U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPOR~
Fiscal Year
•••''' f,-
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
About
This Reoort
PURPOSE OF THE
REPORT
The Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Performance and Accountability
Report for Fiscal Year 2006
provides performance and finan-
cial information that enables
Congress, the President, and
the public to assess the progress
EPA is making in achieving
environmental results—improv-
ing the quality of air and water
and preserving and protecting 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
HOW THE REPORT IS
ORGANIZED
Transmitted Letter to the
President
This letter transmits EPA's
FY 2006 Performance and
Accountability Report from the
Administrator to the President,
Congress, and Office of Manage-
ment and Budget. The letter
highlights some of the Agency's
FY 2006 accomplishments. It
provides an assessment of the
reliability and completeness of
the financial and performance
data contained in the report and
two statements of assurance, as
required by the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982
(FMFIA), the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act
-------
INTRODUCTION—ABOUT THIS REPORT
1996 (FFMIA), and the Office
of Management and Budget
Circular A-123 "Internal Control
Systems," issued in 1986.
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 and
financial reportable controls pro-
gram under FMFIA and financial
management systems under FFMIA.
Section I—Management's
Discussion and Analysis
(MD&A)
The MD&A presents an
overview of the entire report. It
includes an overview of the organ-
ization, a summary of the most
significant performance results and
challenges for FY 2006, informa-
tion 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 opera-
tions. Lastly, the MD&A includes
the Administrator's assurance
statement, on the soundness of the
Agency's overall internal controls
and its internal controls over
financial reporting. The MD&A is
supported and supplemented by
detailed information contained in
the Performance Section, Manage-
ment Accomplishments and
Challenges Section, Financial
Section, and Appendices.
Section II—Performance Section
This section discusses our
performance results and progress
toward achieving the strategic
objectives presented in our
2003-2008 Strategic Plan. Along
with the details that can be found
in Section II.2—Annual Perfor-
mance Goal Results: Detailed Results
FY 2003-FY 2006, this section
addresses all of the required ele-
ments 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. For more infor-
mation 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 manage-
ment practices to achieve program
results. It includes the Inspector
General's list of top management
challenges and discusses 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 include sum-
maries of program evaluation
results, information on data quali-
ty, a list of relevant EPA internet
links, and a glossary of acronyms.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter from the Administrator [[[ iv
Message from the Chief Financial Officer [[[ vii
SECTION I— MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
.2
Mission and Organization 3
Highlights of FY 2006 Program Performance 5
—Significant Environmental Accomplishments and Challenges 5
—Homeland Security and Emergency Response 10
—Summary of Performance Data II
Financial Analysis 15
—Highlights of Financial Performance 16
—Government-Wide Financial Performance Measures 18
—Analysis of Financial Statements and Stewardship Information 18
EPA's FY 2006 Management Integrity and Audit Management Reports 21
—Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act 21
—Management Assurances 22
—Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 23
—Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 25
—Federal Information Security Management Act 25
—Improper Payments Information Act 25
—Government Management Reform Act—Audited Financial Statements 25
The President's Management Agenda 26
Improving Performance, Results, and Management 29
—Strengthening Planning and Accountability 29
—Using the PART and Program Evaluation 30
—Improving Environmental Indicators, Performance Measurement, and Data Quality 32
—Improving and Integrating Financial Information 35
—Considering Future Trends and Looking Ahead 36
SECTION 11.1—PERFORMANCE RESULTS
Introduction to Performance Section 40
Goal I —Clean Air and Global Climate Change 42
—Objective I.I: Healthier Outdoor Air 45
—Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air 50
—Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer 53
—Objective 1.4: Radiation 55
—Objective 1.5: Greenhouse Gas Intensity 57
—Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research 60
Goal 2—Clean and Safe Water 63
—Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health 65
—Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality 69
—Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research 72
-------
INTRODUCTION—CONTENTS
Goal 4—Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 89
—Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks 91
—Objective 4.2: Communities 99
—Objective 4.3: Ecosystems 103
—Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research 110
Goal 5—Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 115
—Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance 118
—Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and Innovation 122
—Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity 127
—Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research I 30
SECTION 11.2—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOAL RESULTS: DETAILED RESULTS
FY 2003-FY 2006
Introduction to Performance Results I 33
Goal I —Clean Air and Global Climate Change I 34
Goal 2—Clean and Safe Water 149
Goal 3—Land Preservation and Restoration I 60
Goal 4—Healthy Communities and Ecosystems I 65
Goal 5—Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 178
Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006 Enabling and Support Programs I 86E
PART Measures with Data Availability Beyond FY 2006 190
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Introduction to Management Section 194
ERA's Progress in Addressing FY 2006 Agency-level Weaknesses 195
OIG's 2006 Key Management Challenges and ERA's Response 197
SECTION IV—FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Introduction to Financial Section 214
Principal Financial Statements 216
—Consolidated Balance Sheet 217
—Consolidated Statement of Net Cost 218
—Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal 219
—Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position 221
—Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources 222
—Consolidated Statement of Financing 224
—Statement of Custodial Activity 226
Notes to Financial Statements 227
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) 257
—Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited) 257
—Stewardship Property Plant, and Equipment (Land) 259
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited) 260
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited) 262
—Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes 262
—Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report 270
Inspector General's Audit Report 273
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2006 A-1
Appendix B—Data Quality B-1
Appendix C—Public Access C-1
Appendix D—Acronyms D-1
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Administrator's
ette
1
November 15, 2006
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to present the
Environmental Protection
Agency's Fiscal Year 2006
Performance and Accountability
Report. This report reviews the
Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) programmatic
and financial performance over
the past fiscal year. 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.
This report meets the require-
ments of the Government Perfor-
mance and Results Act and other
management legislation; it also
demonstrates EPA's commitment
to be accountable for results
measured against the annual
performance goals presented in
our FY 2006 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 pro-
tecting human health and the
environment established in our
2003-2008 Strategic Plan.
This year, EPA celebrated its
35th anniversary. Since our found-
ing, EPA has led the nationwide
effort to clean up and protect the
environment, for today and for
the future. We have taken your
charge seriously—to accelerate
the pace of environmental protec-
tion, while maintaining our
nation's economic competitive-
ness. Today, we are relying on
collaborative efforts, innovative
programs and approaches, and
sound science to promote a cul-
ture of environmental stewardship
here in the United States and
throughout the world.
PERFORMANCE
HIGHLIGHTS
• Nationwide, our air is cleaner
today than it was three
decades ago.
• We are advancing clean,
renewable fuels and clean
air through a renewable fuel
-------
INTRODUCTION—ADMINISTRATOR'S MESSAGE
standard which guarantees the
use of renewable fuels pro-
duced from American crops
will double by 2017.
• To help meet your greenhouse
intensity reduction goal, I
recently kicked off ENERGY
STAR's annual Change a
Light, Change the World
campaign to encourage more
Americans to make smart
lighting decisions. If every
American household changed
just one traditional light to an
ENERGY STAR-qualified
bulb, we would conserve
enough power to light more
than 2.5 million homes for a
year, save more than $500
million in energy costs, and
prevent the equivalent green-
house gas emission of nearly
800,000 cars.
• We practice what we preach
since, as of September 1,
2006, EPA is purchasing near-
ly 300 million kilowatt hours
of green power annually in the
form of either renewable ener-
gy certificates or delivered
product. I am proud to say
that EPA is the first federal
agency to purchase green
power equal to 100 percent of
its estimated annual electricity
use nationwide.
• By the end of FY 2006, more
than 2,500 polluted waters iden-
tified by states in 2000 were
restored or found to be meeting
water quality standards.
• We exceeded our target under
Superfund—by the end of
FY 2006, EPA controlled site
contamination posing unac-
ceptable risks to human
health at an additional 34
sites and controlled the spread
of groundwater contamination
at 21 other sites.
• We put your strong com-
mitment to Brownfields
redevelopment into practice
by strong public-private
partnerships and innovative
and creative solutions. By
encouraging cleanup and
redevelopment of America's
abandoned and contaminated
waste sites, the Brownfields
Program has leveraged more
than $8.2 billion in private
investment, more than 37,500
jobs, and more than 8,300
properties assessed for poten-
tial redevelopment.
• Over the past year, we worked
with our federal, state, and
local agency partners to assist
in the Gulf Coast recovery
from hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. EPA produced more
than 400,000 analyses as a
result of environmental moni-
toring and sampling of water,
air, floodwater, and residual
sediment. We assessed approx-
imately 4,000 water systems to
determine their viability after
the storm; inspected more
than 3,500 potable water
trucks to ensure the availabili-
ty of safe drinking water;
assessed approximately 1,300
underground storage tank
locations and more than 1,600
chemical facilities and refiner-
ies; and provided technical
advice and assistance, promot-
ed recycling, and handled the
disposal of more than 4 mil-
lion containers of household
hazardous waste. The lessons
we learned in meeting this
enormous challenge have bet-
ter prepared us to respond to
future emergencies.
• EPA recognizes that home-
land security is your top
priority. We play a lead role in
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
supporting the protection of
critical water infrastructure
and coordinating develop-
ment of national capabilities
and strategies to address
chemical, biological, and radi-
ological contamination from a
terrorist event. In FY 2006,
EPA received emergency
response plans for 100 percent
of all large and medium com-
munity drinking water systems
that conducted vulnerability
assessments; launched a pilot
water contamination warning
system; developed short-term
exposure limits and estab-
lished health effects guidelines
for exposure to hazardous
chemicals or a terrorist inci-
dent; and updated the
National Response Plan in
light of lessons learned from
hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
MANAGEMENT
EPA's leadership team is com-
mitted to achieving the goals set
under the President's Management
Agenda for delivering environ-
mental results to our customers—
the American public—effectively
and efficiently. During FY 2006,
EPA made progress under each of
the government-wide initiatives:
Human Capital, Competitive
Sourcing, Expanded E-Government,
Improved Financial Performance,
Budget and Performance
Integration, and Eliminating
Improper Payments. As of
September 2006, the Agency
achieved six "green" scores for
progress on implementation and
four "green" scores on the status of
PMA Initiative implementation.
For the fifth year running,
EPA has no material weaknesses
to report under the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act,
the law that safeguards against
fraud, waste, abuse, and misappro-
priation of federal funds. In
FY 2006, EPA expanded its
FMFIA program to address new
internal controls related to finan-
cial reporting, as required in
Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-123. EPA made great
strides in implementing the new
requirements and as a result, this
report includes my two "unquali-
fied" statements of assurance on
the effectiveness of EPA's overall
internal controls and its internal
controls over financial reporting.
Additionally, EPA closed one of
its eight existing, less severe inter-
nal deficiencies in the area of
water quality standards, as well as
several deficiencies identified
under A-123 related to financial
management. We will continue
diligently to address our remaining
issues.
FUTURE
With the involvement of our
partners and stakeholders, EPA
issued its 2006-20J J Strategic Plan
on September 30, 2006. Our Plan
charts an ambitious course for the
Agency's work over the next five
years, laying the foundation to
meet our long-term goals and
demonstrate progress along the
way. It reflects our principles of
results and accountability, innova-
tion and collaboration, and the
use of the best available science.
EPA is proud of our and our part-
ners' 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 2006 results to
fulfill our responsibility for pro-
tecting human health and the
environment. EPA will continue
to promote environmental stew-
ardship within the United States
and abroad and to take advantage
of opportunities for using environ-
mental protection to drive
economic growth. We will meet
our responsibilities for enforcing
environmental laws and regula-
tions and approach new chal-
lenges with enthusiasm. As we
look ahead, we pledge to continue
our efforts to ensure a safe and
healthy environment for future
generations.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Johnson
-------
INTRODUCTION—CFO's MESSAGE
CFO's
Message
As we fulfill our mission of pro-
tecting human health and the
environment, EPA is committed
to delivering the best results to
the American people by managing
government resources effectively
and efficiently. I am proud of the
significant progress EPA has made
towards achieving the long-term
goals that support our mission. I
would like to thank all of our
partners and stakeholders—states,
tribes, businesses, local govern-
ments, and other federal
agencies—for their contribution
to these FY 2006 results, and I
look forward to their continued
collaboration as we work to pro-
tect and restore the nation's air,
water, and land.
This Performance and Accountability
Report (PAR) discusses our
achievements in FY 2006, reviews
our progress toward the goals and
objectives established in our
2003-2008 Strategic Plan, and also
lays out our plans for addressing
key challenges and making future
progress. We have redesigned this
year's PAR to provide more con-
cise, executive-level summaries of
results and to better integrate
detailed resource information.
PERFORMANCE
The performance section of this
report discusses the relationship
between EPA's programmatic
activities and the environmental
results achieved in FY 2006, as
articulated in the Agency's 80
annual performance goals. These
FY 2006 annual performance goals
were established in the Agency's
FY 2006 Annual Plan as required
by the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) and fur-
ther developed through the Office
of Management and Budget's
Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) evaluations.
EPA strives to provide accurate,
timely data for all performance
goals and measures. While in
many cases data for FY 2006 will
not be available until 2007, we
have provided data that are now
available for prior years. As
required, EPA's FY 2006 PAR
includes performance trend data
for FY 2003 through FY 2006,
encompassing all of the Agency's
most recent performance results.
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
As in the past 6 years, the
Agency's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) issued EPA an
unqualified opinion in its FY 2006
Financial Statements Audit. We
submitted corrective action plans
for 9 reportable conditions and 1
non-compliance issue within 10
months of the OIG's FY 2005
Financial Statements Audit. We
are committed to correcting audit
recommendations in a timely
manner and have already begun
corrective actions to address iden-
tified issues for FY 2006.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT
AGENDA AND OTHER
ACHIEVEMENTS
We are making steady progress
in meeting PMA goals, as demon-
strated by green status scores for
our accomplishments in the areas
of Improved Financial Perform-
ance and Eliminating Improper
Payments and a green progress
score for Budget and Performance
Integration. We continue to
improve our ability to meet and
exceed government-wide financial
performance metrics—for which
EPA now has green scores on
seven of nine measures.
In FY 2006, EPA broadened its
management integrity program to
assess the effectiveness of the
Agency's internal controls over
financial reporting, as required by
OMB Circular A-123, Appendix
A, "Internal Control over Financial
Reporting." The assessment uncov-
ered no material weaknesses and
found the Agency's internal control
mechanisms were operating effec-
tively. In FY 2006, EPA resolved 7
of 11 reportable conditions and
expects to resolve the remaining 4
by January 2007. The next cycle of
internal control assessments will
begin with a follow-up review of
the effectiveness of the corrective
actions for all reportable conditions
and continue with an assessment of
the financial processes selected for
review in FY 2007.
Like other federal agencies par-
ticipating in the Hurricane Katrina
response and relief effort, in FY 2006
EPA implemented a stewardship
plan, documenting our internal con-
trols to mitigate any waste, fraud, or
mismanagement. Our Katrina
Stewardship Plan has afforded us a
high level of confidence in our
financial management activities and
will inform our decisions in the
event of future emergencies.
We have consolidated finan-
cial functions from 14 regional and
headquarters financial centers to
4 Centers of Excellence. In
FY 2006, the Agency completed
consolidation of travel operations
and vendor payment operations;
the remaining financial consol-
idations, grants and accounts
receivable, will be completed with-
in the first half of FY 2007. When
complete, our consolidation effort
will produce a net savings of more
than $3 million annually.
As part of OMB's E-Gov ini-
tiative, we completed the final
steps in migrating our Payroll
Processing function to the
Department of Defense's "Defense
Civilian Pay System—DCPS."
Many stakeholders, including
OMB, the Office of Personnel
Management, and the Department
of Defense were responsible for
making this migration a success.
LOOKING AHEAD
EPA's significant achievements
during our first 35 years have laid
the groundwork for addressing
more complex emerging environ-
mental issues in the years to come.
In FY 2006, as we prepared our
2006-20J J Strategic Plan, we con-
sidered the changing face of
environmental protection. We
sharpened our focus on achieving
measurable environmental results,
initiated a variety of place-based
efforts to address regional and
local issues, and considered future
potential threats to human health
and the environment to help us
establish clear priorities and pre-
pare ourselves to address them.
Building a business infrastruc-
ture based on modern technology
is another key element of EPA's
vision for ensuring effective
resource management and support-
ing the Agency's environmental
mission in the future. We have
made it a top priority to develop a
comprehensive financial manage-
ment system that will streamline
financial workflow; transform
administrative services; and further
integrate programmatic, perform-
ance and financial information.
We are also developing an Admin-
istrative Data Warehouse to
reduce the need for redundant
management and data sources
among the various EPA offices and
ensure the most efficient and cost-
effective information exchange.
While we have made progress
towards our strategic goals in
FY 2006, we recognize the chal-
lenges that lie ahead. Like other
agencies, EPA must continue to
search for efficiencies, management
improvements, and more effective
stewardship of limited resources. We
are constantly working to accom-
plish our key goals using innovative,
collaborative methods, and we look
to our partners and stakeholders for
their continued participation and
support as we work to achieve our
mission to protect human health
and the environment.
In closing, I would like to thank
EPA's committed, hard-working staff
all over the country who con-
tributed to this report and made our
progress in FY 2006 possible.
Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction
Mission and Organization
Highlights of FY 2006 Program Performance
Financial Analysis
EPA's FY 2006 Management Integrity and Audit Management Reports
The President's Management Agenda
Improving Performance, Results, and Management
-------
In FY 2006, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA)
celebrated 35 years of working to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment. Since 1970, the Agency—
in collaboration with partners and
stakeholders—has been delivering a
cleaner, healthier environment to
Americans. From regulating auto
emissions to banning the use of
DDT, from cleaning up toxic waste
to protecting the ozone layer, and
from increasing recycling to revital-
izing inner-city brownfields sites,
EPA's achievements have resulted in
cleaner air, purer water, and better
protected land.
Over the last 35 years, EPA has
not only changed the way it does
its business of protecting human
health and the environment, but has
changed the way the nation's busi-
nesses, communities and individuals
view their role in protecting our
environment. Today, Americans
understand that environmental
protection is everyone's responsibility.
But while the Agency and its
partners have achieved a great deal,
much work remains. The environ-
mental problems the nation faced
in FY 2006 are more complex than
those of 35 years ago, and implement-
ing solutions is more challenging.
Recent national and international
events, such as the devastation left by
hard hitting hurricanes, the advance
of Avian flu, threats to homeland
security, global warming, and popula-
tion growth and its associated resource
consumption, are altering the envi-
ronment in unprecedented ways.
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
Scientific advances and emerging
technologies offer new opportunities
for protecting human health and the
environment, but also pose new risks
and challenges. Most of today's envi-
ronmental problems cannot be solved
by traditional regulatory controls
alone; they will require the combined
expertise, perspectives, and resources
of many. More than ever before, we
need to look toward the future to
anticipate potential threats to human
health and the environment, estab-
lish clear priorities, and prepare
ourselves to address them.
The President has charged EPA
with accelerating the pace of environ-
mental protection while maintaining
our nation's economic competitive-
ness. This report reviews the progress
EPA made toward its strategic and
annual performance goals during
FY 2006. It fulfills the requirements of
the Government Performance and
Results Act and other management
legislation1 for reporting on environ-
mental and financial performance and
demonstrating results.
To help measure EPA's progress
towards its mission goals and assess
its success, Agency leaders estab-
lished 80 annual performance goals
at the beginning of FY 2006. The
chapters that follow describe EPA's
results in 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 best results to the
American people.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Mission and Organization
EPA has a clear mission:
"To protect human health and
the environment." Under this
mission, the Agency assesses envi-
ronmental conditions and works
with its partners and stakeholders
to identify, understand, and solve
current and future environmental
problems. The Agency develops
and enforces regulations that
implement national environmen-
tal 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 along with enforcement
actions as appropriate.
EPA employs approximately
17,400 people across the country,
including its headquarters offices
in Washington, DC, 10 regional
offices, and more than a dozen
laboratories and field sites. The
Agency's staff is highly educated
and technically trained; more
than half are engineers, scientists,
and policy analysts. In addition,
EPA employs legal, public affairs,
financial, information manage-
ment, and computer specialists.
EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson, who was appointed by
the President, 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
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
General Counsel
Inspector General
Assistant Administrator
for Prevention> Pesticides.
and Toxic Substances
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
Region I
Boston, MA
Region 2
New York NY
Region 5
Chicago, IL
Region 6
Dallas, TX
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator
for International Affairs
Assistant Administrator
for Environmental
Information
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Region 7
Kansas City, KS
Region 8
Denver, CO
Region 9
San Francisco, CA
Region 10
Seattle, WA
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
USB,1 EPA Offices
^£^^^^
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Highlights of FY 200( Vogr
Performance
Throughout FY 2006, the
Agency collaborated closely with
its partners to protect the nation's
air, water and land. With resource
obligations of $10.2 billion and
17,355 full-time-equivalent
employees, EPA achieved signifi-
cant results under each of the five
long-term environmental goals
established in its 2003-2008
Strategic Plan. This section high-
lights the Agency's FY 2006
accomplishments and continuing
performance challenges under
each of its strategic goals. It also
discusses EPA's accomplishments
in homeland security and emer-
gency response programs and
under the President's Management
Agenda. Section II of this report
contains more detailed perform-
ance information.
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
AND CHALLENGES
Goal I: Clean Air and Global
Climate Change. In FY 2006,
EPA issued the Agency's most
protective suite of national air
quality standards for particle
pollution ever. The standards
address two categories of particle
pollution: fine particles (PM25)
and inhalable coarse particles
(PM10). EPA projects that fully
meeting the PM2 5 standards will
yield an estimated $9 billion to
$75 billion in health benefits by
reducing premature death, aggra-
vated asthma, bronchitis, heart
attacks, hospital admission for
heart and lung disease, and the
numbers of days that Americans
miss work or school because of
health symptoms related to particle
pollution (http://www.epa.gov/
particles).2
Beginning June 1, 2006, EPA
required that refiners and fuel
importers cut the sulfur content of
highway diesel fuel by 97 percent,
from 500 parts per million to 15.
Ultra-low sulfur diesel is now
available at retail gasoline sta-
tions. When these requirements
are fully implemented, the use
of the reduced-sulfur fuels will
prevent nearly 8,300 premature
deaths and tens of thousands of
cases of respiratory ailments such
as bronchitis and asthma annually.
By addressing diesel fuel and
engines as a single system, this
action is expected to produce the
clean air equivalent of eliminating
air pollution from 90 percent—or
about 13 million tons—of today's
trucks and buses. Further, the
Agency anticipates that 2.6 mil-
lion tons of nitrogen oxides and
110,000 tons of particulate matter
will be reduced annually
(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
highway-diesel/index.htm).
In addition, EPA proposed a
renewable fuels standard (RFS) in
FY 2006. The RFS program is
designed to reduce the nation's
dependence on foreign oil by
doubling the use of renewable
fuels such as ethanol and
PARTNERING WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO
ACHIEVE RESULTS
In FY 2006, EPA and the
United Parcel Service
(UPS) partnered to devel-
op a delivery truck, the
first of its kind, which uses
EPA-patented hydraulic
hybrid technology to deliv-
er 60 to 70 percent higher
fuel economy in urban
driving.
With the breakthrough
technology onboard, the
delivery truck also lowers
greenhouse gas emissions
by reducing carbon dioxidf
compared to conventional
2sel delivery trucks
biodiesel. The program, authorized
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
will promote the use of fuels large-
ly produced by American crops.
In April 2006, EPA released
the latest annual report on
greenhouse gas emissions,
"Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2004," prepared for the United
Nations Framework on Climate
Change .3 The report shows that
the United States is making
progress in reducing the emissions
of some critical gases as it works
toward cutting U.S. greenhouse
gas intensity by 18 percent by
2012. Fossil fuel combustion was
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
the largest source of emissions,
accounting for 80 percent of the
total. The report shows that both
methane and nitrous oxide emis-
sions have decreased from 1990
levels by 10 percent and 1 per-
cent, respectively. Overall,
greenhouse gas emissions during
2004 increased by 1.7 percent
from the previous year while the
U.S. Gross Domestic Product grew
6.9 percent (in current dollars).4
This increase, which occurred
during a period of economic
expansion, was due primarily to an
increase in carbon dioxide emis-
sions associated with fuel and
electricity consumption. While
the U.S. economy expanded by
51 percent from 1990 to 2004,
emissions have grown by only
15.8 percent over the same period.
In FY 2006, EPA continued to
address the challenges of imple-
menting the 1990 Clean Air Act
air toxics program, striving to
meet court-ordered deadlines
while developing data and
improving capacity to take risk-
based actions. EPA has a large
number of rules pertaining to
hazardous air pollutants scheduled
for completion under different
provisions of the Clean Air Act:
mobile source emission standards,
stationary source emission stan-
dards, and risk-based standards. In
March 2006, EPA proposed a rule
that would reduce air toxics from
mobile sources. Once it is promul-
gated and fully implemented, this
rule is expected to result in the
reduction of 350,000 tons of air
toxics annually by 2030.
RESTORING DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES
IN THE AFTERMATH OF HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA
n FY 2006, EPA, along with local water systems, state environ-
mental agencies, and health departments, undertook
extraordinary efforts to restore drinking water and waste-
water services in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
EPA monitored the status of drinking water and wastewater
systems, provided technical assistance for emergency repairs
and system assessments, and supplied mobile labs for testing
water samples.
To protect public health, the Agency also provided educational
materials in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
EPA also provided new
research findings in FY 2006 that
support reviewing and implement-
ing the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, as well as con-
tributing fundamental information
on the emission, measurement/
control, and health impacts of
other important hazardous air
pollutants. For example, the
Agency completed studies on
exposure to air pollutants and
health concerns, providing basic
auto emission data relevant to
public exposures and serving to
frame a strategy to be used in
detailed multi-disciplined studies
planned for three U.S. locations
in 2007 and 2008.
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water.
Through the end of FY 2006,
approximately 3,000 polluted
waters (14 percent) identified by
states in 2000 were restored or
examined more closely and found
to be meeting water quality
standards. In FY 2006, permits
implementing standards for
industrial sources, municipal
treatment plants and storm water,
under EPA's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System,
prevented the discharge of
31 billion pounds of pollutants.
EPA worked with states to
improve state water quality moni-
toring strategies across the country
in FY 2006 and released an inno-
vative statistically valid survey of
the condition of streams nation-
wide, the first in a planned series
of national assessments of the
condition of aquatic resources.5
According to the streams survey
results, 28 percent of U.S. streams
are in good condition; 25 percent
in fair condition; 42 percent in
poor condition. In addition,
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
during the past year's swimming
season (calendar year 2005),
coastal and Great Lake beaches
were open and safe for swimming
97 percent of beach season days,
exceeding EPA's FY 2006 goal of
94 percent.
During FY 2006, EPA com-
pleted the modernization of the
Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS), a national
database that tracks information
on the quality of the public's
drinking water. The moderniza-
tion will greatly improve the
accuracy of the data collected and
address 3 of 5 identified historical
data quality issues: difficulty
getting drinking water data into
the system, the high cost of
storing and processing the data,
and difficulty in getting data out
of the system. The Agency is fully
addressing the remaining data
quality issues through two Data
Reliability Action Plans (2000
and 2003). In FY 1999 less
than 50 percent of the data in
the system were accurate and
complete; in FY 2007 the Agency
will work toward the 2011 goal of
ensuring that 90 percent of data
are accurate and complete.
EPA and its partners face
significant challenges in ensuring
that Americans served by commu-
nity water systems receive safe
drinking water. To protect public
health, each day the more than
52,000 community water systems
nationwide must deliver water
that meets health based standards
for more than 90 chemical,
radiological, and microbial con-
taminants. Water systems are
faced with applying these existing
standards, as well as with imple-
menting new ones. Moreover,
drinking water and municipal
wastewater infrastructure that was
constructed in the 1970s and
1980s is deteriorating. Demands
on this aging infrastructure are
further increasing by a steadily
growing population's needs for
drinking water supplies, waste-
water treatment, and storm water
management. Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs)
provide low-interest loans to
support needed improvements
to infrastructure, and EPA is
working with states to ensure that
DWSRFs are sustainable over the
long term.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and
Restoration. In FY 2006, EPA
added five new hazardous waste
sites that pose risks to human
health and the environment to
the National Priorities List (NPL)
of Superfund sites. That brings the
total to 1,246 final NPL sites
which have been identified for
possible long-term cleanup by
EPA's Superfund program.
Contaminants found at these final
and proposed sites include arsenic,
chromium, benzene, dichloroe-
thene, dieldrin, dioxin, lead,
pentachlorophenol, polychlori-
nated biphenyls, toluene,
toxaphene, trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, xylene, zinc
and other heavy metals.
EPA completed the cleanup
("construction completes") and
reduced risks posed to human
health at 40 sites on the NPL in
FY 2006. Since the Superfund
Program's inception, the Agency
has completed all remedial
cleanup construction activities at
1,006 Superfund sites, more than
80 percent of the 1,246 sites on
the NPL. In addition, by the end
PITTSBURGH INCREASES
RECYCLING AT PIRATES'
BASEBALL GAMES
In FY 2006, Pittsburgh base-
ball fans began helping the
environment by recycling. In
early July, EPA and the City
of Pittsburgh began encour-
aging fans to "recycle on the
go" by depositing their cans
and bottles in bins in the tail-
gate area and at other key
locations across their base-
ball stadium.
Pittsburgh adopted EPA's
"Recycle on the Go"
philosophy as part of a
comprehensive plan to
increase recycling participa-
tion in the city. Revenue
generated from the collected
recyclable material will
benefit Pittsburgh youth
programs.
According to municipal
authorities, Pittsburgh col-
lects on average 20,000 tons
of recyclable material per
year, which is below the
national average reported by
similar cities. In FY 2006,
Mayor Bob O'Conner chal-
lenged the city to double the
city's collection to 40,000
tons—to "make Pittsburgh
one of the cleanest, safest
cities in America."
EPA's "Recycle on the Go"
initiative works with part-
ners like the City of
Pittsburgh to encourage
people to recycle wherever
they go by making recycling
easy and convenient. EPA is
working toward a 35 per-
cent national recycling rate
by 2008. Recycling saves
energy, conserves resources,
reduces the need for new
landfills and incinerators, and
stimulates the development
of green technologies.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
of FY 2006, EPA controlled site
contamination posing unaccept-
able risks to human health at an
additional 34 sites and controlled
the spread of groundwater con-
tamination at 21 additional sites,
exceeding the Agency's FY 2006
targets. The complexity of the
sites remaining on the NPL will
present significant challenges to
EPA over the next few years.
Under the Agency's hazardous
waste management program under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA met
its FY 2006 goal for increasing the
number of hazardous waste man-
agement facilities with approved
controls in place to prevent dan-
gerous releases to air, soil, and
groundwater and is on track to
bring 95 percent of facilities under
approved controls by FY 2008.
Further, more than 89 percent of
high priority facilities requiring
RCRA corrective action have met
Agency goals for preventing
human exposure to hazardous
waste under current land and
groundwater uses, and more than
74 percent have met goals for
having controls in place to
prevent groundwater migration.
In FY 2006, EPA's state and
tribal partners completed 14,493
cleanups of leaking underground
storage tanks, exceeding the
Agency's target of 13,600. This
includes 43 cleanups in Indian
country. EPA will continue to
work with states to complete
cleanups and reduce the backlog
of 116,949 cleanups not yet com-
pleted. Since the beginning of the
Agency's Underground Storage
Tank Program, EPA has cleaned
up more than 75 percent (or
350,818) of all reported releases.
EPA has made significant
progress toward meeting its
FY 2006 municipal solid waste
(MSW) reduction goals of divert-
ing 83.1 million tons of MSW and
maintaining a daily per capita
generation of MSW at 4.5 pounds.
According to 2004 and 2005 data,
the last 2 years for which the
Agency has data, the nation gen-
erated more than 245.7 million
tons of solid waste and recycled
more than 79 million tons. Data
in support of the FY 2006 goals
will be available in FY 2008.
During FY 2006, EPA targeted its
efforts to encourage the reduction
and recycling of the most signifi-
cant waste streams: paper, organic
wastes, containers and packaging,
and electronics.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems. Throughout
FY 2006, EPA worked to reduce
risks to communities, homes,
workplaces, and ecosystems. The
Agency reviewed new chemicals
and pesticides for unacceptable
risks to human health and the
environment before they were put
on the market. EPA also
reassessed risks posed by older
pesticides and established new
risk mitigation measures where
needed. By the end of FY 2006,
the Agency had reassessed
99.1 percent of the pesticide
tolerance levels (legal limits on
pesticide residues in food) requir-
ing reassessment under the 1996
Food Quality Protection Act. EPA
will reassess the five remaining
chemicals in FY 2007.
