(Profit)/l_oss from Operations
Imputed Costs
Net (Profit)/Loss
Cost of Goods Related
and Services Exchange
Provided Revenue
Excess of Costs
Over/(Under)
Exchange
Revenue
182,720 $ 183,105 $
2,171 2,154
184,891 $ 185,259 $
$
150,829 $ 141,445 $
2,586 2,58 1
153,415 $ 144,026 $
$
(385)
17
(368)
779
411
9,384
5
9,389
804
1 0, 1 93
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended September 30, 2005
(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. EPA's 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 the risk assessment and risk management paradigm. Research 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 envi-
ronmental problems. Research also provides the crucial underpinning(s) 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 environmental effects on children's health; the
development of alternative techniques for prioritizing chemicals for further testing through computational toxicology; the provi-
sion of near-term, appropriate, affordable, reliable, tested, and effective technologies and guidance for potential threats to
homeland security; 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 2005, the full cost of the Agency's Research and
Development activities totaled over $741 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
Programmatic Expenses
Allocated Expenses
FY 200 1
555,794
90,039
FY 2002
559,218
123,307
FY 2003
593,295
106,971
FY 2004
581,323
9 1 ,675
FY 2005
628,467
1 12,558
See Section II of the PAR for more detailed information on the results of the Agency's investment in research and develop-
ment. Each of EPA's strategic goals has a Science and Research Objective.
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 sta-
tions, 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. After 1990, EPA shifted the focus of municipal financial assistance from grants to loans that
are provided by State Revolving Funds.
State Revolving Funds: EPA provides capital, in the form of capitalization grants, to state revolving funds which state govern-
ments 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.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Agency also is appropriated funds to finance the construction of infrastructure outside the Revolving Funds.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):
Construction Grants
Clean Water SRF
Safe Drinking Water SRF
Other Infrastructure Grants
Allocated Expenses
FY 200 1
63,344
1 ,548,270
728,92 1
282,914
424,999
FY 2002
149,841
1,389,048
708,528
367,259
576,536
FY 2003
15,845
1 ,295,394
842,936
582,09 1
493,349
FY 2004
48,948
1 ,407,345
802,629
341,767
410,129
FY 2005
21,148
1,127,883
715,060
385,226
402,853
See the Goal 2—Clean and Safe Water portion in Section II of the PAR for more detailed information on the results of the
Agency's investment in infrastructure.
Stewardship Land
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in Section 104 (J) CERCLA related to
remedial clean-up 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 clean-up. 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, 2005, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
Superfund Sites with Easements
Beginning Balance
Additions
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
32
I
33
Superfund Sites with Land Acquired
Beginning Balance
Additions
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
25
4
29
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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below (dollars in thousands):
Training and Awareness Grants
Fellowships
Allocated Expenses
FY 200 1
48,697
1 1 ,45 1
9,744
FY 2002
49,444
8,728
1 2,827
FY 2003
47,827
6,572
9,808
FY 2004
48,4 1 6
7,553
8,826
FY 2005
46,750
1 0, 1 95
1 0, 1 99
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Balance Sheet For Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
^^H FY 2005 FY 2004
In
ASSETS
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note SI)
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
•&•
Total Intragovernmental
Cash and Other Monetary Assets
Accounts Receivable. Net
^EZH
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Custodial Liability
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note S2)
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other
Total Liabilities
$ 213,797 $
2,297, 1 93
28, 1 60
9,859
$ 2,549,009 $
260,736
49,530
1,533
$ 2,860,808 $
$ 105,386 $
26,763
46,809
$ 178,958 $
126,898
7,037
270,8 1 1
35,597
43,392
$ 662,693 $
199,406
2,217,334
27,212
6,781
2,450,733
369,148
47,821
699
2,868,40 1
140,781
37,752
178,533
145,369
7,263
259,361
3 1 ,695
46,2 1 1
668,432
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
2,200,1 15
2,862,808 $
2,868,401
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
FY 2004
COSTS
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenues, Federal
Earned Revenues, Non-Federal
Total Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
1,671,015 $
368,045
,262,540
82,776
1,713,361
$
$
$
24,827 $
3 1 2,052
336,879 $
1 ,334, 1 36 $
27,450
233,171
260,621
1 ,452,740
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Changes in Net Position for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY 2005
Net Position—Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Nonexchange Revenue
Transfers In/Out
Trust Fund Appropriations
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers In/Out
Imputed Financing Sources
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Net Position—End of Period
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY 2004
2,350,037
,313,923 $
20,359
29,697 $
(53,418)
1 ,247,477
90, 1 67
30,239
(87,586)
1 ,257,537
82,776
1,282,966
(I)
19,707
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
FY 2004
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Budgetary Authority:
Net Transfers
Unobligated Balances:
Beginning of Period
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned and Collected
Receivable from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Recoveries of PriorYear Obligations
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law
Total Budgetary Resources (Note S6)
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Unobligated Balances Not Available
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
Disbursements
Collections
Less; Offsetting Receipts
1,274,023 $
823,713
1,259,096
766,805
250,487 $
648
25,798
5,789
282,722 $
104,852
(10,060)
2,475,250 $
1 ,369,647 $
175,21 1
1 ,544,858 $
930,373
19
2,475,250 $
1,157,284 $
1,569,360
(5,240)
83,474
(1,320,488)
(225,698)
1,258,692 $
1 ,534,977 $
(276,285)
(64,964)
229,658
(7,853)
(44,218)
5,978
1 83,565
98,848
(7,464)
2,300,850
1 ,328,864
148,273
1 ,477, 1 37
823,694
19
2,300,850
1 , 1 94,724
1,838,503
(5,886)
77,685
( 1 ,374,232)
(266,926)
1 ,463,868
1 ,649,308
(185,440)
(74,063)
1,193,728 $
1,389,805
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Financing for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
FY 2004
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
Net Obligations
Other Resources
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement,
Property
Imputed Financing Sources
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
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:
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
Resources that Finance Asset Acquisition that Do Not Affect Net Cost
,544,858 $
(387,574)
1,157,284
(64,964)
1,092,320 $
1,477,137
(282,413)
1, 194,724
(74,063)
1, 120,661
(I)
$
$
$
20,359
90, 1 67
110,526 $
1,202,846 $
82,049 $
(278)
64,964
(17,588)
(48,682)
1 9,707
82,776
102,482
1,223,143
1 99,979
(2,243)
74,063
(16,104)
(5 1 ,666)
,283,311
1,427,172
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Statement of Financing for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2005 and 2004
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2005
FY 2004
COMPONENTS OF NET COST OF OPERATIONS THAT WILL NOT
REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES IN THE CURRENT PERIOD
Other (Note S8)
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that
Requires or Generates Resources in the Future
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization
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
1 35,579 $
50,824 $
1,334,136 $
67,014
25,568
1,452,740
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Related Note :atements
Note SI. Fund Balance with Treasury for Superfund Trust
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2005 and 2004 consist of the following:
Fund Balance
$ 213,797
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Fund balances are available to pay current liabilities and to finance authorized purchase commitments (see Status of Fund
Balances below).
Status of Fund Balances:
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances:
Available for Obligation
Unavailable for Obligations
Net Receivables from Invested Balances
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed
Totals
FY 2005
FY 2004
930,373 $
19
(2,191,759)
7,212
1 ,467,952
213,797 $
823,694
19
(2,38 1 ,849)
188,182
1 ,569,360
199,406
The funds available for obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the beginning of the following fiscal
year Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly balances in expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing
obligations.
Note 52. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Cashouts are funds received by EPA, a state, or another PRP under the terms of a settlement agreement (e.g., consent decree)
to finance response action costs at a specified Superfund site. Under CERCLA +Section I 22(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 S3. Superfund State Credits
Authorizing statutory language for Superfund and related federal regulations require states to enter into 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 10 percent cost share for remedial action costs incurred at privately owned or operated sites,
and at least 50 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 non-federal 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, 2005,
the total remaining state credits have been estimated at $10.1 million.The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,
2004 was $5.4 million.
Note 54. 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 +CERCLA Section I I I (a)(2). Under +CERCLA Section I 22(b)(l), as
amended by SARA, PRPs 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, 2005, EPA had
15 outstanding preauthorized mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $31 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
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 55. Income and Expenses from other Appropriations; General Support
Services Charged to Superfund
The Statement of Net Cost reports costs that represent the full costs of the program outputs.These costs 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 pro-
gram outputs.
During FYs 2005 and 2004, the EPM appropriation funded a variety of programmatic and non-programmatic activities across
the Agency, subject to statutory requirements.This appropriation was created to fund personnel compensation and benefits,
travel, procurement, and contract activities.
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 consolidated totals of the Statement of Net Cost or the Statement of Changes in Net Position.
FY 2005
Income From Expenses From
Other Other
Appropriations Appropriations
Superfund
All Others
Total
FY 2004
Income From Expenses From
Other Other
Net Effect Appropriations Appropriations Net Effect
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust Fund from the S&T and EPM funds are
$6.9 million for FY 2005 and $ 14.1 million for FY 2004.
Note 56. Statement of Budgetary Resources, Superfund
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2005 Statement of Budgetary Resources,
will be reconciled to the amounts included in the FY 2006 Budget of the United States Government when they become avail-
able.The Budget of the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2005 has not yet been published. We expect it
will be published by March 2006, and it will be available on the OMB website at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006.The
actual amounts published for the year ended September 30, 2004 are included in EPA's FY 2005 financial statement disclosures.
FY 2004
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Expired Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported for Budget of the U.S. Government
Budgetary
Resources
Obligations
2,325,000 $
Outlays
1,477,137 $
5,137
5,904
(178)
1,488,000 $
24
1,470,000
* Expired funds are not included in Budgetary Resources Available for Obligation and Total New Obligations in the Budget Appendix (lines
23.90 and 10.00).
** Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 57. Superfund Eliminations
The Superfund Trust Fund has intra-agency activities with other EPA funds which are eliminated on the consolidated Balance
Sheet and the Statement of Net Cost.These are listed below:
Status of Fund Balances:
Advances
Expenditure Transfers Payable
Accrued Liabilities
Expenses
Transfers
FY 2005
$
$
$
$
$
9,256
48,903
6,398
29,674
49,097
FY 2004
$
$
$
$
$
6,749
69,793
3,916
22,663
52,008
Note 58. Other; Statement of Financing
The Other balance of $1.9 million in the Statement of Financing represents a portion of the 1993 Cost Recovery received
from the Uniroyal bankruptcy judgment that was transferred from the Treasury Managed Receipt Account 20X8 145.4 to the
Superfund Trust Account 68-20X8145 in FY 2005.The transfer was necessary in order to execute an expenditure that was
ordered from a February 2005 consent decree.
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Financial Management Plans and Reports (OMB Circular A-
For the Year Ended September 30, 2005
, Section 52.4a)
The information contained in this section addresses the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) compliance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-ll, Section
52.4(a). These issues, including financial management goals and strategies, financial management per-
formance, and financial management systems framework, are discussed below.
Financial Management Goals and Strategies
EPA has assembled a talented cadre of financial managers whose strategic vision and tactical planning have expanded the
financial management frontier within EPA. Based on their vision, the Agency embarked on an ambitious program of improve-
ments in financial management processes, information quality and accessibility, and the financial management system. In
addition, EPA successfully planned and implemented financial management initiatives in response to new legislation and new or
revised requirements from central guidance agencies. With such a future-and results-oriented culture already established, it was
easy for EPA to embrace the principle of continuous improvement embodied in the President's Management Agenda (PMA).
EPA constantly reassesses its financial management goals and its progress in achieving them. Externally, our success is measured
by:
• our continued ability to meet the evolving PMA standards for a "Green" status score for the initiative on Improved
Financial Performance,
• our continued progress toward a "Green" status score for the initiative on Budget and Performance Integration, and
• our upgrade from a "Red" to "Yellow" status score for the initiative on Eliminating Improper Payments.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In addition, EPA has met major financial management milestones that support the maintenance of a "Green" status score for
the initiative on E-Government and a "Green" progress score for the initiatives on Human Capital and Competitive Sourcing.
Although EPA is proud of its record of success, it recognizes that it must continue to "push the envelope" in order to help the
Agency achieve its environmental objectives in a cost effective manner
In the near term, the enhanced internal control requirements in OMB Circular A-1 23 will strengthen our existing management
integrity efforts and provide a platform to broaden our scope and expand our focus on programmatic efficiency and effective-
ness. This activity will complement efforts planned or underway to achieve economies of scale and develop and enhance
financial information tools to meet the decision making needs of EPA managers.
EPA's financial management strategy focuses on running environmental programs in a fiscally responsible manner, so that gov-
ernment's resources are used wisely and effectively to protect human health and the environment. Implementation of the
strategy requires effective stewardship of the Agency's resources by:
• carefully overseeing, capturing, and recording the full costs of transactions,
• maintaining strong internal controls and proper accounting practices,
• maintaining clean audit opinions,
• producing timely, accurate financial information,
• making timely and appropriate payments, and
• ensuring that resources are appropriately expended and linked to results.
Year after year, EPA has set ambitious milestones and sought innovative and efficient techniques to continually improve and
achieve strong performance.The Agency's vision for improving its financial management performance consists of continuing
improvement efforts in the areas described below.
• Streamline Financial Management Processes—EPA is implementing more responsive financial management processes to
utilize the Agency's resources more effectively and meet the needs of financial managers. A consolidation of financial
functions is currently underway, and a modern financial management system framework is in the development phase.
• Develop Useful Information for Decision Making—EPA managers make decisions every day that directly and indirectly
affect the Agency's ability to protect human health and the environment. EPA's challenge under the PMA is to ensure that
decision makers have access to the financial information necessary for informed decisions.To accomplish this, EPA
established a strategic approach to enhance the decision making in grants management; redefined the Agency's
accounting output to better capture cost information; worked to integrate budget and performance data; and provided a
Web-based reporting tool (ORBIT) to more managers.
• Improve Financial Operations and Increase Accountability—Continuous improvement is central to all financial
management activities in EPA: internal control programs, financial management operations and practices, and customer
service. In FY 2006, EPA will add the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) as a new business line in the
Working Capital Fund on a pilot basis, and will establish base-line performance measures and build on internal controls
to enhance business operations.This change will allow regional and Headquarters offices to receive better information on
the financial management costs associated with their programs.
• Provide Support to Other PMA Initiatives—As an Agency that strives for continuous improvement, EPA supports
financial efficiencies for other PMA initiatives such as competition, technical innovation, and a knowledgeable and
competent workforce.To foster competition and to encourage continual evaluation of the Agency's problem solving
capabilities, competitive sourcing initiatives are incorporated into financial management proposals to foster the highest
quality of cost-effective services. E-gov initiatives, like competitive sourcing initiatives, look beyond EPA's current
capabilities and consider how to meet future needs. EPA's initiatives are reliant upon an effective workforce that
proactively examines environmental challenges and offers versatile solutions.
• Develop the Competencies and Leadership to Meet Future Financial Management Requirements—The ability to
establish and achieve ambitious targets and goals is crucial to continuous improvement, and the key to achieving the
Agency's financial management goals is our employees.To ensure that EPA continues to have the skills, the vision, and the
leadership it needs to meet current and future financial management requirements, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) has developed and implemented a human capital strategy. During FY 2005, OCFO focused on hiring
strategies that take into account both current and long-term skill needs.Training and development of existing staff in core
competency and leadership areas continues to be a high priority.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
EPA has laid the foundation to develop many of the tools that will support the Agency in the coming years. For instance, a
high-level vision has been established to replace legacy system that integrate how the Agency captures and conveys financial
and performance information. In addition, EPA will ensure that the Agency's internal controls are effective in achieving the
Agency's strategic goals. Building upon this foundation, EPA expects to continue demonstrating that its financial management
operations, programs, and staff are flexible and adaptable enough to meet current and future financial management needs.
Financial Management Performance
This section summarizes EPA's progress in improving financial management performance and describes EPA's approach for
ensuring continuing favorable audit opinions and plans for developing and maintaining relevant and timely financial reporting
practices.
STREAMLINE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
Consolidation of Financial Functions. To take the Agency to the next level of performance, EPA is re-aligning financial func-
tions from regional offices into Finance Centers of Excellence to focus on major accounting functions and customer service
responsibilities. By consolidating these functions from 14 locations to the four finance centers, EPA will improve efficiency by
streamlining operations; increasing uniformity and consistency in the interpretation and application of policies, rules, and regula-
tions; eliminating communication problems; and saving tax-payers dollars. During FY 2005, three regions transferred some or all
of their finance operations for grants, travel, and accounts receivable to the Centers of Excellence. In addition, major union
issues were resolved.The remaining accounting functions will be transferred to the four Centers of Excellence by the end of
CY 2006.
Financial System Modernization. EPA plans to implement a state of the art financial system in 2008 to replace IFMS, the core
accounting system.The new system environment will support the Financial Management Line of Business by providing that the
system be operated by a Center of Excellence outside EPA. During FY 2005, a Financial System Modernization Team was
staffed, focus groups were created to develop requirements for the new system, and an acquisition strategy and Concept of
Operations (CONOPS) were developed.The CONOPS and other documents are available at the EPA Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/.
DEVELOP USEFUL INFORMATION FOR DECISION-MAKING
Budget and Performance Integration. Budget and performance integration (BPI) is a key component of EPA's quest for better
performance, increased accountability, better informed decision making, and more transparent, comprehensive reporting of
environmental results to the public.This initiative aligns the management of EPA's financial and human resources with the effec-
tive delivery of environmental results.
A comprehensive Agency-wide performance measurement improvement strategy was developed to promote improved meas-
ures through consideration of environmental indicators, assessment of program management requirements, and establishment
of measurement implementation plans.This strategy has supported the efforts of the program offices to establish more out-
come-oriented annual performance goals and measures as well as efficiency measures. EPA is in the process of revising its
Strategic Plan under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) covering the timeframe from 2006-201 I.The
Strategic Plan will be the basis for EPA's FY 2008 President's Request and for the FY 2007 execution and performance report-
ing under GPRA. Our goals for this revision include strengthening the linkage between and integration of budget and cost
information, enhancing the availability and use of this information in setting priorities and making resource allocation decisions,
and in promoting accountability for results within the Agency.
The Performance Accountability Report (PAR), which consolidates Agency-wide programmatic performance information, is
one of the primary methods for sharing EPA's progress on environmental protection with citizens and EPA employees, and
therefore must describe a clear, comprehensive picture of EPA's major achievements. EPA is redesigning the PAR as part of a
larger effort to merge information systems housing performance data with those containing budget data.This effort will
enhance public access to highly technical information, make that information more meaningful to EPA employees, and increase
the public's understanding of the costs and expected results from EPA's programs.
The most recent PMA Scorecard (September 30, 2005) rated EPA "Yellow" for status and "Green" for progress made in
reaching BPI milestones and goals during the Fourth Quarter EPA continues its efforts to improve performance measurement
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and integrate budget and performance information to manage and deliver the Agency's environmental protection results.The
Program Assessment RatingTool (PART) administered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is a core element of
the BPI initiative and a systematic method of assessing the performance of program activities across the federal government.
As a diagnostic tool, the PART is used to evaluate program performance and identify areas for program improvement.
Programs subject to a PART assessment are required to have OMB-approved annual, long-term efficiency measures.The PART
assessments process has heightened the Agency's attention, adoption, and utilization of new performance and efficiency meas-
ures to strengthen resource and program management and deliver environmental results.
Since many of these efficiency measures are new—adopted as recently as the FY 2006 budget formulation process—the
Agency does not, in all cases, have data to support these measures. Currently, the Agency has completed PART assessments of
32 programs (including I 2 new programs in the FY 2006 annual planning and budgeting process), covering more than 60 per-
cent of the Agency's budget.The Agency has OMB-approved efficiency measures for 28 of the 32 programs that were
assessed by the PART during the FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006 budget formulation processes. For those measures currently
without data, the Agency is working hard to collect the necessary data and establish performance baselines and ambitious tar-
gets.
The Agency made significant progress in developing outcome-oriented performance and efficiency measures and in demon-
strating the ability to calculate the marginal cost of changing performance goals. As a result of the PART exercise, organizations
across the Agency have an increased awareness and dedication to program performance by using performance data to inform
management of their environmental programs. Thro ugh these initiatives and other actions to tie Agency resources to perform-
ance and results, EPA can point to significant accomplishments against the PMA's standards of success.
Data Integration. In a complementary PMA effort to produce useful information, EPA has undertaken a multi-office data inte-
gration effort highlighting the use of financial information to improve program efficiency and ensure sound financial
management. The development and application of the Agency's strategic plan for Data Integration is an iterative process.
Given the magnitude and complexity of EPA's mission, the Agency has committed to focusing on one business process at a
time. Grants management was chosen as the first area for review. EPA is focused on reviewing and understanding the integra-
tion of financial and grants management information.The Agency's focus on linking grants management and financial data will
produce better information to ensure that projects funded by grants achieve EPA's environmental objectives and grant recipi-
ents are technically competent to carry out the work.
EPA has developed baselines, targets, and milestones to measure its success.The collective implementation and completion of
these milestones will help to ensure the integration of IFMS (or its replacement) and Integrated Grants Management System
(IGMS) data, ultimately resulting in the elimination of duplicate data entry and maximum availability of Pre-Award and Post-
Award data.
In FY 2006, the Agency will focus on finalizing the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System Number Integration
task under the VendorTable Integration milestone; defining the requirements of an Integrated Reporting Platform; and configur-
ing the Websphere application integration interface under the IGMS/IFMS Interface milestone. In addition, the Agency will
refine its baseline estimate of unliquidated obligations for closed (or expired) grants by reconciling the remaining (99)
unmatched records between IGMS and IFMS. EPA also will continue its efforts to finalize the identification of FY 2004 erro-
neous payments to non-profit recipients.
In future efforts, the Agency anticipates undertaking similar analyses of other key risk areas, including debt management, con-
tracts management, and relevant areas captured by the CFO metrics.
Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Council Government-wide Metrics. The CFO Council Metric Tracking System (MTS) has
been tracking government-wide results with nine metrics in six financial management categories for all CFO Act Agencies since
FY 2003. During the fourth quarter of FY 2005, MTS tracked Agency performance, and EPA has achieved a "Green" status for
four of the CFO Council Government-wide Metrics tracked by MTS. We have corrective action plans are in place for the
remaining metrics.
OCFO Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT). ORBIT assimilates EPA's financial, administrative, and program per-
formance information and provides an enterprise-wide, Web-based interface to assist Agency managers in making more informed
decisions about their programs and operations. In FY 2005, EPA established program and regional office information centers and
developed core budgeting and financial standard reports for ORBITThis initiative provided the Agency business consistency and a
common platform to build the same reports using the same data parameters from the same data source. EPA also worked to
develop ORBIT's Commitment Tracking Module, which will make program performance data more readily available across the
Agency and establish the foundation to emphasize the linkage of cost and performance information. Finally, EPA implemented a
new version of ORBIT which added a new data source for budget and financial reports, enhanced functionality.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For FY 2006, Phase III development will focus on business intelligence analytics, program cost accounting reporting, resources
management, customization of program and regional "information centers," and will begin to provide available Commitment
System performance data and PART assessment information. An outreach campaign will help the Agency executives, managers,
and staff to integrate ORBIT into daily management and decision processes.
IMPROVE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY
Eliminating Improper Payments. The PMA initiative on Eliminating Improper Payments is focused on identifying, preventing, and
eliminating erroneous payments. An improper payment occurs when federal funds are paid to the wrong person or entity, the
recipient is paid an incorrect amount, or the recipient uses the funds improperly.This initiative is important because taxpayers
need to know that the government is using their tax dollars for their intended purpose. Although the magnitude of improper
payments government-wide is unknown, 17 agencies reported over $45 billion of improper payments in 41 programs in
FY 2004.
The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (I PI A) and subsequent guidance from OMB required federal agencies to
analyze the risk of improper payments for their highest risk programs and prepare corrective action plans for those programs
with significant risk. Significant risk is defined as improper payments to either primary recipients or their sub-recipients in
excess of 2.5 percent of total program dollars and $10 million.
To comply with IPIA requirements, EPA assessed its rate of improper payments in FY 2003 by performing risk assessments on
grants, contracts, payroll, and travel cards/purchase cards. All four areas were determined to be "low risk" for improper pay-
ments based on the legal guidelines. Across all programs, EPA's error rate for primary recipients was less than I percent. In
addition, the findings confirmed strong business management practices throughout the Agency.
Even though EPA's improper payments were minimal, EPA espouses the notion of continuous improvement. Because the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) are former Section 57
programs, EPA is required to submit an IPIA corrective action plan for them.The Agency's corrective action proposed to
reduce the error rate of improper payments in the CWSRF and DWSRF from 0.5 I % to 0.35% over a three-year period.
EPA's challenge for the CWSRF and DWSRF improper payments initiative is to broaden the scope of payment reviews.
Through FY 2004, the Agency reviewed only direct payments and found an error rate of 0.00 percent. For FY 2005, EPA is
including a judgmental sample of sub-recipient payments in the review process. In FY 2006, EPA will conduct statistically valid
samples of grants payments to sub-recipients in New Hampshire and South Carolina and assess the results of a Single Audit in
Texas.
Consistent with IPIA requirements, EPA implemented a recovery audit program. Although the final report is not due until the
end of October, preliminary results indicate that the error rate was less than 0.01 percent. (For more information on this ini-
tiative see the IPIA Report on page 86.)
Clean Audit Opinions. Because a clean audit opinion is a top management priority, all financial statements have been submit-
ted timely and with clean opinions for the last five years. EPA's approach to guarantee that the Agency obtains clean audit
opinions in the future is as follows:
• Strengthen the Quality Assurance Program. EPA's Quality Assurance Program focuses on management's responsibility
for internal control through effective quality assurance processes and reviews. In FY 2005, EPA revised its Quality
Assurance Guide (QA Guide) to reflect new or revised government-wide requirements and EPA policies and
procedures.The QA Guide is available at the OCFO website.To continue the QA program's success, OCFO is
conducting a training class in December 2005 for Agency finance personnel.
• Automate the Statement Preparation Process. The Agency is in the process of developing an automated procedure for
identifying abnormal general ledger balances. Implementing the new procedure will ensure the reliability of the underlying
data and allow EPA to shift resources from the mechanics of report preparation to detailed transaction analysis and
explanation of results.
• Resolve Audit Issues Quickly and Completely. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) made 32 audit recommendations
subsumed under ten reportable conditions, none of which is material, and four noncompliance issues in its audit report
on the FY 2004 financial statements. EPA submitted corrective action plans for all reportable conditions and compliance
issues within ten months of OIG's FY 2004 Financial Statements Audit. EPA will continue to emphasize quick resolution
of audit issues and implementation of corrective actions that avoid recurrences.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
• Implement OMB Circular A-123 Aggressively. EPA is evaluating its existing internal control programs to comply with the
standards defined in OMB Circular A-1 23, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control. EPA has developed and
submitted to OMB an implementation plan that ultimately will provide reasonable assurance that internal controls for
financial reporting are adequate to carry out the Agency's mission effectively and efficiently. EPA's approach to
implementing OMB Circular A-1 23 involves the following four steps: (I) Incorporate new requirements into the Agency's
existing management integrity process and communicate changes to Agency managers and staff; (2) Conduct a high-level
assessment and identify areas of risk and concern in the Agency's management integrity process by applying the fine
control standard outlined in OMB Circular A-1 23; (3) Develop test plans and evaluate results in key risk areas and areas
of concern agreed to by the Senior Management Council; and (4) Take necessary action to establish the ability to provide
reports of reasonable assurance. In the future EPA will use its Quality Assurance Program in conjunction with the
implementation of OMB Circular A-1 23 to ensure that internal controls are in place and adequate to ensure that the
Agency's strategic goals are achieved.
Relevant and Timely Financial Reporting Practices. EPA has successfully managed its financial statement acceleration effort,
which is critical to achieving a clean audit opinion. If this information is to be optimally useful to Agency managers, Congress,
and others, data must be produced as quickly as possible after the reporting period ends.The Agency adopted government-
wide "best practices," such as ensuring senior management commitment, tracking progress, using estimates and accruals to
facilitate reporting, and holding bi-weekly audit status meetings with the Chief Financial Officer and the Inspector General. In
FY 2005, EPA produced accurate and timely accelerated interim quarterly financial statements, completed Quality Assurance
Reviews to ensure the accuracy of Agency financial data, and automated preparation of the Statement of Net Costs by Goal.
EPA will continue to produce accelerated audited statements, timely, accurate, and useful interim statements, and timely finan-
cial data to assess program costs and aid the annual budget formulation process.To make financial data more readily available
for reconciliation purposes, EPA will utilize ORBIT EPA's business intelligence reporting tool. EPA's Closing Package, needed for
the preparation of the Financial Report (FR) of the U. S. government will continue to be submitted to an Internet-based appli-
cation used to aid in the preparation of the FR in accordance with Government-wide Financial Reporting System (GFRS)
requirements. Furthermore, EPA is working towards automating preparation of the Statement of Budgetary Resources and
Intra-governmental (Trading Partner) report data. By consistently meeting the accelerated due dates for the Annual Report
and completing interim financial statements (first quarterly, subsequently monthly), EPA provides timely and reliable information
to the public.
PROVIDE SUPPORT TO OTHER PMA ACTIVITIES
Competitive Sourcing. EPA utilizes competitive sourcingto ensure effective use of the federal workforce and the highest quali-
ty of services. In FY 2005, as part of the first Agency standard competition, 26 employees providing vendor payment services
were placed in head-to-head competition against private sector businesses. EPA's finance center at Research Triangle Park
(RTP) convincingly demonstrated that its process for handling the Agency's vendor payments is the most cost-effective for
EPA. As a result, the Agency will consolidate all vendor payment services, currently done in eight locations, into RTRThis
streamlined, consolidated approach to the work is expected to save EPA approximately $3.5 million over a five-year period.
E-Gov. EPA made great strides this year to advance finance related e-government and line of business initiatives based on the
PMA.1 EPA's Financial Management System Framework leverages today's technology to support efficiencies across government.
A general theme is gaining economies of scale by reducing the number of financial systems operated by individual agencies.
Instead, agencies will purchase hosting and other services from external providers. E-gov initiatives are discussed below in the
Financial Management Systems section.
Human Capital Management. All financial managers linked their performance standards to the five goals in the Agency's
Strategic Plan. In addition, we adopted the new Performance Appraisal Management System for managers and employees.
DEVELOP LEADERSHIP AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH ADEQUATE TOOLS
OCFO Human Capital Strategy. OCFO continues to implement its Human Capital Strategy. During FY 2005, OCFO estab-
lished a workforce team to assist in developing the action plan to enhance communication of Human Capital initiatives
throughout OCFO. OCFO completed a comprehensive review of its workforce requirements, identified skills and competencies
needed for success, and established training programs to address skill gaps. For example, OCFO initiated a series of project
See "Expanding E Government: Partnering for a Results Oriented Government" issued by the White House December 2004
http://vwvw.wh itehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/expanding_egov 12-2004.pdf
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
management courses leading to a Project Management Certificate. As a result, several participants in this training have assumed
leadership roles in high-visibility projects or management activities within OCFO. In addition, OCFO focused on aligning its hiring
strategies with its strategic workforce plan. Offices within OCFO were challenged to develop hiring plans that address both cur-
rent and long-term skill needs. OCFO expanded its use of alternative means to fill vacancies through details, term positions, and
telework arrangements. In addition, OCFO continues to target a diverse student population for internships and other part-time
positions and take advantage of the Agency's entry-level programs. Consequently, OCFO benefits from their contributions.
Financial Management Systems Framework
Nowhere is EPA's commitment to continuous improvement more apparent than in the Agency's financial management system.
The system architecture contributed to EPA's winning of the 2003 Presidential Quality Award for Improved Financial
Performance. EPA is in the process of developing a modern financial system infrastructure to help EPA better manage the
resources that support our environmental mission, more accurately measure the true costs of environmental programs, and
better inform the public. EPA's new system architecture will be based on commercial off-the-shelf software that complies with
today's standards for usability, functionality, security, and internal controls. Our long term vision for financial systems is laid out in
detail at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/modernization/index.htm. Readers are referred in particular to the Concept of Operations
(CONOPS) for the Financial System Modernization Project posted on this website.
Financial Management Line of Business. The Financial Management Line of Business, sometimes termed e-finance, seeks to
achieve process improvements and cost savings in acquisition, development, implementation, operation of the financial manage-
ment systems through shared services, joint procurements, consolidation, and other means; standardize business processes and
data elements; promote seamless data exchange among federal agencies; and strengthen internal controls through real-time
interoperability of core financial systems.To achieve these goals, federal agencies will purchase financial system hosting services
from a Center of Excellence (external host) in either the public or private sector EPA's financial management systems vision
and strategy follow this approach.
Financial System Modernization. EPA plans to implement a state of the art financial system in FY 2008. IFMS is EPA's current
core financial system. It dates back to the late 1980s. Over the years it has been enhanced to meet various growing needs. At
the same time, government-wide requirements have become far more stringent. For example, today's greater emphasis on
financial accountability, internal controls, and security coupled with the accelerated deadlines for agency financial statements
place increasing stress on the legacy system. Tod ay's market offers a range of modern products that have been certified as
acceptable for use by federal agencies.2
EPA's objectives for the new core financial system include aligning with the government-wide Financial Management Line of
Business; improving agency financial performance through streamlining and automation; improving financial service to internal
and external customers; facilitating compliance with today's information security standards; improving financial accountability;
and improving integration of budget and performance.
In FY 2005, EPA developed an acquisition strategy to obtain hosting services from a Center of Excellence, financial system
software, and a contractor to implement the new core financial system.To support the acquisition and guide system develop-
ment, a Financial System Modernization Team was staffed, focus groups were created to develop requirements for the new
system, and a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) was developed.The CONOPS and other documents are available on the
EPA Internet. Vendor selection is scheduled for spring 2006, and full implementation of the new system is scheduled for 2008.
E-Payroll. E-Payroll seeks to gain economies of scale by reducing the number of civilian agencies that process their own pay-
roll. In FY 2005, EPA implemented a fully integrated, Web-based payroll-human resource system.The new system uses
commercial software to streamline and automate business processes and provides the technical foundation for EPA's participa-
tion in e-payroll. EPA made technical preparations to migrate the payroll processing portion of the payroll-human resources
system to the Defense Financial and Accounting Service (DFAS), scheduled for completion in FY 2006. In addition, EPA began
preparations for migrating certain human resource processing functions to a central service center pursuant to the Human
Resources Line of Business.
E-Travel. E-Travel seeks to reduce the costs of processing employee travel by using centralized electronic travel service providers
to automate the entire process from making reservations to reimbursing travelers. In FY 2005, EPA selected a service provider
and began implementing the service provider's reservations process. Full implementation is scheduled for the end of CY 2006.
2See .
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Warehousing and Reporting Tools. Data Warehousing and Reporting Tools bring data from different applications to user
desktops to guide management resource decisions and to link cost with performance. In FY 2005, EPA rolled out a flexible
Administrative Data Mart (ADAM) to serve as a source for ORBIT and added new reports to the ORBIT menu. FY 2006 and
FY 2007 efforts will focus on business intelligence analytics and improved reports.
Budget and Planning. One of the major financial tools used by the Agency for improving financial performance and budget
management is the Budget Automation System (BAS). BAS accomplishes "horizontal fusion" of budget and performance data
throughout the 10 EPA regions and headquarters program offices, totaling 2,507 users. By using cutting-edge database technol-
ogy, BAS provides Agency-wide, real-time access to budget planning, formulation, and analysis tools. BAS links budget dollars
directly to the achievement of the Agency's strategic goals and objectives, which directly supports EPA's Government
Performance Results Act (GPRA) compliance efforts.
Cost Recovery and Imaging. The existing application summarizes spending on Superfund cleanup sites and supports the
recovery of the costs. EPA is exploring options for replacing this system with a more modern commercial product.
Application Integration. Application integration middleware is the switchboard mechanism that allows applications to commu-
nicate with each other without costly system specific interfaces. In FY 2005, EPA implemented an application integration tool as
part of the deployment of our Web-based integrated payroll-human resource system and ADAM and developed a strategy for
linking other information.
In conclusion, EPA expects to remain in the forefront of federal financial management. Further, the Agency will maximize the
benefits from its PMA initiatives to ultimately protect the environment and save taxpayers' dollars.
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
For the Year Ended September 30, 2005
I. RISK ASSESSMENTS: After reviewing and sampling disbursements made in the highest risk susceptible inventories, EPA
determined that its programs do not have "significant erroneous payments," defined by the IPIA as payments exceeding $10
million and 2.5% of program payments. Because the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are
former Section 57 programs, EPA is required to submit an IPIA corrective action plan for them.The Agency's corrective action
proposed to reduce the error rate of improper payments in the SRFs from 0.51 percent to 0.35 percent over a three-year
period. EPA surpassed the FY 2005 target of 0.45 percent.The error rates for these two programs were as follows:
Program: Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Fiscal Year
2004
2005
Outlays
$2.1 billion
$ 1 .9 billion (est.)
Erroneous
Payments
$ 1 0.3 million
$3.1 million
Error Rate
0.47 percent
0. 1 6 percent
I. STATISTICAL SAMPLING PROCESS: In FY 2005, EPA revised its corrective action plan for the two SRFs. Based on the
FY 2005 Measurement Plan approved by OMB, EPA pulled a statistical random sample of 252 direct payments from a popula-
tion of 8,538 direct grant payments (I 26 transactions for each SRF).The error rate for the direct payment sample was 0.00
percent. Additionally, the Agency committed to reviewing a judgmental sample of at least 100 sub-recipient level payment
transactions for each SRF during FY 2005. Only $3.1 million of the $555.1 million sub-recipient SRF payments reviewed were
erroneous (0.23 percent). In FY 2006, EPA will provide OMB with a statistical methodology for sampling sub-recipient pay-
ments. The Agency plans to review a statistical sample of sub-recipient payments for each SRF in South Carolina and New
Hampshire as well as a statistical sample of direct grant payments.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
III. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS: In orderto meet OMB's objectives, EPA initially conducted additional risk assessments by
forming four subgroups with expertise in grants, contracts, payroll, and travel/purchase credit cards to review internal controls,
identify and measure high risk areas, and develop corrective action plans for each subject area. Updated planned actions in
each of the areas are as follows:
A. Grants: As described in section II, EPA will continue reviewing direct and sub-recipient SRF payments. In the FY 2005
corrective action plan for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, EPA also committed to:
• Continue to review and enhance internal controls, as needed, in the Agency's overall payment processes,
• As part of the post award process, continue to monitor payments made to sub-recipients,
• Comply with reporting requirements for improper payments, and
• Implement and operate the Agency's audit recovery program.
In FY 2005, the Office of Grants and Debarments (OGD) identified modifications needed to enable tracking erroneous
payments by grant recipient in the Grantee Compliance Database.These modifications will allow tracking and maintaining
data on the dollar value of erroneous payments by grant recipient.
During FY 2005, OGD performed an erroneous payments review for calendar year (CY) 2004 using judgmental risk-
based sampling to select 267 grant recipients for administrative reviews including I I I non-profit grantees. Only 19 of
these non-profit grantees had potential erroneous payments. All identified erroneous payments have been recovered
Preliminary results of the review of CY 2004 non-profit recipient reports provided the following results:
Review/Audit Results
All potential erroneous payments cited
Questioned costs determined allowable
Actual erroneous payments (unallowable costs)
Costs that have been recovered
Costs still in recipient appeal process (no final determination—may not to be erroneous)
Dollars
$650,799
$ 1,789
$4,575
$4,575
$644,435
In FY 2006 the OGD will complete the final identification of CY 2004 non-profit recipient erroneous payments still in
the appeal process.They will implement modifications to the Grantee Compliance Database to enable capturing
questioned costs and confirmed erroneous payments by grant recipient. OGD will introduce a new statistical sampling
approach for the review of CY 2005 non-profit grantee monitoring/audit reports for erroneous payments and will
identify reduction targets based on the results of this review.Those results also will be used to develop a performance
monitoring metric that will serve as the baseline against which future results can be measured. EPA also reports on these
OGD initiatives for the Improved Financial Management Initiative of the President's Management Agenda.
Contracts: EPA continues to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate improper payments.The
appropriate Contracting Officer Representatives or On Scene Coordinators are notified of all improper payments
discovered. In January 2003, EPA implemented a monthly Improper Payment Report.The report categorizes the number
of improper payments per month and provides information on each improper payment including the reason. In FY 2005,
EPA identified 21 improper payments (0.01 percent error rate) due to keypunch errors or invoice error Billing numbers
received on contracts are now verified prior to entering information in Contract Payment System. Staff review identified
keying errors and efforts are made to prevent or detect these types of errors in the future.
Fiscal Year
2003*
2004
2005
Number of
Erroneous
Payments
25 (of 24,056)
21 (of 24,886)
21 (of 26,305)
Erroneous
Payments
(Dollars in
Thousands)
$206. 1
$748.5
$121.5
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.02 percent
0.08 percent
0.01 percent
* FY 2003 only included data from January through September
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Other actions include the addition of an improper payment review element for the Quality Assurance Review for
invoices and the initiation of the Recovery Audit process which was completed in October 2005.The Audit Recovery
contractor reviewed 86,217 contract payments totaling $51.6 million and found I I erroneous payments ($12
thousand)—less than a 0.02 percent error rate.
The continued proactive process of reviewing and implementing changes as needed when an improper payment occurs
should continue to reduce the number of improper payments.The Contracting Officer Representatives, On-Scene
Coordinators or Contracting Officers will continue to be notified of all improper payments that involve their contract.
Suggested actions will be provided and if the problem continues, actions will be elevated. Previously documented keying
errors are being noted by the staff at EPA to assist in the detection by the initial data entry personnel as well as the
sample reviewer and the certifying officer
C. Commodity Payments: Since no high risk areas have been identified, no corrective action is required. EPA continues to
take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate any improper payments.The Recovery Audit contractor
reviewed 249,879 invoices paid totaling $ I 24.0 million and found 41 improper payments ($ 129 thousand)—less than a
0.10 percent error rate.These improper payments have been attributed to duplicate payments, returns not deducted,
overpayments, and cash discounts not taken.The payment and certifying staff have been alerted to this fact and are
making an effort to double check all vendor codes to prevent this in the future. All invoices marked past due are being
reviewed to determine if they are duplicate invoices.
EPA put a tracking mechanism in place in January 2004 to gather improper payment data in anticipation that purchase
order payments would be included in the erroneous payment process.The tracking system provides the data for a
monthly Improper Payment Report. In FY 2005, 40 (of 42,698) commodity payments were erroneous.The improper
payments represent $41 6 thousand of the $239 million payments processed (error rate of 0.17 percent).
D. Payroll: A payroll workgroup completed the following tasks:
I. Reviewed Payroll internal control documentation.
2. Reviewed personnel interviews to verify/test whether internal controls are understood and being utilized.
3. Summarized the results of the review of the internal controls.
EPA continues to provide training to its managers and staff in this area.
E. Travel Card/Purchase Card: The Agency will continue to monitor the charge card transactions and employee accounts
using the tools described above to ensure that the cards are used in accordance with the Agency policies and
procedures.
The Agency will continue to monitor the issuance of purchase cards to ensure that spending limits and span of control
are kept to a minimum. The Office of Acquisition Management is in the process of implementing a monitoring program
that is to be performed by each of the Senior Resource Officials in the Agency.This program will mandate that each
office perform yearly reviews of the purchases made within their program offices.These reviews will ensure the integrity
of the purchase card program.
IV. IMPROPER PAYMENT (IP) REDUCTION OUTLOOK FY 2004—FY 2008
(Dollars in millions)
:Y FY FY
2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
Program Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $
Clean
Water
and
Drinking
Water
SRFs
$2,182
(actual)
$10.3
0.45
target
0.16
actual
$1,580
(est.)
$6.3
(est.)
$ 1,543
(est.)
$5.4
(est.)
$1,565
(est.)
$4.7
(est.)
Approximately $ 10 million of the FY 2004 improper payments were due to states drawing funds too soon.The states have
taken appropriate action to improve their internal controls so fund draws are properly timed.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
V. RECOVERY AUDIT PROGRAMS: The Agency hired a contractor, Business Strategy, Inc (BSI).to conduct the recovery audit.
BSI completed its preliminary interviews as part of the discovery phase of its work.This phase involved discussions with key
individuals in the contract obligation and payment process and individuals knowledgeable about EPA's financial system.
BSI analyzed data received from the Integrated Financial Management System and in September 2005 completed its field work
to identify and collect contract overpayments. BSI completed its final Recovery Audit report at the end of October 2005. As
reported above in the Contracts and Commodities sections, BSI did not uncover any material erroneous payments (only $130
thousand identified).
Agency
Component
Amount Subject Actual Amount
to Review for FY Reviewed and
2005 Reporting Reported
(Dollars in millions)
Amounts
Identified for
Recovery
Amounts
Identified /Actual
Amount Reviewed
Amounts
Recovered
FY 2005
$4,284.8
$2,175.2
$51.6
$124.0
Amounts
Recovered Prior
Years
N/A
N/A
In the first quarter of FY 2006, EPA will work with BSI to further strengthen payment processes and internal controls to pre-
vent erroneous payments.The Agency will suggest to OMB that future Recovery Audit reviews be performed at three to five
year intervals.
VI. ENSURING MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: As previously outlined in the corrective action plans, the Agency con-
tinues to strengthen already strong internal controls in key payment processes. Information on erroneous payments from
reviews and audits for the two SRFs, our largest grant programs, is reported quarterly to management in both the Office of
Water and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer In all cases, action is taken with the appropriate officials to ensure improp-
er payments are recovered and to avoid future improper payments.
VII. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The Agency's information system and related processes are suffi-
cient to reduce improper payments to targeted levels.
VIII. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BARRIERS: Currently, EPA includes in the Office of Water's SRF state review process
examination of sub-recipient invoices.The Agency also reviews audit reports on sub-recipient financial operations. In FY 2006,
we will determine to what extent we can gather erroneous payment information from Single Audit Act reports. EPA's chal-
lenge for the SRF improper payments initiative is to broaden the scope of payment reviews.Through FY 2004, the Agency
reviewed only direct payments. For FY 2005, EPA included a judgmental sample of sub-recipient payments in the review
process. In FY 2006, EPA will conduct statistically valid samples of grants payments to sub-recipients in New Hampshire and
South Carolina and assess the results of a Single Audit Act report forTexas.
IX. CONCLUSIONS: EPA is exceeding its erroneous payment reduction targets.The Agency has committed to the following
FY 2006 erroneous payment actions:
• Provide to OMB a detailed sampling methodology for South Carolina and New Hampshire SRF sub-recipient payments;
• Review documentation for the State ofTexas Single Audit Act report as a basis for determining whether such audits can
be used to identify improper payments issues;
• Provide results of South Carolina and New Hampshire reviews, and direct payment reviews;
• Provide results of reviews of payments made to non-profit grantees;
• Assess the final October 2005 results of the recovery audit and establish reduction and recovery targets, if appropriate;
and
Report on improper payments in the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR).
-------
enera
2005 and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements
Contents
At a Glance
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements
Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information, Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental
Information, and Management's Discussion and Analysis 263
Evaluation of Internal Controls 264
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations 267
Prior Audit Coverage 268
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 268
Attachments
I. Reportable Conditions 269
2. Compliance with Laws and Regulations 277
3. Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations 278
Appendix
Agency's Response to Draft Report
260
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-1-00015
November 14, 2005
Why We Did This Audit
We performed this audit in
accordance with the
Government Management
Reform Act, which requires
EPA to prepare, and the Office
of Inspector General to audit,
the Agency's financial state-
ments each year. Our primary
objectives were to determine
whether
• EPA's consolidated financial
statements were fairly pre-
sented in all material
respects.
• EPA's internal controls over
financial reporting were in
place.
• EPA management complied
with applicable laws and reg-
ulations.
Background
The requirement for audited
financial statements was enact-
ed to help bring about
improvements in agencies'
financial management practices,
systems, and controls so that
timely, reliable information is
available for managing Federal
programs.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report, click
on the following link:
www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/
2005IM4-2006-l-OOOI5.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Audit of EPAs Fiscal 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Financial Statements
EPA RECEIVES UNQUALIFIED OPINION
We rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA's
Consolidated Financial Statements for fiscal 2005 and 2004, mean-
ing that they were fairly presented and free of material misstatement.
INTERNAL CONTROL REPORTABLE CONDITIONS NOTED
EPA converted to a new payroll system in fiscal 2005. While EPA
was able to resolve many issues arising from the conversion, we noted
several reportable conditions. Most significantly, EPA made inappropri-
ate payments to separated (transferred, retired, or resigned) employees
and made excess salary payments to current employees. These condi-
tions occurred because EPA's automated controls and manual processes
were not effective in identifying and preventing these overpayments, or
alerting EPA officials to take corrective actions in a timely manner.
In addition to these conditions, we noted seven other reportable
conditions including overstated State Superfund Contract unearned
revenue and unbilled Superfund oversight costs, improperly adjusted
general ledger accounts, inadequate documentation for adjustments
made to entries in EPA's Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS), and uncorrected data that IFMS rejected.
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS NOTED
The Agency still is in noncompliance with laws and regulations
relating to implementing the cost accounting standard and reconcil-
ing intragovernmental transactions, though we do not consider EPA
to be in substantial noncompliance.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL EVALUATION
In a memorandum received on November 10, 2005, from the
Chief Financial Officer, the Agency agreed with the issues raised and
stated it has begun to evaluate the best methods to address each
issue to achieve a timely resolution.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
November 14, 2005
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004 Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 2006-1-00015
FROM: Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Audit (2422T)
TO: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer (2710A)
CC: Luis A. Luna
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management (3101 A)
Attached is our audit report on the Agency's fiscal 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial statements.
Management is presenting the financial statements for fiscal 2005 and 2004 in a consolidated format which is a
change from prior years' presentations where the Superfund Trust Fund was presented separately. The Agency
continues to make improvements in cost accounting; however, it is still not in full compliance with the manage-
rial cost accounting standard. In our view, the level of compliance does not meet the Office of Management and
Budget's definition of substantial noncompliance. The audit report also contains other findings that describe
issues the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends.
This audit report represents the opinion of the OIG, and the findings contained in this report do not neces-
sarily represent the final EPA position. EPA managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution
procedures will make final determinations on matters in this audit report. Accordingly, the findings described in
this audit report are not binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department
of Justice. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Process, the primary action official is required to
provide us with a written response to the final audit report within 90 days of the final audit report date. Since
this report deals primarily with financial management issues, we are requesting the Chief Financial Officer, as
the primary action official, to take the lead in coordinating and providing us a written response to this report.
The response should address all issues and recommendations contained in Attachments 1 and 2. For corrective
actions planned but not completed by the response date, reference to specific milestone dates will assist us in
deciding whether or not to close this report in our audit tracking system.
Should you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact me at (202) 566-2523, or
Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General, Office of Audit, at (202) 566-0899.
Attachment
cc: See Appendix III, Report Distribution List
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Inspector General's Report on
EPA's Fiscal 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Financial Statements
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
We have audited the consolidated balance sheets
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,
or the Agency) as of September 30, 2005 and 2004,
and the related consolidated statements of net cost, net
cost by goal, changes in net position, financing and
custodial liability, and the combined statement of
budgetary resources for the years then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of EPA's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opin-
ion on these financial statements based upon our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with gen-
erally 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 misstate -
ments. 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 signifi-
cant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presenta-
tion. 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 intera-
gency agreements performed at a later date may disclose
questioned costs of an amount undeterminable at this
time. The U.S. Treasury collects and accounts for excise
taxes that are deposited into the Superfund and Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds. The U.S.
Treasury is also responsible for investing amounts not
needed for current disbursements and transferring funds
to EPA as authorized in legislation. Since the U.S.
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
OIG 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 aspects of the Agency's activities.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial state-
ments present fairly, including the accompanying
notes, in all material respects, the consolidated assets,
liabilities, net position, net cost, net cost by goal,
changes in net position, reconciliation of net cost to
budgetary obligations, custodial activity, and com-
bined budgetary resources of EPA, as of and for the
years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, in con-
formity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.
Review of EPA's Required
Supplementary Stewardship Information,
Required Supplementary Information,
Supplemental Information, and
Management's Discussion and Analysis
We inquired of EPA's management as to its meth-
ods for preparing Required Supplementary
Stewardship Information (RSSI), Required
Supplementary Information, Supplemental
Information, and Management's Discussion and
Analysis, and reviewed this information for
consistency with the financial statements. The
Supplemental Information includes the unaudited
Superfund Trust Fund financial statements for fiscal
2005 and 2004, which are being presented for addi-
tional analysis and are not a required part of the basic
financial statements. Management has elected to
omit certain disclosures required by OMB Circular
A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, that account-
ing principles generally accepted in the United States
have determined are necessary. However, our audit
was not designed to express an opinion and, accord-
ingly, we do not express an opinion on EPA's RSSI,
Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental
Information, and Management's Discussion and
Analysis.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
We did not identify any material inconsistencies
between the information presented in EPA's consoli-
dated financial statements and the information
presented in EPA's RSSI, Required Supplementary
Information, Supplemental Information, and
Management's Discussion and Analysis. OMB
Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements,
requires agencies to report, as Required
Supplementary Information, their intra-governmental
assets and liabilities by Federal trading partner. We
found that EPA was able to reconcile its records with
its trading partners, except for Health and Human
Services (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 fol-
lowing 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 unau-
thorized 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 prepara-
tion of performance information in accordance
with criteria stated by management.
• Compliance with applicable laws and
regulations: Transactions are executed in accor-
dance 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 consid-
ered EPA's internal controls over financial reporting
by obtaining an understanding of the Agency's inter-
nal controls, determining whether internal controls
had been placed in operation, assessing control risk,
and performing 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 neces-
sary 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 con-
trols 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 report-
ing 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 signif-
icant deficiencies in the design or operation of the
internal control that, in our judgment, could adverse-
ly affect the Agency's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial data consistent with
the assertions by management in the financial state-
ments. 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 func-
tions. 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
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
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 proce-
dures 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 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, we
obtained an understanding of the design of significant
internal controls relating to the existence and com-
pleteness assertions, as required by OMB Bulletin No.
01-02. Our procedures were not designed to provide
assurance on internal control over reported perform-
ance measures and, accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on such controls.
REPORTABLE CONDITIONS
Reportable conditions are internal control weak-
nesses 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 controls 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 nine reportable conditions, as follows:
Payroll Internal Controls
EPA inappropriately made payroll payments to
separated (transferred, retired, or resigned) employees.
EPA's controls over processing time and attendance
records for separated employees were not effective in
identifying and preventing overpayments because
automated controls were not implemented and manu-
al controls were not followed. In particular,
PeoplePlus' automated controls do not allow time-
keepers to halt all future payments or limit the
number of default payroll payments to separated
employees with a single transaction. Manual process-
es, such as processing personnel action requests and
reviewing exception reports, did not effectively alert
EPA officials to take corrective actions in a timely
manner. As a result of the identified weaknesses, EPA
made approximately $74,000 in payroll payments to
separated employees for which the Agency must
attempt to recover the funds.
Excess Salary Payments
EPA employees received salary payments in
excess of the biweekly maximum earnings limitations
prescribed in Federal regulations. Under 5 CFR
§550.105, an employee may receive premium pay
only to the extent that the payment does not cause
the total of his or her basic pay and premium pay for
any biweekly pay period to exceed the greater of: the
maximum biweekly rate of basic pay for a GS-15
(including any applicable locality-based comparability
payment under section 5304 or similar provision of
law and any applicable special rate of pay under 5
U.S.C. 5305 or similar provision of law), or the
biweekly rate payable for Level V of the Executive
Schedule.
State Superfund Contract and Superfund Unbilled
Oversight Accruals
We found errors on the third quarter State
Superfund Contract calculation spreadsheet and/or
the Superfund unbilled oversight spreadsheet in 9 of
10 regions. These errors led to overstating State
Superfund Contract unearned revenue by $31 million
and unbilled oversight by $14 million. Although the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
required the regions to certify that they reviewed
their accrual calculations, the certification process did
not prevent or discover the errors. As a result, EPA
could not ensure the accuracy of the unearned rev-
enue and the unbilled oversight accounts.
Qeneral Ledger Account Adjustments for Receivables
Transferred to Cincinnati Finance Center
EPA's general ledger accounts for accounts receiv-
able and allowance for doubtful accounts were
materially misstated because certain regional offices
did not properly adjust those accounts when transfer-
ring receivables to the Cincinnati Finance Center.
Quality Assurance Reviews
While EPA made several advances to improve
the financial management quality assurance (QA)
program performed by the regions and finance cen-
ters, problems continue in its Quality Assurance
Reviews (QARs). We found the QARs performed
were limited in scope and less comprehensive than
the QA Guide suggests. We also found that the
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
reviews did not adequately document the work per-
formed or other methods used to evaluate internal
controls and accounting events. Further, we found
that QARs were not performed for all applicable
accounting events. As a result, there is limited assur-
ance that the QARs provide a sufficient basis to
evaluate and certify the assessment of internal
accounting and administrative controls.
Distribution of Budget Clearing Accounts
The fiscal 2005 year-end distribution of amounts
recorded in a budget clearing account was overstated.
The Agency treated charge backs on collections on
certain Interagency Agreements as if they were distri-
butions rather than reductions in receipts.
Documentation of Adjustments to IFMS Entries
EPA made adjustments to entries in the
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS),
the Agency's accounting system, without proper and
adequate documentation. During our review of col-
lections and receivables recorded in various EPA
regions, we found 33 adjustments to entries in
IFMS—totaling $89,446,286—that were not support-
ed by sufficient documentation, such as schedules of
collections or IFMS screen prints. The documenta-
tion did not always identify other relevant
documents, such as the consent decree, which was
the basis for the adjustment. We also found three
adjustments—totaling $47,540,900—where
documentation supporting the change was not easily
accessible. EPA staff had documentation to support
the adjustment, but did not attach it to the entry or
otherwise provide an audit trail to locate the support.
These entries also did not contain evidence of an
adequate review to ensure the adjustments were rea-
sonable and supported.
Correcting Rejected Transactions
The OCFO did not correct PeoplePlus data that
the IFMS rejected during the transfer process in a
timely manner. We identified nonprocessed transac-
tions in a suspense file that existed for several pay
periods without management action. Federal require-
ments stipulate that agencies promptly record,
classify, and account for transactions to prepare time-
ly accounts and reliable financial reports. Without
having the processes in place to reconcile and correct
data that failed to transfer from PeoplePlus to IFMS,
the financial statements could be misstated.
Contingency Pians for Financiai Applications
A review conducted by a contracted public
accounting firm noted that contingency plans did not
fully comply with EPA or Federal guidelines for sever-
al OCFO applications at the Research Triangle Park
campus in North Carolina. The firm identified where
EPA had not documented: (1) key contingency plan
elements, (2) critical hardware and software require-
ments, and (3) primary and secondary contacts.
These weaknesses occurred because of inconsistency
in training for relevant contingency planning offi-
cials. Incomplete contingency plans could present
significant challenges for EPA should an unforeseen
event occur, particularly since the organization may
believe these systems have sufficiently documented
procedures to expedite recovery. Further, without ade-
quate planning, management may not be able to
mitigate the negative effects of interrupted operations
and determine how long specific operations may be
suspended or postponed.
Attachment 1 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 have reported less signif-
icant matters regarding internal controls in the form
of position papers during the course of the audit. We
will not issue a separate management letter.
COMPARISON OF ERA'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 state-
ments and identify material weaknesses disclosed by
audit that were not reported in the Agency's FMFIA
report.
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
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
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 opera-
tion of the internal control does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that errors, fraud, or non-
compliance 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.
The Agency did not report, and our audit did not
detect, any material weaknesses for fiscal 2005.
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 com-
pliance 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 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 sys-
tem 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 applica-
ble to EPA.
Providing an opinion on compliance with certain
provisions of laws and regulations was not an objec-
tive of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion. A number of ongoing investigations
involving EPA's grantees and contractors could dis-
close violations of laws and regulations, but a
determination about these cases has not been made.
In addition, the Agency reported that the approxi-
mately 9,000 confidential financial disclosure forms
filed by EPA employees by November 1, 2005, will be
reviewed by the deputy ethics officials no later than
January 23, 2006. Since the Agency has not had time
to review such reports and disclose matters that
would require further inquiry, resolution, or reporting,
we did not perform any tests or additional inquiries
about those reports. Had the Agency been able to
review the reports and we had been able to perform
tests or make additional inquires, matters may have
come to our attention that would require reporting.
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 substan-
tially 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 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 spe-
cific 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 substan-
tial noncompliance with FFMIA.
The results of our tests did not disclose any
instances where the Agency's financial management
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
systems did not substantially comply with the applica-
ble Federal accounting standard.
As described in Attachment 3, OCFO has rede-
fined it cost accounting outputs and made other
improvements. However, during Fiscal Year 2005, 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 man-
agement in a timely fashion. Subsequent to
completing our audit work, the Agency developed a
report to show full costs of its outputs; we will evalu-
ate that report during Fiscal Year 2006.
We identified a FFMIA noncompliance related to
reconciliation of intragovernmental transactions.
However, this noncompliance does not meet the defi-
nition of substantial noncompliance as described in
OMB guidance. Attachment 2 provides additional
details, as well as recommendations on actions that
should be taken on this matter.
We have reported other less significant matters
involving compliance with laws and regulations in
position papers during the course of our audit. We
will not be issuing 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 trad-
ing partner.
• Complying with Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 4, including account-
ing for the cost to achieve goals and identifying
and allocating indirect costs.
• Interagency Agreement invoice approval process.
• Documenting EPA's IFMS.
• Complying with Federal financial management
system security requirements.
• Preparation and reconciliation of Statements of
Transactions.
• Documentation and approval of journal and stan-
dard vouchers.
• Reconciling Unearned Revenue for State
Superfund Contracts.
• Managing Accounts Receivable.
• Recording of Marketable Securities.
• Accounting for Obligations.
• Accounting for Contractor-Held Property.
• Assessing automated application processing con-
trols for IFMS.
• Security Screenings for Non-Federal Personnel.
• Change Control Procedures for IFMS.
• System Certification, Accreditation, and
Development for Grant and Inter-Governmental
Systems.
• Compliance of financial system security plans.
Attachment 3, Status of Prior Audit Report
Recommendations, summarizes the current status of
corrective actions taken on prior audit report recom-
mendations with corrective actions in process.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In a memorandum dated November 10, 2005,
OCFO responded to our draft report.
The rationale for our conclusions and a summary
of the Agency comments are included in the appro-
priate sections of this report, and the Agency's
complete response is included as Appendix II to this
report.
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
Director, Financial Audit
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 9, 2005
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Attachment I: Reportable Conditions
I. EPA Should Improve Payroll
Internal Controls
EPA inappropriately made payroll payments to
separated (transferred, retired, or resigned) employees.
Specifically, EPA's controls over processing time and
attendance records for separated employees were not
effective in identifying and preventing overpayments
because automated controls were not implemented
and manual controls were not followed. In particular,
PeoplePlus' automated controls do not allow time-
keepers to halt all future payments or limit the
number of default payroll payments to separated
employees with a single transaction. In addition,
manual processes, such as processing personnel action
requests (PAR) and reviewing exception reports, did
not effectively alert EPA officials to take corrective
actions in a timely manner. As a result of the identi-
fied weaknesses, EPA made approximately $74,000 in
payroll payments to separated employees for which
the Agency must attempt to recover the funds.
PEOPLEPLUS AUTOMATED CONTROLS
NEED IMPROVEMENT
Automated controls in PeoplePlus do not allow
timekeepers to stop all future payments to separated
employees by entering the "DTNPY" code just one
time. To prevent PeoplePlus from inappropriately
paying separated employees, the system currently
requires the timekeeper to re-enter this code every
pay period until the human resources department
processes the PAR, separating the employee from
EPA. The DTNPY code is a time reporting code used
for separated employees to tell the system not to pay
them. We also found that timekeepers did not consis-
tently enter the code into PeoplePlus each pay
period, which contributed to several instances where
employees received payroll payments although they
separated from EPA.
This problem is compounded by the fact that
EPA does not limit the number of payments it makes
to separated employees. EPA's management chose to
configure the PeoplePlus system to pay employees for
working their standard hours (e.g., 80 hours for a full-
time employee) by default, even if a timesheet was
not submitted (entered and attested to by an employ-
ee, timekeeper, or manager) for multiple pay periods.
Contents
I. EPA Should Improve Payroll Internal
Controls 269
2. EPA Employees Received Excess Salary
Payments 271
3. Improvement Needed for State Superfund
Contract and Superfund Unbilled Oversight
Accruals 271
4. Regions Should Make General Ledger Account
Adjustments for Receivables Transferred to
Cincinnati Finance Center 272
5. EPA's Quality Assurance Reviews Need Further
Improvement 273
6. EPA Could Improve the Distribution of the
Budget Clearing Accounts 274
7. Documentation of Adjustments to IFMS Entries
Needs Improvement 274
8. EPA Needs to Improve Correction of Rejected
Transactions 275
9. EPA Needs to Improve Contingency Plans for
Financial Applications 276
10. EPA Should Continue Efforts to Reconcile
Intragovernmental Transactions 277
As a result of these two issues, a separated employee
could receive payroll payments after leaving EPA for
every pay period that the timekeeper does not enter
the time reporting code into PeoplePlus until the
human resources department processes the PAR.
PROCESSING OF PERSONNEL ACTION
REQUESTS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
The time required to process PARs resulted in
delays in deactivating separated employees' time and
attendance records. The Office of Human Resources
(OHR) developed procedures to process personnel
actions for term appointments and transferred
employees without a PAR and informal procedures to
do the same for retiring employees. The procedures
allow OHR to initiate the necessary transaction to
deactivate separated employees' future time and
attendance records. However, the procedures were
not implemented across the Agency and not consis-
tently followed where they were implemented. As a
result, the manual preparation of the PAR by the
EPA office and the OHR processing, in several cases,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
took from 1 to 3 months to complete. Furthermore,
in almost all the cases where the Agency made over-
payments to separated employees, the PAR was
processed after the employee separated from EPA.
USE OF EXCEPTION REPORTS NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT
EPA offices did not effectively use the
PeoplePlus-generated "Missing Time & Attendance"
report to identify employees without entered or certi-
fied and approved time and attendance records. EPA
implemented this standard report in PeoplePlus to
provide offices a tool to manage their employees' time
and attendance records. However, offices did not run
the reports in a timely manner nor take actions to
prevent inappropriate payments. Therefore, in May
2005, the OCFO issued OEM Policy Announcement
No. 05-05, Responsibility of Supervisors to Approve
Time and Attendance, to compensate employees
despite missing or unapproved biweekly time and
attendance information.
Policy Announcement No. 05-05 states that
"employees who fail to enter their time will be paid
based upon their standard hours (default hours).
Employees who have entered time that was not
approved by his/her supervisor will be paid based upon
the time reported (mass approval). When employees
are paid based upon their default hours or the mass
approval process, supervisors should ensure PeoplePlus
corrections are made, and then indicate their approval
by signing the Time Certification Reports. The
Regional Comptroller/Program Management Officer
certifies that the appropriate actions were taken by
the supervisor and then sends, by fax, the appropriate
signed report to the Washington Finance Center
before the end of the following pay period.
We examined the Mass Approval Time and
Attendance Reports and Default Hours Reports for
the pay period ending July 9, 2005. We found that
• The Washington Finance Center used the mass
approval process to complete the PeoplePlus pay
calculation for 21 Headquarters and regional
offices, but did not receive required mass approval
certifications from 10 offices and an llth submit-
ted the certification late.
• For default hours, employees in 14 Headquarters
and regional offices were paid based on their stan-
dard hours; however, the required default hours
certifications were not received from 9 offices and
2 other offices submitted the certifications late.
We believe the failure of Agency managers to
comply with Policy Announcement No. 05-05 is an
internal control weakness that could contribute to
Agency employees being improperly compensated.
Our review of Default Hours Reports identified
other concerns. We found that
• Separated employees were listed on multiple
Default Hours Reports.
• The OCFO also did not generate or provide
Default Hours Reports for program offices for seven
pay periods during fiscal 2005. Based on a prelimi-
nary review, Agency officials estimated that there
were 72 instances (totaling approximately $74,000)
where employees were paid after separation from
EPA. This approximation is most likely understated
because the Agency's preliminary review excluded
seven pay periods from fiscal 2005.
• Offices certified Default Hours Reports that con-
tained separated employees, but did not have the
timekeeper correct each employee's time and atten-
dance record to prevent payment or annotate on
the report that the employee had left the Agency.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the OCFO and the Office of
Administration and Resources Management
(OARM) work together to
1. Develop and implement a policy that would hold
the supervisors and Regional Comptrollers/
Program Management Officers accountable for
ensuring that all required procedures associated
with the processing of payroll and personnel
actions are properly followed in a timely manner.
We recommend that the OCFO have the
Director, Office of Financial Services (OFS),
2. Modify PeoplePlus and associated procedures to
enable timekeepers to enter the DTNPY code into
PeoplePlus one time to stop the system from mak-
ing any future payments to separated employees.
3. Develop and implement procedures to facilitate
identifying separated employees and implement
an automated control to limit the number of
default payments to these employees.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
4. Complete the analysis of default payments for all
fiscal 2005 pay periods to determine the number of
payroll payments to separated employees and take
appropriate action to collect the overpayment.
We recommend that the OARM have the
Director, OHR,
5. Reinforce the use of established standard operat-
ing procedures to process PARs for separated term
appointments and transferred employees, and
implement the process across the entire Agency.
6. Formalize and implement the standard operating
procedures for processing PARs for retiring
employees and implement the process across the
entire Agency.
7. Reinforce with Agency Officials that they need
to (1) forward written resignation notices to
OHR immediately upon receipt, and (2) prepare
and forward PARs in a timely manner to prevent
overpayments.
AGENCY COMMENT AND DIG EVALUATION
The OCFO and OARM generally concurred with
our findings and recommendations. The Agency indi-
cated that it would continue to validate payroll
system internal controls, enforce existing procedures,
and take further corrective action as needed.
However, the Agency's response did not address the
need for an automated control. Based on the prob-
lems described above, the current procedures have
not been effective in identifying and preventing inap-
propriate payments to separated employees.
Therefore, we believe improvement is needed in this
area and that the Agency should implement automat-
ed controls to limit the potential harm caused by a
breakdown in the current manual procedures.
2. EPA Employees Received Excess
Salary Payments
Because the internal controls for EPA's PeoplePlus
system did not effectively identify and prevent excess
salary payments, Agency employees received salary
payments in excess of the biweekly maximum earnings
limitations prescribed in Federal regulations. Under 5
CFR §550.105, an employee may receive premium pay
only to the extent that the payment does not cause
the total of his or her basic pay and premium pay for
any biweekly pay period to exceed the greater of:
2.
The maximum biweekly rate of basic pay for a
GS-15 (including any applicable locality-based
comparability payment under section 5304 or
similar provision of law and any applicable special
rate of pay under 5 U.S.C. 5305 or similar provi-
sion of law); or
The biweekly rate payable for Level V of the
Executive Schedule.
We examined individual employee gross salary
payments for two pay periods. We found 37 employ-
ees received salary payments totaling $14,891 in
excess of the biweekly maximum earning limitation
for one pay period, and 24 employees received excess
salary payments totaling $5,152 for the other pay
period. The Agency has recently advised us that it
has developed a manual process for checking for over-
payments. However, due to the late receipt of this
information, we have not been able to verify the
process or its effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the OCFO
8. Develop and implement an automated control
which would prevent employee salary payments
in excess of maximum earnings limitations.
9. Verify that all overpayments have been
researched for their cause and amount, and if due
back to the Government, receivables established.
AGENCY COMMENT AND OIG EVALUATION
The OCFO agreed with the issues we raised and
stated that it is initiating enhancements to broaden
the scope of automated controls to replace existing
manual controls. It plans to continue to evaluate the
results as part of its payroll review process.
3. Improvement Needed for State
Superfund Contract and Superfund
Unbilled Oversight Accruals
EPA needs to improve its oversight of State
Superfund Contract (SSC) and Superfund unbilled
oversight accruals. We found errors on the third quarter
SSC calculation spreadsheet and/or the unbilled over-
sight spreadsheet in 9 of 10 regions. These errors led to
overstating SSC unearned revenue by $31 million and
unbilled oversight by $14 million. Although the OCFO
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
required the regions to certify that they reviewed their
accrual calculations, the certification process did not
prevent or discover the errors. As a result, EPA could
not ensure the accuracy of the unearned revenue and
the unbilled oversight accounts.
When EPA assumes the lead for a Superfund site
remedial action in a State, the SSC clarifies EPA's and
the State's responsibilities to complete the remedial
action. EPA records a liability (unearned revenue)
when billing a State for its share of the estimated site
costs, and recognizes earned revenue when costs are
incurred on the site. EPA incurs oversight costs while
overseeing cleanup work being performed and paid for
by potentially responsible parties at Superfund sites.
EPA seeks to recover its oversight costs from the
potentially responsible parties in a settlement agree-
ment and recognizes revenue when it bills oversight
costs. The unbilled oversight accrual is an asset estab-
lished to properly match revenues and expenses.
EPA developed a review and certification process
as a result of last year's position paper entitled "EPA
Needs to Further Improve State Superfund Contracts'
Unearned Revenue and Superfund Unbilled
Oversight Cost Accruals." However, the number of
errors found during the cumulative third quarter
spreadsheets indicates that EPA's oversight of the
accruals was not effective. For SSC unearned revenue,
we found errors in cumulative disbursements, cumula-
tive billings, and formula changes in the SSC
calculation. For the unbilled oversight accruals, in
addition to missing formulas, we found errors in for-
mulas, cost amounts, billing percentages, and untimely
accrual entries. EPA could have detected these errors
with an effective review process. EPA needs to reassess
its oversight and develop further instruction for
preparing and reviewing these accrual calculations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommended that the OCFO have the
Director, OFM,
10. Provide more complete instructions and clarifica-
tion to the regional offices to ensure the regions
have an adequate preparation and review process.
11. Supplement the regional review process for SSC
and Unbilled Oversight accruals with a central-
ized review function.
AGENCY RESPONSE AND OIG EVALUATION
OCFO agreed with the OIG recommendations.
OCFO stated that it made considerable progress
towards assuring consistency with the SSC and
Superfund unbilled oversight accrual issues. OCFO
stated it will explore options for centralizing these
accrual processes.
4. Regions Should Make General
Ledger Account Adjustments for
Receivables Transferred to
Cincinnati Finance Center
EPA's general ledger accounts for accounts receiv-
able and allowance for doubtful accounts were
materially misstated because certain regional offices
did not properly adjust those accounts when transfer-
ring receivables to the Cincinnati Finance Center
(CFG).
The Agency is in the process of consolidating
financial operations into four finance centers. As part
of this process, 5 of 10 regions had transferred
accounts receivables to CFG by September 30, 2005.
During our review of CFC's allowance for doubtful
accounts, we noted that a Region had an allowance
for doubtful accounts balance of $130,763,195 even
though it did not have a receivables balance.
Another Region had erroneously reduced its receiv-
able balance in excess of the balance available,
resulting in a negative balance of $2,914,484. Because
of the transfers to CFG, the accounts receivable and
allowance balances at those accounting points should
have been adjusted to reflect a $0 balance.
These errors resulted because the regional
accounts receivable staff did not properly review the
general ledger account balances or perform analytical
reviews that would have exposed the discrepancies.
We did note that the agency has made the appropri-
ate adjustments to the financial statements to adjust
the allowance for doubtful accounts.
The Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal
Government, dated November 1999, identified "con-
trol activities" as one of the five standards of internal
control. According to GAO, management reviews
(analytical reviews) at the functional or activity level
are commonly performed internal control activities.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
GAO's Internal Control Management and Evaluation
Tool, dated August 2001, identified the following ana-
lytical reviews as common control activities: 1)
managers at all activity levels review performance
reports, analyze trends, and measure results against
targets, and 2) both financial and program managers
review and compare financial, budgetary, and opera-
tional performance to planned or expected results.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommended that the OCFO have the
Director, OFM,
12. Require quarterly general ledger analytical
reviews for finance centers and/or accounting
points with receivable balances or activity.
13. Ensure appropriate adjustments are made to gen-
eral ledger account balances when regional
activity is transferred to finance centers.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised.
The Agency stated it successfully transferred 5 of 10
regions' accounts receivable functions to one finance
center. An account analysis identified several
accounting point balances that required adjustments
that were subsequently reflected in the financial
statements. As the Agency progresses in moving the
accounts receivable functions from the remaining five
regions, OCFO agreed to continue to monitor appro-
priate general ledger accounts.
5. EPA's Quality Assurance Reviews
Need Further Improvement
While EPA made several advances to improve
the financial management QA program performed by
the regions and finance centers, the Agency must
continue to improve its QARs. The OCFO updated
the QA Guide in September 2005, increased over-
sight of the QA program, and provided Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act training to appro-
priate personnel. However, we found the QARs
performed were limited in scope and less comprehen-
sive than the QA Guide suggests. We also found that
the reviews did not adequately document the work
performed or other methods used to evaluate internal
controls and accounting events. Further, we found
that QARs were not performed for all applicable
accounting events. As a result, there is limited assur-
ance that the QARs provide a sufficient basis to
evaluate and certify the assessment of internal
accounting and administrative controls.
EPA's quality assurance program was designed to
implement the requirements of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982 and OMB Circular No.
A-123, Management Accountability and Control. EPA's
revised QA Guide describes a structured approach to
conduct quality assurance reviews and provides a
model framework for evaluating and reporting on
finance office compliance with internal control stan-
dards and relevant accounting principles and
standards. In addition, the OCFO's Fiscal Year 2005
Quality Assurance Workplan guidance recommends
the regions and finance centers ensure that the QARs
test the accounting events as appropriate, and docu-
ment the rationale for any accounting events not
tested.
During our analysis, we found QARs performed
in fiscal 2005 that were more limited in scope than
what was indicated in the QA Guide. The QA Guide
provides specific control objectives and test proce-
dures for each accounting event. For example, for
accounts receivable, the QA Guide identifies 8 con-
trol objectives and 19 test procedures to evaluate
internal controls. However, one accounts receivable
QAR addressed only one control objective and test
procedure. In another QAR, for property, only 1 con-
trol objective and test procedure were addressed,
while the QA guide identified 10 objectives and 21
test procedures.
In addition, the QAR work was not adequately
documented. The QA Guide states that workpapers
should provide written evidence of the work per-
formed, support the validity of conclusions reached,
and provide a record of the methodology used. The
QAR workpapers we reviewed did not document
objectives of the review, the nature and extent of
work performed, conclusions reached, and appropriate
cross-references to other workpapers. We also noticed
that the QAR workpapers we reviewed did not docu-
ment other methods used to evaluate internal
controls and accounting events, such as monthly
travel audits.
We found that a regional office performed QARs
for only 7 of the 13 applicable accounting events dur-
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ing the last 3 years. The QA Guide requires QARs to
be performed for all applicable accounting events at
least once every 3 years.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the OCFO have the
Director, OFM, to continue to improve the QA
program by requiring field locations to
14. Perform more comprehensive QARs that define
and address all the control objectives for applica-
ble accounting events.
15. Adequately document the work performed and
methods used to evaluate internal controls.
16. Perform a QAR for each applicable accounting
event at least once every 3 years.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised.
OCFO believes it has made significant progress with
the QA program and will conduct a training class in
December 2005 for Agency finance personnel.
6. EPA Could Improve the Distribution
of the Budget Clearing Accounts
The fiscal 2005 year-end distribution of amounts
recorded in a budget clearing account was overstated.
The Agency treated charge backs on collections on
certain Interagency Agreements as if they were distri-
butions rather than reductions in receipts.
The Cincinnati Finance Center records all Intra-
Governmental Payment and Collection (IPAC)
transactions in a budget clearing account pending
interagency agreement Project Officer approval/disap-
proval. Once approved, the payment is removed from
the clearing account and recorded in the appropriate
account. EPA is required by the U.S. Treasury to rec-
oncile and distribute budget clearing accounts by the
end of the fiscal year. EPA has also adopted proce-
dures to allocate costs. EPA's Year End Closing
Instructions state "the amounts being recorded, at the
end of the fiscal year need to be prorated among
applicable appropriations in order to provide a more
realistic distribution of charges via IPAC."
At year end, the Cincinnati Finance Center
distributed $37,608,039 from the clearing account to
expenditure accounts in various U.S. Treasury funds.
Included in the distribution was $15,334,554 that
should have been recorded as cash receipts, but was
processed through IPAC as expenditures. As a result,
the amounts recorded in expenditure and receivable
accounts were overstated, and the amount recorded
in the cash receipt account was understated by
$15,334,554.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the OCFO have the Cincinnati
Finance Center
17. Remove any receipt transactions from the year
end distribution of the clearing account.
We recommend the OCFO have OEM's
Reporting and Analysis Staff
18. Record an on-top adjustment to the financial
statements to correct the $15,334,554 error and
properly reflect expenditure, receivable, and
receipt activity.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised
and made the appropriate accounting adjustments to
the financial statements.
7. Documentation of Adjustments to
IFMS Entries Needs Improvement
EPA made adjustments to entries in the IFMS, the
Agency's accounting system, without proper and ade-
quate documentation. During our review of collections
and receivables recorded in various EPA regions, we
found 33 adjustments to entries in IFMS—totaling
$89,446,286—that were not supported by sufficient
documentation, such as schedules of collections or
IFMS screen prints. The documentation did not always
identify other relevant documents, such as the consent
decree, which was the basis for the adjustment. We
also found three adjustments—totaling $47,540,900—
where documentation supporting the change was not
easily accessible. EPA staff had documentation to sup-
port the adjustment, but did not attach it to the entry
or otherwise provide an audit trail to locate the sup-
port. These entries also did not contain evidence of an
adequate review to ensure the adjustments were rea-
sonable and supported.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
EPA Comptroller Policy Announcement 93-02
requires "that all financial transactions recorded in
the accounting system be supported by adequate
source documentation, and that this documentation
be easily accessible." These requirements apply to ini-
tial transactions entered into IFMS and to
adjustments made to the entries. According to Policy
Announcement 93-02:
" 'Adequately documented' means an inde-
pendent individual competent in accounting
and possessing reasonable knowledge of EPA's
operations should be able to examine the
documentation and reach substantially the
same conclusions as the persons who made
and/or approved the entry."
'"Easily accessible' means the entry should con-
tain sufficient information to identify the
supporting documentation, and the documen-
tation should be organized and filed in a
manner to facilitate its retrieval."
The GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the
Federal Government state that "all transactions and
other significant events are to be clearly documented,
and the documentation is to be readily available for
examination." The Standards also state "qualified and
continuous supervision is to be provided to ensure
that internal control objectives are achieved."
Lack of adequate supporting documentation may
raise questions about the validity and integrity of the
financial information contained in IFMS. Failure to
require adequate documentation before adjusting
entries are input in the Agency's accounting system
increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse by
increasing the possibility that unauthorized or inaccu-
rate information is entered.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the OCFO
19. Require adequate documentation to support all
adjustments to entries in IFMS. This documenta-
tion should include an adjustment date and
justification for the correction, be easily accessi-
ble, and reference the original entry.
20. Require all adjustments to entries in IFMS
be properly reviewed to ensure the policies
are followed.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The Agency agreed with the audit issues raised.
8. EPA Needs to Improve Correction
of Rejected Transactions
The OCFO did not correct PeoplePlus data that
the IFMS rejected during the transfer process. We
identified nonprocessed transactions in a suspense file
that existed for several pay periods without manage-
ment action. This occurred because the OCFO had
not corrected and cleared PeoplePlus transactions
transferred to IFMS in a timely manner. Federal
requirements stipulate that agencies promptly record,
classify, and account for transactions to prepare time-
ly accounts and reliable financial reports. Without
having the processes in place to reconcile and correct
data that failed to transfer from PeoplePlus to IFMS,
the financial statements could be misstated.
EPA accumulates nonprocessed data in a suspense
file during data transfer between the two systems. Our
review determined that the OCFO had not timely
corrected nonprocessed data for the following group
of items in the suspense file:
Non-processed payroll transactions for 16 EPA
employees remained in the suspense file because the
employees did not have assigned Fixed Account
Numbers in PeoplePlus. Our review indicated that
some of the transactions go back as far as pay period
2, which ended October 16, 2004. The total of these
transactions is $177,786 and the OCFO took no
action to correct/reprocess the transactions.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the OCFO have the
Director, OFS,
21. Establish and implement policies and procedures
to ensure the identification and timely processing
of non-processed/rejected payroll transactions
between PeoplePlus and IFMS.
AGENCY COMMENT AND OIG EVALUATION
The Director, OFS, concurred with our recom-
mendation and indicated that the office took action
to correct the payroll records for the 16 employees
with missing Fixed Account Numbers.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9. EPA Needs to Improve
Contingency Plans for
Financial Applications
A review conducted by a contracted public
accounting firm noted that contingency plans did not
fully comply with EPA or Federal guidelines for sever-
al OCFO applications at the Research Triangle Park
campus in North Carolina. The firm identified where
EPA had not documented: (1) key contingency plan
elements, (2) critical hardware and software require-
ments, and (3) primary and secondary contacts.
These weaknesses occurred because of inconsistency
in training for relevant contingency planning offi-
cials. Incomplete contingency plans can present
significant challenges for EPA should an unforeseen
event occur, particularly since the organization may
believe these systems have sufficiently documented
procedures to expedite recovery. Further, without ade-
quate planning, management may not be able to
mitigate the negative effects of interrupted opera-
tions.
The contracted public accounting firm's review
identified the following specific contingency plan
weaknesses:
• The Budget Automation System is not referenced
in the OCFO's Office of Budget contingency
plan. Agency officials did not fully document key
contingency elements, such as an emergency tele-
phone list and a listing of vendors, suppliers, and
other service providers in the OCFO Annual
Planning and Budget Division Disaster Preparedness
and Recovery Guide—Budget Automation System.
• The PeoplePlus contingency plan does not iden-
tify the primary and secondary contacts, although
the information is included in the Critical
Applications Disaster Recovery Plan. Neither
plan specifies which of the two plans takes priori-
ty should an outage occur.
• The firm noted inconsistency as to whether an
application contingency plan was prepared for
applications not subscribing to the National
Computer Center Disaster Recovery Service. If a
contingency plan was prepared, the level of detail
within the plan was not consistent. For example,
the Travel Manager +, Financial Data
Warehouse, and Bank Card systems do not have
separate contingency plans. Although the securi-
ty plans for these systems address contingency
planning, these security plans do not document
detailed steps to recover application hardware,
software, and telecommunications, nor do the
plans identify alternative processing locations for
the applications.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the OCFO
22. Have responsible office directors provide training
to all application owners on the importance of
developing, maintaining, and testing contingency
plans in accordance with EPA and Federal guide-
lines and ensure the plans clearly define necessary
recovery steps for each application.
23. Have the Director, Office of Budget, revise the
Budget Automation System's contingency plan to
contain (a) complete contact information for key
personnel, and (b) alternate processing and
return to normal operations procedures.
24. Have the Director, OFS, revise the PeoplePlus'
contingency plan so it clearly describes whether
the PeoplePlus plan or the Critical Applications
Disaster Recovery Plan takes precedence during a
recovery process.
25. Have the Director, OFM, revise contingency
plans for all of their applications not subscribing
to the National Computer Center Disaster
Recovery Services (e.g., Financial Data
Warehouse), in accordance with relevant Federal
and EPA criteria and best practices.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The OCFO concurred with our recommendations
and provided details on corrective measures that
would address some of the recommendations.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Attachment 2: Compliance with Laws and Regulations
10. EPA Should Continue
Efforts to Reconcile
Intragovernmental Transactions
While EPA improved reconciliations of its
intragovernmental transactions during fiscal 2005,
the Agency was unable to reconcile a material differ-
ence of $149 million with one Federal agency—the
Department of Health and Human Services. Without
the proper confirmations from its trading partners,
EPA has limited assurance that intragovernmental
balances are accurate. EPA had experienced similar
occurrences in the past that prohibited it from fully
complying with the applicable requirements.
Intragovernmental transactions have been classi-
fied by the Government Accountability Office as a
Government-wide material weakness due to the lack
of standardization in recording and processing
intragovernmental activities. To resolve the issue,
OMB established standard business rules
(Memorandum M-03-01, October 4, 2002) to be
used in intragovernmental exchange activities. OMB
Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements,
which was updated August 2005, requires Federal
agencies to report intragovernmental assets, liabili-
ties, revenue, and certain reporting entities with
their trading partners. This information is to be
presented in the financial statements as Required
Supplementary Information and should agree with
line items reported on the balance sheet.
The U.S. Treasury's Federal Intragovernmental
Transactions Accounting Policies Guide was updated in
July 2005 and provides Government-wide accounting
policies for Federal agencies to account for and
reconcile intragovernmental transactions. The Guide
provides tools (procedures and examples) to facilitate
quarterly reconciliation of intragovernmental activities.
EPA has taken action to reconcile its intragovernmen-
tal activity on a quarterly basis. At year-end, the
Agency had one material difference of $149 million in
unreconciled activity with the Department of Health
and Human Services.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the OCFO
26. Require OFM to continue its efforts in reconcil-
ing the Agency's intragovernmental transactions
to comply with Federal financial reporting
requirements.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The Agency agreed with the audit issue raised
and believes that the unreconciled amount was a
result of differing accounting methodologies between
agencies. The Agency stated that will continue efforts
to reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental transac-
tions to comply with Federal financial reporting
requirements.
1 We are reporting this noncompliance issue under FFMIA as it directly relates to FFMIA reporting requirements; however, the issue
does not meet the OMB criteria for substantial noncompliance under FFMIA.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Attachment 3: Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations
EPA's position is that "audit follow-up is an inte-
gral part of good management," and "corrective action
taken by management on resolved findings and rec-
ommendations is essential to improving the
effectiveness and efficiency of Government opera-
tions." The Chief Financial Officer is the Agency
Audit Follow-Up Official and is responsible for ensur-
ing that corrective actions are implemented. To
resolve long-standing audit recommendations, the
Deputy Chief Financial Officer formed an Audit
Follow-Up Council in July 2000. The Council reviews
the progress on audit findings, discusses approaches to
resolving audit issues, and provides coordination and
support across OCFO on audit-related matters.
Council membership consists of the Deputy Chief
Financial Officer, the OCFO Audit Follow-Up
Coordinator, and all of the OCFO Office Directors.
The Agency has continued to make substantial
progress in completing corrective actions from prior
years. These issue areas from prior financial statement
audits, with corrective actions in process, are listed in
the following table.
AUDIT ISSUE AREAS WITH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IN PROCESS
Automated Application Processing Controls for IFMS:
EPA has made progress towards replacing IFMS. However, until EPA implements the planned replacement automated
accounting system that addresses past issues, we will continue to disclose a reportable condition concerning documenta-
tion of the current accounting system and its automated application processing controls.
EPA Needs to Strengthen Practices Regarding Security Screening for Non-Federai Personnel
An audit report issued during fiscal 2004 found that there are still some weaknesses regarding contractor access to
IFMS.The Agency's 1999 Remediation Plan is still not completely implemented.The Agency expects to issue policy on
security certifications for contractor and grantee personnel in October 2006.
EPA Continues Actions to Improve Cost Accounting:
Since our last report, EPA has redefined its cost accounting outputs, improved the OCFO's Reporting and Business
Intelligence Tool, continued to make progress in its data integration efforts, and has recently developed a report to show
the full costs of its outputs. However, because the Agency did not produce reports that show the full costs of its outputs
during fiscal 2005, the Agency was still not in full compliance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government, although we do not consider the
noncompliance to be substantial.
Further Improvement Needed for State Superfund Contract and Superfund Unbilled Oversight Accruals:
EPA developed a review and certification process as a result of the fiscal 2005 Reportable Condition, but oversight of the
accruals was still not effective. Please see Attachment I for additional information.
EPA Did Not Promptly Record Marketable Securities:
The Agency began performing quarterly reconciliations of noncash assets in fiscal 2005 in response to our finding in fiscal
2004. However, we found an instance where marketable securities received from one company in settlement of debts for
receivables at one region were not recorded promptly. We made recommendations to the Agency during this year's audit
to improve its reconciliation procedures, but have not included it as a Reportable Condition in Attachment I because we
found only one nonmaterial instance of a problem.
EPA Continues to Experience Difficulties in Reconciling Intragovemmental Transactions:
EPA improved reconciliations of its intragovernmental transactions during fiscal 2005; however, the Agency was unable to
reconcile a material difference with one Federal agency. Please see Attachment 2 for additional information.
Weaknesses in Change Controi Procedures for Integrated Financiai Management System:
EPA has a Plan of Action and Milestones to correct these weaknesses. The Agency reports that a number of actions have
been completed, and the remaining actions are targeted for completion by March 31, 2006.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
1
J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
November 10, 2005
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report: Response to Audit of EPAs Fiscal Years 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Financial Statements
FROM: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer (2710A)
TO: Paul C. Curtis
Director, Financial Audit (2422T)
My staff and I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Audit Report of
the Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year 2005 and 2004 Financial Statements. The
Office of the Chief Financial Officer's (OCFO) perspective on the audit's observations and
recommendations is provided in the attached document.
We agree with the audit issues raised. EPA has effective internal controls with strong policies
and procedures in place and I believe that corrective actions will strengthen compliance with
existing policies and procedures. We are evaluating the best method to address each issue that
will achieve a timely resolution of audit issues.
As a result of increased vigilance in FY 2005, our internal assessments uncovered some
areas that required strengthening. We worked proactively to devise and implement long-term
corrective actions for these issues. We believe the issues raised by the OIG during the FY 2005
audit validated our internal "self assessments" and corrective actions. We appreciate OIG
acknowledgement of our efforts and progress in this audit report.
We look forward to another productive year working with the OIG. If you have any
questions, please contact Lorna McAllister, Director of the Office of Financial Management at
202-564-4905.
Attachment
Cc: Mike Ryan
Maryann Froehlich
Lorna M. McAllister
Dennis Nolan
OCFO Office Directors
OFM Staff Directors
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Appendix I, Attachment I: OCFO's Response to the FY 2005 and FY 2004
Draft Audit Report
REPORTABLE CONDITIONS
1. Payroll Internal Controls
OIG found that EPA made payroll payments to
separated employees. OIG recommends that
OCFO work with EPA's Administration and
Resources Management office to ensure proper
processing of personnel actions, modify automat-
ed controls, and reinforce existing controls.
At the beginning of FY 2005, OCFO implement-
ed a new time and attendance system. OCFO
made significant strides to assure system trans-
parency to the Agency and compliance with
established payroll policies and procedures. In FY
2006, OCFO will continue to validate payroll sys-
tem internal controls, enforce existing
procedures, and take further corrective actions as
necessary.
2. Excess Salary Payments
OIG found the OCFO's payroll system made
excess salary payments to employees totaling
$14,891 of a $54 million bi-weekly payroll, which
equates to .04% of total payroll.
OCFO has automated internal controls in place
for the majority of potential causes for salary
overpayments and manual controls in place for
many others. OCFO is initiating enhancements
to broaden the scope of automated controls to
replace existing manual controls. We will contin-
ue to evaluate the results as part of our bi-weekly
payroll review process.
3. Superfund State Contract (SSC) and Superfund
Unbilled Oversight Accruals
The OIG noted areas where increased oversight
would improve the management of SSC and
Superfund unbilled oversight accruals.
In the past year, OCFO made considerable
progress towards assuring consistency with SSC
and Superfund unbilled oversight accrual calcula-
tions. As OCFO continues its efforts to
consolidate accounting operations, we will
explore options for centralizing these accrual
processes.
4. Qeneral Ledger Account Adjustments for
Receivables Transferred to Cincinnati Finance
Center
OIG Identified regional offices' accounts receiv-
able and allowance for doubtful accounts that
needed adjustment during an OCFO functional
and consolidation process.
As part of the process to consolidate EPA's finan-
cial operations into four finance centers, the
Agency successfully transferred five of the ten
regions' accounts receivable functions to one
finance center. An account analysis identified
accounting point balances that required adjust-
ments that are reflected in the financial
statements. As the Agency progresses in transfer-
ring the accounts receivable functions from the
remaining five regions, OCFO will continue to
monitor appropriate general ledger accounts and
assist the Financial Management Officers in
resolving account balance issues.
5. Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews
The OIG recommends increased oversight of the
QA program activity to ensure comprehensive
reviews and adequate documentation.
In FY 2005, OCFO made significant progress
with the QA program. OCFO updated and pub-
lished the QA Guide on the EPA intranet. It
reflects current policies, procedures, and
approaches to evaluating accounting functions. In
addition, OCFO conducted a specialized session
on QA reviews and their relationship to the
revised OMB Circular A-123 requirements. To
continue the QA program's success, OCFO is
conducting a training class in December 2005 for
Agency finance personnel.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2005 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
6. Distribution of the Budget Clearing Accounts
OIG identified interagency transactions that were
inappropriately distributed. In this instance, EPA
billed other agencies and two transactions were
returned two days prior to the close of the fiscal
year. EPA reissued the bills in October 2005 and
the FY 2005 financial statements reflect the
appropriate accounting adjustments.
7. Documentation of Adjustments to the
Integrated Financiai Management System
(IFMS) Entries
The OIG noted instances of adjusting entries
made without proper or adequate documentation.
OCFO's Policy Announcement 93-02, dated
November 13, 1992, requires adequate source
documentation to support all financial transac-
tions. OCFO will insist that Financial
Management Officers ensure that all adjusting
transactions entered into the Agency's account-
ing system be adequately documented and easily
accessible in accordance with the Policy
Announcement.
8. Correcting Rejected Transactions
OIG observed instances of rejected data transfers
between PeoplePlus (PPL) and IFMS that were
not resolved in a timely manner.
OCFO took action to identify and correct the
rejected data for 16 employees. The Office of
Human Resources implemented a control that
should prevent a reoccurrence.
9. Contingency Pians for Financiai Applications
OIG noted instances where contingency plans for
financial systems did not fully comply with
Federal or EPA continuity guidelines.
OCFO remains firmly committed to securing its
system and data in a cost effective manner and in
compliance with Federal guidance, EPA policy,
and best practices. In FY 2006, OCFO will revise
current contingency plans to clearly state the
critical operations, supporting resources, and
alternate processing procedures for the financial
systems identified by the OIG.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
IMPROVEMENT ACT (FFMIA)
NONCOMPLIANCE ISSUES
10. Intragovernmentai Transactions
As OIG acknowledged, OCFO greatly improved
reconciliations of its intragovernmental transac-
tions during FY 2005. However, at year end, EPA
was unable to reconcile a large difference with
one Federal agency.
EPA believes this is a result of differing account-
ing methodologies between agencies. EPA will
continue efforts to reconcile the Agency's
intragovernmental transactions to comply with
Federal financial reporting requirements.
-------
CONTENTS
AppendixA—Annual Performance Goals Results for Prior Years
Appendix B—Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2005
Appendix C—Data Quality
Appendix D—Acronyms
Appendix E—Public Access
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Appendix A:
Annua 5erforr
Results for PriorYears
INTRODUCTION
To supplement the performance trend charts and graphs presented with FY 2005 annual performance goal (APG) results,
this appendix provides actual and externally reported results for FY 2001 -2004.These data, along with an explanation of
the results, are also reported in previous EPA annual performance reports, available at www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement
/apr.htm. EPA continues to improve and refine its performance measures, and as a result, some annual performance goals
and measures have changed over the years.To enable readers to align prior year results with current year results, APGs
listed in this appendix are numbered to correspond with FY 2005 APGs.
Goal
APG I. I Reduce CO, SO2, NO2, Lead (Pb)
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, SO2,
NO2, or Pb concentrations below the NAAQs for the standard will
increase by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative
to 1992). Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb concentrations below the
level the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient or
Pb concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to
1992.
—Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment
of the Clean Air Standards for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb.
—Areas newly designated to attainment for CO, SO2, NO2, or
Pb standards.
—Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrat-
ed attainment of the CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb standards.
—Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources.
Planned
Actual
53%
87%
I74M
19 areas
6.2 M
12.6 M
99%
1.3
FY 2003 Maintain healthy air quality for I 67.8 million people living in monitored
areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb; increase by 435 thousand the
number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly
attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb concentrations below the
level the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
47%
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
FY 2003 — Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
continued CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb concentrations below the level of the NAAQs
as compared to 1 992.
— Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of
the Clean Air Standards for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb.
— Areas newly designated to attainment for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb 16 areas
standards.
— Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated
attainment of the CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb standards.
— Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. 1 1.3
FY 2002 Maintain healthy air quality for 1 67 million people living in monitored
areas attaining the CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb; increase by 1 6 million the
number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly
attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
— Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb concentrations below the
level the NAAQs as compared to 1 992.
— Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb concentrations below the level of the NAAQs
as compared to 1 992.
— Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment of
the Clean Air Standards for CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb.
— Areas newly designated to attainment for CO, SO2, NO2, or 1 0 areas
Pb standards.
— Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrated
attainment of the CO, SO2, NO2, or Pb standards.
— Tons of CO reduced from mobile sources. 1 1 .0 M
91%
1 67.8 M
5 areas
435 K
1.3
47%
87%
1 67.4 M
2 areas
16.5 M
1 I.OM
APG 1.2 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels—PM-IO
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM
concentrations below the NAAQs for the PM 10 standard will
increase by less than I % (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total
of 6% (relative to 1992).
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient PM|0 concentrations below the level of the
NAAQs as compared to 1992.
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM|0 concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared
to 1992.
—Total number of people who live in areas designated attainment of
the Clean Air Standards for PM |Q.
—Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrat-
ed attainment of the PM|0 standard.
Planned
Actual
6%
40%
I20M
380 K
6%
54%
20.5 M
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY2004
continued
—Areas newly designated to attainment.
—Percent of areas with improving ambient PM|0 concentrations.
—Tons of PMIO Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
—Tons ofPM25 Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
9 areas
76%
18,100
13,500
6 areas
62%
18,100
3,500
FY 2003 Maintain healthy air quality for 120 million people living in monitored
areas attaining the PMm standards; increase by 252 thousand the num-
ber of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly
attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient PM|0 concentrations below the level of the
NAAQs as compared to 1992.
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM|0 concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to
1992.
—Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment
of the Clean Air I 20.4 M Standards for PM|0.
—Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrat-
ed attainment of the PM|0 standard.
—Areas newly designated to attainment.
—Tons of PA/I, Q Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
—Tons ofPM25 Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
o areas
25,000
I 8,000
6%
50%
120.4 M
252 K
5 areas
25,000
8,000
FY 2002 Maintain healthy air quality for 120 million people living in monitored
areas attaining the PM|0 standards; increase by 2.7million the number
of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly
attained the standard.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient PM|0 concentrations below the level of the
NAAQs as compared to 1992.
—Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM|0 concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared to
1992.
—Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment
of the Clean Air Standard for PM |Q.
—Additional people living in newly designated areas with demonstrat-
ed attainment of the PM|0 standard.
—Areas newly designated to attainment for PM|Q.
—Tons of PMIO Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
—Tons ofPM25 Reduced from Mobile Sources. (PART)
6 areas
23,000
17,250
5%
40%
120 M
2.7 M
4 areas
7,250
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 1.3 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels—PM
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient
PM25 concentrations below NAAQs will increase by less than \%
(relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than \% (relative to
2001). Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of people who live in
ambient PM25 concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as
compared to 2001.
—Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of areas with ambient
PM25 concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared
to 2001.
Planned
Actual
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2003
FY 2002
FY 200 1
FY 2000
FY 1999
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources
combined will be reduced by an additional \% of the updated 1993
baseline of 6 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 35%.
Performance Measures:
— Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in AirToxics
Emissions.
— Mobile Source AirToxics Emissions Reduced.
— Stationary Source AirToxics Emissions Reduced.
— Area and All other AirToxics Emissions Reduced.
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources
combined will be reduced by 5% from 2001 (for a cumulative reduc-
tion of 40% from the 1993 level of 4.3 million tons per year).
Performance Measure:
— Combined Stationary and Mobile Source Reductions in AirToxics
Emissions
Same goal, cumulative target of 35% reduction from the 1 993 level.
Goal Not Met.
Same goal, cumulative target of 30% reduction from the 1 993 level.
Goal Not Met.
Reduce air toxic emissions by 12% in FY 1999, resulting in cumulative
reduction of 25% from 1993 levels. Goal Met
1% Data Available
2009
.68 tons
1.57 tons
+.12 tons
5% Data Available
2006
5% 1 .7%
3% 1 .7%
12% 15%
APG 1.6 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels—8 hour
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone
concentrations below NAAQs for the 8-hour standard will increase by
4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total 7%
(relative to 2001). Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of people who live in
areas with ambient. 8-hour concentrations below the level of the
NAAQs as compared to 2001.
—Cumulative Percent Increase in the number of areas with ambient
8-hour concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as compared
to 2001.
Planned
Actual
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 1.7
FY 2004
APG 1.8
FY 2004
FY 2003
Acid Rain — Reduce Sulfur Deposition
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate
concentrations 25% from baseline. Reduce total annual average nitrogen
deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations 5/6 from
baseline. (PART) Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Acid Rain — Reduce Nitrogen Deposition
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate con-
centrations 5 % from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 201 0
is 1990 monitored levels. (PART} Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Two million tons of NOx from coal-fired utility sources will be reduced
from levels that would have been emitted without implementation of
Title IV of the CAA. Goal Met.
Planned Actual ^H
25% 3 1 %
5%
Planned Actual ^H
5% 7%
2 M 3.5 M
APG 1.9
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor
environments. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Two million tons of NOx from coal-fired utility sources will be reduced
from levels that would have been emitted without implementation of
Title IV of the CAA. Goal Met.
834,400 additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor
environments. Goal Met.
Planned Actual M
834,400 834,400
834,400 834,400
834,400 834,400
APG 1.10
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
1,500,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air
quality (IAQ) in their schools. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
1,050,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air
quality (IAQ) in their schools. Goal Met.
1,228,500 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air
quality in their schools Goal Met.
Planned Actual 1
I.5M 1.63
1 .05 M 1 .05 M
I.2M I.2M
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG I.I I Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
APG 1.12 Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class I I HCFCs
FY 2004 Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP
MTs and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly
produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 OOP Mts. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Performance Measures:
—Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs.
—Newly produced Domestic Exempted Production and Import of
class I CFCs and halons.
Planned
Actual
< 9,960
< 10,000
5,500
,225
FY 2003 Same goal, same targets. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs.
—Newly produced Domestic Exempted Production and Import of
class I CFCs and halons.
< 9,960
< 10,000
7,1 10
2,049
FY 2002 Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below I 5,240 OOP
MTs and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly
produced class I CFCs and halons below 60,000 OOP MTs. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs.
—Newly produced Domestic Exempted Production and Import of
class I CFCs and halons.
< 15,240
< 60,000
3,950
2,347
APG 1.13 Ensure WIPP Safety
FY 2004 Certify that 36,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing
approximately 108,000 curies) shipped by the Department of Energy
(DOE) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of
safely and according to EPA standards. Goal Met.
Planned
36,000
Actual
36,500
FY 2003 Certify that 12,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing
approximately 36,000 curies) shipped by the Department of Energy
(DOE) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of
safely and according to EPA standards. Goal Met.
I 2,000
36,04
FY 2002
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
6,000
22,800
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 1.14
FY 2004
APG 1.15
FY 2005
APG 1.16
FY 2004
FY 2003
Build National Radiation Monitoring System
EPA will purchase 60 state of the art radiation monitoring units thereby
increasing EPA radiation monitoring capacity and population coverage
from 37% of the contiguous U.S. population in FY 2002 to 50% in FY
2004.
Homeland Security — Readiness and Response
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately
90 mmtce per year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools,
state and local governments, and other organizations. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
— Annual GHG Reductions — All EPA Programs.
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Buildings Sector Programs
(ENERGY STAR). (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste Management
Programs. (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach Programs.
(PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial HFG/PFG Programs. (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Transportation Programs. (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs. (PART)
GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately
72.2 mmtce per year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools,
state and local governments, and other organizations.
Performance Measures:
— Annual GHG Reductions — All EPA Programs
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Buildings Sector Programs (ENERGY STAR).
(PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste Management
Programs. (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach Programs.
(PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Industrial HFG/PFG Programs. (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's Transportation Programs. (PART)
- GHG Reductions from EPA's State and Local Programs. (PART)
Planned Actual ^H
60
Planned Actual ^H
Planned Actual ^H
8 1 .0 M 87.9
21.4 M 26.2 M
7.3 M
18.1 M 19.9
29.6 M 28.2
2.6 M 2.6 M
2.0 M 2.0 M
72.2 82.4
19.2
6.7 7.4
17.0 17.9
24.9 29.8
2.4 2.3
2.0 s2.0
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2002 GHG emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately
65.8 mmtce per year through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools,
state and local governments, and other organizations thereby offsetting
growth in GHG above 1990 levels by about Goal Met.
APG 1.17 Reduce Energy Consumption
FY 2004 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than billion
kilowatt-hours (kWh), contributing to over $7.5 billion (B) in energy
savings to consumers and businesses. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Planned
10 B
Actual
45
FY 2003 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 95 bil-
lion kilowatt-hours (kWh), contributing to over $6.5 billion (B) in energy
savings to consumers and businesses. Goal Met.
95 B
22.8 B
FY 2002 Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 85 bil-
lion kilowatt-hours, contributing to over $ 10 billion in energy savings to
consumers and businesses. Goal Met.
85 B
00
APG 1.18 Clean Automotive Technology
FY 2004 Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passen-
ger car applications, to meet size, performance, durability, and towing
requirements of sport utility vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applica-
tions with an average fuel economy improvement of 25% over the
baseline. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
—Fuel Economy of typical SUV with EPA-developed hybrid
technology over EPA driving cycles tested.
Planned
Actual
25.2
25.2
APG 1.19 PM Effects Research
Planned
Actual
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING
FY 2005 GOALS
FY 2004 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone
concentrations below the NAAQs for the I -hour ozone standard will
increase by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 47% (relative
to !992).Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
— Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in 47% 44%
areas with ambient I-hour ozone concentrations below the level of
the NAAQs as compared to 1992.
— Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient 55%
I-hour ozone concentrations below the level of the NAAQs as
compared to 1992.
— Total number of people who live in areas designated to attainment I 67.3 M I 65.4 M
of the Clean Air Standards for ozone.
— Areas newly designated to attainment for the ozone standards 5 areas 3 areas
— Additional people living in newly designated areas with demon- 5.8 M 3.9 M
strated attainment of ozone standards.
- Millions of tons ofVOCs reduced from mobile sources. (PART) 2.0 M 2.0 M
- Millions of tons of N0x reduced from mobile sources. (PART) 1.65 M 1.65 M
Goal 2
APG 2.1 Safe Drinking Water Meeting All Standards—Population
FY 2004 Population served by community water systems will receive drinking
water meeting all health-based standards, up from 83% in 1994.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Planned
92%
Actual
90%
FY 2003
Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
92%
90%
FY 2002
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
91%
94%
APG 2.2 Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards—Population
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
Actual
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2.3
FY 2004
FY 2003
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards — Population
Population served by community water systems will receive drinking
water meeting health-based standards promulgated in 1998. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Same goal. Goal Met.
Planned
85%
85%
Actual
97%
96%
APG 2.4
FY 2005
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards — Systems
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 2.5
FY 2005
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards — Systems
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 2.6
FY 2005
Safe Drinking Water — Tribal Communities
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 2.7
FY 2004
FY 2003
Source Water Protection
Advance states' efforts with community water systems to protect their
surface and ground water resources that are sources of drinking water
supplies. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
— Number of community water systems and percent of population
served by those CWSs that are implementing source water pro-
tection programs.
39,000 community water systems (representing 75% of the nation's
service population) will have completed source water assessments and
2,600 of these (representing 10% of the nation's service population) will
be implementing source water protection programs. Goal Met.
Planned
7,500
25%
2,600
10%
Actual
3,891
42%
6,570
25%
1 For FY 2007, the Agency will be reporting on a measure which combines the current APGs 2.4 and 2.5. It measures the percent of
community water systems in compliance with all drinking water standards. This measure arose from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund PART.
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 2.8
FY 2004
FY 2003
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Fish Consumption Planned Actual ^^^H
Reduce consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information
available to states, tribes, local governments, citizens, and decision-
makers. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
— Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and 35%
compilation of state-issued fish consumption advisory
methodologies (cumulative).
— River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption advisories 1 6%
and compilation state-issued fish consumption advisory methodolo-
gies (cumulative).
Reduce consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information
available to states, tribes, local governments, citizens, and decision-
makers. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
— Lake acres assessed for the need for fish advisories and 29%
compilation of state-issued fish consumption advisory
methodologies (cumulative).
— River miles assessed for the need for fish consumption advisories 1 5%
and compilation of state-issued fish consumption advisory method-
ologies (cumulative).
APG 2.9
FY 2005
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Shellfish Consumption Planned Actual ^^^H
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
APG 2. 1 0
FY 2005
Improve Water Quality to Support Increased Safe Swimming Planned Actual ^^^H
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
APG 2. 1 1
FY 2003
FY 2002
Increase Beach Safety Planned Actual ^^^H
Reduce human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by
increasing the information available to the public and decision-makers.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measure:
— Beaches for which monitoring and closure data are available to the 2,550 2,823
public at www.epa.gov/OST/beaches/ (cumulative).
Reduce human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by 2,345 2,445
increasing the information available to the public and decision-makers.
Goal Met.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.11 Watershed Protection
FY 2004 By 2005, water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that 500
of the nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greaterthan 80% of assessed
waters meeting all water quality standards.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Planned
500
Actual
FY 2003 By FY 2003, water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that
600 of the nation's 2,262 watersheds will have greaterthan 80% of
assessed waters meeting all WQSs, up from 500 watersheds in 1998.
600
FY 2002
Same goal, different targets.
600
APG 2.13 Watershed Protection—Waterbodies
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
APG 2.14 State/Tribal Water Quality—Monitoring
FY 2003 Assure that states and tribes have effective, up-to-date water quality
standards programs adopted in accordance with the regulation and the
WQSs program priorities. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—States with new or revised WQSs that EPA has reviewed
and approved or disapproved and promulgated federal replace-
ment standards.
— Tribes with WQSs adopted and approved (cumulative).
Planned
Actual
20
33
27
FY 2002
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
20 states
27 tribes
25 states
APG 2.15 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards—Sanitation Access
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
Actual
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 2.16 Coastal Aquatic Conditions—Ecological Health
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
Actual
APG 2.17 Coastal Aquatic Conditions—Use Attainment
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
Actual
APG 2.18 Water Quality Research
FY 2004 Provide final reports on the performance of arsenic treatment tech-
nologies and/or engineering approaches to the Office of Water and
water supply utilities to aid in the implementation of the arsenic rule
and the protection of human health. Goal Met.
Planned
9/30/04
Actual
9/30/04
Goal 3
APG 3.1 Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Properly
FY 2004 Divert an additional I % (for a cumulative total of 33% or 79 million tons)
of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain
per capita generation of F\CF\A municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per
day. Due to a multi-year data lag the FY 2004 result is not available.
Performance Measures:
—Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted.
—Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste. (PART)
Planned
79 M
4.5 Ibs
Actual
Data Available
FY 2006
FY 2003 Same Goal, different target. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
74 M
4.5 Ibs
72.3 M
4.5 M
FY 2002 Same Goal, different target. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
69 M
4.5 Ibs
70 M
4.5 M
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 3.2 Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Properly
FY 2004 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and
petroleum products properly.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other
approved controls. (PART)
—Confirmed UST releases nationally.
—Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with
leak detection requirements.
—Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with
spill overfill and corrosion protection regulations.
Planned
Actual
2.4%
< 10,000
4%
4%
3.7%
7,848
FY 2003 Increase the number of waste and petroleum facilities with acceptable
or approved controls in place to prevent releases to the environment.
Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
—Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with
permits or other approved controls.
—Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with
leak detection requirements.
—Increase in UST facilities in significant operational compliance with
spill, overfill and corrosion protection regulations.
77.2%
3%
3%
83.2%
FY 2002 75.8% of the hazardous waste management facilities will have approved
controls in place to prevent dangerous releases to air, soil, and ground-
water, representing an average increase of 39 additional facilities per
year Goal Met.
75.8%
79.0%
APG 3.3 Assess and Clean Up Contaminated Land
FY 2004 Control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminat-
ed properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other action, and
make land available for reuse. Goal Not Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Superfund final site assessment decisions. (PART)
—Superfund construction completions. (PART)
—Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures
controlled. (PART)
—Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration
controlled. (PART)
—Final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites.
Planned
Actual
500
40
10
10
20
548
15
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
FY 2004
continued
FY 2003
FY 2003
FY 2002
FY 2002
FY 2002
— High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled. \ 66
(PART)
— High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater con- 1 2.9
trolled. (PART)
—LUST cleanups completed. 2 1 ,000
Assess waste sites. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
— Number of Superfund final site assessment decisions. 475
— Number of Superfund removal response actions initiated. 275
Clean up and reduce risk at waste sites.
Performance Measures:
— Number of Superfund construction completions. 40
— Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures \ 0
(HEJ controlled. (PART)
— Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration \ 0
controlled. (PART)
— Number of high priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins 197
controlled. (PART)
— Number of high priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to \ 58
groundwater controlled. (PART)
— Number of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) 2 1 ,000
cleanups completed.
(Superfund Cleanup)
EPA and its partners will complete 40 Superfund cleanups (construe- 40
tion completions). Goal Met.
(RCRA Corrective Actions)
1 72 (for a cumulative total of 995 or 58%) of high priority RCRA 1 72 HE
facilities will have human exposure (HE) controlled and 172 (for a 172 GWR
cumulative total of 882 or 5 1 %) of high priority RCRA facilities will
have groundwater releases (GWR) controlled. Goal Met.
(Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanups)
EPA and its partners will complete 22,000 LUST cleanups for a cumu- 22,000
lative total of approximately 290,000 cleanups since 1987.
95
50
917
380
28
230
75
205 HE
171 GWR
APG 3.4 Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participation Planned Actual
FY 2004 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of 90%
remedial action at 90% of those Superfund sites having known non-
Federal, viable, liable parties. Goal Met.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 3.5
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Superfund Cost Recovery Planned
Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund 1 00%
the work and recover 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. Goal Met.
Same Goal. Goal Met. 1 00%
Same goal. Goal Met. 1 00%
Actual
00%
00%
00%
APG 3.6
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Relesaes Planned
Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releas-
es or harmful substances by improving our nation's capability to prepare
for and respond more effectively to these emergencies. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
— Superfund removal response actions initiated. 350
— Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA. 300
— Percentage of emergency response readiness improvement.
Improve homeland security response readiness and continue assessment
of critical facility vulnerability. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
— Develop baseline data for response readiness, incorporation of Baseline data
Homeland Security into community contingency plans, and critical
facilities requiring vulnerability data (Baseline) assessments.
— Number of oil facilities in compliance with spill prevention, control and 600
counter-measure provisions of oil pollution prevention regulations.
Respond to or monitor 300 significant oil spills in the inland zone. 300
Goal Met.
Actual
385
308
823
(Baseline)
322
APG 3.7
FY 2004
FY 2003
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Clean-up Planned
Provide risk assessors and managers with site-specific data sets on 3
applications detailing the performance of conventional remedies for
contaminated sediments to help determine the most effective tech-
niques for remediating contaminated sites and protecting human
health and the environment. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
— Reports on performance data for conventional sediment remedies 3 reports
for three sites.
To ensure cost-effective and technically sound site clean-up, deliver
state-of-the-science reports and methods to EPA and other stakehold-
ers for risk management of fuel oxygenates; organic and inorganic
contamination of sediments, groundwater and/or soils; and oil spills.
Goal Met.
Actual
3 reports
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
FY 2003
continued
Performance Measure:
—Complete draft of the FY 2002 Annual Superfund Innovation
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Report to Congress.
FY 2002 Provide at least 6 innovative approaches that reduce human health and
ecosystem exposures from dense non-aqueous phase liquids and
methyl-tertiary butyl ether in soils and groundwater, and from oil and
persistent organics in aquatic systems. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
—Deliver the Annual 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.
Goal 4
APG 4. 1
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Reassess Pesticides Tolerance
Ensure that through on-going data reviews, pesticide active ingredients
and the products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate
protection for human health and the environment, taking into consider-
ation exposure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native
Americans.
Performance Measures:
— Product Reregistration.
— Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) (cumulative).
— Tolerance Reassessment (cumulative).
— Tolerance Reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children
(cumulative).
— Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed.
Assure that pesticides' active ingredients registered prior to 1984 and
the products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate pro-
tection 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.
— Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) (cumulative).
— Tolerance Reassessment.
— Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
— Product Reregistration.
—RED (cumulative).
Planned
400 actions
81.7%
78%
83%
100
350 actions
76%
68%
75%
750
76.4%
Actual
127
77.6%
73.0%
68.9%
28
306 actions
75%
68%
65.6%
314
72.7%
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2002 By the end of 2002 EPA will reassess a cumulative 66% of the 9,721
continued pesticide tolerances required to be reassessed more than 10 years.This
includes 67% of the 893tolerances having the greatest potential impact
on dietary risks to children. Goal Met.
66%
67%
66.9%
APG 4.2 Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
FY 2004 Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1995 levels.
Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Percentage of acre-treatments with reduced risk pesticides.
—Occurrences of residues on a core set of 19 foods eaten by children
relative to occurrence levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Planned
Actual
8.5%
25%
34%
FY 2003 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 Not Met.
Performance Measures:
—Percentage of acre treatments with reduced risk pesticides.
—Occurrences of residues on a core of 19 foods eaten by children
relative to occurrence levels for those foods reported in 1994-1996.
O. I 7o
20%
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
—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.
Goal Met.
—At least 1% of acre-treatments will use applications of reduced risk
pesticides. Goal Met.
105
15%
07
20%
7.5
APG 4.3 Exposure to Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
FY 2004 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commer-
cial chemicals.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Certified nationally to perform lead-based paint abatement.
—Children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (>l Oug/dl).
(PART)
—Safe disposal of transformers.
Planned
Actual
I 8,000
270 K
8000
24,000
Data
Available
FY 2006
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
FY 2004
continued
FY 2003
FY 2002
— Safe disposal of capacitors 6,000 Data Avail
FY 2006
— Number of participants in Hospitals for a Healthy Environment 2,000 2,930
(cumulative).
Reduce lead exposure in housing units and in the deleading of bridges
and structures. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
— Certified nationally (federally-administered and state-administered 5,000 5,561
program).
Implement certification and training of lead abatement professionals.
Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
— Certified nationally (federally-administered and state-administered 4,000 4,574
program).
APG 4.4
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Process and Disseminate Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Information
The increased use of theTRJ-Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result
in a total burden reduction of 5% for FY 2003 from FY 2002 levels.
Performance Measure:
— Percentage ofTRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using
TRI-ME and the CDX.
Expanded information on releases and waste management of lead and
lead compounds will be reported by 8,000 facilities in TRI in Reporting
Year 2001 and increased usage ofTRI-ME will result in total burden
reduction of 25% for Reporting Year 2002. Goal Met.
EPA will reduce reporting burden, improve data quality, lower program
costs, and speed data publication by increasing the amount ofTRI elec-
tronic reporting from 70% to 85%. Goal Met.
Planned
50%
50%
8,000
25%
85%
Actual
8,561
25%
92%
APG 4.5 Risks from Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
FY 2004 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial
chemicals.
Performance Measures:
—TSCA pre-manufacture notice reviews (annual).
—Number of Notice of Commencements (NOCs) received as per-
centage of total number of chemicals inTSCA inventory (cumulative).
—Make screening level health and environmental effects data publicly
available for sponsored HPV chemicals (cumulative).
—Annual number ofTSCA Section 5 Pre-Manufacturer Notices
(PMNs) received self-audited using complete battery of P2
Framework/PBT Profiler screening tools.
Planned
Actual
1,700
22.6%
1,300
40
1,377
22.8%
,309
71
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2004 — Reduction in current year production-adjusted risk screening environ- 2%
continued mental indicators risk-based score of releases and transfers of toxic 2,000
chemicals. (PART)
Due to a multi-year data lag FY 2004 data is not available.
— Cumulative number of chemicals for which AEGL values proposed. 1 28
— High Production Volume chemicals with complete Screening 75
Information Data Sets (SIDS) submitted to OECD SIDS Initial
Assessment Meeting (annual).
Data Available
FY 2006
34
98
FY 2003 Of the approximately 1 ,800 applications for new chemicals and 1,800
microorganisms submitted by industry, ensure those marketed are
safe for humans and the environment. Increase proportion of com-
mercial chemicals that have undergone pre-manufacture notice review
to signify they are properly managed and may be potential green
alternatives to existing chemicals.
FY 2002 Same goal. Goal Met. 1 ,800
FY 2003 Provide information and analytical tools to the public for accessing the
risk posed by toxic chemicals. Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
— Make existing screening level health and environmental effects 1 ,200
information and plans to develop needed data publicly available
for high production volume (HPV) chemicals sponsored in the US
HPV Challenge.
FY 2002 Same goal. Goal Met. 1 0% data
(280 chemicals)
,943
,235
843
chemicals
H APG 4.6 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticides Risks Planned
Actual
FY 2005 This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
APG 4.7
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticides Risks
Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-
inhibiting neurotic pesticides on foods eaten by children from their
average 1994 - 1996 levels. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of this
report.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Detections of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase inhibiting neu-
rotoxic pesticides on foods eaten by children will have decreased by
15% (cumulative) from their average 1994- 1996 levels. Goal Met.
Planned
25%
20%
15%
Actual
34%
34.3%
20%
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 4.8 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticides Risks
FY 2004 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks
and releases through facility risk reduction efforts and building communi-
ty infrastructures. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measure:
—Risk management plan audits completed.
Planned
Actual
400
730
APG 4.9 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticides Risks
FY 2004 Reduce wildlife incidents and mortalities.
Performance Measure:
—Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
caused by the 15 pesticides responsible for the greatest mortality to such
wildlife (cumulative). (PART/
Planned
Actual
-25%
Insufficient data
for analysis
FY 2003 Reduce public and ecosystem risk from pesticides.
Performance Measure:
—Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
caused by the 15 pesticides responsible for the greatest mortality to such
wildlife (cumulative). (PART)
-20%
FY 2002 Implementation of 10-15 additional model agricultural partnership proj-
ects that demonstrate and facilitate the adoption of farm management
decisions and practices that provide growers with a "reasonable transi-
tion" away from the highest risk pesticides. Goal Met.
10-15
APG 4.10 Chemical, Organism, and Pesticides Risks
FY 2004 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredi-
ents, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally
safe. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
—New Chemicals (cumulative). (PART)
—New Uses (cumulative).
Planned
Actual
131
74
3,079
FY 2003 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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2003
continued
FY 2002
Performance Measures:
— Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
—New Chemicals. (PART)
— New Uses.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
Register safer chemicals and biopesticides (cumulative).
1 18
67
3,079
105
24
72
3,142
07
APG 4.1 I Assess and Cleanup Brownfields
FY 2004 Assess, cleanup, and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, lever-
aging cleanup and redevelopment funding and jobs. Leverage or
generate funds through revitalization efforts. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
Performance Measures:
—Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
—Brownfield properties assessed. (PART)
—Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
— Brownfield property acres available for reuse or continued use.
—Jobs generated from Brownfields activities (annual).
—Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed.
—Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfield sites.
Planned
Actual
25
1,000
no target
no target
2,000
65%
75
,076
17
129
2,250
65%
$0.9 B
FY 2003 Assess, cleanup, and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, lever-
aging cleanup and redevelopment funding and jobs. Leverage or
generate funds through revitalization efforts. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
—Number of Brownfield properties assessed. (PART)
—Jobs generated from Brownfields activities (annual).
—Percentage of Brownfields job trainees placed.
1,000
2,000
65%
$1.49
,052
5,023
FY 2002 EPA will provide additional site assessment funding to 38 new communi- 3,100
ties, and to existing communities, resulting in a cumulative total of 3,100 19,300
properties assessed, the generation of 19,300 jobs, and the $4.0 B
leveraging of $4.0 B in cleanup and redevelopment funds since 1995.
Goal Met.
3,807
21,737
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 4.12 US-Mexico Border Water/Waste water Infrastructure
FY 2004 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 infra-
structure by providing improved water and wastewater service.
Goal Met.
Planned
990,000
Actual
1,163,00
APG 4.13 Sustain Community Health
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
Actual
APG 4.14 Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
FY 2004
Planned
Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs).
Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
— Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the 25,000
National Estuary Program (annual).
Actual
07,000
APG 4.15 Increase Wetlands
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned
Actual
APG 4.16 Great Lakes: Ecosystem Assessment
FY 2004
Planned Actual
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress
on fish contaminants, beach closures, air toxics, and trophic
status.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
FY 2004
this report.
Performance Measures:
— Long-term concentration trends
top predator fish.
— Long-term concentration trends
— Total phosphorus concentrations
Central Basin.
Performance Measures:
— Long-term concentration trends
top predator fish.
of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes
of toxic chemicals in the air
(long-term, Ug/l) in the Lake Erie
of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes
5% 5.8%
7% 8.4%
10 21.2 Ug/l
5% Data Available
2006
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2003 — Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air 7%
continued — Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, Ug/l) in the Lake Erie 1 0
Central Basin.
FY 2002 Same goal, different targets.
Performance Measures:
— Long-term concentration trends of toxics (PCBs) in Great Lakes top declining
predator fish.
— Long-term concentration trends of toxic chemicals in the air declining
— Total phosphorus concentrations (long-term, Ug/l) in the Lake Erie improving
Central Basin.
8.3%
8.4
declining
declining
mixed
1 APG 4.17 Chesapeake Bay Habitat Planned
FY 2004 Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation present in the Chesapeake Bay 90,000
(cumulative).
I APG 4.18 Chesapeake Bay Habitat Planned
Actual
64,709
Actual
FY 2005 This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
1 APG 4.19 Gulf of Mexico Planned
FY 2004 Assist the Gulf States in implementing watershed restoration actions in 71
71 (5-year rolling average) priority impaired coastal river and estuary
segments. Goal Met.
FY 2003 Same goal, different target. Goal Met. 1 4
Actual
71.2
95
1 APG 4.20 Conduct Relevant Research Planned
Actual
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 4.21 Conduct Relevant Research
Planned
Actual
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
APG 4.22 Conduct Relevant Research
Planned
Actual
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
APG 4.23 Human Health Risk Assessment Research
Planned
Actual
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
APG 4.24 Risk Assessment Research
Planned
Actual
FY 2005
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
PRIOR YEAR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS WITHOUT CORRESPONDING
FY 2005 GOALS
Planned
FY 2000 Administer federal programs and oversee state implementation of pro- 50
grams for lead-based paint abatement certification and training in 50
states, to reduce exposure to lead-based paint and ensure significant
decreases in children's blood levels by 2005. Goal Met.
FY 1999 Complete the building of a lead-based paint abatement certification and 50
training in 50 target states, to ensure significant decreases in children's
blood lead levels by 2005. Goal Not Met.
Actual
30
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 5
APG 5. 1
FY 2005
Compliance Assistance
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 5.2
FY 2005
Compliance Incentives
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 5.3
FY 2005
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 5.4
FY 2005
Improve Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
This APG is new for FY 2005; no prior year data.