Under EPA's High
Production Volume (HPV)
Challenge Program, the Agency
identifies and addresses risks
posed to human health and the
environment by chemicals
currently in commerce. In
FY 2006, EPA released the HPV
Information System, a searchable
on-line database that provides all
the known toxicity data on HPV
chemicals. By the end of calendar
year 2006, EPA will provide the
public with critical health and
environmental effects data on
1,710 chemicals.
Data released in 2005 by the
Centers for Disease Control
demonstrated 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
1999 to 2002. These findings
indicate major progress towards
EPA's 2008 strategic target for
reducing the incidence of child-
hood lead poisoning to 90,000
cases as well as toward the federal
goal to eliminate this disease as a
public health concern by 2010.
Because the remaining popu-
lation of at-risk children is often
difficult to reach and evidence
has shown a higher incidence of
childhood lead poisoning among
low-income than non-low income
children, in FY 2006 EPA
established a second long-term
goal for the Lead Program to
reduce the disparity in blood
lead levels between low- and
non-low-income children.
In addition, the Agency refined
its public education and outreach
efforts to reduce exposure to
at-risk children and launched a
targeted grant program aimed at
reducing the incidence of child
lead poisoning in vulnerable
populations. To reduce children's
exposure to hazards created by
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM LEAD
G IN BOSTON
Elevated blood lead levels in young children can trigger learning
disabilities, decreased growth, hyperactivity, impaired hearing, and even
brain damage.
In FY 2006, EPA's Region I Office worked with the city of Boston to
reduce blood lead levels in children.
Elevated blood lead levels in children were reduced from 1,123 cases in
2001 to 497 cases in 2006. This re^;sents an 18.5 percent decrease
from 2005.
renovation, remodeling, and
painting that disturb lead-based
paint, EPA proposed a major
new rule in FY 2006 to establish
lead-safe work practices and
is currently working to finalize
this rule.
The Agency's National
Estuary Program continued to
implement key actions to protect
28 nationally significant estuaries
and coastal habitat, including
protecting an estimated 140,000
acres. In FY 2006, EPA began tak-
ing actions to improve the Great
Lakes Ecosystem under the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy, including remediating
contaminated sediments.
According to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's 2006
National Wetlands Inventory Status
and Trends Report, acreage of some
wetland types is on the increase
overall—wetland gains exceeded
wetland losses from 1998 to 2004
at a rate of 32,000 acres per year.
However, vegetated estuarine
wetlands—the wetland areas
with significant ecological
value—continued to decrease
and vegetated estuarine wetland
areas that provide significant flood
protection continue to decrease at
an increasing rate. The loss of
vegetated estuarine wetlands is
most vivid on the Louisiana coast.
EPA faces many challenges over
the next few years in protecting
critical ecosystems. Among other
challenges, the Agency will work
to accelerate the rate of progress
in restoring the Chesapeake Bay
and reduce nutrient loadings, a
major source of non-point source
pollution, in the Gulf of Mexico.
Goal 5: Compliance and
Environmental Stewardship.
In FY 2006, EPA achieved an
estimated 890 million pounds of
reduced, treated, or eliminated
pollutants. This represents an
increase of 440 million pounds
over the Agency's original FY 2006
target of 450 million pounds.6
In addition, the Agency
settled several important civil
and criminal enforcement cases
this year that will significantly
improve human health and envi-
ronmental quality. For example,
EPA reached a settlement with
two coal fired power plants,
Minnkota Power Cooperative
and Square Butte Electric
Cooperative, that will result in
a 132 million pounds reduction
in air pollution, a $5 million
investment in renewable energy,
and better pollution control
technology that will dramatically
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrous
oxides—chemicals linked to
respiratory impairment in humans,
acid rain, and smog in North
Dakota and downwind areas.7
Environmental stewardship
programs achieved significant
environmental results in FY 2006
through voluntary efforts to
prevent pollution before it is
released into the environment.
Work conducted under the
Federal Electronics Program
Challenge using the Electronics
Products Environmental
Assessment Tool reduced the
use of hazardous materials by
2.7 million pounds, conserving
250 billion BTUs of energy and
saving $5.6 million in federal costs
related to purchasing and manag-
ing electronic equipment.8 In
FY 2006, EPA's Green Suppliers
Network (GSN) expanded
efforts to include the Aerospace,
Automotive, Healthcare/
Pharmaceutical, and Office
Furniture sectors. In FY 2006 the
GSN program completed 36 tech-
nical reviews that have identified
more than $22.4 million in
potential cost savings from clean
environmental opportunities.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Winners in the Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge
Program's five FY 2006 Awards cate-
gories10 collectively accounted for
145 million pounds of hazardous
materials reductions, bringing cumu-
lative totals to 750 million pounds
and 550 million gallons of water
saved since 1995.11 In addition,
through promotion of pollution
prevention and stewardship
opportunities, the Design for the
Environment's Furniture Flame
Retardancy Partnership replaced
19 million pounds of pentaBDE
with safer flame retardants through
FY 2006.12 PentaBDE has been
accumulating in human tissues and
breast milk over the last two
decades. Some animal studies
demonstrate that exposure can dam-
age the thyroid and liver and cause
hyperactivity, changes in motor
behavior, and other brain functions.
HOMELAND SECURITY
AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
Homeland security and
responding to environmental
emergencies is a top priority for
the Agency and the nation. For
the past several years, EPA has
worked with other federal agen-
cies to protect human health and
the environment from intentional
harm. The Agency plays a lead
role in supporting the protection
of critical water infrastructure
and coordinating the develop-
ment of national capabilities and
strategies to address chemical,
biological, and radiological con-
tamination during a terrorist
event. In FY 2006, the Agency
conducted the following key
homeland security and emergency
response work:
IN FY 2006, EPA BECAME THE FIRST FEDERAL AGENCY TO
PURCHASE 100 PERCENT GREEN POWER
Fostering renewable energy production and developing better renewable
technologies benefits the environment, expands the diversity of our energy
supply, and improves the reliability of our power supply systems.Through its
purchases, onsite renewable energy systems, and outreach efforts, EPA sup-
ports the development of the green power market, which is a critical
component in the long-term strategy to protect our environment.
EPA is the first major federal agency to purchase green power equal to 100
percent of its estimated annual electricity use nationwide. As of September
1,2006, EPA is purchasing nearly 300 million kilowatt hours of green power
annually in the form of either renewable energy certificates or delivered
product.This amount is equal to 100 percent of the total estimated annual
electricity consumption at all of EPA's nearly 200 facilities across the
country—enough electricity to power 27,970 homes for an entire year.
Protecting Community
Drinking Water Systems:
By the end of FY 2006,
100 percent of all large and
medium community drinking
water systems had conducted
vulnerability assessments and
submitted to EPA emergency
response plans based on the
findings of the assessments.
Of the nation's small systems,
98 percent had completed
vulnerability assessments and
96 percent had created emer-
gency response plans.
Developing a Contamination
Warning System: In FY 2006,
EPA launched a pilot water
contamination warning sys-
tem at a drinking water utility.
This warning system will
increase the utility's ability to
quickly detect and respond to
contamination threats and
incidents in its drinking water
distribution system.
Training Water Utilities in
Water Security: To comple-
ment the contamination
warning system pilot men-
tioned above, the Agency
provided training and techni-
cal assistance on effective
water security activities to
approximately 125 large water
utilities in FY 2006.
Establishing Guidelines for
Exposure to Hazardous
Chemicals: In FY 2006, the
Agency developed short-term
exposure limits and health
effects guidelines for an
additional 23 extremely
hazardous substances to which
the general population could
be exposed during a terrorist
incident or chemical accident,
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
bringing the total number of
chemicals for which these
guidelines have been devel-
oped to 184.
• Working with Department
of Homeland Security: In
FY 2006, EPA worked with
the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to update the
National Response Plan in
light of lessons learned from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
SUMMARY OF
PERFORMANCE DATA
Goals Met. In its FY 2006 Annual
Plan, EPA committed to 80 annu-
al performance goals (APGs). In
FY 2006, the Agency met 29 of
these APGs, 64 percent of the
APGs for which data were avail-
able at the time this report was
published. FY 2006 results to date
reflect a decrease in the percent-
age of APGs met from FY 2005;
last year, EPA met 67 percent of
its APGs for which data were
available.
EPA significantly exceeded its
targets for a number of its FY 2006
APGs. In many of these cases,
the Agency had established new
performance goals or measures for
FY 2006—evidence of its continu-
ing effort to improve its measures
and sharpen its focus on environ-
mental outcomes. For some of
these new measures, the Agency
may have lacked the trend data or
experience it needed to determine
ambitious yet realistic targets and
consequently set FY 2006 targets
conservatively.
Goals Not Met. Despite their
best efforts, however, EPA and its
partners were not able to meet all
planned targets for FY 2006. EPA
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: One Year Anniversary
On August 29,2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall along the Gulf coast of
the southeastern United States, causing unprecedented damage from eastern
Louisiana to near Mobile,Alabama, due to the high winds and storm surge.
Over the past year, EPA has worked with federal, state and local partners to
assist in the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.To date, EPA has:
Conducted environmental monitoring and sampling of water, air, flood-
water and residual sediment resulting in more than 400,000 analyses
Responded to approximately 70 emergency situations to address chemi-
cal spills, fires, and other emergencies causing an immediate public threat
Played a key role in the overall debris mission with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for which the
total estimates are expected to top I 18 million cubic yards. EPA provided
technical advice and assistance, promoted recycling, and handled the dis-
posal of over 4 million containers of household hazardous waste
Assisted in the proper handling and recycling of over 380,000 large
appliances (refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners)
Collected and recycled over 661,000 electronic goods to save
important landfill space and ensure the reuse of metal components
Assessed approximately 4,000 water systems to determine their
viability after the storms and provide assistance where requested;
inspected over 3,500 potable water trucks to ensure drinkable water
was delivered promptly to areas affected by the hurricane
Assessed approximately 1,300 underground storage tank locations and
over 1,600 chemical facilities and refineries
Assessed approximately 900 public and parochial school chemistry class-
rooms and removed chemicals and other equipment from 130 chemistry
laboratory classrooms to ensure safe schools for returning students
Continued to monitor 12 temporary ambient air monitoring sites
throughout Louisiana
Continued to provide oversight of the cleanup by Murphy Oil of a large
oil spill which impacted hundreds of homes in St. Bernard Parish.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's FY 2006 Performance Results
Summary of FY 2006 Performance Results by Goal
Result
Met
Not Met
Data Available
After November
15,2006
Total
Goal 1
4
2
14
20
Goal 2
6
1
13
20
Goal 3
4
1
2
7
Goal 4
10
6
4
20
GoalS
1
6
1
8
ESP
4
0
1
5
Total
29
16
35
80
did not meet 16 of the 45 FY 2006
APGs for which performance data
were available. The Agency is
considering the various causes of
these shortfalls as it adjusts its
annual goals and program strate-
gies for FY 2007 and beyond.
There are a number of reasons
for these missed goals. In some
cases, unexpected demands on
resources or competing priorities
prevented EPA and its partners
from meeting FY 2006 targets. For
example, EPA completed 157
Superfund lead-removal actions
and 93 voluntary removal actions
with EPA oversight, falling short
of its FY 2006 targets of 195 and
115 actions, respectively (APG
3.6). However, these lower-than-
expected results are directly
related to the Agency's continued
response to Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita—the largest hurricane and
cleanup effort in EPA's history. In
support of the Katrina response
effort, the Agency analyzed
hundreds of thousands of drinking
water, air, floodwater, and sedi-
ment samples; responded to
emergencies posing an immediate
public health threat; worked with
other agencies to remove contam-
inated debris; and supported
recycling and other efforts which
diverted resources from Superfund
removal actions and resulted in a
missed FY 2006 goal.
In other cases, in its commit-
ment to develop meaningful goals
and measures that evidence envi-
ronmental outcomes, the Agency
may have overestimated its ability
to achieve annual results. Working
with its Chesapeake Bay Program
partners, EPA set an ambitious
FY 2006 goal for reducing nitro-
gen, phosphorous, and sediment
pollution loads entering the
Chesapeake Bay (APG 4.15).
This FY 2006 goal was established
to accord with 2010 deadlines
outlined in the Chesapeake 2000
agreement. However, despite
expanded implementation efforts
by EPA, states, and others, pollu-
tion reduction strategies have not
improved water quality conditions
in the Bay to the extent envi-
sioned by Bay Program partners.
Continued growth in communities
and farms in the region have
affected progress, and EPA is
implementing several key strate-
gies designed to increase the
current pace of restoration. As
another example, to support
management of persistent bio-
accumulative toxic chemicals
worldwide, EPA set a new
FY 2006 goal for collecting
mercury use and emission inven-
tory data for key industry sectors
in China and India (APG 4.2).
While an assessment of mercury
use and emissions for the power
sector was completed for China,
monitoring and reporting on mer-
cury stack emissions in India has
been delayed while discussions
about the sector continue.
EPA may also miss an annual
performance goal due to the diffi-
culty of forecasting a performance
target or as a function of its meas-
urement scheme. Under the
Performance Track Program,
members collectively meet targets
for reducing water use, energy use,
materials use, nonhazardous solid
waste, air releases, and discharges
to water (APG 5.6). While EPA's
goal for FY 2006 was to meet tar-
geted reduction levels in all six
media/resource areas, it met only
three—for waste usage, water use,
and discharges to water. However,
these lower-than-anticipated
results are not representative of
fewer improvements, but rather of
the effect that large facilities have
on aggregate Performance Track
results. In FY 2006, while the
number of facilities making small
improvements increased, fewer
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
large facilities reported "high
magnitude" results than did in
previous years. Performance Track
does not dictate members' selec-
tion of commitment indicators
nor controls the size of facilities
that apply to program, so deter-
mining when the program will
meet its targets is difficult.
Growing interest in program and
increasing emphasis on meeting
targets, however, suggests
Performance Track will be on
track to meet FY 2007 targets.
A different issue related to
measurement explains the
Agency's missed goal for the per-
centage of the population served
by community water systems
(APG 2.1). In FY 2006, while the
vast majority of the nation's com-
munity water systems supplied
drinking water that met all appli-
cable health-based drinking water
standards, some very large systems
serving a large number of people
reported short-term violations
during the year. Even these
brief episodes of noncompliance
significantly affected annual
performance results. As a result,
though final FY 2006 data is not
yet available, EPA anticipates
missing this goal. To account for
the time-limited nature of these
kinds of noncompliance events,
the Agency has developed a new
performance measure which is
included in its 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan.
Certain contractual or tech-
nological issues largely outside
EPA's control may also contri-
bute to missed annual goals.
The Agency let a contract to
provide information about new,
commercial-ready environmental
technology that influences users
to purchase effective environmen-
tal technology in the United
States and abroad and established
an annual goal related to this
assessment (APG 5.8). However,
the Agency discontinued the
project due to poor contractor
performance. Then, in response to
subsequent budget cuts, funds
originally targeted for this work
were shifted to higher priority
needs. As a result, the Agency
missed this annual goal and does
not plan to resume this effort.
Similarly, in FY 2006 EPA
planned to purchase 51 state-of-
the-art radiation monitoring units
to be deployed to sites based on
Data Unavailable. Because final
end-of-year data were not avail-
able when this report went to
press, EPA is not yet able to report
on 35 of its 80 APGs, an increase
over the 33 APGs for which data
were not available in EPA's FY
2005 report. This difference is
largely attributable to the
Agency's increased focus on
achieving longer-term environ-
mental and human health
outcomes, rather than activity-
based outputs. Environmental
outcome results may not become
apparent within a federal fiscal
year, and assessing environmental
improvement often requires multi-
year information. As a result, EPA
population and geographical
coverage (APG 1.12). Due to
delays in siting, however, the
Agency reduced its order to
41 monitors to avoid a backup of
monitors waiting to be installed.
Subsequently, technical difficulties
arose concerning the monitors
first installed, and shipment of
additional monitors was suspended
until the problem could be
resolved.
may not yet have the data
required to determine whether an
FY 2006 APG such as reducing
exposure to and health effects
from priority industrial chemicals
(APG 4.6) has been met. Many
variables are involved in evaluat-
ing progress toward this goal, and
it takes time to understand
exposure and the impact of these
chemicals on human health.
Over 90 percent of the measures
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
for which EPA does not yet
have final performance data are
outcome -oriented.
In other 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,
however, EPA continues to present
the most current data available.
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.
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
burden on its partners.
Data Now Available.
The Agency is now able, however,
to report data from previous years
EPA's Updated Performance Results
(Annual Performance Goals for Which Final Data Are Available)
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fiscal Year
that became available in FY 2006.
Final performance results data
became available for 20 of the
33 FY 2005 APGs on which
the Agency did not report in its
FY 2005 Annual Report. Of these
20 FY 2005 APGs, EPA met 14.
For example, the Agency met its
FY 2005 goal for 20 percent of
source water areas for community
water systems achieving mini-
mized risk to human health
(FY 2005 APG 2.7). EPA also
met its suite of four FY 2005 goals
focused on the number of people
living in areas with monitored
ambient concentrations below the
NAAQS for PM10, PM2.5,
CO/NO2/SO2/lead, and 8-hour
ozone (FY 2005 APGs 1.1-1.4).
EPA can now report achieving 48
(68 percent) of the 84 FY 2005
APGs for which it has data. For
FY 2004, EPA can now report
achieving 58 (73 percent) of the
79 APGs for which it has
performance data. Delays in
reporting cycles and targets set
beyond the fiscal year continue to
affect one APG for FY 2003.
Improving Measures and
Adjusting Targets. EPA is contin-
uing to develop better and more
meaningful measures of its
performance. In FY 2006, the
Agency introduced 36 new or
improved performance measures.
Equipped with better data, EPA is
also adjusting performance targets
to reflect an improved under-
standing of current conditions and
the outcomes to be achieved. For
example, the Agency is adjusting
its target for the number of
inspections and exercises
conducted at oil storage facilities
that are required to have facility
response plans, in the event of a
release of a harmful substance
(APG 3.6). New data has allowed
the Agency to determine more
accurately the number of these
facilities nationwide, and thus to
set a more appropriate target. EPA
will continue to benefit from
improved data, revising annual
performance measures and adjust-
ing targets to provide a more
useful assessment of its progress.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Financial Analysis
In FY 2006, EPA had
resources of $13.5 billion to
support the achievement of its
strategic goals. Of this amount,
the Congress provided $7.8 billion
(58.2 percent) in the form of
direct FY 2006 appropriations
and $3.1 billion (23.1 percent)
available from prior years. In addi-
tion, EPA received $1.2 billion
(8.9 percent) in spending authority
from offsetting collections
(including $544.4 million for the
Hurricane Katrina cleanup effort)
and payments from the public for
fees, fines, and penalties. The
Agency also had other resources
of $1.4 billion (9.8 percent).
(See Chart I.)
EPA's net cost of operations
in FY 2006 was $8.3 billion. (See
Chart II.)
Forty-six percent of this
amount was spent performing
the goal related to Clean and
Safe Water ($3.8 billion) and
19 percent was spent on Land
Preservation and Restoration
($1.6 billion).
The majority of the costs
(56 percent) in accomplishing
the Agency's goals are for grant
programs with the states, tribes,
and universities. During FY 2006,
EPA awarded $4.7 billion in
grants to assist in accomplishing
its mission. EPA also maintains
partnerships with other federal
agencies and uses commercial
contractors to achieve its program
goals. (See Chart III.)
EPA leverages its own
resources through innovative
financing mechanisms. The
Agency uses partnerships with the
states to manage the resources in
the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds to
keep the nation's water clean and
safe. As of September 30, 2006,
the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund has leveraged nearly
$24 billion in federal capitalization
grants into more than $57 billion
in assistance to municipalities and
other entities for wastewater proj-
ects. And as of June 30, 2006, the
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund has leveraged nearly $7.3
billion in federal capitalization
grants into more than $11 billion
in assistance to municipalities and
other entities for drinking water
infrastructure projects.
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) authorizes EPA to
retain and use the proceeds from
settlement agreements to conduct
cleanup activities. These funds
are placed in interest-bearing site
specific special accounts. As of
September 30, 2006, EPA had
612 special accounts with $243
billion in receipts, which earned
$40 million in interest during the
fiscal year.
Chart I: FY 2006 Resources
9.8%
8.9%
23.1%
58.2%
Source: FY 2006 Combined Statement
of Budgetary Resources
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward
Appropriations
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Other
Chart II: FY 2006 Net Cost By Goal
9.2% I 1.0%
14.8%
19.0%
46.1%
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Clean and Safe Water
Land Preservation and Restoration
Healthy Communities and Eosystems
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Chart III: How Our Work Gets Done
(Based on Percent ofTotal Dollars)
24.5%
56.3%
19.3%
Source: ORBIT Report by BOC
EPA Employees
| Contractors & Other Federal Agencies
| States,Tribes & Universities
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA IS FINANCIALLY ACCOUNTABLE
Effective stewardship of public resources
High standards of financial performance
Low incidence of improper payments
Measuring Success
Clean audit opinions for 7 consecutive years
No material weaknesses for 5 consecutive years
"Green" PMA scores for Improved Financial
Performance for 3 consecutive years
Accelerated financial reporting deadlines met for
3 consecutive years
Improper payments of less than 0.50 percent for
3 consecutive years
FY 2006 Accomplishments
Migrated payroll management to another federal
service provider (E-Government initiative)
Achieved "Green" PMA score for Eliminating
Improper Payments
Implemented Katrina Stewardship Plan
Implemented Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for
Internal Control
Retooled internal budget process to expand
accountability
On the Horizon
A new financial management system
An administrative data warehouse for improved
access to and reporting of administrative data
Measures to increase efficiency of operations
•
•00
The Environmental Finance Program helps regulated
parties find ways to pay for environmental activities
through an Environmental Finance Advisory Board, an
on-line data base, and a network of nine university-
based Environmental Finance Centers. For every dollar
that EPA has invested in the Environmental Finance
Program, the network has raised $3.71 in project work.
HIGHLIGHTS OF FINANCIAL
PERFORMANCE
EPA is equally committed to protecting human
health and the environment and to being accountable
for and an effective steward of the public's resources.
The Agency's financial management measures of suc-
cess include implementing effective internal control
and providing accurate financial information and
timely financial reporting. EPA has a number of initia-
tives underway that support the Agency's management
strategy for improved financial performance. The
progress and results of these initiatives are presented
below and in the section on Improving and Integrating
Financial Information of this Performance and
Accountability Report.
Consolidating Financial Processes and Services
EPA is consolidating its financial functions from
14 regional offices to four Finance Centers to improve
efficiency of accounting operations and customer serv-
ice. Under EPA's consolidation plan, functions
associated with vendor payments were transferred to
EPA's Research Triangle Park Finance Center, and
financial functions associated with travel were trans-
ferred to EPA's Cincinnati Finance Center in FY 2006.
In addition, six regions transferred some of their func-
tions associated with grants to EPA's Las Vegas Finance
Center and some financial functions associated with
accounts receivable to EPA's Cincinnati Finance
Center. All remaining finance operations will be
transferred in FY 2007. Overall, EPA estimates that
consolidating accounting functions from 14 locations
into four Finance Centers will produce a net savings of
$3 to $6 million annually.
Katrina Stewardship Plan
After Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast
of the United States on August 29, 2005, OMB issued
guidance for agencies to implement stewardship plans
that documented their internal controls to mitigate any
waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Implementing EPA's
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Stewardship Plan has afforded the
Agency a higher level of confi-
dence in its financial activities
and will allow management to
make better assessments of risk for
future emergencies.
As of September 30, 2006,
EPA had received $544.5 million
in funding from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
and Army Corps of Engineers for
the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
Of this amount, EPA had obligated
$475.5 million, plus an additional
$13.6 million of its own funds, for a
total of $489.1 million. EPA dis-
bursed $344.4 million of the $489.1
million as of September 30, 2006.
Improper Payments
In FY 2006, the Agency
achieved a "Green" as its status
under the President's Management
Agenda for the progress made in
significantly decreasing improper
payments in the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds (SRFs).
EPA had low error rates in a
statistical sampling of payments to
direct recipients Agency-wide and
EPA's Improper Payment Reduction Effort
Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Error Rate
Actual Improper
Payments
(dollars in millions)
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
Baseline
0.49%
0.45%
0.40%
0.35%
0.30%
0.51%
0.47%
0.13%
0.18%
—
—
$12.4
$10.3
$3.0
$3.5
—
—
to sub-recipients in two states. In
addition, no improper payment
issues were found in an analysis of
payments to sub-recipients in a
third state. Based on EPA's ability
to demonstrate that its internal
controls are adequate, OMB has
granted the Agency a 3-year relief
from measurement and annual
reporting on payments in the two
SRFs. Additional reporting de-
tails required by the Improper
Payments Improvement Act
(IPIA) are provided in Section
IV, Annual Financial Statements
of this Performance and Account-
ability Report.
Grants Management
Under the Agency's Grants
Management Plan, EPA has put in
place a comprehensive strategy to
address its grants management
weakness. In implementing the
Plan, the Agency is adjusting its
corrective actions as necessary to
fully address the grants manage-
ment challenges faced by the
EPA. The Agency is creating a
new culture that places a premium
on transparency, accountability
and results, with a view to making
EPA a 'best practice' agency for
grants management. The table
Performance Measures Target Progress in
FY 2006
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 advanced monitoring reports closed within 120 days
Percentage of eligible grants closed out
** Percentage of grant workplans that include a discussion of qualitative environmental results
100%
90%
90%
10%
90%
99% in 2004
90% in 2005
80%
99.1%
95.0%
90.8%
8.4%
93.8%
99.4% in 2004
96.6% in 2005
100%
*This performance measure is tracked on a calendar year basis.
**This performance measure is based on a sample of grants awarded in FT" 2005.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
below lists the Agency's grant
performance measures and the
results achieved in FY 2006.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE
FINANCIAL
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENTS
The U.S. Chief Financial
Officers Council publishes
Government-wide performance
measures on the "Metric Tracking
System" (MTS) website at
http://www.fido.gov/mts/cfo/public.
These measures are a series of key
financial management indicators
that allow government financial
managers, Congress and other
stakeholders to assess the financial
performance of each agency.
During FY 2006, the Agency's
performance improved from
yellow to green in one metric,
from red to green in one metric,
and remained unchanged in
the other seven metrics. EPA
is currently green in seven of
nine metrics.
EPA improved its performance
in several areas in FY 2006. Under
Government-Wide Financial Performance Metrics
Amount in Suspense (Absolute)
Greater than 60 Days Old
DelinquentAccounts Receivable
from the Public Over 1 80 Days
Electronic Payments
Percent Non-Credit Invoices
Paid On-Time
AllOther:13
Fund Balance with Treasury, Net
Interest Penalties Paid
Purchase Card Delinquency Rates
Travel Card Delinquency Rates-lndividually Billed
Travel Card Delinquency Rates- Centrally Billed
•
•
MM
• 1
•
Electronic Payments, the Agency is
up to paying 95.9 percent of its
invoices electronically, in line
with its goal of 96.0 percent. The
goal for Delinquent Accounts
Receivable from the Public over
180 Days is 10 percent or less and
EPA improved by reducing its
delinquency rate from 68 percent
to 25 percent.
The Agency is taking
aggressive action to improve the
financial indicators for which a
green status has not been
achieved and plans
to maintain its per-
formance in areas
where it is already
successful. EPA will
improve its perform-
ance in the metric
on Delinquent
Accounts Receivable
from the Public over
180 Days by com-
pleting consolidation
of its accounts
receivable account-
ing function,
updating its policies
and procedures, and
taking a more aggres-
sive approach to managing receiv-
ables. Through consolidation of
vendor payments at one location,
EPA expects to improve its per-
formance in the metric on
Electronic Payments.
ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND
STEWARDSHIP
INFORMATION
Audit Results
For the seventh consecutive
year, EPA received an unqualified
opinion on its consolidated finan-
cial statements. However, the
auditors identified two reportable
conditions, one noncompliance
issue that was not considered
substantial, and no material
weaknesses. EPA takes pride in its
progress in reducing the number
of reportable conditions in the
annual audit from ten to two
between the FY 2005 audit and
the FY 2006 audit.
Overview of Financial Position
The following discussion
summarizes key financial informa-
tion and significant variances
between FY 2005 and FY 2006 in
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
the Agency's financial statements.
EPA's Financial Statements
appear in Section IV, Annual
Financial Statements, of this
Performance and Accountability
Report.
Assets: The Agency had total
assets of $17.8 billion at the
end of FY 2006. The decrease of
$382 million from FY 2005 prim-
arily resulted from a decrease in
the Fund Balance with Treasury
partly offset by increased invest-
ments in the Hazardous Substance
Trust Fund (Superfund) and the
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks Trust Fund (LUST), as well
as increased payments in FY 2006
for grants and activities associated
with the Hurricane Katrina
cleanup effort and increased
software and equipment assets.
Liabilities: The Agency had total
liabilities of $1.6 billion at the
end of FY 2006, which is reported
in the Consolidated Balance
Sheet and summarized in the
following table.
The decrease of $140 million
(8.1 percent) from FY 2005 is
primarily the result of significant
decreases in the Custodial
Liability and Cashout Advances,
Superfund accounts. Fines and
penalties, interest assessments,
repayments of loans, and other
miscellaneous accounts receivable
that, when collected, will be
deposited to the Treasury General
Fund are considered Custodial
Liability. Cashout Advances are
funds received under settlement
agreements to finance response
action costs at specified Superfund
sites. (See Notes 12 and 16 in
Section IV, Annual Financial
Statements).
Assets, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 FY 2005
(in thousands) (in thousands)
Fund balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Loans Receivable
Property Plant and Equipment, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
$11,173,443
$5,366,264
$371,551
$30,836
$756,794
$63,431
$17,762,319
$12,139,207
$4,81 1,065
$440,728
$39,347
$708,716
$5,134
$18,144,197
Liabilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2006 FY 2005
(in thousands) (in thousands)
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Debt Due to Treasury
Custodial Liability
Cashout Advances, Superfund
Payroll and Benefits Payable
Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
Environmental Cleanup Costs
Commitments and Contingencies
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
$833,192
$18,896
$32,963
$223,760
$195,746
$39,408
$10,083
$8
$234,256
$1,588,312
$850,114
$21,744
$142,347
$270,81 1
$190,394
$39,380
$6,989
$1,950
$204,594
$1,728,323
Net Position: The Agency's Net
Position at the end of FY 2006 was
$16.2 billion, a $242 million
decrease from the previous year's
total of $16.4 billion. This decrease
is primarily attributable to lower
undelivered orders and unobligated
balances (Unexpended Approp-
riations) at the end of the year.
Specific details are provided in
Note 17 in Section IV An increase
in Cumulative Results of Oper-
ations due to the increase in
Earmarked Funds for Superfund
and LUST activities was not suffi-
cient to offset the decrease in
Unexpended Appropriations.
Net Cost of Operations: The
Agency's Net Cost of Operation
for FY 2006 rose by $312 million
(from $8.0 to $8.3 billion) over
FY 2005. This increase was pri-
marily related to activities
associated with the Hurricane
Katrina cleanup effort and to
increased grant payments. For
FY 2006, EPA's Net Cost of
Operations of $8.3 billion consist-
ed of Gross Costs of $9.2 billion,
less Earned Revenue of $0.9 bil-
lion. Most of this amount, $3.8
billion (46.1 percent) was spent
performing the goal related to
"Clean and Safe Water." Net
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
costs totaling $1.6 billion (18.9
percent) were spent on Land
Preservation and Restoration.
Statement of Budgetary
Resources: This Statement
provides information on resources
available to EPA and the status of
those resources at the end of the
fiscal year.
The Agency's total budgetary
resources of $13.5 billion for
FY 2006 were $221 million more
than the budgetary resources for
FY 2005, primarily because of
increased reimbursements related
to the Hurricane Katrina cleanup,
which are also reflected in the
increased reimbursable obligations.
EPA's total obligations were $10.2
billion and total net outlays were
$8.3 billion.