Planned Actual
APG 5.5
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Improve Environmental Performance through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals
and municipal solid wastes.
Performance Measures:
— Reduction ofTRJ non-recycled waste (normalized).
— Alternative feed stocks, processes, or safer products identified
through Green Chemistry Challenge Award (cumulative).
— Quantity of hazardous chemicals/solvents eliminated through the
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program.
— For eco-friendly detergents, track the number of laundry detergent
formulations developed.
The quantity ofTRJ pollutants released, disposed of, treated or
combusted for energy recovery in 2003 (normalized for changes in
industrial production) will be reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%,
from 2002. Goal Met.
More information about this result can be found in Section 2 of
this report.
The quantity ofTRJ pollutants released, disposed of, treated or com-
busted for energy recovery in 2002 (normalized for changes in
industrial production) will be reduced by 200 million pounds, or 2%,
from 200 1 . Goal Not Met.
Planned Actual
200 M Lbs Data Available
FY 2006
210 prod/proc 429
1 50 M 460 M
36 38
-200 M 622 M
-200 M +366 M
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
APG 5.6 Build Tribal Capacity
FY 2004 Percent of Tribes will have an environmental presence (e.g., one or
more persons to assist in building Tribal capacity to develop and imple-
ment environmental programs. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs (cumulative).
—Tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment occurring
(cumulative).
—Tribes with EPA-approved multimedia work plans (cumulative).
Planned
Actual
5%
20%
18%
28%
44%
26%
FY 2003 In 2003 the American Indian Environmental Office will evaluate non-
Federal sources of environmental data pertaining to conditions in Indian
Country to enrich the Tribal Baseline Assessment Project. Goal Met.
20
20
FY 2002 Baseline environmental information will be collected for 38% of tribes
(covering 50% of Indian Country). Goal Met.
Performance Measure:
—Environmental assessments for tribes (cumulative).
217 tribes
tribes
APG 5.7 Information Exchange Network
FY 2004 Verify 35 air, water, greenhouse gas, and monitoring technologies
(through the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program) so
that states, technology purchasers, and the public will have highly credi-
ble data and performance analyses on which to make technology
selection decisions. Goal Met.
Planned
35
Actual
FY 2003 Develop 10 testing protocols and complete 40 technology verifications
for a cumulative ETV program total of 230 to aid industry, states, and
consumers in choosing effective technologies to protect the public and
environment from high risk pollutants. Goal Met.
10
40
40
FY 2002 Formalize generic testing protocols for technology performance verifica-
tion, and provide additional performance verifications of pollution
prevention, control and monitoring technologies in all environmental
media. Goal Met.
Performance Measure.
—Complete 20 stakeholder approved and peer-reviewed test proto-
cols in all environmental technology categories under ETV, and
provide them to testing organizations world-wide.
20
20
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Enabling and Support Programs
APG ESP-1 Information Exchange Network
FY 2004 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data
for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data
Exchange (CDX). Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Number of private sector and local government entities, such as
water authorities, using CDX to exchange environmental data
with EPA.
—CDX offers online data exchange for all major national systems by
the end of FY 2004.
—Number of states using CDX as the means by which they routinely
exchange environmental data with two or more EPA media pro-
grams or regions.
Planned
Actual
2,000
13
7,050
49
FY 2003 Decision makers have access to the environmental data that EPA
collects and manages to make sound environmental decisions while
minimizing the reporting burden on data providers. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
—States using the CDX to send data to EPA.
—In preparation for increasing the exchange of information through
CDX, implement data standards in I 3 major systems and develop 4
additional standards in 2003.
49
7
FY 2002 The CDX, a key component of the environmental information 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. Goal Met
45
APG ESP-2 Data Quality and Accessibility
FY 2004 EPA increasingly uses environmental indicators to inform the public and
manage for results. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
Establish the baseline for the suite of indicators that are used by EPA's
programs and partners in the Agency's strategic planning and perform-
ance measurement process.
Planned
Actual
I report
report
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
FY 2003 The public will have access to a wide range of federal, state, and
local environmental conditions and features in an area of their choice.
Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
Window-to-My-Environment nationally deployed and provides citizens
across the country with Federal, state, and local environmental informa-
tion specific to an area of their choice.
Nationally
Deployed
Nationally
Deployed
FY 2002 100% of the publicly available facility data from EPA's national systems
accessible on the EPA Website will be part of the Integrated Error
Correction Process, reducing data error Goal Met.
100%
00%
APG ESP-3 Information Security
FY 2004 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established
standards for security. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency
security programs reported annually to OMB underthe Federal
Information Security Management Act.
—Percent of intrusion detection monitoring sensors installed
and operational.
Planned
Actual
75
75%
00%
FY 2003
Same goal. Goal Met.
75
75
75
00
FY 2002 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 and transmitted to systems owners and managers in a for-
mal Risk Assessment document.
—Critical financial systems risk assessment findings will be formally docu-
mented and transmitted to systems owners and managers in a formal
Risk Assessment document.
—Mission critical environmental systems risk assessment findings will be
formally documented and transmitted to system owners and man-
agers in a formal Risk Assessment document.
12
13
2
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG ESP-4
FY 2004
FY 2003
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
Improve Agency business and operations by identifying 240 recommen-
dations, risks, and best practices; contributing to potential savings and
recoveries equal to of the annual investment in the OIG; 100 actions for
greater efficiency and effectiveness, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative
actions reducing the risk of loss or integrity. Goal Not Met.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Planned
240
150%
100
80
155
150%
75
50
Actual
390
48%
33
08
264
856%
83
APG ESP-5
FY 2004
FY 2003
FY 2002
Audit and Adivisory Services
Improve environmental quality and human health by identifying 80 rec-
ommendations, risks, or best practices; and contributing to the reduction
or elimination of environmental risks, and 42 actions influencing positive
environmental or health impacts. Goal Met.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Same goal, different targets. Goal Met.
Planned
80
18
42
80
20
60
50
15
15
Actual
16
312
92
85
00
18
16
APG ESP-6 Strengthen EPA's Management
Planned
Actual
FY 2004 Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's
mission while addressing the challenges included in the President's
Management Agenda. Goal Met.
Performance Measures:
—Offices using workforce planning model which identifies skills and
competencies needed by the Agency for strategic recruitment,
retention, and development.
—Percentage of total eligible service contracting dollars obligated as
performance-based in FY2004.
—The number of financial and resource performance metrics where the
Agency has met pre-established Agency or Government-wide per-
formance goals.The inventory of financial performance metrics are
found in the Agency's Financial Performance Measures and the
Government-wide Performance Metrics.The inventory of resource
performance metrics are found in the Senior Resource Official
Performance Measures.
—Agency audited financial statements are timely, and receive an
unqualified opinion.
10
20%
46
21%
-------
APPENDIX A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS, FY 2001-FY 2004
FY2003 Strengthen EPA's management services in support of the Agency's mis-
sion while addressing the challenges included in the President's
Management Agenda. Goal Not Met.
Performance Measures:
—Offices using workforce planning model which identifies skills and
competencies needed by the Agency for strategic recruitment, reten-
tion, and development.
—Percentage of total eligible service contracting dollars obligated as
performance-based in FY 2003.
—Agency audited financial statements are timely, and receive an
unqualified opinion.
30
19
FY 2002 EPA strengthens goal-based decision making by developing and issuing
timely planning 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.
3/01/02
3/01/02
APG ESP-7 Energy Consumption and Reduction Planned Actual
FY 2004 By 2004, EPA will achieve a I 6% energy reduction from 1990 in its 21 I 6%
laboratories which is in line to meet the 2005 requirement of a 20%
reduction from the 1990 base (this includes Green Power purchases).
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
ivaluations
d in FY 20C
INTRODUCTION
EPA relies on program evaluations and analyses to inform decisions, design effective strategies, and adjust approaches to
improve results. Appendix B lists and summarizes information for each program evaluation completed in FY 2005. It
includes evaluations that apply to a specific annual performance goal (APG) (which are also listed under relevant APGs in
Section 2 of this report) and broader evaluations that encompass more than one APG.This appendix lists evaluations by
goal and objective, and provides information on the evaluator; scope of the evaluation; relevant findings; recommendations;
ERA's response; and public access to the evaluation reports.
Goal I
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Fulfill Its Designated Responsibilities to Ensure Effective BioWatch Program.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 23,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
BioWatch is an early-warning system funded and overseen by the Department of Homeland Security. The EPA is an important partner in
the BioWatch program and has a major role in sampling operations. The evaluation sought to answer the following questions:
• What are EPA's designated responsibilities in the BioWatch program?
• How well is EPA implementing its designated responsibilities in the BioWatch program?
Evaluation Findings: The report determined that EPA's responsibilities include monitor deployment, site security oversight and assessing
monitor technology The report found that EPA needs to be involved in assessing technologies that are more reliable and timely and
reduce costs. Consequence management planning also needs to be built into the program.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation should ensure that EPA
fulfills all its BioWatch-designated responsibilities, including ensuring quality assurance guidance is adhered to. The OIG also recommended
that OAR work with its BioWatch partners to use its air monitoring expertise to identify and test alternative technologies and ensure
that EPA is prepared to assist with consequence management plans.
Planned Response: OAR agreed with the report and has begun working with EPA regions to address many of the issues identified.
Public Access: Report available at: Report No. 200S-P-00012.
Evaluation Title: Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V Permits if Program
Goals are to be Fully Realized.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 9,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
In 1990 Congress enacted Federal clean air permitting requirements designed to reduce violations and improve enforcement of air pollu-
tion laws for the largest sources of air pollution. Known as Title V, this provision requires that all major stationary sources of air pollutants
obtain a permit to operate. More than 17,000 sources are subject to Title V permit requirements. The OIG sought to determine
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Substantial Changes Needed in Implementation and Oversight of Title V Permits if Program
Goals are to be Fully Realized.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 9,2005.
Scope of Evaluation (continued):
whether (I) selected Title V permits contained adequate provisions consistent with key Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement; (2) EPA's over-
sight and guidance contributed to improvements in Title V implementation, and, (3) Title V had achieved its goals of improving the
implementation and enforcement of the CAA.
Evaluation Findings: The OIG's analysis identified concerns with five key aspects of Title V permits: permit clarity, statements of basis, mon-
itoring provisions, annual compliance certifications and practical enforceability Collectively these problems can hamper the ability of EPA,
state and local regulators, and the public to understand what requirements sources of air pollution are subject to, how they will be meas-
ured, and ultimately to hold sources accountable for meeting applicable air quality requirements. EPA's oversight and guidance of Title V
activities have resulted in some improvements in Title V programs, however areas of further improvement remain. Despite implementa-
tion problems, the Title V program has resulted in some significant benefits; the inclusion of all relevant CAA requirements in on e
document has enabled stakeholders to obtain the information needed to understand the applicable requirements for major emitting
sources and to express their concerns.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG made several recommendations for EPA to reduce the factors that negatively impact permit
clarity improve national Title V guidance, actively identify monitoring deficiencies in state implementation plans, and develop a comprehen-
sive Title V oversight strategy
Planned Response: OAR is expanding the use of our stakeholder workgroup as a means of identifying what is working (and what is not
working), to streamline the petition response process where feasible and to develop operating plans that combine oversight with permit
reviews and evaluations. We are also working with the Regional Offices on improving the implementation of theTitleV program when
specific issues arise with a given permitting authority
Public Access: Report available at:
Report No. 200S-P-00010.
Evaluation Title: Progress Made in Monitoring Ambient Air Toxics, But Further Improvements Can Increase
Effectiveness.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 2,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics. EPA defines air toxics as "those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or
other serious health effects or adverse environmental effects." EPA's goal is to reduce unacceptable health risks from air toxics for 95% of
the population by 2020. Ambient monitoring is important to assess progress towards this goal. The OIG performed this review to evalu-
ate EPA's progress in establishing a national network and determine the status of ambient air toxics monitoring nationwide. A viable
ambient monitoring program to detect areas of unhealthy air toxics concentrations and to measure national and local trends in those
concentrations is key to assessing progress in reducing air toxics-related health risks.
Evaluation Findings: Since 2000, EPA has significantly increased its ambient air toxics monitoring efforts to establish a national network
and support State and local agencies' monitoring activities. Additional effort and improvement is needed to ensure that sufficient ambient
air toxics data is available to identify areas of unhealthy ambient air toxics concentrations, identify national air toxics trends, and assess the
effectiveness of air toxics reduction strategies. The OIG also highlighted inconsistencies in the sampling frequencies and quality assurance
measures for the national trends sites. The OIG identified key barriers to ambient air toxics monitoring as adequacy of funding and lack
of methods to monitor certain air toxics.
Evaluation Recommendations:The OIG recommended that with respect to monitoring conducted on a local scale (i.e., certain State and
local network monitors and EPA's local project grant program), EPA should develop a strategy—in coordination with State, local and trib-
al partners—for siting monitors in locations that are estimated to present the greatest health risks from exposure to air toxics.
Recommendations were also made to improve the programmatic aspects of the national trends sites, particularly with respect to quality
assurance, quality control and data completeness.
Planned Response: The recommendations provided by the OIG generally align with current OAR improvement efforts. Funding remains
a key barrier
Public Access: Report available at: Report No. 2005-P-00008.
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Direct More Attention, Efforts and Funding to Enhance Its Speciation
Monitoring Program for Measuring Fine Particulate Matter.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: February 7,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
Airborne particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5) is comprised of a complex mixture of particles composed of sulfate,
nitrate, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and organic and inorganic compounds. Tens of thousands of premature deaths
yearly are associated with exposure to excess levels of PM2.5. By 2010, EPA estimates that compliance with PM2.5 emission control
strategies will cost industry more than $37 billion annually. EPA's speciation monitoring network is a critical component in the develop-
ment of thee control strategies. Determining the chemical make-up of a particle—known as speciation—is largely accomplished through
data generated by this network.
The OIG performed an evaluation to determine whether EPA's PM2.5 speciation air monitoring network is sufficient to (a) adequately
identify sources of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and (b) facilitate the development of effective control strategies to reduce PM2.5 to
safe levels.
Evaluation Findings: EPA has made substantial progress in establishing a speciation monitoring network to facilitate the development of
PM2.5 control strategies but still faces a number of challenges in ensuring that the controls are directed at the right sources. Although
the speciation network provides information for understanding the make-up and origin of PM2.5, the network does not fully assist in pro-
viding the data for EPA and States to identify or quantify the chemical make-up of PM2.5 particles, reliably trace particles back to their
source, or account for chemical changes that occur after particles are released into the atmosphere. Speciation data are available to
begin working on control strategies and EPA and the States are beginning the development of control strategies; however; increased mon-
itoring efforts are needed.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that OAR increase its research on technologies that can more fully identify the
chemical make-up of PM2.5, account for the atmospheric impacts on PM2.5, and assay the resultant changes that occur to the composi-
tion of the particle. This includes increasing opportunities for cooperation with the private sector to develop improved continuous
speciation monitors.
Planned Response: EPA disagrees with the OIG's conclusions regarding the sufficiency of currently available speciation data to "fully"
develop effective control strategies. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that improvements are clearly needed in our current inventory moni-
toring and modeling programs to further improve the efficiency and credibility of control strategies. We will consider the OIG final
recommendations along with recommendations from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Air Quality Management review, and related
recommendations received on an ongoing basis from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's subcommittee on ambient air moni-
toring and methods.
Public Access: Report available at: Report No. 200S-P-00004.
Evaluation Title: Gasoline Markets: Special Gasoline Blends Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality, but
Complicate Supply and Contribute to Higher Prices.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: June 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
The Clean Air Act, as amended, requires some areas with especially poor air quality to use a "special gasoline blend" designed to reduce
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) and requiring the use of an oxygenate such as ethanol. In
less severely polluted areas, the Act allows states, with EPA approval, to require the use of other special blends as part of their effort
meet air quality standards. GAO reviewed the following: (I) To what extent are special gasoline blends used in the United States and
how, if at all, is this use expected to change in the future? (2) What effect has the use of these blends had on reducing vehicle emissions
and improving overall air quality? (3) What is the effect of these blends on the gasoline supply? (4) How do these blends affect gasoline
prices?
Evaluation Findings: GAO found I I distinct special blends in use during the summer of 2004. Further; when different octane grades and
other factors are considered, there were at least 45 different kinds of gasoline produced in the United States during all of 2004. To date,
EPA has generally approved such applications and does not have authority to deny an application to use a specific special blend as long as
that blend meets criteria established in the CAA. EPA models show that use of special gasoline blends reduces vehicle emissions by vary-
ing degrees. Regarding air quality, EPA and others have concluded that improvements are, in part, attributable to the use of special blends.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Gasoline Markets: Special Gasoline Blends Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality, but
Complicate Supply and Contribute to Higher Prices (continued).
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: June 2005.
Evaluation Findings (continued):
The proliferation of special gasoline blends has put stress on the gasoline supply system and raised costs, affecting operations at refineries,
pipelines, and storage terminals. There is general consensus that increased complexity and higher costs associated with supplying special
blends, contribute to higher gasoline prices either because of more frequent or severe supply disruptions or because higher costs are like-
ly passed on at least in part to consumers.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommended that EPA, with DOE and others, develop a plan to balance the environmental bene-
fits of using special fuels with the impacts of these fuels on the gasoline supply infrastructure. GAO also recommended that EPA work
with other agencies to identify what statutory or other changes are required to implement this plan and request those authorities from
Congress.
Planned Response: EPA does not have any comment on these findings.
Public Access: Report available at:
Report No. GAO-OS-421.
Evaluation Title: Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes Rules for Coal-Fired
Electric Utilities.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: February 3,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed rules for regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired steam generating electric utility units. EPA pro-
posed two options for controlling mercury emissions, one a control technology standard with emission limits and the other a
performance based cap-and-trade approach. Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee requested that we
review EPA's development of its proposed rule for controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utilities.
Evaluation Findings: The OIG evaluation was conducted and completed before the Agency had completed the rulemaking process. The
observations and characterizations about the process reflect the status of the rulemaking process at the time we completed our review.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that EPA reanalyze mercury emissions data collected and conduct a revised
cost-benefit analysis for the updated MACT that takes into account the impact of mercury co-benefits through the proposed CAIR. The
OIG also recommended that the Agency strengthen its cap-and-trade proposal. Further; the OIG also recommended that the Agency
conduct an integrated analysis with respect to whether emissions reductions under either of these proposals are the most child-protec-
tive, timely, and cost-effective.
Planned Response: EPA promulgated the mercury rule on March I 5, 2005. Earlier that month, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate
Rule.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Clean Air Act: Observations on EPA's Cost-Benefit Analysis of its Mercury Control Options.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: February 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed rules for regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired steam generating electric utility units. EPA pro-
posed two options for controlling mercury emissions, one a control technology standard with emission limits and the other a
performance based cap-and-trade approach. EPA is directed by statute and executive order to analyze the costs and benefits of proposed
rules, and the Agency summarized its analysis underlying the two options in the proposal. In this context, GAO was asked to assess the
usefulness of EPA's economic analysis for decision making.
Evaluation Findings: GAO identified four major shortcomings in the economic analysis underlying EPA's proposed mercury control
options:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: Clean Air Act: Observations on EPA's Cost-Benefit Analysis of its Mercury Control Options
(continued).
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: February 2005.
Evaluation Findings (continued):
• the Agency did not consistently analyze the options or provide an estimate of the total costs and benefits of each option;
• EPA did not document some of its analysis or provide information on how changes in the proposed level of mercury control would
affect the cost-and-benefit estimates for the technology-based option, as it did for the cap-and-trade option;
• EPA did not estimate the value of the health benefits directly related to decreased mercury emissions and instead estimated only
some secondary benefits; and,
• EPA did not analyze some of the key uncertainties underlying its cost-and benefit estimates.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommended that as the Agency revises its economic analysis prior to selecting a mercury control
option, the EPA Administrator take the following actions:
• analyze and fully document the economic effects of each policy option by itself, as well as in combination with the interstate rule,
over their full implementation periods;
• ensure that the Agency documents its analysis supporting the final rule and consistently analyzes the effect that different levels of
mercury control would have on cost-and-benefit estimates under each policy option;
• include monetary estimates, where possible, of the human health benefits of reductions in mercury emissions from power plants on
at a minimum, provide qualitative information on how these benefits are likely to compare under the two options over a consistent
time frame, reflecting full implementation of both options; and, further
• analyze uncertainties surrounding estimates of costs and benefits, as directed by OMB guidance, and evaluate how these uncertain-
ties could affect overall estimates of the rule's impacts.
Planned Response: Prior to issuing the final mercury regulation on March I 5, 2005 EPA conducted additional analyses that largely
addressed the findings and recommendations identified in this report.
Public Access: Report available at:
.Report No. GAO-OS-2S2.
Evaluation Title: Clean Air Act: Emerging Mercury Control Technologies Have Shown Promising Results, but
Data on Long-Term Performance are Limited.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: May 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
In March 2005, EPA issued a rule that will limit emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants, the nation's largest industrial source of
mercury emissions. Under the rule, mercury emissions are to be reduced from a base of 48 tons per year to 38 tons in 2010 and to I 5
tons in 201 8. In the rule, EPA set the emissions target for 2010 based on the level of reductions achievable with technologies for control-
ling other pollutants—which also capture some mercury—because it believed emerging mercury controls had not been adequately
demonstrated. EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) coordinate research on mercury controls. In this context, GAO was asked to:
describe the use, availability and effectiveness of technologies to reduce mercury emissions at power plants; and, identify the factors that
influence the cost of these technologies and report on available cost estimates. In completing the review, GAO did not independently
test mercury controls.
Evaluation Findings: Mercury controls have not been permanently installed at power plants because, prior to the March 2005 mercury
rule, federal law had not required this industry to control mercury emissions; however; some technologies are available for purchase and
have shown promising results in field tests. Long-term test data are limited because most tests at power plants during normal operations
have lasted less than three months. The cost of mercury controls depends on several site-specific factors such as the ability of existing air
pollution controls to remove mercury As a result, the available cost estimates vary widely
Evaluation Recommendations: N/A
Planned Response: N/A
Public Access: Report available at: Report No. GAO-OS-612.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to Environmental Justice When
Developing Clean Air Rules.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: July 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I.
Executive Order 12898 made achieving "environmental justice" part of the mission of EPA and other federal agencies. According to EPA,
environmental justice involves fair treatment of people of all races, cultures and incomes. EPA developed guidance for considering envi-
ronmental justice in the development of rules under the Clean Air Act and other activities. GAO was asked to examine how EPA
considered environmental justice during two phases of developing clean air rules: (I) drafting the rule, including activities of the work-
group that considered regulatory option the economic review of the rule's costs, and making the proposed rule available for public
comment, and (2) finalizing the rule, including addressing public comments and revising the economic review. GAO reviewed: the rule to
reduce sulfur in gasoline; the rule to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel; and the ozone implementation rule.
Evaluation Findings: GAO found that when drafting the three clean air rules, EPA generally devoted little attention to environmental jus-
tice. While EPA guidance on rulemaking states that workgroups should consider environmental justice early in this process, GAO found
that a lack of guidance and training for workgroup members on identifying environmental justice issues may have limited their ability to
identify such issues. GAO also indicated that while EPA officials stated that economic reviews of proposed rules consider potential envi-
ronmental justice impacts, the gasoline and diesel rules did not provide decision makers with environmental justice analyses, and EPA has
not identified all the types of data necessary to analyze such impacts. Finally in all three rules, EPA mentioned environmental justice when
they were proposed but the discussion in the ozone implementation rule was contradictory
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommends that EPA improve workgroups' ability to identify environmental justice issues and
enhance the ability of its economic review to analyze potential environmental justice impacts.
Planned Response: EPA disagrees with the recommendations and believes it pays appropriate attention to environmental justice.The report
does not accurately reflect the progress we are making in achieving environmental justice with respect to air pollution; nor does it accurately
reflect the way in which the three final rules GAO reviewed, and EPA's development of them, address environmental justice issues.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Managerial and Scientific Review of the Particulate Matter (PM) / Ozone (Oz) Program.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: August 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective 6.
In preparation for the OMB Program Analysis Rating Tool (PART) review of the PM/Oz Program, ORD elected to seek review of pro-
gram management and science by an independent panel of experts.The ORD PM/Oz Program is valued at approximately $70M with
research support to intramural and academic scientists targeting protection from the health impacts of air pollution on the US public.The
research encompasses investigation of health impacts, exposure issues, atmospheric sciences, emission characterizations, as well as meth-
ods and programs to control and mitigate air pollution and health outcomes.The Program is managed by ORD.The BOSC review
focused on program organization progress, and achievement of outcome objectives which includes not only internal coordination but
coordination with clients in OAR, states, regions and tribes who rely on the science to design and implement regulatory programs to min-
imize health and ecological impacts of air pollution.
Evaluation Findings: Overall science in both the intramural and extramural research laboratories was judged to be of high quality in
terms of (I) academic scholarship and scientific publications; (2) credentials of the participating scientists; (3) its integrated and outcome
oriented program design; and (4) its role in building a knowledge and information database. The Program was deemed to conduct a
highly integrated program across all elements and disciplines that in design and communication address stakeholder and OAR client
needs. Extramural research is coordinated to meet needs not met intramurally and is conducted through a merit based process.
Evaluation Recommendations: Editorial changes were offered to refine restructured long term goals to better meet outcome targets espe-
cially in the context of source to health outcome paradigm. It was also recommended that a periodic formalized process be established for
assessing primary stakeholder satisfaction and outcome perceptions. Additionally it was recommended that a methodology (including expert
panel consultation) be developed to define baseline of uncertainty and to clarify the cost-effectiveness of regulatory actions.
Planned Response: ORD is expanding the use of evaluative tools including annual expert review of program process, bibliographic analy-
sis for product quality and utility and stakeholder satisfaction. Expanded efforts will be initiated in intramural and extramural program
communication especially with stakeholders (regions, states and tribes).
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Goal 2
Evaluation Title: District of Columbia's Drinking Water: Agencies Have Improved Coordination, but Key
Challenges Remain in Protecting the Public from Elevated Lead Levels.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: March 3 1,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate how agencies in the District of Columbia are (I) implementing the Lead and Copper Rule, and
(2) working to better coordinate efforts to reduce lead levels. The report also collected information on public education efforts in other
communities and looked at the state of research on lead exposure and how it applies to drinking water
Evaluation Findings: GAO found that the agencies overseeing drinking water quality in the District have improved their coordination, but
that significant challenges remained. The report described methods that utilities across the nation use in carrying out activities required
when they exceed the action level—including lead service line replacement and public education. The report also found that there was a
limited amount of research evaluating the health effects from exposure to low levels of lead in drinking water
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO is recommending that EPA (I) identify and publish best practices that water systems are using to
educate their customers about lead in drinking water; and (2) develop a strategy for closing information gaps in the health effects of lead
in drinking water
Planned Response: In addition to distributing and promoting use of our existing Public Education guidance, EPA will work with states and
water utility associations to identify best practices for public education and disseminate them to a wide audience. The Agency is also
developing a health advisory that should help inform the discussion and a paper that will summarize toxicokinetic research published
since the rule was issued in 199 I.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Progress Report on Drinking Water Protection Efforts.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: August 22,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I.
This evaluation sought to determine the progress made by EPA and its partners to address Congress' intended goal in the 1990 Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments to protect drinking water from contamination.
Evaluation Findings:
• Progress has been made towards implementing SDWA provisions.
• Challenges remain regarding implementation.
• Current performance measures leave extent of progress uncertain.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• EPA needs to identify methods to improve the Consumer Confidence Report.
• EPA should continue to develop measures for individual SDWA provisions.
Planned Response: EPA's Office of Water; in its response to the draft report, agreed that Consumer Confidence Reports can improve
communication with consumers. EPA is convening a working group to the NDWAC to evaluate public information requirements under
the SDWA. It is expected that efforts carried out by this working group will also help the Agency develop information to improve CCRs.
Public Access: Report available at: Report No. 2005-P-00021.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Show Initial Promise, But Obstacles
Remain.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 28,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I.
This evaluation sought to determine the progress made by EPA and its partners to address Congress' intended goal in the 1990 Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments to protect drinking water from contamination.
Evaluation Findings:
• States are making progress on assessments and protection, though several obstacles have been identified that hinder States' efforts
to protect source water
• Source water assessments are valuable to the public, but use and accessibility are limited.
• Substantial obstacles faced, but opportunities to overcome exist.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Issue a public statement to re-affirm that the source water assessment and protection programs are a priority for EPA.
• Encourage States to target assessments not only to utilities, but also to local governments, councils, planners, building and zoning
officials, and other stakeholders.
• Provide guidance to states on how to leverage financial and technical resources from other EPA programs, partners, and stakehold-
ers.
• Continue to improve cooperation and coordination between states and EPA assistance contractors.
• Work with regions and states to: (I) integrate environmental programs, and (2) determine how best to disseminate locally-applica-
ble best practices for contaminant source management and motivation.
Planned Response: EPA's Office ofWater, in its response to the draft report (March 4, 2005), agreed that source water assessments have
the potential to improve drinking water protection, while acknowledging that the assessment content, utility, and availability can be
improved. EPA also agreed that moving from assessment to voluntary protection will require substantial effort, including state and local
capacity building, environmental program integration, and inter-agency coordination.
Public Access: Report available at:
Report No. 200S-P-0001 3.
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Determine What Barriers Prevent Water Systems from Securing Known
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Vulnerabilities.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: January 6,2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I.
Federal Directives highlighted the need to secure cyberspace, including SCADA, from terrorists and other malicious actors, and stated
that securing SCADA is a national priority We learned from stakeholder contacts that utilities may require assistance in order to secure
their SCADA system vulnerabilities.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
SCADA networks were developed with little attention paid to security Some areas and examples of possible SCADA vulnerabilities
include operator errors and corruption, unsecured electronic communications, hardware and software limitations, physical security weak-
nesses, natural disasters, poorly written software, and poor security administration.
Through preliminary research, we found several possible reasons why utilities have not successfully reduced or mitigated identified vulner-
abilities: current technological limitations may impede implementing security measures; companies may not be able to afford or justify
the required investment; utilities may not be able to conduct background checks on existing employees; officials may not permit SCADA
penetration testing; and, technical engineers may have difficulty communicating security needs to management.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
• EPA should identify impediments preventing water systems from successfully reducing or mitigating SCADA vulnerabilities and take
steps to reduce those impediments.
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Determine What Barriers Prevent Water Systems from Securing Known
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Vulnerabilities (continued).
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: January 6,2005
Evaluation Recommendations (continued):
• If EPA identifies a problem with no apparent solution, the Agency should communicate this problem to the Department of
Homeland Security Congress, and others as appropriate.
• EPA should develop SCADA security measures to track the effectiveness of security efforts.
Planned response: We suspended our SCADA project because EPA agreed to incorporate our concerns into an Agency SCADA proj-
ect. At EPA's request, we briefed the Agency on our preliminary research and prepared this briefing report.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Efforts to Manage Backlog of Water Discharge Permits Need to be Accompanied by Greater
Program Integration.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: June I 3,2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine:
• How successful EPA and States have been in eliminating the backlog.
• The potential environmental impact of the backlog.
• How well measures reflect environmental impacts.
Evaluation Findings: EPA and states have taken various actions to eliminate the NPDES permit backlog, but can do more to address con-
tinuing and anticipated challenges. Because the NPDES permit program is not the only program involved with improving surface water
quality, eliminating the backlog alone may not have a significant impact on improving national water quality EPA and states need to bal-
ance efforts to eliminate the backlog with other efforts to improve water quality Further; EPA needs to ensure that its efforts to reduce
the backlog do not result in it quickly reissuing permits that are not as effective as they should be to improve water quality Also, EPA
needs to improve its reporting of the GPRA backlog measure.
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA needs to build on the steps already initiated to reduce the NPDES permit backlog. EPA needs to
take various steps to integrate the NPDES permit program with other point source programs that support the permit program. This
would include creating a system for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of its efforts related to clean water EPA also needs to con-
tinue making improvements related to its measures, such as providing appropriate baselines. The OIG encourages EPA to continue
refining the "Permitting for Environmental Results" Strategy to reduce the NPDES backlog and in general to improve the quality of the
Nation's water bodies.
Planned Response: EPA is currently finalizing its response to incorporate the recommendations into the overall NPDES program.
Public Access: Report available at: Report No. 2005-P-OOOI8.
Evaluation Title: Storm Water Pollution: Information Needed on the Implications of Permitting Oil and Gas
Construction Activities.
Evaluator: U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: February 2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.
GAO asked EPA to provide information about oil and gas construction activities—such as well drilling and pipeline construction—affected
by Phase I and likely to be affected by Phase II, as well as Phase ll's financial and environmental implications.
Evaluation Findings: A small fraction of total oil and gas construction activities have been permitted under Phase I of EPA's storm water
program. Industry has sought to have its drilling activities permitted on few occasions because it has determined that most drilling activity
involves distinct projects that disturb less than five acres each. In states reviewed, there were few reported compliance problems associat-
ed with oil and gas construction activities.The oil and gas construction activities affected by the rule may lead to increased financial costs
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Storm Water Pollution: Information Needed on the Implications of Permitting Oil and Gas
Construction Activities (continued).
Evaluator: U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: February 2005
for the oil and gas industry and federal agencies implementing the rule. Many of the potential costs stem from meeting permit require-
ments to review the impact of construction activities on endangered species, although this impact would be site specific and difficult to
quantify Potentially offsetting these costs, the rule may lead to additional environmental protections that are difficult to quantify such as
decreased levels of sediment in water and benefits for endangered species and their habitat. After delaying implementation of this rule for
oil and gas construction activities for 2 years to study the impact of Phase II, EPA is analyzing the impact but, as yet, has not quantified the
number of activities affected or the potential financial and environmental implications.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommends that EPA's Administrator complete the Agency's analysis of the Phase II program
before making a final decision on its implementation.
Planned Response: In reviewing the GAO draft report, EPA agreed with the recommendation. EPA subsequently proposed an extension
for the Phase II deadline for small oil and gas activities until June 2006 to allow time to complete its analysis. Subsequently Congress
passed a rider in the FY2006 energy bill exempting oil and gas construction from NPDES permitting requirements.
Public Access: Report available at:
. GAO-OS-240
Evaluation Title: Audit Report: Region 10's Grant for Alaska Village Safe Water Program Did Not Meet EPA
Guidelines.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: June 16,2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.
The purpose of this audit was to follow up to a prior audit on the Alaska Village Safe Water Program. The OIG sought to answer "Did
EPA Region 10 meet EPA guidelines before awarding the program grant of $34 million in 2004"?
Evaluation Findings:
• There is a lack of grants oversight by EPA Region 10. The Region did not follow grants guidance nor conduct adequate post-award
monitoring.
• There is no ability to determine whether objectives are being met or to quantify benefits achieved. There was no development of
program goals, objectives or measures.
• Original audit was conducted in September 2004.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Establish controls to ensure that Region 10 fulfills all EPA requirements before awarding grants.
• Suspend work under Grant No. XP-970847-01 until the state prepares a complete application and Region 10 adequately com-
pletes its review process following all EPA requirements.
• Ensure that a revised or reinstated award clearly addresses ineligible projects and administrative cost issues, and directly addresses
compliance with the federal cost principles in OMF Circular A-87 and the statutory limits on administrative costs.
• Place the state on a reimbursement payment basis, in accordance with 40 CFR 31.12, until EPA has verified that the State's cash
management system fully complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 3 1.21 (b).
Planned Response:
• Costs reviews were not performed prior to the award of the FY 2004 grant. Costs reviews will be performed prior to the award
for the FY 2005 grant.
• EPA does not believe that sufficient justification exists to suspend work under Grant No. XP-970847-01 at this time. The Agency
believes that the application is complete as it contains environmental outcomes that directly support the EPA 2003-2008 Strategic
Plan and that have been accepted by the OMB PART review process.
• The Region will revise the FY 2004 award to incorporate the results of the completed cost review and define the administrative
costs for the July 1, 2004 to June 3 1, 2005 time frame.
• The Region will modify the grant terms to indicate that the state will meet the U.S.Treasury cash management requirements.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Goal 3
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of the Interagency Open Dump Cleanup Project for Tribes.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Date: December 2004
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective I.
The evaluation was designed to determine to what extent:
• The Cleanup Project has resulted in the cleanup, closure, or prevention of open dumps.
• Workgroup funds have contributed to the development of sustainable SWM programs.
• There has been a recurrence of open dumping in the Project-affected lands.
• Administrative issues affect the Workgroup's ability to achieve its goals.
Evaluation Findings:
• Tribes are making steady progress in the cleanup and closure of existing open dumps and are building solid waste management
capacity
• Building SWM capacity requires supportive tribal council, outreach, and community involvement.
• Tribes experience difficulty eliminating illegal dumping, due to distance to compliant facilities, lack of adequate roadways, individual
household costs, and insufficient outreach.
Evaluation Recommendations: The Interagency Workgroup should consider:
• developing Workgroup Performance Measures that Inform Funding Priorities.
• developing Uniform Reporting Mechanisms to Record Progress.
• adopting Flexible Funding Approach in Considering Tribal Needs.
• supporting Tribal Efforts to Inventory and Map Open Dumps.
• offering More Opportunities forTribal Networking.
• developing and Publicize Tribal Case Studies.
• developing "Smart" Funding Process to Reduce Administrative Burden.
Planned Response:
• Develop performance measures on projects.
• Conduct training session at NTCEM conference in 6/05 and RCAP meeting in 8/05.
• Publish case studies through Tribal Journal and OSWs tribal website.
• Improve the accuracy and completeness of open dump inventory
• Incorporate remaining evaluation recommendations at Interagency Workgroup meetings.
• Increase interaction and coordination among Federal Agencies.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: An Assessment of EPA's Policies for Streamlining Federal Facility Cleanups.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office. Date: May 2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine how innovations found in streamlining and cleanup acceleration policies issued in the
late 1990s have been implemented at federal hazardous waste sites and identify areas for improvement in the development of future
policies.
Evaluation Findings: The policies evaluated contributed to improving the overall process by which stakeholders collaborate, plan, and
resolve issues at federal facilities. The issuance of the policies elevated the importance of streamlining and spurred wider application of
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: An Assessment of EPA's Policies for Streamlining Federal Facility Cleanups (continued).
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office. Date: May 2005
Evaluation Findings (continued):
streamlining principles and innovative techniques. EPA's culture and openness to innovation is just as important as any current streamlin-
ing policy which helps to facilitate application of these approaches.
Evaluation Recommendations: Eight recommendations resulted from the evaluation: I) develop measurable streamlining goals and per-
formance metrics, 2) incorporate EPA oversight priorities in performance based contracts issued by other federal agencies, 3) consolidate
EPA streamlining policies, 4) develop facility exit strategies, 5) develop applied guidance and training for EPA regional personnel, 6) amend
interagency agreements to reflect evolving situations at federal facilities, 7) continue to explore the potential benefits of new presumptive
remedies, and 8) identify and mitigate organizational barriers and concerns at the earliest stages.
Planned Response: The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program is developing an action plan to address the recommendations
which resulted from the evaluation.
Public Access: Report available by contacting Tracey Seymour (OSWER Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office) at
(703) 603-0048.
Evaluation Title: EPA Practices for Identifying and Inventorying Hazardous Sites Could Assist in Similar
Department of the Interior Efforts.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: August 22,2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to identify relevant promising EPA practices for the Department of Interior to consider improving its
processes with respect to hazardous waste sites.
Evaluation Findings: Several EPA practices could be used by DOI to ensure DOI addresses its highest priority sites first.
Evaluation Recommendations: N/A
Planned Response: N/A
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: An Internal Review of Procedures for Community Involvement in Superfund Risk
Assessments.
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Date: March 2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine:
• Effective approaches for involving communities in the risk assessment process,
• What EPA and the community have gained from involving communities in the risk assessment process, and
• If increasing public understanding of risk assessment has impact or increases public confidence in EPA's decisions.
Evaluation Findings:
• The factors influencing community involvement include proximity to the site; impact of contamination on property values; parental
concerns; and media attention to the site.
• By involving community members in the risk assessment, the EPA often receives more complete information on a site's history
exposure pathways, and contamination sources and amounts; in addition it helps build confidence in EPA.
• Access to technical support makes a significant difference in the community's ability to understand and contribute to the risk assess-
ment process.
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: An Internal Review of Procedures for Community Involvement in Superfund Risk
Assessments (continued).
Evaluator: U.S. EPA, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Date: March 2005
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Provide training for Superfund personnel on effective community involvement as well as risk communication.
• Promote and implement existing tools to formalize community involvement in the risk assessment process.
• Encourage remedial project managers to work closely with community involvement coordinators and risk assessors earlier in the
Superfund process.
Planned Response: Review findings with an internal focus group to:
• Identify realistic short-term and long term goals.
• Set priorities for training and improving tools.
• Determine if further research/review is needed.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites Could Better Protect the Public.
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: January 2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
GAO was asked by Congress to review the extent to which (I) institutional controls are used at Superfund and R.CRA sites and (2) EPA
ensures that these controls are implemented, monitored, and enforced. GAO also reviewed EPA's challenges in implementing control
tracking systems.To address these issues, GAO examined the use, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of controls at a sample of
268 sites.
Evaluation Findings:
• Institutional controls were applied at most of the Superfund and P\CP\A sites GAO examined where waste was left in place after
cleanup, but documentation of remedy decisions often did not discuss key factors called for in EPA's guidance.
• EPA faces significant challenges in ensuring that institutional controls are adequately implemented, monitored, and enforced.
• Institutional controls at the Superfund sites GAO reviewed were often not implemented before the cleanup was completed.
• EPA's monitoring of Superfund sites where cleanup has been completed but residual contamination remains often does not include
verification that institutional controls are in place.
• EPA may have difficulties ensuring that the terms of institutional controls can be enforced at some Superfund and R.CRA sites: that
is, some controls are informational in nature and do not legally limit or restrict use of the property and, in some cases, state laws
may limit the options available to enforce institutional controls.
• To improve its ability to ensure the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls, EPA has begun implementing institutional con-
trol tracking systems for its Superfund and R.CRA corrective action programs.The agency, however; faces significant obstacles in
implementing such systems.The institutional control tracking systems being implemented track only minimal information on the
institutional controls. Moreover; as currently configured, the systems do not include information on long-term monitoring or
enforcement of the controls. In addition, the tracking systems include data essentially derived from file reviews, which may or may
not reflect institutional controls as actually implemented.
• While EPA has plans to improve the data quality for the Superfund tracking system-ensuring that the data accurately reflects insti-
tutional controls as implemented and adding information on monitoring and enforcement—the first step, data verification, could take
5 years to complete.
Evaluation Recommendations: To ensure the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls, GAO recommended that EPA;
• clarify its guidance on when controls should be used;
• demonstrate that, in selecting controls, sufficient consideration was given to all key factors;
• ensure that the frequency and scope of monitoring efforts are sufficient to maintain the effectiveness of controls; and
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites Could Better Protect the Public (continued).
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: January 2005
Evaluation Recommendations (continued):
• ensure that the information on controls reported in new tracking systems accurately reflects actual conditions.
Planned Response: EPA concurs with GAO's recommendations and has undertaken a number of activities to address GAO's recommen-
dations, including: developing several guidances, conducting trainings and outreach, identifying and developing new 1C tools, conducting
detailed evaluations on the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of ICs, development of a National 1C Strategy for the Superfund
Program and Regional work plans.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of Three RCRA Regulations Designed to Foster Increased Recycling.
Evaluator: Industrial Economics, Inc. for U. S. EPA, Office of Planning Analysis and Accountability, U.S. EPA Office of Policy Economics
and Innovation, and U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Date: November 2004
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective I.
The evaluation examined the degree to which states and regulated entities were aware of three regulatory exclusions promulgated to
allow more flexibility in the management of certain hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).The
evaluation examined the extent to which these three rules have led to changes in waste management practices including an increase in
recycling rates, factors that may have contributed to any observed changes, and impacts on natural resource conservation.The three
exclusions examined were the 1995 universal waste rule for Ni-Cd batteries, the 1998 oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials and
recovered oil rule, and the 2000 I 80-day accumulation time rule for recycled electroplating sludges.
Evaluation Findings:
• Recycling increased in the case of the universal waste rule and the exclusion for oil-bearing secondary materials, but not significantly
in the case of the F006 180-day rule;
• Rule changes will have the greatest impact when the infrastructure and capacity to recycle are in place prior to the regulations. For
example, the universal waste rule facilitated existing recycling programs and the oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials rule
encouraged transfers to facilities that were already recycling.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• EPA needs better information on state adoption and authorization activities;
• EPA needs better data to assess impacts of existing rules and predict impacts of new ones;
• It is important to consider unexpected results (e.g., air or waste water issues) from increased recycling;
• EPA should utilize opportunities where rule changes can leverage existing recycling infrastructure programs.
Planned Response:
The report and its findings are being used:
• To better understand the regulatory and non-regulatory factors that influence whether hazardous waste is recycled or disposed of;
• To inform current regulatory efforts in the area of hazardous waste recycling, including revisions to the broadly applicable Definition
of Solid Waste and other more targeted recycling regulations;
• To identify opportunities for better data collection on hazardous waste recycling;
• To examine OSWs outreach and communication efforts to both co-regulators and the regulated community regarding hazardous
waste recycling regulations;
• To help prioritize future efforts to increase hazardous waste recycling.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources.
Evaluator: US EPA, Office of Inspector General. Date: November 2005
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.
The purpose of this evaluation was to:
• Evaluate Superfund expenditures at headquarters and the regions.
• Recommend options for increasing resources directed to extramural cleanup while minimizing administrative costs.
Evaluation Findings:
• EPA faces significant challenges in managing Superfund administrative and programmatic costs towards the goal of optimizing their
proper balance and alignment with program needs.
• EPA offices do not have agreed-upon definition for administrative costs or use activity-based costing to management Superfund
administrative resources.
• EPA's outdated workload model and its decentralized management hinder comprehensive Superfund resource management.
• EPA does not take advantage of opportunities to benefit from research and recommendations to improve Superfund program effi-
ciency and effectiveness because it lacks an effective system and an accountable entity to solicit, analyze, evaluate, and incorporate
research and recommendations into the program.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• Evaluate OIG options for providing more funds for Superfund cleanups.
• Improve accounting for Superfund costs.
• Redirect some funds to determine health risks at sites.
• Improve accountability for achieving efficiency and effectiveness improvements in the program.
Planned Response: EPA is currently working on an implementation plan to take action on OIG recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Response Action Contracts: Structure and Administration Needs Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: December 2004.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 3.
The purpose of this evaluation was to help achieve the overarching contract audit goal of assessing how effectively contracts contribute
to accomplishing program goals. The project objectives were to examine EPA procedures for:
• Acquisition Planning: How are RAGS structured and funded?
• Source Selection: How does EPA decide with whom to contract? Is past performance considered?
• Contract Administration: Are there good measures for assessing contractor performance?
• Contract Information Systems: Do contract managers have the information needed to evaluate results and make decisions?
Evaluation Findings:
• EPA can improve the structure of RACs to better protect the Government's interests. Current RACs, which are Cost Plus Award
Fee Level of Effort contracts, assign to EPA a disproportionate share of the risk of cost overruns; expose EPA to the risk of loss of
funds through litigation; limit competition; and forego potential cost savings associated with other approaches to contacting, such as
Performance-Based Service Acquisition.
• EPA regions do not consistently document the rationale used to decide what procurement option to utilize for Superfund cleanup
activities as required by established policy. Further; EPA does not have a process to measure and disseminate information on the U.
S. Army Corp of Engineers' past performance in support of EPA.
• The Agency has measures in place to assess contractor performance at the work assignment level. However; evaluations at the
contract level were not being documented timely and consistently as required, because they were not given the necessary priority.
Not consistently documenting evaluations in a timely manner does not permit EPA and other Federal agencies to consider contrac-
tors' past performance and could be detrimental to contractors who have performed well.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Response Action Contracts: Structure and Administration Needs Improvement (continued).
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: December 2004.
Evaluation Findings (continued):
• Contract managers have, or can obtain, the information needed to evaluate results and make decisions, but the information in the
national automated database is not always readily available. The Remedial Action Contract Management Information System is
underutilized by regional staff, and the system does not collect national data as originally intended. As a result, EPA is expending
approximately $1.5 million a year on a system that is not being fully utilized.
Evaluation Recommendations: It was recommended that the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), in coordination
with the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM), develop and implement a plan with milestones that will increase
the use of different contract types, require regional staff to document the rationale for all source selection decisions, develop a method
for holding Contracting Officers accountable for conducting past performance evaluations timely and accurately and conduct a cost bene-
fit analysis to determine whether the Remedial Action Contract Management Information System should be retained.
Planned Response: OSWER, in coordination with OARM, has developed and implemented a plan with milestones to address the evalua-
tion recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Advisory on the Office of Research & Development's Contaminated Sites and RCRA Multi-
Year Plans.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). Date: May 23,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 3.
The purpose of this evaluation was to:
• Provide an external peer review of the two multi-year research plans prior to revision and merger into a single plan for Goal 3
research.
Evaluation Findings:
• The Panel determined that the plans are generally programmatically and scientifically sound, and endorsed the proposal to merge
the plans.
• The Panel complimented the team on level of coordination between ORD and the program offices and on the use of judicious
leveraging to stretch limited resources.
Evaluation Recommendations:
The Panel recommended that the merged plan be structured and written so that the contents, from long-term goals to work products,
are clearly linked to the EPA strategic plan and transparently show that the program meets the OMB research investment criteria. The
Panel recommended that some resources be reserved to address emerging (>JO years) issues to maintain viability and relevance over
the long term. Within the report, the panel made additional commentary and elaborated on these two recommendations.
Planned Response:
The National Program Director; together with ORD, program, and regional staff, is currently working to merge and revise the multi-year
plan consistent with the Panel's recommendations.The draft plan will be included in a programmatic peer review, scheduled to be con-
ducted by ORD's Board of Scientific Counselors in December 2005.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Goal 4
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative Resources.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: July 7,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2.
This review was in response to a congressional request to evaluate the administrative and program costs being used to carry out the
Brownfields Program and identify options to reduce administrative costs.
Evaluation Findings: The OIG found that EPA's ability to effectively manage Brownfields resources is challenged by policy and organiza-
tional impediments.
Evaluation Recommendations: The report included several recommendations:
• More closely align with an accountable entity effectively to distribute, manage, account for; and optimize Brownfields resources.
• Establish a system to identify and track Brownfields administrative and programmatic payroll costs.
• Provide documentation to account for FY 2003 resources.
• Revise regional staffing workload model.
• Evaluate Brownfields staff not certified as Project Officers.
• Hold Brownfields conference every 2 years.
• Develop process to evaluate which conferences and meetings Brownfields staff need to attend.
Planned Response: EPA is fully responding to all of the recommendations by either implementation strategies or work underway
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Brownfield Redevelopment: Stakeholders Report That EPA's Program Helps to Redevelop
Sites, but Additional Measures Could Complement Agency Efforts.
Evaluator: U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Date: April 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2.
The purpose of this review was to: (I) obtain stakeholders' views on the extent to which the EPA Brownfields Program has contributed
to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields; (2) determine whether the measures EPA uses to gauge the performance of its
brownfield activities provide sufficient information to identify program accomplishments, and (3) obtain stakeholder's views on potential
options for improving and complementing EPA's program. Additionally identified were other federal agencies that support brownfields
cleanup and redevelopment.
Evaluation Findings: The GAO found that the US EPA Brownfields Program provides an important contribution to site cleanup and rede-
velopment. The measures EPA uses provide information in some but not all key program areas. The GOA found three stakeholder
recommendations to improve the program related to the current grant programs and tax incentive.
Evaluation Recommendations: The report included several recommendations:
• Continue to develop additional measures to gauge the achievements of the Brownfields Program.
• Closely monitor the brownfield revolving loan fund grants to determine why they have been underutilized and what, if any, changes
are needed to facilitate or encourage grant recipients' use of these funds.
• Determine the advantages and disadvantages of giving priority to coalitions or other entities with proven revolving loan fund admin-
istrative expertise when awarding grants and, if found to be beneficial, adopt this as a key criterion for selecting grant recipients.
Planned Response: EPA agrees with and is working to implement these recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: North American Development Bank Border Environment Cooperation Commission Business
Process Review.
Evaluator: Stone & Webster Management Consultants, Inc. for the North American Development Bank. The Board of Directors of
the NADB commissioned the Review. Date: December 2004.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2.
The Review provides focused reviews and evaluations of the overall process of designing, certifying/approving, financing and implementing
potable water treatment, municipal wastewater treatment, and solid waste projects in the border region.These business process review
analyses of BECC and NADB activities are intended to optimize the BECC/NADB process for designing, developing, approving, financing
and implementing environmental infrastructure projects in the U.S.-Mexico border region, so as to make the overall process more effi-
cient and easier for communities and project sponsors to access, improve the efficiency of BECC and NADB and increase their value
added to this process, and develop a plan for the Board of Directors to evaluate performance and measure results of BECC and NADB.
Evaluation Findings: The Review includes a series of findings and observations. TheTask Four Report summarizes conclusions on the effi-
ciency of the BECC and NADB in its processes related to the designing, certifying/approving, financing and implementing potable water
treatment, municipal wastewater treatment, and solid waste projects in the border region between the U.S. and Mexico, and provides rec-
ommendations to improve performance and efficiency
Evaluation Recommendations: Among the series of recommendations made, these have the potential to affect the BECC and NADB's
administration of EPA grants:
• Revise process so that project certification and the integrated financing package are presented to the board for approval at the
same time.
• When projects are to receive both an EPA-BEIF grant and a NADB loan, agreements for both should be signed at the same time.
• Assign technical staff who have been involved with project design to provide technical oversight during project implementation.
• Revise the name and objective of the initial application for certification step to more closely reflect that it is an eligibility review.
• Adopt an approach based on cooperative agreements with other agencies whereby the agency providing the greatest amount of
financing assumes the primary role for project development.
Planned Response: The Board of Directors of the BECC and NADB, in which EPA is a member; is reviewing recommendations for
future implementation.
Public Access: The report available at:
Evaluation Title: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) Review.
Evaluator: EPA-GLNPO together with about 40 representatives including government and university scientists, federal and state gov-
ernment managers, and Tribal representatives. Date: June 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 3.
This evaluation was an objective review of the design, implementation, and scientific rigor of the GLFMP including the program's sampling
and analytical procedures and the uses of program data. Reviewers specifically considered: sampling design; sample collection, prep, and
analytical methods; data representativeness; target analyses; program implementation; quality assurance; data management; and other pro-
grammatic issues.
Evaluation Findings: The current status of the Great Lakes environment is different from that at inception of the GLFMP in the 1970's,
and GLFMP should change to reflect that current status.
Evaluation Recommendations: The 10 specific recommendations include: data approval; maintenance of the historical sample archive;
establishment of a steering committee; review and revision of the analyte list and development of protocols to add emerging contami-
nants to the list; enhancing consistency of analytical labs; including and maintaining routine check samples; better definition of certain goals
and stakeholders; development of an approach for documenting the occurrence of new and previously unrecognized contaminants in
Great Lakes fish; and statistical analysis to revise and/or develop Data Quality Objectives.
Planned Response: A proposal for incorporation of the recommendations is under development.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: Review of the Computational Toxicology Research Program Directions.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: July 20,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purpose of this review, held in April 2005, was to provide early feedback to the newly formed National Center for Computational
Toxicology (NCCT) on its planned major research directions. The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) formed a standing committee
to advise the NCCT and this was the inaugural meeting. The BOSC was provided six charge questions dealing with: (I) collaborations
between the NCCT and other components of ORD; (2) proposed staffing directions; (3) technological advances; (4) overall rationale for
the research program; (5) identifying additional partners; and (6) the general aspect of breadth and depth of the program.
Evaluation Findings: Generally the committee was very favorable to the formation of the NCCT and the progress it had made in the
first few months of its existence (the NCCT was formally established in February 2005). The committee recognized the unique role of
the NCCT and the importance of establishing strong collaborations with other programs within and outside of ORD. The committee
emphasized the importance of collaborations and positively commented on the number of collaborations already taking place. The
BOSC also commented favorably on the Center's four focal areas of Information Technologies, Prioritization Tools, Biological Models, and
Cumulative Risk. The committee highlighted the fact that the first two have the potential to address "significant issues in toxicology...."
The committee felt that the NCCT has made appropriate choices for bringing together expertise from several related disciplines to fulfill
its' mission.
Evaluation Recommendations: The key recommendations of the review were: create a specific implementation plan; develop manage-
ment activities to foster networks of computational scientists in the agency; develop a communication plan to raise visibility of the NCCT:
add staff in bioinformatics and potentially social sciences; broaden the composition and role of the CTISC (internal EPA steering commit-
tee); develop liaisons with related academic, governmental and private organization both nationally and internationally; and to broaden the
focus of hazard identification beyond that currently being conducted with endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Planned Response: The most significant step, which was already underway, is the development of an implementation plan that will lay out
specific milestones for each of the research projects within the program over the next 3 years. The implementation plan will emphasize
the need for the NCCT to address generic issues in computational toxicology and to provide leadership to the Agency in terms of bring-
ing these tools to use in hazard identification and risk assessment. An important component of the implementation plan is "ToxCast"
which will provide a framework and a strategy for developing high throughput data on a large number of chemicals in order to help cate-
gorize and prioritize for specific screening and testing programs. The NCCT is also forming two Communities of Practice that will bring
together experts in chemoinformatics and biological modeling respectively across the Agency and enhance the networking of these
experts and therefore enhance their presence and contributions to Agency problems.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Ecological Research Program Review.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: August 16,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purposes of this review were to evaluate:
• Program relevance and quality
• Program design and implementation.
• Progress achieved towards meeting long-term goals (LTGs).
• Stakeholder involvement and the degree to which research is consistent with needs articulated at regional and local levels.
• The degree to which research "outputs" are being used by stakeholders.
Evaluation Findings:
• Found the Ecological Research Program to be a high-quality scientific program that is providing essential technical information to
the regulatory offices within EPA as well as to state, local, and tribal governments to assist these entities in addressing novel prob-
lems of environmental management.
• Found a need for improved integration among the LTGs including more emphasis on collaboration between EPA scientists and sci-
entists outside the Agency
• Crucial that a new Multi-Year Plan be developed that aligns with current resource constraints and that better integrates the three
LTGs.
• Plans need to be developed for a long-term equilibrium that balances the research portfolio against expected resource constraints.
Evaluation Recommendations:
• The integration of Long-term Goal I with the other LTGs can be further improved through designing research projects specifically
for cross-level integration and by reinforcing rules set by the research programs for close collaborations between EPA and outside
researchers at the national, regional, and local levels.
• Research for all three LTGs would be improved by collaborations with international scientific communities.
• The effectiveness of the program could be improved by establishing timely and regular communications with a broad array of stake-
holders using an established procedure.
• The time and talents of ORD's research scientists need to be focused on the research mission. At the same time, careful tracking of
outcomes is essential to assure that the research conducted by the Ecological Research Program is appropriate and that it address-
es customer priorities.
• Some form of extramural cooperation should be re-established to leverage resources and continue to provide flexibility in the
research program.
• Institute a formal process for sharing and disseminating research results to stakeholders.
• The Ecological Research Program's heavy orientation towards aquatic ecosystems is understandable but a more balanced research
portfolio requiring attention to impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, especially relative to clean water and nonpoint source pollution, is
needed.
Planned Response:
• The Ecological Research Program is in the process of revising its multi-year plan to include the recommendations of the BOSC and
to modify many of its research projects to address these recommendations.The revision includes a greater integration among the
three Long-term Goals and directly with Long-Term Goal I.This revision will be completed in FY06.
• Increasing collaboration within EPA and with outside federal and non-federal entities will be a goal of the Ecological Research
Program in FY 2006. This collaboration is already underway with increased research planning being completed in partnership with
EPA Program Offices and Regions and increased research result communications within EPA. Increased collaboration with NOAA
and USGS is occurring through the Ocean Action Plan's call for a National Monitoring Network designed by the interacting agen-
cies and LTG research in LTGI in being accomplished in partner with NOAA and USGS.
• In FY 2006, the Ecological Research Program will re-establish a viable grants program within NCER to develop a cross-agency
extramural research program addressing Ecological/Ecosystem Services.
• In FY 2006, the Ecological Research program will begin planning for "new" research projects that more completely address program
office and regional needs, including interactions across media (air; water; terrestrial) to assess the success of ecological policies.
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: Ecological Research Program Review (continued).
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: August 16,2005.
Planned Response (continued):
programs, developing of modeling tools at high levels of ecological organization to assess integrated impacts, developing an
ecological forensics program that assesses causality at a larger ecological scale, integrating across all ORD Eco-tools to address the
broad-scale ecological issues of the Mississippi River Basin and its Gulf of Mexico receiving waters, and development of an ecological
services research program (including its integration with socio-economic and other non-ecological issues).
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Review of the Mercury Multi-Year Research Plan.
Evaluator: Mercury Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: July 14,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Strategic Objective 4.
A letter report was delivered to the Office of Research and Development (ORD) on July 14, 2005.The purpose of the review was to
provide an independent expert review of the most recent Multi-Year Research Plan (MYP) for the Mercury Research Program.The
BOSC Mercury Subcommittee reviewed the Mercury MYP and the planning process with respect to what changes should be made to
ensure that: (I) the proposed scope of work is consistent with ORD's subject area Research Strategy the current state-of-the-sdence,
and research by others; (2) the science questions address the most important scientific gaps and uncertainties in the subject area; (3) the
long-terms goals are relevant to the science needs of the Agency and the MYP situates the annual research products on a clear path to
accomplishing each of the long-term goals; (4) research products and emphases over the next 5 to 7 years are sequenced appropriately
to accomplish goals and meet program and regional needs; (5) the MYP is flexible enough to adapt to future science and policy changes;
(6) the MYP articulates a strategy that facilitates effective communication and utilization of research products; and (7) there is a clear path
for assessing/evaluating the MYP and progress toward its goals.
Evaluation Findings: The Subcommittee concluded that "the proposed scope of the work is consistent with: (a) ORD's subject area
Research Strategy (b) the current state-of-the-sdence, and (c) research by others.'The review also concluded that "the science questions
address the most important scientific gaps and uncertainties in the subject area" and "the long-term goals (LTGs) are relevant to the sci-
ence needs of the Agency" Also, the Mercury MYP is comprehensive and well thought out. It focuses on the most critical information
needs in mercury fate and transport (including risk assessment), and on reduction of mercury emissions from a variety of sources, most
importantly coal-fired utility boilers. It is apparent that ORD has accomplished much with the available resources and is poised to con-
tribute significantly more to the better understanding of the global mercury problem, especially with regards to transport and fate.
Evaluation Recommendations: The Subcommittee made five overriding recommendations: (I) Because mercury is important to many
agencies, the Subcommittee believes that the Mercury MYP planning process would benefit greatly from an interagency council to institu-
tionalize and harmonize collaboration across federal agencies. (2) Prioritizing and sequencing of APMs need to be discussed more fully in
the Mercury MYR (3) The value of the MYP as a "living" document would be enhanced if it were updated annually (4) The Mercury MYP
is a communication document as well as a planning document. (5) It would be helpful if the Mercury MYP provided an assessment of
outcomes related to the various annual performance goals and annual performance measures in the plan.
Planned Response: A response to the review by the Agency will be made to the BOSC Executive Committee in the near future.The
response will identify several action items with timelines.The Mercury MYP will be revised accordingly
Public Access: Report is available at:
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) Research Program Review.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: April 11,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purpose and focus areas of the evaluation were to review the relevance, quality performance, scientific leadership and resources of
the EDCs Research Program.
Evaluation Findings:
• Design—goals and scientific questions of the Research Program deemed appropriate; multi-disciplinary set of research areas for
both human health and wildlife that cuts across the risk assessment/risk management paradigm.
• Relevance—of direct relevance to legislation that EPA administers and that it serves the Program Offices well.
• Progress—research has been productive and of high scientific quality; of particular note is the excellent progress under LTG 3.
• Leadership—nationally and internationally recognized; research is disseminated in top-tier scientific journals; scientists at the fore-
front of EDC research in screening and testing methodologies.
• Resources—resources have been used efficiently; astute in leveraging with other federal agencies; continuation of extramural grants
program is vital.
Evaluation Recommendations: (I) Clarify what research is covered by the EDC program, (2) strengthen the position of Program
Director; (3) hire wildlife toxicologists, (4) collaborate with other research organizations to improve the ability to extrapolate across
species, (5) integrate the use of predictive tools into the program, (6) develop risk assessment paradigms for EDCs, (7) collaborate with
other research organizations on exposure issues, including the role of pharmaceuticals as sources of EDCs, and mine data from the High
Production Volume Program, (8) invite the epidemiology grantees to future reviews, (9) take a leadership role in the application of'omics
technologies, (10) investigate the common ground between ecological and human health of EDCs, (II) hire or train experts in bioinfor-
matics, (12) establish a mechanism to ensure transfer of protocols to OPPTS, and (13) in revisions of Multi-Year Plan, improve summary
of research to date.
Planned Response: On September 12, 2005, the Subcommittee was sent: I) a cover letter; 2) a narrative response to the recommenda-
tions and observations, with comments where necessary and 3) a table that highlights each of the 13 recommendations and EPA's
proposed actions and timelines for each. The response was also presented at a meeting of the BOSC Committee on September I 3,
2005.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Human Health Research Program Review.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). Date: July 27,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.
The purpose of the review was to provide and independent expert review of the Agency's human health research program.The BOSC
evaluated four Long-Term Goals of the program, including (I) Use of mechanistic information in risk assessment, (2) Aggregate/cumulative
risk, (3) Susceptible subpopulations, and (4) Evaluation of public health outcomes. The review was both retrospective for research con-
ducted since 1999 and prospective for research proposed for the next 5-10 years.The reviewers were asked to evaluate the program in
the context of the R&D investment criteria, relevance, performance and quality The BOSC also evaluated the scientific leadership of the
program.