Stewardship Information
Under the requirements of
OMB Circular A-136, Financial
Reporting Requirements, EPA
reports on one area of Required
Supplementary information—
Stewardship Land (PP&E). In
addition, the Agency reports
three areas of Required
Statement of Budgetary Resources
FY 2006 FY 2005
(in thousands) (in thousands)
Total Budgetary Resources
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Gross Outlays
Less Collections and Receipts
Total, Net Outlays
$13,452,220
$9,292,415
$912,718
$10,205,133
$10,607,195
($2,291,623)
$8,315,572
$13,231,189
$9,573,696
$550,737
$10,124,433
$9,9 1 8,889
($1,999,386)
$7,919,503
Supplementary Stewardship
information—Research and
Development, Infrastructure
(clean water and drinking
water facilities), and Human
Capital (awareness training).
More information on these is
provided in Section IV of this
Performance and Accountability
Report.
Limitations of the Financial
Statements
The principal financial state-
ments have been prepared to
report the financial position and
results of operations of the entity,
pursuant to the requirements of
31U.S.C. 3515 (b).
While the statements have
been prepared from the books
and records of the entity in
accordance with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) for Federal entities and
the formats prescribed by OMB,
the statements are in addition to
the financial reports used to
monitor and control budgetary
resources which are prepared from
the same books and records.
The statements should be read
with the realization that they are
for a component of the U.S.
Government, a sovereign entity.
Other limitations are included in
the footnotes to the principal
statements.
•»'• -^^
*&
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
EPA's FY 2006 Management
Integrity and Audit Management
Repc
In FY 2006, EPA's
Administrator provided his
unqualified Statements of
Assurance on overall internal
controls and internal controls
over financial reporting. The
Agency continues to make
progress in strengthening its man-
agement practices and the
internal controls carried out by
the Agency to assure the integrity
of its programs and operations.
FEDERAL MANAGERS'
FINANCIAL INTEGRITY
ACT
The Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
requires agencies to establish and
maintain internal controls and
financial systems that provide rea-
sonable 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 defi-
ciencies and requires them
annually to identify and report
internal control and accounting
systems problems and planned
remedies.
In FY 2005 OMB issued its
revised Circular A-123,
Management's Responsibility for
Internal Control, which provides
guidance on using the range of
tools agency managers have at
their disposal to achieve desired
program results and meet FMFIA
requirements. The revised
Circular requires agencies to sub-
mit a separate statement attesting
to the effectiveness of internal
controls over financial reporting
as of June 30 of each year (revised
Circular A-123, Appendix A).
In FY 2006,
EPA broadened
its management
integrity process
to meet the
new internal
control require-
ments under
Appendix A
of the revised
Circular.
The Agency
developed a
communica-
tions strategy
that explained
to managers
and executives at all levels that
strong internal controls contribute
to operating efficiency; provide
greater accountability; reduce
fraud, waste, and mismanagement;
and promote cost-effective results.
With the assistance of an inde-
pendent contractor, EPA
documented, tested, and assessed
195 key controls associated with
10 financial reporting processes
and selected transactions associat-
ed with Hurricane Katrina.
The assessment uncovered no
material weaknesses and found the
Agency's internal control mecha-
nisms were operating effectively.
However, 11 internal controls
were classified as reportable
conditions, and several others
were classified as less significant
deficiencies. EPA developed
corrective action plans and
milestones for these reportable
conditions and, as of September
30, 2006, seven were resolved, and
the remaining four are scheduled
for correction in FY 2007. EPA
plans to create a "Controls
Portfolio Analysis" for one finan-
cial process to document the value
of an A-123 assessment in terms
of improved efficiency and cost
effectiveness. The next cycle of
internal control assessments will
begin with a follow-up review of
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
the effectiveness of the corrective
actions for all reportable condi-
tions and continue with an
assessment of the financial
processes selected for review in
FY 2007.
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
FISCAL YEAR 2006
ANNUAL ASSURANCE STATEMENT
I am pleased to give an unqualified statement of assurance that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programs and
resources are protected from fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanage-
ment. Based on EPA's annual self-assessment of its internal
management controls and financial control systems, I can reason-
ably assure that there are no material weaknesses in the Agency's
control.
Stephen L.Johnson
Administrator
November 13, 2006
FISCAL YEAR 2006
"UNQUALIFIED" ANNUAL ASSURANCE STATEMENT ON
INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) management
is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting, which includes safeguarding of
assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. EPA
conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal con-
trol over financial reporting in accordance with OMB Circular
A- 23, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control. Based on
the results of this evaluation, I can provide reasonable assurance
that internal control over financial reporting as of June 30,2006
was operating effectively and no material weaknesses were found
in the design or operation of the internal controls over financial
reporting.
Stephen L.Johnson
Administrator
November 13, 2006
Administrator's unqualified
Statement of Assurance on the
Agency's overall internal controls
and its internal controls over
financial reporting for FY 2006
follows.
MANAGEMENT
ASSURANCES
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 2006,
for the fifth year, EPA has no
material weaknesses to report
under FMFIA. Material weaknesses
are control deficiencies that could
adversely impact the integrity of
Agency programs and activities
and/or violate statutory, judicial,
or regulatory requirements. These
deficiencies significantly impair
or threaten fulfillment of the
Agency's mission and must be
reported to the President and
Congress along with the Agency's
corrective action strategy to reme-
dy the problem. While the
Agency reported no new material
weaknesses, EPA currently has a
number of less severe, internal
Agency-level weaknesses.
Agency-level weaknesses, which
are not required to be reported
outside the Agency, are tracked by
EPA senior managers who meet
periodically to ensure that
progress is being made to resolve
the issues. During the year, EPA
closed one of its existing Agency-
level weaknesses related to water
quality standards. Three of the
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
5-Year Trend of Material and Agency Weaknesses
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fiscal Year
Agency's current weaknesses were
identified by OIG as management
challenges under the Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000
(RCA). The RCA requires the
Inspector General to identify,
briefly assess, and report annually
the most serious management and
performance challenges facing the
Agency. Unlike material or
Agency-level weaknesses, man-
agement challenges are not
control deficiencies under FMFIA,
unless specifically declared so by
the Administrator, but require an
Agency response to the IG's
assessment of the issues identified.
(See Section III, Management
Accomplishments and Challenges,
for detailed information on EPA's
Key Management Challenges.)
INSPECTOR GENERAL
ACT AMENDMENTS OF
1988
The Inspector General (IG)
Act Amendments require federal
agencies to report to Congress on
their progress in carrying out audit
recommendations. EPA uses audit
management as a tool in assessing
its progress and its ability to meet
its strategic objectives. The
Agency is continuing to strength-
en its audit management practices
and is working to address issues
and complete corrective actions in
a timely manner.
EPA's Audit Follow-up
Activities: In FY 2006, EPA was
responsible for addressing OIG
recommendations and tracking
follow-up activities on 634 audits.
The Agency achieved final action
(completing all corrective actions
associated with an audit) on
359 audits, including Program
Evaluation/Program Performance,
Assistance Agreement, Contracts,
and Single audits. The OIG
EPA's AGENCY WEAKNESSES
. Safe Drinking Water Informati
2. Clean Water Act Section 30^
questioned costs of more than
$63.3 million, and recommended
to disallow costs and put funds
to better use in 226 of the 359
audits. After careful review, OIG
and the Agency agreed to disallow
approximately $39.6 million of
these questioned costs and $10 mil-
lion funds put to better use (see
table, line D). As required by the
IG Act Amendments, the follow-
ing table presents information on
audits that involve disallowed costs
and funds put to better use.
A broader discussion of EPA's
FY 2006 audit management activi-
ties are summarized below. These
activities include audits with asso-
ciated dollars (represented in the
table above) as well as audits
without dollars.
• Final Corrective Action
Not Taken. At the end of
FY 2006, 244 audits were
without final action and not
yet fully resolved. (This total
excludes the 31 audits with
management decisions under
administrative appeal by the
grantee—see write-up below.)
System (S
4. EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish Its Mission*
5. Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security*
6. Permit Compliance System
7. Implementation of Data Standards
OIG identified these weaknesses as management challenges in its 2006 list of
key management challenges for the Agency.
For more details on EPA's Agency-level weaknesses and progress in addressing
them, refer to Section III—Management Accomplishments and Challenges.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
REPORTED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
. Managing for Results
2. Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security*
3. Data Standards and Data Quality
4. EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to Accomplish
Its Mission*
6. Human Capital Management*
7. Voluntary, Alternative, and Innovative Practices and
Programs
8. Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater
Resources and Infrastructure
9. Information Technology Systems Development and
Implementation
0. Data Gaps
* EPA acknowledges these challenges as Agency-level weak-
nesses and is tracking progress under the FMFIA process.
For more details on OIG's Key Management Challenges and
EPA's response, refer to Section III—Management
Accomplishments and Challenges
Final Corrective Action Not Taken
Beyond I Year.
Of the 244 audits, EPA officials had not
completed final action on 34 audits within
1 year after the management decision (the
point at which OIG and the Action
Official reach agreement on the corrective
action plan). Because the issues to be
addressed may be complex, Agency man-
agers often require more than 1 year after
management decisions are reached with
OIG to complete the agreed-upon correc-
tive actions.
Audits Awaiting Decision on Appeal.
EPA regulations allow grantees to appeal
management decisions on financial
assistance audits that seek monetary
reimbursement from the recipient. In the
case of an appeal, EPA must not take
action to collect the account receivable
until the Agency issues a decision on the
appeal. At the end of FY 2006, 31 audits
were in administrative appeal.
Disallowed Costs & Funds Put To Better Use
October 1,2005 - September 30,2006
A. Audits with management decisions but without final action at the beginning of FY 2006.
. isallowed Cos.
56
$71,883,901
s Put to Better L
Number Value
$ 2,002,296
B. Audits for which management decisions were made during FY 2006:
(i) Management decisions with disallowed costs. (54)
(ii) Management decisions with no disallowed costs. (179)
233
$ 33,975,596
$49,382,454
C. Total audits pending final action during FY 2006. (A+B)
289
$105,859,497
$51,384,750
D. Final action taken during FY 2006 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.
221
$39,631,896
$ 1,108,261
$ 3,026,689
$0
$32,735,931
$ 790,451
$ 1,970,569
$10,031,750
$ 2,059,069
$ 7,972,681
E. Audit reports needing final action at the end of FY 2006. (C-D)
68
$66,227,601
$41,353,000
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
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
FY 1999 financial statement audit,
EPA implemented an FFMIA
remediation plan to improve the
Agency's financial management
systems to comply with federal
financial system requirements.
Currently, EPA has completed
all but two corrective actions:
security certification policy for
contractor personnel and security
certification policy for grantee
personnel. EPA anticipates com-
pleting these actions by the first
quarter of FY 2007. The Agency
continues to improve cost
accounting and reconciliation of
intragovernmental transactions.
FEDERAL INFORMATION
SECURITY
MANAGEMENT ACT
The Federal Information
Security Management Act
(FISMA) directs federal agencies
to conduct annual evaluations of
information security programs and
practices to ensure that informa-
tion security controls over
information resources supporting
federal operations and assets are
effective. EPA's October 1, 2006
FISMA Report highlights the
results of the Agency's annual
security program review, complet-
ed by EPA's Chief Information
Officer, senior agency program
officials, and Inspector General.
The report reflects EPA's contin-
ued efforts to ensure that infor-
mation assets are protected and
secured in a manner consistent
with the risk and magnitude of
the harm resulting from the loss,
misuse, or unauthorized access to
or modification of information.
In FY 2006, EPA reported no
significant deficiencies in its
information security systems
under FISMA.
IMPROPER PAYMENTS
INFORMATION ACT
The Improper Payments
Information Act (IPIA) of 2002,
Public Law 107-300, requires
agencies to review their programs
and activities to identify those
considered "high risk" for signifi-
cant improper payments. Because
EPA has been able to demonstrate
effective internal controls in elim-
inating improper payments, OMB
has granted relief from the annual
reporting requirement for the
Clean Water and Drinking Water
SRFs, the two high-risk programs.
However, the Agency may be
required to re-initiate measure-
ment activities if there are any
substantial changes to the pro-
grams (legislation, funding, etc.)
that may affect payment accuracy.
GOVERNMENT
MANAGEMENT REFORM
AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The Government
Management Reform Act of 1994
amended the requirements of the
Chief Financial Officers 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
controls, and compliance with
laws and regulations.
For seven consecutive years,
the Agency submitted timely
financial statements and received
an unqualified audit opinion—
another important aspect of
accountability. These statements
(presented in Section IV of
this report) present the Agency's
financial position at the end of
fiscal year.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The President's Management Agenda
Over the past 5 years, the
President's Management Agenda
(PMA) has challenged federal
agencies to be "citizen-centered,
results-oriented, and market-based"
(see http://www.whitehouse.gov/
results). During FY 2006, EPA
made progress under each of the
seven government-wide PMA ini-
tiatives: Human Capital,
Competitive Sourcing, Expanded
E-Government, 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 uses a color-coded "stop
light" system that rates each fed-
eral agency's progress and overall
status under each of the PMA
initiatives. During FY 2006,
OMB did not issue a PMA score-
card for EPA's Research and
Development Investment
Criteria because the require-
ments for that initiative were
under review. As of September
2006, the Agency achieved six
out of six "Green" scores for
progress toward implementation
and four out of six "Green"
scores on the status of PMA
initiative implementation.
In addition to tracking PMA
progress on a quarterly basis, feder-
al agencies establish 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.
This past year, three of EPA's PMA
Initiatives achieved a "Green" rat-
ing on Proud to Be Goals:
Competitive Sourcing, Financial
Performance, and Eliminating
Improper Payments. More informa-
tion about the Agency's work
under the PMA is available at
http://www.epa.gov/pmaresults.
EPA's FY2006 PROGRESS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
INITIATIVE STATUS14 PROGRESS
PROUD TO
BE (07/06)
HIGHLIGHTS
Human
Capital
A
A
v" EPA did
not meet its goal of
"Green" for P2B3
EPA has set a goal of
for P2B4
— Completed HR, IT, & leadership competency assessments, identified gaps,
developed plans and began gap closure efforts.
— Completed Agency Strategic Workforce Plan using competency-based planning
approach.
Developed and obtained OPM approval of Succession Management Plan.
— Implemented SES mobility program and decreased SES hiring time.
— Completed first cycle of 5-tier Performance Appraisal System (PARS).
Expanded PARS improvement beta sites to ensure expectations cascade and
align.
Maintained an average GS hiring target well below the OPM 45-day target.
Developed and obtained approval from the Office of Personnel Management of
EPA Human Capital Accountability System to ensure optimal management of
EPA human resources.
EPA's Challenges in Human Capital — Use a competency assessment tool to evaluate Agency leaders and priority Mission Critical Occupations (MCOs).
Redirect and refocus our recruitment approach and use of development opportunities to close identified competency gaps. Ensure that PARS expectations
cascade from the proper level and are visible, competency-based, and outcome oriented. Concerted effort must continue in order to meet the OPM
30-day SES hiring standard.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
EPA's FY2006 PROGRESS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
Expanded
E-Government
EPA did
not meet its goal of
Maintaining "Green"
for P2B3
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B4
EPA demonstrated the existence of adequate procedures for identifying systems
that require Privacy Impact Assessments and System of Records Notices.
E-Rulemaking successfully resumed agency implementation of the Federal
Docket Management System and Initiated all scheduled and approved agency
deployments.
EPA has posted 100% of its grants on the website "Grants.gov"
EPA's Challenges in E-Gov—Like many other agencies, EPA will continue to face funding challenges for E-Government activities until Congressional
appropriators grow more comfortable with the value proposition offered by E-Government and Line of Business projects overall. The E-Rulemaking
Program Management Office (PMO) successfully managed to work through the funding freeze in 2006, but if funds are similarly frozen in 2007 it could have
additional impacts on the E-Rulemaking project.
Improved
Financial
Performance
"Green" EPA met
its goal of "Green"
forP2B3"
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B4
—EPA delivered its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report with audited
financial statements by the required deadline of November 15, 2006, and issued
its interim financial statements within the required deadline of 21 days after the
end of the quarter.
—No material weaknesses were identified during EPA's testing of 195 key controls
associated with financial reporting processes as part of the Agency's assessment
of internal control activities under OMB Circular A-123 (see EPA's "unqualified
statement of assurance," signed by the Administrator, as of June 30, 2006).
—EPA successfully demonstrated the viability of its Data Integration Green Plan,
the blueprint for producing timely, useful, and usable information to drive
program results.
—In FY 2006, under the Data Integration Green Plan, EPA successfully assessed
the types of financial/grant information needed to improve overall decision
making for grants management and made substantial progress in developing the
capability to produce this information. EPA has selected emergency management
as the next area for review.
EPA's Challenges in Improved Financial Performance—No challenges at this time.
Budget and
Performance
Integration
v" EPA did
not meet its goal of
"Green" for P2B3.
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B4.
—The Agency received green progress scores for all four quarters in FY 2006.
—EPA worked cooperatively with OMB on the 2006 Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) process, completing 5 I PART assessments to date.
—At the conclusion of the 2006 PART Appeals process, EPA has developed or is
developing efficiency measures for 45 of its 5 I PARTed programs.
'verall momentum remains strong as Agency focuses on demonstrating
results in current PART reviews, works to improve consideration of
performance information in its internal planning & budget processes, and
devotes significant attention to developing appropriate efficiency measures that
meet PART standards.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's FY2006 PROGRESS UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S MANAGEMENT AGENDA
Hgaffffil
EPA's Challenges in Budget and Performance Integration (BPI) — EPA must continue to develop appropriate OMB-approved measures that gauge the efficiency
of an environmental program's administration. Each program evaluated by the PART is required to have at least one OMB-approved efficiency measure.
Eliminating
Improper
Payments
•
•
"Green" — EPA met
its goal for P2B3.
EPA has set a goal of
"Green" for P2B4.
— EPA's error rate for payments to direct recipients of State Revolving Funds (SRF)
is 0.00 percent, and an analysis of sub-recipient payments in three states,
including targeted sampling in two of those states, indicates that total improper
payments in those states are well below the OMB's threshold error rate of 2.5
percent of total program dollars and $ 1 0 million.
— EPA has received OMB's approval of athree-year relief from annual reporting or
measurements for the SRF programs based on the low error rate for the past
two years. EPA may be required to resume measurement activities if there are
substantial changes to the program that may affect payment accuracy.
EPA's Challenges in Eliminating Improper Payments — No challenges at this time.
Research and
Development
Investment
Criteria
•
EPA has not
received a
quarterly
scorecard
evaluating
progress on
implement-
ing the R&D
| n vsstmsnt
Girts n 3.
dunns
FY 2006
NA
— The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), an independent, external panel,
reviewed the following research programs in FY 2006: Global Change, Land
Protection and Restoration, and Water Quality Research.
— Four of the Agency's research programs were reviewed in the 2006 PART
process: Global Change, Human Health Risk Assessment, Land Protection and
Restoration, and Water Quality Research. ORD has made significant progress
negotiating with OMB and the Board of Scientific Counselors to develop
long-term measures derived from an independent expert review process.
— In the 2006 PART process, EPA developed an OMB-accepted efficiency
measure forthe Water Quality Research Program. The Agency is determining if
other research programs could benefit from utilizing a similar efficiency measure.
— Beginning in FY 2007, EPA's 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 continues to work to attain acceptable performance and efficiency measures for all of its research
programs. To this end, EPA has established a workgroup comprised of representatives from OMB, the BOSC, and EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment to develop measures that are meaningful to program managers and clearly illustrate performance overtime.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Improving Performance, Results,
and Management
EPA aims to be an organiza-
tion in which performance
measures are well-defined and
understood, managers use accurate
and timely performance and
financial analyses to make deci-
sions, and costs can be linked to
performance and results. The
Agency continues efforts to
provide decision makers with
performance and resource infor-
mation to help them plan and
manage their programs most effec-
tively and to expand the amount
of real-time information available
to managers by improving our
systems and reporting capabilities.
In FY 2006, EPA collaborated
with states, tribes, and other part-
ners to strengthen its approaches
to tracking and assessing progress.
Internally, the Agency imple-
mented measures to hold its senior
managers more accountable for
achieving results. EPA continues
to pursue greater operating effi-
ciency and effectiveness so that
tax payer dollars are used wisely to
achieve environmental results.
STRENGTHENING
PLANNING AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
With the release of the
Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan
in September 2006, EPA more
clearly identified the environmen-
tal and human health outcomes
the Agency expects to achieve
over the next 5 years. A primary
focus of the Plan revision effort
was to increase the outcome-
orientation of EPA's long-term
measures, including taking better
advantage of the Agency's ongo-
ing efforts to develop improved
environmental indicators for its
Report on the Environment and
improved performance measures
under the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB's) Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
The 2006-2011 Plan retains the
five-goal structure of the Agency's
2003 strategic plan and discusses
important new challenges and
opportunities facing EPA in the
coming years. It emphasizes the
significant contributions of the
Agency's federal, state, tribal, and
local partners and reflects the
importance of strong collabora-
tion. The new Plan also expands
on EPA's more significant geo-
graphic initiatives, and emphasizes
tribal issues, environmental justice
concerns, and innovation and
environmental stewardship.
Collaboration with Partners
EPA's effective collaboration
with its partners—states, tribes, and
other federal agencies—is essential
to address the increasingly complex
environmental challenges. The
Agency continued to advance the
Environmental Council of the
States (EGOS)-EPA Partnership
and Performance Work Group,
a senior-level oversight body
governing ongoing efforts to
strengthen the state-EPA partner-
ship. In FY 2006, the Work Group
focused on implementing OMB's
directive in the FY 2007
President's Budget requiring that
EPA develop a standardized tem-
plate that states will use to present
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENHANCING TRIBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
In FY 2006, EPA continued
to work with tribes on a
government-to-government
basis to protect the land,
air, and water in Indian
country. In September, the
Quinault Indian Nation
hosted, the National Tribal
Forum on Environmental
Science, attended by more
than 350 tribal and federal
officials to discuss current
science issues related to
environmental and public
health problems in Indian
country.
As of FY 2006, 90.4 percent
of tribes (517 tribes) have
access to EPA funds for hir-
ing environmental program
staff, managing environmental
activities, and implementing
multimedia environmental
programs in Indian country.
15 This represents an
increase of approximately 5
percent a year since 1996,
when 36 percent of tribes
had access.
performance measures in FY 2007
work plans. EPA and EGOS are
jointly developing templates that
link to EPA's Strategic Plan, pro-
vide consistent requirements for
regular performance reporting,
and allow for meaningful compar-
isons of states' past and planned
activities. State grant performance
information will be tracked annu-
ally using EPA's Annual Commit-
ment System (ACS) and reports
generated for OMB using the
Reporting and Business
Intelligence Tool. During FY 2007,
EPA and states will work to exam-
ine state reporting burden and
streamline performance measures.
The Agency streamlined and
simplified the ACS, making it
more user-friendly for EPA deci-
sionmakers by reducing the
number of unnecessary output
measures more than 16 percent
from previous years. The system
now allows state grant template
measures to be flagged and tracked
on an annual basis. EPA expects
to continue this work in FY 2007,
improving state grant performance
measures, reducing the number
and improving the meaning of
measures in the ACS, and identi-
fying opportunities for reducing
state reporting burden.
Finally, the Agency took steps
to hold its senior managers more
accountable for achieving results
on an annual basis. For example,
in FY 2006, the Agency began
linking senior manager awards to
annual results achieved under
EPA's strategic goals. In addition,
internal planning and budget dis-
cussions required senior managers
to conduct a more rigorous analy-
sis of performance information to
explain and defend their current
level of program resources. In
FY 2006, the Deputy Admin-
istrator also initiated a "Quarterly
Management Report" under
which senior managers from across
EPA report to the Administrator
every 3 months on a suite of criti-
cal performance and management
indicators.
USING THE PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT RATING
TOOL AND PROGRAM
EVALUATION
EPA uses OMB's PART assess-
ments and individual program
evaluations and audits to inform
policy making, facilitate alloca-
tion of resources, and improve
environmental outcomes while
ensuring the most effective and
efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
The PART is a series of diag-
nostic questions used to assess and
evaluate programs across a set of
performance-related criteria,
including program design and pur-
pose, strategic planning, program
management, and results. To date,
EPA and OMB have completed
PART reviews for 51 of the
Agency's programs. In FY 2006,
the Agency conducted PART
assessments on an additional eight
programs and one reassessment of
the Alaska Native Village Water
Infrastructure program, which will
be available in February 2007.
PART-assessed programs are
assigned ratings of "Effective,
Moderately Effective, Adequate,
Ineffective, or Results Not
Demonstrated" based on the
responses and evidence prepared
to address PART questions. The
PART assessment was first used in
2002 in developing the federal
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
FY 2004 budget. During that year,
only 1 of EPA's 11 assessed pro-
grams was rated "Adequate." The
remaining ten programs received
"Results Not Demonstrated"
ratings. At the conclusion of the
2005 PART cycle, EPA advanced
its PART standings so that 37 out
of 43 assessed programs were rated
"Adequate" or "Moderately
Effective." This improvement in
PART ratings illustrates EPA's
commitment to designing and
implementing programs that
achieve environmental outcomes
through more effective and
efficient operations.
Section II.1 of this report lists
PART assessments conducted for
programs under each of the
Agency's five strategic goals and
provides a separate table of future
PART measures along with the
year EPA expects to begin report-
ing data against them. Section II.2
identifies all performance meas-
ures associated with the PART
and reports FY 2006 results for the
measures where data are currently
available. Ratings for the new
programs assessed during 2006
for the FY 2008 budget will be
available with the release of the
President's Budget on February 5,
2007. EPA PART ratings, as well as
the ratings for other assessed feder-
al programs, are publicly accessible
at: http://www.Expectmore.gov.
As a final step in the
PART evaluation, EPA and OMB
agree to a series of PART follow-
up actions, also known as
improvement plans, which are
implemented in response to PART
findings. PART Improvement
Plans are intended to link budget-
ing and performance and to create
a cycle of continuous program
improvement to help programs
reach their environmental goals
more effectively. Follow up actions
are characterized as: Performance,
Management, Budgetary, or
Legislative. In FY 2006, for exam-
ple, a key performance follow-up
action for the Superfund Federal
Facilities program involved
working with other federal agen-
cies to support attainment of
long-term environmental and
human health goals by reviewing
and recommending remedies for
cleanup. EPA's New Chemicals
Program provides an example of
an important management follow-
up action which involved
developing an efficiency measure
targeting reduced costs in the later
stages of the Pre-Manufacture
Notice (PMN) review process.
The table below shows the num-
ber of improvement plans
in each category as well as the
focus of each.
As of FY 2006, EPA has
developed 133 follow-up actions.
Twenty-three follow-up actions
have been completed, 105 are
currently active, and 5 have
had no action taken to date
(for more information see:
http://www.Expectmore.gov).
Through the PART process and
the associated PART Improvement
Plans, EPA will continue to work
collaboratively with OMB to
ensure the effective protection of
human health and the environ-
ment.
Performance
EPA PART FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
65
Focus on improving the Agency's ability to measure, track, and assess
programmatic performance and intended environmental outcomes.
Management
51
Designed to improve EPA's program management practices and
facilitate the delivery of environmental results.
Budgetary
14
Budgetary proposals designed to ensure that EPA's resources are
directed toward delivering strong environmental results.
Legislative
Designed to affect EPA programs' legislative requirements so that the
program purpose is clear and environmental outcomes can be achieved.
*Quantity totals include all Follow-Up Actions: "completed", "action taken, but not completed" and "no action taken."
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
During FY 2006, EPA also
conducted other types of program
evaluations to determine how well
a program is working. (Appendix
A contains a list by strategic goal
of program evaluations and
reviews completed in FY 2006.)
For example, for the Agency's
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the
National Academy of Sciences
completed a case study on the
Coeur d'Alene River Basin
Superfund site in northern Idaho
to examine EPA's scientific and
technical practices in Superfund
megasites. The evaluation found
that EPA's practices for human
health risk decision making at the
Superfund site are generally
sound; however, it raised substan-
tial concerns, particularly
regarding the effectiveness of the
selected remedy. Among other
recommendations, the evaluation
suggested incorporating U.S.
Geological Survey data into
EPA's remedial planning and
developing a better understanding
of dissolved metals to account for
movements to and from ground-
water and surface water. EPA's
National Mining Team has formed
a subgroup to carefully evaluate
and draft action items for each
recommendation.
EPA's OIG contributes to
the Agency's mission to improve
human health and environmental
protection by assessing the
effectiveness of EPA's program
management and results, develop-
ing recommendations for
improvement, and ensuring
that Agency resources are used
as intended. For example, in
FY 2006, the OIG reviewed the
development of emissions factors
under the Agency's Clean Air
Program—a critical component of
state clean air plans. The OIG
sought to determine whether the
air emissions factors used by EPA
are of acceptable quality for mak-
ing environmental decisions, and
whether EPA's decisions and
process for improving and rating
emissions factors is sufficient to
meet users' needs. The OIG report
found that the percentage of emis-
sions factors rated below average
or poor increased from 56 percent
in 1996 to 62 percent in 2004. In
response to the report, EPA is
implementing a three-pronged
plan to revamp the emissions
factor program that includes
developing an electronic reporting
tool to make it easier for state,
local, and tribal agencies to
accept, assess the quality, and
transmit emissions test data (more
information on this evaluation is
available in Appendix A).
IMPROVING
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS,
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT, AND
DATA QUALITY
Environmental Indicators: To
define goals, measure progress, and
hold managers accountable for
achieving results, EPA needs accu-
rate, timely environmental data.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In FY 2006, EPA continued work
to develop and use a suite of sci-
entifically sound indicators to
track trends in environmental
conditions and human health.
This indicator work is based on
EPA's Draft Report on the
Environment—2003. In FY 2007,
the Agency expects to release the
Report on the Environment—
Technical Document, which will
provide a snapshot of current
environmental conditions.
In FY 2006, EPA used the lat-
est set of environmental indicator
information in the development
of the 2006-20 J J Strategic Plan.
Indicator information was used to
inform the Agency's 2006-2011
decisions about strategic goals,
objectives, sub-objectives, and
associated strategic targets, which
define the measurable environ-
mental results we are trying to
achieve. Information on trends in
environmental conditions and
human health will also help EPA
to identify key environmental
concerns and emerging issues and
assess the effect of federal, state,
local, tribal, and private efforts in
improving environmental quality.
The Agency plans to continue to
use environmental indicator infor-
mation and the Report on the
Environment to help inform future
strategic planning. More informa-
tion on the Agency's "Indicators
Initiative" is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/indicators.
Performance Measurement:
EPA realizes the importance of
performance measurement in
managing programs effectively,
and is continuously working to
improve the quality of our meas-
ures to make them more
NEW PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT
EPA's 2006-201 I STRATEGIC PLAN
These new measures will help EPA fill key data gaps in describing
health and environmental trends overtime and demonstrate the
results of specific environmental programs:
• Mercury Levels in Women:The Agency will track blood mercury levels
in women of childbearing age.
• Waterborne Disease Outbreaks: EPA will measure waterborne disease
outbreaks from swimming in recreational waters with pathogens.
• Tribal Water Quality: EPA will measure the number of monitoring sta-
tions in tribal waters showing improved water quality in one or more of
seven key ecological parameters.
• Safe Chemicals: EPA will track the percent of chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to
workers, consumers, or the environment.
• Pesticide Concentrations: EPA will measure the percent reduction in
concentrations of pesticides detected in the human population.
meaningful and outcome-oriented.
During FY 2006, a number of
programs worked to revamp their
measures to make them more
useful as management tools. For
example, in FY 2006, the vast
majority of the nation's communi-
ty water systems supplied drinking
water that met all health-based
standards, however, some very
large systems serving a large num-
ber of people (e.g., New York City
and San Antonio) reported short-
term violations during the year.
Because of these short-term viola-
tions, EPA did not meet two of its
FY 2006 drinking water perform-
ance goals. To address this issue
and improve the accuracy of the
Agency's performance reporting,
EPA has developed a new measure
that accounts for the time-limited
nature of drinking water standard
violations which is included in
EPA's 2006-20 J J Strategic Plan
(see chart below for examples of
other measures developed for the
new Plan).
In addition, to measure and
communicate its enforcement and
compliance assurance performance
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
results more effectively, EPA is
examining ways to move toward a
problem-based approach.