Evaluation Findings: The research of the human health research program was found to be of high quality and appropriately focused. It
was multidisciplinary displayed good stakeholder participation, informed risk assessments and achieved the goal of reducing uncertainty
Evaluation Recommendations: Major recommendations by the BOSC include: (I) interact more with the international human health
research community, (2) coordinate research with emerging national computational toxicology center; (3) promote greater interaction
between intramural and extramural scientists, (4) establish a greater public benefit rationale for the program, and (5) focus of the pro-
gram around an overarching conceptual framework.
Planned Response: The Agency responded to the review at the BOSC Executive Committee meeting on September 12-13, 2005. The
response identifies several action items with timelines.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Goal 5
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of the OECA/ECOS State Review Framework in Pilot States.
Evaluator: Industrial Economics, Inc. for U. S. EPA, Office of Planning Analysis and Accountability, U.S. EPA Office of Policy Economics
and Innovation, and U.S. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance. Date: July 27,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective I.
The purpose of the evaluation was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the State Review Framework in pilot states.
The overarching evaluation questions were:
• Sufficiency of Framework to support conclusions.
• Consistency of framework application.
• Outcomes of pilot projects.
• Areas for improvement.
Evaluation Findings: The key finding is that the Framework is effective in providing a platform for evaluating state enforcement and com-
pliance assurance programs on a nationwide basis. Additional findings of the evaluation were:
• Improve metrics and data.
• Revision to file selection protocol.
• Improve consistency of reports among media and among states.
• Clarify benefits to states and activities to include in the element on outcome and performance-based activities.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): Key recommendations are:
• Provide implementation blueprint for synthesizing data and information sources into a comprehensive enforcement picture with a
roadmap for future efforts.
• Address resources consideration to provide context for program performance.
• Provide additional guidance regarding the purpose of the element on outcome and performance-based activities.
• Clarify role of negotiated commitments.
• Develop model report for state reviews.
Planned Response: OECA used the findings and recommendations from the evaluation to make improvements to the State Review
Framework. Groups were established to consider the recommendations and to revise the documentation and guidance for implementing
the Framework for use by Regions and States.
Public Access: Report available by contacting Howard Horowitz at (202) 564-2612.
Evaluation Title: Ongoing Management Improvements and Further Evaluation Vital to EPA Stewardship and
Voluntary Programs.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: February 17,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective 2.
The OIG initiated this evaluation to outline and characterize EPA's approach to environmental stewardship. The OIG specifically wanted
to learn how stakeholders defined and approached environmental stewardship, what role EPA played in promoting and fostering steward-
ship activities, and how effectively stewardship programs assist EPA in achieving environmental outcomes.
Evaluation Findings: The Agency has yet to fully implement internal recommendations to strategically plan, coordinate, and manage its
voluntary programs, or to develop a process for assessing these programs to determine how they will be integrated into the Agency's
mission and its strategic goals and objectives.
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA needs to identify motivators and barriers to participation, and continue to incorporate stakeholder
feedback into planning, designing, and implementing stewardship programs. EPA should also examine what roles it should play in promot-
ing stewardship activities. Additional program evaluation needs to be conducted to determine (I) what motivates participation in these
types of programs and what causes voluntary environmental behavior change to occur; (2) the most efficient ways to measure the out-
comes and impacts of stewardship and voluntary programs, and (3) which stewardship and/or voluntary programs are most effective in
encouraging voluntary behavior change and achieving environmental results.
Planned Response: Through the Innovation Action Council, EPA is developing a report to the Administrator in Fall 2005 that will further
develop a strategy and implementation plan for supporting stewardship activities.The Agency is developing "Guidelines for Measuring the
Performance of EPA Voluntary Programs.
Public Access: Report available at: . Report No. 2005-P-00007.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Enabling and Support Programs
Evaluation Title: Security Configuration and Monitoring of EPA's Remote Access Methods Need Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 11,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-3.
We sought to determine whether EPA's remote access methods, particularly through Web-Mail servers and Blackberry servers and
devices, have adequate controls to prevent abuse or unauthorized access to the Agency's information resources.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
System administrators did not configure EPA's Web-Mail and Blackberry servers to provide secure remote access to the Agency's net-
work. The System Administrators did not configure or update 59% of the Web-Mail and Blackberry servers to mitigate vulnerabilities.
The weaknesses occurred because management did not implement processes to exercise proper oversight and provide detailed configu-
ration settings.
Several of the Agency's Blackberry devices were not adequately configured, secured, or monitored. These weaknesses occurred because
management did not conduct a risk assessment or establish a process to consistently install Blackberry devices.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Director of EPA's Office of technology Operations and Planning: establish and require all remote access systems to have security
monitoring and network vulnerability scanning; develop standards that define authorized open ports and services for the Web-Mail and
Blackberry servers' Operating System; and, conduct a risk assessment and establish a process to consistently configure devices.
Planned response: The Agency generally agreed with the recommendations and indicated corrective actions that, when implemented,
would address the recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: PeoplePlus Security Controls Need Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: July 28,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-3.
Our objectives were to determine whether: (I) EPA adequately configured PeoplePlus (PPL) application security and technical infrastruc-
ture to protect the confidentiality integrity, and availability of system data; and (2) implemented controls were working as intended.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
The Agency did not follow prescribed procedures for managing user access privileges, monitoring changes in employee responsibilities,
and processing system access requests.
EPA did not verify or conduct the required national Agency Check with Inquiries and Credit background screening for 45% (10 of 22) of
contractor personnel with PPL access.
EPA implemented PPL without adequately implementing security controls for two key processes.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Director of EPA's Office of Financial services (OFS) and Office of Human resources (OHR): (I) reinforce the requirements to follow
prescribed policies and procedures; (2) provide a training program to increase awareness and ability to perform security duties; (3) evalu-
ate the need for system development contractors to have access to the production environment; and, (4) establish a milestone date to
complete contractor background screening.
EPA evaluates all default user IDs to secure them, and assign Security Administrators' responsibilities in a manner that provides adequate
separation of incompatible duties.
Planned response: EPA concurred with all or our recommendations and provided a plan of action to address concerns.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: Internal Controls Assessment of EPA's Financial Operations and Financial Systems—
PeoplePlus.
Evaluator: Booz Allen Hamilton for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Financial Services (OFS). Date: August 2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-3.
Booz Allen Hamilton performed an Internal Controls Assessment of EPA's payroll environment. Their objectives were to assess the ade-
quacy of the internal controls for payroll and determine whether the internal control activities comply with standards as defined in OMB
Circular A-123.
Evaluation Recommendations:
Evaluation recommendations included:
• Payroll training programs and documentation of the training schedule needs to be formalized.
• Documentation and standardization for a variety of People Plus policies, processes, and procedures need to be updated and/or created.
• Gaps in the general controls security access require attention.
• Information should be disseminated in a way that reaches impacted staff.
• Employee status changes should be timely to prevent employees from receiving inappropriate pay
• Coordination and communications between the FPPS and OFS organizations for policy dissemination require improvement.
Planned Response: EPA agrees with the recommendations and is working to implement the recommended safeguards in order to
improve reasonable assurance that internal controls over financial reporting are effectively preventing the potential for errors that might
result in a material weakness.
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Compete More Assistance Agreements.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: February 17,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
To evaluate EPA's progress on the Order requiring some grants to be competed, we assessed whether (I) the Order promoted competi-
tion, and (2) the competitions were fair and open.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
• EPA Order 5700.5 (Order) was a positive step in promoting competition; however; it did not promote competition to the maxi-
mum extent possible. The Order applied to only $ I 61 million of more than $835 million of discretionary grants awarded in 2003.
• The Order overemphasized exemptions and justifications for not competing assistance agreements.
• EPA did not ensure that it awarded discretionary grants to the most qualified recipients or for the most innovative projects, thus
potentially diminishing the Agency's efforts to accomplish its mission.
• EPA would benefit from additional policy on conflict of interest and documentation requirements.
• In January 2005, EPA replaced the original Order with EPA Order 5700.5AI. The revised order included numerous procedural
changes and incorporated many of our recommendations.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
We continue to recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management increase the
number of assistance agreements subject to competition by eliminating certain exemptions and a justification for not competing.
Planned response: The revised order incorporated many of our recommendations. However; the Agency disagreed with key recommen-
dations directed at increasing the number of assistance agreements subject to competition.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Brownfields Competition for Awarding Grants Complied With Act.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: March 7,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
The objective was to determine whether the Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment (Brownfields office) established a com-
petition process that complied with the Brownfields Act and EPA policy and guidance.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
EPA's competition process for awarding grants complied with the requirements of the Brownfields Act.
In awarding the grants, the Brownfields Office generally complied with EPA policies and procedures, with the exception of the cost review
policy. Cost reviews were documented for only 4 of 24 grants we reviewed. In many cases, project officers stated that they performed
cost reviews but did not document them. In those instances where no cost reviews were performed, the project officers said they
thought that the grants management offices or proposal reviewers performed the cost reviews.
EPA risked the possibility of reimbursing recipients for costs that were unreasonable, unallowable, or unrelated to agreed-upon activities.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response remind project officers to document cost reviews, in accordance
with EPA policy prior to grant award.
Planned response: The Agency agreed with our recommendation and initiated appropriate corrective action.
Public Access: Report available at:
Evaluation Title: Response Action Contracts: Structure and Administration Need Improvement.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: December 6,2004.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
We conducted this audit to determine how effectively and efficiently EPA is administering Response Action Contracts (RAC). We looked
at: acquisition planning, source selection, contract administration, and contract information system.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
• EPA can improve the structure of RACs to better protect the Government's interests. Current RACs, which are Cost Plus Award
fee level of effort contracts, assign to EPA a disproportionate share of the risk of cost overruns; expose EPA to the risk of loss of
funds through litigation; limit competition; and forego potential cost savings associated with other type contracts, such as
Performance-Based Service Contracts.
• EPA regions do not consistently document the rationale used to decide what procurement option to utilize for Superfund cleanup
activities. EPA does not have a process to measure and disseminate information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' past per-
formance in support of EPA.
• Evaluations at the contract level were not being documented timely and consistently which does not permit EPA and other federal
agencies to consider contractor's past performance.
• Information in the national automated database is not always readily available. The Remedial Action Contract Management
Information System (RACMIS) is underutilized by regional staff, and the system does not collect data as originally intended. EPA is
expending $1.5 million a year on a system that is not being fully utilized.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, in coordination with the Office of Administration and Resources Management:
develop and implement a plan with milestones that will increase the use of different contract types; require regional staff to document
the rationale for all source selection decisions; develop a method for holding Contracting Officers accountable for conducting past per-
formance evaluations timely and accurately; and, conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the RACMIS should be retained.
Planned response: The Agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
Public Access: Report available at:
-------
APPENDIX B. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2005
Evaluation Title: Office of Acquisition Management Can Strengthen its Organizational Systems.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: February 17,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
This audit was conducted to determine whether EPA's Office of Acquisition Management (OAM) had the fundamental components of a
high performing organization: leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, information and analysis, human capital, process management,
and performance results.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
• OAM's management systems include various components necessary for organizational success: OAM communicates its vision, val-
ues, and strategic goals to employees and customers; focuses on its customers' needs; and, emphasizes the development of its
workforce.
• However; OAM leadership created its vision and goals without taking all the actions necessary to accomplish its vision.
• OAM needs to complete workload and workforce analyses to identify full-time equivalent and skill gaps.
• The information in OAM's Integrated Contracts Management System can measure the timeliness, but not the quality and cost, of its
• OAM does not have data to measure its progress toward achieving its vision of being the preferred business partner for all EPA
contracts. Further; OAM does not obtain sufficient feedback on the extent to which contracts contributed to Agency environmen-
tal and performance goals.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The Director; OAM, develop an action plan with milestones for establishing measures and means of measuring progress against its goals,
complete a workload and workforce analysis, and capture data needed to analyze short and long-term performance in achieving its vision
and goals.
Planned response: The Agency generally agreed with the recommendations and indicated that certain corrective actions would have to
be taken over the long term.
Access: Report available at:
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Brownfields Administrative Resources.
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Date: June 7,2005.
Scope of Evaluation: ESP-7.
We conducted this review in response to a congressional request to evaluate the administrative and program costs being used to carry
out the Brownfields program and identify options to reduce administrative costs.
Evaluation Findings: OIG reported:
• We provided answers to congressional questions about EPA's Brownfields program: the distribution and type of staff; budget for FY
2003 and 2004; grant and contract management responsibilities and workload; the number and type of Brownfield conferences; and
the workload model used to staff the program.
• EPA's ability to effectively manage Brownfields resources is challenged by policy and organizational impediments.
• The authority for Brownfields resources is dispersed and not in alignment in their efforts to define and track Brownfields costs, and
staff resources cannot be accounted for and efficiently utilized.
• There are potential cost savings in the financial and personnel resources EPA expends on brownfields outreach, conferences and
meetings.
Evaluation Recommendations (if applicable): OIG recommended:
The deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency response: (I) more closely align themselves in support
of an accountable entity to distribute, manage, account for; and optimize Brownfields resources, consistent with program needs and goals;
(2) define Brownfields administrative and programmatic payroll costs and establish a system to identify and track them; (3) provide docu-
mentation to account for all FY 2003 administrative resources; (4) revise the regional staffing model to support current workload, develop
a workload model for allocation of Brownfields headquarters staff, and develop a schedule for regularly updating the workload model;
(5) ensure certification of Brownfields Project officers; (6) hold the EPA-sponsored Brownfields conference every two years; (7) devel-
op a process to evaluate conferences and meetings to determine which conferences and meetings Brownfields staff need to attend.
Planned response: The Agency's final response to our recommendations and findings is under review. The Agency agreed to review and
update its regional workload model and identify non-certified project officers in the Brownfields program and develop training and other
actions necessary to ensure that Brownfields program goals are being met. The Agency did not agree that offices receiving and managing
Brownfields resources should be more closely aligned to better manage, distribute, and account for Brownfields resources. It also stated
that it has systems in place to identify indirect and direct payroll costs and that it is currently evaluating the effectiveness of its annual
Brownfields conference to determine the appropriate frequency for the future. The Agency did not provide specific documentation we
requested on FY 2003 Brownfields administrative resources.
Public Access: Report available at:
ten
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Appendix C: Data Quality
This appendix is EPA's record of performance data reliability for each of the Agency's 2005 annual performance measures
(including PART measures). It discusses data sources, methods for calculating performance, data limitations affecting uncer-
tainty in measurement, and efforts to improve the completeness and reliability of the data and data collection systems.This
appendix also describes third-party audits, studies, or evaluations of the data and recommendations for improvements.
Goal I, Objective I
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
• SO2 emissions reduced (tons/yr from 1980 baseline).
Total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentrations reduced
(% from baseline).
Total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean ambient nitrate concentrations reduced
(% from baseline).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, pages 49, 53-54.
Performance Databases:
• Emissions Tracking System (ETS)—SO2
and NOX emissions
• Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNET)—dry deposition
• National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP)—wet deposition
• Temporally Integrated Monitoring of
Ecosystems program (TIME)—surface
water chemistry
• Long-Term Monitoring Network pro-
gram (LTM)—surface water chemistry
Data Sources:
On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and
processes hourly measurements of SO2,
NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other
emission-related parameters from more
than 3,400 fossil fuel-fired utility units
affected under the Title IV Acid Rain
Program.These measurements are collect-
ed by certified continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) or equivalent
continuous monitoring methods.
CASTNET measures particle and gas acidic
deposition chemistry Specifically CASTNET
measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition
and meteorological information at approxi-
mately 88 monitoring sites, primarily in the
East.Two additional sites are planned as
part of a multi-year network refurbishment
and modernization project.These sites are
scheduled to be in operation by 2007 and
will help fill the coverage gap in the middle
of country. CASTNET is a long-term dry
deposition network funded, operated and
maintained by EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR).The National Park
Service operates approximately 30 of the
monitoring stations in cooperation with
EPA.
NADP is a national long-term wet deposi-
tion network that measures precipitation
chemistry and provides long-term geo-
graphic and temporal trends in
concentration and deposition of precipita-
tion components. Specifically NADP
provides measurements of sulfate and
nitrate wet deposition at approximately
255 monitoring sites. EPA, along with sever-
al other Federal agencies, states, and private
organizations, provide funding and support
for NADRThe Illinois State Water
Survey/University of Illinois maintains the
NADP database.
The deposition monitoring networks have
been in operation for over 25 years. They
provide invaluable measurements on long-
term trends and episodes in acid
deposition; such data are essential for
assessing progress toward the program's
intended environmental outcomes. These
networks need to be modernized to
ensure the continued availability of these
direct environmental measures. Maintaining
a robust long-term atmospheric deposition
monitoring network is critical for the
accountability of the Acid Rain and Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Programs
(and/or Clear Skies if new legislation is
enacted).
The TIME project measures surface water
chemistry and is based on the concept of a
probability sample, where each site is cho-
sen to be statistically representative of a
target population. In the Northeast (New
England and the Adirondacks), this target
population consists of lakes likely to be
responsive to changes in rates of acidic
deposition (i.e., those with Gran ANC <
100 leq/L). In the Mid-Atlantic, the target
population is upland streams with a high
probability of responding to changes in
acidic deposition (i.e., Northern
Appalachian Plateau streams with Gran
ANC < 100 leq/L). Each lake or stream is
sampled annually (in summer for lakes, in
spring for streams), and results are extrap-
olated to the target population.The most
recent (2003) TIME trends analysis report-
ed data from 43 Adirondack lakes, 30 New
England lakes, and 3 I Appalachian Plateau
streams.
The TIME project goals are to determine
not only how a representative sample of
water bodies is changing through time, but
also whether the proportion of the popu-
lation that is acidic has changed.The
project is operated cooperatively with
numerous collaborators in state agencies,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
academic institutions and other federal
agencies.
The LTM project complementsTIME's sta-
tistical approach to sampling lakes and
streams. LTM samples a subset of sensitive
lakes and streams with long-term data,
most dating back to the early 1980s.These
sites are sampled 3 to 15 times per year
This information is used to characterize
how the most sensitive aquatic systems in
each region are responding to changing
deposition, as well as providing information
on seasonal chemistry and episodic acidifi-
cation. In most regions, a small number of
higher ANC (e.g., GranANC > 100 leq/L)
sites are also sampled, and help separate
temporal changes due to acidic deposition
from those attributable to other distur-
bances such as changes in land use.The
most recent (2003) LTM trends analysis
reported data from 48 Adirondack lakes,
24 New England lakes, 9 Northern
Appalachian Plateau streams, and 69
streams in the Blue Ridge region ofVirginia
and West Virginia. The project is operated
cooperatively with numerous collaborators
in state agencies, academic institutions and
other federal agencies.
Methods,Assumption, and Suitability:
Promulgated methods are used to aggre-
gate emissions data across all United States'
utilities for each pollutant and related
source operating parameters such as heat
input.
QA/QC Procedures:
Promulgated QA/QC requirements dictate
performing a series of quality assurance
tests of CEMS 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 emis-
sion measurements.The resulting data are
screened and analyzed using a battery of
statistical procedures, including one that
tests for systematic bias. If a CEM fails the
bias test, indicating a potential for systemat-
ic underestimation of emissions, the source
of the error must be identified and cor-
rected or the data are adjusted to
minimize the bias. Each affected plant is
required to maintain a written QA plan
documenting performance of these proce-
dures and tests. Further information is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
reporting/index.html.
CASTNET established a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001;
The QAPP contains data quality objectives
and quality control procedures for accuracy
and precision. {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). In addition, the program publishes
annual quality assurance reports. Both the
CASTNET QAPP and 2003 Annual Quality
Assurance Report may be found at
www.epa.gov/castnet/libraryhtml.
NADP has established data quality objec-
tives and quality control procedures for
accuracy precision and representation,
available on the Internet:
nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/.The intended use
of these data is to establish spatial and
temporal trends in wet deposition and pre-
cipitation chemistry
For TIME and LTM, the field protocols, lab-
oratory methods, and quality assurance
procedures are specific to each research
group. QA/QC information is contained in
the cited publications of each research
group and compiled in Newell et al.
(1987). The EMAP and TIME protocols and
quality assurance methods are generally
consistent with those of the LTM coopera-
tors, and are detailed in Peck (1992) and in
Table 3 of Stoddard et al (2003).
Data Quality Review:
The ETS provides instant feedback to
sources on data reporting problems, for-
mat errors, and inconsistencies.The
electronic data file QA checks are
described at www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
reporting/indexhtml (see Electronic Data
Report Review Process, ETS Tolerance Tables,
Active ETS Error Codes/Messages and Range
Format Errors). All quarterly reports are
analyzed to detect deficiencies and to iden-
tify reports that must be resubmitted to
correct problems. EPA also identifies
reports that were not submitted by the
appropriate reporting deadline. Revised
quarterly reports, with corrected deficien-
cies found during the data review process,
must be obtained from sources by a speci-
fied deadline. All data are reviewed, and
preliminary and final emissions data reports
are prepared for public release and compli-
ance determination.
CASTNET underwent formal peer review
in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA
and the National Oceanographic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Findings are documented in Examination of
CASTNET: Data, Results, Costs, and
Implications (United States EPA, Office of
Research and Development, National
Exposure Research Laboratory February
1997).
The NADP methods of determining wet
deposition values have undergone exten-
sive peer review; this process has been
managed by NADP program office 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 TIME and LTM data used in EPA
trends analysis reports are screened for
internal consistency among variables,
including ion balance and conductance bal-
ance. Samples with unexplained variation in
these variables are deleted. Sites with mean
Gran ANC greater than 200 leq/L also are
deleted. EPA trends analyses exclude sites
with chloride values that are outliers in
their region, because high Cl- is typically
associated with human development in the
watershed.The Cl- and associated Na+
would alter normal soil ion exchange rela-
tionships, thus obscuring the response to
acidic deposition.
Data Limitations:
In order to improve the spatial resolution
of CASTNET additional monitoring sites
are needed, particularly in the middle of
the country
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The program plans to modernize and
enhance CASTNET to ensure network via-
bility and enhance the monitoring capacity
to support ongoing and future accountabili-
ty needs, particularly relating to long range
pollutant transport.The refurbishment of
CASTNET will result in more comprehen-
sive air quality data and information, made
available faster by enabling real-time access
to air quality information and promoting
integration with other networks through
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
regional/rural monitoring strategies.
Refurbishment activities to be pursued in
FY 2007 include: (I) completion of a pilot
phase study to evaluate options for
upgrading CASTNET with new advanced
measurement instrumentation; (2) selection
and procurement of advanced technology
monitoring equipment for up to 10 sites;
(3) establishment of 2 new sites in the
middle of the country to improve geo-
graphic coverage and spatial resolution; and
(4) implementation of new ecological indi-
cators of air quality and atmospheric
deposition to expand the suite of environ-
mental metrics available for measuring the
performance and efficiency of EPA's clean
air programs.
References:
For additional information about CAST-
NET^ see www.epa.gov/castnet and for
NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.
For a description of EPA's Acid Rain pro-
gram, see www.epa.gov/airmarkets and in
the electronic Code of Federal Regulations
at www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/
chapt-l.info/ (40 CFR parts 72-78.)
For TIME and LTM data quality and
QA/QC procedures, see
Newell, A. D., C. F Powers, and S. J. Christie.
1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term
monitoring of Lakes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D.V 1992. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program: Integrated
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Surface Waters Resource Group.
EPA/600/X-91/080, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Stoddard.J. L,J. S. Kahl, FA Deviney D. R.
DeWalle, C.T. Driscoll, AT. HerlihyJ. H.
Kellogg, R S. Murdoch,]. R. Webb, and K. E.
Webster 2003. Response of surface water
chemistry to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. EPA/620/R-03/OOI,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Cumulative percent increase in the number of people who live in areas with ambient criteria
pollutant concentrations below the level of the NAAQS.
Cumulative percent increase in the number of areas with ambient criteria pollutant concentrations
below the level of the NAAQS.
Areas measuring clean air for NAAQS.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, pages 46-49, 52.
Performance Databases:
AQS:The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS)
stores ambient air quality data used to
evaluate an area's air quality levels relative
to the NAAQS.
FREDS: The Findings and Required
Elements Data System is used to track
progress of states and Regions in reviewing
and approving the required data elements
of the State Implementation Plans (SIP).
SIPs are clean air plans and define what
actions a state will take to improve the air
quality in areas that do not meet national
ambient air quality standards
Data Sources:
AQS: State & 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.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Air quality levels are evaluated relative to
the level of the appropriate NAAQS. Next
the populations in areas with air quality
concentrations above the level of the
NAAQS are aggregated.This analysis
assumes that the populations of the areas
are held constant at 2000 Census levels.
Data comparisons over several years allow
assessment of the air program's success.
QA/QC Procedures:
AQS: The QA/QC of the national air mon-
itoring program has several major
components: the Data Quality Objective
(DQO) process, reference and equivalent
methods program, EPA's National
Performance Audit Program (NPAP), sys-
tem audits, and network reviews.To ensure
quality data, the SLAMS are required to
meet the following: I) each site must meet
network design and site criteria; 2) each
site must provide adequate QA assess-
ment, 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. Further information avail-
able on the Internet: www.epa.gov/
cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and
through United States EPA's Quality
Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004
Section I 5).
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond
that done by the Census
Bureau/Department of Commerce.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done
in the last 3 years. However; internal audits
are regularly conducted.
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond
that done by the Census
Bureau/Department of Commerce.
Error Estimate:
At this time it is not possible to develop an
error estimate.There is still too much
uncertainty in the projections and near
term variations in air quality (due to mete-
orological conditions for example) exist.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the
reengineering of AQS to make it a more
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
user friendly, Windows-based system. As a
result, air quality data are more easily
accessible via the Internet. AQS has also
been enhanced to comply with the
Agency's data standards (e.g., latitude/longi-
tude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in
July 2003, agencies submitted air quality
data to AQS thru the Agency's Central
Data Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to
be the portal through which all environ-
mental data coming to or leaving the
Agency will pass.
References:
For additional information about criteria
pollutant data, non-attainment areas, and
other related information, see:
www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Estimated Mobile Source VOC Emissions.
Estimated Mobile Source NOX Emissions.
Estimated Mobile Source PM 0 Emissions.
Estimated Mobile Source PM25 Emissions.
Estimated Mobile Source CO Emissions.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, pages 46-49.
Performance Databases:
National Emissions Inventory Database.
See: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/.
Data Source:
Mobile source emissions inventories and
Regulatory Impact Analyses.
Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile
source emissions are built from inventories
fed into the relevant models, which in turn
provide input to the National Emissions
Inventory Database.
The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model
is a software tool for predicting gram per
mile emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon diox-
ide, particulate matter; and toxics from cars,
trucks, and motorcycles under various con-
ditions. Inputs to the model include fleet
composition, activity temporal information,
and control program characteristics.
The NONROAD emission inventory
model is a software tool for predicting
emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monox-
ide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter;
and sulfur dioxides from small and large off
road vehicles, equipment, and engines.
Inputs to the model include fleet composi-
tion, activity and temporal information.
Certain mobile source information is
updated annually Inputs are updated annu-
ally only if there is a rationale and readily
available source of annual data. Generally,
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the mix of
VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)-types), tempera-
ture, gasoline properties, and the designs of
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are
updated each year Emission factors for all
mobile sources and activity estimates for
non-road sources are changed only when
the Office ofTransportation and Air
Quality requests that this be done and is
able to provide the new information in a
timely manner The most recent models for
mobile sources are Mobile 6 and Nonroad
2002. (Available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.)
EPA regulatory packages always include
detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis which
estimates the costs industry is projected to
accrue in meeting EPA regulations.These
cost estimates will form the basis of the
numbers in the EPA performance meas-
ures. Also, costs for the EPA mobile source
program (including personnel costs) will be
included also. Estimates will be made for
various years for tons/dollar for pollutants
(the total of HC, CO, NOx, and PM)
removed.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
EPA issues emissions standards that set lim-
its on how much pollution can be emitted
from a given mobile source. Mobile sources
include vehicles that operate on roads and
highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles),
as well as nonroad vehicles, engines, and
equipment. Examples of mobile sources are
cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving equipment,
lawn and garden power tools, ships, railroad
locomotives, and airplanes.Vehicle and
equipment manufacturers have responded
to many mobile source emission standards
by redesigning vehicles and engines to
reduce pollution.
EPA uses models to estimate mobile
source emissions, for both past and future
years. The estimates are used in a variety of
different settings.The estimates are used
for rulemaking.
The most complete and systematic process
for making and recording such mobile
source emissions is the "Trends" inventory
process executed each year by the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards'
(OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and
Analysis Division (EMAD).The Assessment
and Standards Division, within the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality provides
EMAD information and methods for mak-
ing the mobile source estimates. In
addition, EMAD's contractors obtain neces-
sary information directly from other
sources; for example, weather data and the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimates by
state. EMAD creates and publishes the
emission inventory estimate for the most
recent historical year; detailed down to the
county level and with over 30 line items
representing mobile sources. At irregular
intervals as required for regulatory analysis
projects, EMAD creates estimates of emis-
sions for future years. When the method
for estimating emissions changes significant-
ly EMAD usually revises its older estimates
of emissions in years prior to the most
recent year; to avoid a sudden discontinuity
in the apparent emissions trend. EMAD
publishes the national emission estimates in
hardcopy; county-level estimates are avail-
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
able electronically Additional information
about transportation and air quality related
to estimating, testing for; and measuring
emissions, as well as research being con-
ducted on technologies for reducing
emissions is available at
vwvw.epa.gov/otaq/research.htm
When major changes are made in the
emission models or resulting inventories
(and even the cost estimates), the perform-
ance measures will be reviewed to
determine if they should be updated.
QA/QC Procedures:
The emissions inventories are continuously
improved.
Data Quality Review:
The emissions inventories are reviewed by
both internal and external parties, including
the states, locals and industries.
Data Limitations:
The limitations of the inventory estimates
for mobile sources come from limitations
in the modeled emission factors (based on
emission factor testing and models predict-
ing overall fleet emission factors in g/mile)
and also in the estimated vehicle miles
traveled for each vehicle class (derived
from Department ofTransportation
data).www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. For non-
road emissions, the estimates come from a
model using equipment populations, emis-
sion factors per hour or unit of work, and
an estimate of usage.This nonroad emis-
sions model accounts for over 200 types of
nonroad equipment. Any limitations in the
input data will carry over into limitations in
the emission inventory estimates.
Error Estimate:
Additional information about data integrity
is available at: www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
To keep pace with new analysis needs, new
modeling approaches, and new data, EPA is
currently working on a new modeling sys-
tem termed the Multi-scale MotorVehicles
and Equipment Emission System (MOVES).
This new system will estimate emissions for
on road and off road sources, cover a
broad range of pollutants, and allow multi-
ple scale analysis, from fine scale analysis to
national inventory estimation. When fully
implemented, MOVES will serve as the
replacement for MOBILE6 and NON-
ROAD. The new system will not necessarily
be a single piece of software, but instead
will encompass the necessary tools, algo-
rithms, underlying data and guidance
necessary for use in all official analyses
associated with regulatory development,
compliance with statutory requirements,
and national/regional inventory projections.
Additional information is available on the
Internet: www.epa.gov/otaq/ngm.htm.
References:
Additional information about mobile
source programs is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
Stationary Source Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
All Other Air Toxics Emissions Reduced.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 50.
Performance Database:
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
Data Source:
To calculate performance measures, the
data source used is the NEI for HAPs
which includes emissions from large and
small industrial sources inventoried as point
sources, smaller stationary area and other
sources, such as fires inventoried as non-
point sources, and mobile sources.
Prior to the 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was
the National Toxics Inventory (NTI).The
baseline NTI (for base years 1990—1993)
includes emissions information for 188 haz-
ardous air pollutants from more than 900
stationary sources 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 esti-
mates using accepted emission inventory
methodologies.The baseline NTI contains
county level emissions data , not facility-
specific data.
The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
contain estimates of facility-specific HAP
emissions and their source specific parame-
ters such as location (latitude and
longitude) 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 pollu-
tion 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 TRI data.To produce a complete
national inventory EPA estimates emissions
for approximately 30 non-point source cat-
egories such as wildfires and residential
heating sources not included in the state,
local and Tribal data. Mobile source data
are developed using data provided by state
and local agencies and Tribes and the most
current onroad and nonroad models devel-
oped by EPA's Office ofTransportation and
Air Quality.The draft 1996 NTI and 1999
NEI for HAPS underwent extensive review
by state and local agencies,Tribes, industry,
EPA, and the public.
For more information and references on the
development of the 1996 NTI, please go to
the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more infor-
mation and references on the development
of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the
following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
net/index.html#l999.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
To produce a complete model-ready
national inventory, EPA estimates emissions
for approximately 30 non-point source cat-
egories such as wildfires and residential
heating sources not included in the state,
local and Tribal data. Mobile source data
are developed using data provided by state
and local agencies and Tribes and the most
current onroad and nonroad models devel-
oped by EPA's Office ofTransportation and
Air Quality
Upon development of the inventory the
EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to esti-
mate annual emissions of air toxics for the
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPS (and for
all years in-between).The EMS-HAP can
project future emissions, by adjusting sta-
tionary source emission data to account
for growth and emission reductions result-
ing from emission reduction scenarios such
as the implementation of the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.
For more information and references on
EMS-HAP please go to: www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.
QA/QC Procedures:
The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are data-
bases designed to house information from
other primary sources.The EPA performs
extensive quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) activities, including checking data
provided by other organizations, to
improve the quality of the emission inven-
tory Some of these activities include: (I)
the use of an automated format QC tool
to identify potential errors of data integrity
code values, and range checks; (2) use of
geographical information system (CIS)
tools to verify facility locations; and (3)
automated 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 priori-
tize which source categories and pollutants
to review in more detail based on compar-
isons 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.The 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 and CIS tools, the
EPA follows specific guidance on augment-
ing data for 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, the EPA
contacts data providers to reconcile poten-
tial errors. The draft NTI is posted for
external review and includes a README
file, with instructions on review of data and
submission of revisions, state-by-state mod-
eling 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 exter-
nal review of the data, state and local
agencies,Tribes, and industry provide exter-
nal QA of the inventory The EPA evaluates
proposed revisions from external reviewers
and prepares memos for individual review-
ers 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 have resulted in significant
changes in the initial emission estimates, as
seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI
for HAPs and its final version. For more
information on QA/QC of the NEI for
HAPs, please refer to the following web
site for a paper presented at the 2002
Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta.
"QA/QC—An Integral Step in the
Development of the 1999 National
Emission Inventory for HAPs," Anne Pope,
et at www.epa.gov/ttn/.
EPA's Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) has created uniform data standards
or elements, which provide "meta" informa-
tion on the standard NEI Input Format
(NIF) fields.These standards were devel-
oped by teams representing states,Tribes,
EPA and other Federal agencies.The use of
common data standards among partners
fosters consistently defined and formatted
data elements and sets of data values, and
provides public access to more meaningful
data.The standards relevant to the NEI for
HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS,
Latitude/Longitude, Chemical Identification,
Facility Identification, Date,Tribal and
Contact Data Standards.The 1999 NEI for
HAPs is compliant with all new data stan-
dards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed
its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999
NEI for HAPs facilities.
For more information on compliance of
the NEI for HAPs with new OMB
Information Quality Guidelines and new
EPA data standards, please refer to the fol-
lowing web site for a paper presented at
the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in
San Diego: "The Challenge of Meeting New
EPA Data Standards and Information
Quality Guidelines in the Development of
the 2002 NEI Point Source Data for
HAPs," Anne Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/.
The 2002 NEI for HAPs will undergo sci-
entific peer review in early 2005.
Data Quality Review:
EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes,
industry and the public review the NTI and
the NEI for HAPs.To assist in the review of
the 1999 NEI for HAPs, the EPA provided
a comparison of data from the three data
sources (MACT/residual risk data,TRI, and
state, local and Tribal inventories) for each
facility For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two
periods were available for external
review—October 2001 -February 2002
and October 2002-March 2003.The final
1999 NEI was completed and posted on
the Agency website in the fall of 2003.
Beginning in 2005, the NTI will undergo an
external scientific peer review.
In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as
part of the 1996 national-scale assessment.
The review was generally supportive of the
assessment purpose, methods, and presen-
tation; the committee considers this an
important step toward a better under-
standing of air toxics.
Data Limitations:
While emissions estimating techniques have
improved over the years, broad assump-
tions about the behavior of sources and
serious data limitations still exist.The NTI
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
and the NEI for HAPs contain data from
other primary references. Because of the
different data sources, not all information in
the NTI and the NEI for HAPs has been
developed using identical methods. Also, for
the same reason, there are likely some geo-
graphic areas with more detail and
accuracy than others. Because of the lesser
level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is cur-
rently not suitable for input to dispersion
models. For further discussion of the data
limitations and the error estimates in the
1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the dis-
cussion of Information Quality Guidelines
in the documentation at: vwvw.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/net/index.html#haps99.
In 2004, the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) released a final evaluation
report on "EPA's Method for Calculating
AirToxics Emissions for Reporting Results
Needs Improvement" (report can be found
at www.epa.gov/oig/). The report stated
that although the methods used have
improved substantially, unvalidated assump-
tions and other limitations underlying the
NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA
performance measure. As a result of this
evaluation and the OIG recommendations
for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at way to improve the
accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will
meet bi-annually with OIG to report on its
progress in completing the activities as out-
lined in the action plan.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs 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 NEI for HAPs
by regulatory agencies, environmental inter-
ests, and industry and the greater potential
for modeling and trend analysis. During the
development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, 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). For more information on CDX,
please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html.
References:
The NTI and NEI data and documentation
is available at the following site:
NEON: ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI and 1999
NEI for HAPs
Contents: Summary data files
Audience: EPA staff
Goal I, Objective 2
FY 2005 OVERARCHING PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
People Living in Healthier Indoor Air.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
People Living in Radon Resistant Homes.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 54.
Performance Database:
Annual industry survey data of home
builders provided by the National
Association of Home Builders.
Data Source:
The survey is an annual sample of home
builders in the United States most of
whom are members of the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB).
NAHB members construct 80% 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 resist-
ant homes, EPA assumes an average of 2.67
people per household. NAHB Research
Center has been conducting this annual
builder practices survey for over 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.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
NAHB Research Center conducts an annu-
al survey of home builders in the United
States to assess a wide range of builder
practices. NAHB Research Center volun-
tarily 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 build-
ing industry The annual survey gathers
information such as types of houses built,
lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lum-
ber used, types of doors and windows
used, etc.The NAHB Research Center
Builder Survey also gathers information on
the use of radon-resistant design features
in new houses, and these questions com-
prise about two percent of the survey
questionnaire.
In January of each yean the survey of build-
ing practices for the preceding calendar
year is typically mailed out to home
builders. For the most-recently completed
survey for building practices during calen-
dar year 2003, NAHB Research Center
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
reported mailing the survey to about
45,000 active United States home building
companies, and received about 2,300
responses, which translates to a response
rate of about 5 percent. The survey
responses are analyzed, with respect to
State market areas and Census Divisions in
the United States, 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 fea-
tures as a function of housing type,
foundation type, and different techniques
for radon-resistant new home construc-
tion.The data are suitable for year-to-year
comparisons.
QA/QC Procedures:
Because data are obtained from an exter-
nal organization, QA/QC 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 utilized for key entry
of data.
Data Quality Review:
Because data are obtained from an exter-
nal organization, Data Quality Review
procedures are not entirely known. 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 three 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
Data Limitations:
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 aug-
ment the list of NAHB members in the
survey sample, NAHB Research Center
sends the survey to home builders identi-
fied from mailing lists of builder trade
publications, such as Professional Builder
magazine.There is some uncertainty as to
whether the survey adequately character-
izes the practices of builders who are not
members of NAHB.The effects on the
findings are not known.
Although an overall response rate of 5 per-
cent could be considered low, it is the
response rate for the entire survey of which
the radon-resistant new construction ques-
tions are only a very small portion. Builders
responding to the survey would not be
doing so principally due to their radon activi-
ties.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 sur-
vey NAHB Research Center also makes
efforts to reduce the potential for positive
bias in the way the radon-related survey
questions are presented.
References:
The results are published by the NAHB
Research Center in annual reports of radon-
resistant home building practices. See
wwwnahbrc.org/ last accessed 7/27/2005 for
more information about NAHB.The most
recent report, "Builder Practices Report:
Radon Reducing Features in New
Construction 2003,"Annual Builder and
Consumer Practices Surveys by the NAHB
Research Center; Inc., November; 2004.
Similar report titles exist for prior years.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
People Living in Radon Mitigated Homes.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 54.
Performance Database:
External
Data Source:
Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales
to the Agency EPA assumes one fan per
radon mitigated home, assumes a fan life of
10 years, and then multiplies the assumed
number of working fans by the assumed
average of 2.67 people per household.
QA/QC Procedures:
Because data are obtained from an exter-
nal organization, EPA relies on the business
practices for reporting data of the radon
fan manufacturers.
Data Quality Review:
Data are obtained from an external organi-
zation. EPA reviews the data to ascertain
their reliability and discusses any irregulari-
ties with the relevant manufacturer
Data Limitations:
Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is vol-
untary and may 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.
No radon vent fan manufacturer; vent fan
motor maker or distributor is required to
report to EPA; they provide data/informa-
tion voluntarily to EPA.There are only four
(4) radon vent fan manufacturers of any
significance; one of these accounts for an
estimated 70% of the market. Radon vent
fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon
applications. However; vent fans typically
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
used for non-radon applications are per-
haps being installed as substitutes for radon
vent fans in some instances; estimated to
be less than I % of the total market.
Ascertaining the actual number of radon
vent fans used for other applications, and
the number of non-radon fans being substi-
tuted in radon applications, would be diffi-
cult and expensive at this time relative to
the benefit of having such data.
References:
See www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html
last accessed 7/27/2005 for National per-
formance/progress reporting (National
Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on radon,
measurement, mitigation and radon-resist-
ant new construction. Data through 2004
are available from the Indoor Environments
Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 54.
Note:
The name of the "National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma" has
been changed to "National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS" to more appro-
priately reflect its actual content. Although
this is a name change from that approved
by OMB under the Information Collection
Request (ICR), in all other respects, the
content and substance of the survey are
the same.
Performance Database:
The performance database consists of
quarterly Partner status reports used to
document the outcomes of individual proj-
ects; a media tracking study used to assess
behavior change within that sector of the
public viewing the public service announce-
ments, and a national telephone survey
(National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's
Exposure to ETS) which seeks information
about the measures taken by people with
asthma, and parents of children with asth-
ma to minimize exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers. Additional
information about asthma morbidity and
mortality in the US is obtained from the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). Annual expenditures for
health and lost productivity due to asthma
are obtained from the National Heart Lung
and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Chartbook
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resou rces/docs/02_chtbk
.pdf last accessed 7/27/2005.
EPA also collects data on children exposed
to environmental tobacco smoke in the
home.This information is used in support-
ing the asthma goals of the program. EPA
focuses its work on ETS on children in low
income and minority populations, and on
children with asthma.The National Survey
on Environmental Management of Asthma
and Children's Exposure to ETS, which
includes a series of questions about
whether respondents allow smoking in
their home, whether young children are in
the home, what resident family members
smoke and how often, and how much visi-
tors contribute to exposure, is used to
track progress toward reducing childhood
ETS exposure. Information about ETS is
obtained periodically from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
including the National Health Interview, the
National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (for cotinine data), and the
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey
(for state tobacco/ETS exposure data).
Data Source:
Each component of the database has a
unique source. Partner status reports are
generated by those organizations receiving
funding from EPA and are maintained by
individual EPA Project Officers. An inde-
pendent initiative of the Advertising
Council provides media tracking of out-
comes of all of their public service
campaigns and this is publicly available
information. The National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control
number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data
on asthma morbidity and mortality is avail-
able from the National Center for Health
Statistics at the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nchs
last accessed 7/27/2005). Data on annual
expenditures for health and lost productivi-
ty due to asthma are obtained from the
NHLBI Chartbook.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
End-of-year performance is a best profes-
sional estimate using all data sources.The
survey provides more statistically sound
results for one period of time; the next
scheduled survey will provide performance
results for year 2006.
National Survey on Environmental
Management of Asthma and Children's
Exposure to ETS (OMB control number
2060-0490):This survey is the most robust
data set for this performance measure, but
it is not administered annually The first sur-
vey administered in 2003, was designed in
consultation with staff from EPA and the
CDC National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) to ensure that respondents will
understand the questions asked and will
provide the type of data necessary to
measure the Agency's objectives. In addi-
tion, care has been taken to ensure that
the survey questions target the population
with asthma by using the same qualifier
question that appears on other national
surveys on asthma collected by the CDC.
From an initial sampling frame of 124,994
phone numbers, 14,685 households were
contacted successfully and agreed to par-
ticipate in the screening survey Of the
14,685 individuals screened, approximately
18 percent, or 2,637 individuals, either have
asthma or live with someone who does.
Only those individuals who have asthma or
live with someone who does were consid-
ered to be eligible respondents.
Respondents were asked to provide prima-
rily yes/no responses. In some cases,
respondents were given a range of
responses in the form of multiple choice
questions and were asked to indicate the
one which best defined their response.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The survey seeks information on those
environmental management measures that
the Agency considers important in reduc-
ing an individual's exposure to known
indoor environmental asthma triggers. By
using yes/no and multiple choice questions,
the Agency has substantially reduced the
amount of time necessary for the respon-
dent to complete the survey and has
ensured consistency in data response and
interpretation.
The information collected has been used
to establish a baseline to reflect the charac-
teristics of our nation's asthma population
and future iterations of this survey will
measure additional progress toward achiev-
ing performance goals.The next survey will
take place in 2006.
On an annual basis, EPA requires (program-
matic terms and conditions of the award)
all funded organizations to provide quarter-
ly reports identifying how many health care
professionals are educated about indoor
asthma triggers.
QA/QC Procedures:
It is assumed that partner organizations
report data as accurately and completely as
possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA
project officers as warranted. The National
Survey is designed in accordance with
approved Agency procedures. Additional
information is available on the Internet:
www.epa.gov/icr/players.html last accessed
7/27/2005.The computer assisted tele-
phone interview methodology used for this
survey helps to limit errors in data collec-
tion. In addition, the QA/QC procedures
associated with conducting the survey
include pilot testing of interview questions,
interviewer training to ensure consistent
gathering of information, and random data
review to reduce the possibility of data
entry error
Data Quality Review:
EPA reviews the data from all sources to
ascertain reliability
Data Limitations:
Asthma For the National Survey random
digit dialing methodology is used to ensure
that a representative sample of households
has been contacted; however; the survey is
subject to inherent limitations of voluntary
telephone surveys of representative sam-
ples. For example, I) survey is limited to
those households with current telephone
service; 2) interviewers may follow survey
directions inconsistently. An interviewer
might ask the questions incorrectly or inad-
vertently lead the interviewee to a
response; or 3) the interviewer may call at
an inconvenient time (i.e., the respondent
might not want to be interrupted at the
time of the call and may resent the intru-
sion of the phone call; the answers will
reflect this attitude.).
ETS: Currently available cotonine (a chemi-
cal in environmental tobacco smoke)
survey data do not address 50% of the age
specific portion of EPA's target population.
It does not include birth to 3 years old, the
portion of children most susceptible to the
effects of ETS.
Error Estimate:
In its first data collection with this instru-
ment, the Agency achieved results within
the following percentage points of the true
value at the 95 percent confidence level
(survey instrument):
Adult plus or
Asthmatics minus 2.4%
Child
Asthmatics
Low Income
Adult Asthmatics
These precision rates are sufficient to char-
acterize the extent to which the results
measured by the survey accurately reflect
the characteristics of our nation's asthmatic
population.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Data from the National Survey on
Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS (OMB control
number 2060-0490) were collected from
August 4-September 17, 2003 and repre-
sent the first data collection with this
instrument.
References:
Asthma
National Center for Health Statistics,
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last
accessed 7/27/2005)
EPA Indoor Environments Division
(www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 7/27/2005)
EPA Indoor Environments Division
(www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 7/27/2005)
ETS
National Health Interview Survey and
National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey are part of the National Center for
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/nchs
last accessed 7/27/2005)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm
last accessed 7/27/2005),
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco
Monograph Series (cancercontrol.cancer.gov/
tcrb/monographs/ last accessed 7/27/2005),
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement por-
tion of the US Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey (riskfactorcancergov/
studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 7/27/2005),
Healthy People 2010
(www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed
7/27/2005).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Students, faculty and staff experiencing improved indoor air quality in their schools.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 55.
Performance Database:
EPA collects national data by conducting a
survey of indoor air quality management
practices in schools approximately every 3
years.The first survey was administered in
2002. EPA is partnering with CDC to
incorporate IAQ management practice
indicators, consistent with the benchmark
survey into the School Health Policies and
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Programs Study (SHPPS) to be adminis-
tered in 2006. EPA will implement this IAQ
module as a smaller survey in 2009, as the
SHPSS survey is only conducted at 6 year
intervals.
To measure annual progress, EPA estimates
the number of schools who establish IAQ
Tools for Schools (TfS) programs each year
from reports from partner organizations
and regional recruiters, supplemented by
tracking the volume of guidances distributed
and number of people trained by EPA and
its partners. EPA also collects information on
program benefits such as reduced school
nurse visits, improved workplace satisfaction
among staff, reduced absenteeism, and cost
savings experienced by schools.
Data Source:
The sources of the data include coopera-
tive partners, USEPA and the statistical
sample of all the public and private schools
in the nation during the 1999 - 2000
school year (I 18,000); data are from the
United States Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Calculations for the number of people
experiencing improved IAQ are based
upon an average 525 students, staff and
faculty per school (data are from the
United States Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics).
That number; along with the number of
schools that are adopting/implementing TfS,
are used to estimate the performance
result.
End-of-year performance is a best profes-
sional estimate using all data sources.The
survey provides more statistically sound
results for one period of time; the next
scheduled survey will provide performance
results for year 2006. EPA's 2006 survey
will be included as part of CDC's 2006
School Health Policies and Programs Study
which is conducted every 6 years.
QA/QC Procedures:
It is assumed that partner organizations
report data as accurately and completely as
possible; site visits and regular communica-
tion with grantees are conducted by EPA
projects officers.
Data Quality Review:
EPA reviews the data from all sources in
the performance database to ascertain reli-
ability and to resolve any discrepancies.
Data Limitations:
The primary limitation associated with
Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is the error introduced as a
result of self-reporting.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Prior to the 2003 survey EPA tracked the
number of schools receiving the TfS guid-
ance and estimated the population of the
school to determine the number of stu-
dents/staff experiencing improved indoor
air quality.The survey was administered to
establish a baseline for schools implement-
ing IAQ management practices. EPA
queried a statistically representative sample
of schools to estimate the number of
schools that have actually adopted and
implemented good IAQ management prac-
tices consistent with the TfS guidance. EPA
plans to re-administer the survey as a com-
ponent of CDC's School Health Policies
and Programs Study which will show
progress from the baseline.
References:
See the United States Department of
Education National Center for Education
Statistics, nces.ed.gov/ last accessed
7/27/2005. See also Indoor Air Quality
Tools for Schools Kit (402-K-95-OOI) at
www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last accessed
7/27/2005 and see www.cdc.gov/nccd-
php/dash/shpps/ For additional information
about the School Health Policies and
Programs Study (SHPPS), a national survey
periodically conducted to assess school
health policies and programs at the state,
district, school, and classroom levels.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Office Workers experiencing improved indoor air quality in their workplaces.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 56.
Performance Database:
Since fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year
thereafter; the performance database con-
sists of the annual number of requested
copies of building indoor air quality guid-
ance documents, (e.g. EPA's Building Air
Quality I-Beam, a computer software
designed to be a comprehensive state-of-
the-art guidance for managing IAQ in
commercial buildings, Mold Remediation in
Schools and Commercial Buildings) and
training conducted through cooperative
agreements or other government agencies
(GSA) using EPA documents. In addition,
EPA conducted a voluntary pilot survey of
building owners and managers in 2001 to
determine the use of indoor air quality
(IAQ) management practices in U.S. office
buildings.
Data Source:
The pilot survey was developed by EPA
and distributed by the Building Owners
and Managers Association (BOMA).The
pilot survey's purpose and design received
approval from the Office of Management
and Budget.The survey is not administered
on an annual basis.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The pilot survey included data regarding:
the size and uses of a selected building;
documentation of management practices
employed in the building; how the heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning systems are
managed; how pollution sources are
addressed; housekeeping and pest manage-
ment practices; remodeling and renovation
activities; and responses to tenant com-
plaints regarding IAQ. A sampling frame was
developed based upon random sampling of
the membership lists from BOMA, the
International Facilities Managers Association
(IFMA) and buildings managed by the
General Services Administration (GSA).The
final sample size, (and survey recipient list)
was 3,612 and we received 59 I completed
surveys.The survey results identified both
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
strengths and weaknesses in building man-
agement practices in U.S. office buildings.
End-of-year performance is a best profes-
sional estimate using all data sources.The
survey provides more statistically sound
results for one period of time.
QA/QC Procedures:
Survey was designed in accordance with
approved Agency procedures. Additional
information is available on the Internet:
www.epa.gov/icr/players.html/ last accessed
12/22/2004.The quality review was con-
ducted by BOMA
Data Quality Review:
BOMA had responsibility for the accuracy
of data entered into the database. Quality
assurance safeguards were used in the data
entry BOMA, and EPA's contractor
reviewed individual survey responses for
accuracy during the aggregation and analy-
ses activities.
Data Limitations:
The primary limitation associated with bas-
ing estimates on requests for guidance
documents and training is the unknown
factor of how many of the requests result-
ed in improved indoor air quality The
survey provided a reference point on
progress.The survey results are subject to
the limitations inherent in survey sampling.
The response rate of 14/6 for the survey
was low due to the timing of the survey
administration and subsequent events in
September and October 2001.
Error Estimate:
4% precision at a 95% confidence level.
Goal I, Objective 3
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Remaining US consumption of HCFCs, measured in tons of ozone depleting potential (ODP).
Restrict Domestic Exempted Production and Import of Newly Produced Class I CFCs and Halons.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 57.
Performance Database:
The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) data-
base is maintained by the Stratospheric
Protection Division (SPD).ATS is used to
compile and analyze quarterly information
on U.S. production, imports, exports, trans-
formations, and allowance trades of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
Data Source:
Progress on restricting domestic exempted
consumption of Class II HCFCs is tracked
by monitoring industry reports of compli-
ance with EPA's phase-out regulations. Data
are provided by U.S. companies producing,
importing, and exporting ODS. Corporate
data are typically submitted as quarterly
reports. Specific requirements as outlined in
the Clean Air Act are available on the
Internet at: www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa603.txt.
Monthly information on domestic produc-
tion, imports, and exports from the
International Trade Commission is main-
tained in the ATS.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Data are aggregated across all U.S. compa-
nies for each individual ODS to analyze U.S.
total consumption and production.
QA/QC Procedures:
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 on-site to demonstrate their
compliance with the regulation.
The ATS data are subject to a Quality
Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan,
USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs,
July 2002). In addition, the data are subject
to an annual quality assurance review, coor-
dinated by Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR) staff separate from those on the
team normally responsible for data collec-
tion 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 sys-
tem manager This information is then
cross-checked with compliance data submit-
ted by reporting companies. SPD 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 producers', importers', and exporters'
facilities.These audits verify the accuracy of
compliance data submitted to EPA through
examination of company records.
Data Quality Reviews:
The Government Accounting Office (GAO)
completed a review of U.S. participation in
five international environmental agreements,
and analyzed data submissions from the
U.S. under the Montreal Protocol on
Substances the Deplete the Ozone Layer
No deficiencies were identified in their
January 2003 report.
Data Limitations:
None, since companies are required by the
Clean Air Act to report data. EPA's regula-
tions specify a quarterly reporting system.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The Stratospheric Protection Division is
developing a system to allow direct elec-
tronic reporting.
References:
See www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for addi-
tional information on ODSs. See
www.unep.ch/ozone/montreal.shtml for
additional information about the Montreal
Protocol. See www.multilateralfund.org/ for
more information about the Multilateral
Fund. Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office
of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Goal I, Objective 4
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Purchase and Deploy State-of-Art Monitoring Units.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 59.
Performance Data:
Data from the near real-time gamma com-
ponent of the RadNet, formerly known as
the Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitoring System (ERAMS), will be stored
in an internal EPA database at the National
Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery
Alabama. Data from filters are housed in
the Laboratory Information Management
System (LIMS) which are physically located
in Montgomery Alabama.
Data Source:
RadNet
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Assuming that funding is continued in
future years and the project receives all
necessary approvals, the existing air sam-
pling equipment will be supplemented with
state-of-the art air monitors that include
near real-time gamma radiation detection
capability Addition of detectors and com-
munication systems will provide
information about significant radioactive
contamination events to decision-makers
within hours.
QA/QC Procedures:
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Procedures will follow the Agency guide-
lines and be consistent with a specific initial
operational Quality Assurance Plan that will
be completed. All monitoring equipment
will be periodically calibrated with reliable
standards and routinely checked for accura-
cy with onsite testing devices. Laboratory
analyses of air filters and other environ-
mental media are closely controlled in
compliance with the NAREL Quality
Management Plan and applicable Standard
Operating Procedures.
Data Quality Reviews:
The database will screen all incoming data
from the monitoring systems for abnormal-
ities as an indicator of either a
contamination event or an instrument mal-
function. Data will be held in a secure
portion of the database until verified by
trained personnel. Copies of quality assur-
ance and quality control testing will also be
maintained to assure the quality of the data.
Data Limitations:
Data are limited in near-real-time to
gamma emitting radionuclide identification
and quantification. Radiation levels from
gamma-emitting nuclides that will be so
low as to be "undetectable" will be signifi-
cantly below health concerns that require
immediate action. Lower levels of radioac-
tive materials in the samples will be
measured through laboratory-based analy-
ses and data.
Error Estimate:
The overall error in detection capability is
estimated to be within 50% of the actual
concentration based on previous experi-
ence with similar measurement systems. An
error analysis will be performed on the
prototype systems during the process of
detector selection.
New/Improved Performance Data or
Systems:
New air samplers will maintain steady flow
rates that are measured during operation
and corrected for varying environmental
conditions. Addition of gamma spectromet-
ric detectors and computer-based
multi-channel analyzers to the air samplers
provide near real-time analyses of radioac-
tive content in particles captured by the
filter In addition to data collection, the
onboard computer systems can communi-
cate results of analyses back to a central
database and even identify abnormal condi-
tions that might require action.These
improvements not only include higher qual-
ity data, but also will provide information
regarding contamination events to decision-
makers within hours instead of days.The
number and location of monitoring sites
will be improved to provide greater cover-
age of more of the nation's population.
The plan for upgrading and expanding the
RadNet air monitoring network was
reviewed in FY05 by an EPA Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) and will be
reviewed in FY06 by the Radiation
Advisory Committee (RAC) of EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB).The TEP
review provided a number of comments
that were incorporated in the RadNet plan,
especially those addressing the refinement
of the overall system objectives.The SAB
review is expected to provide discussion
and guidance from a team of national
experts that will address key aspects of the
science and technology of the new net-
work, including fundamental concerns such
as the appropriateness and potential effec-
tiveness of the plan for siting near-real-time
air monitors across the nation.
References:
For additional information about the con-
tinuous monitoring system, ERAMS see:
www.epa.gov/narel/radnet. NAREL Quality
Management Plan, Revision I, March I 5,
2001.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of EPA RERT members that meet scenario-based response criteria.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 59.
Performance Data:
To determine the effectiveness of RERT
performance, an output measure has been
developed that scores RERT members on
a scale of one (I) to 100 against criteria
developed based on the RERTs responsi-
bilities under the National Response Plan's
Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex (for-
merly the Federal Radiological Emergency
Response Plan) and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (the NCP).A baseline
evaluation was performed in FY03, based
on the effectiveness of the RERT in
responses to actual incidents and a major
national exercise (TOPOFF2). RERT mem-
bers were evaluated in their ability to: (I)
provide effective field response, (2) support
coordination centers, and (3) provide ana-
lytical capabilities and to support a single
small-to-medium scale incident, as needed.
Overall RERT effectiveness in this baseline
analysis was measured at approximately I 3
percent. In FY 2004, RERT members were
re-evaluated, through a major exercise, in
the ability factors listed above. In FY 2005,
the evaluation criteria have been reevaluat-
ed and revised in response to the results of
the FY 2004 exercise as well as changes
necessitated by the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 and DHS' issuance of the National
Incident Management System (NIMS) and
the National Response Plan.
Data Source:
Based on the requirements of EPA set forth
in the NRP's Nuclear/Radiological Incident
Annex and the NCP EPA has developed cri-
teria against which the capabilities of the
RERT are judged.This evaluation has been
performed by members of the Radiation
Protection Division, including representatives
both within and outside the RERT itself
Data Limitations:
The evaluation criteria were modified
between FY2003 and FY2005 to reflect
the changing requirements of the RERT
based on DHS' issuance of both NIMS and
the NRP during this time period. While the
broad outline of the RERTs role has
remained the same, additional require-
ments have been imposed by the issuance
of these documents, which are now reflect-
ed in the RERT evaluation criteria.
References:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, the
National Incident Management System, and
the National Response Plan.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Drums of Radioactive Waste Disposed of according to EPA Standards.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 58.
Performance Data:
The Department of Energy (DOE) Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) database con-
tains the number of drums shipped by
DOE waste generator facilities and placed
in the DOE WIPRThe WIPP is a DOE facili-
ty located in southeastern New Mexico, 26
miles from Carlsbad, New Mexico.The
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act was passed by
Congress in October 1992 and amended in
September 1996.The act transferred the
land occupied by the WIPP to DOE and
gave EPA, regulatory responsibility for
determining whether the facility complies
with radioactive waste disposal standards.
Through July 2005, EPA has completed over
97 on-site inspections to evaluate waste
prior to shipment to the WIPP facility
Data Source:
Department of Energy
QA/QC Procedures:
The performance data used by EPA are
collected and maintained by DOE. Under
EPA's WIPP regulations (available on the
Internet: www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/
background.htm (last accessed II18/200),
all DOE WIPP-related data must be col-
lected and maintained under a
comprehensive quality assurance program
meeting consensus standards developed by
the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) (available on the
Internet: http://www.asme.org/codes (last
accessed 7/1 8/2005) ). EPA conducts regu-
lar inspections to ensure that these quality
assurance systems are in place and func-
tioning properly; no additional QA/QC of
the DOE data is conducted by EPA.
Data Limitations:
The DOE WIPP database contains the num-
ber of drums shipped by DOE waste
generator facilities and placed in the DOE
WIPR Currently there are five DOE waste
generator facilities that are approved to gen-
erate and ship waste: Los Alamos National
Laboratory Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site, Hanford Site, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory Savannah River Site.
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 with radioactive waste disposal
standards and to determine if DOE is prop-
erly tracking the waste and adhering to
specific waste component limits. Once EPA
gives its approval, the number of drums
shipped to the WIPP facility on an annual
basis 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.
References:
The Department of Energy National TRU
Waste Management Plan Quarterly
Supplement www.wipp.ws/library/
caolib.htm#Controlled (last accessed
7/18/2005) contains information on the
monthly volumes of waste that are
received at the DOE WIPR
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Goal I, Objective 5
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions overall and by Sector.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 60.
Performance Database:
Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Tracking System.The tracking system's pri-
mary purpose is to maintain a record of
the annual greenhouse gas emissions
reduction goals and accomplishments for
the voluntary climate program using infor-
mation from partners and other sources. It
also measures the electricity savings and
contribution towards the President's green-
house gas intensity goal.
Data Source:
EPA develops carbon and non-CO2 emis-
sions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case without the impact
of EPA's voluntary climate programs.
Baseline data for carbon emissions related
to energy use comes from the Energy
Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S.
electric power sector These data are used
for both historical and projected green-
house gas emissions and electricity
generation, independent of partners' infor-
mation to compute emissions reductions
from the baseline and progress toward
annual goals.The projections use a
"Reference Case" for assumptions about
growth, the economy and regulatory condi-
tions. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide
and other high global warming potential
gases, are maintained by EPA.The non-CO2
data are compiled with input from industry
and also independently from partners'
information.
Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs
include partner reports on facility-specific
improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilo-
watt-hours (kWh) reduced), national
market data on shipments of efficient prod-
ucts, and engineering measurements of
equipment power levels and usage patterns.
Baseline information is discussed at length
in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002.
The report includes a complete chapter
dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory (sources, industries, emissions,
volumes, changes, trends, etc.). A second
chapter addresses projected greenhouse
gases in the future (model assumptions,
growth, sources, gases, sectors, etc.)
U.S. Department of State. 2002. "U.S.
Climate Action Report—2002.Third
National Communication of the United
States of America under the United
Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change."
Partners do contribute actual emissions
data biannually after their facility-specific
improvements but these emissions data are
not used in tracking the performance
measure. EPA, however; validates the esti-
mates of greenhouse gas reductions based
on the actual emissions data received.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Most of the voluntary climate programs'
focus is on energy efficiency For these pro-
grams, EPA estimates the expected
reduction in electricity consumption in kilo-
watt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are
calculated as the product of the kWh of
electricity saved and an annual emission
factor (e.g., metric tons carbon equivalent
(MMTCE) prevented per kWh). Other
programs focus on directly lowering green-
house gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas
STAR, Landfill Methane Outreach, and
Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these,
greenhouse gas emission reductions are
estimated on a project-by-project basis.
EPA maintains a "tracking system" for emis-
sions reductions.