Currently, the Agency tracks
results associated with EPA's four
tools for improving and maintain-
ing compliance: compliance
assistance, incentives, monitoring,
and enforcement. While this
approach clearly communicates
the strategies EPA uses, linking
the results of these tools directly
to changes in environmental
conditions and human health is
DATA IN FY 2006
PERFORMANCE AN:
ACCOUNTABILITY
REPORT ARE COMF
AND RELIABLE
EPA determined that t
performance informati
this report is complete
reliable and no materi;
inadequacies are prese
defined by OMB Circu
For more information on
the data sources used in FY
2006 performance measures
and the quality of the data
see Appendix B.
challenging. By altering the
Agency's performance measures to
focus on environmental compli-
ance problems (for example, wet
weather or air toxics noncompli-
ance), it will be possible to more
clearly link results to precise
changes in environmental
conditions.
The Agency made consider-
able progress in FY 2006 in
aligning its current performance
measures with new performance
and efficiency measures developed
through OMB's PART assess-
ments. The FY 2007 Annual
Performance Plan, developed in
FY 2006, contained 119 PART
performance measures out of a
total set of 179. The Plan also
included a detailed list of 144
additional PART metrics with tar-
gets still under development (54),
as well as long-term targets which
were included in the 2006-20 J J
Strategic Plan (90).
In FY 2006, EPA used infor-
mation from PART metrics and
follow-up actions, and improved
the alignment of annual perform-
ance goals in developing its FY
2008 budget submission. EPA also
incorporated 92 percent of its
PART long-term metrics in the
Agency's 2006-20 J J Strategic Plan.
Performance Data Quality: In
FY 2006, EPA worked to fill key
data gaps and improve the com-
pleteness and reliability of its
performance data. For example,
EPA continued its efforts to transi-
tion from program outputs to more
ambitious, outcome-oriented per-
formance measures that enable the
Agency to better assess cumulative
impacts on the environment and
human health. (See examples of
new outcome measures in table
above.) Collecting environmental
outcome results and assessing envi-
ronmental improvement, however,
often requires multiyear informa-
tion. These circumstances largely
explain the existence of data lags
in EPA's current performance
measures. EPA's use of outcome-
oriented measures, however, has
contributed to the Agency's dis-
semination of meaningful trend
data that provides a more substan-
tive context in which to view the
Agency's overall progress and areas
for improvement.
EPA managers have also con-
tinued to incorporate reliable
performance data in their decision
making while taking into account
known limitations raised by the
OIG in data standards, data quali-
ty, and data lags. (See Section III
for more information on OIG
concerns and what the Agency
has done to address them.) Efforts
underway at EPA to enhance
data reliability include addressing
programmatic differences in col-
lecting place-based information
and assessing the accuracy and
usefulness of environmental
reporting based on voluntary,
third-party contributors. In
preparing the Agency's 2006-20 J J
Strategic Plan, EPA programs also
developed preliminary strategies
to address critical data gaps. Often
data gaps in EPA's reporting are
the result of high costs associated
with collecting statistically valid
environmental monitoring and
human health data. Collaborative
efforts between EPA and other
federal agencies to combine avail-
able resources will help to
eliminate these gaps.
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
IMPROVING AND
INTEGRATING
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
Federal financial management
approaches are changing rapidly.
In its 2006 Federal Financial
Management Report, the Chief
Financial Officers Council envi-
sioned "a Federal Government
that, as a whole, increasingly
achieves first class finan-
cial management
practices." EPA endorses
this vision and is working
with the federal financial
management community
to learn and share best
practices, strengthen
internal controls, partici-
pate in financial manage-
ment reforms, support
E-Government and E-
Travel initiatives, address
financial management
workforce issues, and
improve financial manage-
ment accountability.
The Agency is com-
mitted to developing and
providing useful financial
information to influence
program management
decisions and maximize
results. EPAs efforts
are framed by federal
E-Government and Line of
Business initiatives that seek
economies of scale and use today's
technology to improve financial
management and accountability,
gain efficiencies, and meet today's
information delivery and security
standards.
Financial System Replacement
EPA is acquiring a new com-
prehensive financial management
system that will better integrate
programmatic, performance, and
financial information; streamline
financial workflow and transform
administrative services; and
improve the Agency's ability to
inform the public. Implemen-
tation of the new system is
scheduled for FY 2007 to 2009.
Detailed plans for this project are
available at: http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/modernization/index.htm.
Financial Data Integration
During FY 2006, EPA contin-
ued its effort to make financial
information readily accessible to
inform decision making related to
administering and overseeing
grants. Initiated in FY 2005, this
effort required building a data
interface between two operating
systems and defining the require-
ments of an integrated reporting
platform. It is planned for comple-
tion in FY 2007.
For its next initiative under
the Data Integration effort, EPA
in FY 2006 began to address emer-
gency management. The
key objective of this in-
itiative is to explore ways
to improve the Agency's
management of financial
and administrative infor-
mation associated with
natural disasters and other
significant emergencies.
EPA will continue to
investigate opportunities
for producing financial
information to improve
program efficiency.
Financial Data
Accessibility
EPA is also developing
an accessible enterprise
Administrative Data
Warehouse to meet the
changing business and
data manipulation needs
of the Agency's decision
makers and analysts. The
warehouse will provide a common
source of authoritative data, reduc-
ing redundant management and
data sources. Through this initia-
tive, the Agency will continually
update its administrative system
architecture, thereby ensuring the
most efficient and cost-effective
information exchange. The new
warehouse will be phased in by the
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
end of FY 2008 in conjunction
with the new financial manage-
ment system.
Budget Formulation and
Execution
EPA is engaged
in the new Budget
Formulation and
Execution Line of
Business (LoB) for-
mally launched by
OMB in 2006. This
effort seeks to improve
budget processes and
related analytic capa-
bilities government-
wide. The Budget
Formulation and
Execution LoB is
to focus on building
a "budget of the
future," employing
standards and tech-
nologies for electronic information
exchange to link budget, execution,
performance, and financial infor-
mation throughout all phases of the
annual budget formulation and exe-
cution cycle.
Improving Financial Services
and Operations
Building on the recent
financial consolidation, EPA
management will undertake a
comprehensive review of the
effectiveness of its financial serv-
ices functions. The Agency will
consider realigning its operations
and adopting best practices from
other agencies and will continue
to further automate its operations
to increase efficiency.
EPA will begin using an e-
travel software, GovTrip,
consistent with the President's
Management Agenda goal.
GovTrip offers a seamless system
that automates end-to-end travel
arrangements. It will also interface
with EPA's financial system to
streamline the reimbursement of a
traveler's expenses. The software is
scheduled to replace EPA's legacy
system in FY 2007.
CONSIDERING FUTURE
TRENDS AND LOOKING
AHEAD
Rapidly developing technolo-
gies and other emerging social and
economic changes can have
potentially significant implica-
tions for the Agency's programs.
Several years ago, the Agency
began conducting "futures analy-
sis" to help its senior leaders
anticipate future environmental
challenges and plan strategically
to avoid problems. To bring these
issues to the forefront, EPA
convened a series of workshops
in FY 2006, as an integral part of
developing the 2006-20 JJ
Strategic Plan. The workshops were
structured around the Agency's
strategic goals, and provided an
opportunity for senior program
officials, key staff, and selected
external experts to identify and
discuss the implications of some of
these issues.
The results of
these workshops were
used to develop a
new section under
each of the five
strategic goals in the
Agency's 2006-20JJ
Strategic Plan that
addresses the poten-
tial new challenges
and opportunities the
Agency could face
over the coming
years. Some of the
emerging technolo-
gies present new
opportunities for the
Agency to address
environmental prob-
lems, and some also present novel
risks. Anticipating these risks and
developing the tools to identify
and address them will become
increasingly important as these
technologies enter the market-
place. EPA's 2006-20JJ Strategic
Plan describes potential challenges
facing the Agency as illustrated
below:
• Stratospheric Ozone:
Recent scientific studies indi-
cate that the stratospheric
ozone layer is likely to take
longer to heal than previously
anticipated. Therefore, the
Agency expects more people
to be exposed to excess UV
radiation over a longer period.
Timely, comprehensive
actions by all nations are criti-
cal to restoring the ozone
layer and protecting people
-------
SECTION I—MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
from skin cancer, cataracts,
and other illnesses.
• Climate Change and Sea
Level Rise: Understanding of
the effects of climate change
and projected increases in sea
levels on the health and pro-
ductivity of coastal waters and
habitats, fisheries, and wet-
lands is necessary to inform
sound environmental manage-
ment and protection of these
resources.
• Renewable Energy:
Renewable energy and fuel
sources such as biofuels could
have many implications for
EPA. The Agency will need
to examine how producing
new renewable and non-
renewable forms of energy and
the infrastructure for distribut-
ing and storing them might
affect the environment.
EPA's progress over the next
several years will depend greatly on
our ability and commitment to
find more effective tools and
approaches to meet today's com-
plex environmental challenges.
Broad-based problems, such as pol-
luted runoff, global climate change,
and loss of habitat and biodiversity,
are often the result of diffuse causes
and cannot be solved fully with
conventional regulatory controls.
Rapid technological and scientific
advances can bring breakthrough
solutions, but also pose unknown
or unexpected environmental and
public health risks.
As EPA faces these complex
challenges and a tightening feder-
al budget, we increasingly turn to
two important strategies that cross
all of our goals and programs:
finding innovative solutions
and collaborating with others.
In the coming years, we must
work even more effectively with
organizations engaged in environ-
mental issues, leveraging limited
resources and coordinating our
authorities and capabilities. We
also must involve other govern-
ment agencies, businesses,
communities, and individuals who
might not ordinarily focus on
environmental matters, yet have
the distinctive expertise, perspec-
tives, and resources to help solve
environmental problems.
To make the greatest progress,
we will promote an ethic of envi-
ronmental stewardship that
engages all parts of society—
businesses, companies, communi-
ties, and individuals—in taking
responsibility for environmental
quality and achieving sustainable
results. Environmental steward-
ship is based on the premise that
government cannot meet environ-
mental challenges alone. Rather
we need all parts of society to
understand how environmental
protection aligns with broader
social and economic interests and
to engage with us in actively
creating a sustainable future.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 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.
2. The Regulatory Impact Analysis and supporting documents: http://www.epa.gov/particles/actions.html.
3. The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1994-2004, U.S. EPA 43OR-06-002, April 2006.
4. Data source: http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls.
5. Wadeabk Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams, draft report, EPA 841-B-06-002, April 2006.
6. Data Source: Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html.
7. US EPA. "Minnkota Power Cooperative and Square Butte Electric Cooperative."
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/minnkota.html.
8. Federal Electronics Challenge: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm; Environmental Products Environmental
Assessment Tool: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf.
9. Green Suppliers Network (GSN): http://www.greensuppliers.gov.
10. Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program Awards: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/.
11. Green Chemistry (GC): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/.
12. Design for the Environment (DfE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/; Green Engineering (GE):
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/.
13. For specific information about these financial indicators, see: http://www.fido.gov/mts/cfo/public.
14. 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.
15. US EPA, American Indian Environmental Office. "Target 1 Program Performance Report." Goal 5, Objective 5.3 Reporting
System.
16. New York Times, December 7, 2005, Scientists Say Recovery of the Ozone Layer may take Longer Than Expected, Kenneth Chang.
Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/science/
07ozone.html?ex=1291611600&en=6e8ca9c8549a6f6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. Date of Access: April 26, 2006.
-------
Section II. 1
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 .
Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results, FY 2003-FY 2006 , ,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 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 envi-
ronmental 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 five goals are supported by a planning and
budgeting framework, or strategic "architecture,"
which serves as the structure for EPA's annual plan-
ning, 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 perform-
ance goals, and annual performance measures.
EPA's Performance Framework
FY 2006 Costs and Obligations Are Presented for Each Strategic Goal (In Thousands of Dollars)*
Clean Air &
Global Climate
Change
Cost: $917,821
Obligation: $997,006
Strategic Goals
Clean &
Safe Water
Cost: $3,843,391
Obligation: $3,338,109
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
Cost:$l,S8l,l 14
Obligation: $3,697,845
Healthy
Communities
& Ecosystems
Cost: $1,232,936
Obligation: $1,373,993
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Cost: $770,478
Obligation: $800,006
Outdoor Air
(8 APGs)
Cost: 616%
Obligation: 64,0%
Indoor Air
(3 APGs)
Cost: 5,1%
Obligation: 4,8%
The Ozone Layer
(1 APG)
Cost: 2,4%
Obligation: 1,8%
Radiation
(3 APGs)
Cost: 3,8%
Obligation: 4,2%
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
(2 APGs)
Cost: 12,2%
Obligation: 11,1%
o • . o D u
(3 APGs)
Cost: 13,9%
Obligation: 14,1%
Human Health
(12 APGs)
Cost: 34,7%
Obligation: 36,8%
Water Quality
(6 APGs)
Cost: 62,0%
Obligation: 59,0%
Science & Research
(2 APGs)
Cost: 3,3%
Obligation: 4,2%
Strategic Objectives
Preserve Land
(2 APGs)
Cost: 14,0%
Obligation: 6,4%
Restore Land
(4 APGs)
Cost: 82,3%
Obligation: 91,1%
Science & Research
(1 APG)
Cost: 3,7%
Obligation: 2,5%
Chemical, Organism
& Pesticide Risks
(8 APGs)
Cost: 31,6%
Obligation: 34,2%
Communities
(3 APGs)
Cost1 2 1 0%
Obligation: 20,1%
Ecosystems
(5 APGs)
Cost: 14,1%
Obligation: 14,6%
Science & Research
(4 APGs)
Cost: 33,3%
Obligation: 31,1%
Improved Compliance
(3 APGs)
Cost: 63,5%
Obligation: 64,2%
Improved
Environmental
Performance through
P2 and Innovation
(3 APGs)
Cost: 16,1%
Obligation: 16,3%
Tribal Capacity
to Implement
Environmental
Programs
(1 APG)
Cost: 10,5%
Obligation: 10,0%
Science & Research
(1 APG)
Cr""1" 9.9%
Note: See Performance Results for each Goal and Strategic Objective for presentation of dollars associated with FY 2006 costs and obligations.
* Reconciles with SF-133, Lines 8a and 8b—Obligations.
-------
SECTION II. 1—PERFORMANCE RESULTS
ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE SECTION
The Performance Section of this report provides
performance information for each of EPA's five strate-
gic goals. Each goal chapter opens by reviewing the
purpose of the goal and the public benefits it pro-
vides. The rest of the chapter is organized by the
objectives supporting the goal. For each objective,
we list the Agency's APGs, noting which have been
met, missed, or are awaiting data. We describe our
FY 2006 performance results against these APGs, and
we discuss future challenges the Agency may face in
achieving its objectives. This general information is
intended to provide an overview of EPA's FY 2006
performance and progress toward its longer-term goals
and objectives. More complete and detailed informa-
tion for each APG is presented in Section II.2 -
Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003 through FY 2006.
This year EPA is providing more detailed resource
information in its PAR. In the past, the Agency has
displayed obligation and cost data for each of its
strategic objectives. Now, EPA is including obligation
and cost data at the "program/project" level within
each objective to provide a finer level of detail and
better linkage with the Agency's budget. The "pro-
gram/project" is the Agency's fundamental unit for
budget execution and cost accounting and serves as
the foundation for EPA's budget.
The Performance Section also lists Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments con-
ducted under each of the strategic goals. 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 pro-
grams assessed during 2006 for the FY 2008 budget
will be available in February 2007.
EPA is working to integrate GPRA and PART
measures to meet standards for performance measure-
ment established by 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 achieve EPA's Budget and Performance
Integration goals. Additional information on PART
assessments and EPA's progress in making program
improvements is available at ExpectMore.gov.
Chapter Organization
STRATEGIC GOAL
\nnual
Performance
Goal
Performance
Measures
.nnual
Performance
Goal
\
Performance
Measures
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 2006 APGs will not be available until
FY 2007 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 performance measure.
-------
Strategic Goal 1:
Clean Air and
Global Climate Change
reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
Goal Purpose
Air pollution is a problem for all
of us. The average adult breathes
more than 3,000 gallons of air every
day, and children breathe even more
air per pound of body weight. Air pol-
lutants, such as those that form urban
smog may remain in the environment
for long periods of time and can be
carried by the wind hundreds of miles
from their origin. Millions of people
live in areas where urban smog, very
small particles, and toxic pollutants
pose serious health concerns. People
exposed to certain air pollutants may
experience burning in their eyes, an
irritated throat, or breathing difficul-
ties. Long-term exposure to certain air
pollutants may cause cancer and may
damage the immune, neurological,
reproductive, and respiratory systems.
Under this goal, EPA implements
the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 and other environmental laws,
and uses innovative approaches, such
as emissions trading, to reduce and
prevent the harmful emissions from
power plants and other large sources,
motor vehicles, and fuels that con-
tribute to outdoor air pollution.
The Clean Air Act Amendments
Contributing Programs
Acid Rain Program
AirNow
Air Toxics
Air Toxics Research
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Development and
Implementation
Mobile Sources
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) Research
NOX Budget Program
New Source Review
Regional Haze
Indoor Air Quality
Stratospheric Ozone Layer
Protection Program
Sunwise Schools Program
Radiation Programs
Voluntary climate programs
authorize EPA to set limits on how
much of a pollutant can be in the
air anywhere in the United States,
ensuring that all Americans have the
same basic health and environmental
protections. While the law allows
individual states to establish stronger
pollution controls, no state is allowed
to have weaker pollution controls
than those set for the country as a
whole. It makes sense for states to
take the lead in carrying out the
Clean Air Act, because pollution con-
trol problems often require a particular
understanding of factors such as local
industries, geography, and housing
patterns. The U.S. government,
through EPA, assists states by provid-
ing scientific research, expert studies,
engineering designs and money to sup-
port state clean air programs.
Since most people spend a major-
ity of their lives indoors, the quality of
indoor air is another major area of
concern for EPA. Sources of indoor air
pollution include oil, gas, kerosene,
coal, wood, and tobacco products and
building materials and furnishings,
such as asbestos-containing insulation,
damp carpets, household cleaning
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Qoal 1 At a Qlance
EPA FY 2006 Obligations
(in thousands)
FY 2006
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS (APGs)
Met = 4 Not Met = 2
Data Available After
November 15, 2005 = 14
(Total APGs = 20)
Goal I
$997,005.7
(10%)
GoalS
$800,006.7
EPA FY 2006 Costs
(in thousands)
GoalS
$770,477.6
Goal 2
$3,338,108.8
(33%)
Goal 4
$1,373,992.9
(13%)
Goal 3
$3,697,844.8
Goal 2
$3,843,391.0
Goal 4
$1,232,936.3
(15%)
Goal 3
$1,581,114.2
(19%)
FY 2OO6 PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES
•JEGIC OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE I-HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and the
environment by attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality stan-
dards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
APG
STATUS
OBLIGA-
COSTS
7 Data
Available After
11/15/06
I Goal Met
$638,212.5
$574,488.0
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.
2 Data
Available After
11/15/06
I Goal Met
$47,951.6
$46,862.3
OBJECTIVE 3-PROTECTTHE 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 ultraviolet
(UV) radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as
children, will be reduced.
I Data
Available After
11/15/06
$18,035.8
$22,107.7
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
I Data
Available After
11/15/06
I Goal Met
I Goal
Not Met
$42,083.1
$35,278.2
OBJECTIVE S-REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 mil-
lion metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's I 8 percent 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 Administration's business-as-
usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement.)
2 Data
Available After
11/15/06
$110,492.7
$111,873.1
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.
I Data
Available After
11/15/06
I Goal Met
I Goal
Not Met
$140,230.0
$127,211.5
GOAL I TOTAL
20 APGs $997,005.7 $917,820.8
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annual Costs and Benefits of Air Program Compared with
Benefits of All Other U.S. Government Regulations Combined
[from Draft 2006 Report to Congress on the Cost and Benefits
of Federal Regulations (OMB))
Costs Benefits
EPA Air Program
Benefits
Rest of Government
Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions
Gross Domestic Product
' Vehicle Miles Traveled
• Energy Consumption
Population
• Aggregate Emissions*
(Six Principal Pollutants]
products, and lead-based paints.
Often, the people who may be
exposed to indoor air pollutants for
the longest periods of time are also
those most susceptible to the effects
of indoor air pollution: the young,
the elderly, and the chronically
ill, especially those suffering
from respiratory or cardiovascular
disease. EPA provides hotlines,
publications, outreach and other
initiatives to improve the quality
of air in our homes, schools, and
offices.
Finally, under Goal 1, EPA
works to address climate change.
Since the beginning of the indus-
trial revolution, concentrations of
several greenhouse
gases (including
carbon dioxide,
methane, and
nitrous oxide) have
increased substan-
tially. Important
questions remain
about how much
warming will occur,
how fast it will
occur and how the
warming will affect
the rest of the cli-
mate system. It is
for these reasons
that the President's
climate change
program is focused
on furthering
understanding of
the science of cli-
mate change and
developing new
technologies to
reduce emissions.
EPA's voluntary
and incentive-
based programs to
reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases,
such as ENERGY STAR, Climate
Leaders, and the Landfill Methane
Outreach program, are a critical
part of President Bush's aggressive
plan to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Under the stratospheric
ozone layer protection program,
EPA coordinates numerous regula-
tory programs designed to help the
ozone layer, and continues to be
active in developing international
ozone protection policies.
EPA has made tremendous
progress toward achieving clean,
healthy air that is safe to breathe.
In the chapter that follows, the
Agency reports on accomplish-
ments and challenges in
addressing national air quality
issues, collaborating with partners
and stakeholders to solve more
localized problems, and working
domestically and internationally
to protect the Earth's ozone layer
and restore the atmosphere.
In the Years Ahead. . .
EPA's annual performance
goals are stepping stones to
longer-range results.These
results are specified in a series
of "Strategic Targets" that lay
out the work the Agency
intends to accomplish over the
next several years to achieve
objectives under Goal I.
Meeting these annual perform-
ance goals moves us closer to
such Strategic Targets as:
By 2007, through maximum
achievable control technolo-
gy (MACT) standards, reduce
air toxics emissions from
major stationary sources by
1.7 million tons from the
1993 level of 2.7 million tons.
By 2008, approximately 12.8
million additional people will
be living in homes with
healthier indoor air.These
include people living in
homes with radon-resistant
features, children not being
exposed to environmental
tobacco smoke, and asthmat-
ics with reduced exposure
to indoor asthma triggers.
Through EPA's industrial
sector programs, prevent
80MMTCEin20l2, in
addition to the 43 MMTCE
prevented annually in 2002.
For a complete list of strategic
targets, see EPA's new
2006-2011 Strategic Plan, avail-
able at http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/plan/htm.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Strategic Objective I —
Healthier Outdoor Air
Through 2010, working with partners, protect human health and the environment by attaining and maintain-
ing health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from toxic air pollutants.
OUTDOOR AIR
In February 2006 EPA
released an important tool to
guide further local, state and fed-
eral steps to cut toxic air pollution
and build upon the significant
emissions reductions achieved
since 1990. The second National-
Scale Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) is a state-of-the-science
screening tool that estimates can-
cer and other health risks from
exposure to air toxics. The results
of the assessment will help EPA
and state and local air quality reg-
ulators identify pollutants and
sources of greatest concern and set
priorities for addressing them.
NATA also will help identify areas
where EPA needs to collect addi-
tional information to improve the
understanding of risks from air
toxics exposure. EPA develops
NATA in cooperation with state
and local environmental agencies,
which provide key information
about air toxics emissions
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
natamain/).
NATA estimates that in most
of the United States between 1
and 25 out of 1 million people
have an increased likelihood of
developing cancer as a result of
breathing air toxics from outdoor
sources, if they were exposed to
1999 levels over the course of
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I—HEALTHIER OUTDOORAIR
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy
PM Levels—PM | „
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy CO, SO2,
NO2, Lead
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone
Levels—8 Hour
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy
PM Levels—PM2 5
Reduce SO2 Emissions
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions—Stationary
and Mobile Sources
Reduce Air Toxic Emissions—Leaded
Gasoline Phase-out in Africa
Air Toxicity-Weighted
Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2018
FY 2005 Data Available in 2015
Goal Met for FY 2004
Goal Met for FY 2003
X Goal Not Met for FY 2002
Goal Met for FY 2006
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 134-139. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its
performance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See
pages B-4-B-20 at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
their lifetimes (70 years). The
assessment estimates that most
urban locations pose an air toxics
lifetime cancer risk greater than 25
out of 1 million people, and that
risk in transportation corridors and
some other locations is greater
than 50 out of 1 million people. In
comparison, when all causes
(including exposure to air toxics)
are taken into account, one out of
every three Americans (330,000
out of 1 million) will develop can-
cer during his or her lifetime.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL I: OBJECTIVE I—HEALTHIER OUTDOORAIR—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Healthier Outdoor Air
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11%
($110,492.7)
Radiation
4%
($42,083.1)
The Ozone
Layer
2%
($18,035.8)
Indoor Air
5%
($47,951.6)
FY 2006 Costs:
Healthier Outdoor Air
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14%
($127,211.5)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
— 12%
($111,873.1)
_ Radiation
4%
($35,278.2)
The Ozone
Layer
^\ 2%
\ ($22,107.7)
Indoor Air
5%
($46,862.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Radiation: Protection
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Clean School Bus Initiative
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS
$236,021.6
$1 1,638.1
$21,837.4
$9,5 1 6.2
$23,553.1
$102,861.6
$26,192.2
$63,366.2
$604.2
$6,779.9
$3,093.8
$2,364.1
$0.0
$432.0
$121.9
$6,974.8
($0.6)
$976.9
$4,138.5
$3,194.1
$46,68 1 .6
$2,941.2
$5,506.0
$576.5
$34,694.5
$4,331.2
$1,664.4
$3,924.2
$3 1 3.4
$449.4
$189.3
$2,153.8
$9,478.6
$1,642.3
FY 2006 COSTS
$21 1,752.9
$1 1,172.3
$20,5 1 3.6
$12,035.4
$23,1 12.0
$103,793.9
$26,451.1
$56,1 12.2
$558.8
$787.4
$3,773.1
$2,207.2
$40.0
$428.2
$145.3
$6,481.3
$3.8
$1,051.2
$4,460.4
$1,488.7
$46,354.9
$2,93 1 .5
$5,365.7
$541.0
$14,535.3
$4,505.7
$1,772.0
$4,206.9
$352.6
$477.8
$231.1
$2,145.0
$3,223.0
$1,476.5
TOTAL $638,212.4 $574,487.8
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The United States has made
significant progress in reducing air
toxics from industry, fuels and
vehicles, and indoor sources. Since
the Clean Air Act was amended
in 1990, EPA has issued 96 stan-
dards for 174 different types of
industrial sources of air toxics,
including chemical plants, oil
refineries, aerospace equipment
manufacturers, and steel mills. The
Agency also has issued regulations
for 15 categories of smaller sources,
such as dry cleaners, commercial
sterilizers, secondary lead smelters,
and chromium electroplating facil-
ities. When fully implemented,
these standards together are pro-
jected to reduce annual emissions
of air toxics by about 1.7 million
tons from 1990 levels. These
reductions are not fully reflected
in this assessment, however,
because a number of these regula-
tions took effect after 1999.
Vehicles and fuels also emit air
toxics. By 2020, EPA's fuels and
vehicles programs will reduce air
toxic emissions by another 2.4 mil-
lion tons, compared to 1990 levels.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOALS (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 1.6: The Air Toxics pro-
gram met its overall target to
reduce air toxics in FY 2003 and
FY 2004 but did not achieve the
expected level of progress on all
associated annual performance
measures. The reduction in air
toxics is attributed to three areas:
mobile sources; major stationary
sources, and area and all other air
toxics emissions. The first two cat-
egories saw air toxics reductions
greater than those projected for
FY 2003 and 2004. However,
reductions for area and all other
air toxics emissions were less than
those projected for both years.
The reductions in all cases are
attributable to rules promulgated
by EPA and implemented by
states and sources. The Air Toxics
program will work with the states
and sources to ensure that the
toxics reductions meet future pro-
jections from the area and all
other air toxics emissions sources.
Overall, the program remains on
track to meet its long-term goal.
The Agency will be adjusting the
structure and presentation of
annual performance goals and
measures in future documents.
In FY 2002, EPA achieved
a 37.6 percent reduction in air
toxics emissions from stationary
and mobile sources but did not
meet the annual performance goal
of 40 percent. The FY 2002 results
were calculated based on an
updated baseline which provides
better emissions inventory data
(7.2 million tons versus the
6.0 Million ton baseline used to
establish the target).
In 2006, due to continued
efforts under the Global campaign
for phase out of leaded gasoline,
the Agency met the goal of 20
sub-Saharan African countries
earlier than anticipated. Due to
the early success of the targeted
countries, the Agency was able to
work and partner with other gov-
ernments to broaden efforts
toward attaining the Global goal,
reaching 16 additional sub-
Saharan African countries. In
addition, Croatia, Indonesia,
Turkey, and Syria eliminated lead
from gasoline in 2006, affecting
approximately 395 million people.
By 2011 EPA plans to achieve
leaded gasoline phase outs in 35
more countries worldwide.
In 2006, EPA proposed a rule
to establish a national Renewable
Fuel Standards Program (RFS
Program), which would become
effective in 2007. Developed in
collaboration with the Departments
of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture
(USDA) and other stakeholders,
the program is designed to encour-
age blending of renewable fuels
into the nation's motor vehicle
fuel supply. Specifically, the rule
proposes standards for renewable
fuel, responsibilities for refiners
and other fuel producers, a credit
trading system, compliance mecha-
nisms, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. The pro-
posal also contains preliminary
analyses of the economic and envi-
ronmental impacts of the expanded
use of renewable fuels. The RFS
Program is expected to increase the
volume of renewable fuel required
to be blended into gasoline, begin-
ning in 2006 with 4.0 billion
gallons and nearly doubling to
7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
15th Anniversary of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments: Significant Public Health
Benefits Achieved
In November 2005, EPA celebrated the 15th anniversary of the signing of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, a landmark piece of legislation that
has led to significant environmental and public health benefits across the
United States.The Amendments are designed to foster the growth of indus-
try and a strong American economy while improving human health and the
environment.To date, the benefits to public health that have resulted from
this legislation outweigh costs by four to one.
One highlight of the 1990 Amendments was the creation of the Acid Rain
Program. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Acid Rain
Program has accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits of
any federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with
annual benefits exceeding costs by more than 40 to I.
The Acid Rain Program's cap-and-trade market approach, the basis for
President Bush's proposed Clear Skies legislation, has reduced sulfur
dioxide emissions by 5 million tons and nitrogen oxides by 3 million tons
from 1990 levels. In addition to providing substantial health benefits, these
reductions have led to a decline in acid deposition and fewer acidic lakes.
The Amendments have also generated significant progress improving the quality
of the air in most U.S. cities and communities. Over the last 30 years, total emis-
sions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by more than 50 percent,
while the Gross Domestic Product has increased by more than 185 percent.
Under the 1990 Clean Act Amendments:
Reductions in Utility SO2 and NOX Emissions Under the Acid Rain Program
SO, Emissions
NOX Emissions
£
I 10-
15.7
I I I I I
&
I 10
, , r
Fiscal Year
• From 1990 to 2006 over 67 million more people are breathing healthier air
due to a 73 percent reduction in the number of areas that violate the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and PM|0.
• Stricter emissions standards on mobile sources (such as cars and light
and heavy trucks) have significantly reduced hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.
• Of the 126 areas designated nonattainment for 8-hour ozone in 2003,
10 were redesignated to attainment in 2006, resulting in 1.72 million
more people living in areas meeting the ozone NAAQS.
• When programs are fully implemented, the regulation of 188 toxic
air pollutants will have reduced toxic air emissions by 1.7 million tons
annually since 1990.
In FY 2006, EPA continued to
address the challenges of imple-
menting the 1990 Clean Air Act
air toxics program, striving to meet
court-ordered schedule deadlines
while developing data and improv-
ing capacity to take risk-based
actions. EPA has a large number of
rules pertaining to hazardous air
pollutants scheduled for completion
under different provisions of the
Clean Air Act: mobile source emis-
sion standards, stationary source
emission standards, and risk-based
standards. In March 2006, EPA
proposed a rule that would reduce
air toxics from mobile sources.
Once promulgated and fully imple-
mented, this rule is expected to
result in the reduction of 350,000
tons of air toxics by 2030.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE I
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Particulate Matter: EPA Has Started to
Address the National Academies'
Recommendations on Estimating Health
Benefits, but More Progress is Needed;
Clean Air Act: EPA Should Improve the
Management of Its Air Toxics Program.