The Integrated Planning Model, used to
develop baseline data for carbon emissions,
is an important analytical tool for evaluating
emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power
sector The IPM has an approved quality
assurance project plan that is available from
EPA's program office.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA devotes considerable effort to obtain-
ing the best possible information on which
to evaluate emissions reductions from vol-
untary programs. Peer-reviewed
carbon-conversion factors are used to
ensure consistency with generally accepted
measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions, and peer-reviewed methodologies
are used to calculate GHG reductions from
these programs.
Partners do contribute actual emissions
data biannually after their facility-specific
improvements but these emissions data are
not used in tracking the performance
measure. EPA, however; validates the esti-
mates of greenhouse gas reductions based
on the actual emissions data received.
Data Quality Review:
The Administration regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of its climate programs
through interagency evaluations.The sec-
ond such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental
Quality, examined the status of U.S. climate
change programs.The review included par-
ticipants from EPA and the Departments of
State, Energy Commerce,Transportation,
and Agriculture.The results were published
in the U.S. Climate Action Report-2002 as
part of the United States' submission to
the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (FCCC).The previous evaluation
was published in the 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 "effec-
tively estimated the impact their activities
had on reducing risks to health and the
environment..."
Data Limitations:
These are indirect measures of GHG emis-
sions (carbon conversion factors and
methods to convert material-specific
reductions to GHG emissions reductions).
Also, the voluntary nature of the programs
may affect reporting. Further research will
be necessary in order to fully understand
the links between GHG concentrations and
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
specific environmental impacts, such as
impacts on health, ecosystems, crops,
weather events, and so forth.
Error Estimate:
These are indirect measures of GHG emis-
sions. Although EPA devotes considerable
effort to obtaining the best possible infor-
mation on which to evaluate emissions
reductions from its voluntary programs,
errors in the performance data could be
introduced through uncertainties in carbon
conversion factors, engineering analyses,
and econometric analyses.The only pro-
grams at this time aimed at avoiding GHG
emissions are voluntary
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The Administration regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of its climate programs
through interagency evaluations. EPA con-
tinues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information
becomes available.
References:
The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is
available at: www.epa.gov/globalwarming/
publications/car/index.html.The accomplish-
ments of many of EPA's voluntary
programs are documented in the Climate
Protection Partnerships Division Annual
Report.The most recent version is
Protecting the Environment Together: ENERGY
STAR and other Voluntary Programs, Climate
Protection Partnerships Division 2003
Annual Report.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Annual Energy Savings.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 61.
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, kilo-
watt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market
data on shipments of efficient products, and
engineering measurements of equipment
power levels and usage patterns.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Most of the voluntary climate programs'
focus is on energy efficiency. For these pro-
grams, EPA estimates the expected
reduction in electricity consumption in kilo-
watt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are
calculated as the product of the kWh of
electricity saved and an annual emission
factor (e.g., MMTCE prevented per kWh).
Other programs focus on directly lowering
greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas
STAR, Landfill Methane Outreach, and
Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these,
greenhouse gas emission reductions are
estimated on a project-by-project basis.
EPA maintains a "tracking system" for ener-
gy reductions.
Energy bill savings are calculated as the
product of the kWh of energy saved and
the cost of electricity for the affected mar-
ket segment (residential, commercial, or
industrial) taken from the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) Annual
Energy Outlook and Annual Energy Review
for each year in the analysis (1993-2013).
Energy bill savings also include revenue
from the sale of methane and/or the sale
of electricity made from captured methane.
The net present value (NPV) of these sav-
ings was calculated using a 4-percent
discount rate and a 2001 perspective.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA devotes considerable effort to obtain-
ing the best possible information on which
to evaluate energy savings from its volun-
tary programs.
Data Quality Review:
The Administration regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of its climate programs
through interagency evaluations.The sec-
ond such interagency evaluation, led by the
White House Council on Environmental
Quality examined the status of U.S. climate
change programs.The review included par-
ticipants from EPA and the Departments of
State, Energy Commerce,Transportation,
and Agriculture.The results were published
in the U.S. Climate Action Report-2002 as
part of the United States' submission to
the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (FCCC).The previous evaluation
was published in the 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 "effec-
tively estimated the impact their activities
had on reducing risks to health and the
environment..."
Data Limitations:
The voluntary nature of programs may
affect reporting. In addition, errors in the
performance data could be introduced
through uncertainties in engineering analy-
ses and econometric analyses.
Error Estimate:
Although EPA devotes considerable effort
to obtaining the best possible information
on which to evaluate emissions reductions
from voluntary programs, errors in the per-
formance data could be introduced
through uncertainties in engineering analy-
ses and econometric analyses.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The Administration regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of its climate programs
through interagency evaluations. EPA con-
tinues to update inventories and
methodologies as new information
becomes available.
References:
The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is
available at: www.epa.gov/
globalwarm ing/publications/car/index.htm I.
The accomplishments of many of EPA's vol-
untary programs are documented in the
Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Annual Report.The most recent version is
Protecting the Environment Together: Energy
Star and OtherVoluntary Programs, Climate
Protection Partnerships Division 2003
Annual Report.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Goal I, Objective 6
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Fuel Economy of EPA-Developed SUV Hybrid Vehicle over EPA Driving Cycles Tested.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 62.
Performance Database:
Fuel economy test data for both urban and
highway test cycles under the EPA Federal
Test Procedure for passenger cars.The Clean
Automotive Technology program commits
EPA to develop technology by the end of
the decade to satisfy stringent criteria emis-
sions requirements and up to a doubling of
fuel efficiency in personal vehicles such as
SUVs, pickups, and urban delivery vehicles—
while simultaneously meeting the more
demanding size, performance, durability and
power requirements of these vehicles.
Data Source:
EPA fuel economy tests performed at the
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory (NVFEL), Ann Arbor; Michigan.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA fuel economy tests are performed in
accordance with the EPA Federal Test
Procedure and all applicable QA/QC pro-
cedures. Available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/sftp.htm.
Data Quality Reviews:
EPAs NVFEL laboratory is recognized as a
national and international facility for fuel
economy and emissions testing. NVFEL is
also the reference point for private industry
Data Limitations:
Primarily due to EPA regulations, vehicle fuel
economy testing is a well established and
precise exercise with extremely low test
to test variability (well less than 5/6). One
challenge relates to fuel economy testing of
hybrid vehicles (i.e., more than one source
of onboard power), which is more complex
than testing of conventional vehicles. EPA
has not yet published formal regulations to
cover hybrid vehicles. Relevant information is
available on the Internet: www.ctts.nrel.gov/
analysis/hev_test/procedures.shtml.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA is using solid engineering judgment and
consultations with other expert organizations
(including major auto companies) to develop
internal procedures for testing hybrid vehicles.
References:
See www.epa.gov/otaq/testproc.htm for
additional information about testing and
measuring emissions at the NVFEL.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Improved receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from sources.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal I, page 62.
Performance Database:
Program output; no internal tracking system
Goal 2, Objective
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets health-based standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive drinking water that
meets health-based standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later (covered standards
include: Stage I disinfection by-products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term
enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic).
The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based stan-
dards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
The percentage of community water systems that provide drinking water that meets health-based stan-
dards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
The percentage of population served by community water systems in Indian country that receive drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, pages 74-77.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Performance Database:
Safe Drinking Water Information System—
Federal Version (SDWIS or SDWIS-FED).
SDWIS contains basic water system infor-
mation, population served, and detailed
records of violations of the Safe Drinking
Water Act and the statute's implementing
regulations.The performance measure is
based on the population served by com-
munity water systems that were active
during any part of the performance year
and did not have any violations designated
as "health based." Exceedances of a maxi-
mum contaminant level (MCL) and
violations of a treatment technique are
health-based violations. SDWIS has provid-
ed annual results for 9 years and reports
on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source:
Data are provided by agencies with prima-
cy (primary enforcement authority) for the
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program. These agencies are either: States,
EPA for non-delegated states or territories,
and the Navajo Nation Indian tribe, the
only tribe with primacy Primacy agencies
collect the data from the regulated water
systems, determine compliance, and report
a subset of the data to EPA (primarily
inventory and summary violations).
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Under the drinking water regulations, water
systems must use approved analytical
methods for testing for contaminants. State
certified laboratories report contaminant
occurrence to states that, in turn, deter-
mine exceedances of maximum
contaminant levels or non-compliance with
treatment techniques and report these vio-
lations to EPA.These results are subject to
periodic performance audits and compared
to results that states report to SDWIS.
Primacy agencies' information systems and
compliance determinations are audited on
an average schedule of once every 3 years,
according to a protocol.To measure pro-
gram performance, EPA aggregates the
SDWIS data into national statistics on over-
all compliance with health-based drinking
water standards using the measures identi-
fied above.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA conducts a number of Quality
Assurance/Quality Control steps to provide
high quality data for program use, including:
• SDWIS-FED edit checks built into the
software to reject erroneous data.
• Quality assurance manuals for states and
Regions, which provide standard operat-
ing procedures for conducting routine
assessments of the quality of the data,
including timely corrective action(s).
• Training to states on reporting require-
ments, data entry data retrieval, and
error correction.
• User and system documentation pro-
duced with each software release and
maintained on EPA's web site. System,
user; and reporting requirements docu-
ments can be found on the EPA web
site, www.epa.gov/safewater/. System
and user documents are accessed via
the database link www.epa.gov/safewa-
ter/databases.html, and specific rule
reporting requirements documents are
accessed via the regulations, guidance,
and policy documents link
www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.htm I.
• Specific error correction and reconcilia-
tion support through a troubleshooter's
guide, a system-generated summary
with detailed reports documenting 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.
• User support hotline available 5 days a
week.
The SDWIS-FED equivalent of a quality
assurance plan is the data reliability action
plan2 (DRAP).The DRAP contains the
processes and procedures and major activi-
ties to be employed and undertaken for
assuring the data in SDWIS meet required
data quality standards.This plan has three
major components: assurance, assessment,
and control.
Data Quality Review:
SDWIS data quality was identified as an
Agency weakness in 1999 and has a correc-
tive action completion target date that
extends to 2007. SDWIS' weaknesses center
around five major issues: I) completeness of
the data (e.g., the inventory of public water
systems, violations of maximum contami-
nant levels, enforcement actions) submitted
by the states, 2) timeliness of the data sent
by the states, i.e., if states do not report at
specified times, then enforcement and
oversight actions suffer; 3) difficulty receiv-
ing data from the states, 4) both cost and
difficulty processing and storing data in
SDWIS after it has been received, and 5)
difficulty getting SDWIS data for reporting
and analysis.Two (2000 and 2003) Data
Reliability Action Plans focus on the first
two issues, and an information strategic
plan3 (ISP) has been developed and is being
implemented to address the last three
issues, which deal primarily with technology
(hardware and software) concerns. For
instance, the ISP documents ways to
improve tools and processes for creating
and transferring data to EPA.The ISP incor-
porates newer technologies and adapts the
Agency's Enterprise Architecture Plan to
integrate data and allow the flow of data
from reporting entities to EPA via the
Agency's secure central data exchange
(CDX) environment. Detailed activities and
implementation schedules are included in
these documents, and the Agency expects
to implement these additional improve-
ments by the end of 2005.
Routine data quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe
Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have
revealed a degree of non-reporting of vio-
lations of health-based drinking water
standards, and of violations of regulatory
monitoring and reporting requirements
(discussed further under Data Limitations).
As a result of these data quality problems,
the baseline statistic of national compliance
with health-based drinking water standards
likely is lower than previously reported.The
Agency is engaged in statistical analysis and
in discussions with states to more accurate-
ly quantify the impact of these data quality
problems on the estimate of national com-
pliance with health-based drinking water
standards. Even as improvements are made,
SDWIS serves as the best source of
national information on compliance with
Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for
program management, the development of
drinking water regulations, trends analyses,
and public information.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Data Limitations:
Recent state data verification and other
quality assurance analyses indicate that the
most significant data quality problem is
under-reporting of monitoring and health-
based standards violations and inventory
characteristics.The most significant under-
reporting occurs in monitoring violations.
Even though those are not covered in the
health based violation category which is
covered by the performance measure, fail-
ures to monitor could mask treatment
technique and MCL violations. Such under-
reporting of violations limits EPA's ability to:
I) accurately portray the amount of people
affected by health-based violations, 2)
undertake geo-spatial analysis, 3) integrate
and share data with other data systems, and
4) precisely quantify the population served
by systems, which are meeting the health-
based standards. Therefore, the estimates of
population-served could be high or low. As
described in the Data Quality Review sec-
tion above, EPA is currently changing the
protocol to enhance the results of data
audits as the best near-term option to
improve these estimates, while continuing
to explore other approaches, including use
of contaminant occurrence data.
Error Estimate:
EPA will be analyzing data, derived from the
improved data audit protocol, with a robust
statistical basis from which to extrapolate
national results, and better aligned with
requirements of the Data Quality Act.The
long-term value of the improved audit
process is that each year's results will be
statistically representative and provide infor-
mation closer in time to the needed
performance reporting; for example, 2005
results, the first year of the improved audit
process will be reported in 2006.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Several approaches are underway First, EPA
will continue to work with states to imple-
ment the DRAP and ISP which have already
improved the completeness, accuracy time-
liness, and consistency of the data in
SDWIS-FED through: I) training courses for
specific compliance determination and
reporting requirements, 2) state-specific
technical assistance, 3) increased number of
data audits conducted each yean and 4)
assistance to regions and states in the iden-
tification and reconciliation of missing,
incomplete, or conflicting data.
Second, more states (from 30 to 40 by
year-end 2005) will use SDWIS-STATE,4 a
software information system jointly
designed by states and EPA, to support
states as they implement the drinking
water program.
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS-FED to (I)
simplify the database, (2) minimize data
entry options resulting in complex soft-
ware, (3) enforce Agency data standards,
and (4) ease the flow of data to EPA
through a secure data exchange environ-
ment incorporating modern technologies,
all of which will improve the accuracy of
the data. In 2006, full use of SDWIS-FED
for receiving state reports will be imple-
mented. Data will be stored in a data
warehouse system that is optimized for
analysis, data retrieval, and data integration
from other data sources. It will improve the
program's ability to more efficiently use
information to support decision-making
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 (UIC), 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. In 2003, agreement was reached on
the data elements for reporting source
water and UIC data. Plans have now been
developed for design of systems to address
these data flows. Developing the systems
to receive the data is scheduled for 2005.
References:
Plans'
SDWIS-FED does not have a Quality
Assurance Project Plan—it is a legacy sys-
tem which has "evolved" since the early
80s prior to the requirement for a Plan.
The SDWIS-FED equivalent is the Data
Reliability Action Plan
Information Strategy Plan—SDWIS-FED
(see footnote 2)
Office of Water Quality Management Plan,
available at www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Enterprise Architecture Plan
Reports5
1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
Report—contains the Data Reliability
Action Plan and status report
PWSS Management Report (quarterly)
1999 Management Plan Review Report
2003 Management Plan Review Report
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
• PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance
Manual
• Various SDWIS-FED User and System
Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
instructions, data On-line Data Element
Dictionary-a database application, Error
Code Data Base (ECDB)—a database
application, users guide, release notes,
etc.) Available on the Internet at:
www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/
sdwis.htm
• Regulation-Specific Reporting
Requirements Guidance. Available on
the Internet at www.epa.gov/
safewater/regs.htm I
• Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site
www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
and contains access to the information
systems and various guidance, manuals,
tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
www.epa.gov/safewater/data/
getdata.html contains information for
users to better analyze the data, and
www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwi sfed/sdwis.h
tm contains reporting guidance, system
and user documentation and reporting
tools for the SDWIS-FED system.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that achieve minimized risk to public
health (minimized risk achieved by substantial implementation, as determined by the state, of source
water protection actions in a source water protection strategy).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 78.
Performance Database:
The source water assessment and protec-
tion programs are authorized under
Sections 1453, 1428, and relevant subsec-
tions of 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA).6 EPA issued guidance to
implement these programs in 1997, State
Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs Guidance.7 In March 2005, EPA
issued supplemental reporting guidance,
"State and Federal Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program Measures: Final
Reporting Guidance." Starting in FY 2005,
and updated annually thereafter; states
report to EPA on the results of their
source water assessment programs
(SWAPs) and progress in implementing
source water protection (SWP) strategies,
and whether such strategy implementation
is affecting public health protection. To
assess the results of the SWAPs, state
reporting includes three elements: (I) the
delineated source water areas around each
well and intake, (2) whether the assess-
ments are complete, and (3) most
prevalent and most threatening sources of
contamination.To assess progress in imple-
menting the SWP strategies, state reporting
includes two elements: (I) whether a pre-
vention strategy for Community Water
System source water areas has been adopt-
ed, and is being implemented and (2)
whether such strategy implementation has
reached a substantial level.To assess whether
the program is affecting public health protec-
tion, states report change in the number of
source water areas with substantially imple-
mented source water protection strategies.
The Agency will develop a national summa-
ry of data on the progress of states' source
water protection programs using these data
elements in early 2006.
In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level
summary data for each of these elements in
a spreadsheet format and this format will
be used for reporting for FY 2005.
Beginning in FY 2005, states may at their
option, make available to EPA public
water system-level data for each of these
elements to be maintained in a set of data
tables in the drinking water warehouse
(for tabular data) and in event tables in the
Office of Water's Reach Address Database
(RAD)8 (CIS data).These data will be
compatible with the inventory data States
are currently reporting to the Safe
Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS).9Three states piloted this
approach in 2003. [Not publicly available.
Contact the Drinking Water Protection
Division at 202-564-3797.]
Data Source:
Up to the end of FY 2004, states reported
to the EPA Regional Offices the percentage
of community water systems implementing
source water protection programs. EPA has
developed a new source water data mod-
ule to collect, store, and use public water
system-level data received from states, but
it may be refined as more states voluntarily
use it over the next 3 years of the
Strategic Plan.—See section
"New/Improved Data or Systems."
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
For this measure, the states' reporting of
progress in implementing their source
water assessment and protection programs
will be based on EPA's 2005 guidance,
"State and Federal Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program Measures: Final
Reporting Guidance." States will only report
state-level summary information directly
related to specific community water sys-
tems in a state-level database. Because
state reporting will be based on consistent
definitions and procedures found in the
"State and Federal Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program Measures: Final
Reporting Guidance," EPA believes that the
data will be reliable for use in making man-
agement decisions.
QA/QC Procedures:
QA/QC procedures are included in the
2005 "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance."
Additionally a series of data checks are
built into the spreadsheet data collection
procedures given to each Region for their
work with states. States will be required to
identify whether their reported summary-
level data are based on a system-level
database. EPA Regional offices also will
work with individual states to obtain a
description of their methods of collecting
and verifying information.
Data Quality Reviews:
EPA Regions will conduct data quality
reviews of state data using the QA/QC
procedures included with the spreadsheet-
based data system, and work with states to
resolve data issues. As a result, EPA expects
the quality of data on the results of the
assessments and source water protection
activities to improve over time.
Data Limitations:
Because the initial reporting provides only
state-level summary information, there is
no standard protocol for EPA to verify and
validate the data against system-level infor-
mation contained in state databases. In
addition, much of the data reported by
states is voluntary and based on working
agreements with EPA because SDWA only
requires states to complete source water
assessments.The only source water infor-
mation that states are required to report
to EPA under SDWA is whether the
assessments are completed. Although EPA's
2005 "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance" set
standard data definitions and procedures, it
also provides for considerable flexibility in
states' data collection protocols and analyti-
cal methods to evaluate their data. For
example, some states may require each
public water system to report data, while
others may institute a voluntary process.
Because much of the data reporting is vol-
untary and the individual state protocols
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
may vary, state data may be incomplete
and inconsistent across states.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The source water module has been devel-
oped as a joint initiative between EPA, the
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA), and the Ground
Water Protection Council (GWPC). It will
give EPA the ability to access the data
directly from states through a data
exchange agreement using an electronic
data transfer capability A state may choose,
at its option, to provide EPA more detailed
data in lieu of state-level summary report-
ing. The new source water data module will
be integrated into the drinking water data
warehouse and be compatible with Safe
Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) data already reported by states.
Geospatial data (i.e., the intake and well
point locations and the source water area
polygons) will be maintained in EPA's
Office of Water's Reach Access Database
(RAD).The source water assessment and
protection indicator data and other attrib-
ute data will be maintained in data tables in
the drinking water warehouse.The source
water data module is operational for states
to pilot from FY 2005 through FY 2008.
Three states used the module in the first
pilot year 2003. A number of other states
may report using the data module for the
2005 reporting period based on
EPA/ASDWA/GWPC pilot process.
References:
Guidance Manuals
U.S. EPA, Office of Water State Source
Water Assessment and Protection Programs
Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington:
US EPA, August 1997). Available on the
Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/
swappg.html Source Water Assessment and
Protection Measures: Initial Guidance,
August, 2003.
"State and Federal Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program Measures: Final
Reporting Guidance," March 2005.
Web site addresses
US EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water www.epa.gov/safewater
For more detailed information on Source
Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water; Source Water
site, www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html
US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach
Access Database (RAD). Watershed
Assessment,Tracking & Environmental
Results (WATERS), www.epa.gov/waters/
Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS). www.epa.gov/safewater/data
bases.html
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of the water miles/acres identified by States or Tribes as having fish consumption advisories in
2002 where increased consumption of safe fish is allowed. (485, 205 river miles, I 1,277,276 lake acres.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 79.
Performance Database:
National Listing of Fish Advisories.1 The
database includes fields identifying the
waters for which fish consumption advi-
sories have been issued.The fields also
identify the date upon which the advisory
was issued, thus allowing an assessment of
trends.The National Hydrographic Data
(NHD) are used to calculate the spatial
extent of the fish advisory This information
is updated continually as states and tribes
issue or revise advisories.The National
Listing of Fish Advisories database includes
records showing that 846,3 10 river miles
and 14,195,1 87 lake acres were identified
by states or tribes in calendar year 2003 as
having fish with chemical contamination lev-
els resulting in an advisory of potential
human health risk from consumption. States
and tribes report data on a calendar year
basis.The calendar year data are then used
to support the fiscal year (FY) commit-
ments (e.g., calendar year 2005 data
support the FY 2007 commitments).
Metadata are also available describing
methodologies used by states and tribes for
establishing advisories. Fish advisory data
have been collected since 1993.
Data Source:
State and Tribal Governments. These enti-
ties collect the information and enter it
directly into the National Listing of Fish
Advisories database. EPA reviews advisory
entries, including the states' or tribes'
responses to an on-line survey which sup-
port the advisory decision.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The performance measure is calculated as
the aggregate surface area covered by one
or more individual advisories divided by the
total waters of each state or territory If a
waterbody is covered by more than one
advisory it is only counted once, and until
all advisories are removed the waterbody is
counted as having an advisory The states
and tribes submit the area data to the
National Listing of Fish Advisories database.
QA/QC Procedures:
A standard survey which has been
approved by OMB, is available on the
Internet for electronic submission. A pass-
word is issued to ensure the appropriate
party is completing the survey EPA has
national guidance2'3 for states and tribes on
developing and implementing quality assur-
ance practices for the collection of
environmental information related to fish
advisories.This guidance helps assure data
quality of the information that states and
tribes use to decide whether to issue an
advisory The Office of Water's "Quality
Management Plan," approved in September
2001 and published in July 20024, is general
guidance that applies to information collec-
tion.
Data Quality Reviews:
EPA reviews advisory entries and respons-
es to the survey to ensure the information
is complete, then follows-up with the state
or local government to obtain additional
information where needed. However; the
Agency cannot verify the accuracy of the
voluntary information that state and local
governments provide.There have been no
external party reviews of this information.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Limitations:
There are two primary data limitations.
First, participation in this survey and collec-
tion of data is voluntary While the
voluntary response rate has been high, it
does not capture the complete universe of
advisories. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and Guam do not report in the survey
Second, states have not assessed all waters
for the need for advisories, so the informa-
tion reported reflects a subset of water
bodies in the state.
Error Estimate:
We are unable to provide an error esti-
mate. Submitting data to the National
Listing of Fish Advisories database is volun-
tary and the Agency cannot be certain that
the database contains information on 100%
of the assessed waters in the United
States.Therefore, we may be understating
the total amount of waters assessed, the
magnitude of which is not known.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA will use small grants to encourage
states to investigate additional water bodies
to determine if there is a need for fish con-
sumption advisories.This will lead to a
more complete characterization of the
nation's fish safety EPA will also begin track-
ing recommended "meal frequencies" in
the state and tribal advisories to account
for the instances where advisories are
modified to allow greater consumption.
References:
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "National Listing
of Fish Advisories."Washington, DC: EPA
Accessed May I, 2003. Available only on
the Internet at map I .epa.gov/.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "Fish Sampling
and Analysis."Volume I of "Guidance for
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd ed. EPA-823-B-
00-007. Washington DC: EPA, 2000.
Available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/
fishadvice/volume I /.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "Risk Assessment
and Fish Consumption Limits."Volume 2 of
"Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories." 3rd ed." EPA-823-B-00-008.
Washington DC: EPA, 2000. www.epa.gov/
watersdence/fishadvice/volume2/.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "Quality
Management Plan." EPA 821 -X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available
at www.epa.gov/water/programs/
qmp_july2002.pdf
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of the shellfish-growing acres monitored by states that are approved or conditionally
approved for use.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 79.
Performance Database:
There is no database currently available,
although one is under development (see
below). Until that database is operational,
data to support this measure will come
from past surveys of States that are mem-
bers of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference (ISSC), conducted at 5-year
intervals and periodic updates requested
from the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference (most recent, 2003 data
released in 2004).
Data Source:
Currently the ISSC requests the data on
approved acreages from shellfish producing
states and prepares reports. Survey
responses are voluntary.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The methods used by the state programs
to produce the current data used by the
ISSC are based on the National Shellfish
Sanitation Plan and Model Ordinance; the
operation of those state programs is over-
seen by the FDA.
QA/QC Procedures:
States are responsible for the internal
QA/QC of their data.
Data Quality Reviews:
The ISSC reviews the state data during
report preparation to ensure completeness
and accuracy and follows up with states
where necessary
Data Limitations:
Based on NOAA's previous surveys and
the voluntary nature of the information
collected, potential data limitations may
include incomplete coverage of shellfish
growing areas.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The ISSC initiated development of the
Shellfish Information Management System
(SIMS) in July 2002.The database is being
developed and implemented by the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(ISSC), a Cooperative Program chartered
by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).The database will include relevant
information that is collected by State
Shellfish Control Authorities. Historically
NOAA collected shellfish-growing area
data in 5-year intervals, 1985, 1990, and
1995.These data were not stored in a
database. Once operational, SIMS will be
the first national shellfish growing area
database and will include NOAA's 1995
and 2003 data. State summary information
can then be used to track trends relevant
to the performance measure, with the
1995 data as the baseline.The SIMS data-
base is designed as a real time database.
The ISSC plans to request data updates
annually but states may update their data
any time. These data may be accessed at
any time so timely status reports can be
generated.
Ten states were involved in the design of
the database; six states have entered
acreage data in the database. Seven addi-
tional states are working toward inputting
their data. No long-term database manage-
ment plan is in place at this time.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles and lake acres identified by states in 2000 as
having water quality unsafe for recreation.
Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach
safety programs will be open and safe for swimming.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, pages 80-81.
Performance Database:
The data are stored in PRAWN (Program
tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality
standards, and Nutrients), a database that
includes fields identifying the beaches for
which monitoring and notification informa-
tion are available and the date the advisory
or closure was issued, thus enabling trend
assessments to be made. The database also
identifies those states that have received a
BEACH (Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health) Act [PL.
106-284] grant. EPA reports the informa-
tion annually on a calendar year basis, each
May The calendar year data are then used
to support fiscal year commitments (e.g.,
2006 calendar year data are used to report
against FY 2007 commitments). As of 2004,
States and Territories monitor for
pathogens at 3,574 coastal and Great Lakes
beaches, up from 2,823 beaches in 2002'.
Data Source:
Since 1997 EPA has surveyed state and local
governments for information on their moni-
toring programs and on their advisories or
closures.The Agency created the PRAWN
database to store this information. State and
local governmental response to the survey
was voluntary up through calendar year
2002. Starting in calendar year 2003, data for
many beaches along the coast and Great
Lakes had to be reported to EPA as a con-
dition of grants awarded under the BEACH
Act2. Since 2005, states have used an on-line
process called eBeaches to electronically
transmit beach water quality and swimming
advisory information to EPA instead of using
the paper survey The latest information
reported by a state or local government is
accessible to the public through the BEA-
CON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line
Notification) system.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The data are an enumeration of the days
of beach-specific advisories or closures
issued by the reporting state or local
governments during the year Performance
against the target is tracked using a simple
count of the number of beaches respond-
ing to the survey and the days over which
the advisory or closure actions were taken.
This is compared to the total number of
days that every beach could be open.Thus
the data are suitable for the performance
measure.
QA/QC Procedures:
Since 1997, EPA has distributed a standard
survey form, approved by OMB, to coastal
and Great Lake state and county environ-
mental and public health beach program
officials in hard copy by mail.The form is
also available on the Internet for web-entry
electronic submission. When a state or
local official enters data using the web-
entry format, a password is issued to
ensure the appropriate party is completing
the survey Currently the Agency has pro-
cedures for information collection (see
Office of Water's "Quality Management
Plan," approved September 2001 and pub-
lished July 20023). In addition, coastal and
Great Lakes states receiving BEACH Act
grants are subject to the Agency's grant
regulations under 40 CFR 31.45.These reg-
ulations require states and tribes to
develop and implement quality assurance
practices for the collection of environmen-
tal information.
Data Quality Review:
EPA reviews the survey responses to
ensure the information is complete, follow-
ing up with the state or local government
to obtain additional information where
needed. The Agency also reviews the
QA/QC reports submitted by States and
Territories as part of their grant reporting.
There have been no external party reviews
of this information.
Data Limitations:
From calendar year 1997 to calendar
year 2002, participation in the survey and
submission of data has been voluntary
While the voluntary response rate has
been high, it has not captured the com-
plete universe of beaches.The voluntary
response rate was 92% in calendar year
2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies
responded).The number of beaches for
which information was collected increased
from 1,021 in calendar year 1997 to 2,823
in calendar year 2002. Participation in the
survey is now a mandatory condition for
implementation grants awarded under the
BEACH Act program to coastal and Great
Lakes states. Except for Alaska, all coastal
and Great Lakes states and territories have
annually applied for implementation grants
since they have been available.
Error Estimate:
As of 2004, States and Territories report
that they monitor at 3,574 of the 6,099
coastal and Great Lakes beaches.This mon-
itoring varies between States. For example,
North Carolina monitors all its 228 beach-
es whereas South Carolina monitors 24 of
229 beaches. Where monitoring is done,
there is some chance that the monitoring
may miss some instances of high pathogen
concentrations. EPA's 2002 National Health
Protection Survey of Beaches found that
90% of the nation's beaches are monitored
once a week or less4. Studies in southern
California found that weekly sampling
missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5,
and that 70% of the exceedances lasted for
only one da/. An EPA Office of Research
and Development (ORD) beach monitor-
ing study found a positive correlation
between pathogen indicator densities one
day as compared to densities the next day
but that the correlation was negligible
when compared to densities after four
days7.These studies indicate that weekly
sampling most likely misses many pathogen
events that can affect public health.This
information is not sufficient to calculate the
potential error in the reporting, but it is
sufficient to indicate that the reporting may
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
understate the number of days that beach-
es should be closed or under advisory
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Participation in the survey is now a manda-
tory condition for grants awarded under
the BEACH Act program. As the Agency
awards these implementation grants, it will
require standard program procedures, sam-
pling and assessment methods, and data
elements for reporting. To the extent that
state governments apply for and receive
these grants, the amount, quality, and consis-
tency of available data will improve. In FY
2007, EPA expects the 35 coastal and Great
Lakes states to apply for grants to imple-
ment monitoring and notification programs.
References
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water "EPA's Beach
Program: 2004 Swimming Season
Update." EPA-823-F-05-006.
Washington, DC, July 2005. Available at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "National
Beach Guidance and Required
Performance Criteria for Grants." EPA-
823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA,
June 2002. Available at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches.
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "A Quality
Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002.
Available at www.epa.gov/water/pro-
grams/qmpju Iy2002.pdf
U.S. EPA. Office of Water "EPA's
BEACH Watch Program: 2002
Swimming Season." EPA-823-F-03-007.
Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/bea
chwatch2003-newformat.pdf
Leecaster M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect
of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline
Microbiology Assessments, Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 42(1 I), 2001.
Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and
Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone
Water Quality at Huntington Beach,
California, Environmental Science and
Technology, 36(18), 2002.
U.S. EPA. Office of Research and
Development. "The EMPACT Beaches
Project, Results and Recommendations
from a Study on Microbiological
Monitoring In Recreational Waters."
EPA 600/9-02/xxx. Washington, DC,
Sept. 2002.(Draft Report).
Goal 2, Objective 2
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Watersheds in which at least 80 percent of the assessed water segments meet water quality standards.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 82.
Performance Database:
The Watershed Assessment Tracking
Environmental Results System (WATERS)
(I) is used to summarize water quality
information at the watershed level. For
purposes of this national summary, water-
sheds are equivalent to 8-digit hydrologic
unit codes (HUCs), of which there are
2,262 nationwide although data may be
disaggregated to smaller watersheds should
the need arise. WATERS is a geographic
information system that integrates many
existing databases including the STOrage
and RETrieval (STORET) database (2), the
National Assessment Database (NAD)(3),
and the Water Quality Standards database
(4). Water quality information available
through WATERS includes data submitted
by the states under Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 305(b) reports. Data from
the NAD includes waterbody type, loca-
tion, extent, and the designated uses
assessed, as well as the assessment conclu-
sion. NAD data are available for most areas
as far back as the year 2000 assessment
cycle. Data gaps expected include incom-
plete state assessments and uncertain state
adoption of the data formats inconsistent
with the National Assessment Database.
The data are submitted to EPA every 2
years, with annual electronic updates.The
U.S. EPA provides access to the states' data
on its Monitoring Program website. (5)
Data Source:
State CWA Section 305 (b) reports. Under
the Clean Water Act, the states are given
the responsibility for setting water quality
standards for their waters and collecting
the data and information to assess the con-
dition of those waters.The data collected
by states to assess water quality and to
prepare their CWA Section 305 (b) reports
come from multiple sources, e.g., state
monitoring networks, United States
Geological Survey (USGS), local govern-
ments, volunteer monitors, academic
institutions, etc. States also use predictive
tools, such as landscape and water quality
models, and randomized probability sur-
veys. [Raw water quality data may be
entered by states and other sources into
STORET] States use ambient monitoring
data to determine if their waters are attain-
ing the state's water quality standards.
States are encouraged to use three EPA
data systems to structure and transfer
these data. The first of these is the Water
Quality Standards Database, which records
the designated uses and supporting criteria
for specifically defined waterbody segments
contained in the second dataset, the
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD).
These segments, each defined by states, are
described using a structure that EPA con-
ceived two decades ago, but now has
divested to its partner; the U.S. Geological
Survey;The NHD provides important
address points that can define the extent
(for instance, by defining the upstream and
downstream boundaries of a beach) of
waterbodies that have been assigned con-
sistent standards.The NHD also allows
important features such as outfalls, intakes,
and dams to be located so that they can
be mapped and better understood. It also
allows administrative designations to be
located, such as the boundaries of assess-
ments made to determine whether the
waters meet the standards assigned to a
waterbody. Results of assessments are
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
entered into the third database, the
National Assessment Database.The
National Assessment Database is used to
assemble performance statistics for each
biennial (calendar year) reporting cycle:
2000, 2002, 2004 and (planned) 2006.
Results are calculated on the basis of these
biennial reports. Long delays are often
encountered in state submissions, causing
delays in EPA's development of summary
statistics. EPA is working to establish more
certain procedures to prevent future delays.
EPA provides access to WATERS on its
monitoring website. However; given differ-
ences among state water quality standards
and monitoring methods, the results of
these assessments do not provide a reliable
nationwide assessment of water quality
conditions.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
States employ various methods to make
water quality assessment decisions, includ-
ing: I) Direct sampling of chemical, physical,
and biological parameters using targeted
site selection (usually where problems are
most likely or where water is heavily used);
2) Predictive models to estimate water
quality; 3) Sampling at statistically valid,
probability-based sites (in its early stages in
a number of states) to assess broad scale
water quality conditions; 4) Compilation of
data from outside sources such as volun-
teer monitors, academic institutions, and
others. EPA aggregates state assessment
information by watershed (as described
above) to generate the national perform-
ance measure. State assessment results
describe attainment of designated uses in
accordance with state water quality stan-
dards and represent a direct measure of
performance. State CWA Section 305 (b)
data have been used to provide a summary
of the ambient water quality conditions
across the nation and to determine condi-
tions in the subset of waters assessed.
Geographically specific waterbody assess-
ments are suitable for year-to-year
comparisons of water quality attainment
progress. As states continue to strengthen
their monitoring and data management
programs, more state data will be suitable
for tracking changes in water quality over
time. While programs are in transition,
national performance data will be
heavily influenced by changes in state
data procedures.
QA/QC Procedures:
QA/QC of data provided by states in their
individual assessments (under CWA
Section 305(b)) and accessed through
WATERS is dependent on individual state
procedures. Numerous system level checks
are built into the data sources in WATERS,
based upon the business rules associated
with the water quality standards database.
States are given the opportunity to review
the information to ensure it accurately
reflects the data they submitted. Data
exchange guidance and training are also
provided to the states. Sufficiency threshold
for inclusion in this measure requires that
20 percent of stream miles in an 8-digit
HUC be assessed.The Office ofWater
Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed
every 5 years, was approved in July 2002
(6). It describes the quality system used by
the Office of Water and applies to all envi-
ronmental programs within the Office of
Water and to any activity within those pro-
grams that involves the collection or use of
environmental data.
Data Quality Review:
Numerous independent reports have cited
that weaknesses in water quality monitor-
ing and reporting undermine EPA's ability
to depict the condition of waters nation-
wide, to make trend assessments, and to
support scientifically sound water program
decisions.The most recent reports include
the 2004 GAO report on watershed man-
agement. General Accounting Office
(GAO), 2004, Watershed Management
Better coordination of data collection efforts
needed to support key decisions: Washington
D.C., United States General Accounting
Office, the 1998 Report of the Federaf
Advisor/ Committee on the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) Program (7), the March
I 5, 2000 General Accounting Office report
Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (8), the
2001 National Academy of Sciences
Report, Assessing the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management (9), a 2002
National Academy of Public Administration
Report, Understanding What States Need to
Protect Water Quality (10), and EPA's Draft
Report on the Environment (I I). Water qual-
ity reporting under Section 305(b) has
been identified as an Agency-Level weak-
ness under the Federal Managers Financial
Integrity Act.
In response to these evaluations, EPA has
been working with states and other stake-
holders to improve: I) 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) doc-
umentation, so that data limitations and
discrepancies are fully understood by data
users.
The Office ofWater has limited authority
to require better water quality monitoring
or reporting by states. OW has recently
issued several guidance documents
designed to increase consistency and cov-
erage in state monitoring, assessment and
reporting. In July 2003, EPA issued its
Integrated Reporting guidance (12) which
calls on states to integrate the develop-
ment and submission of 305(b) water
quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of
impaired waters.The Integrated Report will
enhance the ability of water quality man-
agers to display, access, and integrate
environmental data and information from
all components of the water quality pro-
gram. In July 2002, EPA released the
Consolidated Assessment and Listing
Methodology—a Compendium of Best
Practices (13), intended to facilitate
increased consistency in monitoring pro-
gram design and in the data and decision
criteria used to support water quality
assessments. And in March 2003, EPA
issued Llements of a State Water Monitoring
and Assessment Program (14), which
describes ten elements that each state
water quality monitoring program should
contain and a 10-year time frame for
implementing all elements. As part of each
state's monitoring strategy state data will
be accompanied by quality assurance plans.
Quality assurance is one of the ten
required elements of these strategies.
EPA has enhanced two existing data man-
agement tools (STORET and the National
Assessment Database) so that they include
documentation of data quality information.
EPA's WATERS tool integrates many data-
bases including STORET the National
Assessment Database, and the Water
Quality Standards Database.These integrat-
ed databases facilitate comparison and
understanding of differences among state
standards, monitoring activities, and assess-
ment results.The Office ofWater has
recently convened and continues to use an
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Assessment DataVisualization Work Group
that is tracking the increased use of the
three data systems and is planning to focus
its orientation and training to expand the
use of these data systems and to ensure
regional review of the quality of states' data.
Regions also will more closely review the
coverage of monitoring needed to support
state assessment activities. Until there is
consistent, widespread use of these systems,
the water quality conditions states report
will be subject to procedure-induced varia-
tion that masks environmental progress.
Data Limitations:
Data do not represent an assessment of
water quality conditions at the national
level. EPA is working with states to provide
a data structure that allows state assess-
ments to be geographically located so that
they can be clearly identified and changes
can be tracked over time. EPA data systems
being adopted by states implement this
feature. Other disparities remain, however
Most states do not employ a monitoring
design that characterizes all waters in each
reporting cycle, and some states only
report the results of the most recent
assessments without providing the perspec-
tive of water quality from previous
assessments. States, territories, and tribes
collect data and information on only a por-
tion of their water bodies because it is
prohibitively expensive to monitor all water
bodies. Furthermore, states do not use a
consistent suite of water quality indicators
to assess attainment with water quality
standards. For example, indicators of aquat-
ic life use support range from biological
community condition to levels of dissolved
oxygen and concentrations of toxic pollu-
tants. State water quality standards
themselves vary from state to state. State
assessments of water quality may include
uncertainties associated with their meas-
ured or modeled data.These variations in
state practices and standards limit the use
of assessment reports for describing water
quality at the national level and prevent the
agency from aggregating water quality
assessments at the national level with
known statistical confidence.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The Office of Water is currently working
with states, tribes and other Federal
agencies to improve the data that support
this management measure by addressing
the underlying methods of monitoring
water quality and assessing the data. Also,
the Office of Water is working with part-
ners to enhance monitoring networks to
achieve comprehensive coverage of all
waters, use a consistent suite of core water
quality indicators (supplemented with addi-
tional indicators for specific water quality
questions), and document key data ele-
ments, decision criteria and assessment
methodologies in electronic data systems.
The Office of Water is using a variety of
mechanisms to implement these improve-
ments 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, and
promoting the use of probability surveys as
a cost-effective way to obtain a snapshot of
water quality conditions.These enhance-
ments, along with improving the quality and
timeliness of data for making watershed-
based decisions, will improve EPA's ability
to use state assessments in portraying
national conditions and trends. Specific
state refinements include developing bio-
logical criteria to measure the health of
aquatic communities (and attainment with
the aquatic life use) and designing probabil-
ity-based monitoring designs to support
statistically valid inferences about water
quality. EPA has been instrumental in help-
ing states design the monitoring networks
and analyze the data. Initial efforts have
focused on coastal/estuarine waters and
wadeable streams. Lakes will be targeted
next. States are implementing these
changes incrementally and in conjunction
with traditional targeted monitoring. At last
count, I 6 states have adopted probability-
based monitoring designs, several more are
evaluating them, and all but 10 are collabo-
rating with EPA to undertake a national
probability survey of conditions of wade-
able streams at a national level.
In FY2005 EPAs budget included a $ 10
million increase to support states' imple-
mentation of comprehensive water quality
monitoring strategies, including refinement
of biological assessment methods and
probability-based designs for different
water resource types; landscape models
and other predictive tools; remote sensing
and innovative indicators of water quality
to help streamline where additional moni-
toring is needed; and targeted monitoring
to provide data to implement local man-
agement actions such as National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES)
permits and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs).The initiative also supports
improvement of data management systems
to ensure that water quality monitoring
data are understandable and available to
decision makers and the public. Included
were upgrades to STORET to improve sys-
tem navigation and operation and to
enhance analysis and presentation applica-
tions. Funds also supported enhancing the
capability to exchange water quality data
with states. EPA's FY06 budget included a
request for $ I 8 million to support state's
monitoring programs.
References:
• WATERS available on-line at
www.epa.gov/waters. Aggregate nation-
al maps and state and watershed
specific data for this measurement are
displayed numerically and graphically in
the WATERS database.
• STORET available online at
www.epa.gov/STORET Links to user
guide and descriptions of the database
can be found here.
• National Assessment Database infor-
mation available at
www.epa.gov/waters/305b/
• Water Quality Standards Database
information available at
www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/
• State 305(b) Report information—
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporti
ng.html
• U.S. EPA. Office of Water Quality
Management Plan. Washington, DC: July
2002. EPA831 -X-02-001. Available at
www.epa.gov/ow/program s/q m p_j u Iy20
02.pdf
• General Accounting Office. Water
Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete
Data. Washington, DC: March I 5, 2000.
GAO/RCED-00-54.
• National Research Council, Committee
to Assess the Scientific Basis of the
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Total Maximum Daily Load Approach
to Water Pollution Reduction. Assessing
the TMDL Approach to Water Quality
Management. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC: 2001.
National Academy of Public
Administration. Understanding What
States Need to Protect Water Quality.
Washington, DC: December 2002.
Academy Project No. 2001 -001.
Available at www.napawash.org.
U.S. EPA. Draft Report on the Environment
2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/
indicators/roe/index.htm
U.S. EPA, Office ofWater, Guidance for
2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act,TMDL, July 21, 2003. Available at
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/policyhtml.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water "Consolidated
Assessment and Listing Methodology
Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices." (First Edition). Washington,
DC:July 3 I, 2002. Available at
U.S. EPA, Office ofWater Elements of a
State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program. Washington, DC: March 2003.
EPA 841 -B-03-003. Available at:
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring
General Accounting Office Watershed
Management Better Coordination of Data
Collection Efforts Needed to Support Key
Decisions, Washington, DC: March 15,
2000. GAO-04-382
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Water quality standards are fully attained in miles/acres of waters identified in 2000 as not attaining
standards.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 83.
Performance Database:
The Watershed Assessment Tracking
Environmental Results System (WATERS-
found at www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's
approach for viewing water quality infor-
mation related to this measure. WATERS
can be used to view"303(d) Information,"
compiled from, States' Listings of Impaired
Waters as Required by Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) (referred to here in brief as
"303(d) lists"), which are recorded in the
national TMDL Tracking System (NTTS).
This information (found at www.epa.gov/
owow/tmdl/status.html) is used to generate
reports that identify waters that are not
meeting water quality standards ("impaired
waters").This information, combined with
information and comment from EPA
Regions and states, yields the baseline data
for this measure: number of impaired
waters in 1998/2000. As Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) and other watershed-
related activities are developed and
implemented, water bodies which were
once impaired will meet water quality stan-
dards, and thus will be removed from the
year 98/2000 impaired totals. Changes will
be recorded in reports, scheduled every 6
years (e.g. future reporting years 2006 and
2012), as percentage improvements to
water body impairment.
Data Source:
The underlying data source for this meas-
ure is State 303(d) lists of their impaired
water bodies.These lists are submitted with
each biennial (calendar year) reporting
cycle.The baseline for this measure is the
1998 list (States were not required to sub-
mit lists in 2000; however; if states did
submit a 2000 list, then that more recent
list was used as the baseline). States pre-
pare the lists using actual water quality
monitoring data, probability-based monitor-
ing information, and other existing and
readily available information and knowledge
the state has, in order to make compre-
hensive determinations addressing the total
extent of the state's water body impair-
ments. Once EPA approves a state's 303(d)
list, EPA enters the information into
WATERS, as described above. Delays are
often encountered in state submissions and
in EPA's approval of these biennial submis-
sions. Establishing more certain procedures
to keep on schedule is being considered.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
States employ various analytical methods of
data collection, compilation, and reporting
including: I) Direct water samples of chem-
ical, physical, and biological parameters; 2)
Predictive models of water quality stan-
dards attainment; 3) Probabilistic models of
pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of
data from volunteer groups, academic
interests and others. EPA-supported mod-
els include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX,
and CORMIX. Descriptions of these mod-
els and instructions for their use can be
found at www.epa.gov/OSTThe standard
operating procedures and deviations from
standard methods for data sampling and
prediction processes are stored by states in
the STORET database. EPA aggregates state
data to generate the national performance
measure. State-provided data describe
attainment of designated uses in accor-
dance with state water quality standards
and thus represent a direct measure of per-
formance. Delays are often encountered in
state 303d lists and 305b submissions, and
in EPA's approval of the 303(d) portion of
these biennial submissions. Establishing
more certain procedures to prevent these
delays is being considered.
QA/QC Procedures:
QA/QC of data provided by states pur-
suant to individual state 303(d) lists (under
CWA Section 303 (d)) is dependent on
individual state procedures. EPA regional
staff interacts with the states during the
process of approval of the lists and before
the information is entered into the data-
base to ensure the integrity of the data.
The Office ofWater Quality Management
Plan (QMP), renewed every 5 years, was
approved in July 2001. EPA requires that
each organization prepare a document
called a quality management plan (QMP)
that: documents the organization's quality
policy; describes its quality system; and
identifies the environmental programs to
which the quality system applies (e.g., those
programs involved in the collection or use
of environmental data).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Quality Review:
Numerous independent reports have cited
that weaknesses in monitoring and report-
ing 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) Program10, the
March I 5, 2000 General Accounting Office
report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited
by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data11, the
2001 National Academy of Sciences
Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management11 and EPA's
Draft Report on the Environment.1"'
In response to these evaluations, EPA has
been working with states and other stake-
holders to improve: I) 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
National Assessment Database) so that
they include documentation of data quali-
ty information.
Second, EPA has developed a GIS tool
called WATERS that integrate many data-
bases including STORET the National
Assessment database, and a new water
quality standards database.These integrat-
ed databases facilitate comparison and
understanding of differences among state
standards, monitoring activities, and assess-
ment results.
Third, EPA and states have developed a
guidance document: Consolidated
Assessment and Listing Methodology—a
Compendium of Best Practices14 intended
to facilitate increased consistency in moni-
toring program design and the data and
decision criteria used to support water
quality assessments.
Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and
EPA's Regional Offices have developed the
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and
Assessment Program, (August 2002) which
is currently under review by our state
partners.This guidance describes ten ele-
ments that each state water
quality-monitoring program should contain
and proposes time-frames for implement-
ing all ten elements.
Data Limitations:
Data may not precisely represent the
extent of impaired waters because states
do not employ a monitoring design that
monitors all their waters. States, territories
and tribes collect data and information on
only a portion of their water bodies.
States do not use a consistent suite of
water quality indicators to assess attain-
ment of water quality standards. For
example, indicators of aquatic life use sup-
port range from biological community
assessments to levels of dissolved oxygen
to concentrations of toxic pollutants.
These variations in state practices limit
how the CWA Sections 305(b) reports
and the 303(d) lists provided by states can
be used to describe water quality at the
national level.There are also differences
among their programs, sampling tech-
niques, 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 aggregat-
ing water quality assessments at the
national level with known statistical confi-
dence. States, territories, and authorized
tribes monitor to identify problems and
typically lag times between data collection
and reporting can vary by state.
New/Improved Data Systems:
The Office of Water has been working
with states to improve the guidance under
which 303(d) lists are prepared. EPA
issued new listing Guidance July 21, 2003
entitled Guidance for 2004 Assessment,
Listing, and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act (Guidance). The
Agency expects to release updated
Guidance for 2006 by the end of FY05.
The current Guidance may be found at:
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/tmdlO 103/index.
html.The Guidance addresses a number
of issues that states and EPA identified
during the 2002 listing cycle. Among these
issues are minimum data requirements
and sample size requirements in making
listing determinations, use of probability-
based sampling in the state's monitoring
program, improved year-to-year consisten-
cy in a choice of a geo-referencing
scheme, and use of a consistent method
of segmenting water bodies and denoting
changes to the segmentation between list-
ing cycles.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of monitoring stations in Tribal waters that show at least a 10% improvement in each of 4 key
parameters: total nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 84.
Performance Database:
All of the monitoring stations originally
included in the baseline for this measure
(900) are United States Geological Survey
(USGS) stations with USGS station identifi-
cation numbers. In the time since the 900
sites were originally identified, additional
monitoring stations on Tribal lands have
been located.The water quality monitoring
results for the additional stations on Tribal
lands are recorded in the USGS National
Water Information System (NWIS) and
EPA's Storage and Retrieval database
(STORET).Through STORET and NWIS,
EPA and USGS have established standard-
ized formats for reporting water quality
data and information.
Data on total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform are
readily available through the STORET
(www.epa.gov/STORET) and the NWIS
(waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/) websites for
those monitoring stations in Tribal waters
where these data have been collected and
loaded into the databases.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Data Source:
Monitoring activities at the sampling sta-
tions included in this measure are not
conducted or reported by Tribes. Sampling
is performed at these monitoring stations
by a variety of entities, for a variety of pur-
poses and with differing frequencies.The
proximity of these stations to watersheds
undergoing restoration/protection activities
may not be included as part of the infor-
mation included in the STORET database
or NWIS.The use of these monitoring sta-
tions in this performance measure is
opportunistic, and thus sampling results
may not necessarily reflect the impacts of
restoration activities performed as part of
the implementation of Clean Water Act
programs by Tribes.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Sampling is performed at these monitoring
stations by a variety of entities, for a variety
of purposes and with differing frequencies.
Methods used to measure total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and
fecal coliform among these sites likely differ
However; metadata for sampling results,
including sampling methods, detection limits
and sampling date and time, are readily
available to the public through the STORET
database and NWIS. Given that the meas-
ure is based on improvements in water
quality at individual monitoring stations in
tribal lands overtime, the use of differing
methods at sampling stations included in
the measure is not necessarily problematic.
Sampling results at these stations are likely
to be suitable for tracking progress in the
measure. Implicit in the measure is the
assumption that improvements in water
quality at these sampling stations reflect the
successful implementation of CWA pro-
grams by Tribes. The monitoring stations
included in the measure are used for a
variety of purposes and with differing fre-
quencies and the proximity of the
monitoring stations to waters undergoing
restoration/protection actions by Tribes is
unknown. Given this, the suitability of sam-
pling results at these stations for tracking
successful implementation of CWA pro-
grams by Tribes is uncertain.
QA/QC Procedures:
Samples at the monitoring stations included
in this measure are collected and
processed by a variety of entities and for
differing purposes. As a result, QA/QC pro-
cedures for these samples may differ
considerably However; QA/QC procedures
for the samples are readily available to the
public through the STORET website or
obtained from the USGS.
Data Quality Review:
Data owners are responsible for data quali-
ty review. Information on the quality of the
data in STORET is readily available to the
public through the website.The USGS is
responsible for data quality review of sam-
pling results loaded in the NWIS. No audits
or data quality reviews for the monitoring
results included in this measure have been
conducted by EPA for data in the STORET
or NWIS database.
Data Limitations:
It is still early to determine the full extent of
data limitations.The monitoring stations
included in the universe for this measure
have been selected opportunistically by EPA
based on their presence on Tribal lands and
reporting sampling results for total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen and fecal
coliform. Sampling is performed at these
monitoring stations by a variety of entities
and for a variety of purposes with differing
frequencies.The proximity of these stations
to watersheds undergoing restoration/pro-
tection activities may not be included as
part of the information included on the
STORET or NWIS databases. Sampling
results may not necessarily reflect the
impacts of restoration activities performed
as part of the implementation of Clean
Water Act programs byTribes.The impact
of these data limitations on progress as
reported in the measure is unclear
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA has significantly improved the ease of
data retrieval from the STORET database
with the completion of the STORET data
warehouse. Sampling results are being
loaded into STORET at a rate of approxi-
mately I million records/month, which will
significantly increase the data available to
track progress in the measure. EPA is cur-
rently conducting a pilot project to
prototype flow of water quality data to EPA
via the central data exchange.The Wind
River Reservation is participating as a pilot
partner EPA's intent is to build on the
results of the pilot project to provide
greater flexibility for partners who submit
water quality data to EPA. We anticipate that
this effort will help to increase the volume
of tribal data in EPA's water quality data
warehouse and will provide a more robust
database for this measure. EPA and USGS
will continue to work together to create a
common view for data included in EPA's
water quality data warehouse and the USGS
NWIS database.This work also will facilitate
the ability to measure progress.
References:
Water quality data in STORET are publicly
available at www.epa.gov/STORETWater
quality data from USGS are available at
waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 84.
Performance Database:
Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System
(STARS), the Indian Health Service (IHS),
Office of Environmental Health and
Engineering (OEHE), Division of Sanitation
Facilities Construction (DSFC).
Data Sources:
The STARS includes data on sanitation defi-
ciencies, Indian homes and construction
projects. STARS is currently comprised of
two sub data systems, the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project
Data System (PDS).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The SDS is an inventory of sanitation defi-
ciencies for existing Indian homes and
communities.The IMS is required to priori-
tize SDS deficiencies and annually report to
Congress.The identification of sanitation
deficiencies can be made several ways, the
most common of which follow:
• Consultation with Tribal members and
other Agencies
• Field visits by engineers, sanitarians,
Community Health Representatives
(CHRs), nurses, or by other IMS or trib-
al heath staff
• Sanitary Surveys
• Community Environmental Health
Profiles
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
• Census Bureau Reports (for compari-
son purposes only)
• Tribal Master Plans for Development
• Telephone Surveys
• Feasibility Studies
The most reliable and preferred method is
a field visit to each community to identify
and obtain accurate numbers of homes
with sanitation deficiencies.The number of
Indian homes within the communities must
be consistent among the various methods
cited above. If a field visit cannot be made,
it is highly recommended that more than
one method be used to determine sanita-
tion deficiencies to increase the accuracy
and establish greater credibility for the data.
The PDS is a listing of funded construction
projects and is used as a management and
reporting tool.
QA/QC Procedures:
Quality assurance for the Indian country
water quality performance measure
depends on the quality of the data in the
STARS. The STARS data undergoes a series
of quality control reviews at various levels
within the IMS DSFC.The DSFC is required
to annually report deficiencies in SDS to
Congress in terms of total and feasible
project costs for proposed sanitation proj-
ects and sanitation deficiency levels for
existing homes.
Data Quality Reviews:
The SDS data initially undergoes a series of
highly organized reviews by experienced
tribal, IMS field, IMS district and IMS area
personnel. The data are then sent to the
DSFC headquarters office for review
before final results are reported.The DSFC
headquarters reviews the SDS data for
each of the 12 IMS area offices.The data
quality review consists of performing a
number of established data queries and
reports which check for errors and/or
inconsistencies. In addition, the top 25 SDS
projects and corresponding community
deficiency profiles for each area are
reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly.
Detailed cost estimates are highly encour-
aged and are usually available for review.
Data Limitations:
The data are limited by the accuracy of
reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate:
The IMS DSFC requires that higher-level
projects (those with the possibility of fund-
ing prior to the next update) must be
developed to allow for program implemen-
tation in an organized, effective, efficient
manner Those SDS projects (top 20%)
must have cost estimates within 10/6 of the
actual costs.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The STARS is a web based application and
therefore allows data to be continuously
updated by personnel at various levels and
modified as program requirements are
identified.
References:
• Indian Health Service (IMS), Division of
Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for
the Sanitation Facilities Construction
Program, June 1999,Version 1.02,
3/1 3/2003. www.dsfc.ihs.gov/
Docu ments/Criteria_M arch_2003. cfm
• Indian Health Service (IMS), Division of
Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
• Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft,
"Guide for Reporting Sanitation
Deficiencies for Indian Homes and
Communities", May 2003.
www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/
SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of coastal
waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
Maintain water clarity and dissolved oxygen in coastal waters at the national levels reported in the 2002
National Coastal Condition Report based upon recent data reported in the 2005 National Coastal
Condition Report.
Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition
Report for: coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.1 points; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by
at least 0.1 points; benthic quality by at least 0.1 points; & eutrophic condition by at least 0.1 points.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 2, page 86.
Performance Database:
EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program/National Coastal
Assessment] database (housed
EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED, Narragansett,
RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office
of Research and Development/National
Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory/Gulf Ecology Division); pre-
database information housed in
ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL
(Gulf Ecology Division) (pre-database refers
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
to a temporary storage site for data where
they are examined for QA purposes, have
appropriate metadata attached and under-
go initial statistical analyses); data upon QA
acceptance and metadata completion are
transferred to EMAP/NCA database and
are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca.
Data Source:
Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition
completed throughout the Mid-Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) in
1991-1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in
the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the Mid-
Atlantic in 1997-1998, in each coastal state
in 2000-2004 (except Alaska and Hawaii),
in Alaska in 2002 and 2004, in Hawaii in
2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000
and 2004, and in other island territories
(Guam, American Samoa and U.S.Virgin
Islands) in 2004. Surveys collect condition
information regarding water quality sedi-
ment quality and biotic condition at 70-100
sites/region (e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of
collection prior to 1999 and at 35-150
sites in each state or territory/year (site
number dependent upon state) after 1999.
Additional sampling by the National
Estuary Program (NEP) included all individ-
ual national estuaries; the total number of
sites within NEP boundaries was 30 for the
2-year period 2000-2003.
These data are collected through a joint
EPA-State cooperative agreement and the
States follow a rigid sampling and collection
protocol following intensive training by EPA
personnel. Laboratory processing is com-
pleted at either a state laboratory or
through a national EPA contract. Data col-
lection follows a Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) (either the National Coastal
QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing
and auditing by EPA.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The surveys are conducted using a proba-
bilistic survey design which allows
extrapolation of results to the target popu-
lation (in this case—all estuarine resources
of the specific state.) The collection design
maximizes the spatial spread between sites,
located by specific latitude-longitude com-
binations. The survey utilizes an indexed
sampling period (generally late summer) to
increase the probability of encountering
water quality sediment quality and biotic
condition problems, if they exist. Based on
the QAPP and field collection manual, a
site in a specific state is located by sampling
vessel via Global Positioning System (GPS)
and water quality is measured on board at
multiple depths. Water samples are taken
for chemistry; sediment samples are taken
for chemistry toxicity testing and benthic
community assessment; and fish trawls are
conducted to collect community fish data
and provide selected fish (target species)
for analysis of whole body and/or fillet con-
taminant concentrations. Samples are
stored in accordance with field manual
instructions and shipped to the processing
laboratory Laboratories follow QA plans
and complete analyses and provide elec-
tronic information to the state or EPA. EPA
and the state exchange data to ensure that
each has a complete set. EPA analyzes the
data to assess regional conditions, whereas
the states analyze the data to assess condi-
tions of state-specific waters. Results of
analyses on a national and regional basis
are reported as chapters in the National
Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series.
The overall regional condition index is the
simple mean of the five indicators' scores
used in the Coastal Condition Report (in
the NCCR2 a recalculation method was
provided for direct comparison of the suc-
cessive reports). An improvement for one
of the indicators by a full category unit
over the 8 year period will be necessary
for the regional estimate to meet the per-
formance measurement goal (+0.2 over an
8 year period).
Assumptions: (I)The underlying target
population (estuarine resources of the
United States) has been correctly identified;
(2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field
collection manuals are followed; (4) all sam-
ples are successfully collected; (5) all
analyses are completed in accordance with
the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data
into indices are completed in a statistically
rigorous manner
Suitability: By design all data are suitable
to be aggregated to the state and regional
level to characterize water quality sediment
quality, and biotic condition. Samples repre-
sent "reasonable", site-specific point-in-time
data (not primary intention of data use)
and an excellent representation of the
entire resource (extrapolation to entire
resource supportable).The intended use of
the data is the characterization of popula-
tions and subpopulations of estuarine
resources through time.The data meet this
expectation and the sampling, response,
analysis and reporting designs have been
peer reviewed successfully multiple times.
The data are suitable for individual calendar
year characterization of condition, compari-
son of condition across years, and
assessment of long-term trends once suffi-
cient data are collected (7-10 years). Data
are suitable for use in National Coastal
Condition calculations for the United States
and its regions to provide performance
measurement information. The first long-
term trends analysis will appear in the 2006
NCCR representing trends between 1990-
2004.
QA/QC Procedures:
The sampling collection and analysis of
samples are controlled by a Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA
2001 ] and the National Coastal
Assessment Information Management Plan
(IMP)[EPA 200l].These plans are followed
by all twenty-three coastal states and 5
island territories. Adherence to the plans
are determined by field training (conducted
by EPA ORD), field audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD), round robin testing of chem-
istry laboratories (conducted by
EPA/ORD), overall systems audits of state
programs and national laboratory practices
(conducted by EPA), sample splits (sent to
reference laboratories), blind samples
(using reference materials) and overall
information systems audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD). Batch sample processing for
laboratory analyses requires the inclusion
of QA samples in each batch. All states are
subject to audits at least once every 2
years. All participants received training in
year 2000 and retraining sessions are
scheduled every 2 years.
Data Quality Reviews:
Data quality reviews have been completed
in-house by EPA ORD at the regional and
national level in 2000-2003 (National
Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI)
in 2003 (assessment completed in June,
2003 and written report not yet available;
oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
No deficiencies were found in the pro-
gram. A national laboratory used in the
program (University of Connecticut) for
nutrient chemistry sediment chemistry and
fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by
the Inspector General's Office for potential
falsification of laboratory results in connec-
tion with other programs not related to
NCA.The NCA has conducted its own
audit assessment and only one incorrect
use of a chemical digestion method for
inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was
found.This error was corrected and all
samples "digested" incorrectly were
reanalyzed at no cost.
Data Limitations:
Data limitations are few. Because the data
are collected in a manner to permit calcu-
lation of uncertainty and designed to meet
a specific Data Quality Objective (DQO)
(< 10% error in spatial calculation for each
annual state estimate), the results at the
regional level (appropriate for this perform-
ance measure) are within about 2-4% of
true values dependent upon the specific
sample type. Other limitations as follows:
(a) Even though methodology errors are
minimized by audits, in the first year of the
NCA program (2000) some errors
occurred resulting in loss of some data.
These problems were corrected in 2001
and no problems have been observed
since, (b) In some instances, (<5%) of sam-
ple results, QA investigation found
irregularities regarding the precision of
measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing
of controls exceeded detection limit, etc.).