Additional information on these reports is
available in the Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix A, page A-2 and page A-3.
Monitoring Needed to Assess Impact of
EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule on
Potential Hotspots; EPA Can Improve
Emissions Factors Development and
Management. Additional information on
these reports is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-4.
GRANTS: EPA has a plan to significant-
ly reduce pollution from new diesel
engines. It is a two-step approach that
first set new emission standards for diesel
engines that took effect in 2004. In the
second step, EPA will establish even more
stringent emission standards for these
engines beginning in 2007 in combination
with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. However,
because new vehicles and engines are
purchased gradually over time to replace
older units EPA has developed the
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program to help
make a difference in the immediate future.
The program will address pollution from
diesel construction equipment and heavy-
duty vehicles that are currently on the
road today. Building on the successes of
EPA's regulatory and voluntary efforts to
reduce emissions from diesel engines, EPA
has created the National Clean Diesel
Campaign. Through this campaign, EPA
awards grants to communities to retrofit
engines and take other measures (fuel
switching, idling reduction strategies) to
reduce diesel pollution.
The following grants are examples of
ones awarded in the past year to reduce
diesel pollution. These were awarded in
2006; as the grants are implemented,
areas will see less pollution. Areas will
include these reductions in their clean air
plans for ozone and particulate matter.
• As part of the Blue Skyways
Collaborative, EPA Regions 6 and 7 in
June announced the award of approxi-
mately $1.14 million in grants to assist
school districts in reducing pollution
from diesel-powered school buses
through EPA-verified, EPA-certified, or
California Air Resources Board-verified
pollution reduction technology.
• As part of the Northeast Diesel
Collaborative, EPA Regions I and 2, in
May announced the award of $1.5 mil-
lion in grants for projects to reduce
diesel emissions.
• EPA's Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative
in April, announced approximately
$1 million in grants for projects that
focus on reducing diesel emissions
from the existing fleet of engines.
In 2006, states received $220,261,043 in
State and Tribal Assistance grants. These
funds allowed states to continue revising
their State Implementation Plan to attain
the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM25
and to reduce regional haze. These funds
also provided for the continued operation
of states' ambient air monitoring net-
works, including PM25, air toxic, and
visibility monitoring.
In partnership with the Department of
Interior, EPA continues to track improve-
ments in visibility in our national parks
and other protected areas. The Agency
upgraded laboratory equipment to
provide more precise measurements of
the carbon content of light-absorbing PM
and more scientifically robust equations
to relate air pollution concentrations to
visible visibility range.
Through AIRNow, a greater number of
cities started advising the public on a daily
basis of the health risks associated with
forecasted PM pollution. States continue
to use air monitoring data to understand
the causes of PM pollution so that they
can develop better strategies to reduce it.
For the National Air Toxics Trends
Stations, data completeness, precision, and
accuracy indicators showed improvement.
EPA developed more accurate sampling
and analysis methods for two national
risk drivers, acrolein and hexavalent
chromium. Community-scale air toxics
monitoring grants progressed toward
completion; individual project goals
typically include risk assessment and iden-
tifying and characterizing local sources of
hazardous air pollutants. Twenty new
grants for air toxics monitoring communi-
ty-scale assessments were awarded to
state, local, and tribal agencies across the
United States. Air toxics characterization
and trends analyses were completed by
EPA and made available to the public.
EPA is working in partnership with the
Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association,
American Lung Association, and others
on the Great American Woodstove
Changeout—a national effort to help
state, local, and tribal agencies establish
campaigns to change old, dirty, "conven-
tional" woodstoves to new, cleaner-burning
appliances like masonry heaters and gas,
pellet, and EPA-certified woodstoves.
Already in place in targeted areas, the
Great American Woodstove Changeout is
a voluntary effort that can effectively
reduce emissions of particulates and air
toxics indoors and help bring areas into
attainment with the national fine particle
standard. As part of each campaign, EPA
encourages and supports air pollution
control agencies in reaching out to the
public to "Burn Clean", that is, to burn only
seasoned wood and no garbage. Burn
Clean and changeout materials are avail-
able at www.epa.gov/woodstoves.
PART: The Air Toxics program was assessed
in the 2002 PART process and received a rat-
ing of "results not demonstrated." The
program was reassessed in the 2004 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate."
In response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions which include
developing baseline and target information to
measure program efficiency.
The Acid Rain program was assessed in the
2004 PART process and received a rating of
"moderately effective." In response to the
PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include analyzing
alternative options for an efficiency measure
and promoting Clear Skies.
The Mobile Sources program was assessed
in the 2004 PART process and received a
rating of "moderately effective." In response
to the PART process, the program is con-
ducting follow-up actions which include
collecting data to support the program's
efficiency measures.
The NAAQS program was assessed in the
2005 PART process in two parts: the Federal
NAAQS program and the Air Quality Grants
and Permitting program. The Federal NAAQS
program received a rating of "adequate." The
Air Quality Grants and Permitting program
received a rating of "ineffective." In response
to the PART process, the program is conduct-
ing follow-up actions which include
establishing efficiency measures for both the
Federal NAAQS and Air Quality Grants and
Permitting programs.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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.
INDOOR AIR
One of EPA's strategic objec-
tives is to provide 22.6 million
Americans with healthier indoor
air by 2008. To meet this objec-
tive, the Agency uses two key
strategies: (1) increasing public
awareness of actual and potential
indoor air risks, so that individuals
can take steps to reduce their
exposure and (2) relying on
partnerships with a variety of
organizations to spur action. EPA
conducts outreach activities to
provide the public and the profes-
sional and research communities
with essential information about
indoor air risks. In partnership
with a variety of nongovernmen-
tal and professional entities, the
Agency develops and disseminates
multimedia materials to improve
the design, operation, and
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
1.9
1.10
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
Healthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2005 Data Available in 2007
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 140-141.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its per-
formance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages
B-20-B-25 at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
maintenance of all types of build-
ings—including schools, homes,
and workplaces—and bring about
healthier indoor environments.
EPA's Indoor Air Quality
Tools for Schools (IAQ TfS)
Program provides schools with
information on improving indoor
air problems using straightforward
activities and in-house staff. The
IAQ TfS Kit, co-sponsored by the
National Parent Teacher
Association, National Education
Association, Association of
School Business Officials,
American Federation of Teachers,
and the American Lung
Association, provides individual
schools, school districts, educa-
tional organizations, and
educators with information on
best practices, industry guidelines
and sample policies, and indoor
air quality management plans. By
following the TfS guidance,
schools can save time and money,
enabling them to direct valuable
resources toward educating chil-
dren. Recent survey results
indicate that 22 percent of U.S.
schools have indoor air quality
practices that meet EPA guide-
lines.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
GOAL I: OBJECTIVE 2—HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Healthier Indoor Air
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14%
($140.230.0)
Outdoor Air
64%
($638.212.5)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
•-• 11%
Radiation
-" 4%
($42.083.1)
^The Ozone
Layer
2%
($18.035.8)
FY 2006 Costs:
Healthier Indoor Air
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14%
($127.211.5)
Outdoor Air
63%
($574.488.0)
Indoor Air
5%
($47.951.6)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
12%
($111.873.1)
Radiation
4%
— ($35.278.2)
,The Ozone
Layer
2%
($22.107.7)
Indoor Air
5%
($46.862.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Indoor Air: Asthma Program
Indoor Air: Environment Tobacco Smoke Program
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Indoor Air: Schools and Workplace Program
International Capacity Building
Research: Air Toxics
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS FY 2006 COSTS
$7,986.6
$1 17.6
$0.0
$48.9
$235.7
$1,565.7
$306.5
$5,471.4
$348.5
$193.8
($83.2)
$35.0
$9.9
$730. 1
$76.9
$333.5
$258.5
$4,953.4
$251.9
$467.3
$50.4
$3,281.7
$351.9
$139.6
$285.7
$24.7
$36.4
$15.3
$441.9
$19,883.2
$132.9
$7,887.5
$32.6
$329.2
$45.2
$303.3
$4,790.2
$1,331.1
$6,447.0
$3,459.8
$123.0
$68.0
$34.6
$1 1.8
$676.8
$83.2
$359.4
$120.5
$4,969.5
$250.8
$448.8
$44.4
$1,570.9
$367.0
$148.8
$306.2
$27.2
$38.7
$18.7
$438.9
$12,009.6
$1 19.5
TOTAL $47,951.7 $46,862.2
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annual Additional Homes with
Radon Reducing Features
00
1996 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Asthma is a serious, life-
threatening respiratory disease
that affects more than 20 million
Americans. Rates of asthma have
risen sharply over the past 30
years, particularly among children
aged 5 to 14. Although there is no
cure, asthma can be controlled
through medical treatment and
by managing asthma triggers.
EPA's goal is to reduce exposure
to asthma triggers and improve
the quality of life for 4.9 million
people by 2008. Toward this end,
EPA provides educational material
about the environmental factors—
indoor and outdoor—that trigger
asthma. In 2006, the Agency held
symposia and worked with 2,000
health professionals to increase
awareness of asthma triggers. EPA
met its goals in FY 2005 and is on
track to meet its goals in 2006;
results for 2006 will be included in
the FY 2007 Annual Performance
Report.
EPA's indoor
radon program
promotes volun-
tary public action
to reduce risks
from radon in
indoor air. Since
the mid-1980s,
there has been sig-
nificant progress
in reducing the
risk from exposure
to radon in homes. This progress
is the result of continuing collabo-
ration between EPA, citizens,
nongovernmental organizations,
state and local governments,
the radon services and business
community, and other federal
agencies. EPA recommends that
homes with radon levels above
the action level be mitigated and
that new homes be built radon-
resistant. Through 2005, (the last
year for which data is available)
EPA conservatively estimates that
632,000 homes had an operating
mitigation system. In 2005 alone,
approximately 93,000 homes were
mitigated. These estimates are
based on radon mitigation vent
fan sales data provided by the
major U.S. radon vent fan manu-
facturers after 1996 and on
consumer surveys conducted
before 1996. An annual survey by
the National Association of Home
Builders Research Center esti-
mates that from 1990 to 2004,
1.3 million new homes were built
radon-resistant, with approximate-
ly 780,000 (60 percent) of those
homes located in areas of high
radon potential. EPA estimates
that the combination of homes
with radon mitigation systems and
homes built with radon-resistant
techniques saves approximately
550 lives annually. Data from
partners and other sources indi-
cate that the Agency is on track
to meet FY 2006 performance
targets.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAL
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 2:
GRANTS: The Indoor Environments
Division conducted an assistance grant
competition providing $4 million to
eligible entities that will conduct demon-
strations, training, education and/or
outreach projects that seek to reduce
exposure to indoor air pollutants in all
indoor environments program areas
including radon, asthma, schools, and envi-
ronmental tobacco smoke.The results will
be seen in future years in the form of
improved communication techniques, edu-
cational packages and other outreach.
PART: The Indoor Air Program was
assessed in the 2005 PART process and
received a rating of "moderate// effective." In
response to the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include
focusing on efficiency improvements.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Strategic Objective
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 (UV) radi-
ation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
The stratospheric ozone layer
protects life on earth from harmful
ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
Scientific evidence amassed over
the past 30 years indicates that
the use of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and other halogenated
chemicals has destroyed stratos-
pheric ozone.
In FY 2006, EPA furthered
the nation's commitment to
restoring the ozone layer by
tracking, through a marketable
permit system, domestic industry
compliance with regulatory
restrictions on the consumption
of ozone-depleting substances
(CDS). EPA has been at the
forefront of developing and
implementing flexible, innovative,
and effective approaches to ensure
stratospheric ozone layer protec-
tion. In FY 2006, EPA launched
new partnerships with the air
conditioning and refrigeration
industries to minimize the use of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) in the manufacture of
more than 8 million residential
and commercial air conditioning
units and refrigeration systems
annually. EPA also established a
new partnership with super-
markets which will ultimately
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER
1.12
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class
HCFCs
APG Status
FY 2006 Data Available in 2008
FY 2005 Data Available in 2007
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, page 142.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance
are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-25-B-26 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
result in significantly reduced
ODS emissions and important
energy savings while supermarkets
upgrade their refrigeration
systems.
The participation of developing
countries is also essential to ensure
timely restoration of the ozone
layer. The United States works
with its international partners
through the Montreal Protocol to
reduce CFCs (http://www.epa.gov/
air/ozonedep.html).
Progress on the stratospheric
ozone program is tracked by
monitoring industry reports of
compliance with EPA's phase-out
regulations and U.S. obligations
under the Montreal Protocol. EPA
will have information on FY 2006
progress in phasing out ODS
during the last quarter of 2007.
Ozone-depleting substances
have a long life and were emitted
for many years before the interna-
tional agreements and Clean Air
Act requirements were estab-
lished. Thus, EPA developed the
Sun Wise Program to teach
children and their caregivers
how to protect themselves from
overexposure to the sun. More
than 13,000 kindergarten through
grade 8 schools and 1,100
informal education institutions
have registered to use the
Sun Wise Program since it was
launched nationally in May 2000
(http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 3:
PART: The Stratospheric Ozone program
was assessed in the 2004 PART process
and received a rating of "adequate." In
response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions which include
monitoring intermediate goals (such as HCFC
consumption) in the near term. (The program
has long-term outcome goals that are much
further out in the future, for example,
reduced melanoma skin cancers in 2165).
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/index.html.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 1: OBJECTIVE 3— PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER— FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Protect the Ozone Layer
(in thousands)
Science
& Research
14% Greenhouse
($140,230.0) Gas Intensity
^ 1 1 %
($1 10,492.7)
Outdoor Air Radiation
64% -^^
($638,212.5) ^^^^^($42,083.1)
^^^^fc-The Ozone
Layer
\ 2%
Indoor Air ($18,035.8)
5%
($47,951.6)
FY 2006 Costs:
Protect the Ozone Layer
(in thousands)
Science
& Research Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
($127,211.5) / |2%
($1 11,873.1)
Radiation
Outdoor Air 4%
63% ^^^ — ($35,278.2)
(*574'4880' ><^^^The Ozone
2%
•f ($22,107.7)
\
Indoor Air
5%
($46,862.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
.006 OBLIGATE
»006 COSTS
$544,5
$4,7
TOTAL
$18,035.7
$22,107.8
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Strategic Objective
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.
RADIATION
EPA supports safe and envi-
ronmentally sound radioactive
waste management by maintain-
ing certification and oversight
responsibilities for DOE waste
disposal activities at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP);
providing technical support to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) in applying pending
standards at Yucca Mountain;
coordinating with other federal
agencies (including NRC and
DOE) and states to develop mech-
anisms for controlling industrial
materials with a radioactive
component; and developing waste
management regulations to facili-
tate the disposal of low-activity
mixed waste by combining exist-
ing RCRA requirements with
traditional radiological waste
management components.
In 2006, DOE sent 45,000
drums of radioactive waste that
met EPA specifications to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
facility.
In FY 2006, EPA imple-
mented its strategy to address
Technologically Enhanced
Naturally-Occurring Radioactive
Material issues in cooperation
with other federal Agencies,
states, tribes, industry, and envi-
ronmental groups. When making
environmental protection
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4— RADIATION
1.13
1.14
1.15
Build National Radiation Monitoring System
Homeland Security — Readiness & Response
Ensure WIPP Safety
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
FY 2006 Data Available in
December 2006
• Goal Met for FY 2005
I/ Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 142-144. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-27-B-29 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
decisions, EPA seeks the most
extensive public participation
possible. The Agency believes
that open dialogue and public
participation in both technical
and non-technical matters
improve the regulatory process
and foster sound public policy
decisions.
EPA is developing a nation-
wide, continuously operating
environmental radiation monitor-
ing system. RadNet tracks
national and regional levels of
ambient radiation and identifies
the degree and extent of contami-
nation in the event of an
emergency. By monitoring poten-
tial impact to population and
public health, RadNet supports
EPA's role in incident assessment.
RadNet's nearly real-time data
allows for the provision of infor-
mation within a very short time
(approximately 1-2 hours).
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOALS (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 1.13: In FY 2006, EPA
placed an order for 41 RadNet
monitors, not the originally
planned purchase of 51. The
reduced order is based upon a
revised installation schedule that
allows for delays resulting from
technical issues with several of the
first installed monitors. EPA also
must ensure that a site is fully
functional (monitor pad, land-line
and cell service, electricity, and
identified operator) before a
monitor is shipped from the
manufacturer to be installed.
EPA's Radiological Emergency
Response Team (RERT) systemati-
cally trains its members so they have
the knowledge, skills, equipment,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 1: OBJECTIVE 4— RADIATION
FY 2006 Obligations:
Radiation
(in thousands)
— FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Costs:
Radiation
(in thousands)
Science Science
& Research & Research
14% Greenhouse 14%
($140,230.0) Gas Intensity ($127,211.5) Greenhouse
^11% _, Gas Intensity
($110,492.7) 12%
($111,873.1)
Outdoor Air Radiation Outdoor Air
The Ozone
Layer
x 2%
\ ($18,035.8)
Indoor Air
5%
($47,951.6)
«574'488'0' r($35278.2)
The Ozone
F\ Layer
Indoor Air 2%
5% ($22,107.7)
($46,862.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
'ROJECT
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS
$24,
TOTAL
$42,083.3
$35,278.1
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
and support systems needed to respond to emergencies
involving radioactive materials. The program achieves
this goal through preparedness activities including devel-
oping and streamlining response plans and procedures,
providing guidance and training to first responders, and
testing plans and procedures during exercises.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR OBJECTIVE 4:
PART: OMB will assess the Radiation program in the 2007 PART
process and results will be included in the FY 2009 President's Budget
Web Links: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/index.html
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Strategic Objective 5—
Intensity
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCE) annually to the President's 18 percent 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
Administration's business-as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement.)
CLIMATE CHANGE
In February 2002, President
Bush announced a new approach
to global climate change designed
to harness the power of the
marketplace and technological
innovation. The President
committed America to cut green-
house gas intensity by 18 percent
by 2012.
In support of the President's
goal, EPA's climate protection
programs overall will promote the
avoidance of 162 million metric
tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCE) annually by 2012, up
from 58 MMTCE in 2002. Of this
annual additional 104 MMTCE
prevented, 24 MMTCE will be
attributable to the sustained
growth of many climate programs
and are reflected in the
Administration's business-as-usual
projection for greenhouse gas
intensity improvement; the
remaining 80 MMTCE will con-
tribute to attaining the President's
goal of 18 percent greenhouse gas
intensity improvement.
At the core of EPA's climate
change efforts are government-
industry partnership programs
designed to capitalize on the
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5—REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
1.16
1.17
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduce Energy Consumption
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 144-146. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-29-B-33 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
opportunities that consumers,
businesses, and organizations
have for investing in efficient
equipment, policies, and practices.
While thousands of equipment
purchases are made every day,
consumers often select the least
efficient equipment, thereby
committing themselves to higher
energy bills for 10 to 20 years at a
time, depending upon the life of
the equipment. At the same time,
organizations often overlook the
investment opportunities and
competitive advantages represented
by more efficient equipment.
EPA manages a number of
efforts, such as ENERGY STAR
and transportation efficiency
programs, to remove marketplace
barriers and deploy technology
faster in the residential,
commercial, transportation, and
industrial sectors of the economy.
EPA programs do not provide
financial subsidies. Instead, they
work by overcoming to energy
efficiency: lack of clear, reliable
information on technology oppor-
tunities; lack of awareness of
energy-efficient products and
services; low incentives to manu-
facturers for efficiency research
and development; and lack of
awareness about more energy-
efficient transportation choices.
EPA's climate protection pro-
grams reduced emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and other potent
greenhouse gases, such as methane
and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). In
addition, EPA's climate protection
programs will deliver substantial
energy and environmental
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 1 : OBJECTIVE 5— REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY— FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(in thousands)
FY 2006 Costs:
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(in thousands)
Outdoor Air
64%
($638,212.5)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
i i °/
($110,492.7)
^^ Radiation
4%
, ($42,083.1)
The Ozone
\ Layer
2%
Indoor Air ($|8,035.8)
5%
($47,951.6)
Outdoor Air
63%
($574,488.0)
Radiation
— 4%
($35,278.2)
The Ozone
\ Layer
\ 2%
Indoor Air ($22,107.7)
5%
($46,862.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
2006 OBLIGATION'
$7S
$20,C
$33,4
TOTAL
$110,492.7
$111,873.2
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
benefits over the next decade.
As many of the investments pro-
moted through EPA's climate
programs involve energy-efficient
equipment with lifetimes of
decades or more, the investments
made to date will continue to
deliver environmental and
economic benefits through 2012
and beyond. EPA currently esti-
mates that, based on investments
in equipment already made due to
EPA's programs, organizations and
consumers across the country will
net savings of about $100 billion
and reduce greenhouse emissions
by more than 700 MMTCE over
the next ten years (cumulative
reductions based upon estimated
2004 achievements). These
programs continue to offer highly
cost effective approaches for
delivering environmental benefits
across the country.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
EPA's international activities
help provide developing and
industrialized countries with
greater information and the
increased technical capacity they
need to implement emissions
reduction policies and climate
protection programs. In addition,
EPA works with state and local
governments interested in techni-
cal, educational, and outreach
assistance for clean energy proj-
ects that reduce carbon emissions.
With the help of ENERGY
STAR, in FY 2005 alone
Americans prevented 63 MMTCE
of greenhouse gas emissions, up
from 57 MMTCE in 2004.
Around 2 billion ENERGY
STAR-qualified products have
been purchased; more than
500,000 new ENERGY STAR
homes have been built; and more
than 26,000 office buildings,
schools, supermarkets, hotels, and
other types of commercial build-
ings have benchmarked
their energy use. ENERGY
STAR partners, which include
Fortune 500 companies and small
businesses, commit to superior
energy management and investing
in energy efficient technologies
and practices. For example, a
retailer reduced energy use by
25 percent in more than 1,200
of its stores, and a property
EPA GHG Reduction Goals and Accomplishments 2003-2012
management firm improved
energy efficiency of more than
22 million square feet, saving
more than $2 million annually.1
Cars, trucks, aircraft, and other
components of the nation's trans-
portation system emit about
one-third of total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions. Transportation poli-
cies, plans, and choices have an
immense effect on greenhouse gas
emissions, particularly on carbon
production. Although technology
and market-oriented measures will
make a major contribution toward
reducing emissions, efforts to
reduce vehicle miles of travel are
also critical for achieving EPA's
greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals. In FY 2006, EPA actively
supported regional, state, and com-
munity voluntary efforts that
encourage additional travel choices
and alternatives to single-
occupancy vehicle driving.
The Agency met the
aggregate greenhouse gas
goal for FY 2005 but did
not achieve the expected
level of progress on all
associated annual perform-
ance measures. The
Climate Change program
develops and aggregate,
overall goal based on
expected progress in each of the
program sectors. In FY 2005,
while meeting the overall target
for greenhouse gas reductions, two
areas were short of their contribu-
tions to the overall target:
Industrial Methane Outreach
Programs and Industrial HFC/PFC
programs. We will work with our
partners in those areas in FY 2006
and beyond to ensure that they
continue to meet the programmat-
ic goals for these sectors. The
Agency will be adjusting the
structure and presentation of
annual performance goals and
measures in future documents.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 5:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS: Climate
Change—EPA and DOE Should Do More
to Encourage Progress UnderTwo
Voluntary Programs.Additional information
on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-S.
PART: The Climate Change program was
assessed in the 2004 PART process and
program received a rating of "adequate." In
response to the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include
implementing sector-wide efficiency measures
(for the building, industry, and transportation
sectors) to inform management and planning
decisions. The program is also developing per-
formance measures for the Clean Automotive
Technology Program.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/index.html.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Dbjectr
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 1.
ENHANCING SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH
EPA's research program
continues to conduct leading-edge
research to provide and apply
sound science to support EPA's
goals for clean air. In 2006, EPA's
clean air research program provided
results that will help in imple-
menting future ambient particle
standards by focusing emission
reduction efforts on the sources
with the largest health impacts.
One significant finding indicated
that hospital admissions among
the elderly for cause-specific
cardiovascular and respiratory
diseases were region-specific,
based on a comparison of the
eastern and western United
States.2 Differentiation in particu-
late matter (PM) composition
also appeared to
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 6—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
be an important
factor in these
hospital admis-
sions. Another
study, which
used ambient
PM collected
from different
locations across
the country,
linked specific particle attributes
with toxicity.345 Because these
components could be traced back
to specific types of PM sources
(for example, mobile or coal),
1.18
1.19
1.20
Clean Automotive Technology
PM Effects Research
PM Measurement Research
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Not Met for FY 2006
Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 146-148. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-33-B-34 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
researchers were able to estimate
the relative source contributions
to the observed toxicity.
In 2006, the Clean Air
Research Program also supported
EPA's recent review of the
Particulate Matter National
Ambient
Air Quality
Standards (PM
NAAQS).
Research tar-
geted identified
knowledge gaps
and yielded a
series findings
that will assist
with NAAQS
implementa-
tion. A new Community Multi-
scale Air Quality model for
atmospheric PM/ozone predictions
is now more accurate and process-
es more rapidly, allowing better
compliance assessments and State
Implementation Plan develop-
ment. Similarly, EPA has
transferred control technologies
that aid in emission reductions
and other mitigations to clients for
application and field deployment.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOALS (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 1.19: EPA set an ambitious
goal of completing 100 percent of
its key research actions toward the
long-term goal of reducing uncer-
tainty in the science that supports
standard-setting and air quality
management decisions. Due to the
difficulties in predicting research
findings, only 94 percent of
planned actions were completed
in 2006.
-------
SECTION 11.1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 1, CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
GOAL I: OBJECTIVE 6—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
FY 2006 Obligations:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands)
FY 2006 Costs:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands)
Outdoor Air
64%
($638.212.5)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
11%
($110.492.7)
^^ Radiation
4%
. ($42.083. 1 )
The Ozone
^F\ Layer
\ 2%
Indoor Air ($i 8,035.8)
($47.951.6)
Outdoor Air
63%
($574.488.0)
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
12%
($111.873.1)
Radiation
($35.278.2)
The Ozone
Layer
\ 2%
Indoor Air ($22,107.7)
5%
($46.862.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
$430,
3.4
$1
$2
$1994
$9624
TOTAL
$140,229.9
$127,211.7
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 6:
PART: The NMQS Research program was
first assessed in the 2003 PART process and
received a rating of "results not demonstrated."
The program was reassessed in the 2005 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate."
In response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions which include a
commitment to convene annual independent
review meetings to assess the state of the
science and ensure progress toward program
goals.To this end, the NMQS Research
program has initiated a plan for annual update
meetings and identified five discipline areas in
which to contract experts.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/pmresearch/.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Partners with Industry to Improve Fuel Economy
EPA and the United Parcel Service (UPS) partnered to develop a first-of-its-kind delivery truck using EPA-patent-
ed hydraulic hybrid technology.With the breakthrough technology onboard, the UPS truck can increase fuel
efficiency by 60 to 70 percent in urban driving. It also lowers greenhouse gas emissions by reducing carbon diox-
ide (CO2) by 40 percent, compared to conventional UPS diesel delivery trucks. EPA estimates that upfront costs
for the hybrid components in a typical delivery vehicle can be recouped in fewer than 3 years, and the net
savings over the vehicle's lifespan could exceed $50,000, assuming current fuel prices.The new vehicle features a
full hydraulic hybrid powertrain and a unique hydraulic hybrid propulsion system integrated with the drive axle;
energy saved when applying the brakes is reused to help accelerate the vehicle. Following a road tour of EPA
regional offices, the vehicle will be delivering UPS packages across Michigan in summer 2007.This partnership is
occurring through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, which Congress established to facilitate
technology transfer of patented inventions from national laboratories to industry and the marketplace. For more
information about other such partnerships, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/recentdevelopments.htm).
This innovative technology is simple.The main components in HHVs are:
The high pressure accumulator stores energy as a battery would in a hybrid electric vehicle using hydraulic fluid
to compress nitrogen gas.
The low pressure reservoir stores the low pressure fluid after it has been used by the pump/motor.
The rear drive pump/motor converts the pressure from the hydraulic fluid into rotating power for the wheels,
and recovers braking energy which is stored in the high pressure accumulator.
The engine pump/motor pressurizes and transfers hydraulic fluid to the rear drive pump/motor and/or high
pressure accumulator.
The hybrid controller monitors the driver's acceleration and braking, and commands the hybrid system components.
NOTES
4.
5.
Businesses Turn Energy Savings into a Profit for the Environment (U.S. EPA, 03/21/2006) http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/a8f952395381d3968525701c005e65b5/8f64b6c92126674385257138005c3fl8!OpenDocument
Dominici, E; Peng, R. D.; Bell, M. L.; Pham, L.; McDermott, A.; Zeger, S. L.; Samet, ]. L. (2006) Fine particulate air pollution and
hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. ]. Am. Med. Assoc. JAMA 295: 1127'! 134.
Laden, F Schwartz, ] Speizer, FE Dockery, DW, Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Extended Follow-up of
the Harvard Six Cities Study. Am ] Respir Grit Care Med, 2006.
Boyles, R., Gilmour, M, Jaspers, I. (2006)Effects of ambient PM on cytokine production in mouse macrophages and epithelial cells.
The Toxicologist (2006) Abstract #1199.
Schmitt, MT, Dailey, LA, Graff, D. Devlin, RB. (2006) Microarray analysis of PM-nduced gene expression in human bronchial
epithelial cells. The Toxicologist, Abstract #645.
-------
Strategic Goal 2:
ater
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.
Goal Purpose
Under this goal, EPA works to
protect and improve the quality of
the nation's drinking and surface
waters. To ensure that tap water is
safe to drink, we set limits for drink-
ing water contaminates; help to
sustain the network of pipes and
treatment facilities that constitute
the nation's water infrastructure; and
work with water systems to plan for,
prevent, detect, and respond to ter-
rorist or other threats to our water
supplies. EPA also protects under-
ground and above ground sources of
drinking water by implementing
source water protection plans to pro-
tect the area surrounding drinking
water sources and effectively imple-
menting the Underground Injection
Control program to regulate what is
injected into wells to ensure safe
ground water supplies. In addition,
EPA monitors surface water quality
and works with state partners to
strengthen water quality standards,
approve discharge permits, and
reduce pollution from diffuse or
nonpoint sources. EPA is restoring
polluted waters across the country by
implementing cleanups and promot-
ing innovative, cost-effective
practices, such as water quality
trading and permitting on a water-
shed basis.
While EPA continues to make
progress toward safe and secure
drinking water, challenges remain.
Population growth, for example, is
generating higher levels of water
pollution. Expanding populations
also increase demands on aging infra-
structures and on drinking water
systems when sufficient planning has
not occurred. In the chapter that
follows, we report on our accom-
plishments and challenges in
addressing water quality issues—
strengthening and improving
compliance with drinking water stan-
dards, maintaining safe water quality
at public beaches, restoring polluted
waterbodies, and improving the
health of coastal waters.
CONTRIBUTING
PROGRAMS:
Water Monitoring
Analytical Methods
Beach Program
Coastal and Ocean Programs
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Cooling Water Intakes Program
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
Surface Water Protection Program
Sustainable Infrastructure Program
Targeted Watersheds
Underground Injection Control
Program
Wastewater Management
Water Efficiency,Water Quality
Standards and Criteria
Watershed Information Network
Watershed Management
Wetlands Program
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Qoal 2 At a Qlance
EPA FY 2006 Obligations
(in thousands)
FY 2OO6
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS (APGs)
Met = 6 Not Met = 1
Data Available After
November 15, 2006=13
CTotal APGs = 20)
GoalS
$800,006.7
Goal I
$997,005.7' (8%)
(10%) Goal 4
$1,373,992.9
(13%)
Goal 3
$3,697,844.8
(36%)
EPA FY 2006 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$917,820.8 $770,477.6
(9%)
GOAL 2 FY 2OO6 PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES
.ATEGIC OBJECTIV.
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.
STATUS
I I Data
Available
After
11/15/06
I Goal Met
$1,229,922.6
$1,334,571.8
OBJECTIVE 2-PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis
and protect coastal and ocean waters.
2 Data
Available
After
11/15/06
3 Goals Met
I Goal Not
Met
$1,967,646.9
$2,382,589.0
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.