In these cases, the data were "flagged" so
that users are aware of the potential limita-
tions, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis
design, the loss of data at a small scale (~
10%) does not result in a significant
increase in uncertainty in the estimate of
condition. Wholesale data losses of multiple
indicators throughout the U.S. coastal
states and territories would be necessary
to invalidate the performance measure, (d)
The only major source of external variabili-
ty is year-to-year climatic variation (drought
vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.) and
the only source of internal variation is
modification of reporting indicators (e.g.,
new indices, not a change in data collected
and analyzed).This internal reporting modi-
fication requires a re-analysis of earlier
information to permit direct comparison.
(e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag from
the time of collection until reporting.
Sample analysis generally takes I year and
data analysis another Add another year for
report production and peer review, (f)
Data collections are completed annually;
The EPA/ORD data collection collabora-
tion will continue through 2004. After
2004, ORD will assist OW, as requested,
with expert advice, but will no longer sup-
port the program financially.
Error Estimate:
The estimate of condition (upon which the
performance measure is determined) has
an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3%
for national condition, about 5-7% for indi-
vidual regional indicators (composite of all
five states data into a regional estimate),
and about 9-10% for individual state indica-
tors. These condition estimates are
determined from the survey data using
cumulative distribution functions and the
uncertainty estimates are calculated using
the Horvitz-Thompson estimator
New/Improved Data or Systems:
• Changes have occurred in the data
underlying the performance measure
based on scientific review and develop-
ment. A change in some reporting
indicators has occurred in order to
more accurately represent the intended
ecological process or function. For
example, a new eutrophication index
was determined for the 2000 data. In
order to compare this new index to
the 199 I -1994 data, the earlier data
results must be recomputed using the
new technique.This recalculation is
possible because the underlying data
collection procedures have not
changed.
• New national contract laboratories
have been added every year based on
competition. QA requirements are
met by the new facilities and rigorous
testing at these facilities is completed
before sample analysis is initiated. QA
adherence and cross-laboratory sample
analysis has minimized data variability
resulting from new laboratories enter-
ing the program.
• The only reason for the discontinuation
of the National performance goal
would be the elimination of the surveys
after 2004 or any other year thereafter
In order to continue to utilize the 2001
National Coastal Condition report as the
baseline for this performance measure, the
original scores reported in 2001 have been
re-calculated in the 2004 report using the
index modifications described above.These
"new" results for the baseline (re-calculated
scores) are reported in Appendix C of the
2005 report.
References:
• Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Database (1990-1998) and
National Coastal Assessment Database
(2000-2004) websites:
www.epa.gov/emap.
• National Coastal Assessment. 2000-
2003.Various internal memoranda
regarding results of QA audits.
(Available through John Macauley
National QA Coordinator NCA,
USEPA, ORD/NHEERL/GED, I Sabine
Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561)
• National Coastal Assessment. 2001.
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
EPA/620/R-01 /002.(Available through
John Macauley above)
• National Coastal Assessment. 2001.
Information Management Plan.
EPA/620/R-01/003 (Available through
Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator;
ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27Tarzwell Drive,
Narragansett, Rl)
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2001. National Coastal Condition
Report. EPA-620/R-01/005.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2004. National Coastal Condition
Report II. In review Assigned Report
Number EPA-620/R-03/002.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Goal 3, Objective
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Daily per capita generation.
Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 98.
Performance Database:
Data are provided by the Department of
Commerce. EPA does not maintain a data-
base for this information.
Data Source:
The baseline numbers for municipal solid
waste (MSW) source reduction and recy-
cling are developed using a materials flow
methodology employing data largely from
the Department of Commerce and
described in the EPA report titled
"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in
the United States.'The Department of
Commerce collects materials production and
consumption data from various industries.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Data on domestic production of materials
and products are compiled using published
data series. U.S. Department of Commerce
sources are used, where available; but in
several instances more detailed information
on production of goods by end-use is avail-
able from trade associations. The goal is to
obtain a consistent historical data series for
each product and/or material. Data on aver-
age product lifetimes are used to adjust the
data series.These estimates and calculations
result in material-by-material and product-
by-product estimates of MSW generation,
recovery and discards.To strategically sup-
port attainment of the 35% recycling goal,
EPA has identified specific components of
the MSW stream on which to focus: paper
and paperboard, organics (yard and food
waste), and packaging and containers. For
these targeted efforts EPA will examine
data on these waste components.
There are various assumptions factored
into the analysis to develop estimates of
MSW generation, recovery and discards.
Example assumptions (from pages 141-142
of year 2000 "Characterization Report")
include:Textiles used as rags are assumed
to enter the waste stream the same year
the textiles are discarded. Some products
(e.g., newspapers and packaging) normally
have short lifetimes and products are
assumed to be discarded in the year they
are produced.
QA/QC Procedures:
Quality assurance and quality control are
provided by the Department of
Commerce's internal procedures and sys-
tems. The report prepared by the Agency,
"Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States," is reviewed
by a number of experts for accuracy
and soundness.
Data Quality Review:
The report, including the baseline numbers
and annual rates of recycling and per capita
municipal solid waste generation, is widely
accepted among experts.
Data Limitations:
Data limitations stem from the fact that the
baseline statistics and annual rates of recy-
cling and per capita municipal solid waste
generation are based on a series of models,
assumptions, and extrapolations and, as
such, are not an empirical accounting of
municipal solid waste generated or recycled.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Because the statistics on MSW generation
and recycling are widely reported and
accepted by experts, no new efforts to
improve the data or the methodology have
been identified or are necessary
References:
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
2003 Facts and Figures, EPA, April 2005
(EPA530-F-05-003), www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percent increase of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved
controls in place.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 100.
Performance Database:
The Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the
national database which supports EPA's
RCRA program.
Data Source:
Data are entered by the states. Supporting
documentation and reference materials are
maintained in Regional and state files. EPA's
Regional offices and authorized states enter
data on a rolling basis.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the
national database which supports EPA's
RCRA program. RCRAInfo contains infor-
mation on entities (generically referred to
as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste
generation and management activities regu-
lated 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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
QA/QC Procedures:
States and EPA's Regional offices generate
the data and manage data quality related
to timeliness and accuracy Within
RCRAInfo, the application software con-
tains structural controls that promote the
correct entry of the high-priority national
components. RCRAInfo documentation,
which is available to all users on-line at
www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/, provides guidance
to facilitate the generation and interpreta-
tion 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. Even with the
increasing emphasis on data quality with
roughly 10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a
facility can have more than one unit), we
hear of data problems with some facilities
every yean particularly with the older inac-
tive facilities. When we hear of these issues,
we work with the EPA Regional offices to
see that they get resolved. It may be neces-
sary to make a few adjustments to the
permitting baseline as data issues are iden-
tified. Determination of whether or not the
GPRA annual goal # I (listed above) is met
is based on the legal and operating status
codes for each unit. Each year since 1999,
in discussions with Regional offices and
states, EPA has highlighted the need to
keep the data that support the GPRA per-
mitting goal current. RCRAInfo is the sole
repository for this information and is a
focal point for planning from the local to
national level. Accomplishments for goal #
2 (listed above) are based on the permit
expiration date code.This is a new code
for the new goal and we have made
changes to the database to make this code
a high priority code. We have discussed the
need for correct entry with the Regions.
Since tracking this information is new, we
anticipate that we will have to work out
some reporting bugs, review the accuracy
of tracking when it begins in October I,
2005, and make adjustments if necessary
Note:
Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA
Headquarters, Regional, and authorized
state personnel. It is not available to the
general public because the system contains
enforcement sensitive data.The general
public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data
Warehouse to obtain filtered information
on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.
Data Quality Review:
The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste:
Benefits of EPA's Information System Are
Limited (AIMD-95-1 67, August 22, 1995,
www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95 I 67.pdf) on
EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
reviewed whether national RCRA informa-
tion systems support EPA and the states in
managing their hazardous waste programs.
Recommendations coincide with ongoing
internal efforts to improve the definitions of
data collected, ensure that data collected
provide critical information and minimize
the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the current
national database has evolved in part as a
response to this report.
Data Limitations:
The authorized states have ownership of
their data and EPA has to rely on them to
make changes.The data that determine if a
facility has met its permit requirements are
prioritized in update efforts. Basic site iden-
tification data may become out-of-date
because RCRA does not mandate annual
or other periodic notification by the regu-
lated entity when site name, ownership and
contact information changes. Nevertheless,
EPA tracks the facilities by their IDs and
those should not change even during
ownership changes.The baselines are com-
posed of facilities that can have multiple
units.These units may consolidate, split or
undergo other activities that cause the
number of units to change. We aim to have
static baselines, but there may be occasions
where we would need to make minor
baseline modifications.The baseline of facili-
ties that are currently tracked for goal #2
are "due for permit renewals," but we
anticipate that there will be some facilities
that cease to be "due for permit renewals"
due to a change in facility status.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA has successfully implemented new
tools in RCRAInfo for managing environ-
mental information to support Federal and
state programs, particularly for permit
renewals. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of
information on the regulated universe of
RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as
facility status, regulated activities, and com-
pliance history The system also captures
detailed data on the generation of haz-
ardous waste by 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, encouraging develop-
ment of in-house expertise for controlled
cost, and using commercial off-the-shelf
software to develop reports from database
tables.
References:
RCRAInfo documentation and data
(www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/).The 1995 GAO
report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's
Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-
167, August 22, 1995, www.gao.gov/archive/
l995/ai95l67.pdf).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of confirmed releases at LIST facilities nationally.
Percent increase of LIST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detec-
tion and release prevention (Spill, overfill, and corrosion protection requirements).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 100.
Performance Database:
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST) does not maintain a national data-
base. States individually maintain records for
reporting state program accomplishments.
Data Source:
Designated State agencies submit semi-
annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA's regional offices verify and then for-
ward the data in a word processing table
to OUST OUST staff examine the data
and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices.The data are displayed in a
word processing table on a region-by-
region basis, which is a way regional staff
can check their data.
Data Limitations:
Percentages reported are sometimes based
on estimates and extrapolations from sam-
ple data. Data quality depends on the accu-
racy and completeness of state records.
References:
FY2005 Semi-Annual Mid-Year Activity
Report, June 2, 2005 (updated semi-annual-
ly). www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_05_ 12.pdf
Goal 3, Objective 2
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have Facility
Response Plans.
Oil spills responded to or monitored by EPA.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 106.
Performance Database:
The Office of Emergency Management has
recently gone through a reorganization
bringing together the chemical and oil
emergency prevention, preparedness, and
response programs of the Agency
Additionally, the Oil Program is currently
undergoing a PART review, therefore, a
new reporting system is under develop-
ment to take into account the recent
reorganization as well as the resulting
annual and long-term measures develop
through the PART review.This system will
store oil spill prevention, emergency pre-
paredness and response information (e.g.,
compliance and oil spill information).
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Pending new database.
References:
For additional information on the Oil pro-
gram, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of emergency response and homeland security readiness improvement.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 106.
Performance Database:
No specific database has been developed.
Data from evaluations from each of the 10
Regions are tabulated and stored using
standard software (WordPerfect, spread-
sheets, etc.).
Data Source:
Data are collected through detailed sur-
veys of all Regional programs, and
interviews with personnel and managers in
each program office.The score represents
a composite based upon data from each
unique Regional and headquarters organi-
zation. Annual increments represent annual
improvements.The survey instrument was
developed based upon Core Emergency
Response (ER) elements, and has been
approved by EPA Headquarters and
Regional managers. Core ER elements
cover all aspects of the Core ER program,
including Regional Response Centers, trans-
portation, coordination with backup
Regions, health and safety delegation and
warrant authorities, response readiness,
response equipment, identification clothing,
training and exercises, and outreach.
While EPA is currently prepared to
respond to chemical, biological, and radio-
logical incidents, improvement in the
emergency response and homeland securi-
ty readiness measure will demonstrate an
increased ability to respond quickly and
effectively to national-scale events.The FY
2007 Core ER target is to improve emer-
gency response and homeland security
readiness by 10% from the FY 2006 base-
line performance.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The Core ER elements were developed
over the last several years by the EPA
Removal Program to identify and clarify
what is needed to ensure an excellent
emergency response program.The ele-
ments, definitions, and rationales were
developed by staff and managers and have
been presented to the Administrator and
other high level Agency managers. Based
on the Core ER standards, evaluation
forms and criteria were established for
EPA's Regional programs, the Environ-
mental ResponseTeam (ERT), and
Headquarters.These evaluation criteria
identify what data need to be collected,
and how that data translate into an appro-
priate score for each Core ER element.The
elements and evaluation criteria will be
reviewed each year for relevance to ensure
that the programs have the highest stan-
dards of excellence and that the
measurement clearly reflects the level of
readiness.The data are collected from each
Regional office, ERT and Headquarters
using a systematic, objective process. Each
evaluation team consists of managers and
staff, from Headquarters and from another
EPA Regional office, with some portion of
the team involved in all reviews for consis-
tency and some portion varying to ensure
independence and objectivity For instance,
a team evaluating Region A might include
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
some or all of the following: a staff person
from Headquarters who is participating in
all reviews, a staff person from Head-
quarters who is very familiar with Region A
activities, a manager from Headquarters,
and a staff person and/or manager from
Region B. One staff or group will be
responsible for gathering and analyzing all
the data to determine the overall score for
each Regional office, ERT and Head-
quarters, and for determining an overall
National score.
QA/QC Procedures:
See "Methods, Assumptions and Suitability".
Data Quality Review:
The evaluation team will review the data
(see Methods, Assumptions and Suitability)
during the data collection and analysis
process. Additional data review will be con-
ducted after the data has been analyzed to
ensure that the scores are consistent with
the data and program information.There
currently is no specific database that has
been developed to collect, store, and man-
age the data.
Data Limitations:
One key limitation of the data is the lack of
a dedicated database system to collect and
manage the data. Standard software pack-
ages (word processing, spreadsheets) are
used to develop the evaluation criteria, col-
lect the data, and develop the accompanying
readiness scores.There is also the possibility
of subjective interpretation of data.
Error Estimate:
It is likely that the error estimate for this
measure will be small for the following rea-
sons: the standards and evaluation criteria
have been developed and reviewed exten-
sively by Headquarters and EPA's Regional
managers and staff; the data will be collect-
ed by a combination of managers and staff
to provide consistency across all reviews
plus an important element of objectivity in
each review; the scores will be developed
by a team looking across all ten Regions,
ERT and Headquarters; and only twelve
sets of data will be collected, allowing for
easier cross-checking and ensuring better
consistency of data analysis and identifica-
tion of data quality gaps.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
There are no current plans to develop a
dedicated system to manage the data.
References:
FY 2004/2005 Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM),
www.epa.gov/superfund/.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions.
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with human exposures controlled.
Number of Superfund hazardous waste sites with groundwater migration controlled.
Number of final remedies (cleanup targets) selected at Superfund sites.
Number of Superfund construction completions.
Percentage of Superfund spending obligated site-specifically.
Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed annually.
Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually.
Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 102.
Performance Database:
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
System (CERCLIS) is the database used by
the Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information.
Data Source:
CERCLIS is an automated EPA system;
headquarters and EPA's Regional offices
enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Each performance measure is a specific
variable within CERCLIS.
QA/QC Procedures:
To ensure data accuracy and control, the
following administrative controls are in
place: I) Superfund 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 specifi-
cations; 5) 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 authori-
ties for approval of data input into CERCLIS;
and (d) procedures to ensure that reported
accomplishments meet accomplishment def-
initions; and (6) a historical lockout feature
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. Specific direction for these controls
is contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year
2004/2005 (www.epa.gov/superfund/
action/process/spim04.htm) and the Fiscal
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Year 2006/2007 SPIN (www.epa.gov/
superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further develop-
ment is taking place under the following
administrative control quality assurance
procedures: I) Office of Environmental
Information Interim Agency Life Cycle
Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(cfmt I .rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/); 2) the Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation Quality Management Plan
(www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswerjqmp.pdf)
3) Agency platform, software and hardware
standards (basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/
itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality Assurance
Requirements in all contract vehicles under
which CERCLIS is being developed and
maintained (www.epa.gov/quality/informa-
tionguidelines); and 5) Agency security
procedures (basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/
ITRoadMap.nsf/Security?OpenView). In addi-
tion, specific controls are in place for system
design, data conversion and data capture,
and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality Reviews:
Two audits, one by the Office Inspector
General (OIG) and the other by
Government Accountability Office (GAO),
were conducted to assess the validity of
the data in CERCLIS.The OIG audit report,
Superfund Construction Completion Reporting
(No. EI SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated
December 30, 1997, was prepared 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 pro-
vides regarding construction completions."
Further information on this report are
available at www.epa.gov/oigearth/.The
GAO's report, Superfund Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated
August 28, 1998, was prepared to verify
the accuracy of the information in CER-
CLIS on sites' cleanup progress.The report
estimates that the cleanup status of
National Priority List (NPL) sites reported
by CERCLIS as of September 30, 1997, is
accurate for 95 percent of the sites.
Additional information on the Status of
Sites may be obtained at www.gao.gov/
archive/1998/rc98241 .pdf Another OIG
audit, Information Technology—Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data
Quality (Report No. 2002-P-OOO16), dated
September 30, 2002, evaluated the accura-
cy completeness, timeliness, and consistency
of the data entered into CERCLIS.The
report provided I I recommendations to
improve controls for CERCLIS data quality.
EPA concurs with the recommendations
contained in the audit, and many of the
identified problems have been corrected or
long-term actions that would address these
recommendations continue to be under-
way. Additional information about this
report is available at www.epa.gov/oigearth.
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) was signed in August
2003 (www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/
oswer_qmp.pdf).
Data Limitations:
Weaknesses were identified in the OIG
audit, Information Technology—
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.
2002-P-OOO I 6), dated September 30, 2002.
The Agency disagrees with the study design
and report conclusions; however; the
report provided I I recommendations with
which EPA concurs. Many of the identified
problems have been corrected or long-
term actions that would address these
recommendations continue to be under-
way, e.g., I) FY 02/03 SPIM Chapter 2
update was made to better define the
Headquarters' and Regional roles and
responsibilities for maintaining planning and
accomplishment data in CERCLIS; 2) FY
04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site
Status Indicators' added language to clarify
the use of the non-NPL status code of
"SX"; 3) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A,
Section A.A.6 'Data Quality' added a sec-
tion on data quality which includes a list of
relevant reports; 4) FY 04/05 SPIM
Appendix E, Section E.A.5 "Data
Owners/Sponsorship' was revised to reflect
what data quality checks (focus data stud-
ies) will be done by designated Regional
and headquarters staff; 5) A data quality
objectives supplement for GPRA measures
was added in Change 6 to this SPIM. For
changes regarding this OIG audit, see the
Change Log for this SPIM at
www.epa.gov/superfund/) Draft guidance
from OCA (Other Cleanup Activity) sub-
group, which outlines the conditions under
which sites are taken back from states
when states have the lead but are not per-
forming; and 7) Pre-CERCLIS Screening: A
Data Entry Guide, which provides guidance
to the regions for preventing entry of
duplicate sites in CERCLIS.The develop-
ment and implementation of a quality
assurance process for CERCLIS data has
begun.This process includes delineating
quality assurance responsibilities in the pro-
gram office and periodically selecting
random samples of CERCLIS data points to
check against source documents in site files.
Error Estimate:
The GAO's report, Superfund: Information
on the Status of Sites (GAO/RECD-98-241),
dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the
cleanup status of National Priority List sites
reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95
percent of the sites.The OIG report,
Information Technology—Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data
Quality (Report No. 2002-P-OOO 16), dated
September 30, 2002, states that over 40
percent of CERCLIS data on site actions
reviewed was inaccurate or not adequately
supported. Although the I I recommenda-
tions were helpful and will improve
controls over CERCLIS data, the Agency
disagrees and strongly objects to the study
design and report conclusions, stating they
do not focus on the program's data quality
hierarchy and the importance it places on
NPL sites.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
A CERCLIS modernization effort, initiated
in 2002, has been completed. As a result of
the modernization effort, CERCLIS now
has standards for data quality Each EPA
Region's CERCLIS Data Entry Control Plan,
which identifies policies and procedures for
data entry is reviewed annually Data quality
audit fields have been added to CERCLIS.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Headquarters has begun to create
and share with the Regions data quality
audit reports.These reports document
data quality for timeliness, completeness,
and accuracy as determined by the
Superfund data sponsors to encourage and
ensure high data quality The modernization
effort has increased the availability of CER-
CLIS data via Superfund eFacts, a
Superfund data mart which serves program
managers in Headquarters and the
Regions. In FY 2007, the program will con-
tinue its effort to improve its management
of the program through the increased avail-
ability of timely and accurate technical
information to Superfund's managers. In
2007, the Agency will work to increase uti-
lization of CERCLIS data by incorporating
additional remedy selection, risk, removal
response, and community involvement data
into CERCLIS.
The Business Process Reevaluation task in
the modernization project has provided
CERCLIS managers with a first step in an
implementation evaluation.The document,
which resulted from the evaluation, is being
used as a valuable resource for scoping the
future redesign of CERCLIS as well as the
realignment of the database that will
remove unnecessary data and add the new
data fields that are necessary to manage
the Superfund program today The redesign
is mandated to bring CERCLIS into the
Agency's Enterprise Architecture. As part
of OSRTI's effort to bring CERCLIS into
the Agency's Enterprise Architecture all
Regional databases have been moved to
the National Computing Center in RTR
This is the first step in folding the
Headquarters and Regional databases into
one database.This move of the databases
to RTP is being done without changing the
application, by using a commercial off the
shelf (COTS) software program to enable
the Regional data entry staff to input data
over the Agency's Wide Area Network. The
initial step of moving the databases to RTP
and moving all users to the COTS software
has been completed.The move to a single
database will be completed during FY 2006
and implemented in FY 2007.The
Superfund Document Management System
(SDMS) will be linked to CERCLIS.This
linkage will enable users to easily transition
between the programmatic accomplish-
ments reporting to the actual document
that defines and describes the accomplish-
ment reported in CERCLIS.The effort to
link SDMS and CERCLIS and to consoli-
date the systems will lead to common
reporting (same events and data) in CER-
CLIS and SDMS.This will be done by
electronically extracting data from the doc-
uments in SDMS to fill the data fields in
CERCLIS—eliminating the manual data
entry/human error impacts.
References:
OIG audit Superfund Construction
Completion Reporting, (No.
EI SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030) and
Information Technology—Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data
Quality, (No. 2002-P-OOOI 6,
www.epa.gov/oigearth); and the GAO
report, Superfund Information on the Status
of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241,
www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241 .pdf).
The Superfund Program Implementation
Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the
current manual (www.epa.gov/superfund/
action/guidance/index.htm).The Quality
Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(August 2003, www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/
oswer_qmp.pdf).The Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation
Quality Management Plan (www.epa.gov/
swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). EPA platform,
software and hardware standards
(basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf).
Quality Assurance Requirements in all con-
tract vehicles under which CERCLIS are
being developed and maintained
(www.epa.gov/quality/informationguide-
lines). EPA security procedures
(basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/
Security?OpenView).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
High priority RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled.
High priority RCRA facilities with toxic releases to groundwater controlled.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 101.
Performance Database:
The Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the
national database that supports EPA's
RCRA program.
Data Source:
The states and Regions enter data. A
"High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final-assess-
ment decision. A' 'yes'' or "no" entry is
made in the database with respect to meet-
ing the human exposures to toxins
controlled and releases to groundwater
controlled indicators. An entry will be made
in the database to indicate the date when a
remedy is selected and the complete con-
struction of a remedy is made. Supporting
documentation and reference materials are
maintained in the Regional and state files.
EPA's Regional offices and authorized states
enter data on a continual basis.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
RCRAInfo has several different modules,
including a Corrective Action Module that
tracks the status of facilities that require, or
may require, corrective actions. RCRAInfo
contains information on entities (generically
referred to as "handlers") engaged in haz-
ardous waste (HW) generation and
management activities regulated under the
portion of RCRA that provides for regula-
tion of hazardous waste. All five measures
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 pro-
gram's progress in getting highest priority
contaminated facilities under control.
Known and suspected facility-wide condi-
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
tions are evaluated using a series of simple
questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at
a reasonable, defensible determination.
These questions were issued as a memo-
randum titled: Interim Final Guidance for
RCRA Corrective Action Environmental
Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February
5, 1999). Lead regulators for the facility
(authorized state or EPA) make the envi-
ronmental indicator determination;
however; facilities or their consultants may
assist EPA in the evaluation by providing
information on the current environmental
conditions. Remedies selected and com-
plete constructions of remedies are used
to track the RCRA program's progress in
getting highest priority contaminated facili-
ties moving towards final cleanup.The lead
regulators for the facility make the reme-
dies selection and construction completion
of remedies determinations.
QA/QC Procedures:
States and Regions generate the data and
manage data quality related to timeliness
and accuracy (i.e., the environmental condi-
tions 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 prop-
erly entered. RCRAInfo documentation,
which is available to all users on-line, pro-
vides guidance to facilitate the generation
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.
Note:
Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA
Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state
personnel. It is not available to the general
public because the system contains enforce-
ment sensitive data.The general public is
referred to EPAs Envirofacts Data
Warehouse to obtain filtered information on
RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities.
Data Quality Review:
GAO's 1995 Report on EPAs Hazardous
Waste Information System
(http://wwwaccess.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pu
bs/study/studyhtm.html) reviewed whether
national RCRA information systems sup-
port EPA and the states in managing their
hazardous waste programs.
Recommendations coincide with ongoing
internal efforts (WIN/lnformed) to
improve the definitions of data collected,
ensure that data collected provide critical
information and minimize the burden on
states. EPAs Quality Staff of Office of
Environmental Information conducted a
quality systems audit in December 2003.
The audit found the corrective action pro-
gram satisfactory.
Data Limitations:
No data limitations have been identified. As
discussed above, the performance measure
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
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA has successfully implemented new
tools for managing environmental informa-
tion 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 informa-
tion on the regulated universe of RCRA
hazardous waste handlers, such as facility
status, regulated activities, and compliance
history The system also captures detailed
data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on
waste management practices by treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is
web-accessible, providing a convenient user
interface for federal, state and local man-
agers, encouraging development of
in-house expertise for controlled cost, and
using commercial off-the-shelf software to
develop reports from database tables.
References:
GAO's 1995 Report on EPAs Hazardous
Waste Information System reviewed
whether national RCRA information sys-
tems support EPA and the states in
managing their hazardous waste programs.
This historical document is available on the
Government Printing Office Website
(www.access.gpo. gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/
study/studyhtm.html).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups completed.)
Reduce the number of LUST cleanups that exceed risk-based standards for human exposure and ground-
water migration in Indian Country. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank cleanups
completed in Indian Country.)
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 101.
Performance Database:
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST) does not maintain a national data-
base. States individually maintain records for
reporting state program accomplishments.
Data Source:
Designated State agencies submit semi-
annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices.The data for the compari-
son of leaking underground storage tank
cleanups will be developed in FY 2005 for
a planned reporting date of FY 2006.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA's regional offices verify and then for-
ward the data in a word processing table
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
to OUST OUST staff examine the data
and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices.The data are displayed in a
word processing table on a region-by-
region basis, which is a way regional staff
can check their data.
Data Limitations:
Percentages reported are sometimes based
on estimates and extrapolations from sam-
ple data. Data quality depends on the
accuracy and completeness of state records.
References:
FY 2005 Semi-Annual Mid-Year Activity
Report, June 2, 2005 (updated semi-annual-
ly). www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_05_ 12.pdf
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
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.
Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action is taken before the start of a
remedial action.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 105.
Performance Database:
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) database
contains information on hazardous waste
sites, potentially hazardous waste sites and
remedial activities across the nation.The
database includes sites that are on the
National Priorities List (NPL) or being con-
sidered for the NPL.
Data Source:
Automated EPA system; Headquarters
and EPA's Regional Offices enter data into
CERCLIS.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
There are no analytical or statistical meth-
ods used to collect the information.The
performance data collected on a fiscal year
basis only Enforcement reports are run at
the end of the fiscal yean and the data that
support this measure are extracted from
the report.
QA/QC Procedures:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April I 1, 2001 .To ensure data
accuracy and control, the following adminis-
trative controls are in place: I)
Superfund/Oil Implementation Manual
(SPIM), a 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 specifi-
cations; 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 speci-
fications; 6) Regional CERCLIS Data Entry
Internal Control Plan, which includes: a)
regional policies and procedures for entering
Goal 3, Objective 3
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.
Data Quality Review:
The 1C annually reviews the end-of-year
CERCLIS data, in an informal process, to
verify the data supporting the performance
measure.Typically there are no published
results.
References:
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April I 1, 2001.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
SITE demonstrations completed.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 3, page 108.
Performance Database:
Program output; no internal tracking system
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Goal 4, Objective
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of registrations of reduced risk pesticides registered (Register safer chemicals and biopesticides)
(cumulative).
Number of new (active ingredients) conventional pesticides registered (New Chemicals)(Cumulative).
Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses) (Cumulative).
Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions.
Reduce registration decision times for new conventional chemicals.
Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, pages 121, 129.
Performance Database:
The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network) consolidates various
pesticides program databases. It is main-
tained by the EPA and tracks regulatory
data submissions and studies, organized by
scientific discipline, which are submitted by
the registrant in support of a pesticide's
registration. In addition to tracking deci-
sions in OPPIN, manual counts are also
maintained by the office on the registra-
tions of reduced risk pesticides. Results for
reduced risk pesticides, new active conven-
tional ingredients, and new uses have been
reported since 1996.The results are calcu-
lated on a fiscal year (FY) basis. For
antimicrobial new uses, results have been
reported since FY 2004 on a FY basis. Both
S18 timeliness and reduced risk decision
times are being reported on a FY basis for
the first time in FY 2005.
Data Source:
Pesticide program reviewers update the
status of the submissions and studies as
they are received and as work is complet-
ed 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.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The measures are program outputs which
when finalized, represent the program's
statutory requirements to ensure that pes-
ticides entering the marketplace are safe
for human health and the environment, and
when used in accordance with the packag-
ing label present a reasonable certainty of
no harm. While program outputs are not
the best measures of risk reduction, regis-
tration outputs do provide a means for
reducing risk by ensuring that pesticides
entering the marketplace meet the latest
health standards, thus when used according
to the label are safe.
QA/QC Procedures:
A reduced risk pesticide must meet the cri-
teria 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 non-target organisms; reduce the poten-
tial for contamination of groundwater,
surface water or other valued environmen-
tal 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 Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety
standard. All risk assessments are subject to
public and scientific peer review.The office
adheres to its Quality Management Plan
(May 2000) in ensuring data quality and
that procedures are properly applied.
Data Quality Review:
These are program outputs. EPA 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.
Data Limitations:
None. All required data must be submitted
for the risk assessments before the pesti-
cide is registered. If data are not submitted,
the pesticide is not registered. As stated
above, a reduced risk pesticide must meet
the criteria set forth in PRN 97-3 and all
registrations must meet FQPA safety
requirements. If a pesticide does not meet
these criteria, it is not registered. If an appli-
cation for a reduced risk pesticide does not
meet the reduced risk criteria, it is reviewed
as a conventional active ingredient.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network), which consolidates
various pesticides program databases, will
reduce the processing time for registration
actions.
References:
FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2);
EPA Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3,
September 4, 1997; Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; OPP Quality
Management Plan, May 2000); Endangered
Species Act.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) issued (cumulative).
Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued.
Number of inert ingredients tolerances reassessed.
Reduce decision times for REDs.
Tolerance reassessments for top 20 foods eaten by children.
Tolerance Reassessment.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 121.
Performance Database:
The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network) consolidates various
EPA program databases. It is maintained by
the EPA and tracks regulatory data submis-
sions and studies, organized by scientific
discipline, which are submitted by the regis-
trant in support of a pesticide's
reregistration. In addition to tracking deci-
sions in OPPIN, manual counts are also
maintained by the office on the reregistra-
tions decisions. Decisions are logged in as
the action is completed, both for final deci-
sions and interim decisions. REDs and
product reregistration decisions have been
reported on a FY basis since FY 1996.
Reduction in decision times for REDs will
be reported on an FY basis in FY 2005.
Data Source:
EPAs Pesticides Program staff and managers.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The measures are program outputs which
represent the program's statutory require-
ments to ensure that pesticides entering
the marketplace are safe for human health
and the environment and when used in
accordance with the packaging label pres-
ent a reasonable certainty of no harm.
While program outputs are not the best
measures of risk reduction, they do provide
a means for reducing risk in that the pro-
gram's safety review prevents dangerous
pesticides from entering the marketplace.
QA/QC Procedures:
All registration actions must employ sound
science and meet the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) new safety stan-
dard. All risk assessments are subject to
public and scientific peer review.The office
adheres to the procedures for quality
management of data as outlined in its QMP
approved May 2000.
Data Quality Review:
Management reviews the program counts
and signs off on the decision document.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The OPPIN, which consolidates various
pesticides program databases, will con-
tribute to reducing the processing time for
reregistration actions.
References:
EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides
EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA Number
735-R-03-001; 2003 Annual Performance
Plan OPP Quality Management Plan, May
2000; Endangered Species Act.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Annual number of large transformers safely disposed.
Annual number of large capacitors safely disposed.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 123.
Performance Database:
PCB Annual Report Database.The results
are calculated on a calendar year (CY)
basis.Two-year data lag and results for CY
05 will not be available until 2007.
Data Source:
Annual Reports from commercial storers
and disposers of PCB Waste.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Data provide a baseline for the amount of
safe disposal of PCB waste annually By
ensuring safe disposal of PCBs in equipment
such as transformers and capacitors coming
out of service, and contaminated media
such as soil, and structures from remediation
activities, the Agency is reducing the expo-
sure risk of PCBs that are either already in
the environment or may be released to the
environment through spills or leaks.
QA/QC Procedures:
The Agency reviews, transcribes, and
assembles data into the Annual Report
Database.
Data Quality Reviews:
The Agency contacts data reporters, when
needed, for clarification of data submitted.
Data Limitations:
Data limitations include missing submissions
from commercial storers and disposers, and
inaccurate submissions. PCB-Contaminated
Transformers, of PCB concentrations 50 to
499 parts per million (ppm), and those that
are 500 ppm PCBs or greater are not dis-
tinguished in the data. Similarly, large and
small capacitors of PCB waste may not be
differentiated. Data are collected for the
previous calendar year on July I of the next
year creating a lag of approximately I year
Despite these limitations, the data do pro-
vide the only estimate of the amount of
PCB waste disposed annually
References:
U.S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, National Program Chemicals
Program, PCB Annual Report for Storage
and Disposal of PCB Waste.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Screening assays completed.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 126.
Performance Database:
Program output; Data are generated to
support all stages of the validation of
endocrine test methods through contracts,
grants and interagency agreements, and the
cooperative support of the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), and EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD).The scope of the
effort includes the conduct of laboratory
studies and associated analyses to validate
the assays proposed for the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).This
measure, however; tracks only the end
product. EPA's contractor maintains a Data
Coordination Center which manages infor-
mation/data generated under the EDSR
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> or = 10 ug/dL).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 123.
Performance Database:
Data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) is recognized as the primary
database in the United States for national
blood lead statistics. NHANES is a proba-
bility sample of the non-institutionalized
population of the United States. Data are
collected on a calendar year basis, and is
currently released to the public in 2 year
sets.The most current release was the data
set for 2001-2002, released in early 2005.
Blood lead levels are measured for partici-
pants who are at least I year old.The
survey collects information on the age of
the participant at the time of the survey
Data Source:
The National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey is a survey designed to
assess the health and nutritional status of
adults and children in the U.S.The survey
program began in the early 1960s as a
periodic study, and continues as an annual
survey.The survey examines a nationally
representative sample of approximately
5,000 men, women, and children each year
located across the U.S. CDC's National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is
responsible for the conduct of the survey
and the release of the data to the public.
NCHS and other CDC centers publish
results from the survey generally in CDC's
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR), but also in scientific journals. In
recent years, CDC has published a
National Exposure report based on the
data from the NHANES.The most current
National Exposure report was released on
July 21, 2005, and is available at the web
site www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Detailed interview questions cover areas
related to demographic, socio-economic,
dietary and health-related questions.The
survey also includes an extensive medical
and dental examination of participants,
physiological measurements, and laboratory
tests. Specific laboratory measurements of
environmental interest include: metals (e.g.
lead, cadmium, and mercury),VOCs, phtha-
lates, organophosphates (OPs), pesticides
and their metabolites, dioxins/furans, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
NHANES is unique in that it links laborato-
ry-derived biological markers (e.g. blood,
urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and
results of physical exams. For this perform-
ance measure, NHANES has been
recognized as the definitive source.
Estimates of the number of children I -5
years with an elevated blood lead level
based on NHANES have been published
by CDC, most recently in May 2005. (See
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtm l/m
m5420a5.htm). Analytical guidelines issued
by NCHS generally recommend analyzing
the data in 4 year periods. Analyses of data
for 2 year periods are capable of reason-
ably valid inferences in certain cases.
Historically CDC has published estimates
for this measure based on 4 year periods,
with an exception for 1999-2000.
QA/QC Procedures:
Quality assurance plans are available from
the CDC as outlined on the web site
www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm under the
NHANES section.The analytical guidelines
are available at the web site
www. cdc.gov/n ch s/data/n hanes/n hanes_gen
eral_guidelines_june_04.pdf).
Data Quality Reviews:
CDC follows standardized survey instru-
ment procedures to collect data to
promote data quality and data are subject-
ed to rigorous QA/QC review.
CDC/NCHS has an elaborate data quality
checking procedure outlined on the web
site www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm under
the NHANES section.
Data Limitations:
NHANES is a voluntary survey and select-
ed persons may refuse to participate. In
addition, the NHANES survey uses two
steps, a questionnaire and a physical exam.
There are sometimes different numbers of
subjects in the interview and examinations
because some participants only complete
one step of the survey Participants may
answer the questionnaire but not provide
the more invasive blood sample. Special
weighting techniques are used to adjust for
non-response. Seasonal changes in blood
lead levels cannot be assessed under the
current NHANES design. Because
NHANES is a sample survey there may be
no children with elevated blood lead levels
in the sample, but still some children with
elevated blood lead levels in the population.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Error Estimate:
Because NHANES is based on a complex
multi-stage sample design, appropriate sam-
pling weights should be used in analyses to
produce estimates and associated measures
of variation. Recommended methodologies
and appropriate weights are provided at the
NHANES web site www.cdc.gov/nchs/
nhanes.htm. Measurement error for the
blood lead levels is anticipated.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The CDC has moved to a continuous
schedule for NHANES sampling, data
release, and release of National Exposure
reports.
References:
I) the NHANES web site,
www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; 2) the
National Exposure report web site,
www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) MMWR
article with the most recent estimate of the
number of children with elevated blood lead
levels, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/
mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm; 4) summary
information on children's blood lead levels
from past NHANES, www.cdc.gov/nceh/
lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%
20surveys.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of Acre Treatments with Reduced Risk Pesticides.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 122.
Performance Database:
EPA uses an external database, Doane
Marketing Research data, for this measure.
The data have been reported for trend
data since FY 2001 on an FY basis.
Data Source:
Primary source is Doane Marketing
Research, Inc. (a private sector research
database).The database contains pesticide
usage information by pesticide, yean crop
use, acreage and sector
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
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 non-target organisms; reduce the poten-
tial for contamination of groundwater,
surface water; or other valued environmen-
tal 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). EPA's statistical and econom-
ics staff review data from Doane.
Information is also compared to prior years
for variations and trends as well as to
determine the reasons for the variability
Doane sampling plans and QA/QC proce-
dures are available to the public at their
website. More specific information about
the data is proprietary and a subscription
fee is required. Data are weighted and a
multiple regression procedure is used to
adjust for known disproportionalities
(known disproportionality refers to a
non proportional sample, which means
individual respondents have different
weights) and ensure consistency with
USDA and state acreage estimates.
QA/QC Procedures:
All registration actions must employ sound
science and meet the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard.
All risk assessments are subject to public
and scientific peer review. Doane data are
subject to extensive QA/QC procedures,
documented at their websites. In ensuring
the quality of the data, EPA's pesticide pro-
gram adheres to its Quality Management
Plan (QMP), approved May 2000.
The main customers for Doane pesticide
usage data are the pesticide registrants.
Since those registrants know about sales of
their own products, they have an easy way
to judge the quality of Doane provided
data. If they considered the quality of the
data to be poor; they would not continue
to purchase the data.
Data Quality Review:
Doane data are subject to extensive inter-
nal quality review, documented at the
website. EPA's statistical and economics
staff review data from Doane. Information
is also compared to prior years for varia-
tions and trends as well as to determine
the reasons for the variability For some
crops and states, comparisons are also
made with a more limited pesticide usage
database from the National Agricultural
Statistics of USDA.
Data Limitations:
Doane data are proprietary; thus in order
to release any detailed information, the
Agency must obtain approval. There is a
data lag of approximately 12-18 months,
due to the collection of data on a calendar
year (CY) basis, time required for Doane
to process data, lead time for EPA to pur-
chase and obtain data, plus the time it
takes to review and analyze the data within
the office's workload.
Error Estimate:
Error estimates differ according to the
data/database and year of sampling.This
measure is compiled by aggregating infor-
mation for many crops and pesticides.
While considerable uncertainty may exist
for a single pesticide on a single crop, pesti-
cide use data at such a highly aggregated
level are considered quite accurate. Doane
sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are
available to the public at their website.
More specific information about the data is
proprietary and a subscription fee is
required. Data are weighted and multiple
regression procedure is used to adjust for
known disproportionalities and ensure con-
sistency with USDA and state acreage
estimates.
References:
EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual
Performance Plan and Annual Performance
Report, www.ams.usda.gov/science/
pdp/download.htm; Doane Marketing
Research, Inc.: www.doanemrcom ;
www.usda.gov/ and www.usda.gov/ ;
FFDCA Sec 408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide
Registration Notice 97-3, September 4,
1997; Endangered Species Act.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk screening environmental indicators (RSEI)
risk-based score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 125.
Performance Database:
The RSEI Model uses annual reporting
from individual industrial facilities along
with a variety of other information to
evaluate chemical emissions and other
waste management activities. RSEI incor-
porates detailed data from EPA's Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) and Integrated
Risk Information System, the U.S. Census,
and many other sources. Due to a 2 year
TRI data lag, performance data will be
available for the FY 2007 Annual
Performance Report.The data are based
on calendar year
Data Source:
The RSEI model incorporates data on
chemical emissions and transfers and facility
locations from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory; chemical toxicity data from EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System; stack
data from EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem
and National Emissions Trends Database
and the Electric Power Research Institute;
meteorological data from the National
Climatic Data Center; stream reach data
from EPA's Reach File I Database; data on
drinking water systems from EPA's Safe
Drinking Water Information System; fishing
activity data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife;
exposure factors from EPA's Exposure
Factor Handbook; and population data
from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The RSEI Model generates unique numeri-
cal values known as "Indicator Elements"
using the factors pertaining to surrogate
dose, toxicity and exposed population.
Indicator Elements are unitless (like an
index number; they can be compared to
one-another but do not reflect actual risk),
but proportional to the modeled relative
risk of each release (incrementally higher
numbers reflect greater estimated risk).
Indicator Elements are risk-related meas-
ures generated for every possible
combination of reporting facility chemical,
release medium, and exposure pathway
(inhalation or ingestion). Each Indicator
Element represents a unique release-expo-
sure event and together these form the
building blocks to describe exposure sce-
narios of interest.These Indicator Elements
are summed in various ways to represent
the risk-related results for releases users
are interested in assessing. RSEI results are
for comparative purposes and only mean-
ingful when compared to other scores
produced by RSEI.The measure is appro-
priate for year-to-year comparisons of
performance. Depending on how the user
wishes to aggregate, RSEI can address
trends nationally regionally, by state or
smaller geographic areas.
QA/QC Procedures:
TRI facilities self-report release data and
occasionally make errors.TRI has QC func-
tions and an error-correction mechanism
for reporting such mistakes. EPA updates
off-site facility locations on an annual basis
using geocoding techniques.
Data Quality Reviews:
RSEI depends upon a broad array of data
resources, each of which has gone through
a quality review process tailored to the
specific data and managed by the providers
of the data sources. RSEI includes data
from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI),
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),
U.S. Census, etc. All were collected for regu-
latory or programmatic purposes and are
of sufficient quality to be used by EPA,
other Federal agencies, and state regulatory
agencies. Over the course of its develop-
ment, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's Science Advisory Board
(U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model, Peer Reviews. Described
at www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html.The
RSEI model has undergone continuous
upgrading since the 1997 SAB Review.
Toxicity weighting methodology was com-
pletely revised and subject to a second
positive review by SAB (in collaboration
with EPA's Civil Rights program); air
methodology was revised and
groundtruthed using New York data to
demonstrate high confidence; water
methodology has been revised in collabora-
tion with EPA's Water program. When the
land methodology has been reviewed and
revised, EPA will have completed its formal,
written response to the 1997 SAB Review.
Data Limitations:
RSEI relies on data from a variety of EPA
and other sources.TRI data may have
errors that are not corrected in the stan-
dard TRI QC process. In the past, RSEI has
identified some of these errors and correc-
tions have been made by reporting
companies. Drinking water intake locations
are not available for all intakes nationwide.
In coastal areas, Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) water releases may go
directly to the ocean, rather than nearby
streams. EPA is in the process of systemati-
cally correcting potential errors regarding
POTW water releases.These examples are
illustrative of the data quality checks and
methodological improvements that are
part of the RSEI development effort. RSEI
values are recalculated on an annual basis,
and, resources permitting, all data sources
are updated annually
Error Estimate:
In developing the RSEI methodology both
sensitivity analyses and groundtruthing
studies have been used to address model
accuracy (documentation is provided on
the RSEI Home Page—www.epa.gov/oppt-
intr/rsei/). For example, groundtruthing of
the air modeling performed by RSEI com-
pared to site-specific regulatory modeling
done by the state of New York showed vir-
tually identical results in both rank order
and magnitude. However; the complexity of
modeling performed in RSEI, coupled with
un-quantified data limitations, limits a pre-
cise estimation of errors that may either
over- or under-estimate risk-related results.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The program regularly tracks improve-
ments in other Agency databases (e.g.,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SDWIS and Reach File databases) and
incorporates newer data into the RSEI
databases. Such improvements can also
lead to methodological modifications in the
model. Corrections inTRI reporting data
for all previous years are captured by the
annual updates of the RSEI model.
References:
The methodologies used in RSEI were first
documented for the 1997 review by the
EPA Science Advisory Board.The Agency
has provided this and other updated tech-
nical documentation on the RSEI Home
Page. (RSEI Home Page—
www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/)
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model, Peer Reviews. Described
at www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html
RSEI Methodology Document (describes
data and methods used in RSEI Modeling)
www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/docs/
method2004.pdf RSEI User's Manual (PDF,
1.5 MB) explains all of the functions of the
model, the data used, and contains tutorials
to walk the new user through common
RSEI tasks (www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
docs/users_manual.pdf).
A more general overview of the model
can be found in the RSEI Fact Sheet (PDF,
23 KB) (www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
docs/factsheet_v2-1 .pdf).
There are also seven Technical Appendices
that accompany these two documents and
provide additional information on the data
used in the model.The Appendices are as
follows:Technical Appendix A (PDF, 121
KB)—Listing of All Toxicity Weights forTRI
Chemicals and Chemical Categories
Technical Appendix B (PDF, 290 KB)—
Physicochemical Properties forTRI
Chemicals and Chemical Categories
Technical Appendix C (PDF, 40 KB)—
Derivation of Model Exposure Parameters
Technical Appendix D (PDF, 71 KB)—
Locational Data forTRI Reporting Facilities
and Off-site Facilities Technical Appendix E
(PDF, 44 KB)—Derivation of Stack
Parameter Data Technical Appendix F (PDF,
84KB)—Summary of Differences between
RSEI Data andTRI Public Data Release
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Establish short-term exposure limits for 52 percent of chemicals identified as highest priority by the Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL) Program.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 125.
Performance Database:
There is no database. Performance is meas-
ured by the cumulative number of
chemicals with "Proposed", "Interim", and/or
"Final" AEGL values as published by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The
results are calculated on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source:
EPA manages a Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for
extremely hazardous chemicals.The sup-
porting data, from both published and
unpublished sources and from which the
AEGL values are derived, are collected,
evaluated, and summarized by FACA
Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory's scientists. Proposed
AEGL values are published for public com-
ment in the Federal Register After
reviewing public comment, interim values
are presented to the AEGL Subcommittee
of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) for review and comment. After
review and comment resolution, the
National Research Council under the aus-
pices of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) publishes the values as final.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
The work of the National Advisory
Committee's Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National
Research Council/National Academies of
Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines
for Developing Community Emergency
Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances.
NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the
National Academy of Sciences'
Subcommittee on AEGLs, has developed
standard operating procedures (SOPs),
which are followed by the program.These
have been published by the National
Academy Press and are referenced below.
The cumulative number of AEGL values
approved as "proposed" and "interim" by
the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and
"final" by the National Academy of
Sciences represents the measure of per-
formance. The work is assumed to be
completed at the time of final approval of
the AEGL values by the NAS.
QA/QC Procedures:
QA/QC procedures include public com-
ment via the Federal Register process;
review and approval by the FACA commit-
tee; and review and approval by the
NAS/AEGL committee and their external
reviewers.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
This is the first time acute exposure values
for extremely hazardous chemicals have
been established according to a standard-
ized process and put through such a
rigorous review.
References:
Standing Operating Procedures for
Developing Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001.
NRC (National Research Council). 1993.
Guidelines for Developing Community
Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Substances. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Reduce occurrence of residues on a core set of 19 foods eaten by children relative to detection levels for
those foods reported in 1994-1996.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 127.
Performance Database:
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP).The
results for this annual performance measure
(APM) are calculated on a calendar year
basis and have been reported in the fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 annual reports.
Data Source:
Data collection is conducted by the states.
Information is coordinated by USDA agen-
cies and cooperating state agencies.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The information is collected by the states
and includes statistical information on pesti-
cide use, food consumption, and residue
detections, which provide the basis for real-
istic dietary risk assessments and evaluation
of pesticide tolerance. Pesticide residue
sampling and testing procedures are man-
aged by USDA's Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS). AMS also maintains an
automated information system for pesticide
residue data and publishes annual sum-
maries of residue detections.This measure
helps provide information on the effect of
EPA's regulatory actions on children's
health via reduction of pesticide residues
on children's foods.The assumption is that
through reduction of pesticide residues on
these foods, children's exposure to pesti-
cides will be reduced; thus, the risk to their
health diminished.This measure contributes
to the Agency's goal of protecting human
health and is aligned with the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) mandate of pro-
tecting children's health.
QA/QC Procedures:
The core of USDA's PDP's QA/QC pro-
gram is Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) based on EPA's Good Laboratory
Practices. At each participating laboratory
there is a quality assurance (QA) unit which
operates independently from the rest of the
laboratory staff QA Plans are followed as
the standard procedure, with any deviations
documented extensively Final QA review is
conducted by PDP staff responsible for col-
lating and reviewing data for conformance
with SOPs. PDP staff also monitor the per-
formance of participating laboratories
through proficiency evaluation samples, qual-
ity assurance internal reviews, and on-site
visits. Additionally analytical methods have
been standardized in various areas including
analytical standards, laboratory operations,
data handling, instrumentation and QA/QC.
With the exception of California, all samples
of a commodity collected for PDP are for-
warded to a single laboratory allowing
greater consistency improved QA/QC and
reduced sample loss. Program plans may be
accessed at www.ams.usda.gov/science/
pdp/SOPs.htm.
Data Quality Review:
In addition to having extensive QA plans to
ensure reliability of the data, the PDP fol-
lows EPA's Good Laboratory Practices in
standard operating procedures. A QA com-
mittee composed of quality assurance
officers is responsible for annual review of
program SOPs and for addressing QA/QC
issues. Quality assurance units at each par-
ticipating laboratory operate independently
from the laboratory staff and are responsi-
ble for day-to-day quality assurance
oversight. Preliminary QA/QC review is
done at each participating laboratory with
final review performed by PDP staff for con-
formance with SOPs.
Data Limitations:
Participation in the PDP is voluntary
Sampling is limited to ten states but
designed in a manner to represent the food
supply nationwide.The number of sampling
sites and volume vary by state. Sampling
procedures are described at the website,
see reference below. There is a data lag of
approximately 12-15 months due to collec-
tion/reporting procedures and time required
for review and analysis of the data.
Error Estimate:
Uncertainties and other sources of error
are minor and not expected to have any
significant effect on performance assess-
ment. More information is available on the
website (See References).
References:
PDP Annual Reports, www.ams.usda.gov/
science/pdp/download.htm ;
www.ams.usda.gov/process/ ; CFR 40 Part
I 60; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
1996; www.ams.usda.gov/science/
pdp/SOPs.htm.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of incidents and mortalities to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife caused by the 15 pesticides
responsible for the greatest mortality to such wildlife.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 128.
Performance Database:
The Ecological Incident Information System
(ENS) is a national database of information
on poisoning incidents of non-target plants
and animals caused by pesticide use.The
fields used include the number of incidents
reported for each non-target plant or
animal.The data used to report is the
average for 3 years. Data are gathered on
a calendar year basis and reported on a
FY basis beginning in FY 2004.There is
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
approximately 2 year data lag. The
Environmental Fate and Effects staff for
Pesticide Programs maintain this database.
Data Source:
Data are extracted from written reports of
fish and wildlife incidents submitted to the
Agency by pesticide registrants under the
Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2), as
well as incident reports voluntarily submit-
ted by state and Federal agencies involved
in investigating such incidents.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
This measure helps to provide information
on the effect of EPA's regulatory actions on
the protection offish and wildlife from
acute toxic effects of pesticides. Incidents of
fish and wildlife mortality caused by pesti-
cides are summed annually and sums are
reported as 3-year moving averages.
Incidents related to known misuse of pesti-
cides and to pesticides not currently
registered in the United States are exclud-
ed, as are incidents for which the cause is
highly uncertain.This indicator assumes that
changes in the total number of incidents
reported to the Agency reflect changes in
the total number of incidents that are
occurring. Inherent in this is the assumption
that a consistent effort is made to investi-
gate and report incidents year after year
This indicator is suitable only if fish and
wildlife mortality incidents are investigated
and reported widely enough to provide
adequate monitoring of incidents through-
out the country and if the level of effort in
investigating and reporting incidents are
reasonably consistent over time.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA adheres to its approved Quality
Management Plan in ensuring the quality of
the data. Before entering incident data in
the database, a database program is used
to screen for records already in the data-
base with similar locations and dates.
Similar records are then individually
reviewed to prevent duplicate reporting.
After each record is entered into the ENS
database, an incident report is printed that
contains all the data entered into the data-
base. A staff member; other than the one
who entered the data, then reviews the
information in the report and compares it
to the original source report to verify data
quality. Scientists using the incident data-
base are also encouraged to report any
inaccuracies they find in the database for
correction.
Data Quality Review:
Internally and externally data quality
reviews related to data entry have been
conducted. EPA follows a quality assurance
plan for accurately extracting data from
reports and entering it into the ENS data-
base.This quality assurance plan is
described in Appendix D of the Quality
Management Plan for pesticides programs.
The American Bird Conservancy has
reviewed data in the ENS database for
records related to bird kill incidents.
Data Limitations:
This measure is designed to monitor trends
in the numbers of acute poisoning events
reported to the Agency The reporting of
incidents to the Agency is currently very
limited.Very few fish and wildlife reports
are being reported by pesticide registrants
under the FIFRA 6(a)(2) requirement.This
is because most fish and wildlife incidents
are classified as "minor" under the current
rule, and the registrants are required to
report only aggregate data for these minor
incidents.The aggregate data are inade-
quate for entering the incidents into ENS
and including them in this index because
no details are reported on individual inci-
dents, even if they are fish kills or bird kills.
In 2004, only three fish kills and one wildlife
kill were reported as "major" incidents with
adequate data to include in this index.
Incident reports voluntarily submitted from
sources other than pesticide registrants also
have been very scarce in recent years. Since
2003, only two state and regional govern-
ment agencies have reported fish kill
incidents to the Agency (the California
Department of Fish and Game and the US
Geological Survey) and only three have
reported wildlife kills (the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation, the California Department of
Fish and Game, and the Southeast
Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study). Many
states governments have informed the
Agency that budget cuts have led to inade-
quate funding to investigate and report on
fish and wildlife kills occurring in their states,
making them unable to report these inci-
dents to the EPA. Other states may not be
reporting because they are not aware that
the EPA is collecting this information. In
summary the data are currently inadequate
for monitoring national trends in incidents.
Error Estimate:
Moving average counts of number of inci-
dents per year may be interpreted as a
relative index of the frequency of acute
toxicity effects that pesticides are causing
to fish and wildlife.The indicator numbers
are subject reporting rates. If there is a
change in incidents since the baseline yean
it may be due to change in tracking/report-
ing of kills rather than change related to
the use of a pesticides. Also, despite efforts
to avoid duplicate counting of incidents, a
few incidents likely have duplicate records
in the ENS database. A quality assurance
review of bird kill incidents completed by
the American Bird Conservancy in 2005
found five incidents with duplicate records,
which will be corrected.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The EPA is currently conducting a project
with the American Bird Conservancy to
improve the quality and quantity of data on
bird kill caused by pesticides.This project
should eventually result in additional
reports of bird kill incidents being submit-
ted to the Agency, but to date no
additional incident reports have been
obtained. The Environmental Fate and
Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide
Programs has begun a process to obtain an
Information Collection Request (ICR) per-
mit, which would allow soliciting state
agencies for voluntary submittal of any inci-
dent reports that they produce.
References:
The Ecological Incident Information System
(ENS) is an internal EPA database. Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), Section 6(a)(2).
QMP: Quality Management Plan for the
Office of Pesticides Program, May 20, 2000;
Endangered Species Act.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of risk management plan audits completed.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 128.
Data Source:
EPA's Regional offices and the states pro-
vide the data to EPA headquarters.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Data are collected and analyzed by survey-
ing EPA's Regional offices to determine
how many audits of facilities' risk manage-
ment plans (RMPs) have been completed.
QA/QC Procedures:
Data are collected from states by EPA's
Regional offices, with review at the
Regional and Headquarters' levels.
Data Quality Review:
Data quality is evaluated by both Regional
and Headquarters' personnel.
Data Limitations:
Data quality is dependent on completeness
and accuracy of the data provided by state
programs.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage increase ofTRI chemical forms submitted over the Internet using the Toxic Release Inventory
Made Easy (TRI-ME) and the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 125.
Performance Database:
TRI System (TRIS).
Data Source:
Facility submissions ofTRI data to EPA.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
As part of the regular process of opening
the mail at the TRI Reporting Center; sub-
missions are immediately classified as paper
or floppy disk.This information is then
entered intoTRIS.The identification of an
electronic submission via CDX is done
automatically by the software.
QA/QC Procedures:
Currently the mail room determines
whether a submission is on paper or a
floppy disk during the normal process of
entering and tracking submissions.
Electronic submissions via CDX are auto-
matically tracked by the software. With an
increase in electronic reporting via CDX,
the manual mail room processing will be
significantly reduced. Information received
via hard copy are double-key entered.
During the facility reconciliation process,
the data entered are checked to ensure
"submission-type" identification is accom-
plished at no less than 99 % accuracy
Accuracy is defined as accurate identifica-
tion of document type.
Data Quality Reviews:
Each month the Data Processing Center
conducts data quality checks to ensure 99
% accuracy of submission information cap-
tured in TRIS.
Data Limitations:
Occasionally, some facilities send in their
forms in duplicative formats (e.g., paper;
floppy and/or through CDX). All submis-
sions are entered intoTRIS.The Data
Processing Center follows the procedures
outlined in the document "Dupe Check
Procedures" to identify potential duplicate
submissions. Submissions through CDX
override duplicate submissions by disk
and/or hard copy Floppy disk submissions
override duplicate paper copy submissions.
Error Estimate:
The error rate for "submission-type" data
capture has been assessed to be less than
l%.The quality of the data is high.
New/Improved Performance Data or
Systems:
EPA continues to identify enhancements in
E-reporting capabilities via CDX.
References:
www.epa.gov/cdx/
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 4, Objective 2
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Number of Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Number of acres of Brownfields property available for reuse.
Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Percentage of Brownfields job training trainees placed.
Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 130.
Performance Database:
The Brownfields Management System
(BMS) contains the performance informa-
tion identified in the above measures. Key
fields related to performance measures
include: Properties with Assessment
Completed with Pilot/Grant Funding;
Properties assessed with Targeted
Brownfields Assessment Funding; Properties
with Cleanup Complete; Acres Made Ready
for Reuse; Cleanup/Redevelopment Jobs
Leveraged; Assessment/Cleanup/
Redevelopment Dollars Leveraged; Number
of Participants Completing Train ing; Number
of Participants Obtaining Employment.
Data Source:
Data are extracted from quarterly reports
and property profile forms prepared by
assessment, cleanup, revolving loan fund
(RLF),job training, and State and Tribal 128
Voluntary Response Program cooperative
agreement award recipients. Information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments is col-
lected from EPA Regions.
Methods,Assumptions and Sustainability:
Cooperative agreement award recipients
submit reports quarterly on project
progress to EPA. Data used to track per-
formance measures are extracted from
quarterly reports and property profile
forms by an EPA contractor Data are then
forwarded to Regional Pilot managers for
review and finalization. Given the reporting
cycle and the data entry/QA period, there is
typically a six month data lag for BMS data.
Note that accomplishments reported by
Brownfields Assessment Grantees,
Brownfields Cleanup Grantees, Brownfields
Revolving Loan Fund Grantees, Brownfields
Job Training Grantees, Regional Targeted
Brownfields Assessments, and State and
Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program
Grantees all contribute towards these per-
formance measures. "Number of Brownfields
properties assessed" is an aggregate of
assessments completed with Assessment
Grant funding, Regional Targeted Brownfields
Assessment funding, and State and Tribal
128 Voluntary Response Program funding.
Number of Brownfields properties cleaned
up is an aggregate of properties cleaned up
by RLF Grantees, Cleanup Grantees, and
State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response
Program Grantees. "Number of Acres Made
Ready for Reuse" is an aggregate of acreage
assessed that does not require cleanup and
acreage cleaned up as reported by
Assessment Grantees, Regional Targeted
Brownfields Assessments, Cleanup Grantees,
RLF Grantees, and State and Tribal 128
Voluntary Response Program Grantees.
"Number of cleanup and redevelopment
jobs leveraged" is the aggregate of jobs
leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup and RLF
Grantees. "Amount of cleanup and redevel-
opment funds leveraged at Brownfields
properties" is the aggregate of funds lever-
aged by Assessment, Cleanup and RLF
Grantees. "Percentage of Brownfields job
training trainees placed" is based on the
"Number of Participants Completing
Training" and the "Number of Participants
Obtaining Employment" reported by Job
Training Grantees.
QA/QC Procedures:
Data reported by cooperative award
agreement recipients are reviewed by EPA
Regional pilot managers for accuracy and
to ensure appropriate interpretation of key
measure definitions. Reports are produced
monthly with detailed data trends analysis.
Data Limitations:
All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The Brownfields Program developed the
'Property Profile1 and 'JobTraining Profile'
reporting forms to be used by Assessment,
Cleanup, RLF, and Job Training Grantees
awarded under the Brownfields Law. These
forms, approved by OMB, allow EPA to
collect standardized data and will improve
data quality and reliability The BMS data-
base has been updated to track and store
the data reported in these forms.The
Program is in the process of amending the
OMB ICR to gather information from State
and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program
grantees. In the interim, EPA is collecting
the data from Quarterly Reports.
References:
For more information on the Brownfields
program, see Reusing Land and Restoring
Hope: A Report to Stakeholders from the US
EPA Brownfields Program (www.epa.gov/
brownfields/news/stake_report.htm); assess-
ment demonstration pilots and grants
(www.epa.gov/brownfields/
assessment_grants.htm); cleanup and
revolving loan fund pilots and grants
(www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm);
job training pilots and grants
(www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm); and
cleanup grants (www.epa.gov/brownfields/
cleanup_grants.htm).
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of people in Mexico border area protected from health risks because of adequate water and
wastewater sanitation systems funded through border environmental infrastructure funding (cumulative).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 132.
Performance Database:
No formal EPA database. Performance is
tracked and reported quarterly by Border
Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) and North American Development
Bank (NADBank). Data field is population
-served by potable water and wastewater
collection and treatment systems.
Data Source:
U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S.
Census (U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC,
1990). Mexican population figures from the
Mexican Institute National de Estadistica,
Geografia y Informatica, Aguascalientes, Total
Population by State (1990)); Data on U.S.
and Mexican populations served by certi-
fied water/wastewater treatment systems
from the BECC; Data on projects funded
from the NADBank.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Summation of population from BECC and
NADBank. U.S. Census data are assumed
to be correct and suitable.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA Headquarters is responsible for evalu-
ation of reports from BECC and NADBank
on drinking water and wastewater sanita-
tion projects. Regional representatives
attend meetings of the certifying and
financing entities for border projects
(BECC and NADBank) and conduct site
visits of projects underway to ensure the
accuracy of information reported (Border
Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North
American Development Bank (NADBank),
(San Antonio,TX, 2002)).
Data Quality Review:
Regional representatives attend meetings of
the certifying and financing entities for bor-
der projects (BECC and NADBank) and
conduct site visits of projects underway to
ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Error Estimate:
Same as census data.
References:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1990). Institute]
National de Estadistica, Geografia y
Informatica,Aguascalientes,Total Population
by State (1990)
Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and
North American Development Bank
(NADBank), (San Antonio,TX, 2002).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of environmental reviews initiated by Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) countries following
the enactment of the 2002 Trade Promotion Act (TPA).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 133.