2 Goals Met
$140,539.3
$126,230.2
GOAL 2 TOTAL
20 APGs $3,338,108.8 $3,843,391.0
EPA's annual performance goals are stepping stones to longer-range results.These results are specified in a series
of "Strategic Targets" that lay out the work we intend to accomplish over the next several years to achieve our
objectives under Goal 2. Meeting our annual performance goals moves us closer to such Strategic Targets as:
By 201 1, 90 percent of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health based
drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.
By 2012, improve water quality conditions in 250 impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach
(cumulative).
By 2012, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in more than 2,250 water bodies
identified in 2002 as not attaining standards (cumulative).
By 2012, remove at least 5,600 of the specific causes of water body impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
By 201 I, maintain the percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by
state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming at 96 percent.
For a complete list of strategic targets, see EPA's new 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/htm.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Strategic Objective I —
Protect h lan Health
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source
waters), in fish and shellfish, and in recreational waters.
SAFE DRINKING WATER
In FY 2006, the cooperative
efforts of EPA, states, tribes, and
others contributed to safe drinking
water and cleaner surface waters.
Significant accomplishments
towards the safe drinking water
effort included EPA's continued
work in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Local water
systems, state environmental
agencies and health departments,
and EPA took extraordinary
efforts to restore drinking water
and wastewater services under
difficult circumstances. EPA
provided technical and logistical
support to Alabama, Mississippi,
and Louisiana. This support
included assessing the operational
status of public drinking water and
wastewater systems, as well as
laboratory analysis assistance.
EXPLANATION OF
MISSED GOALS
(SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 2.1, 2.2: By the end of the
third quarter FY 2006, 89 percent
of the population served by
community water systems received
drinking water that met all appli-
cable health-based drinking water
standards, falling short of the
target of 93 percent. In FY 2005,
88.5 percent of the population
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I—HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Safe Drinking Water Meeting All Standards
—Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing
Standards—Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards
—Population
Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing
Standards—Systems
Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards
—Systems
Safe Drinking Water—Systems in Tribal
Communities
Safe Drinking Water—Tribal Household Access
Safe Drinking Water—Source Water Protection
River/Lake Assessments for Fish Consumption
Shellfish Growing Acres Approved for Use
Restore Stream/Lake Water Quality for
Swimming
Coastal/Great Lakes Beaches Safe for Swimming
Data Available in '.
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Not Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2009
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2005 Data Available in 2007
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2005 Data Available in 2007
Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 149-155. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-34-B-53 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
served by community water
systems received drinking water
that met this standard, falling
short of the target of 93 percent.
For both periods, although the
vast majority of the nation's
community water systems supplied
drinking water that met all
health-based standards, some
very large systems serving a large
number of people (e.g., New York
City and San Antonio in
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 1: OBJECTIVE I—PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Protect Human Health
(in thousands]
FY 2006 Costs:
Protect Human Health
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research -
($140,539.3)
Protect Water
Quality
59%
($1,967,646.9)
Enhance Science
and Research
($2,382,589)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
Beach / Fish Programs
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Drinking Water Programs
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
International Capacity Building
Pesticides: Field Programs
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Children and other Sensitive Populations
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS
$104,130.7
$1 1,338.0
($223.8)
$10,077.0
$3,974.1
$3,509.9
$126,261.1
$94,884.5
$280.3
$14,188.7
$838.2
$793,628.2
$2,518.8
$129.0
$200.4
$56.5
$3,778.9
($52.3)
$506.5
$2,329.3
$1,481.9
$24,269.6
$1,074.9
$2,149.4
$182.9
$13,222.6
$2,052.0
$727.4
$9,190.3
$196.5
$208.5
$87.8
$1,962.5
$762.0
FY 2006 COSTS
$90,322.2
$11,169.3
$2,265.6
$9,822.7
$3,209.3
$2,942.1
$93,491.4
$98,484.8
$259.3
$24,665. 1
$1,071.0
$936,266.5
$2,880.8
$182.3
$198.7
$67.4
$3,520.5
$6.7
$545.6
$2,477.3
$690.7
$23,954.2
$1,072.1
$2,095.1
$164.0
$6,867.8
$2,105.5
$762.5
$9,852.1
$189.2
$221.7
$107.2
$1,956.0
$685.1
TOTAL $1,229,922.3 $1,334,571.8
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
FY 2006) reported short-term
violations during the year. These
violations had a similar impact on
the annual goal for the percentage
of the population served by com-
munity water systems receiving
drinking water that met health-
based standards with which
systems needed to comply as of
December 2001. As a result, this
goal also had not been met as
of the end of the third quarter
FY 2006, nor was it met for
FY 2005 when 92 percent of the
population served by community
water systems receiv-
ing drinking water
that met health-based
standards that were in
effect as of December
2001. This fell short
of the target of 94
percent. The Agency
has developed a new
performance measure
that accounts for the
time-limited nature of
these kinds of non-
compliance events; it
will be included in
EPA's 2006-20 JJ
Strategic Plan.
By the end of the third quar-
ter FY 2006, 97 percent of the
population served by community
water systems received drinking
water that met health-based
drinking water standards with a
compliance date of January 2002
or later. The measure tracks newer
standards such as the Cryptos-
poridium Rule.
For FY 2005, 92 percent of
community water systems provided
drinking water that met health-
based standards with which
systems needed to comply as of
December 2001, falling short of
the target of 94 percent. Addi-
tionally, 86.3 percent of the
population served by community
systems in Indian country received
drinking water that met all appli-
cable health-based standards,
which fell short of the target of
90 percent. For both of these
goals, small drinking water
systems, including those supplying
drinking water to tribes, were
particularly challenged by the
need to obtain infrastructure
improvements and the capacity to
meet new and existing standards.
SAFE FISH AND
SHELLFISH
The data to report progress on
maintaining shellfish growing
acres are still based on 2003
results. When the measure was
proposed, EPA anticipated that
the Shellfish Information
Management System (SIMS)
developed by the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(ISSC) would be the data source
for this measure. However, states
have not fully utilized the system
as quickly as expected. To help
fill the data gap, EPA has asked
the ISSC to conduct a survey to
provide the data needed to report
on the measure. The survey is
underway and we expect final sur-
vey results in December 2006. We
are also continuing to encourage
states to adopt SIMS so that in
the future we will be able to
report annually on this measure.
Data to report progress on the
increased consumption of fish in
waters identified by states and
tribes as having fish consumption
advisories in 2002 will not be
available until spring of 2007. In
the interim, we con-
tinue to take actions
that we believe will
result in fewer fish
advisories in waters
for which advisories
were issued in 2002.
These activities
include encouraging
states to revisit exist-
ing advisories to
evaluate whether
water quality has
improved sufficiently
to revise them and
allow more safe con-
sumption of fish.
For its new strategic plan,
EPA has developed a measure that
will track improvements in blood
mercury levels of women. The
measure will rely on data pub-
lished every 2 years by the
Centers for Disease Control
through their National Health
and Nutrition Examination
Surveys. Because the primary
source of mercury in women's
blood is consumption of fish
containing mercury, this measure
will allow EPA to track improve-
ments in human health resulting
from our fish advisory program.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAFE SWIMMING
The data to report progress
on restored water quality to allow
swimming in streams miles and
lake acres identified by states in
2000 as having unsafe water quality
for swimming are not currently
available. These data are provided
by states every 2 years. We expect
to be able to report on this measure
in EPA's FY 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report. Limited
monitoring information makes
it difficult to aggregate data on
individual stream segments into
a meaningful watershed scale assess-
ment that can be used to report
progress. EPA continues to work
toward developing better measures
for documenting environmental
improvement on a watershed basis.
Such measures will track incremen-
tal progress toward full restoration
and document the results of the
considerable effort EPA and its
partners devote to maintaining
water quality.
For the past swimming season
(CY 2005), coastal and Great
Lake beaches were open and safe
for swimming 97 percent of beach
season days. These results exceed
EPA's FY 2006 goal of 94 percent
and also exceed the 2008 target of
96 percent.
For its 2006-20 JJ Strategic
Plan, EPA is instituting a measure
to track waterborne disease out-
breaks resulting from swimming in
recreational waters with pathogens.
This new measure should provide a
sound basis for measuring the effec-
tiveness of EPA and state beach
monitoring and advisory programs.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE I:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to
Ensure that Consumers are Protected
from Lead Contamination. Additional
information on this report is available in
the Program Evaluation Section, Appendix
A, page A-6.
Promising Techniques Identified to
Improve Drinking Water Laboratory
Integrity and Reduce Public Health Risks;
Lessons Learned: EPA's Response to
Hurricane Katrina; and Much Effort and
Resources Needed to Help Small
Drinking Water Systems Overcome
Challenges. Additional information on
these reports is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, pages
A-6-A-8.
GRANTS: Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) Grant Program,
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Grant Program. 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 that
support state and local government beach
monitoring and notification programs that
provide the public with information on
the safety of water for swimming.
PART: The PWSS Grant Program was
assessed in the 2004 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response
to the PART process, the
program is conducting follow-up actions
which include developing a new long-term
outcome performance measure to assess the
impact of drinking water compliance on
public health.
The Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program was first assessed in the 2002
PART process and initially received a rating
of "results not demonstrated." The program
was reassessed in the 2004 PART process
and received a rating of "adequate." In
response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions, including
implementing recommendations from the
second triennial drinking water data quality
review, which are designed to improve the
overall quality of the data in EPA's drinking
water compliance reporting system.
The UIC Grant Program was assessed
in the 2004 PART process and received a
rating of "adequate." In response to the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include developing an outcome-
based annual performance measure and an
efficiency measure, which demonstrate the
protection of source water quality.
The Drinking Water Protection Program is
being assessed in the 2006 PART process
and results will be included in the FY 2008
President's Budget.
WEB LINKS:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/shellfish/
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
i^mJt^riHta.
P
Strategic Objective 2—
Protect Water Quality
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2— PROTECT WATER QUALITY
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
Watershed Protection — Meeting Water Quality
Standards in Water Segments
Watershed Protection — Attainment and
Restoration
Tribal Household Access to Basic Sanitation
Coastal Aquatic Health — Ecological Health
Coastal Health — Use Attainment
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
• Goal Met for FY 2006
• Goal Met for FY 2006
• Goal Met for FY 2006
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
EPA continued to exceed
its interim targets for restoring
25 percent of the nation's
impaired water bodies by 2012.
By the end of FY 2006, states
and EPA restored 12.1 percent of
the waters identified in 2000 as
impaired, compared to the interim
target for 2006 of 10.3 percent.
Restoring impaired water bodies is
a tremendous challenge and
involves coordinating state and
EPA efforts and using a variety of
tools available under the Clean
Water Act. EPA and states were
able to meet the 2006 targets
in several programs. A total of
66.1 percent of states and territo-
ries kept their water quality
standards up to date within the
past 3 years with the latest scien-
tific information (against a target
of 66 percent). With the 2006
completion of the Wadeable
Streams Assessment, the first
statistically valid report on the
ecological condition of all wade-
able, perennial streams within the
conterminous United States, EPA
met its target of assessing a cumu-
lative total of 54 percent of the
nation's waters using statistically
valid surveys. EPA and states
were able to complete 24,131
EPA-approved watershed
pollutant reduction budgets
(total maximum daily loads, or
TMDLs) by the end of 2006,
compared to the target of 20,501.
EPA and states exceeded targets
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 155-158. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its per-
formance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages
B-53-B-78 at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
to issue 95 percent high-priority
NPDES permits. EPA and states
also met the target for utilizing
93.3 percent of the available funds
in Clean Water State Revolving
Funds to provide low interest
loans to help finance wastewater
treatment facilities and other
water quality projects. These
projects are critical for continuing
the public health and water
quality gains of the past 30 years.
Although 2006 data indicate
that the waterbodies listed in
2000 as impaired are being quickly
removed from the list, EPA recog-
nizes that waterbodies that are
more easily restored are often the
first to be removed. Also, some
of the restorations to date repre-
sent waters where improved
assessments have found that
the waters were in fact already
meeting water quality standards.
Thus we anticipate that the num-
ber of these "easier" restorations
will soon decline, as states and
EPA begin tackling waters with
such complex problems as non-
point sources or issues related to
increasing population growth and
changing land use. EPA is address-
ing these issues squarely. Many
of the answers lie in improving
efficiency through the watershed
approach—dealing with water
pollution problems holistically
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 1: OBJECTIVE 2—PROTECT WATER QUALITY—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY2006 Obligations:
Protect Water Quality
(in thousands]
FY 2006 Costs:
Protect Water Quality
(in thousands]
- Enhance Science
and Research
Protect Human
Health
37%
($1^29,922.6)
• Enhance Science
and Research
($126^30.2)
Protect Human
Health
35%
($1,334,571.8)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 3 1 9)
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Congressional!/ Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Infrastructure Assistance:Alaska Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
International Capacity Building
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS FY 2006 COSTS
$217,344.3
$1 1,227.6
$224,582.7
$1,491.0
$263,4 1 6.5
$517.8
$1,141.7
$33,791.4
$0.0
$897,523.3
$474.3
$1 1,233.5
$193,591.6
$370.2
$104.4
$7,262.3
$1,013.6
$4,752.8
$2,737.2
$45,445.6
$1,585.1
$3,417.2
$239.6
$20,424.6
$3,65 1 .0
$1,247.9
$14,487.4
$417.8
$385.2
$162.2
$2,199.3
$1,407.4
$219,137.8
$14,131.2
$204,015.5
$781.5
$271,381.2
$478.9
$1,475.9
$24,788.6
($1.9)
$1,338,196.1
$1,078.1
$10,784.9
$194,548.8
$366.9
$124.5
$6,791.9
$1,084.6
$5,014.2
$1,275.8
$44,943.3
$1,587.5
$3,333.3
$207.4
$12,078.8
$3,715.9
$1,293.1
$15,529.7
$388.9
$409.6
$198.0
$2,183.5
$1,265.3
TOTAL $1,967,646.5 $2,382,588.8
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
with stakeholder involvement,
rather than piecemeal waterbody-
by-waterbody or permit-by-permit.
On Earth Day 2005, the Assistant
Administrator for Water estab-
lished an internal EPA Watershed
Managers Forum to promote
implementation of watershed
approaches in EPA's own programs
and with its external partners,
especially states, to help effect
watershed protection. The Forum
played a critical role in developing
the water quality portion of EPA's
2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which
for the first time includes chal-
lenging but realistic targets for
restoring 250 full-scale watersheds
by 2012; for removing 5,600 spe-
cific impairments to waterbodies
by 2012; and for maintaining good
water quality in wadeable streams
and other waters. The Forum has
also developed a comprehensive
capacity-building strategy to aid
states and local organizations as
they address water pollution
problems at the watershed level.
Additionally, EPA is investing in
data systems to allow more accu-
rate tracking of impaired waters
and restoration activities.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 2.13, 2.14: Some specific
water programs are also facing
increased challenges. EPA was
able to approve 89 percent of state
water quality standards revisions
in the past year, an increase over
83.5 percent in 2005. Neverthe-
less, the Agency fell short of its
goal of approving 90.9 percent.
States are required to review water
quality standards every 3 years and
revise them if necessary. EPA must
approve the standards for them to
take effect under the Clean Water
Act. This measure evaluates how
well EPA and states work together
to enable timely approval of
revised standards. In FY 2006,
states submitted an unusually high
number of revisions that presented
complex technical and policy
issues. Some revisions also involve
nationally significant issues that
require policy-level review before
EPA can approve or disapprove
them. Although EPA was able to
approve some of those provisions,
the Agency was not able to
resolve the remaining issues in
time to be counted under this
measure for FY 2006. EPA has
adjusted its targets for FY 2007
and 2008 to reflect more realistic,
yet challenging, goals.
APQ 2.15: EPA also did not
meet its goal for improving water
quality in Indian country for
FY 2005 and FY 2006 due to limi-
tations in data collection. The
amount of data collected from
monitoring stations was insuffi-
cient for analysis. As a result, EPA
revised this measure during the
development of its 2006-20 J J
Strategic Plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 2:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Clean Water—How States Allocate
Revolving Loan Funds and Measure Their
Benefits.Additional information on this
report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-8.
Sustained Commitment Needed to
Further Advance Watershed Approach;
EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy
for Managing Contaminated Sediments.
Additional information on these reports is
Clean Water: Alaska
Native Villages
Ouzinkie, Alaska is a commu-
nity of 191 residents located
on the ocean shoreline of a
small island near Kodiak
Island. As in many Alaska
Native Villages, the popula-
tion depends on fishing and
hunting for subsistence and
supplements these activities
with commercial fishing to
survive in the harsh climate
and remote location. Along
the ocean shoreline—the
site of fishing and other
activities—wastewater dis-
charged from the existing
community system as well as
from many individual homes
represented a direct health
threat to local residents.
Through cooperative funding
from EPA's Clean Water
Indian Set-Aside Program, the
Indian Health Service, and
the State of Alaska, Ouzinkie
completed a $928,000 proj-
ect to replace and relocate
the community ocean outfall
pipe and to connect more
residents to an expanded
wastewater system, helping
safeguard the health of
Ouzinkie residents and pro-
tect water resources.
J
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A-9.
GRANTS: Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 106 grants which fund state water
quality programs. CWA Section 3 19
grants also support this objective by
reserving $100 million for developing and
implementing comprehensive watershed
plans that function to restore impaired
waters on a watershed basis while pro-
tecting healthy waters. Additionally, the
Targeted Watershed Grants (TWG)
Program encourages collaborative, com-
munity-driven approaches to meet clean
water goals.The National Estuary Grant
Program (CFDA 66.456) also supports
this objective.
PART: The Surface Water Protection
Program was assessed in the 2005 PART
process and received a rating of "moderately
effective." In response to the PART process,
the program is conducting follow-up actions
which include working with states and other
partners to assess 100 percent of rivers,
lakes, and streams in the lower 48 states
using statistically-valid surveys by 2010.
The Pollution Control (106) Grants Program
was assessed in the 2005 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response
to the PART process, the program is conduct-
ing follow-up actions which include providing
incentives for states to implement or improve
their permit fee programs, increasing the
resources available for water quality
programs.
The Oceans and Coastal Program was
assessed in the 2005 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response
to the PART process, the program is conduct-
ing follow-up actions which include developing
an annual performance measure for the
Ocean Dumping Program.
The Non-Point Source Program was assessed
in the 2004 PART process and received a
rating of "adequate." In response to the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include contracting for an inde-
pendent evaluation for the program that can
serve as the basis for further improvements.
The CWSRF Program was assessed in
the 2004 PART process and received a rating
of "adequate." In response to the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-
up actions which include focusing on improv-
ing the quality and breadth of CWSRF
performance data.
The Alaska Native Village Program was first
assessed in the 2004 PART process and
initially received a rating of "ineffective." The
program is currently being reassessed in
the 2006 PART process and results will be
included in the FY 2008 President's Budget
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/
lakessurvey/
http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/
watershed/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/
factsheets/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/
http://www.coastalamerica.gov/
Strategic Object!'
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.
EPA's research programs
continue to conduct leading-edge
research and develop a better
understanding and characterization
of water-related environmental
outcomes to support the Agency's
work toward clean and safe water.
For example, to promote
stewardship in the handling of
Pharmaceuticals and minimize
their introduction into the
environment, EPA's water quality
research program produced a
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—PROTECT WATER QUALITY
2.19
2.20
Scientific Rationale for Surface Water Criteria
Drinking Water Research
Goal Met for FY 2006
Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 158-159. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-78 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
comprehensive review as a
roadmap for related research and
other actions. This overview has
even broader implications, as a
generalized application of this
approach could be used in the
future to develop Superfund risk
assessments and cleanup decisions.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 2, CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
GOAL 1: OBJECTIVE 3—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research
FY 2006 Costs:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands]
($140,539.3)
^
Protect Human
Health
37%
Protect Water 31.229,922.6)
Quality
59%
($ 1,967,646.9)
r
Enhance Science
and Research
($126,230.2)
Protect Water
Quality
62%
($2.382.589)
Protect Human
Health
35%
($1.334.571.8)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget. Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Research: Drinking Water
Research:Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
$8,128.6
$200.5
$1,120.5
$52,087.4
$48,496.3
$866.9
$143.4
$40.4
$2,514.6
$239.0
$806.5
$1,059.9
$3,706.7
$1,411.8
$2,392.2
$299.3
$13,017.4
$1,407.4
$630.5
$857.0
$37.6
$149.0
$62.8
$318.5
$545.0
$10,830.7 |
$185.4
$1,328.9
$46,053.3
$48,889.5
$1,181.8
$142.1
$48.2
$2,312.7
$259.8
$918.8
$494.0
$3,170.5
$1,405.2
$2,369.9
$312.9
$2,090.3
$1,506.6
$688.5
$918.9
$77.3
$158.4
$76.7
$319.6
$490.0
TOTAL $140,539.2 $126,230.0
2006 OBLIGATIONS
FY 2006 COSTS
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
Also in 2006, EPA developed
methods for the sampling and
biological assessment of non-
wadeable rivers, providing the
basis for EPA's Survey of
Non-Wadeable Streams and
Rivers, as well as the scientific
framework for developing
bioassessment and biocriteria for
establishing water quality stan-
dards and meeting other Agency
water quality goals. Additionally,
EPA conducted research to devel-
op more cost-effective means of
controlling storm water runoff
pollution, particularly in urban
areas. This work supports state
and local governments in making
watershed decisions to protect
and restore water bodies more
effectively to meet Clean Water
Act goals.
EPA's drinking water research
program also completed a substan-
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
tial body of work in 2006. For
instance, the program assisted in
implementing the Arsenic Rule
by publishing treatment design
manuals based on laboratory
studies and conducting full-scale
demonstrations of treatment tech-
nologies in more
than 40 small com-
munities in more
than
20 states. The pro-
gram also provided
leading-edge research
to inform the
Agency's mandated
6-year reviews of
existing regulations,
concluding a series of
studies and review
papers on cancer and
non-
cancer effects and
on in utero and food-
borne exposure that
will support the risk
assessment associated
with the planned
2008 review of the Arsenic Rule.
To fulfill SDWA requirements,
the drinking water research pro-
gram worked extensively with the
Office of Water in publishing a
series of papers summarizing the
research conducted on waterborne
disease in the last 10 years.
Improved models on Crypto-
sporidium dose-response and
methods for measuring levels of
Cryptosporidium in water support-
ed the Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule. Finally, research
evaluated various combinations
of microfiltration and ultrafiltra-
tion systems to develop filtration
credits for protozoan removal
following conventional package
plant systems.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 3:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC):
Subcommittee on Drinking Water
Research: Review of ORD's Drinking
Water Research Program; Subcommittee
on Water Quality Research: Review of
ORD's Water Quality Research Program.
Additional information on these reports is
available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, pages A-10-A-1 I.
GRANTS: Example of Ecohab-
Supported Research:The Development of
Molecular Probes for Faster Detection of
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs).To protect
the public, natural resource agencies need
to be able to rapidly detect the presence
of an HAB before it leads to health con-
cerns. However, in the late 1990s when
massive fish kills and unusual health symp-
toms among fishermen were reported in
North Carolina and Maryland, the algae
causing the problem could not be readily
identified using light microscopy.
Researchers turned to
molecular techniques for
a solution.They devel-
oped a real-time test, a
polymerase chain reac-
tion assay that made it
possible to identify
Pfiesteria piscicida rapid-
ly. Using this assay in
waterways in Maryland
and Delaware, the
researchers determined
in which rivers and which
seasons Pfiesteria bloom
events were most likely
to occur.To further aid
resource managers, the
team also developed
assays for other species
of concern.These tests
are now used by the
Maryland Department of
Natural Resources for
routine monitoring and
rapid response evaluation
of possible HAB events.
PART: The Drinking Water Research
Program was assessed in the 2005 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate."
In response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions which include
developing baselines and targets for long-
term and annual performance measures.
Specifically, the program is participating in a
workgroup comprising representatives from
OMB, ORD, and the BOSC to develop long-
term measures derived from an independent
panel review process.
The Water Quality Research Program
is being assessed in the 2006 PART process
and results will be included in
the FY 2008 President's Budget
Web Links: http://www.epa.gov/ord/
-------
Strategic Goal 3:
•
and Restoration
Preserve and restore tine land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risk posed by releases of harmful substances.
Goal Purpose
EPA's land preservation and
restoration goal presents our
strategic vision for managing waste,
conserving and recovering the value
of wastes, preventing releases,
responding to emergencies, and
cleaning up contaminated land.
Uncontrolled wastes can cause
acute illness or chronic disease and
can threaten healthy ecosystems.
Cleanup almost always costs more
than prevention and contaminated
land can be a barrier to bringing
jobs and revitalization to a commun-
ity. Disposed wastes also represent
a loss of important material and
energy values.
EPA employs a hierarchy of
approaches to protect the land,
including reducing waste at its
source, recycling waste for materials
or energy values, managing waste
effectively to prevent spills and
releases of toxic materials, and
cleaning up contaminated proper-
ties. Under this goal, EPA works
to ensure that hazardous and
solid wastes are managed safely at
industrial facilities. Working with
states, tribes, local governments
and responsible parties, we clean
up uncontrolled or hazardous
waste sites and return land to
productive use. Similarly, we work
to address risks associated with
leaking underground storage tanks
and wastes managed at industrial
facilities.
We are helping develop
public-private partnerships to
conserve resources in key areas.
We collaborate with our partners in
innovative, non-regulatory efforts
to minimize the amount of waste
generated and promote recycling
to recover materials and energy.
Through programs like our
Resource Conservation Challenge,
we promote opportunities for
converting waste to economically
viable products, which conserve
resources.
We also work closely with other
government agencies to ensure
that we are ready to respond in the
event of an emergency which could
affect human health or the environ-
ment. Under this goal, we strive to
improve our preparedness and
response capabilities, particularly in
the area of homeland security.
Finally, we conduct and apply
scientific research to develop cost-
effective methods for managing
wastes, assessing risks, and cleaning
up hazardous waste sites.
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
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Qoal 3 At a Qlance
EPA FY 2006 Obligations
(in thousands)
FY 2006
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS (APGs)
Met = 4 Not Met = 1
Data Available After
November 15, 2006 = 2
(Total APGs = 7)
EPA FY 2006 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$917,820.8 *770,477.6
(11%) <9%>
Goal 4
$1,232,936.3
(15%)
GOAL 3 FY 2OO6 PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES
OBJECTIVE I-PRESERVE LAND
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste genera-
tion, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste
and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
APG
STATUS
2 Data
Available
after
11/15/06
$237,779.6
$222,156.6
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.
3 Goals Met
I Goal Not
Met
$3,368,195.0
$1,300,792.3
OBJECTIVE 3-ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research and developing a
better understanding and characterization of environmental out-
comes under Goal 3.
I Goal Met
$91,870.2
$58,165.3
GOAL 3 TOTAL
7 APGs $3,697,844.8 $1,581,114.2
ERA's annual performance goals are stepping stones to longer-range results. These results are specified in a series
of "Strategic Targets" that lay out the work we intend to accomplish over the next several years to achieve our
objectives under Goal 3. Meeting our annual performance goals moves us closer to such Strategic Targets as:
By 201 I, increase reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris by 6 percent from a baseline of
59 percent in 2003.
Each year through 201 I, minimize the number of confirmed releases at underground storage tank facilities to
10,000 or fewer from a universe of approximately 650,000 underground storage tanks.
By 201 I, prevent releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by implementing initial approved
controls or updated controls.
By 201 I, ensure that 36 percent (345) of 966 final and deleted construction complete National Priority List sites
are ready for reuse site-wide.
For a complete list of strategic targets, see ERA's new 2006-201 I Strategic Plan, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/htm.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Strategic Objective
Preserve Land
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring
proper management of waste and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
WASTE MINIMIZATION
In the area of municipal
waste reduction and recycling,
2006 was a very successful year
for several of our key partnership
programs. Membership increased
in two of our premier programs:
WasteWise, which focuses on
partnerships with businesses and
institutions such as universities,
hospitals, non-profits, and state,
local, and tribal governments,
added 150 new members for a
total of more than 1,600; and
GreenScapes, which focuses on
organics reuse, added 24 members
for a total of 90. The municipal
waste reduction and recycling
program is successfully educating
the public about the benefits of
recycling and how to increase
their participation in recycling
programs.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE I—PRESERVE LAND
3.1
3.2
Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
Waste and Petroleum Management Controls
Data Available in FY 2008
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
X Goal Not Met for FY 2004
Data Available in FY 2007
Goal Met for FY 2005
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2 -Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 160-161.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-78-B-8I at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
In 2006, EPA finalized its data
collection for 2004 and 2005
which demonstrates that EPA has
achieved progress toward meeting
its municipal solid waste (MSW)
reduction goals, including divert-
ing a cumulative total of 83.1
million tons MSW by FY 2006
and maintaining daily per capita
generation of MSW at 4.5 pounds.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOALS (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ3.1:In 2004 and 2005,
the nation generated more
than 247.3 million tons and
245.7 million tons of municipal
solid waste, and recycled more
than 77.7 and 79.0 million tons,
Municipal Solid Waste Recycling, 2000-2005
Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 2000-2005
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 GOAL 3: OBJECTIVE 1— PRESERVE LAND— FY 2006 RESOURCES
Enhance Science -
and Research
2%
($91,870.2)
FY2006 Obligations:
Preserve Land
(in thousands]
r Preserve Land
($237,779.6)
Restore Land
92%
($3,368,195.0)
FY 2006 Costs:
Preserve Land
(in thousands)
— Preserve Land
and Research |4%
($222,156.6)
($58,165.3) ^^
Restore Land
82%
($1,300,792.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
I d friM MM! d Ml Ak m
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressional!/ Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
LUST / UST
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
$80,067.5
($4.6)
$15,040.7
$569.6
$1,747.9
$250.0
$883.2
$9,084.3
$67,298.8
$9,604.6
$178.7
$50.4
$2,558.9
$441.8
$1,960.1
$1,321.3
$24,107.9
$992.2
$1,976.9
$185.6
$13,385.1
$1,769.9
$635.7
$1,383.4
$162.7
$185.9
$78.3
$1,183.2
$679.4
FY 2006 COSTS
$72,847.6
$107.5
$10,895.9
$533.0
$2,270.3
$23 1 .2
$1,142.3
$8,099.1
$70,304.7
$9,406.0
$177.1
$60.1
$2,386.2
$475.0
$2,090.4
$615.8
$24,162.6
$991.4
$1,912.4
$ 1 60.6
$7,068.5
$1,824.4
$669.2
$1,483.1
$165.0
$197.7
$95.6
$1,173.1
$610.8
TOTAL $237,779.4 $222,156.6
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
respectively. These results do
not meet the annual targets of
79 million tons recycled in
FY 2004 and 81 million tons
recycled in FY 2005 because the
percentage increase in the genera-
tion of MSW in the U.S. outpaced
the percentage increase in recy-
cling. EPA is targeting its efforts
to encourage the reduction and
recycling of the most significant
waste streams: paper, organic
wastes, and containers and pack-
aging. In addition, EPA did not
met the 2004 target, but did meet
the 2005 target for maintaining a
daily per capita generation of solid
waste rate of 4.5 pounds/person/
day. The annual daily per capita
generation rate in 2004 and 2005
was 4.6 and 4.5 pounds/person/
day, respectively.
EPA and its partners contin-
ued to develop a multi-agency
federal strategy for removing
legacy accumulations of dangerous
chemicals and implementing
sustainable chemical management
plans in schools to prevent future
accumulations of chemicals.
Grants were awarded to seven
programs (e.g., state-level
programs, state partnerships with
localities) in FY 2006 to remove
legacy chemicals and implement
chemical management practices.
As a result of the FY 2004 grants,
175,000 pounds of legacy chemi-
cal accumulations were removed,
and safe chemical management
practices were implemented in
approximately 500 schools. An
estimated 300,000 children, as
well as school personnel, enjoy
a reduced risk of exposure to
dangerous chemicals.
Additionally, as part of our
effort to encourage safe recycling
and reuse of electronics, EPA
promulgated the final rule for
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) in
2006. A CRT is the glass video
display component of an electronic
device. The benefits of this rule
are substantial: conservation of
landfill capacity, increase in
resource efficiency, growth of a
recycling infrastructure for CRTs,
and reduction of lead emissions to
the environment from CRT recy-
cling. Approximately 3,690 tons
or 545,000 cubic feet of CRTs per
year will be directed away from
landfills towards recycling. We
estimate that the rule will save
CRT handlers $5.0 million per
year in reduced administrative,
transportation, and disposal costs.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITY PERMITTING
EPA's primary approach to
preventing releases of hazardous
waste is issuing facility permits
that mandate appropriate controls
for each site. The permitting
program exceeded its 2006 annual
target of increasing the percentage
of hazardous waste management
facilities under appropriate
controls by 2.5 percent. During
2006, EPA increased the percent-
age of facilities under control to
4.3 percent. The program expects
to bring 95 percent of the facili-
ties under approved controls by
the end of FY 2008.