Data Source:
Project /Trade Agreement Specific. One
key source is the Organization of American
States' Inter-American Forum on
Environmental Law, which is helping a num-
ber of countries in the western
hemisphere to assess the environmental
effects of trade liberalization.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The decision by a developing country to
conduct an environmental review of trade
liberalization shows movement that environ-
mental considerations are not an obstacle
to the economic growth such countries
seek through trade liberalization. In turn, the
initiation of the review reflects increased
willingness on the part of the government
of that country to be more open with and
accountable to its public. Overarching
reviews will lead to project-specific environ-
mental assessments and greater public
engagement in environmental decision-mak-
ing, both of which will gradually produce
improved environmental performance.
QA/QC Procedures:
Verification does not involve any pollutant
database analysis, but will require objective
assessment of (I) tasks completed, and (2)
progress toward project goals and objectives.
Tracking development and implementation
of these projects presents few challenges
because EPA project staff and other USG
officials maintain close contact with their
counterparts. Normally any changes
become part of a public record. EPA and
other USG officials can assess the manner
in which these countries conduct reviews.
Assessing the effectiveness of these reviews
is more subjective. Aside from feedback
from Agency project staff, EPA relies, in
part, on feedback from its contacts in the
target trading partner countries and
regions and from non-governmental organ-
izations (NGOs) and other third parties.
Because EPA works to establish long-term
relationships with its contacts, the Agency is
often able to assess environmental
improvements in these countries and
regions for a number of years following
implementation of the trade agreement
and/or completion of the environmental
review of trade liberalization.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Limitations:
There can be considerable variability
between the reviews conducted to date by
different countries in the Americas.The
variability is shown by different levels of
quality and rigor in the reviews, time lags
between the initiation and completion of
these reviews, and time lags and uncertain
linkages between such broad reviews of
trade liberalization overall and the assess-
ments of specific projects. Moreover; the
environmental assessments of specific proj-
ects vary in quality and rigor as well and do
not always lead to improved environmental
decision-making.
Error Estimate:
None. EPA and other key players such as
United States Trade Representative (USTR)
and the State Department consult with
their counterparts in trading partner coun-
tries and are in a position to assess the
manner in which these countries undertake
environmental reviews.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
In FY 2007 EPA will complete and make
available to interested developing countries
a new training course on how to conduct
environmental reviews of free trade agree-
ments. Those countries that participate in
this training will be better able to conduct
meaningful reviews on their own. We
would expect to see increased quality and
rigor of upcoming reviews.Thus, we will
monitor for future reviews from those
countries that participate in this new train-
ing course.
References:
Organization of American States:
www.oas.org/usde/fida/
Goal 4, Objective 3
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Acres of habitat restored and protected nationwide as part of the National Estuary Program (NEP).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 134.
Performance Database:
The Office ofWetlands Oceans and
Watersheds has developed a standardized
format for data reporting and compilation,
defining habitat protection and restoration
activities and specifying habitat categories.
The key field used to calculate annual per-
formance is habitat acreage. Annual results
have been reported since 2001 for the NEP
(results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Information regarding habitat protection is
accessible on a web page that highlights
habitat loss/alteration, as well as the num-
ber of acres protected and restored by
habitat type www.epa.gov/owow/estuar-
ies/pivot/overview/intro.htm.This allows
EPA to provide a visual means of commu-
nicating NEP performance and habitat
protection and restoration progress to a
wide range of stakeholders and decision-
makers.
Data Source:
NEP documents such as annual work plans
(which contain achievements made in the
previous year), annual progress reports and
other implementation tracking materials,
are used to document the number of acres
of habitat restored and protected. EPA
aggregates the data provided by each NEP
to arrive at a national total for the entire
Program. EPA is confident that the data
presented are as accurate as possible Each
NEP reviews the information prior to
reporting to EPA. In addition, EPA conducts
regular reviews of NEP implementation to
help ensure that information provided in
these documents is accurate, and progress
reported is in fact being achieved.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
Measuring the number of acres of habitat
restored and protected may not directly
correlate to improvements in the health of
the habitat reported, or of the estuary
overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-
the-ground progress. Habitat acreage does
not necessarily correspond one-to-one
with habitat quality, nor does habitat (quan-
tity or quality) represent the only indicator
of ecosystem health. Nevertheless, habitat
acreage serves as an important surrogate
and a measure of on-the-ground progress
made toward EPA's annual performance
goal of habitat protection and restoration
in the NER EPA has defined and provided
examples of "protection" and "restoration"
activities for purposes of measure tracking
and reporting (see citation for the PIVOT
website in references below.) "Restored
and protected" is a general term used to
describe a range of activities.The term is
interpreted broadly to include created
areas, protected areas resulting from acqui-
sition, conservation easement or deed
restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation
coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed
openings, and anadromous fish habitat
increases.
QA/QC Procedures:
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 requested to follow EPA
guidance to prepare their reports, and to
verify the numbers. EPA then confirms that
the national total accurately reflects the
information submitted by each program.
The Office of Water Quality Management
Plan (QMP), renewed every 5 years, was
approved in July 2001. EPA requires that
each organization prepare a document
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
called a Quality Management Plan (QMP)
that documents the organization's data
quality policy, which addresses the quality
generation and use of the organization's
data and identifies the environmental pro-
grams to which the quality system applies
(e.g., programs that rely on the collection
or use of environmental data.)
Data Quality Review:
No audits or quality reviews conducted
yet.
Data Limitations:
It is still early to determine the full extent
of data limitations. Current data limitations
include: information that may be reported
inconsistently (based on different interpre-
tations of the protection and restoration
definitions), acreage that may be miscalcu-
lated 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, measuring the number
of acres of habitat restored and protected
may not directly correlate to improve-
ments in the health of the habitat reported
(particularly in the year of reporting), but is
rather a measure of on-the-ground
progress made by the NEPs.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
In 2004, NEP provided latitude and longi-
tude data (where possible) for each
project. These data are then mapped to
highlight where these projects are located
in each NEP study area. Not only does this
assist both the individual NEP and EPA in
obtaining a sense of geographic project
coverage, but it provides a basis from
which to begin exploring cases where
acreage may be double-counted by differ-
ent agencies. An on-line reporting system is
also being developed for the NEPs' use
that will assist in tracking habitat projects,
and will help reduce EPA's QA/QC time.
Currently this system is scheduled to be in
place by September 2005.
References:
Aggregate national and regional data for
this measurement, as well as data submit-
ted by the individual National Estuary
Programs, is displayed numerically, graphi-
cally and by habitat type in the
Performance Indicators Visualization and
Outreach Tool (PIVOT). PIVOT data are
publicly available at www.epa.gov/owow/
estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Working with partners, achieve an increase of wetlands with additional focus on biological and
functional measures.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 135.
Performance Database:
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces
information on the characteristics, extent,
and status of the Nation's wetlands and
deepwater habitats.This information is used
by Federal, State, and local agencies, aca-
demic institutions, U.S. Congress, and the
private sector The Emergency Wetland
Resources Act of 1986 directs the Service
to map the wetlands of the United States.
The NWI has mapped 89 percent of the
lower 48 states, and 3 I percent of Alaska.
The Act also requires the Service to pro-
duce a digital wetlands database for the
United States. About 42 percent of the
lower 48 states and I I percent of Alaska
are digitized. Congressional mandates
require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
produce a status and trends reports to
Congress at 10-year intervals.
The status and trends report is designed to
provide recent and comprehensive esti-
mates of the abundance of wetlands in the
48 conterminous States.This status and
trends report indicates whether there is an
actual increase in wetland acreage or if
wetlands are continuing to decrease. Up-
to-date status and trends information is
needed to periodically evaluate the efficacy
of existing Federal programs and policies,
identify national or regional wetland issues,
and increase public awareness of and
appreciation for wetlands.
The last status and trends report15 provid-
ed the most recent and comprehensive
estimates of the current gains and losses
for different types of wetlands in the
United States on public and private lands
from calendar year 1986 to 1997. In calen-
dar year 1997, there were an estimated
105.5 million acres of wetlands in the con-
terminous United States. Of this total,
100.5 million acres (95 percent) are fresh-
water wetlands and 5 million acres (5
percent) are saltwater wetlands.
The President directed in his Earth Day
2004 announcement that the next
National Wetlands Inventory update, status
and trends report, should be completed by
the end of 2005, 5 years ahead of the cur-
rent schedule, and asked that the updates
be done more frequently thereafter This
new information will enhance Federal,
State,Tribal, local government programs'
policies and decision making.
Data Source:
The National Status and Trends Report is
developed and published by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.This is the only
Federal study that provides statistically valid
estimates with a published standard error
for all wetlands in the conterminous United
States. Aerial imagery is the primary data
source, and it is used with reliable collateral
data such as topographic maps, coastal nav-
igation charts, published soil surveys,
published wetland maps, and State, local or
regional studies. A random number of sites
are also field verified. All photography is
cataloged, numbered, tagged, and traced in
a database management system.
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted
and annotated in accordance with proce-
dures published by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.The results are compared with
previous era imagery and any changes
recorded.The differences between the data
sets are analyzed and a statistical estimate
of the change is produced.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The five major kinds of wetlands are: I)
freshwater (or palustrine), T) saltwater (or
estuarine), 3) riverine, 4) lacustrine (or
lakes and other deepwater habitats), and 5)
marine wetlands. For analysis and reporting
purposes, these types of wetlands were
further divided into subcategories such as
freshwater forested wetland, freshwater
emergent wetland, estuarine and marine
intertidal wetlands.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
An interagency group of statisticians devel-
oped the design for the national status and
trends study The study was based on a sci-
entific probability sample of the surface
area of the 48 coterminous States.The
area sampled was about 1.93 billion acres
and the sampling did not discriminate
based on land ownership.The study used a
stratified, simple random sampling design.
About 754,000 possible sample plots com-
prised the total population. Geographic
information system software was used to
organize the information of about 4,375
random sample plots.The plots were
examined with the use of remote sensed
data in combination with field work.
Estimates of change in wetlands were
made over a specific time period.
QA/QC Procedures:
The Service has developed and implement-
ed quality assurance measures that provide
appropriate methods to take field measure-
ments, ensure sample integrity and provide
oversight of analyses, which includes
reporting of procedural and statistical con-
fidence levels. The objective was to
produce comprehensive, statistically valid
acreage estimate of the Nation's wetlands.
Because of the sample-based approach,
various quality control and quality assur-
ance measures were built into the data
collection, review, analysis, and reporting
stages.This includes field verification of the
plots. Six Federal agencies assist with field
verification work.
Data Limitations:
Certain habitats were excluded because of
the limitations of aerial imagery as the pri-
mary data source to detect wetlands.This
was consistent with previous wetland status
and trends studies conducted by FWS.
Error Estimate:
Estimated procedural error ranged from 4
to 6 percent of the true values when all
quality assurance measures have been
completed. Procedural error was related to
the ability to accurately recognize and clas-
sify wetlands both from multiple sources of
imagery and on the ground evaluations.
Types of procedural errors were missed
wetlands, inclusion of upland as wetland,
misclassification of wetlands, or misinterpre-
tation of data collection protocols.The
amount of procedural error is usually a
function of the quality of the data collec-
tion conventions; the number; variability
training and experience of data collection
personnel; and the rigor of any quality con-
trol or quality assurance measures.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Advances in computerized cartography
were used to improve data quality and
geospatial integrity Newer technology
allowed the generation of existing digital
plot files at any scale to overlay directly
over an image base.
References:
wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs_Reports/publi.htm
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Annually, in partnership with the Corps of Engineers and states, achieve no net loss of wetlands in the
Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 135.
Performance Database:
Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water
Act Section 404 program has been no net
loss of wetlands.
Historically the Corps has collected limited
data on wetlands losses and gains in its
Regulatory Analysis and Management
System (RAMS) permit tracking database.
The Corps has compiled national Section
404 wetland permitting data for the last 10
years reflecting acres of wetland impacts
avoided (through the permit process), acres
permitted for impacts, and acres mitigated.
However; limitations in methods used for
data collection, reporting and analysis
resulted in difficulties in drawing reliable
conclusions regarding the effects of the
Section 404 program.
Data Source:
Data included in RAMS is generally collect-
ed by private consultants hired by permit
applicants or Corps Regulatory Staff. Data
input is generally done by Corps staff.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
RAMS was designed to be an administra-
tive aid in tracking permits, thus it lacks
many of the fields necessary to adequately
track important information regarding wet-
land losses and gains. Also, the database
was modified differently for each of the 38
Corps Districts making national summaries
difficult. Furthermore, the database is also
proprietary making it difficult to retrofit
without utilizing its original developers.
QA/QC Procedures:
Historically there has not been a high level
of QA/QC with regard to data input into
RAMS. Its antiquated format and numerous
administrative fields discourage use. Lack of
standard terms and classification also make
all aspects of data entry problematic.
Data Quality Reviews:
Independent evaluations published in 2001
by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) and the General Accounting Office
(GAO) provided a critical evaluation of the
effectiveness of wetlands compensatory
mitigation (the restoration, creation, or
enhancement of wetlands to compensate
for permitted wetland losses) for author-
ized losses of wetlands and other waters
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
The NAS determined that available data
was insufficient to determine whether or
not the Section 404 program was meeting
its goal of no net loss of either wetland
area or function.The NAS added that avail-
able data suggested that the program was
not meeting its no net loss goal. Among its
suite of recommendations, the NAS noted
that wetland area and function lost and
regained overtime should be tracked in a
national database and that the Corps
should expand and improve quality assur-
ance measures for data entry
In response to the NAS, GAO, and other
recent critiques of the effectiveness of wet-
lands compensatory mitigation, EPA and
the Corps in conjunction with the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Interior; and Transportation released the
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan
on December 26, 2002.The Plan includes
17 tasks that the agencies will complete in
FY 07 to improve the ecological perform-
ance and results of compensatory
mitigation. (Note: some Mitigation Action
Plan items may be subsumed by the Corps'
mitigation rulemaking expected to be final-
ized in calendar year 2006.)
Data Limitations:
As previously noted, RAMS currently pro-
vides the only national data on wetlands
losses and gains in the Section 404
Program. Also, as previously noted, there
are a number of concerns regarding the
conclusions that can be drawn from these
numbers. Data quality issues include:
• Inability to separate restoration, cre-
ation, enhancement and preservation
acreage from the aggregate "mitigation"
acreage reported;
• Lack of data regarding how much des-
ignated mitigation acreage was actually
undertaken, and how much of that
total was successful;
• Lack of data regarding how much of
the permitted impacts actually
occurred; and
• Limitations on identifying acres "avoid-
ed," because the figure is only based on
the difference between original pro-
posed impacts and impacts authorized.
Often, permit applicants who are aware
of the 404 program's requirements to
avoid and minimize impacts to wet-
lands, make initial site selection and site
design decisions that minimize wetland
impacts prior to submitting a permit
application. Such avoidance decisions
benefit applicants, as their applications
are more likely to be accepted and
processed with minor changes.This
behavioral influence that the program
engenders is difficult to capture and
quantify but contributes considerable
undocumented "avoided" impacts.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The EPA and the Corps have acknowl-
edged the need for improved 404 tracking.
The Corps is currently piloting a new
national permit tracking database called
ORM to replace its existing database
(RAMS). As part of the MAP the Corps is
working with EPA and the other Federal
agencies and states to ensure that the ver-
sion of ORM that is ultimately deployed
will adequately track wetlands gains and
losses. ORM is being designed to provide
improved tracking regarding:
• Type of impacts
• Type and quantity of habitat impacted
(Using Hydrogeomorphic and
Cowardin classification systems)
• Type and quantity of habitat mitigated
(Using Hydrogeomorphic and
Cowardin classification systems)
• Type and quantity of mitigation
(restoration, creation, enhancement, or
preservation)
• Differentiating stream mitigation (in lin-
ear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in
acres)
• Spacial tracking via CIS for both impact
and mitigation sites (planned)
• Functional losses (debits) at the impact
site and functional gains at the mitiga-
tion site (credits) if assessment tool is
available and applied
References:
www.mitigationactionplan.gov/
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great
Lakes is improved.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 136.
Performance Database:
USEPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO) will collect and track the
eight (8) components of the index and
publish the performance results as part of
annual reporting under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and
as online reporting of GLNPO's monitor-
ing program,
epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/index.html.
Extensive databases for the indicator com-
ponents are maintained by GLNPO
(phosphorus concentrations, contaminated
sediments, benthic health, fish tissue con-
tamination), by binational agreement with
Environment Canada (air toxics deposi-
tion), and by local authorities who provide
data to the USEPA (drinking water quality,
beach closures). A binational team of scien-
tists and natural resource managers is
working to establish a long term monitor-
ing program to determine extent and
quality of coastal wetlands.
Data Source:
Data for the index components are tracked
internally and reported through the State
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC) process. The document, "State of
the Great Lakes 2005 -ATechnical Report,"
presents detailed indicator reports pre-
pared by primary authors, including listings
of data sources. Depending on the indica-
tors, data sources may include U.S. and
Canadian federal agencies, state and provin-
cial agencies, municipalities, research reports
and published scientific literature.
Information from the following indicators is
used to evaluate the Index components:
Coastal Wetlands group of indicators:
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Health; Coastal Wetland Fish Community
Health; Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity
and Abundance; Coastal Wetland Area by
Type; Coastal Wetland Plant Community
Health; Effects of Water Levels Fluctuations.
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings;
Concentrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores; Benthic Health group of
indicators: Hexagenia; Abundances of the
Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.; Contam-
inants in Sport Fish; Beach Advisories,
Postings and Closures; Drinking Water
Quality; Atmospheric Deposition ofToxic
Chemicals.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
The Index is based on a 40 point scale
where the rating uses select Great Lakes
State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators
(i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concen-
trations, Area of Concern (AOC) sediment
contamination, benthic health, fish tissue
contamination, beach closures, drinking
water quality and air toxics deposition).
Each component of the Index is based on
a I to 5 rating system, where I is poor and
5 is good. Authors of SO EEC indicator
reports use best professional judgment to
assess the overall status of the ecosystem
component in relation to established end-
points or ecosystem objectives, when
available. Each indicator is evaluated for
Status (good, fain poor; mixed) and Trend
(improving, unchanging, deteriorating, unde-
termined).To calculate the Index, the data
for each indicator are compared to the
evaluation criteria for the numeric, I to 5,
rating system. Each of the index compo-
nents is included in the broader suite of
Great Lakes indicators, which was devel-
oped through an extensive multi-agency
process to satisfy the overall criteria of
necessary sufficient and feasible.
Information on the selection process is in
the document, "Selection of Indicators for
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health,
Version 4."
QA/QC Procedures:
GLNPO has an approved Quality
Management System in place1 (see refer-
ence # I below) that conforms to the
USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 3 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.
The SOLEC process relies on secondary
use of data, i.e., data for many of the indica-
tors are collected, maintained and analyzed
by agencies and organizations other than
USEPA. Participating agencies and organiza-
tions follow their own QA/QC procedures
to assure high quality data. A Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was devel-
oped to document procedures for data
assessment and review for the indicators
reports prepared for the State of the
Great Lakes 2005 report. See "State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP".
Data Quality Review:
GLNPO's Quality Management System has
been given "outstanding" evaluations in pre-
vious peer and management reviews2 (see
reference #2 below). GLNPO has imple-
mented all recommendations from these
external audits and complies with Agency
Quality standards.
An external Peer Review of SOLEC
processes and products was conducted in
2003 by an international panel of experts
familiar with large-scale regional or national
indicator and reporting systems. Panel find-
ings were generally positive and several
recommendations were made to consider
for future SOLEC events and reports. Many
of the recommendations have been imple-
mented, and others are being considered
for feasibility The final report by the review
panel is available online at epa.gov/
glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review
Report" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
A second review of the suite of Great
Lakes indicators was conducted by Great
Lakes stakeholders in 2004. As a direct
result of the findings and recommendations
from the participants, several indicators
were revised, combined or dropped, and a
few others were added.The indicators
were also regrouped to allow the user to
more easily identify the indicators relevant
to particular ecosystem components or
environmental issues.The final report from
the review is available online at
epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer
Review Report, Part 2: Stakeholder Review
of the Great Lakes Indicators" in the
SOLEC 2004 section.
Data Limitations:
Data limitations vary among the indicator
components of the Index.The data are
especially good for phosphorus concentra-
tions, fish tissue contamination, benthic
health, and air toxics deposition.The data
associated with other components of the
index (coastal wetlands, AOC sediment
contamination, beach closures, and drinking
water quality) are more qualitative. Some
data are distributed among several sources,
and without an extensive trend line.
Limitations for each of the index compo-
nents are included in the formal indicator
descriptions in the document, "Selection of
Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health, Version 4."
Error Estimate:
Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index
have not been quantified. Each unit of the
40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total,
so any unit change in the assessment of one
of the component indicators would result in
a change of the index of that magnitude.
The degree of environmental change
required to affect an indicator assessment,
however; may be significantly large.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The data system specifically for this index is
being developed. Data continue to be col-
lected through the SOLEC process by
various agencies, including GLNPO. Efforts
are currently in progress to integrate vari-
ous Great Lakes monitoring programs to
better meet SOLEC objectives and to
increase efficiencies in data collection and
reporting.
References:
• "Quality Management Plan for the
Great Lakes National Program Office."
EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
• "GLNPO Management Systems Review of
1999." Unpublished—in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
• "State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 2004 QAPP' Unpublished.
Prepared as part of Cooperative
Agreement between USEPA and
Environment Canada.
• Canada and the United States. "State of
the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-
34798-6, Environment Canada,
Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-
I I/35-2003E, and U.S.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003.
Available on CD and online at
vwvw.binational.net.
6. Canada and the United States.
"Implementing Indicators 2003—A
Technical Report." ISBN 0-662-34797-8
(CD-Rom), Environment Canada,
Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En 164-
I/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003. 2003.
Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago.
Available online at
epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html
Canada and the United States. "State of
the Great Lakes 2005—Draft."
Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Chicago, 2004.
Available online at
Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt.
"Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."
Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario, and U.S. EPA, Chicago. 2000.
Available online at www.binational.net.
All SOLEC documents, background reports,
indicator reports, indicator development
processes, conference agenda, proceedings
and presentations are available online at
epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.htmlThe docu-
ments are sorted by SOLEC year and
include the State of the Great Lakes
reports which are released the following
calendar year
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
The average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples will decline.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 136.
Performance Database:
Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) Great Lakes Fish Monitoring
Program (GLFMP) I (see reference #1
below).This program is broken into two
separate elements, Element I —Open
WaterTrend Monitoring and Element 2—
Game Fish Fillet Monitoring. Each program
collects and monitors contaminants in
Great Lakes fish at alternating locations
throughout the Great Lakes Basin; fish are
collected at one set of sites during even
years and at another set in odd years.
Element I began with the collection of
data in Lake Michigan in 1972 and the
additional lakes were added in 1976.
Element 2 began with the collection of
data in all five of the Great Lakes in the
early 1980 s. In FY06, the database will con-
tain QA/QC data from fish collected in
2004. Data are reported on a calendar
year basis and are specific to the even or
odd year sampling schedule (even year
sites are only compared to other even year
sites etc.)
Data Source:
GLNPO is the principal source of data for
the Great Lakes Fish monitoring program.
The Great Lakes States and Tribes assist
with fish collection. Previous cooperating
organizations include the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
This indicator provides concentrations of
selected organic contaminants in Great
Lakes open water fish.The Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program is broken into two
separate elements that monitor potential
exposure to contaminant concentrations
for wildlife (Element I) and humans
through consumption (Element 2). Only
Element I is included in this indicator as it
is the only portion of the program that can
be used to determine trends.
The first element, Open Lakes Trend
Monitoring Program, was created to: (I)
determine time trends in contaminant con-
centrations, (2) assess impacts of
contaminants on the fishery using fish as
biomonitors, and (3) assess potential risk
to the wildlife that consume contaminated
fish.The first element includes data from
ten 600-700 mm lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush) whole fish composites (5 fish in
each composite) from each of the lakes.
Since sufficient lake trout are not found in
Lake Erie, data for 450 - 550 mm walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) are used for
that Lake.
All GLFMP data are quality-controlled and
then loaded into the Great Lakes
Environmental Database (GLENDA).
Included in GLENDA are flags for each
data point that can be used to evaluate the
usability of the data. Since concentrations
can vary from year to year due to differ-
ences in site (food web etc.), comparing
concentrations from one year to the next
is not appropriate.This performance meas-
ure examines the average percent decline
for the long-term trend using an exponen-
tial decrease function. Each year the
appropriate average percent decline is cal-
culated after adding new data. A baseline
percent decrease was determined using
data through 2000 or 1999, and the aim is
that this rate of decrease will continue.
QA/QC Procedures:
GLNPO has an approved Quality
Management System in place2 (see refer-
ence #2 below), that conforms to the
USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 3 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.The
Quality Assurance (QA) plan that supports
the analytical portion of the fish contami-
nant program is approved and available
online3 (see reference #3 below).The draft
field sampling Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) is being revised and will be
submitted to the GLNPO QA Officer for
review upon the completion of the Quality
Management Plan.
Data Quality Review:
GLNPO's Quality Management System has
been evaluated as "outstanding" in previous
peer and management reviews4 (see refer-
ence #4 below). GLNPO has implemented
all recommendations from these external
audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Data Limitations:
The top predator fish (lake trout) program
is not well-suited to portray localized
changes. Nevertheless, data collected at a
certain site (odd year or even year sites)
can be compared to data collected from
the same site. In addition, only very general
comparisons can be made of contaminant
concentrations between lakes.
Error Estimate:
The data quality objective of the fish con-
taminant program was to detect a 20%
change in each measured contaminant con-
centration between two consecutively
sampled periods at each site. Based on
changing environmental conditions, the data
quality objective has been revised to detect
trends in concentration of 0.1 mg/kg/year
based on three consecutive sampling peri-
ods (6 years, as sites are sampled every
other year) for a specific site, with a power
of 80% or greater The program was
designed to reach that goal with 95% confi-
dence.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The GLENDA database is a significant new
system with enhanced capabilities. Existing
and future fish data will be added to
GLENDA.
References:
• The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring
Program—A technical and Scientific
Model For Interstate Environmental
Monitoring." September; 1990.
EPA503/4-90-004.
• "Quality Management Plan for the
Great Lakes National Program Office."
EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/
• "Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program—
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample
Collection Activities", Great Lakes
National Program Office, www.epa.gov/
glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/
GLFMP_QAPP_082504.pdf
• "GLNPO Management Systems Review of
1999." Unpublished—in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
• "Trends in Great Lakes Fish
Contaminants", Dr. Deborah
Swackhammer, Univ of Minnesota
Environ. Occ. Health, School of Public
Health, EPA Grant #GL9752420l-2,
7/l/02.DeVault, D. S. 1984.
Contaminant analysis offish from Great
Lakes harbors and tributary mouths.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office.
USEPA 905/3-84-003,
www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxi-
cs/GLFMP%20QAPP%20v7.pdf
De Vault, D. S., R Bertram, D. M. Whittle
and S. Rang. 1995.Toxic contaminants in
the Great Lakes. State of the Great
Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC).
Chicago and Toronto, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Great
Lakes National Program Office and
Environment Canada.
De Vault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, RW
Rodgers andTJ. Feist. 1996.
Contaminant trends in lake trout and
walleye from the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research
22: 884-895.
De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar 1983.
Contaminant analysis of 1981 fall run
coho salmon. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office. EPA 905/3-
83-001.
De Vault, D. S. and J. A. Weishaar 1984.
Contaminant analysis of 1982 fall run
coho salmon. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office. EPA 905/3-
85-004.
De Vault, D. S.,J. A. Weishaar; J. M. Clark
and G. Lavhis. 1988. Contaminants and
trends in fall run coho salmon. Journal
of Great Lakes Research 14: 23-33.
De Vault, D. S., W A. Willford, R.
Hesselberg, E. Nortrupt and E.
Rundberg. 1985. Contaminant trends in
lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from
the upper Great Lakes. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 15: 349-356.
De Vault, D. S.,W A. Willford, RJ.
Hesselberg and DA. Nortrupt. 1986.
Contaminant trends in lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) from the upper
Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 15: 349-
356.
Eby LA., C.A. Stow, R.J. Hesselberg
and J. F. Kitchell. 1997. Modeling changes
in growth and diet on polychlorinated
biphenyl bioaccumulation in
"Coregonus hoyi". Ecological
Applications 7(3): 981-990.
GiesyJ. R, et al. 1995. Contaminants in
fishes from Great Lakes influenced sec-
tions and above dams of three
Michigan rivers: III. Implications for
health of bald eagles. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 29: 309-321.
GiesyJ. R,J. R Ludwig and D. E.Tillett.
1994. Deformities in birds of the Great
Lakes region: assigning causality.
Environmental Science and Technology
28(3): 128A-1 35A
GiesyJ. R, et al. 1994. Contaminants in
fishes from Great Lakes-influenced sec-
tions and above dams of three
Michigan rivers. II: Implications for
health of mink. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 27: 21 3-223.
Glassmeyer; S.T, D. S. DeVault,T R.
Myers and R. A. Hites. !997.Toxaphene
in Great Lakes fish: a temporal, spatial,
and trophic study. Environmental
Science and Technology 31: 84-88.
Glassmeyer; S.T, K. E. Shanks and R. A.
Hites. 1999. Automated toxaphene
quantitation by GC/MS. Analytical
Chemistry in press.
GLNPO. 1981. A Strategy for Fish
Contaminant Monitoring in the Great
Lakes. USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office.
JeremiasonJ. D, K. C. Hornbuckle and
S.J. Eisenreich. 1994. PCBs in Lake
Superior; 1978-1992: decreases in
water concentrations reflect loss by
volatilization. Environmental Science
and Technology 28(5): 903-9 14.
KubiakTJ., Harris, H.J., Smith, L. M.,
Schwartz,T R., Stalling, D. L,Trick, J. A,
Sileo, L, Docherty D. E., and Erdman,T
C. 1989. Microcontaminants and repro-
ductive impairment of the Forster's
Tern on Green Bay Lake Michigan—
1983. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 18:
706-727.
Mac, M.J. and C. C. Edsal. 1991.
Environmental contaminants and the
reproductive success of lake trout in
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
the Great Lakes. J.Tox. Environ. Health.
33: 375-394.
Mac, M.J.,7. R. Schwartz, C. C. Edsall
and A. M. Frank. 1993. Pol/chlorinated
biphenyls in Great Lakes lake trout
and their eggs: relations to survival and
congener composition 1979-1988.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 19(4):
752-765.
Madenjian, C. P..TJ. DeSorcie, R. M.
Stedman, E. H.J. Brown, G.W Eck, L.J.
Schmidt, R. J. Hesselberg, S. M. Chernyak
and D. R. Passino-Reader 1999. Spatial
patterns in PCB concentrations of Lake
Michigan lake trout. Journal of Great
Lakes Research 25(1): 149-159.
Madenjian, C. R, R.J. Hesselberg.TJ.
Desorcie, LJ. Schmidt, R. M. Stedman, L
J. Begnoche and D. R. Passino-Reader
1998. Estimate of net trophic transfer
efficiency of PCBs to Lake Michigan
lake trout from their prey
Environmental Science and Technology
32(7): 886-89 I.
Pearson, R. R, K. C. Hornbuckle, S.J.
Eisenreich and D. L. Swackhammer
1996. PCBs in Lake Michigan water
revisited. Environ. Sci. &Technol. 30(5):
1429-1436.
Rodgers, R W and W R. Swain. 1983.
Analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) loading trends in Lake Michigan.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 9: 548-
558.
Safe, S. H. 1994. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs): environmental
impact, biochemical and toxic respons-
es, and implications for risk. CRC
Critical Reviews in Toxicology 24(2):
87-149.
Schmidt, L.J., and Hesselberg, RJ. 1992.
A mass spectroscopic method for
analysis of AHH-inducing and other
polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and
selected pesticides in fish. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 23: 37-44.
Stow, C. A. 1995. Factors associated
with PCB concentrations in Lake
Michigan salmonids. Environmental
Science and Technology 29(2): 522-527.
Stow, C. A., S. R. Carp and J. F. Amrheim.
1994. PCB concentration trends in Lake
Michigan coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Science 51:1384-1 390.
Stow, C. A. and S. R. Carpenter 1994.
PCB accumulation in Lake Michigan
coho and chinook salmon: individual-
based models using allometric
relationships. Environmental Science
and Technology 28: 1543-1549.
Stow, C. A., S. R. Carpenter L. A. Eby J. F.
Amrhein and R. J. Hesselberg. 1995.
Evidence that PCBs are approaching
stable concentrations in Lake Michigan
fishes. Ecological Applications 5: 248-
260.
Stow, C. A. and S. S. Qian. 1998. A size-
based probabilistic assessment of PCB
exposure from Lake Michigan fish con-
sumption. Environmental Science and
Technology 32: 2325-2330.
Swackhammer; D.,J. Charles and R.
Hites. 1987. Quantitation oftoxaphene
in environmental samples using negative
ion chemical ionization mass spectrom-
etry Analytical Chemistry 59: 913-917.
Swackhammer; D. L. 1996. Studies of
polychlorinated biphenyls in the Great
Lakes. Issues in Environmental Science
and Technology 6: 137-153.
Swackhammer; D. L. and R. A. Hites.
1988. Occurrence and bioaccumulation
of organochlorine compounds in fishes
from Siskiwit Lake. Environmental
Science and Technology 22: 543-548.
Swackhammer; D. L. and A.Trowbridge.
1997. LMMBS Methods Compendium:
Vol. 2 Organics and Mercury Sample
Analysis Techniques, Chapter I, Section
042. USEPA. 905-R-97-OI2b.
Trowbridge, A. G. and D. L.
Swackhammer 1999. Biomagnification
ofToxic PCB Congeners in the Lake
Michigan Foodweb. Bioaccumulative
Toxic Compounds in the Environment.
R. Lipnick, D. MuinJ. Hermens and K. C.
Jones. Washington, DC, ACS
Symposium Series Monograph: in
review.
"Quality Management Plan for the
Great Lakes National Program Office."
EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
Swackhammer; D. L. 2001. "Trends in
Great Lakes Fish Contaminants."
Unpublished—in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
Swackhammer; D.L February 2002.
'"Trends in Great Lakes Fish Contaminants."
Unpublished—in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
"GLNPO Management Systems Review of
1999." Unpublished—in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes basin will decline.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 136.
Performance Database:
Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) integrated atmospheric deposi-
tion network ' (see reference # I below)
(IADN) operated jointly with Environment
Canada. Reporting starts with 1992 data
and includes concentrations of polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and organochlorine
pesticides in air and precipitation; however;
this Performance Measure addresses only
PCBs. Monitoring results from 2005 will be
reported in 2007. Data are reported on a
calendar year basis.
Data Source:
GLNPO and Environment Canada are the
principal sources of the data. Data also
come through in-kind support and infor-
mation sharing with other Federal agencies
and Canada.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
There are five master IADN stations, one
for each lake, which are supplemented by
satellite stations in other locations.The
master stations are located in remote areas
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and are meant to represent regional back-
ground levels. Concentrations from the
master stations are used for the perform-
ance measure. Concentrations from the
satellite stations in Chicago and Cleveland
are also sometimes used to demonstrate
the importance of urban areas to atmos-
pheric deposition to the Lakes.
Air samples are collected for 24 hours
using high-volume samplers containing an
adsorbent. Precipitation samples are col-
lected as 28-day composites. Laboratory
analysis protocols generally call for solvent
extraction of the organic sampling media
with addition of surrogate recovery stan-
dards. Extracts are then concentrated
followed by column chromatographic
cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen blow-down
to small volume (about I ml_) and injection
(typically I uL) into gas chromatography
instruments.
All IADN data are loaded and quality con-
trolled using the Research Database
Management System (RDMQ), a Statistical
Analysis System (SAS) program. RDMQ
provides a unified set of quality assured
data, including flags for each data point that
can be used to evaluate the usability of the
data. Statistical summaries of annual con-
centrations are generated by the program
and used as input into an atmospheric
loading calculation.The loadings calculation
is described in detail in the Technical
Summary referenced below. However; cal-
culating loadings requires additional data
and constants that introduce further error
Therefore, the averaged annual concentra-
tions rather than the loadings are used in
the performance measure. Concentrations
can vary from year to year due to differ-
ences in weather (temperature, wind
patterns, etc.), so comparing concentrations
from one year to the next is not always
appropriate.This performance measure
examines the average percent decline for
the long-term trend determined using an
exponential decrease function. Each year
the average percent decline is calculated
after adding new data. A baseline percent
decrease was determined using data
through 2000, and the aim is that this rate
of decrease will continue.
QA/QC Procedures:
GLNPO has a Quality Management System
in place, which conforms to the USEPA
Quality Management Order and is audited
every 3 years in accordance with Federal
policy for Quality Management2 (see refer-
ence #2 below). 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 labo-
ratory and field audits, tracks QA statistics,
and carries out special QA studies. Data
from all contributing agencies are quality-
controlled using the SAS-based system.
Data Quality Review:
GLNPO's Quality Management System has
been evaluated as "outstanding" in previous
peer and management reviews3 (see refer-
ence #3 below). GLNPO has implemented
all recommendations from these external
audits and complies with Agency Quality
Standards4 (see reference #4 below). The
IADN program has a joint Canadian-US
quality system and binational Steering
Committee that meets periodically in per-
son or via conference calls to make
decisions on network operation and data
management and quality
A regular set of laboratory and field blanks
is taken and recorded for comparison to
the IADN field samples. In addition, a suite
of chemical surrogates and internal stan-
dards is used extensively in the analyses. A
jointly-funded QA contractor conducts lab-
oratory and field audits, tracks QA
statistics, and carries out special QA stud-
ies. As previously mentioned, data from all
contributing agencies are quality-controlled
using a SAS-based system.
Data Limitations:
The sampling design is dominated by rural
sites that under-emphasize urban contribu-
tions to deposition; thus, although the data
are very useful for trends information,
there is less assurance of the representa-
tiveness of deposition to the whole lake.
U.S. and Canadian laboratories use some-
what different sampling and analytical
methods; QA studies have found that dif-
ferences in resulting data are attributable
mostly to the sampling differences.There
are gaps in open lake water column organ-
ics data, thus limiting our ability to calculate
atmospheric loadings.This gap is being
addressed through the recent implementa-
tion by GLNPO of the Great Lakes
Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance
(GLACS) program, which will collect water
contaminant data in the Lakes.
In the past, there has been a lag in the data
from the Canadian sites (Burnt Island on
Lake Huron and Point Petre on Lake
Ontario). U.S. data is usually reported 2
years after it is collected (i.e., 2002 data
was reported in 2004); the Canadian data
may not be available on this schedule.
Error estimate:
The performance measure examines the
long-term trend in concentrations.
Concentrations have an error of +/- 40%,
usually less. Differences between laborato-
ries have been found to be 40% or less.
This is outstanding given the very low lev-
els of these pollutants in the air and the
difficulty in analysis. Improvements in quality
assurance (use of a clean lab for Canadian
precipitation analysis, making calibration
standards consistent among agencies, etc.)
are helping to further close this gap.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
GLNPO expects to post joint data that has
passed quality review to < binational.net/
>, a joint international Web Site, and to the
IADN Web Site at <
www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >. Copies of IADN
data are now held in U.S. and Canadian
databases. Efforts are being made to be
able to streamline data requests through
the National Atmospheric Chemistry
Database (NAtChem), which includes
atmospheric data from many North
American networks. Environment Canada
management is working to reduce the data
lag from the Canadian IADN stations.
References:
• I. "Great Lakes National Program Office
Indicators. Air Indicators."
www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/airhtml
• Details of these analyses can be found
in the Laboratory Protocol Manuals or
the agency project plans, which can be
found on the IADN resource page at
www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/
iadn.html
• Overall results of the project can be
found in "Technical Summary of Progress
under the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the
"Technical Summary of Progress under
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network 1997-2002". Both (as well as
the Atmospheric Loadings reports) can
be found on the IADN resource page.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the
Great Lakes National Program Office."
EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
"GLNPO Management Systems Review of
1999." Unpublished—in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
"Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network Quality Assurance Program
Plan—Revision I.I. Environment Canada
and USEPA. June 29, 2001.
Unpublished—in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Restore and delist Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 136.
Performance Database:
USEPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office will track the cumulative total Areas
of Concern (AOC) and post that informa-
tion www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26
located entirely within the United States;
12 located wholly within Canada; and five
that are shared by both countries. Since
1987, GLNPO has tracked the 3 I that are
within the US or shared; however; none of
these are currently restored and delisted.
Information is reported on a calendar year
basis, however the system is being designed
for semi-annual or more frequent updates.
Data Source:
Internal tracking and communications with
Great Lakes States, the US Department of
State and the International Joint
Commission (IJC).
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
USEPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office is in regular communication with the
Great Lakes States, the US Department of
State and the IJC, and is responsible for
coordinating and overseeing the de-listing
of AOCs. Generally speaking, under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an
AOC is an area in the Great Lakes deter-
mined to have significant beneficial use
impairments, such as restrictions on fish
and wildlife consumption, fish tumors,
eutrophication, beach closings, added costs
to agriculture or industry. In 1989, the IJC
established a review process and devel-
oped AOC listing/delisting criteria
(www.ijc.org/rel/boards/annex2/buis.htmttta
ble I) for existing and future AOCs. In
2001, the U.S. Policy Committee, led by
GLNPO and including State,Tribal, and
Federal agencies responsible for Great
Lakes environmental issues, developed
delisting guidelines for domestic AOCs
(http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html)
and for the binational AOCs shared by
Michigan and Ontario http://www.epa.gov/
glnpo/aoc/delist.html—appendix 5).
QA/QC Procedures:
GLNPO has an approved Quality
Management System in place I (see refer-
ence # I below) that conforms to the
USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 3 years in accordance with
Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review:
GLNPO's Quality Management System has
been given "outstanding" evaluations in pre-
vious peer and management reviews2 (see
reference #2) below. GLNPO has imple-
mented all recommendations from these
external audits and complies with Agency
Quality standards.
References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the
appropriate tracking system once there are
any de-listed U.S. or binational Areas of
Concern. Information regarding Areas of
Concern is currently available online at:
www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
• "Quality Management Plan for the
Great Lakes National Program Office."
EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002,
Approved April 2003.
• "GLNPO Management Systems
Review of 1999." Unpublished—in
USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment remediated in the Great Lakes.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 136.
Performance Database:
Data tracking sediment remediation are
compiled in two different formats.The first
is a matrix that shows the annual and
cumulative totals of contaminated sediment
that was remediated in the Great Lakes
basin in the reporting year and from 1997
for each Area of Concern or other non-
Areas of Concern with sediment
remediation.The second format depicts the
yearly totals on a calendar year basis graph-
ically These databases are reported
approximately I year after the completion
of work.
Data Source:
GLNPO collects sediment remediation data
from various State and Federal project man-
agers across the Great Lakes region that
conduct and coordinate contaminated
sediments work.These data are obtained
directly from the project manager via an
information fact sheet the project manager
completes for any site in the Great Lakes
basin that has performed any remedial work
on contaminated sediment.The project
manager also indicates whether an approved
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was
used in the collection of data at the site.
GLNPO does not accept unsolicited data
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
without adequate assurance that a QAPP
was in place and the reporters of the data
are not likely to be biased.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
The data collected to track sediment
remediation in the Great Lakes show the
amount of sediment remediated (dredged,
capped, other) for that yean the amount of
sediment remediated in prior years, and
the amount of sediment remaining to be
addressed for a particular site.This format
is suitable for year-to-year comparisons for
individual sites.
QA/QC Procedures:
GLNPO relies on the individual govern-
ment/agency project managers to provide
information on whether an approved QAPP
was in place during remediation of contami-
nated sediment.This information is used to
decide if the data provided by the project
manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting
purposes. If an approved QAPP was not
used, sediment data would not likely be
reported by GLNPO, unless GLNPO finds
that alternative information is available that
provides sufficient quality documentation for
the project and associated data.This
approach allows GLNPO to use best pro-
fessional judgment and flexibility in reporting
data from any cases where there was not a
QAPP but (a) the remedial action is note-
worthy and (b) the project was conducted
by recognized entities using widely accepted
best practices and operating procedures.
The tracking database houses information
on the calculated amount of sediment
remediated at individual sites as provided
by the project managers.The individual site
project managers are responsible for com-
pleting the data request forms, reviewing
draft figures to verify that the GLNPO
project manager transferred the data cor-
rectly, and providing any updated or
improved estimates. It is GLNPO's respon-
sibility to determine if the data are usable
based upon the information sheet provided
by the project managers. GLNPO does not
attempt to verify mass and volume esti-
mates due to the variability in how to
calculate them. GLNPO ensures that the
estimates provided make sense for the site,
and that all estimates are reported in the
same units. GLNPO management and
SedimentTeam members review the data,
in the graphic and matrix formats, prior to
reporting. GLNPO's SedimentTeam works
closely with partners and has confidence in
those who provide data for the summary
statistics.This familiarity with partners and
general knowledge of ongoing projects
allows GLNPO management to detect mis-
takes or questionable data.
Data Quality Review:
The data, in both the graphic and matrix
formats, are reviewed by individual project
managers, GLNPO's SedimentTeam, and
management prior to being released. Data
quality review procedures are outlined in
the QAPP referenced below. GLNPO's
Quality Management System has been
given "outstanding" evaluations in previous
peer and management reviews. GLNPO
has implemented all recommendations
from these external audits and complies
with Agency Quality Standards.
Data Limitations:
The data provided in the sediment tracking
database should be used as a tool to track
sediment remediation progress at sites
across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals
for sediment remediation are estimates pro-
vided by project managers. For specific data
uses, individual project managers should be
contacted to provide additional information.
Error Estimate:
The amount of sediment remediated or
yet to be addressed should be viewed as
estimated data. A specific error estimate is
not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Existing tracking systems are anticipated to
remain in place.
References:
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Quality Assurance
Project Plan for Great Lakes Sediment
Remediation Project Summary Support."
Unpublished—in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment
Remediation Matrix". Unpublished
—in USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office files.
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment
Remediation Pie Charts".
Unpublished—in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
• Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation
of Project Managers Informational
Sheets". Unpublished—in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake Bay.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 139.
Performance Database:
SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay Total acres
surveyed and estimated additional acres
from 1978 through 2004, excluding the
years 1979-1983 and 1988 when no sur-
veys were conducted.The FY 2006 Annual
Performance Report for this measure will
be based on the results of the survey con-
ducted the previous calendar year (2005).
We expect to receive the preliminary sur-
vey results for calendar year 2005 in April
2006. We expect to receive the preliminary
survey results for calendar year 2006 in
March 2007.
Data Source:
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences pro-
vides the data (via an EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP) grant to Virginia Institute of
Marine Sciences). EPA has confidence in
the third party data and believes the data
are accurate and reliable based on QA/QC
procedures described below.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The SAV survey is a general monitoring
program, conducted to optimize precision
and accuracy in characterizing annually the
status and trends of SAV in tidal portions of
the Chesapeake Bay The general plan is to
follow fixed flight routes over shallow water
areas of the Bay to comprehensively survey
all tidal shallow water areas of the Bay and
its tidal tributaries. Non-tidal areas are omit-
ted from the survey SAV beds less than I
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
square meter are not included due to the
limits of the photography and interpreta-
tion. Annual monitoring began in 1978 and
is ongoing. Methods are described in the
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on
file for the EPA grant and at the VIMS web
site (vwvw.vims.edu/bio/sav/).
QA/QC Procedures:
Quality assurance project plan for the
EPA grant to the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences describes data collection, analysis,
and management methods.This is on file at
the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office.The VIMS web site at wwwvims.
edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well.
Metadata are included with the
data set posted at the VIMS web site
(www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).
Data Quality Reviews:
This indicator has undergone extensive tech-
nical and peer review by state, Federal and
non-government organization partner mem-
bers of the SAV workgroup and the Living
Resources subcommittee. Data collection,
data analysis and QA/QC are conducted by
the principal investigators/scientists.The data
are peer reviewed by scientists on the work-
group. Data selection and interpretation, the
presentation of the indicator; along with all
supporting information and conclusions, are
arrived at via consensus by the scientists and
resource manager members of the work-
group. The workgroup presents the indicator
to the subcommittee where extensive peer
review by Bay Program managers occurs.
There have been no data deficiencies identi-
fied in external reviews.
Data Limitations:
Due to funding constraints, there were no
surveys in the years 1979-1983 and 1988.
Spatial gaps in 1999 occurred due to hurri-
cane disturbance and subsequent inability
to reliably photograph SAV Spatial gaps in
2001 occurred due to post-nine-eleven
flight restrictions near Washington D.C.
Spatial gaps in 2003 occurred due to
adverse weather in the spring and summer
and Hurricane Isabel in the fall.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Some technical improvements (e.g.,
photointerpretation tools) were made over
the 22 years of the annual SAV survey in
Chesapeake Bay
References:
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at
www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and
bibliography at www.vims.edu/bio/sav/
savchespub.html.The SAV distribution data
files are located www.vims.edu/bio/sav/
savdata.html and also at www.chesapeake-
baynet/pubs/statustrends/88-data-2002.xls.
The SAV indicator is published at
www.chesapeakebaynet/
status.cfm?sid=88.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Reduce nitrogen loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 74 million pounds per year.
Reduce phosphorus loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 8.7 million pounds per year.
Reduce sediment loads entering Chesapeake Bay by 1.06 million tons per year.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 140.
Performance Database:
Nutrient and Sediment Loads Delivered
to the Chesapeake Bay The Bay data files
used in the indicator are located at
www.chesapeakebaynet/pubs/statustrends/
I 86-data-2003.xls. Data have been collect-
ed in 1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and are
expected on an annual basis after 2003.
There is a 2 year data lag. Load data are
from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions
of NX MD, PA,VA,WV, DE, and DC.
The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report
for these measures will be based on the
results of the 2005 data collection. We
expect to receive the preliminary results
for 2005 in January 2007.
Data Source:
State/district data are provided to the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input
into the Chesapeake Bay Program
Watershed Model.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The data are of high quality Data are con-
solidated by watershed boundaries at the
state level and provided to the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office for input into the
watershed model.
What is the Watershed Model? A lumped
parameter Fortran based model (HSPF)
that mimics the effects of hydrology nutri-
ent inputs, and air deposition on land and
outputs runoff, groundwater, nutrients and
sediment to receiving waters.Ten years of
simulation are used and averaged to devel-
op the reduction effects of a given set of
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Using a
10-year average of actual weather (hydro-
logic, temperature, wind, etc.) ensures wet,
dry and average conditions for each season
are included.The effectiveness of the model
is dependent upon the quality of the
assumptions, BMPs and landuse descriptions
used.The model is calibrated extensively to
real-time monitoring, outside peer review
and continual updates as better information,
data collection and computer processing
power become available.
What are the input data?The model takes
meteorological inputs such as precipitation,
temperature, evapotranspiration, wind
speed, solar radiation, dewpoint, and cloud
cover to drive the hydrologic simulation.The
changes in nutrient outputs are primarily
determined by such factors as land use
acreage, BMPs, fertilizer; manure, atmospher-
ic deposition, point sources, and septic loads.
BMPs: Watershed Model BMPs include all
nutrient reduction activities tracked by the
jurisdictions for which a source has been
identified, cataloged and assigned an effi-
ciency Efficiencies are based on literature
review, recommendations of the appropri-
ate source workgroup and approved by
the Nutrient Subcommittee. It is the
responsibility of the jurisdictions to track
and report all nutrient reduction activities
within their borders and maintain docu-
mentation to support submissions.
Land use acreage is determined by com-
bining analyses of satellite imagery and
county-based databases for agricultural
activities and human population. Fertilizer is
determined by estimated application rates
by crops and modified by the application of
nutrient management BMPs. Manure appli-
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
cations are determined by an analysis of
animal data from the census of agriculture.
Atmospheric deposition is determined by an
analysis of National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP) deposition data and mod-
ified by scenarios of the Regional Acid
Deposition Model. Point Source loads are
determined from Discharge Monitoring
Reports. Septic loads are estimated in a
study commissioned by the CBR
www.chesapeakebaynet/pubs/1 I27.pdf
www.chesapeakebaynet/pubs/1 I4.pdf
www.chesapeakebay net/pubs/1 I2.pdf
www.chesapeakebay net/pubs/777.pdf
What are the model outputs? The water-
shed model puts out daily flows and
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads
for input to the water quality model of the
Chesapeake Bay The daily loads are aver-
aged over a 10-year hydrologic period
(1985-1994) to report an average annual
load to the Bay The effect of flow is
removed from the load calculations.
What are the model assumptions? BMPs:
Model assumptions are based on three
conditions: knowledge, data availability and
computing power The ability to alter what
is used in the watershed model is a func-
tion of the impact the change would have
on calibration. In many cases there is new
information, data or methodologies that
would improve the model, but changes are
not possible because of the impact on the
current calibration.
Changes in manure handling, feed additives,
new BMPs and some assumptions could be
incorporated into the model without
impacting the calibration. In these cases, the
changes were made.
Other input assumptions, such as multiple
manure application levels, increasing the
number and redefining some land uses,
defining new nutrient or sediment sources,
adjusting for varying levels of management
(range of implementation levels) are items
scheduled for incorporation in the new
model update (2005).
Data are collected from states and local
governments programs. Methods are
described at www.chesapeakebaynet/
data/index.htm, (refer to CBP Watershed
Model Scenario Output Database, Phase
4.3). For more information contact Kate
Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or Jeff
Sweeney jsweeney@chesapeakebay net.
QA/QC Procedures:
State offices have documentation of the
design, construction and maintenance of the
databases used for the performance meas-
ures, showing they conform to existing U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) technical standards and
specifications for nonpoint source data and
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS)
standards for point source data. State offices
also have documentation of implemented
Best Management Practices (BMPs) based
on USDA NRCS standards and specification
and the Chesapeake Bay Program's proto-
cols and guidance. BMPs are traditionally
used to reduce pollutant loads coming from
nonpoint sources such as urban/suburban
runoff, agriculture, and forestry activities.
References include: the USDA NRCS
Technical Guide and Appendix H from the
Chesapeake Bay Program (contact Russ
Mader at maderruss@epa.gov or Kate
Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov). Quality
assurance program plans are available in
each state office.
Data Quality: Reviews:
All data are reviewed and approved by the
individual jurisdictions before input to the
watershed model. QA/QC is also per-
formed on the input data to ensure basic
criteria, such as not applying a BMP at a
higher level than allowed. A specific level of
input should yield output within a specified
range of values. Output is reviewed by
both the CBPO staff and the Tributary
Strategy Workgroup as an additional level
of QA/QC. Any values out of the expected
range is analyzed and understood before
approval and public release.The model
itself is given a quarterly peer review by an
outside independent group of experts.
There have been no data deficiencies iden-
tified in external reviews.
Data Limitations:
Data collected from voluntary collection
programs are not included in the database,
even though they may be valid and reliable.
The only data submitted by state and local
governments to the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office are data that are required
for reporting under the cost share and reg-
ulatory programs. State and local
governments are aware that additional data
collection efforts are being conducted by
non-governmental organizations, however;
they are done independently of the cost
share programs and are not reported.
Error Estimate:
There may be errors of omission,
misclassification, incorrect georeferencing,
misdocumentation or mistakes in the pro-
cessing of data.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The next version of the watershed model
is currently under development and will be
completed in 2006.The new version
(phase 5) will have increased spatial resolu-
tion and ability to model the effects of
management practices. The phase 5
watershed model is a joint project with
cooperating state and Federal agencies.
Contact Gary Shenk gshenk@
chesapeakebaynet or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebaynet/phase5.htm
References:
See www.chesapeakebaynet/data/
index.htm, refer to CBP Watershed Model
Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.3.
Contact Kate Hopkins at
hopkins.kate@epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney
jsweeney@chesapeakebaynet.The nutrient
and sediment loads delivered to the Bay
indicator are published at www.chesa-
peakebaynet/status.cfm?sid= I 86.The
nutrient and sediment loads delivered to
the Bay data files used in the indicator are
located at www.chesapeakebaynet/
pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls.
See "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Application and Calculation of Nutrient
and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H:
Tracking Best Management Practice
Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake
Bay Program, A Report of the Chesapeake
Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee",
USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, MD, August 1998, available at
www. chesapeakebay net/pu bs/777. pdf
See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical
Guide available at www.nrcs.usda.gov/tech
nical/efotg/
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic
zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, page 141.
Performance Database:
(I) Louisiana Coastal Hypoxia Shelfwide
Survey metadata (data housed at National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Ocean Data
Center; Silver Spring, Maryland). Funds for
this research are provided by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Coastal Ocean Program (NOAA/COP); (2)
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program (SEAMAP)—Gulf surveys.The
data used in assessing performance under
this measure have been collected annually
on a calendar year basis since 1982.
Data Source:
(I) Hydrographic data are collected during
annual surveys of the Louisiana continental
shelf. Nutrient, pigment and station infor-
mation data are also acquired.The physical,
biological and chemical data collected are
part of a long-term coastal Louisiana
dataset.The goal is to understand physical
and biological processes that contribute to
the causes of hypoxia and use the data to
support environmental models for use by
resource managers; (2) The Southeast Area
Monitoring and Assessment Program
(SEAMAP) is a state/Federal/university
program for collection, management and
dissemination of fishery-independent
data and information in the southeastern
United States.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The distribution of hypoxia on the Louisiana
shelf has been mapped annually in mid-sum-
mer (usually late July to early August) over a
standard 60- to 80- station grid since 1985.
During the shelfwide cruise, data are collect-
ed along transects from the mouth of the
Mississippi River to theTexas border
Information is collected on a wide range of
parameters, including conductivity/tempera-
ture/depth (CTD), light penetration,
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids,
nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll.
Hydrographic, chemical, and biological data
also are collected from two transects of
Terrebonne Bay on a monthly basis, and
bimonthly off Atchafalaya Bay There is a sin-
gle moored instrument array in 20-m water
depth in the core of the hypoxic zone that
collects vertical conductivity/temperature
data, as well as near-surface, mid, and near-
bottom oxygen data; an upward directed
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
on the seabed measures direction and
speed of currents from the seabed to the
surface.There is also an assortment of nutri-
ent and light meters.
Station depths on the cruises range from
3.25 to 52.4 meters. Northern end stations
of transects are chosen based on the sur-
vey vessel's minimum depth limits for each
longitude.
Standard data collections include hydro-
graphic profiles for temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, and optical properties.
Water samples for chlorophyll a and
phaeopigments, nutrients, salinity, suspended
sediment, and phytoplankton community
composition are collected from the surface,
near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
The objective is to delimit and describe the
area of midsummer bottom dissolved oxy-
gen less than 2 (mg. L).
Details of data collection and methodology
are provided in referenced reports.
QA/QC Procedures:
NOAA does not require written QA/QC
procedures or a Quality Management Plan;
however; the procedures related to data
collection are covered in metadata files.
The SEAMAP Data Management System
(DMS) conforms to the SEAMAP Gulf and
South Atlantic DMS Requirements
Document developed through a coopera-
tive effort between National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other
SEAMAP participants.
Data Quality Reviews:
(I) Essential components of the environ-
mental monitoring program in the Gulf of
Mexico include efforts to document the
temporal and spatial extent of shelf hypox-
ia, and to collect basic hydrographic,
chemical and biological data related to the
development of hypoxia over seasonal
cycles. All data collection protocols and
data are presented to and reviewed by the
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force (the Task Force) in sup-
port of the adaptive management
approach as outlined in the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
(the Action Plan).
(2) Biological and environmental data from
all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in
the SEAMAP Information System, managed
in conjunction with National Marine
Fisheries Service—Southeast Fisheries
Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data
are edited by the collecting agency and
verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager
prior to entry into the system. Data from
all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2003
have been entered into the system, and
data from 2004 surveys are in the process
of being verified, edited, and entered for
storage and retrieval.
Data Limitations:
Monitoring for shelf-wide conditions is cur-
rently performed each year primarily but
not exclusively, in July The spatial bound-
aries of some monitoring efforts are
limited by resource availability Experience
with the datasets has shown that when
data are plotted or used in further
analysis, outlying values may occasionally
be discovered.
Error Estimate:
(I) The manufacturers state +/- 0.2mg/L as
the error allowance for both SeaBird and
Hydrolab oxygen sensors.
References:
• Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task force.2001.
Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating,
and Controlling Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Washington, DC.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Rabalais N.N., R.E.Turner; Dubravko
Justic, Quay Dortch, and WJ. Wiseman.
1999. Characterization of Hypoxia.
Topic I Report for the Integrated
assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean
Program Decision Analysis Series No.
15. Silver Spring Maryland:
NationalOceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management
for the nutrient enhanced coastal
ocean productivity program. Estuaries
17:900-3
Rabalais, Nancy N., WJ. Wiseman Jr, RE.
Turner; Comparison of continuous
records of near-bottom dissolved oxy-
gen from the hypoxia zone of
Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-407
SEAMAP Information System
vwvw.gsmfc.org/sis.html
Goal 4, Objective 4
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Provide high quality exposure, effects and assessment research results that support the August 2006
reassessment of current-use pesticide tolerances to EPA so that, by 2008, EPA will be able to
characterize key factors influencing children's and other subpopulations' risks from pesticide exposure.
Information on managing mercury and other co-pollutants from utility boilers.
Methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in children, and characterizing and reducing risks
to children from environmental agents in schools.
Technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to restore riparian zones.
Baseline ecological condition ofWestern streams determined.
Complete 8 human health assessments and publish their results on the IRIS website.
Initiate or submit to external peer review human health assessments of 8 high priority chemicals.
Risk assessment toolbox to predict and reduce the consequences of chemical/biological attacks in
U.S. cities.
Technical guidance for water system owners and operators on methods/strategies for minimizing damage
from intentional introduction of biological/chemical contaminants.
Water system-related case studies that provide a spectrum of contingency planning situations and
responses, including one specifically focused on the National Capital area.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 4, pages 142-148.
Performance Database:
Program output; no internal tracking system.
Goal 5, Objective
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated.
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of concluded
enforcement actions.
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental
management practices.
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management prac-
tices as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs).
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in the reduction, treatment, or elimination of pollutants
and protection of populations or ecosystems.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Percentage of audits or other actions that result in improvements in environmental management
practices.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audits or other actions.
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management
practices as a result of audits or other actions.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 160.
Performance Databases:
The Integrated Compliance Information
System, (ICIS), which tracks EPA civil
enforcement (e.g., judicial and administra-
tive) actions.The Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS), the new enhanced data-
base for tracking criminal enforcement
actions, will be used in conjunction with
ICIS to track the criminal enforcement
recidivism measure.
Data Source:
Most of the essential data on environmen-
tal results in ICIS are collected through
data developed originally through the use
of the Case Conclusion Data Sheet
(CCDS), which Agency staff begin prepar-
ing 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. The informa-
tion generated through the CCDS is used
to track progress for several of the per-
formance 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 compli-
ance actions required to be taken by the
defendant(s); the costs involved; informa-
tion 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
documents whether the facility/defendant,
through injunctive relief, must: (I) reduce
pollutants; and (2) improve management
practices to curtail, eliminate or better
monitor and handle pollutants in the
future.The Criminal Enforcement Program
also maintains a separate case conclusion
data form and system for compiling and
quantifying the results of criminal enforce-
ment prosecution, including pollution
reduction and the percentage of concluded
criminal enforcement cases requiring
improved environmental management
practices.The revised criminal enforcement
case conclusion form will be used begin-
ning in FY06.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
For enforcement actions which result in
pollution reductions, the staff estimate the
amounts of pollution reduced for an imme-
diately implemented improvement, or an
average year once a long-term solution is
in place.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 con-
verted into standard units of measure.
QA/QC Procedures:
Quality Assurance/Quality Control proce-
dures [See references] are in place for
both the CCDS and ICIS entry.There are a
Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training
Booklet [See references] and a Case
Conclusion Data Sheet Quick Guide [See
references], both of which have been dis-
tributed throughout Regional and
Headquarters' (HQ) offices. Separate
CCDS Calculation and Completion
Checklists [See references] are required to
be filled out at the time the CCDS is com-
pleted. Criminal enforcement pollution
reduction measures are quality assured by
the program at the end of the fiscal year
Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are
prepared for each Office within The Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA).The Office of Compliance (OC)
has established extensive processes for
ensuring timely input, review and certifica-
tion of ICIS information in Fiscal Year (FY)
2003. OC's QMP effective for 5 years, was
approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) and is
required to be re-approved in 2008.
OECA instituted a requirement for semian-
nual executive certification of the overall
accuracy of ICIS information to satisfy the
Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), the Agency's information quality
guidelines, and other significant enforce-
ment and compliance policies on
performance measurement.
Data Quality Review:
Information contained in the CCDS and
ICIS are required by policy to be reviewed
by regional and headquarters' staff for
completeness and accuracy ICIS data is
reviewed quarterly and reviewed and certi-
fied at mid-year and end-of-year
Data Limitations:
The pollutant reductions or eliminations
reported on the CCDS are estimates of
what will be achieved if the defendant car-
ries out the requirements of the
settlement. Information on expected out-
comes of state enforcement is not
available.The estimates are based on infor-
mation available at the time a case is
settled or an order is issued. In some
instances, this information will be devel-
oped and entered after the settlement,
during continued discussions over specific
plans for compliance. Because of the time it
takes to agree on the compliance actions,
there may be a delay in completing the
CCDS. Additionally because of unknowns
at the time of settlement, different levels of
technical proficiency, or the nature of a
case, OECA's expectation is that based on
information on the CCDS, the overall
amounts of pollutant reductions/elimina-
tions will be prudently underestimated.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
New/Improved Data or Systems:
In November 2000, EPA completed a
comprehensive guidance package on the
preparation of the Case Conclusion Data
Sheet.This guidance, issued to headquar-
ters' and regional managers and staff, was
made available in print and CD-ROM, and
was supplemented in FY 2002 [See refer-
ences].The guidance contains work
examples to ensure better calculation of
the amounts of pollutants reduced or elim-
inated through concluded enforcement
actions. EPA trained each of its ten regional
offices during FY 2002. OC's Quality
Management Plan was approved by OEI
July 29, 2003, and is effective for 5 years.