Hazardous waste facilities that
do not have approved controls
often present complex manage-
ment issues. Developing approved
controls for large federal facilities,
particularly those with nontradi-
tional treatment units is difficult.
These facilities are complex and
require more time to evaluate
"Green" Electronics
The EPA-funded Electronic
Products Environmental
Assessment Tool is designed
to help purchasers identify
and buy green computers,
laptops, and monitors. Since
July 2006, more than I 18
models of desktop computers,
laptops, and monitors now
bear the Electronic Products
Environmental Assessment
Tool (EPEAT) label, and this
initial list of EPEAT-registered
products is growing as addi-
tional manufacturers register
products. EPEAT is already
referenced in nearly $200
billion worth of computer
contracts, including contracts
issued by the Department of
Defense, the Department of
Homeland Security, the
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and
the States of Minnesota and
Massachusetts. EPA conserv-
atively estimates that over
the next 5 years, purchases
of EPEAT computers will
result in reductions totaling
more than I 3 million pounds
of hazardous waste, more
than 3 million pounds of
non-hazardous waste, and
more than 600,000 MWh of
energy—enough to power
6 million homes.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Regional Permitting Program Progress
Fiscal Year 2006, End of Year Results
Region 7:
90.7%
Region 5:
93.4%
Region 2:
Region
91.99s
Region 3:
95.0%
Cumulative percent of baseline accomplished
95.0-95.9%
94.0-94.9%
93.0-93.9%
92.0-92.9%
91.0-91.9%
technical information, address
risks, and deal with public con-
cerns. Many of the 84 hazardous
waste facilities that came under
approved controls in FY 2006 had
relatively difficult types of units to
address. For example, a boiler
facility in Ohio was difficult to
permit because more stringent
conditions were required for mer-
cury control than specified in the
federal regulations.
EPA has made progress with
reducing the regulatory burden on
hazardous waste operations. In
April 2006, the Agency complet-
ed a deregulatory action by
publishing the final "RCRA
Burden Reduction Rule." The
final rule streamlined RCRA
record keeping and reporting
requirements, saving the RCRA
regulated community an estimated
$2-3 million per year, with no
reduction in environmental pro-
tection.
On September 5, 2006, all
hazardous waste handlers in the
United States were required to
begin using the new Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest Form.
This standard form streamlines
the waste handling process, helps
interstate commerce, and reduces
regulatory paperwork while ensur-
ing the continued safe manage-
ment of hazardous waste. The
benefits of this rule are substan-
tial. More than 139,000 facilities
in the United States generate,
transport, or manage RCRA
waste. About 12 million tons of
hazardous waste per year are mani-
fested for shipment, involving 2.4
to 5.1 million manifests, requiring
4.4 to 9.2 million labor hours, and
costing $187 to $733 million
annually. EPA estimates that the
standardized form and associated
rule revisions will result in $12.7
to $20.6 million in cost savings
annually, while improving the
hazardous waste manifest system.
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK
SIGNIFICANT
OPERATIONAL
COMPLIANCE AND
CONFIRMED RELEASES
To prevent releases from
underground storage tanks
(USTs), EPA and its partners
ensure that UST systems are in
significant operational compliance
(SOC) with required release
detection and release prevention
equipment and that the equip-
ment is used, functioning, and
properly maintained. End-of-year
performance data for the UST
compliance program will be
available in December 2006.
EPA achieved a SOC rate of
66 percent in FY 2005 thereby
exceeding the target of 65 per-
cent. Through its compliance
activities, EPA remains committed
to maintaining the number of
confirmed releases at UST facili-
ties at 10,000 or fewer. At the end
of FY 2006, the actual number of
confirmed releases was 8,361.
Confirmed Releases: Nationwide
mttt
1998 1999 200'
Fiscal Year
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE I:
GRANTS: State and Tribal Assistance
Grants were awarded to SO states;
Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; 4 territories;
and 16 tribes through the Underground
Storage Tanks (LIST) categorical grants to
encourage owners and operators to prop-
erly operate and maintain their USTs. Tribal
grants funded projects that included the
development of LIST compliance assistance
and certification programs and compliance
assistance visits, technical support to tribes,
tribal LIST owner/operator training work-
shops and outreach materials, conducting
LIST compliance inspections and tracking
significant operational compliance in Indian
Country, LIST program capacity building, and
oversight of LIST program implementation.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants also
provided funding to states implementing
the LIST provisions of the Energy Policy
Act. These grants included funding
for conducting inspections at previously
uninspected facilities, developing third-
party inspection programs to enable
states to increase inspection presence,
and preparing to implement delivery
prohibition, secondary containment and
other Energy Policy Act requirements.
PART: The RCRA Recycling, Waste
Minimization and Waste Management
program was assessed in the 2004 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate."
In response to the PART process, the program
is developing an efficiency measure for the
waste minimization component of'die RCRA
base program.
The Oil Spill program was assessed in the 2005
PART process and received a rating of "ade-
quate." In response to the PART process, the
program is conducting follow-up actions which
include developing a forum to share and imple-
ment best practices among Regional offices that
will improve the program's overall performance
and efficiency.
The LIST Grants program is being assessed in
the 2006 PART process and results will be
included in the FY 2008 Presidents Budget
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/oust/aboutust.htm
http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/
epact_05.htm#Final
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/
http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/products/
epeat.htm
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/
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.
To meet its objective to
control the risks to human health
and the environment at contami-
nated properties or sites through
cleanup, stabilization, or other
actions, and to make land avail-
able for reuse, EPA achieved the
following results in FY 2006:
• Made 518 final site-assessment
decisions under Superfund,
exceeding the target of 419.
• Controlled all identified
unacceptable human exposures
from site contamination for
current land and/or groundwa-
ter use conditions at a net total
of 34 additional Superfund
human exposure sites, exceed-
ing the target of 10.
• Controlled the migration of
contaminated groundwater
through engineered remedies
•
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2— RES
Assess and Cleanup Contaminated Land
Superfund Cost Recovery
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party
Participation
Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional
Releases
TORE LAND
• Goal Met for FY 2006
• Goal Met for FY 2006
• Goal Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 161-164. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-78-B-8I at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
Number of Construction Completions and Final/Deleted NPL Sites
Fiscal Year
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 3: OBJECTIVE 2—RESTORE LAND—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Restore Land
(in thousands]
FY 2006 Costs:
Restore Land
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research
($91,870.2)
Preserve Land
6%
($237,779.6)
Enhance Science
and Research
($58,165.3)
Preserve Land
14%
($222,156.6)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressional!/ Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
LUST / UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
RCRA: Corrective Action
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Federal Facilities lAGs
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS
$29,508.2
$8,750.2
$2,548.4
$266.0
$212.1
$627.2
$38,626.3
$2,085.6
$27,764.0
$75,407.1
$27,358.5
$38,754.7
$669,157.1
$181,647.5
$1 1,219.0
$33,894.4
($8.6)
$1,971,858.8
$5,462.2
$970.4
$633.9
$37,180.3
$2,848.5
$14,107.0
$4,677.7
$84,022.8
$19,105.6
$6,239.5
$332.8
$32,529.0
$2,048.9
$417.2
$17,922.2
$1,215.7
$1,009.6
$425.2
$3,741.8
$9,939.7
$3,688.7
FY 2006 COSTS
$26,706.6
($5.4)
$2,527.0
$261.7
($1,031.9)
$470.6
$34,468.6
$2,559.6
$10,194.6
$61,964.2
$13,138.6
$39,792.5
$190,233.6
$1 18,728.6
$10,471.6
$28,497.1
($6.8)
$557,107.2
$5,135.2
$961.7
$540.4
$30,514.8
$3,051.7
$14,759.6
$3,772. 1
$74,317.2
$16,821.8
$5,892.8
$602.9
$21,638.0
$2,014.4
$427.0
$5,275.2
$1,409.4
$1,073.5
$519.0
$3,548.3
$9,122.9
$3,316.3
TOTAL $3,368,195.2 $1,300,792.2
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
or natural processes at a
net total of 21 additional
Superfund groundwater
exposure sites, exceeding
the target of 10.
• Selected final remedies (cleanup
targets) at 37 Superfund sites,
exceeding the target of 10.
• Completed construction of
remedies at 40 Superfund
sites, meeting the target of 40.
During FY 2006, the
Superfund program conducted an
intensive analysis of the human
exposure determination for each
site on the National Priority List
(NPL) to ensure that the human
exposure determinations are made
consistently nationwide and
reflect similar environmental con-
ditions. With regard to efficiency
measures, the Superfund removal
program completed 1.02 removal
actions per million dollars, thereby
meeting the target of 0.91.
The Superfund Enforcement
Program continues to pursue the
"Enforcement First" and "Smart
Enforcement" strategies. The
"Enforcement First" strategy
allows EPA to focus appropriated
funds on sites where potentially
responsible parties either do not
exist or lack the funds or capabili-
ties needed to conduct the
cleanup. "Smart Enforcement"
ensures that EPA utilizes the most
appropriate enforcement or com-
pliance tools to address the most
significant problems to achieve
the best outcomes. By applying
these two strategies, EPA met
both of its FY 2006 Superfund
enforcement goals, which are to
reach a settlement or taking an
enforcement action by the start of
Remedial Action (RA) at 95
Rocky Flats Superfund Site
The Rocky Flats Superfund site, a
6,500-acre former nuclear weapons
facility located approximately 16
miles northwest of Denver, CO and
within 50 miles of 2.5 million people,
is the first former Department of
Energy weapons plant to achieve
construction completion. EPA and its
partners treated, stabilized, or removed 34,731 cubic yards of soil or
other solid-based media (roughly equivalent to 6.5 football fields, cov-
ered I yard deep) and 12,082,393 gallons of water or other
liquid-based media (roughly equivalent to 16 Olympic-sized swimming
pools) contaminated with radioactive plutonium, uranium, other
radionuclides, and volatile organic compounds. Construction was com-
pleted in FY 2006, 14 months ahead of schedule and $560 million
under budget.The majority of the site will become a National Wildlife
Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FY 2006 Compliance & Enforcement Annual Results
Potentially Responsible Party Commitments
for Superfund Site Cleanup, Oversight, and Cost Recovery,
FY 2002-FY 2006
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
u
50
250
u
RCRA Environmental Indicators
Human Exposure
230
209
I I I I PI
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Groundwater Migration
203
172
172 171
175
i i rim
i i i i i
i i i i i i
percent of non-federal Superfund sites that have
viable, liable parties, and to address cost recovery at
all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limita-
tions on total past costs equal to or greater than
$200,000.
Through enforcement, settlement, or compro-
mise/write-off, cost recovery was addressed at 162
NPL and non-NPL sites, of which 63 cost recovery
cases had outstanding unaddressed past costs. EPA
also secured private party commitments for cleanup
and cost recovery, and billed private parties for over-
sight, for amounts that exceeded $602 million.
For the universe of 1,698 RCRA corrective
action facilities, the 2006 targets for the percentage
of facilities with current human exposures under
control, with migration of contaminated ground-
water under control, and with final remedies
constructed was 82, 68, and 13, respectively. In
each case EPA exceeded these targets by increasing
the percentage to 89, 74, and 22, respectively.
EPA's RCRA Corrective Action Program con-
tinues to emphasize revitalization and reuse of
former hazardous waste management sites. For
example, Atlantic Station, a mixed use, 375-acre
Uncovering the Past: Eastern Surplus Superfund Site, Meddybemps, Maine
Eight thousand years before it served as a dump for hazardous materials, the '\ k ;;
Eastern Surplus Superfund site in Meddybemps, Maine was home to Native '•'•:,
Americans living in ancestral Passamaquoddy territory. Archaeologists have
known about the site since the 1960's, but it is only recently that the impor-
tance of the site has become more widely recognized through archaeological
research completed in 2006. "N'tolonapemk," which means "Our Ancestor's
Place," has long been known to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and is described in
their oral history and traditional stories.
As required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, EPA's cleanup plan for the Eastern Surplus
Superfund site included an archaeological investigation and subsequent education and outreach. Members of the
Passamaquoddy Tribe were trained to take part in the excavations conducted by the University of Maine at
Farmington. "Tribal people need to be involved in archaeology, so we can have a voice while we look for links to
our past," said Passamaquoddy Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Donald Soctomah. "Being the first person to
touch an artifact that your ancestor left behind is pretty powerful stuff."
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
revitalization of a closed Steel
Mill in Atlanta, Georgia, won
the prestigious Brownfields
Phoenix Award during FY 2006.
This vacant property, which was
considered a blight to neighbors
just a decade ago, is one of the
largest revitalization efforts in the
country, and is expected to secure
close to $2 billion in investment.
It is being developed with a smart
growth design that includes green
space, residential, and commer-
cial development, and has already
become a popular hub for
Atlanta residents. Federal and
state regulators, the developer
and the community collaborated
to address the many issues pre-
sented by a project of this size
and to streamline and phase the
cleanup so that portions of busi-
ness and residential areas are
complete and occupied today.
Two other Phoenix Award win-
ners this past year were at RCRA
sites: the Chester Waterfront
Redevelopment Project in
Chester, Pennsylvania (a former
power plant and solvent recovery
site) and the Platte River
Commons and Salt Creek
Heights Business Center in
Casper, Wyoming (a former
Amoco/BP refinery).
EPA's Oil Program's exceeded
its 2006 target of 100 by conduct-
ing 345 inspections and exercises
at oil storage facilities required to
have Facility Response Plans
(FRP). The Agency continues its
efforts to improve the accuracy
and value of this measure, and
since setting this target, additional
research has revealed a more
precise count of facilities in the
FRP universe; future targets will
be adjusted accordingly.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 3.6: EPA completed 157
Superfund-lead removal actions in
comparison to the FY 2006 target
of 195 and completed 93 volun-
tary removal actions, with EPA
oversight, which was short of the
target of 115. The lower than
expected removal results were
directly related to EPA's continued
support in FY 2006 of the
response to Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita—the largest hurricane
response and cleanup efforts in
the history of the Agency.
EPA's accomplishments during
its responses to Katrina and Rita
are notable. EPA conducted
environmental monitoring and
sampling of water, air, floodwater
and residual sediment resulting in
more than 400,000 analyses;
responded to approximately 70
emergency situations to address
chemical spills, fires, and other
emergencies causing an immediate
public threat; supported the overall
debris mission with the U.S.
Federal Emergency Management
Agency and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, for which the total
estimates are expected to top
118 million cubic yards; provided
technical advice and assistance,
promoted recycling, handled the
disposal of more than 4 million
containers of household hazardous
waste, assist in the proper handling
and recycling of more than
380,000 large appliances (refrigera-
tors, freezers, and air conditioners),
and recycled more than 649,000
electronic goods to save important
landfill space and ensure the reuse
of metal components. Furthermore,
EPA continues to provide over-
sight of the cleanup by Murphy Oil
of a large oil spill which affected
more than 1,800 homes in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
EPA continued to respond
quickly and effectively to emer-
gency releases throughout the
country, as highlighted in the 215
oil spills we responded to in 2006.
While this is less than the target
of 300, it reflects the need for
fewer cleanups at the federal level
and the success of state and local
prevention and preparedness
activities in FY 2006.
The target for EPA's Oil
Program for the compliance rate
of inspected facilities subject to
spill prevention, control and
countermeasures (SPCC) regula-
tions was 100 percent, and EPA
achieved 50 percent compliance
for these facilities. The target for
the compliance rate of inspected
facilities subject to FRP regula-
tions was 100 percent, and EPA
completed 71 percent compliance
for these facilities. The lower than
expected results may be partially
explained by the lack of a nation-
wide definition for compliance in
the oil program. In September
2006, EPA adopted a stringent
definition of compliance to better
address the Sill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure Plan
and the Facility Response Plan
requirements. This will provide
greater consistency and may also
necessitate a reassessment of
annual targets.
The Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks (LUST) Program
promotes rapid and effective
responses to releases from federally-
regulated USTs containing
petroleum by enhancing state,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Decreasing UST National Cleanup Backlog
200
00
40
U
local, and Tribal enforcement and
response capability. EPA's on-going
work focuses attention and efforts
on increasing the efficiency of
LUST cleanups nationwide. In
FY 2006, EPA's state and tribal part-
ners completed 14,493 cleanups,
exceeding the target of 13,600. This
includes 43 tribal LUST cleanups
that exceed the target of 30. EPA
will continue to work with states to
complete cleanups and reduce the
backlog of 116,949 cleanups not yet
completed. Since the beginning of
the UST program, EPA has cleaned
up more than 75 percent (or
350,818) of all reported releases.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 1:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office (FFRRO):A Comprehensive Review
of EPA Policy and Guidance for Federal
Facility Cleanup and Property Transfer.
Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A-12.
More Complete Data and Continued
Emphasis on Leak Prevention Could
Improve EPA's Underground Storage Tank
Program.Additional information on this
report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-12.
Report on Superfund and Mining
Megasites: Lessons from the Coeur
d'Alene River Basin.Additional information
on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-13.
EPA Can Better Manage Superfund
Resources; and Information Security
Series: Security Practices—
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Information
System.Additional
information on these
reports is available in
the Program
Evaluation Section,
Appendix A, page A-14
and page A-1 5.
Site-Specific Charging at Superfund Sites:
Benchmarking Regional Practices;A
Formative Evaluation of a National
Program for School Pollution Prevention
and Chemical Cleanout (SC3) prepared
by Indtai, Inc. Additional information on
these reports is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-15
and page A-17.
GRANTS: EPA awards Superfund coop-
erative agreements to states, political
subdivisions of states, federally-recognized
Indian tribes, and U.S. territories.These
intergovernmental partners help EPA
achieve its strategic goals by sharing the
responsibilities for cleaning up sites on
the National Priority List (NPL).
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) are an
important tool for involving the local
community meaningfully in the cleanup
process. By providing independent techni-
cal expertise to local communities,TAGs
help community members better under-
stand 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 provides
free, independent, university-based techni-
cal 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 under-
standing of technical issues related to
hazardous substance contamination,
enabling them to participate substantively
in the decision-making process.
LUST Cooperative Agreements were
awarded to 49 states;Washington DC;
Puerto Rico; 4 territories; and 10 tribes.
Tribal cooperative agreements funded
projects that included site assessments
and cleanups; sampling equipment for
Tribal inspectors; LUST program capacity
building; and oversight of LUST program
implementation. In FY 2006, LUST
cooperative agreements provided funding to
states for emergency responses, responsible
party lead cleanups with state oversight,
state-lead cleanups, and state LUST capacity
building.
Congress appropriated supplemental
funds for necessary expenses to address
releases from underground storage tanks
related to the consequences of the 200S
Gulf of Mexico hurricanes. EPA received
these funds to identify releases of petro-
leum from underground storage tanks and
initiate corrective action as necessary to
achieve state-specific cleanup require-
ments. EPA developed detailed grant
guidance and provided the initial funding
to the affected states.
PART: The Superfund Remedial program
was assessed in the 2004 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response to
the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include implementing
recommendations from the Agency's 120 day
study on management of'die Superfund
program and modernizing the program's data
repository.
The Superfund Federal Facilities program was
assessed in the 2005 PART process and
received a rating of "moderately effective." In
response to the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include
working with other Federal agencies to sup-
port attainment of long-term environmental
and human health goals by reviewing and
recommending remedies for cleanup.
The Superfund Removal program was
assessed in the 2005 PART process and
received a rating of "moderately effective." In
response to the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include
modernizing the program's data repository
and developing a plan for conducting, on a
regular basis, independent evaluations of key
areas of'die program to determine program
performance.
The RCRA Corrective Action program was
assessed in the 2003 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response
to the PART process, the program is conduct-
ing follow-up actions which include defining
new baselines for performance measures
and establishing ambitious annual targets
to achieve the long-term objectives of the
program.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/ca/index.htm
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 3, LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
1 * Strategic Objective 3—
* Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge
research and developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
EPA continues to provide and
apply sound science for protecting
and restoring land by conducting
leading-edge research and devel-
oping a better understanding and
characterization of the environ-
mental outcomes under Goal 3.
Over the past 5 years, EPA
has established the science needed
to demonstrate the ability of evap-
otranspiration (ET) covers, which
use vegetation and soils as a
sponge to prevent water transmis-
sion into landfill contents, to
replace conventional landfill
covers in many environmental
settings. Continuing training and
technology transfer activities in
FY 2006 have encouraged landfill
owners/operators and regulatory
authorities to accept the new
covers. ET covers have been or
are being installed on landfills at
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
3.7
Scientifically Defensible Decisions for Site Cleanup
Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, page 164.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-89-B-90 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
more than 30 sites, with cost
savings estimated between a few
thousand dollars and $100,000
or more per acre. Research results
influenced the responsible parties'
cover selection and were cited in
many of the permit applications.
Additional training is scheduled
for FY 2007.
Also in 2006, EPA published
a report describing the results of
field research measuring vapor
intrusion into homes overlying
contaminated ground water.
PCB Residue Effects Database
When PCBs (pel/chlorinated biphenyls) are of concern at Superfund
sites, lengthy and costly efforts may be required to define critical tissue
residues and determine appropriate remediation goals.To shorten this
effort and reduce conflict, EPA's research program has assembled a
database on residue-effects for birds, fish, and mammals. Completed in
2006, the database contains 1969 test records for PCBs, 1626 records
for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and 7181 records for polychlori-
nated dibenzofurans. In total, the database includes 904 papers of the
3646 reviewed for potential. In FY 2007, EPA's research program will
make the database available to Superfund Remedial Project Managers
and Risk Assessors via its ECOTOX website.The public, private sector,
and regulatory authorities will all benefit from more efficient, transpar-
ent, and consistent risk estimation practices, which can streamline
remedial actions by reducing unnecessary controversy and/or litigation.
Among other findings, the study
illustrated a method to distinguish
between volatile organic com-
pounds originating in ground
water and those from household
sources. The minimally-invasive
procedures tested in the study
allow direct measurement of
contaminants in household air
and in the soil immediately below
the slab. Results of this work and
related research will help inform
revisions to EPA's guidance on
evaluating this exposure pathway.
Other EPA work in 2006
included research on monitored
natural attenuation (MNA),
which has proven to be a cost-
effective approach for cleaning
up ground water contaminated
with organic compounds under
conditions where natural degra-
dation processes are not much
slower than remedial interven-
tions like pumping and treating.
Current research is evaluating
the applicability of MNA for
inorganic contamination, which
has to rely on non-degradative
mechanisms to remove the
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 3: OBJECTIVE 3—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands]
FY 2006 Costs:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research
2%
($91,870.2)
- Preserve Land
6%
($237,779.6)
Enhance Science
and Research
- Preserve Land
Restore Land
92%
($3,368,195.0)
Restore Land
82%
($1,300,792.3)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Research: SITE Program
Superfund: Remedial
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights /Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
Exchange Network
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS
$3,507.5
$66.0
$371.0
$66,353.0
$4,569.5
$6,554.2
$47.2
$13.3
$1,087.7
$78.7
$265.6
$349. 1
$1,218.6
$509.6
$788.2
$98.7
$4,280.3
$463.6
$207.7
$402.5
$12.4
$49.1
$20.7
$376.4
$179.5
$5,043.0
$61.1
$440.7
$37,605.0
$3,886.3
$4,726. 1
$46.8
$15.9
$98 1 .8
$85.6
$302.6
$162.7
$1,021.1
$49 1 .9
$780.9
$102.9
$679.6
$496.2
$226.8
$369.1
$25.5
$52.2
$25.3
$374.8
$161.4
TOTAL $91,870.1 $58,165.3
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
contamination from the migrating
water. A cross-office team has
developed a framework for
developing lines of evidence
for MNA for radioactive and
non-radioactive metals. Research
at the Industriplex Superfund
site in Region 1 contributed to
selection of a remedy estimated to
save $13 million.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 3:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Subcommittee on Land Restoration and
Preservation Research: Review of the
Office of Research and Development's
Land Restoration and Preservation
Research Program.Additional information
on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-17.
PART: The Land Protection and
Restoration Research program is being
assessed in the 2006 PART process and
results will be included in the FY 2008
President's Budget.
Web Links: http://www.epa.gov/ord/
-------
Wj*
Strategic Goal 4:
<~> I r*.
1 I X ^
ealthy Commu
and Rcosystems
tine health of people, communities,
comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
Goal Purpose
To protect, sustain, and restore
our nation's communities and
ecosystems, EPA uses a mix of
regulatory programs, partnership
efforts, and incentive-based
approaches. EPA programs ensure
that pesticides and other chemicals
entering the market meet health and
safety standards, chemicals already
in commerce will not harm our
health or environment, and that
action is taken to reduce risks from
chemicals of greatest concern.
Many of our programs to achieve
and sustain healthy communities are
designed to bring tools, resources,
and approaches to bear at the local
level. We encourage community
redevelopment by providing funds to
identify, assess, and clean up hun-
dreds of thousands of properties that
lie abandoned or unused due to
previous pollution. We help
promote community involvement
and establish a sense of environmen-
tal stewardship to sustain
environmental improvements by
assisting communities in addressing
local pollution problems through
partnerships.
We also collaborate with
other federal agencies, states,
tribes, local governments and many
Contributing Programs
Brownfields
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
Chemical Risk Management
Chesapeake Bay
Children's Health Protection
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE)
Computational Toxicology Research
Endocrine Disrupters Research
Environment and Trade
Environmental Justice
Global Change Research
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Homeland Security Research
Human Health and Ecosystem Protection
Research
nongovernmental organizations
on geographically based efforts to
protect America's wetlands and major
estuaries. Working with our partners
and stakeholders, we have established
special programs to protect and
restore our natural resources.
Human Health Risk Assessment
International Capacity Buildin
Lead and Lead Categorical Grant
Programs
Long Island Sound
Mercury Research
National Environmental Monitoring
Initiative
National Estuary Program
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Pesticides and Toxics Research
Pesticides Licensing and Field Program
Smart Growth
Research Fellowships
State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness
Targeted Watersheds
US-Mexico Border
Wetlands
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
Many human health and envi-
ronmental risks to the American
public originate outside our bor-
ders. Many pollutants can travel
easily across borders—via rivers, air
and ocean currents, and migrating
wildlife. EPA employs a range of
strategies to help mitigate some of
these risks, including participation
in bilateral programs, cooperation
with multinational organizations,
and contribution to a set of meas-
urable environmental and health
end points.
Sound science guides us in
identifying and addressing emerg-
ing issues and advances our
understanding of long-standing
human health and environmental
challenges. Our cutting edge
research helps us better character-
ize risks and benefits, further our
ability to measure and describe
environmental conditions,
and encourage stewardship
and sustainable solutions to
environmental problems.
Qoal 4 At a Qlance
FY 2006
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS (APGs)
Met = 10 Not Met = 6
Data Available After
November 15, 2006 = 4
CTotal APGs = 20)
EPA FY 2006 Obligations
(in thousands)
GoalS
Goal 2
$3,338,108.8
(33%)
Goal3
$3,697,844.8
(36%)
EPA FY 2006 Costs
(in thousands)
Goal I Goal 5
$917,820.8
(11%)
Goal 2
$3,843,391.0
Goal3
$1,581,114.2
(19%)
GOAL 4 FY 2OO6 PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES
APG
STATUS
OBJECTIVE I— CHEMICAL, ORGANISM.AND PESTICIDE RISKS
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically
engineered biological organism risks to humans, communities, and
ecosystems.
3 Goals Met
3 Goals Not Met
2 Data Available
After 11/15/06
$469,194.2
$389,810.4
OBJECTIVE 2—COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological
systems that support them.
2 Goals Met
I Data Available
After 11/15/06
$276,470.5
$259,481.7
OBJECTIVE 3—ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and
ecosystems.
2 Goals Met
2 Goals Not Met
I Data Available
After 11/15/06
$201,189.7
$173,625.4
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 a better understanding and characterization of
environmental outcomes under Goal 4.
3 Goals Met
I Goal Not Met
$427,138.5
$410,018.8
GOAL 4 TOTAL
20 APGs $1,373,992.9 $1,232,936.3
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
In the Years Ahead...
EPA's annual performance goals are stepping stones to longer-range results.These results are specified in a series of
"Strategic Targets" that lay out the work we intend to accomplish over the next several years to achieve our objec-
tives under Goal 4. Meeting our annual performance goals moves us closer to such Strategic Targets as:
By 201 I, eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by reducing to zero the number of cases of
children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels.
By 201 I, reduce the concentration of pesticides detected in the general population by 50 percent. (Baselines are
determined from the Centers for Disease Control's 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.)
By 201 I, make an additional 1, 125 acres of Brownfields ready for reuse from the 2006 baseline.
By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25 percent of homes in the Mexican border area that lacked access to safe
drinking water in 2003. (In 2003, 98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water.)
By 201 I, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per year with additional focus
on biological and functional measures and assessment of wetland condition.
By 201 I, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall ecosystem health of the Great
Lakes is at least 23 points on a 40-point scale.
For a complete list of strategic targets, see EPA's new 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/htm.
Strategic Objective I —
Chemical, Organism, and
Pesticides Risks
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological organism risks to humans,
communities, and ecosystems.
EPA's pesticide program
promotes public health safety, safe
and abundant food, worker safety,
and protection of land and other
media from pesticide contamina-
tion. Our FY 2006 efforts put the
Agency on a trajectory to provide
long-term health benefits by 2011
that include:
• Reducing the concentration
of pesticides detected in
the general population by
50 percent.
• Protecting workers exposed to
pesticides by maintaining or
improving upon the current
low incident rate.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1— CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDES RISKS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Pesticide Tolerance Reassessments
Managing PBT Chemicals Internationally
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides —
Pesticide Registration
Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides
— Acre Treatments with Reduced Risk Pesticides
TRI Information
Exposure to Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
Risks from Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
Chemical Facility Risk Reduction
I/ Goal Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
FY 2006 Data Available in 2009
FY 2005 Data Available in 2009
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 165-169. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-90-B-108 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 4: OBJECTIVE I—CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE RISKS—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research
31%
($427,138.5)
Ecosystems
Communities 15%
20%
($276,470.5)
($201,189.7)
FY 2006 Costs:
Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research
33%
($410,018.8)
Communities Ecosystems
21 % 14%
($259,481.7) ($173,625.4)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJE
'006 OBLIGAT
'006 COS'
$457,6
TOTAL
$469,194.2
$389,810.4
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
• Achieving a 50 percent reduc-
tion in moderate to severe
incidents for 6 acutely toxic
pesticides.
• Reducing the percent of urban
watersheds that exceed
National Pesticide Program
aquatic life benchmarks for
three key pesticides and
reducing the percent of
agricultural watersheds that
exceed EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for two key
pesticides.
In addition, the Pesticide
Program's success in ensuring
that safe pesticides continue to
be available to address emergency
pest infestations results in
avoiding $1.5 billion in crop
losses and $900 million in termite
structural damage each year.
The 1996 Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) required
EPA to reassess the safety of thou-
sands of existing tolerances and
tolerance exemptions by August 3,
2006, while simultaneously mak-
ing determinations about the
reregistration of existing pesticides
and reviewing the registrations of
thousands of pesticide end-use
products. EPA substantially
succeeded in meeting these
important goals.
FQPA required the Agency
to complete 33 percent of the
required tolerance reassessment
decisions within 3 years, 66 per-
cent within 6 years, and 100
percent within 10 years, giving
priority to the review of pesticides
that pose the greatest risk to pub-
lic health. EPA readily met the
first two statutory deadlines and
completed nearly all the remaining
tolerance reassessment decisions
within the 10-year timeframe.
This tolerance reassessment effort
has led to EPA decisions to revoke
or modify thousands of existing
tolerances and to require the
establishment of many new toler-
ances, improving food safety and
human health protection in the
United States.
FQPA presented new chal-
lenges that strengthened EPA's
existing pesticide reregistration
program. Thus, the Agency set a
goal to complete reregistration of
all the food-use pesticides as it
completed their tolerance reassess-
ments. Reregistering food-use
pesticides meant not only that
EPA reassessed their tolerances,
but also evaluated the safety of
those pesticides for workers and
the environment. This effort
entailed review of tens of thou-
sands of new studies—a significant
amount of additional work to
accomplish in 10 years. EPA has
completed nearly all of this work:
• Completed 9,637, or
over 99 percent of
the 9,721 tolerance
reassessment decisions
required by FQPA.