[See references]. A new criminal enforce-
ment case management, tracking and
reporting system (Criminal Case Reporting
System) will come on line during the last
quarter FY 2005 that will replace the exist-
ing criminal docket (CRIMDOC).This new
system allows for a more user friendly
database and greater tracking, management,
and reporting capabilities.
References:
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
procedures: Data Quality: Life Cycle
Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual
2100, dated September 28, 1994, reference
Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management).
Case Conclusion Data Sheets: Case
Conclusion Data Sheet,Training Booklet,
issued November 2000 available:
www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publi-
cations/planning/caseconc.pdf; Quick Guide
for Case Conclusion Data Sheet, issued
November 2000. Information Quality
Strategy and OC's Quality Management
Plans: Final Enforcement and Compliance
Data Quality Strategy and Description of
FY 2002 Data Quality Strategy
Implementation Plan Projects, signed
March 25, 2002. OS: U.S. EPA, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
OS Phase I, implemented June 2002.
Internal EPA database; non-enforcement
sensitive data available to the public
through the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of inspections, civil investigations, and criminal investigations conducted.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 160.
Performance Databases:
Output measure. Integrated Data for
Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) integrates
data from major enforcement and compli-
ance systems, such as the Permit
Compliance System (PCS), Air Facilities
Subsystem (AFS), Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo), Integrated Compliance
Information system (OS) for Clean Air Act
(CAA) I 12(r), National Compliance
Database (NCDB), FIFRA/TSC A Tracking
System (r I I S). There is also manual
reporting of specific media
inspections/evaluations and all civil investi-
gations. The Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS), which is scheduled to
come on line during the last quarter of FY
2005, is a criminal case management, track-
ing and reporting system. Information
about criminal cases investigated by the
U.S. EPA-Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) is entered into CCRS at case initia-
tion, and investigation and prosecution
information is tracked until case conclusion.
Data Source:
EPA's regional and Headquarters' offices
and U.S. EPA-CID offices.
QA/QC Procedures:
All the systems have been developed in
accordance with the Office of Information
Management's Lifecycle Management
Guidance, which includes data validation
processes, internal screen audit checks and
verification, system and user documents,
data quality audit reports, third-party test-
ing reports, and detailed report
specifications for showing how data are cal-
culated. For CRIMDOC (and the
forthcoming CCRS) , the system adminis-
trator performs regularly scheduled quality
assurance/quality control checks of the
CRIMDOC database to validate data and
to evaluate and recommend enhancements
to the system.
Data Quality Review:
EPA is now using updated monitoring
strategies [See references] which clarify
reporting definitions and enhance oversight
of state and local compliance monitoring
programs. In FY2003, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive cer-
tification of the overall accuracy of
information to satisfy the GPRA, the
Agency's information quality guidelines, and
other significant enforcement and compli-
ance policies on performance
measurement.
Data Limitations:
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.
There is also a concern that the majority of
EPA inspections/evaluations and all civil
investigations are manually reported by the
regions and cannot be verified. Additionally
there are incomplete data available on the
universe of regulated facilities because not
all are inspected/permitted. In addition, the
targets for each measure such as the num-
bers of inspections, and civil investigations
are based on the FTE and extramural
resources from OECA and other program
offices, i.e., OAR, OSWER, and OW while
targets for the number of criminal investi-
gations are based upon resources allocated
to the program in conjunction with pro-
gram strategies and priorities.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
PCS modernization is underway and is
scheduled for completion first quarter
2008. An Interim Data Exchange Format
(IDEF) has been established and will sup-
port the transfer of data from modernized
state systems into the current PCS data
system while PCS is being modernized. EPA
is addressing the quality of the data in the
major systems and each Office within
OECA has developed a Quality
Management Plan (data quality objectives,
quality assurance project plans, baseline
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
assessments). A new Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS) sup-
ports core program needs and
consolidates and streamlines existing sys-
tems. Additionally, OECA began
implementing its Data Quality Strategy in
FY 2002. A new case management, tracking
and reporting system (Criminal Case
Reporting System) is currently being devel-
oped that will replace CRIMDOC.This
new system will be a more user-friendly
database with greater tracking, manage-
ment and reporting capabilities.
References:
Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring
Strategy April 25, 2001, www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/
cmspolicy.pdf
AFS: www.epa.gov/compliance/data/
system s/air/afssystem. htm I
PCS: www.epa.gov/compliance/data/
systems/water/pcssys.html.
RCRAinfo: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/index.htm.
For CRIMDOC: CRIM-DOC U.S. EPA,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance. Internal enforcement confiden-
tial database; non-enforcement sensitive
data available to the public through the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Information Quality Strategy and OCs
Quality Management Plans: Final
Enforcement and Compliance Data Quality
Strategy and Description of FY 2002 Data
Quality Strategy Implementation Plan
Projects, signed March 25, 2002.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
compliance inspections and evaluations.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 159.
Performance Databases:
ICIS and manual reporting by regions.
Data Sources:
EPA regional offices and Office of Civil
Enforcement (specifically the Clean Air Act
(CAA)-Mobile Source program) and
Office of Compliance—Agriculture
Division.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
A new measurement tool, the Inspection
Conclusion Data Sheet, (ICDS) will be
used to analyze results from
inspections/evaluations conducted under
some of EPA's major statutes. EPA will ana-
lyze data on the three pieces of
information from the ICDS: on-site actions
taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and
compliance assistance provided.The inspec-
tors complete the Inspection Conclusion
Data Sheet (ICDS) for each inspection or
evaluation subject to ICDS reporting and
the information is either entered into ICIS
or reported manually by the Regions and
HQ programs.
QA/QC Procedures:
ICIS has been developed per Office of
Information Management Lifecycle
Management 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.
Data Quality Review:
Regional manual reports are reviewed and
checked against the inspection or evalua-
tion data entered into other Agency
databases (Air Facilities Subsystem (AFS),
Permit Compliance System (PCS), Online
Tracking Information System (OTIS),
Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
(IDEA)). Manual reports are also checked
against ICIS if the Region entered the man-
ual reported inspections/evaluations into
that system. Information contained in the
CCDS, ICDS and ICIS are required by poli-
cy to be reviewed by regional and
headquarters' staff for completeness and
accuracy In FY2003, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive cer-
tification of the overall accuracy of
information to satisfy the GPRA, the
Agency's information quality guidelines,
and other significant enforcement and
compliance policies on performance
measurement. ICIS data are reviewed
quarterly and certified at mid-year and
end of year
Data Limitations:
ICIS is currently the database of record
for CAA I 12(r) inspections and audits.
It is not the official database of record for
inspections and evaluations for other pro-
grams. Regions are encouraged to use ICIS
specifically for ICDS reporting.This can
result in redundant, incomplete, or contra-
dictory data.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The new Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) will support core
program needs and consolidate and
streamline existing systems. As ICIS
becomes more widely used by the regions
and HQ programs some of the problems
with data entry and reporting should be
resolved. As various older systems become
modernized (e.g., PCS), they will incorpo-
rate the ICDS data set as part of the
system.This should minimize data entry
and reporting problems.
References:
ICIS: U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, ICIS Phase I, imple-
mented June 2002. Internal EPA database;
non-enforcement sensitive data available to
the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers
and clearinghouse reporting that they improved environmental management practices as a result of
their use of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers
and clearinghouse reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of their use
of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Percentage of regulated entities seeking assistance from EPA-sponsored compliance assistance centers
and clearinghouse reporting that they increased their understanding of environmental requirements
as a result of their use of the centers or the clearinghouse.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 159.
Performance Database:
EPA Headquarters manages data on the
performance of the centers and clearing-
house respondents manually before
entering it into ICIS.
Data source:
Headquarters will enter manually collected
information into ICIS upon completion and
delivery of media and sector-specific com-
pliance assistance provided by the
EPA-sponsored compliance assistance cen-
ters and the clearinghouse. ICIS is designed
to capture outcome measurement informa-
tion such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental
laws, changes in behavior and environmen-
tal improvements as a result of the
compliance assistance provided.
QA/QC Procedures:
Automated data checks and data entry
guidelines are in place for ICIS. Data from
manual systems will be validated with inter-
nal checks, third party testing reports, and
detailed reports showing how data
are calculated.
Data Quality Reviews:
Data from manual systems will be validated
with internal checks, third party testing
reports, and detailed reports showing how
data are calculated.
Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed
by Regional and Headquarters staff for com-
pleteness and accuracy In FY2003, OECA
instituted a requirement for semiannual exec-
utive certification of the overall accuracy of
information to satisfy the GPP\A, the Agency's
information quality guidelines, and other sig-
nificant enforcement and compliance policies
on performance measurement. ICIS data are
reviewed quarterly and reviewed and certi-
fied at mid-year and end of year
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA plans to improve and/or modify ele-
ments of the compliance assistance module
in ICIS based on use of the system.
References:
US EPA, Integrated Compliance
Information System Compliance Assistance
Module, February 2004; US EPA,
Compliance Assistance in the Integrated
Compliance Information System Guidance,
February 20, 2004.
FY 2007 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that
hey improved environmental management practices as a result of EPA assistance.
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that
they increased their understanding of environmental requirements as a result of EPA assistance.
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA reporting that they reduced,
treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 160.
Performance Database:
EPA Headquarters will manage data on
regulated entities receiving direct compli-
ance assistance from EPA through ICIS.
Data source:
Headquarters and EPA's Regional offices
will enter information in ICIS upon comple-
tion and delivery of media and
sector-specific compliance assistance includ-
ing workshops, training, on-site visits and
distribution of compliance assistance tools.
ICIS is designed to capture outcome meas-
urement information such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental
laws, changes in behavior and environmen-
tal improvements as a result of the
compliance assistance provided.
QA/QC Procedures:
Automated data checks and data entry
guidelines are in place for ICIS.
Data Quality Review:
Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed
by Regional and Headquarters staff for com-
pleteness and accuracy In FY2003, OECA
instituted a requirement for semiannual
executive certification of the overall accuracy
of information to satisfy the GPRA, the
Agency's information quality guidelines, and
other significant enforcement and compli-
ance policies on performance measurement.
ICIS data are reviewed quarterly and
certified at mid-year and end of year
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
New/Improved Data or Systems:
EPA plans to improve and/or modify ele-
ments of the compliance assistance module
in ICIS based on use of the system.
References:
US EPA, Integrated Compliance
Information System Compliance Assistance
Module, February 2004; US EPA,
Compliance Assistance in the Integrated
Compliance Information System Guidance,
February 20, 2004.
Goal 5, Objective 2
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Reduction in overall pounds of pollution.
Billions of BTUs of energy conserved.
Annual cumulative quantity of water saved.
Millions of dollars saved through reductions in pollution.
Reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a baseline year of 1996. (Green Chemistry only).
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 163.
The Agency's Pollution Prevention pro-
grams include Green Chemistry Design for
the Environment, Green Engineering, and
other Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs.
Each of these programs operates under
the principles of the Pollution Prevention
Act and works with others to reduce
waste at the source, before it is generated.
These programs are designed to facilitate
the incorporation of pollution prevention
concepts and principles into the daily oper-
ations of government agencies, businesses,
manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and
individuals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GQ: EPA is developing
an electronic database ("metrics" database)
which will allow organized storage and
retrieval of green chemistry data submitted
to EPA on alternative feedstocks, processes,
and safer chemicals.The database is being
designed to store and retrieve, in a system-
atic fashion, information on the
environmental benefits and, where avail-
able, economic benefits that these
alternative green chemistry technologies
offer The database is also being designed to
track the quantity of hazardous chemicals
and solvents eliminated through implemen-
tation of these alternative technologies.
Green Chemistry technology nominations
are received up to December 3 I of the
year preceding the reporting yean and it
normally takes 6-12 months to enter new
technologies into the database. By the end
of FY 2005, EPA expects to achieve its tar-
get of having a single instance of each
unique nominated technology for 1996-
2003 in the database.
Design for the Environment (DE): DfE
does not have a performance database.
Instead, DfE is populating an evaluation
spreadsheet for its programs (i.e.,
Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics,
Furniture Flame Retardants Alternatives, the
Formulator Program, and a collaboration
with the Air Office on DfE approaches as
implementation mechanisms for regulating
Local Area Sources, such as Auto
Refmishing). Spreadsheet content will vary
by approach, and generally will include
measures comparing baseline technologies
or products to "cleaner" ones, as well as
information on partner adoption and/or
market share of cleaner alternatives; for
example, the DfE formulator approach
tracks chemical improvements (such as
pounds of chemicals of concern no longer
used by partners, and conversely pounds
of safer ingredients) and resource savings.
This information will allow benefit calcula-
tions. Information is collected on an
ongoing basis.
Green Engineering (GE): Similar to the
Green Chemistry Program, EPA will be
developing an electronic database to keep
track of environmental benefits of GE proj-
ects including, gallons of water; British
Thermal Units (BTUs) and dollars saved
and pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions eliminated
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: EPA
has worked closely with state and local P2
programs to develop a national system that
will provide data on environmental out-
comes (the core P2 metrics included in the
above performance measures). Many EPA
Regional offices, state and local P2 pro-
grams are currently collecting data on P2
program activities, outputs, and outcomes.
EPA has worked successfully with these
programs to reach consensus on standard-
ized metrics, including definitions, and to
reach consensus on an ongoing system to
gather data on these metrics. The core
measures in the National Pollution
Prevention Results System were adopted in
April 2005. Over 25 state and state-level
P2 organizations have signed Memoranda
of Agreements to provide data using the
metrics.The system will also benefit from
new reporting requirements in EPA P2
grants. The new system has the coopera-
tion of key stakeholder groups, such as the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable,
which is currently adding data from years
2001 -2003 to a January 2003 report pro-
viding baseline data for the period 1990.
The new system also has the cooperation
of the regional Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange (P2RX) centers. As the
system is implemented, data collected from
the program will be placed in a new
national database, facilitating convenient
data storage and retrieval.
Data Source:
Green Chemistry (GQ: Industry and aca-
demia submit nominations annually to the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) in response to the Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge Awards.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental and economic benefit infor-
mation is included in the nomination
packages.The metrics database pulls this
benefit information from the nominations.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The
source of DfE's evaluation information
varies by the approach and the partner
industry For example, in DfE's formulation
improvement partnerships, partners pro-
vide proprietary information on both their
original formulation and their environmen-
tally improved one. Partners sign a
memorandum of understanding with
EPA/DfE which includes information on
how the company uses cleaner chemistry
to formulate a product, the environmental
and health benefits of the product, and cus-
tomer and sales information. For other
partnerships, data sources typically include
technical studies (e.g., cleaner technology
substitutes assessments, life-cycle assess-
ments) and market/sales/adoption
information from associations.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will come
from profiles of recognized projects by
technical journals or organizations, such as
the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, or directly reported by project
leaders on industry projects or joint acade-
mia-industry projects.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: State
and local P2 programs will submit data as
described above.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Green Chemistry (GQ: The information
will be tracked directly through internal
record-keeping systems. No models or
assumptions or statistical methods are
employed.
Design for the Environment (DfE):
Methods and assumptions vary by
approach and partner industry. Each DfE
partnership identifies and focuses on a
unique set of chemicals and industrial
processes. For most DfE approaches, the
general method is to I) develop a model
for a "typical" or "average" facility 2) assess
the differences between traditional and
alternative technologies on metrics such as
toxics use, resource consumption, cost, and
performance, 3) track market share of
alternative technologies over time, and 4)
multiply the increase in use of alternative,
cleaner technologies by the environmental,
cost, and performance differences identified
in Step 2.Through this quantitative process,
the Agency is able to calculate the benefits
generated by the cleaner technology: e.g.
how much toxics use reduction is occur-
ring, how much less resources are
consumed. Similarly for DfE's formulation
improvement approach, the method is to
analyze environmental (e.g., toxics use,
resource consumption) and cost differ-
ences between the old and improved
formulations. Proprietary information,
including sales data, is provided by our
partners. For each approach, we will devel-
op a spreadsheet that includes the
methods and assumptions.
Green Engineering (GE): The information
will be tracked directly through EPA record
keeping systems. No models or statistical
extrapolations are expected to be used.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The
data will come from state and local P2
programs as described above. No models
or assumptions or statistical methods
are employed.
QA/QC Procedures:
All Pollution Prevention and Toxics pro-
grams operate under the Information
Quality Guidelines as found at www.epa.
gov/quality/informationguidelines/ and
under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Quality Management Plan (QMP).The
Quality Management Plan is for internal
use only
Green Chemistry: Data undergo a technical
screening review by the Agency before
being uploaded to the database to deter-
mine if they adequately support the
environmental benefits described in the
application. Subsequent to Agency screen-
ing, data are reviewed by an external
independent panel of technical experts
from academia, industry government, and
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Their comments on potential benefits are
incorporated into the database.The panel
is convened by the Green Chemistry
Institute of the American Chemical Society
primarily for judging nominations submitted
to the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards Program and selecting
winning technologies.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Data
undergo a technical screening review by
DfE before being uploaded to the spread-
sheet. DfE determines whether data sub-
mitted adequately support the
environmental benefits described.
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will
be reviewed to ensure it meets EPA's
Quality Guidelines in terms of transparency
reasonableness and accuracy
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: Data
will undergo technical screening review by
EPA and other program participants (e.g.,
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable)
before being placed in the database.
Additional QA/QC steps to be developed,
as appropriate.
Data Quality Review:
All Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT) programs operate under
EPA's Information Quality Guidelines as
found at www.epa.gov/quality/informa-
tionguidelines/ and under the OPPT
Quality Management Plan (QMP).
Green Chemistry (GC): Review of industry
and academic data as documented in U.S.
EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Green Chemistry Program Files
available at www.epa.gov/opptintr/green-
chemistry/
Design for the Environment (DfE): Not
applicable. Green Engineering (GE): Data
collected will be reviewed to meet data
quality requirements.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: The
new metrics and data system were based,
in part, on recommendations in the
February 2001 GAO report, "EPA Should
Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and
Encourage Pollution Prevention" (GAO-01-
283).They also incorporate work by such
organizations as the Northeast Waste
Management Officials Association, Pacific
Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource
Center; and National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable.
Data Limitations:
Green Chemistry (GC): Occasionally data
are not available for a given technology due
to confidential business information (the
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge
Awards Program does not process CBI).
Because the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge is a voluntary public program, it
cannot routinely accept or process CBI. If
the program stakeholders cannot verify a
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
technology because of proprietary informa-
tion, especially during the final judging stage
of the awards program, they can and do
ask EPA to conduct the verification inter-
nally EPA will then ask the company to
share confidential information with CBI-
cleared OPPT staff in order for EPA to
conduct the verification. It also is occasion-
ally unclear as to what is the percentage
market penetration of implemented alter-
native green chemistry technology
(potential benefits vs. realized benefits). In
these cases, the database is so noted.
Design for the Environment (DfE):
Occasionally data on innovative chemistries
or technologies are claimed CBI by the
developing company, thus limiting the
implementation of beneficial pollution pre-
vention practices on a wider scale.
Green Engineering (GE): There may be
instances in which environment benefits are
not clearly quantified. In those instances,
the data will be excluded.
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs:
Limitations arise from the reliance on indi-
vidual state and local P2 programs to
gather data.These programs vary in atten-
tion to data collection from sources within
their jurisdictions, data verification and
other QA/QC procedures. Also, despite
plans described above to move toward
consistent metrics and definitions, some dif-
ferences exist. EPA is attempting to address
these concerns by strengthening reporting
requirements in its P2 grants (which fund
much of the state and local P2 work) and
focusing those requirements on outcomes,
adding comprehensive new grant reporting
forms and databases which are parallel
with the National P2 Results System, and
adding a P2 component to EPA
Information Exchange Network (which
provides financial support and a compre-
hensive data system to link state data with
EPA).
Error Estimate:
Green Engineering (GE): There may be
instances in which environmental benefits
are not clearly quantified. In those
instances, the data will be excluded. Not
applicable for other programs contributing
data to this measure.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Green Chemistry (GC), Design for the
Environment (DfE), Green Engineering
(GE):The American Chemistry Council
(ACC) has initiated an industry self-moni-
toring program called Responsible Care.
Beginning in 2003, member companies will
collect and report on a variety of informa-
tion. Measures tentatively include Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) releases; tons of
CO2 equivalent per pound of production;
total BTUs consumed per pound of pro-
duction; systems for assessing on reassessing
potential environmental, health, and safety
risks; percentage of products re-evaluated;
percentage of commitments for chemical
evaluation programs; documentation of
process for characterizing and managing
product risks; and documentation of com-
munication of risk characterization results.
Many of these measures are similar to the
EPA program targets identified under Goal
5, Objective 2.These reports may be an
invaluable source of industry baseline infor-
mation. It is important that the EPA
programs identified under Goal 5 evaluate
the utility of the reports generated under
the ACC's Responsible Care Program in
support of the EPA's programs as well as
the goals of Responsible Care. (CAPRM II,
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures,
March 2003 pp. 3l3).The Pollution
Prevention (P2) program's data collection
system is currently under development
through a partnership with the National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable and EPA.
References:
Chemical and Pesticide Results Measures II:
www.pepps.fsu.edu./CAPRM/index.htm I
Green Chemistry (GC):
www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
Design for the Environment (DfE):
www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
Green Engineering (GE):
www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs:
www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
www.p2.org/workgroup/Background.cfm
www.epa.gov/Networkg
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reported toxic chemical releases at Federal Facilities.
Percent reduction in Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical releases to the environment from the busi-
ness sector per unit of production ("Clean Index").
Percent reduction in TRI chemicals in production-related wastes generated by the business sector per
unit of production ("Green Index").
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 163.
Performance Database:
TRIM:Toxics Release Inventory
Modernization, formerly TRIS (Toxics
Release Inventory System) provides facili-
ty/chemical-specific data quantifying the
amount ofTRI-listed chemicals entering
wastes associated with production process
in each year The total amount of each
chemical in production-related wastes can
be broken out by the methods employed
in managing such wastes, including recycling,
energy recovery treatment, and
disposal/release. Amounts of these wastes
that are not recycled are tracked for these
performance measures.The fourth per-
formance measure uses the Chemical
Abstract System (CAS) numbers for the
23 chemicals identified by EPA as priority
chemicals (www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/minimize/chemlist.htm).
Data Source:
Regulated facilities report facility-specific,
chemical-specific release, waste and recy-
cling data to EPA on a calendar year basis.
For example, in calendar year 2003, 23,957
facilities filed 97,251 TRI reports. FY 2007
results will not be available until FY 2009
due to 2 year data lag.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
TRI data are collected as required by sec-
tions 3 I 3 of EPCRA and 6607 of Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA) (40 CFR ' 372;
www.epa.gov/tri/). Only certain facilities in
specific Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes are required to report annually
the quantities of over 650 listed toxic
chemicals and chemical categories released
to each environmental medium and other-
wise managed as waste (40 CFR ' 372;
www.epa.gov/tri/). Regulation requires cov-
ered facilities to use monitoring, mass
balance, emission factors and/or engineer-
ing calculations approaches to estimate
releases and recycling volumes. For the
Clean and Green Index measures and pri-
ority list chemicals measure, data controls
are employed to facilitate cross-year com-
parisons: a subset of chemicals and sectors
are assessed that are consistently reported
in all years; data are normalized to control
for changes in production using published
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
gross product indices (chain-type quantity
index for the manufacturing sector).
QA/QC Procedures:
Most facilities use EPA-certified automated
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) FORM R
reporting tools, which contain automated
error checking mechanisms. Upon receipt
of the facilities' reports, EPA conducts auto-
mated edits, error checks, data scrubs,
corrections and normalization during data
entry and subsequent processing to verify
that the information provided by the facili-
ties is correctly entered in TRIM.The
Agency does not control the quality of the
data submitted by the regulated communi-
ty EPA does, however; work with the
regulated community to improve the quali-
ty of their estimates.
Data Quality Review:
The quality of the data contained in theTRI
chemical reports is dependent upon the
quality of the data that the reporting facility
uses to estimate its releases and other
waste management quantities. Use ofTRI
Form R by submitters and EPA's perform-
ance data reviews combine to help assure
data quality
Data Limitations:
Use of the data should be based on the
user's understanding that the Agency does
not have direct assurance of the accuracy
of the facilities' measurement and reporting
processes. TRI release data are reported
by facilities on a good faith, best-estimate
basis. EPA does not have the resources
to conduct on-site validation of each facili-
ty's reporting data, though on-site
investigations do occur each year at a sub-
set of reporting facilities.
Error Estimate:
From the various data quality efforts, EPA
has learned of several reporting issues such
as incorrect assignment of threshold activi-
ties and incorrect assignment of release
and other waste management quantities
(EPA-745-F-93-001; EPA-745-R-98-012;
wwwepa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_report
s/index.htm; www.epa.gov/tri/report/
index.htm.) For example, certain facilities
incorrectly assigned a 'processing' (25,000
Ib) threshold instead of an 'otherwise use'
(10,000 Ib) threshold for certain persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals,
so they did not have to report if their
releases were below 25,000 Ibs. Also, for
example, some facilities incorrectly report-
ed fugitive releases instead of stack releases
of certain toxic chemicals.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
To improve reporting efficiency and effec-
tiveness, reduce burden, and promote data
reliability and consistency across Agency
programs, EPA simplified the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements.
TheTRI Form Modification Rule effective
September of 2005, will simplify data ele-
ments, reduced the number of reporting
codes, and make two technical corrections
to the regulations by correcting contact
information and removing an outdated
description of a pollution prevention data
element.The revised TRI form, will allow
the EPA to better target pollution preven-
tion efforts, improve public access to
information about source reduction and
pollution control activities undertaken by
some facilities, and encourage manufactur-
ers to comply by making it easier to use.
Please see the following for additional
information on this rule: www.epa.gov/tri/
tridata/mod rule/index, htm
References:
www.epa.gov/tri/ and additional citations
provided above: EPA-745-F-93-OOI ;EPA-
745-R-98-OI2;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm;
wwwepa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_report
s/index.htm; OSWER priority chemicals and
fact sheets
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mini-
mize/chemlist.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm; Bureau
of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are
available at www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas: water use, energy use, materials use, solid waste gen-
erated, air releases, and water discharges.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 162.
Performance Databases:
Both the Performance Track On-Line (a
Domino database) and the Performance
Track Members Database (a Microsoft
Access database) store information that
facilities have provided to EPA in applica-
tions and annual performance reports.
Performance Track members select a set of
environmental indicators on which to
report performance over a 3-year period
of participation.The externally reported
indicators (listed above) may or may not
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
be included in any particular facility's set of
indicators. Performance Track aggregates
and reports only that information that a
facility voluntarily reports to the Agency A
facility may make progress towards one of
the above indicators, but if it is not among
its set of "commitments", then Performance
Tracks data will not reflect the changes
occurring at the facility Similarly if a facility's
performance declines in any of the above
areas and the indicator is not included
among its set of commitments, that decline
will not be reflected in the above results.
Members report on results in a calendar
year Fiscal year 2005 corresponds most
closely with members' calendar year of
2005.That data will be reported to the
Performance Track program by April I,
2006.The data will then be reviewed,
aggregated, and available for external
reporting in August 2006.
Data Source:
All data are self-reported and self-certified
by member facilities. As described below,
Performance Track engages in quality con-
trol to the extent possible, but it does not
conduct formal auditing. However; a criteri-
on of Performance Track membership is
the existence of an environmental manage-
ment system (EMS) at the facility a key
element of which is a system of measure-
ment and monitoring. Most Performance
Track facilities have had independent third-
party audits of their EMSs, which create a
basis for confidence in the facilities' data. It
is clear from submitted reports that some
facilities have a tendency to estimate or
round data. Errors are also made in con-
verting units and in calculations. In general,
however; EPA is confident that the exter-
nally reported results are a fair
representation of members' performance.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Data collected from members' applications
and annual performance reports are com-
piled and aggregated across those
members that choose to report on the
given indicator The data reflect the per-
formance results at the facility; any
improvements or declines in performance
are due to activities and conditions at the
specific facility as a whole. However; in
some cases, facilities report results for spe-
cific sections of a facility and this may not
be clear in the reports submitted to the
program. For example, Member A commits
to reducing its VOCs from 1000 tons to
500 tons over a 3-year period. In Year I, it
reports a reduction ofVOCs from 1000
tons to 800 tons. Performance Track aggre-
gates this reduction of 200 tons with
results from other facilities. But unbe-
knownst to Performance Track, the facility
made a commitment to reduce its VOCs
from Production Line A and is only report-
ing on its results from that production line.
The facility is not intentionally hiding infor-
mation from EPA, but mistakenly thought
that its commitment could focus on envi-
ronmental management activities at
Production Line A rather than across the
entire facility Unfortunately, due to
increased production and a couple of
mishaps by a sloppy technician,VOC emis-
sions at Production Line B increased by
500 tons in Year I.Thus, the facility's VOC
emissions actually increased by 300 tons in
Year I; Performance Track's statement to
the public that the facility reduced its emis-
sions by 200 tons is therefore misleading.
The data can be used to make year-to-year
comparisons, but reviewers and analysts
should bear in mind that Performance Track
membership is constantly in flux. Although
members should retain the same set of
indicators for their 3-year participation
period, as new members join the program
and others leave, the baseline constantly
changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the
timing of the application period, a small
subset of reported data will represent 2
years of performance at certain facilities,
i.e., the baseline will be 2 years prior rather
than I year
QA/QC Procedures:
Data submitted with applications and annual
performance reports to the program are
reviewed for completeness and adherence
to program formatting requirements. In
cases where it appears possible that data is
miscalculated or misreported, EPA or con-
tractor staff follows up with the facility If the
accuracy of data remains under question or
if a facility has provided incomplete or non-
standard data, the database is coded to
ensure that the data is excluded from aggre-
gated and externally reported results.
Additionally Performance Track staff visit up
to 20% of Performance Track member facil-
ities each year During those visits, facilities
are asked about their data collection sys-
tems and about the sources of the data
reported to the program.
Performance Track contractors conduct a
quality review of data entered manually
into the database. Performance Track staff
conduct periodic checks of the entered
data. As described, Performance Track is
quality controlled to the extent possible,
but is not audited in a formal way.
However; a prerequisite of Performance
Track membership is an environmental
management system (EMS) at the facility, a
key element of which is a system of meas-
urement and monitoring. Most
Performance Track facilities have had inde-
pendent third-party audits of their EMSs,
which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data. A Quality Management Plan
is under development.
Data Limitations:
Potential sources of error include miscalcu-
lations, faulty data collection, misreporting,
inconsistent reporting, and nonstandard
reporting on the part of the facility Where
facilities submit data outside of the
Performance Track On-Line system,
Performance Track staff or contractors
must enter data manually into the data-
base. Manually entered data is sometimes
typed incorrectly
It is clear from submitted reports that
some facilities have a tendency to estimate
or round data. Errors are also made in
converting units and in calculations. In gen-
eral, however; EPA is confident that the
externally reported results are a fair repre-
sentation of members' performance.
New/Improved Performance Data or
Systems:
Since spring 2004, all Performance Track
applications and annual performance
reports have been submitted electronically
(i.e., through the Performance Track On-
Line system), thus avoiding the need for
manual data entry Additionally the pro-
gram is implementing a new requirement
that all members gain third-party assess-
ments of their EMSs. Also, the program has
reduced the chances that data may reflect
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
process-specific (rather than facility-wide)
data by paying additional attention to the
issue in the review process and by institut-
ing "facility-wide data" requirements for all
indicators.
References:
Members' applications and annual perform-
ance reports can be found on the
Performance Track website at
www.epa.gov/performancetrack/particip/alp
habet.htm. Performance Track On-Une and
the Performance Track Members Database
are not generally accessible. Performance
Track staff can grant access to and review
of the databases by request.
Goal 5, Objective 3
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Measure I: Increase tribes' ability to develop environmental program capacity by ensuring that federally
recognized tribes have access to an environmental presence.
Measure 2: Develop or integrate EPA and interagency data systems to facilitate the use of EPA's Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA) information in setting environmental priorities and informing
policy decisions.
Measure 3: Eliminate data gaps for environmental conditions for major water, land, and air programs as
determined through the availability of information in the TPEA.
Measure 4: Increase implementation of environmental programs in Indian country as determined by
program delegations, approvals, or primacies issued to tribes and direct implementation activities by EPA
[Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs].
Measure 5: Increase the number of EPA-approved quality assurance plans for tribal environmental
monitoring and assessment activities [Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed
monitoring and assessment occurring].
Measure 6: Increase the percent of EPA agreements with tribes that reflect holistic (multimedia) program
integration and traditional use of natural resources. [Associated PART Measure: Percent of tribes with
EPA-approved multimedia work plans].
Measure 7 [Efficiency]: Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million
dollars.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 165.
Performance Database & Data Source:
EPA's American Indian Environmental
Office (AIEO) developed an information
technology infrastructure, named the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA.
The TPEA is a suite often secure Internet-
based applications that track environmental
conditions and progress toward environ-
mental program implementation in Indian
country as well as other AIEO business
functions. One TPEA application, the
Objective 5.3 Reporting System, tracks
progress in achieving the six Strategic
Targets under Objective 5.3 of EPA's
National Strategic Plan—"BuildTribal
Capacity (associated with Measures I -6).
EPA employees use the Objective 5.3
Reporting System to establish program
performance commitments for future fiscal
years and to record actual program per-
formance accomplishments for six Strategic
Targets.Therefore, the Objective 5.3
Reporting System serves as the data
source and performance database for each
of the six Strategic Targets and their associ-
ated PART measures (associated PART
measures represent program performance
differently than the Strategic Targets but
use the same data).
Measure I: Increase tribes' ability to
develop environmental program capacity
by ensuring that federally recognized
tribes have access to an environmental
presence.
Access to an environmental presence is
measured by the level of General
Assistance Program (GAP) funds available
to support tribes in hiring staff and acquir-
ing resources to operate an environmental
program.That level has changed overtime.
Presently, $ I 10,000 is considered the aver-
age annual cost for a tribe to maintain an
environmental presence.
The number of tribal entities that have
access to an environmental presence is cal-
culated from the annual GAP
appropriation, less redsions and an annual
set aside which supports nationally signifi-
cant programs, divided by $ I 10,000.That
number is compared to the number of
tribal entities eligible to receive GAP fund-
ing and reported as a percentage.
Values for appropriations and recisions are
public records in the EPA annual budget.
The GAP set aside values are maintained
by AIEO.The $1 10,000 level to maintain an
environmental presence was determined
by consensus of the EPA Regional Indian
Coordinators.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Measure 2: Develop or integrate EPA and
interagency data systems to facilitate the
use of EPA's Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture (TPEA) information in set-
ting environmental priorities and
informing policy decisions.
ATribal Information Management System
(TIMS) is the vehicle for organizing and
integrating the various data sources used in
the TPEA. Current TPEA data sources are
existing federal databases, both from EPA
and other agencies, supplemented by data
collected from the EPA regions as appro-
priate. All data sources are identified and
referenced in the application. EPA contin-
ues to take advantage of new technology
to establish direct links with other federal
agency data systems (including the U.S.
Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation,
and Indian Health Service) to further
develop this integrated, comprehensive,
multi-agency TPEA, following the business
rules and models of the Federal Enterprise
Architecture.
Presently, 45 data layers are identified in
theTribal Program Enterprise Architecture.
Commitments for the incorporation of
additional data sources are reported annu-
ally in the Objective 5.3 Reporting System.
Measure 3: Eliminate data gaps for envi-
ronmental conditions for major water,
land, and air programs as determined
through the availability of information in
the TPEA.
Identification of data gaps in environmental
information is an issue both for EPA as an
agency and other organizations that
attempt to analyze data from a national
perspective (Heinz Center, 2002). As EPA
identifies environmental data gaps, AIEO
will coordinate with other Agency pro-
grams to eliminate those gaps, with special
emphasis on gaps in Indian country Thirty
data gaps are listed for measure 3.These
were identified by a Baseline Assessment
working group made up of EPA
Headquarters and Regional staff responsi-
ble for management of tribal programs.
Some obvious issues in Indian country—
such as the prevalence of open dumps and
hazardous waste sites—are not on the list
of data gaps because national systems
already exist to identify and verify that
information (Indian Health Service Open
Dumps Report to Congress, and EPA
RCRAinfo data system). Measure 3 is
measured as a percentage, which when
applied to the total number of gaps equals
the elimination of six data gaps by 2008.
Commitments for the elimination of data
gaps are reported annually in the Objective
5.3 Reporting System.
Measure 4: Increase implementation of
environmental programs in Indian country
as determined by program delegations,
approvals, or primacies issued to tribes
and direct implementation activities by
EPA.
[Associated PART Measure: Percent of
tribes with delegated and non-delegated
programs]. Measure 4 is tracked by: I)
Treatment in a manner similar to a State
(TAS) approvals or primacies; 2) the execu-
tion of Direct Implementation Tribal
Cooperative Agreements (DITCA); and 3)
GAP grants that have provisions for the
implementation of solid waste or hazardous
waste programs. EPA Regional project offi-
cers managing tribal grants use the
Objective 5.3 Reporting System to input
data by tribe and the system cumulates
them nationally Thus, it is possible, and even
likely that a tribe will contribute to a target
in multiple ways. Measure 4 implementation
activities are input continuously by regional
tribal program liaisons and summed at the
end of the fiscal year The associated PART
Measure is reported as a percent of tribes
contributing to Measure 4.
Measure 5: Increase the number of EPA-
approved quality assurance plans for tribal
environmental monitoring and assessment
activities.
[Associated PART Measure: Percent of
tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment occurring]. Measure 5 reports
on active Quality Assurance Project Plans.
Data are loaded into the Objective 5.3
Reporting System by regional tribal pro-
gram liaisons from information maintained
by regional Quality Assurance Officers. All
ongoing environmental monitoring pro-
grams are required to have active Quality
Assurance Project Plans. Measure 5 data
are input continuously by regional tribal
program liaisons and summed at the end
of the fiscal year The associated PART
Measure is reported as a percent of tribes
contributing to Measure 5.
Measure 6: Increase the number of EPA
agreements with tribes that reflect holis-
tic (multimedia) program integration and
traditional use of natural resources
[Associated PART Measure: Percent of
tribes with EPA-approved multimedia
work plans].
Measure 6 reports on Performance
Partnership Grants (PPGs),Tier I, II, & III
Tribal Environmental Agreements (TEAs),
Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), and
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
These data are input by tribal program
liaisons at the EPA regions and summed
annually As in Measure 4, it is possible, that
a tribe will contribute to the measure in
more than one way. Measure 6 TEAs, PPGs,
MOAs and MOUs are loaded into the
Objective 5.3 Reporting System by regional
tribal program liaisons and summed at the
end of the fiscal year The associated PART
Measure is reported as a percent of tribes
contributing to Measure 6.
Measure 7 [Efficiency]: Number of envi-
ronmental programs implemented in
Indian country per million dollars.
Measure 7 is calculated annually by taking
the number of tribes receiving GAP grants,
the number ofTAS approvals or primacies,
the number of DITCAs, and number of
GAP grants that have provisions for the
implementation of solid waste or haz-
ardous waste programs and dividing that
cumulative number by the annual GAP
appropriation (less redsions and annual set
aside).The measure reflects the expansion
of program implementation capacity and
the establishment of specific environmental
programs in relation to the level of
resources contributed by the EPA program
statutorily targeted towards those goals.
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The Objective 5.3 Reporting System con-
tains all the information for reporting
Measures I -6 (and their associated PART
measures). Measures 4, 5, and 6 assume the
regional tribal program liaisons input accu-
rate data. Measure 4 and 7 can also be
verified from Integrated Grants
Management System records and the
Objective 5.3 Reporting System.
Measure 5 can be verified from Regional
Quality Assurance Officer databases.
Measure 6 can be verified from official
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
correspondence files between EPA Regions
and Tribes, or from project officer case files.
QA/QC Procedures:
Data used in the Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture contains quality assurance and
metadata documentation prepared by the
originating agency or program. Additionally
because the information in the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture will be
used for budget and strategic planning pur-
poses, AIEO requires adherence to the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer's
Information Quality Guidelines.
Data Quality Reviews:
Data correction and improvement is an
ongoing component of the Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture.The Objective 5.3
Reporting System relies on multiple staff-
level reviews and a number of limitations
concerning the ability to analyze environ-
mental conditions in Indian country specific
to measures 2 and 3 have been identified.
As a result, a special application, the Tribal
Information Management System (TIMS)
Data Center was developed.This Data
Center supports the submission of correc-
tions to boundary information, narrative
profiles, and factual database information—
particularly latitude and longitude
coordinates for facilities. AIEO will collect
and pass along recommendations regarding
the correction or modification of databases
whenever errors are detected or sugges-
tions for database improvement are
received. Each database manager will retain
the responsibility of addressing the recom-
mended change according to their quality
assurance protocols. Because the data sub-
mittals will be used for budget or strategic
planning purposes, AIEO will require that
all submittals meet the OCFO's
Information Quality Guidelines.
Data Limitations:
The largest part of the data used by the
Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture has
not been coded to particular tribes by the
recording agency. AIEO uses new geo-
graphic data mining technologies to extract
records based on the geographical coordi-
nates of the data points. For example, if a
regulated facility has latitude and longitude
coordinates that place it in the boundaries
of the Wind River Reservation, then it is
assigned to the Arapaho and Shoshone
Tribes of the Wind River Reservation.This
technique is extremely powerful because it
"tribally enables" large numbers of informa-
tion systems which were previously
incapable of identifying tribes.This approach
will be applied to all EPA databases.There
are limitations, however When database
records are not geographically identified
with latitude and longitude, the technique
does not work and the record is lost to
the system. For EPA regulated facilities in
the Facility Registry System, AIEO estimates
that 64% have latitude and longitude
recorded. Therefore, the accuracy of EPA's
data concerning environmental conditions
in Indian country will depend on additional
improvements to Agency data systems.
Error Estimate:
Analysis of variation of reservation bound-
ary coverages available to EPA indicates
deviations of up to 5%. Another source of
error is records that are not sufficiently
described geographically to be assigned to
specific tribes. For some agencies, such as
the USGS, the geographic record is com-
plete, so there is no error from these
sources. It is estimated that 36% of the reg-
ulated facilities in EPA's regulatory
databases are not geographically described.
TheTPEA identifies the non-geographically
indexed facilities by postal zip code for zip
codes that overlap tribal boundaries.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The technologies used by the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture are new,
secure and state-of-the-art.The geographic
interface is a product called ARC/IMS,
which is a web-based application, with a
fully functional Geographic Information
System (GIS), scalable.The Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture uses XML proto-
cols to attach to and display information
seamlessly and in real-time from cooperat-
ing agency data systems without having to
download the data to an intermediate
server In addition, the baseline assessment
project has developed web-based, secure
data input systems that allow regional proj-
ect officers to input programmatic data
directly into performance reporting sys-
tems, TIMS and other customizable reports.
References:
Office of Chief Financial Officer Information
Quality Guidelines: www.epa.gov/quality/
informationguidelines/.
Goal 5, Objective 4
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Verifications completed.
Testing Protocols completed.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in Goal 5, page 168.
Performance Database:
Program output; no internal tracking system.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
Enabling and Support Programs
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 21 laboratories from the 1990 base.
Performance Database:
The Agency's contractor provides energy
consumption information quarterly and
annually The Agency keeps the energy con-
sumption data in the "Energy Reporting
System."The contractor is responsible for
validating the data.
Data Source:
The Agency's contractor collects quarterly
energy data from each of EPA's laborato-
ries. The data are based on metered
readings from the laboratory's utility bills
for certain utilities (natural gas, electricity
purchased steam, chilled water; high tem-
perature hot water; and potable water) and
from on-site consumption logs for other
utilities (propane and fuel oil).The data
from the on-site consumption logs are
compared to invoices to verify that report-
ed consumption and cost data are correct.
QA/QC Procedures:
EPA's Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch
compares reported energy use at each
facility against previous years' data to see if
there are any significant and unexplainable
increases or decreases in energy quantities
and costs.
Data Limitations:
EPA does not have a formal meter verifica-
tion program to ensure that an on-site
utility meter reading corresponds to the
charges included in the utility bill.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
The Central Data Exchange (CDX) will fully support electronic data exchange requirements for major
EPA environmental systems, enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
States will be able to exchange data with CDX through state nodes in real time, using new web-based
data standards that allow for automated data-quality checking.
States, tribes, laboratories, and others will choose to use CDX to report environmental data electronical-
ly to EPA, taking advantage of automated data quality checks and on-line customer support.
Customer-help desk calls resolved in a timely fashion.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in ESP, page 174.
Performance Database:
CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.
Data Source:
Data are provided by state, private sector;
local, and tribal government CDX users.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
All CDX users must register before they
can begin reporting to the system. The
records of registration provide an up-to-
date, accurate count of users. Users identify
themselves with several descriptors.
QA/QC Procedures:
QA/QC have been performed in accor-
dance with a CDX Quality Assurance Plan
[Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Interim
Central Data Exchange System. Document
number: EP005T7. Sept. 17, 2001] and the
CDX Design Document v.3, Appendix K
registration procedures [Central Data
Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype
System Requirements: Version 3; Document
number: EP005S3. December 2000],
Specifically data are reviewed for authentici-
ty and integrity The CDX Quality Assurance
Plan was updated in FY 2004 [Quality
Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data
Exchange," 10/8/2004; contact: Wendy
Timm, 202 566 0725] to incorporate new
technology and policy requirements. Work is
underway to complete the revision of the
Design Document Automated edit checking
routines are performed in accordance with
program specifications and CDX quality
assurance guidance [QualityAssurance Project
Plan for the Interim Central Data Exchange
System. Document number: EP005T7. Sept.
17,2001],
Data Quality Reviews:
CDX successfully completed independent
security risk assessment in the summer
2001. In addition, routine audits of CDX
data collection procedures and customer
service operations are provided weekly to
CDX management and staff for review.
Included in these reports are performance
measures such as the number of CDX
new users, number of submissions to CDX,
number of help desk calls, number of calls
resolved, ranking of errors/problems, and
actions taken.These reports are reviewed
and actions discussed at weekly project
meetings.
Data Limitations:
The CDX system collets, reports, and
tracks performance measures on data qual-
ity and customer service. While its
automated routines are sufficient to screen
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
systemic problems/issues, a more detailed
assessment of data errors/problems gener-
ally requires a secondary level of analysis
that takes time and human resources.
Error Estimate:
CDX incorporates a number of features to
reduce errors, such as pre-populating data
whenever possible, edit checks, etc.The
possibility of an error in the number of
states registered for CDX, e.g., double-
counting of some sort, is extremely remote
(far less than I %).
New/Improved Performance Data or
Systems:
CDX coalesces the registration/submission
requirements of many different state-to-
EPA, private sector-to-EPA, and local and
tribal governments-to-EPA data exchanges
into a single web-based system.The system
allows for a more consistent and compre-
hensive management and performance
tracking of many different external cus-
tomers. The creation of a centralized
registration system, coupled with the use of
web forms and web-based approaches to
submitting the data, invite opportunities to
introduce automated quality assurance pro-
cedures for the system and reduce human
error
References:
CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Establish an improved suite of environmental indicators for use by EPA's programs and partners in the
Agency's strategic planning and performance measurement process.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in ESP, page 174.
Performance Database:
Initial collection of indicators compiled dur-
ing the drafting of EPA's "Report on the
Environment," supplemented by indicators
currently used in the Agency's strategic
planning and performance measurement
process (e.g., EPA's Strategic Plan, Annual
Performance Plan, Annual Performance
Report, Annual Operating Plan, and
National Environmental Performance
Partnership Agreements), will comprise an
Agency baseline of indicators
(www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm).
Methods,Assumptions and Suitability:
The Office of Environmental Information
(OEI), the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will review
the planning documents and establish a
baseline of indicators in consultation with
key Agency steering committees.
QA/QC Procedures:
As the baseline is established, protocols
also will be developed to ensure that the
data supporting the indicators are accurate
and complete.
Data Limitations:
The challenge is to develop suitable indica-
tors with sufficient data of known quality.
New/Improved Performance Data or
Systems:
The baseline indicators and supporting
data are in development.
References:
EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment"
and "Technical Support Document" (EPA
pub. no. 260-R-02-006). Draft Report on
the Environment Technical Document
(Publication # EPA 600-R-03-050). Both
Dated June 2003
Web site:
www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/
roePDF.htm
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Percent compliance with criteria used by OMB to assess Agency security programs reported annually to OMB
under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)/Government Information Security Act
Performance results related to these measures are presented in ESP, page 175.
Performance Database:
Automated Security Self-Evaluation and
Remediation Tracking (ASSERT) database.
Data Source:
Information technology (IT) system owners
in Agency Program and Regional offices.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
Annual IT security assessments are con-
ducted using the methodology mandated
by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the National Institute of Standards,
and Technology (NIST) Security Self-
Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems. ASSERT has automat-
ed and web-enabled this methodology.
QA/QC Procedures:
Automated edit checking routines are per-
formed in accordance with ASSERT design
specifications to ensure answers to ques-
tions in ASSERT are consistent.The Office
of Inspector General consistent with §3545
FISMA, and the Chief Information Officer's
information security staff conduct inde-
pendent evaluations of the assessments.
The Agency certifies results to OMB in the
annual FISMA report.
Data Quality Reviews:
Program offices are required to develop
security action plans composed of tasks
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
and milestones to address security weak-
nesses. Program offices self-report progress
toward these milestones. EPA's information
security staff review these self-reported
data, conduct independent validation of a
sample, and discuss anomalies with the
submitting office.
Data Limitations:
Resources constrain the security staff's abil-
ity to validate all of the self-reported
compliance data submitted by program sys-
tems' managers.
References:
Annual Information Security Reports to
OMB:
OMB guidance memorandum: www.white-
house.gov/omb/memoranda/2003.html;
ASSERT web site:
https://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST
Special Publication 800-26, Security
Self_Assessment Guide for Information
Technology Systems, November 2001:
csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html;
and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL 107-347:
csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISM A_final.pdf
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Number of actions taken for environmental improvement, reductions in environmental risks, and
recommendations made for environmental improvement.
Number of actions taken for improvement in business practices, criminal/civil/administrative actions,
potential dollar return, and recommendations made for improved business practices.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in ESP, page 175.
Performance Database:
The OIG Performance Measurement and
Results System captures and aggregates
information on an array of measures in a
logic model format, linking immediate out-
puts with long-term intermediate
outcomes and results. Because intermedi-
ate and long-term results may not be
realized for several years, only verifiable
results are reported in the year completed,
while others remain prospective until com-
pleted and verified. Database measures
include numbers of: I) recommendations
for environmental and management
improvement; 2) legislative, regulatory poli-
cy directive, or process changes; 3)
environmental, program, and resource
integrity risks identified, reduced, or elimi-
nated; 4) best practices identified and
transferred; 5) examples of environmental
and management improvements; 6) mone-
tary value of funds questioned, saved, fined,
or recovered; and 7) public or congression-
al inquiries resolved.
Data Source:
Designated OIG staff enter data into the
system. Data are from OIG performance
evaluations, audits, research, court records,
EPA documents, data systems, and reports
that track environmental and management
actions or improvements made and risks
reduced or avoided. OIG also collects inde-
pendent data from EPA's partners and
stakeholders.
Methods,Assumptions, and Suitability:
OIG performance results are a chain of
linked events, starting with OIG outputs
(e.g., recommendations, reports of best
practices, and identification of risks).The
subsequent actions taken by EPA or its
stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIG's
outputs, to improve operational efficiency
and environmental program delivery are
reported as intermediate outcomes.The
resulting improvements in operational effi-
ciency risks reduced/eliminated, and
conditions of environmental and human
health are reported as outcomes. By using
common categories of performance meas-
ures, quantitative results can be summed
and reported. Each outcome is also qualita-
tively described, supported, and linked to
an OIG product or output.The OIG can
only control its outputs, and has no author-
ity beyond its influence, to implement its
recommendations that lead to environ-
mental and management outcomes.
QA/QC Procedures:
All performance data submitted to the
database require at least one verifiable
source assuring data accuracy and reliability
Data quality assurance and control are per-
formed as an extension of OIG products
and services, subject to rigorous compli-
ance with the Government Auditing
Standards of the Comptroller General15,
and regularly reviewed by OIG manage-
ment, an independent OIG Management
Assessment Review Team, and external
independent peer reviews.
Data Quality Reviews:
There have not been any previous audit
findings or reports by external groups on
data or database weaknesses in the OIG
Performance Measurement and Results
System. All data reported are audited inter-
nally for accuracy and consistency
Data Limitations:
All OIG staff are responsible for data accu-
racy in their products and services.
However; there is a possibility of incom-
plete, miscoded, or missing data in the
system due to human error or time lags.
Data supporting achievement of results are
often from indirect or external sources,
with their own methods or standards for
data verification/validation.
Error Estimate:
The error rate for outputs is estimated at
+1-1%, while the error rate for reported
long-term outcomes is presumably greater
because of the longer period needed for
tracking results. Errors tend to be those of
New/Improved Data or Systems:
The OIG developed the Performance
Measurement and Results System as a pro-
totype in FY 2001 and anticipates replacing
it in FY 2006 with a more sophisticated
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
system designed to integrate data collec-
tion and analysis. We also expect the
quality of the data to improve as staff gain
greater familiarity with the system and
measures.This system is a best practice in
government for linking an array of meas-
ures from outputs to eventual results and
impacts. With enhanced linkages to cus-
tomer satisfaction results and resource
investments, it will provide a full-balanced
scorecard with return on investment infor-
mation for accountability and decision
making.
References:
All OIG non-restricted performance results
are referenced in the OIG Performance
Measurement and Results System with sup-
porting documentation available either
through the OIG Web Site or other
Agency databases.The OIG Web Site is
www.epa.gov/oig.
FY 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURE:
Agency's audited Financial Statements are timely and receive an unqualified opinion.
Performance results related to these measures are presented in ESP, page 178.
Performance Database:
Output measure.There is no performance
database.
Data Source:
OMB acknowledgement of receipt of finan-
cial statements; OIG audit report.
QA/QC Procedures:
The Agency's financial statements are sub-
ject to OCFO management review and an
OIG audit.
Data Quality Review:
The annual financial audit opinion, rendered
by the OIG, is a gauge of the accuracy and
fair presentation of the financial activity and
financial balances of the Agency The
unqualified opinion is rendered by the OIG.
References:
Fiscal Year 2004 EPA Annual Report.
-------
APPENDIX C. DATA QUALITY
NOTES
For FY 2007, the Agency will be reporting on a measure which combines the current APGs 2.4 and 2.5. It measures the percent of
community water systems in compliance with all drinking water standards. This measure arose from the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund PART.
Data Reliability Action Plan. U.S. EPA, October 2002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water internal work plan document.
Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003) For State Reported Public Water System Data In the EPA Safe
Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED)
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See Options for
OGWDW Information Strategy (Working Draft), EPA 816-P-01-001. Washington, DC, February 2001. Available on the Internet
at www.epa.gov/safewater/data/informationstrategy.html
SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle data base application available for use by states and EPA regions to support
implementation of their drinking water programs. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases.
Drinking Water Data & Databases—SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/safewater/
sdwis_st/current.html
These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. PL. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington:
US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/swappg.html.
Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at www.epa.gov/waters/
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. 1998. National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology. EPA Number 100R98006. National Center for Environmental Publications]
Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. March 15,2000. RCED-00-54 and
Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters. January 11, 2002
12 Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. 2001. Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council
13 US EPA. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. July 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available at
www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm.
14 U.S. EPA. (July 31, 2002). Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. Toward a Compendium of Best Practices. (First
Edition). Washington, DC: Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Available on the Internet: Monitoring and Assessing
Water Quality www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.
15 Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 82pp.
9
10
11
-------
APPENDIX D. ACRONYMS
Appendix D:
Acronyms Definitic
ABD Assessment Data Base
ACC American Chemistry Council
ACS Annual Commitment System
ADAM Administrative Data Mart
ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
AHIP America Health Insurance Plans
AOC Areas of Concerns
AMS Agricultural Marketing Service
APG Annual Performance Goal
AQM Air Quality Management
AQS Air Quality Subsystem
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water
Administrator
ASSERT Automated Security Self Evaluation and
Remediation
BAS Budget Automation System
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act
B&F Building and Facilities
BFR Brominated Fire Retardant
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BMA Brownfield Management System
BMP Best Management Practices
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselor
BOMA Building Owners and Managers
Association
BPD Bureau of Public Debt
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
BSI Business Strategy, Inc.
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAA Clean Air Act
C&A Certification and Accreditation
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
CCDS Case Conclusion Data Sheet
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CDX Central Data Exchange
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CHR Community Health Representatives
CID Criminal Investigation Division
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO Carbon Monoxide
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COTS Commercial off the Shelf
CRIMDOC Criminal Docket
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CSRS Civil Service Retirement System
CTD Conductivity/Temperature/Depth
CWA Clean Water Act
CWS Community Water System
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CY CalendarYear
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DCWASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority
DFAS Defense Financial and Accounting Service
DfE Design for the Environment
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DITCA Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreements
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DQO Data Quality Objective
DSFC Division of Sanitation Facilities
Construction
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECAT Emergency Consequence Assessment Tool
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
EDSP Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
EFC Environmental Finance Center
e-gov Electronic Government
EIA Energy Information Agency
ENS Ecological Incident Information System
EMP Environmental Management Practices
EMAD Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program
EMPACT Environmental Monitoring for Public
Access and Community Tracking
EMS Environmental Management System
E-Payroll Electronic Payroll
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ER Emergency Room
ERAMS Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitoring System
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ETS Emissions Tracking System
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FCCC Framework Convention on Climate
Change
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDR Facility Data Report
FECA Federal Employee Compensation Act
FERS Federal Employee Retirement System
FFMIA Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act
FISMA Federal Information Security Management
Act
FMFIA Federal Managers'Financial Integrity Act
FR Financial Report
FRP Facility Response Plans
FTAA Free Trade Area of the America
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FQRA Food Quality Protection Act
GAO Government Accountability Office
GAP General Assistance Program
GC Green Chemistry
GE Green Engineering
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographical Information System
GLACS Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant
Surveillance
GLENDA Great Lakes Environmental Database
GLFMP Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GMRA Government Management Reform Act
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
GSA General Services Administration
GWR Groundwater Release
GW Gigawatts
HAPS Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HPV High Production Volume
-------
APPENDIX D. ACRONYMS
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis
IDEF Interim Data Exchange Format
IFMA International Facilities Managers
Association
IGMS Integrated Grants Management System
IMS Indian Health Service
IJC International Joint Commission
IMC Information Management Coordinator
I PI A Improper Payments Information Act
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISSC Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
IT Information Technology
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LIMS Laboratory Information Management
System
LTG Long-Term Goals
LTM Long-Term Monitoring
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MACTS Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standards
MARS Management and Accounting Reporting
System
MD&A Management's Discussion and Analysis
MIC Maximum Contaminant Level
MMTCE Million MetricTons of Carbon Equivalent
MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOD Memorandum of Understanding
MSP Merit System Principles
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MTBE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
MYP Multi-Year Research Plan
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACEPT National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAHB National Association of Home Builders
NAPAP National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program
NAPL Non-aqueous Phase Liquids
NAREL National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NAtChem National Atmospheric Chemistry
Database
NCCR II National Coastal Condition Report II
NCCT National Center for Computational
Toxicology
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics
NDZ No-discharge Zone
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NEP National Estuary Program
NGO Non-governmental Organizations
NHANES National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey
NIMS National Incident Management System
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanographic Atmospheric
Administration
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Research Council
NSR New Source Review
NTI National Toxics Inventory
NTTS National Total Tracking System
NVFEL National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OAM Office of Acquisition Management
OAQPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standard
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OARM Office of Administration and Resources
Management
OAS Organization for American States
OCA Other Cleanup Activity
OC Office of Compliance
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OCHP Office of Children's Health Protection
ODS Ozone Depleting Substances
ODMPT Ozone Depletion Potential-Weighted
Metric Tons
OECD Organization of Economic Cooperation
and Development
OEHE Office of Environmental Health and
Engineering
OEI Office of Environmental Information
OFS Office of Financial Services
OGD Office of Grants and Debarments
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPPIN Office of Pesticide Program Information
Network
OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
OPM Office of Personnel Management
ORBIT OCFO Reporting and Business Intelligence
Tool
ORD Office of Research and Development
OST Office of Science and Technology
OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
OTIS Online Tracking Information System
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tank
OW Office ofWater
P2 Pollution Prevention
PAR Performance and Accountability Report
PARS Performance Appraisal and Recognition
System
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
Pb Lead
PBDE Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCS Permit Compliance System
POP Pesticide Data Program
PER Permitting for Environmental Results
PESP Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PFOA Perfluoroctanoic Acid
PIVOT Performance Indicators Visualization and
Outreach Tool
PM Particulate Matter
PMA President's Management Agenda
PMN Pre-manufacture Notice
RMP Risk Management Plan
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PRA Pollution Prevention Act
PPG Performance Partnership Grants
PRIA Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
PRP Potential Responsible Parties
PWSS Public Water Supply Supervision
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QMP Quality Management Plan
RAC Response Action Contracts
RAD Reach Access Database
RACMIS Remedial Action Contract Management
Information System
RCC Resource Conservation Challenge
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROMS Research Database Management System
RED Registration Eligibility Decision
RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team
-------
APPENDIX D. ACRONYMS
RLF Revolving Loan Fund
RMP Risk Management Plans
RSEI Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
RTF Research Triangle Park
SAS Statistical Analysis System
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDS Sanitation Deficiency System
SDWA Safe Dri nki ng Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and
Assessment Program
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SHPSS School Health Policies and Programs Study
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SIMS Shellfish Information Management System
SIP Site Implementation Plan
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Station
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOL Statute of Limitations
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures
SPIM Superfund Program Implementation
Manual
SRF State Revolving Fund
S&T Science and Technology
STAG State and Tribal Assistance Grants
STAR Science to Achieve Results
STARMAP Space-Time Aquatic Resources Modeling
and Analysis Program
STARS Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System
SWAP Source Water Assessment Program
SWP Source Water Protection
TAG Technical Assistance Grants
TAP Technical Assistance Provider
TAS Treatment as a State
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TEP Technical Evaluation Panel
TfS Tools for Schools
Time/LTM Temporally Integrated Monitoring of
Eco-systems and Long-Term Monitoring
(networks)
TIMS Tribal Information Management System
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for
Communities
TPEA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TUWRAP Toxics Use and Waste Reduction
Assistance Program
TWG Targeted Watershed Grants
UCI Underground Injection Control
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
LIST Underground Storage Tank
USTR United StatesTrade Representative
UV Ultra-violet
VA Vulnerability Assessment
VMT Vehicle MilesTraveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WATERS Watershed Assessment,Tracking and
Environmental Results
WCF Working Capital Fund
WHO World Health Organization
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Project
WPDG Wetland Program Development Grants
WQS Water Quality Standards
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Public Access
EPA invites the public to access www.epa.gov to obtain the latest environmental news, browse EPA topics, learn about
environmental conditions in their communities, obtain information on interest groups, research laws and regulations, search
specific program areas, or access EPA's historical database.
Some of the most interesting and frequently used sites are listed below:
EPA Newsroom: www.epa.gov/newsroom/
• News releases: www.epa.gov/newsroom/newsreleases.htm
• Regional Newsrooms: www.epa.gov/newsroom/
newsrooms.htm
Laws, Regulations, and Dockets:
www.epa.gov/epahome/lawregs.htm
• Major Environmental Laws:
www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm
• Regulations and Proposed Rules:
www.epa.gov/epahome/rules.htmlSproposed
Information Sources: www.epa.gov/epahome/resource.htm
• Hotlines and Clearinghouses: www.epa.gov/epahome/
hotline.htm
• Publications: www.epa.gov/epahome/publications.htm
Programs www.epa.gov/epahome/programs.htm
• List of All Programs and Projects: www.epa.gov/epahome/
abcpgram.htm
• Programs with a Geographic Focus: www.epa.gov/
epahome/places.htm
Partnerships: www.epa.gov/epahome/partnerships.htm
• Central Data Exchange: www.epa.gov/cdx/
• Industry Partnerships:
www.epa.gov/epahome/industry.htm
Business Opportunities: www.epa.gov/epahome/
doingbusiness.htm
• Small Business Opportunities: www.epa.gov/osdbu/
• Grants and Environmental Financing: www.epa.gov/
epahome/finance.htm
Educational Resources:
www.epa.gov/epahome/educational.htm
• Office of Environmental Education: www.epa.gov/
enviroed/
• Teaching Center: www.epa.gov/teachers/
About EPA: www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
• History: www.epa.gov/history/
• Organization: www.epa.gov/epahome/organization.htm
Careers: www.epa.gov/careers/
• EZ Hire: www.epa.gov/ezhire/
• Student Opportunities: www.epa.gov/careers/stuopp.html
EPA en Espanol: www.epa.gov/espanol/
Environmental Kids Club: www.epa.gov/kdds/
-------
ORDERING INFORMATION
This report is available on OCFO's home page at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2005par
through EPA's National Service Center for Environmental
Publications at 1-800-490-9198,
or by ordering online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
EPAI90-R-05-OOI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 2005 Performance
and Accountability Report
November 15,2005
-------
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning,Analysis, and
Accountability (2724A)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-I90-R-05-I
November 2005
Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
-------
WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS!
Thank you for your interest in the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2005
Performance and Accountability 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:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
ORDERING INFORMATION
This report is available on OCFO's homepage at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2005ar/2005ar.htm,
through EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-
9198, or by ordering online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
EPA 190-R-05-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
November 15, 2005
------- |