• Recommended the
revocation of 3,200
tolerances.
• Recommended the
modification of 1,200
tolerances.
• Confirmed the safety of 5,237
tolerances.
The 84 remaining tolerance
reassessment decisions are directly
linked to 5 pesticides (aldicarb,
oxamly, carbaryl, formetanate,
and carbofuran). All of these are
carbamates, with aldicarb having
23 of the tolerance decisions
pending. The remaining 4 are
carbamates linked to 61 of the
tolerance decisions, where the
individual tolerance has been
completed but cannot be counted
until the cumulative assessment
is done. In order to complete
cumulative assessment on these
carbamates, EPA first needs to
complete aldicarb. Human studies
legislation in August 2005
required EPA develop a new rule
to guide EPA consideration of
such data. Following Congress'
direction, EPA established a
Human Studies Review Board
(HSRD) in February 2006. The
Board is tasked with conducting
an independent review of EPA
data used for this and other pur-
poses, which directly contributes
toward EPA's decisions on toler-
ance reassessments. EPA asked
the HSRB to review the results of
29 completed human toxicity stud-
ies concerning 12 different
Tolerance Reassessment Progress
1999
2002
2006
pesticides. The Board recommend-
ed EPA incorporate additional
human studies data for aldicarb,
studies deemed to have been con-
ducted in an ethical manner. EPA
concurred with the Board's recom-
mendation resulting in the need to
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PESTICIDE PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD
EPA's regional pesticide programs work with states, tribes, local
governments, and the regulated community in a variety of efforts to
reduce risks associated with pesticide use and protect communities
and the environment.
Collecting and Disposing of Pesticides
One objective established in EPA's Strategic Plan is to reduce the
worldwide inventory of persistent organic pollutants, such as DDT,
Endrin, and Toxaphene. EPA Region 9 staff worked with Arizona and
Sonora, Mexico to collect unwanted and obsolete pesticides from
farmers in the U.S-Mexico Border region and dispose of them prop-
erly. Many of the pesticides collected had been improperly stored,
were packaged in deteriorating containers, or posed a risk to chil-
dren playing in or waste piles. Approximately 36,000 pounds and 300
gallons of waste pesticides were collected in San Luis, Sonora; the
Yuma,AZ event brought in approximately 5,600 pounds and 180 gal-
lons of waste pesticides, including Endrin, Diazinon, and 2,4-D—all of
which have been cancelled or severely restricted in approved uses.
Pesticide Tribal Circuit Rider
To ensure coverage of Indian country under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA's Region 8 successfully
piloted an innovative approach with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
Under a unique cooperative agreement with EPA, the Tribe hosts a
pesticide circuit rider who performs program and enforcement
activities on several reservations as an extension of Region 8's
responsibility for direct implementation.As a result, FIFRA program
coverage was extended to two South Dakota reservations: Lower
Brule and Crow Creek. Other tribes in the region are following the
development and implementation of the circuit rider program with
great interest. Region 8 has secured additional EPA funding to add
two more pesticide tribal circuit riders to the program.
conduct a new risk assessment.
EPA will complete decisions on
the remaining tolerance reassess-
ments by 2007 after following all
appropriate procedures for the new
risk assessment, such as consider-
ing public comment.
EPA's pesticide registration
program licenses pesticides for use,
ensuring they present a reasonable
certainty of no harm to human
health and the environment.
During FY 2006, EPA made
impressive progress in reviewing
and registering new pesticides,
new uses for existing pesticides,
and other registration requests in
accordance with FQPA standards
and Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act timeframes.
In completing these actions,
EPA gave special consideration
to susceptible populations, espe-
cially children. Specific accomp-
lishments included registering
15 reduced-risk chemicals and
biopesticides, 101 new active
ingredients, and 235 new uses.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 4.3: EPA did not achieve
its annual performance goal for
Decreased Risk from Agricultural
Pesticides because the program
was unable to meet its target for
the following measure, "Maintain
timeliness of S18 decisions."
EPA's response time for S18 deci-
sions (emergency pesticide use
exemptions for pest infestations)
was slightly higher than the target
of 45 days because the focus of the
program was diverted to address
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Homeland Security and food
security concerns associated with
soybean rust.
Under this objective, EPA
also identifies and reduces risks
presented by new and existing
chemicals and manages risks asso-
ciated with national priority
chemicals, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and
lead. The Agency achieved signif-
icant results in FY 2006 that
contribute to providing many
important health benefits by
2011, including:
• Managing risks that EPA has
identified as unacceptable
from 100 percent of High
Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals.
• Eliminating childhood blood
lead poisoning as a public
health concern.
• Reducing to 28 percent the
difference in the geometric
mean blood lead level in low-
income children aged 1 -5 as
compared to the geometric
mean for non-low-income
children aged 1-5.
• Eliminating the use of lead
in gasoline in 35 countries
that still use lead as an
additive, affecting more than
700 million people.
EPA's HPV Challenge
Program is a key component of
the Agency's strategy for identify-
ing and addressing risks posed by
chemicals already in commerce.
Under the HPV Challenge, the
Agency will complete work by
December 2006 to provide the
public with critical health and
environmental effects data on
more than 2,200 chemicals
encountered in communities every
day. As of August 2006, 373
chemical companies and 104
industry consortia had volun-
teered to provide data directly to
EPA for 1,383 HPV chemicals and
to the International Council of
Chemical Associations (ICCA),
the European component of the
program, for 862 chemicals. Data
for 1,350 of the HPV chemicals
and 360 of the ICCA chemicals
will be available to the public by
the end of 2006. U.S. chemical
manufacturers voluntarily expanded
the HPV program, launching the
Extended HPV Program in
FY 2006 to make data publicly
available for an additional
574 chemicals that achieved
HPV status after the EPA HPV
Challenge Program was estab-
lished.
EPA's ability to make HPV
data publicly available was sub-
stantially enhanced in FY 2006
through the release of the HPV
Information System (HPVIS), a
searchable on-line database. As of
August 2006 this powerful new
tool contained 300 submissions,
representing 863 chemical sub-
stances, either as single chemical
submissions or as members of
chemical categories. Additional
submissions will be added over
time. HPVIS is also being used to
run a step-wise Tiering Process to
set priorities for the Agency's
reviews of individual chemicals
and categories of chemicals. The
reviews will result in a screening-
level characterization of the
potential hazards of each chemical
examined.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOALS (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 4.6: EPA did not achieve its
FY 2004 targets regarding the safe
disposal of 8,000 transformers and
6,000 capacitors because EPA's
annual performance targets for
PCB disposal were established
using uncertain and outdated
information.
APQ 4.7: With regard to the
Voluntary Children's Chemical
Evaluation Program (VCCEP)
Data Needs, EPA could not
complete and issue the Data
Needs documents because
additional information needed
to finalize the documents could
not be obtained from the
volunteer company sponsors.
The volunteer company sponsors
experienced unexpected delays
in responding to requests for
additional information.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In addition to focusing on
HPV chemicals and reviewing
new chemicals before they enter
U.S. commerce, EPA also is
assessing and acting on several
prominent existing chemicals of
potential concern. The Agency
continued to explore the hazards,
sources, and pathways of exposure
and risks of perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA), a chemical widely used
in consumer products such
as non-stick cookware coat-
ing, fire resistance materials,
dental floss, and breathable
sportswear and clothing. In
FY 2006 EPA launched a
global PFOA Stewardship
Program, under which par-
ticipating companies have
committed to reducing
PFOA from emissions and
product content by 95 per-
cent no later than 2010 and
completely by 2015.
Polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
used as flame retardants
appear to be persistent
and bioaccumulative in
the environment. During
FY 2006 EPA outlined a
comprehensive approach to
addressing PBDEs. In addition,
pursuant to Great Lakes Chemical
Corporation's voluntary phase-
out of pentaBDE and octaBDE,
on June 13, 2006 EPA issued a
final Significant New Use Rule
requiring that EPA be notified
prior to U.S. manufacture or
import of these commercial prod-
ucts for any use.
The Agency has also made
substantial progress in addressing
national priority chemicals,
including asbestos, PCBs, and
mercury. In November 2005 EPA
issued an Asbestos Project Plan
to (1) improve the state of the
science for asbestos; (2) identify
and address ways people are
exposed to asbestos in products,
schools, and buildings and poten-
tial ways to reduce exposure;
and (3) assess and reduce risks
associated with areas that require
asbestos cleanup. During FY 2006
EPA continued outreach to raise
DANGER
ASBESTOS
CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD
AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY
RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA
public awareness of asbestos issues,
for example, releasing a draft
brochure for public comment
on Current Best Practices for
Preventing Asbestos Exposure
Among Brake and Clutch Repair
Workers (August 2006). Other
FY 2006 efforts focused on
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite
attic insulation.
EPA continued to focus on
the safe management, cleanup,
and disposal of PCBs, issuing
PCB Site Revitalization Guidance
to assist with PCB cleanups,
particularly in Brownfields
redevelopment. EPA worked with
the Navy to ensure proper disposal
of the ex-Oriskany as an artificial
reef off the coast of Florida.
EPA's Roadmap for Mercury,
released in FY 2006, lays out the
Agency's direction for mercury
and provides the most current
programmatic information on
ongoing and planned
actions to reduce mercury.
Through international part-
nerships, EPA is working
both domestically and
abroad to reduce the use of
mercury in products. Under
the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Recovery
Program, mercury switches
are removed from old auto-
mobiles before the vehicles
are melted to make new
steel, thereby reducing the
mercury emitted by electric
arc furnaces (See Goal 5).
EPA also proposed a rule
effectively to close out the
use of elemental mercury
switches in convenience
light assemblies and anti-
lock brake systems in
post-2003 automobiles.
The proposed Significant New
Use Rule for mercury switches
in motor vehicles is one way
the Agency is promoting reduced
use of mercury in products cost-
effectively.
Data released in 2005 by the
Centers for Disease Control
demonstrated 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
1999 to 2002. These findings
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
indicate major progress towards
EPA's 2008 strategic target for
reducing the incidence of child-
hood lead poisoning to 90,000
cases as well as toward the federal
goal to eliminate this disease as a
public health concern by 2010.
Because the remaining population
of at-risk children is often difficult
to reach and evidence has shown
a higher incidence of childhood
lead poisoning among low-income
than non-low income children, in
FY 2006 EPA established a second
long-term goal for the Lead
Program to reduce the disparity in
blood lead levels between low-
and non-low-income children. In
addition, the Agency refined
its public education and outreach
efforts to reduce exposure to
at-risk children and launched a
targeted grant program aimed at
reducing the incidence of child
lead poisoning in vulnerable
populations. To reduce children's
exposure to hazards created by
renovation, remodeling, and
painting that disturb lead-based
paint, EPA proposed a major new
rule to establish lead-safe work
practices and is currently working
TRI Submissions by Media Type
2003 2004 2005
Fiscal Year
to finalize this rule. EPA, in coor-
dination with the Partnership for
Clean Fuels and Vehicles, also
assisted 40 countries in phasing
lead out of gasoline, including 36
countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX)—the portal for electronic
data reporting for the Agency—
supports the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act,
enhances the quality of informa-
tion, and allows for more timely
collection and publication of
environmental data. EPA tracks
the utilization of CDX by stake-
holders (EPA programs, states,
tribes, local governments, and
industry), which is correlated with
improved data quality and timeli-
ness of information needed to
support environmental program
management. For FY 2006, CDX
exceeded the majority of its per-
formance measures, for example,
achieving a total of 32 systems
flowing data, exceeding the
FY 2006 target of 29 data flows.
At the end of FY 2005, CDX
reported 22 data flows in produc-
tion. Between FYs 2005 and 2006,
CDX added 10 data flows—an
increase of more than 24 percent.
CDX and the Exchange Network
achieved a total of 41 state nodes
and 1 tribal node in production
for FY 2006, exceeding the target
for state nodes by 3. The number
of states participating in the TRI
State Data Exchange expanded
from 4 to 12. Due to the addition
of new data flows, CDX achieved
more than 60,000 registered
accounts in FY 2006, exceeding
its target by 26 percent.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND
TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 4.2: By supporting the
United Nations Environment
Programme's (UNEP) publication
of the Global Mercury Assessment
in 2002 and creation of the
UNEP Mercury Program in 2003,
EPA catalyzed many efforts to
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
better characterize mercury use
and emissions globally. As part of
a voluntary effort to inventory
emission data by key sector, for
example, China completed a "situ-
ational assessment" of mercury use
and emissions. The inventory
measured coal content in various
coals in China, traced which coals
were going to which power plants,
and arrived at an overall emissions
estimate for the entire power
sector in China (comprising about
300 plants of 300 mw or greater
generating capacity). The
Department of Energy took stack
emissions measurements at six of
these power plants. With these
two sets of data, we achieved a
clear picture of the emissions from
this sector in China.
In India, monitoring and
reporting on mercury stack
emissions has been delayed due
to ongoing national discussions
regarding this power sector. As
a result, fewer power sector inven-
tories are underway than were
planned for FY 2006. EPA contin-
ues to work closely with
appropriate ministries in the
Government of India and will
disseminate data to U.S. govern-
ment partners once they become
available.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 4.1:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
OIG Reports: Measuring the Impact of
the Food Quality Protection Act:
Challenges and Opportunities; and
Opportunities to Improve Data Quality
and Children's Health through the Food
Quality Protection Act.
Eastern Research Group Inc. for EPA
Office of Planning, Economics and
Innovation and EPA Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics: Evaluation of EPA
Hospitals for Healthy Environment
(H2E) Program.
Additional information on these reports
is available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A-18.
GRANTS: The Exchange Network
Grant Program is used to support the
state, tribe, and territories performance
measure. Grants are available to build out
state IT infrastructure, develop state
nodes, and to develop data exchanges
with EPA and states.
Lead Categorical Grants contribute signif-
icantly to reductions in the incidence of
childhood lead poisoning. In FY 2006, the
Agency launched a targeted grant pro-
gram aimed at reducing the incidence of
child lead poisoning in vulnerable popula-
tions.
PART: The Existing Chemicals Program was
assessed in the 2002 PART process and
received a rating of "results not demonstrat-
ed." The program was reassessed in the 2003
PART process and received a rating of "ade-
quate." In response to the PART process, the
program is conducting follow-up actions
which include developing an efficiency meas-
ure targeting reduced costs to process TSCA
8(e) Notice of Substantial Risk reports and
making data available to users.
The New Chemicals Program was assessed in
the 2002 PART process. The program initially
received a rating of "adequate." The program
was reassessed in the 2003 PART process
and received a rating of "moderately effec-
tive." In response to the PART process, the
program is conducting follow-up actions
which include developing an efficiency
measure targeting reduced costs during initial
stages of the Pre-Manufacture Notice review
process resulting from information technology
improvements.
The Lead Program (including Lead Categorical
Grants) was assessed in the 2005 PART
process and received a rating of "moderately
effective." In response to the PART process,
the program is conducting follow-up actions
which include improving oversight of regional
office operations and grantee performance,
assessing the effectiveness of the program's
outreach activities, and improving the linkage
of program goals to the resources supporting
their achievement
The Pesticide Registration Program was first
assessed in the 2002 PART process and
initially received a rating of "results not
demonstrated." The program was reassessed
in the 2003 PART process and received a
rating of "adequate." In response to the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include the development of
outcome efficiency measures and risk-based
outcome performance measures, improve-
ments to management grantee performance
information, and establishing more substan-
tive linkages between the budget and
program performances.
The Pesticide Reregistration Program was first
assessed in the 2002 PART process and
initially received a rating of "results not
demonstrated." The program was reassessed
in the 2004 PART process and received a
rating of "adequate." In response to the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include the development of
outcome efficiency measures and risk-based
outcome performance measures, improve-
ments to management grantee performance
information, and establishing more substan-
tive linkages between the budget and
program performances.
The Pesticide Field Program was assessed in
the 2004 PART process and received a rating
of "results not demonstrated." In response to
the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include the develop-
ment of outcome efficiency measures and
risk-based outcome performance measures,
improvements to management grantee
performance information, and establishing
more substantive linkages between the
budget and program performances.
The Endocrine Disrupter Program
(consisting of the OPPTS Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program (EDSP and ORD
endocrine disrupter efforts) was assessed in
the 2004 PART process and received a rating
of "adequate." In response to the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-
up actions, which include developing an
efficiency measure.
Web Links:
www.epa.gov/tri/report/trime/tutorials/
index.htm www.epa.gov/cdx
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Strategic Objective 2-
Communities
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
MEXICO BORDER
Through the Border Water
Infrastructure Program, EPA,
Mexico's National Water
Commission, and U.S. and
Mexican states sharing the interna-
tional boundary continue to make
significant progress in providing
access to safe drinking water and
adequate wastewater collection and
treatment to residents in the bor-
der area. Under the program, each
federal and state participant pro-
vides a share of the capital funding
which, together with border area
communities' resources, is used to
construct water and wastewater
plants and pipelines where this
infrastructure does not exist, is
undersized, or is outdated and
obsolete. In FY 2006, EPA imple-
mented a new system to identify
the most severe public health and
environmental threats for funding
priority. All of the EPA-funded
projects are beginning design and
construction. EPA has solicited
project proposals for FY 2007-08,
and the evaluation process for
ranking projects is underway. The
ranking emphasizes program effi-
ciency, based on the number of
people served and homes connect-
ed to facilities relative to EPA
funding. Projects selected, devel-
oped, and designed before the new
prioritization system was in place
are now either completed and
operating or nearing completion.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—COMMUNITIES
4.9
4.10
4.1 I
World Trade Organization—Regulatory System
Revitalize Properties
U.S. - Mexico Border Outreach
Goal Met for FY 2006
FY 2006 Data Available in 2007
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
Goal Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 169-170. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its per-
formance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages
B-108-B-1 I I at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
Along the U.S.-Mexico
border, the second of the three
largest tire piles is expected to be
cleaned up by the end of 2006.
The Centinela site in the
Mexicali area contained approxi-
mately 1.2 million scrap tires.
Removed tires are used in cement
kilns as tire-derived fuel, in
asphalt as crumb rubber, and in
erosion control embankments,
among other uses. Since 2003,
close to 2.5 million scrap tires
have been cleaned up along the
border, using resources from both
the United States and Mexico.
The number of abandoned scrap
tires along the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der is estimated at 9-10 million.
EPA also has worked closely with
Secretariat of Environment &
Natural Resources (Secretaria del
Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales, SEMARNAT) to intro-
duce ultra-low sulfur fuels in the
U.S.-Mexico border region.
BROWN FIELDS
EPA's Brownfields Program is
on target to achieve its perform-
ance goals. Complete performance
information for FY 2006 is not yet
available because of the grantee
reporting cycle; however, EPA
expects to report this information
in June 2007. FY 2005 results
now available show that the
Brownfields program achieved its
performance goals, assessing 1,381
properties, cleaning up 68 proper-
ties, and leveraging 6,128 jobs and
$1 billion in cleanup and redevel-
opment funding.
EPA's Brownfields Program
made 1,088 acres ready for reuse
through site assessment or proper-
ty cleanup. The Agency has
expanded the definition of "ready
for reuse" to include certification
that any required institutional
controls are in place.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 4: OBJECTIVE 1—COMMUNITIES—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Communities
(in thousands)
Chemical,
Organism, and Enhance Science
Pesticide Risks and Research
34% 31%
($469,194.2) ($427,138.5)
FY 2006 Costs:
Communities
(in thousands)
Chemical,
Organism, and Enhance Science
Pesticide Risks and Research
32% 33%
($389,810.4) ($410,018.8)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
FY 2006 OBLIGATIO
:Y 2006 COSTS
$64,7
TOTAL
$276,470.5
$259,481.8
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 4.10: EPA believes that
the 62 percent placement rate
(cumulative) for the Job Training
Program is primarily linked to
two issues. First, grantees may
not be reporting job placements
following the close of their grant
once funding has been exhaust-
ed. EPA is working with its job
training grantees to establish
procedures that will count per-
sons placed after the grant has
been closed out. Second, while
grantees often train many people,
there are a number of reasons
why individuals may not be
placed. Some graduates elect to
pursue further education; others
may take a number of temporary
contractual work placements
before obtaining full-time
employment in the construction/
remediation/environmental
industry.
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
EPA continued to integrate
environmental justice in the
Agency's day-to-day work and to
address environmental justice
concerns, funding and working
with 30 community-based organi-
zations nationwide to improve
environmental and human health
conditions through collaborative
problem-solving. In FY 2006,
EPA also awarded six grants to
community-based organizations
located in areas impacted by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to
help address environmental justice
concerns.
Canyon Creek Watershed Brownf ields
Assessment Project
Ouray County, CO is receiving a $200,000 Brownfields Assessment
Grant that targets approximately 2,204 acres of the Canyon Creek
watershed impacted by silver and gold mining activities in the late
1800s. In April 2006,231 patented mining claims within the Canyon
Creek Basin were investigated, and 160 of the 232 claims were
found to be free of mining contamination. Now that the uncertain-
ty about contamination has been removed, public entities and land
trusts are moving forward to acquire the privately held claims.The
U.S. Forest Service has acquired 5 claims totaling 55.66 acres; a
local land trust is in negotiations to acquire an additional 90 acres
to be preserved as backcountry open space.The study also identi-
fied those claims with the greatest potential for health and
environmental impacts.The second phase of this project entails an
assessment to fully characterize 10 of these claims. Ouray County
is preparing to undertake cleanup and restoration efforts that may
be required.
INTERNATIONAL
EFFORTS
EPA is cooperating with
Russia to develop and implement
joint projects on homeland
security research, including a
new project on the use of
polyguanidine-based disinfectants
for protecting drinking water and
a proposed project on hazardous
chemical stability in drinking
water. Even in the remote Arctic,
industrial chemicals such as
poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
are found in the tissues of local
wildlife. As a result of EPA's
efforts, in FY 2006 more than
756 metric tons of obsolete pesti-
cides were inventoried and placed
into environmentally-safe
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Along the
U.S.-Mexico Border
Before 1989, rapid, unplanned urban growth occurred in much of the
South Central region of Dona Ana County, New Mexico. During this
time, development and construction in the communities ofVado, Del
Cerro, La Mesa, San Miguel, Berino, and Chamberino were essentially
unregulated.Today, many existing unregulated residential lots contain
five or six homes on one acre of land. Wastewater is treated by onsite
systems, many including failing septic tanks, and 40 percent of the
homes have cesspools. Field observations have shown that surface flow
of raw sewage is rampant within all six communities, threatening the
shallow groundwater table. Furthermore, the high density of homes
combined with a prominent layer of poorly draining soil causes
frequent surfacing of contaminated water, posing an immediate threat
to public health. Rodents and insects are attracted into the area, and
children who enjoy playing in water puddles after rainstorms can stray
into contaminated water.
To address this lack of sanitation, EPA has proposed a project to
construct a wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment
plant.The project, which will cover an area beginning 12 miles south of
Las Cruces along Highway 128 and extending to about 10 miles south,
will serve a 2000 population of 9,140 and a 2020 population of 17,400.
temporary storage facilities in
eight Arctic and sub-Arctic
regions of the Russian Federation.
To date, EPA's efforts have helped
to inventory and store more than
2300 tons of obsolete pesticides.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 4.2:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental
Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies,
and Activities. Additional information on
this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-20.
GRANTS: This objective 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 system,
progress on existing projects continued
to provide safe drinking water and
sanitation to citizens on the border.
EPA's Brownfields Program works in
partnership with states, tribes, localities,
and other stakeholders to promote the
assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse
of brownfields properties. In 2006, EPA
selected 184 communities to receive
Brownfields Assessment Grants for inven-
tory, planning, and assessment activities.
EPA selected 96 communities to receive
Brownfields Cleanup Grants for work
at identified properties. In addition,
12 communities received grants to
capitalize revolving loan funds that
provide loans and subgrants for property
cleanup; 12 grants were awarded to
establish environmental job training pro-
grams in communities impacted by
brownfields. EPA awarded nearly
$50 million in grant funding to states
and tribes to establish and enhance state
and tribal response programs.
PART: The U.S.-Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure Program was assessed in the
2004 PART process and received a rating of
"adequate." In response to the PART process,
the program is conducting follow-up actions
which include developing baselines and
targets for its long-term and efficiency
measures.
The Brownfield's Program was assessed in the
2003 PART process and received a rating of
"adequate." In response to the PART process,
the program is conducting follow-up actions
which include implementing new perform-
ance measures, modernizing its information
collection infrastructure, and conducting
regional program reviews.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/border2012/
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Strategic
Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
ECOSYSTEMS
In FY 2006, the cooperative
efforts of EPA, states, tribes,
and others helped to restore and
protect important ecosystems
across the country. Some key
successes include:
Protecting nationally signifi-
cant estuaries and coastal
habitat. EPA and its partners
expanded implementation of
key actions called for in plans
for protecting 28 nationally
significant estuaries, including
protecting more than 140,000
acres of coastal habitat in
these estuarine areas.
Protecting the Great Lakes.
EPA began implementing
near-term actions to improve
the Great Lakes ecosystem,
including remediating
contaminated sediments.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3— ECOSYSTEMS
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
Protect Wetlands
Great Lakes Ecosystem
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
Gulf of Mexico
APG Status
• Goal Met for FY 2006
FY2006 Data Available in 201 1
FY200S Data Available in 201 1
I/ Goal Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 171-173.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its per-
formance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages
B-l I I-B-I3I at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
Protecting the Gulf of
Mexico. EPA and states
implemented programs,
including restoring and pro-
tecting coastal habitat and
restoring polluted waterbodies,
which resulted in an improve-
ment in the overall condition
of the Gulf of Mexico.
Estuaries in the National Estuaries Program
NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
The return on EPA's investment
in the National Estuary Program
(NEP) is high. In 2006, the 28
NEPs leveraged approximately $18
million in EPA base funding to gen-
erate nearly $600 million (35:1).
(See the NEP GPRA Habitat
Report and ww/epa.gov/owow/
estuaries). In 2006, NEPs used these
and other funds to protect and
restore more than 140,000 acres of
habitat. These results were obtained
via the strong relationships NEPs
have forged with a diversity of
private, local, state, and federal part-
ners. Because population growth
density are rapidly increasing along
U.S coasts, progress in improving
water quality and restoring and pro-
tecting habitat in these coastal areas
will continue to require the concert-
ed efforts of EPA and our state and
local partners.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
GOAL 4: OBJECTIVE 3—ECOSYSTEMS—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Ecosystems
(in thousands]
Chemical, Enhance Science
Organism, and and Research
Pesticide Risks 31%
34% ($427,138.5)
($469,194.2)
FY 2006 Costs:
Ecosystems
(in thousands)
Chemical,
Organism, and Enhance Science
Pesticide Risks and Research
32% 33%
($389,810.4) ($410,018.8)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget. Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
FY 2006 OBLIGATION1
2006 COS i
TOTAL
$201,189.8
$173,625.5
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
EXPLANATION OF
SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 4.12: It is extremely
difficult to determine a realistic
acreage goal when so many vary-
ing factors can influence that
number. Moreover, acreage has
varied widely among and between
NEPs and from year to year, mak-
ing it very difficult to determine
any pattern or trends in the total
number of acres protected or
restored from one year to the next.
However, because most NEPs have
now been implementing protec-
tion and restoration projects for
15 years, there is general agree-
ment that most of the "easier"
projects have been tackled.
Remaining projects will be more
difficult—at a minimum, they will
require more lead time. In addi-
tion, some NEPs with smaller
study areas have less land in need
of protection or restoration.
As part of the PART process,
EPA revised NEP habitat acreage
goals. While the program's PART
results came too late to affect the
FY 2006 strategic planning
process, EPA considered them
when setting FY 2007 targets. For
the NEP acreage strategic target,
EPA has increased its goal by 100
percent, setting a national target
of 50,000 acres.
WETLANDS
The 2006 National Wetlands
Inventory Status and Trends
Report showed that from 1998
to 2004 wetland gains exceeded
wetland losses in the United
States at a rate of 32,000 acres per
year. EPA works with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to
implement the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 wetlands
permit program. Also, through
several non-regulatory wetlands
programs, EPA works with states
and other partners to protect and
restore wetlands.
GREAT LAKES
Measures under EPA's Great
Lakes annual performance goal
assess the overall progress U.S.
environmental programs are
making in protecting and restor-
ing the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Improvements in
the index and measure would
indicate that fewer toxics are
entering the food chain, eco-
system and human health is better
protected, fish are safer to eat,
water is safer to drink, and beaches
are safer for swimming. EPA met
its FY 2006 Great Lakes Index
target score of 21.1 out of a possi-
ble 40, but the decline from 21.9
to 21.1 in FY 2006 is due to the
drinking water quality violation.
Although the index did not
maintain last year's higher score,
performance results show long-
term progress in the Great Lakes
ecosystem condition from a base-
line score of 20. Improvements in
phosphorus concentrations and air
toxics deposition and a decrease
in drinking water quality are
reflected in the current index
Five-Star Restoration of Wetlands and Stream Banks
To date, the Five-Star Restoration program has restored 8,225 acres of
wetlands and 95 miles of stream banks. In one project, the Little Blue
River in Missouri, a watershed coalition planted 1,500 feet of native
prairie wildflowers and grasses, restoring 5 acres along the river.The
project included mitigation of storm water runoff from a nearby road
by converting 300 feet of ditch into a wider vegetated swale, planted
with native vegetation to slow erosion. In addition to on-the-ground
restoration activities, the project served as an educational opportunity
for students and community groups. In total, 2,800 volunteers were
involved in the plantings and educational presentations.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ruddiman Creek
Cleanup
In May 2006, the community
of Muskegon, Michigan cele-
brated completing the Great
Lakes Legacy sediment
cleanup project at Ruddiman
Creek and Pond. Completed
in about 10 months, the proj-
ect removed 89,870 cubic
yards of sediment, which con
tained approximately 328,000
pounds of lead, chromium, and
other contaminants. Wing
dams and flow structures
were installed to better pro-
tect the shoreline during
storm events.The disturbed
areas are being graded and
new native plantings installed
to protect the creek banks
and begin restoring the site.
The project cost about
$13 million, with 65 percent
funded through the Great
Lakes Legacy Act and 35 per-
cent through the State of
Michigan's Clean Michigan
Initiative funds.This is the
third remediation project
completed to date under the
Great Lakes Legacy Program.
Further information on the
Great Lakes Legacy Act
program is available from:
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/
sediment/legacy/indexhtml
score.1 The drinking water
component of the index reflecting
three drinking water quality
violations in 2005 has proven
more volatile than anticipated
and is expected to be revised in
2007 to be consistent with EPA's
drinking water program.
According to the rating guide-
lines, the drinking water
component received a perfect
score of 5 when reported in 2005
because no treatment facilities
reported drinking water viola-
tions. Although only 3 violations
were reported throughout the
whole of the Great Lakes, a score
of 3 was assigned for reporting in
2006 because those 3 violations
were in the 2-5 percent range
described in the index. There has
been no substantial increase to
human health risk because of
these isolated drinking water vio-
lations. State information now
shows that only 40 million, rather
than 75 million, cubic yards of
contaminated sediment require
remediation; this is good news for
the Great Lakes, but a baseline
issue that did not otherwise affect
the index in 2006. Thus, while
one performance measure under
this annual performance goal was
not met for FY 2006 and data is
unavailable for another, the more
comprehensive measure based on
the Great Lakes Index indicates
that EPA met its goal for FY 2006.
On December 12, 2005, EPA
Administrator Steve Johnson
announced at the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration that the
Bush Administration had identi-
fied 48 near-term prioritized
actions in support of the Great
Lakes. Since then, the Wetlands
Working Group has been created
and is making advances such as
the Great Lakes Habitat Initiative
and Coastal Wetlands Restoration
Partnership. The Aquatic Invasive
Species Rapid Response Working
Group was created and is making
progress; the Midwest Natural
Resources Group has developed
an "Action Plan for Addressing
Terrestrial Invasive Species
Within the Great Lakes Basin;"
and beach sanitary surveys have
been developed to help state and
local water program managers
ascertain local beach contamina-
tion and evaluate conditions that
pose risks to human health at
recreational beaches.
Analysis reported in 2006
indicated that on average, total
PCB concentrations in whole
Great Lakes top predator fish
declined 6 percent annually
between 1990 and 2003, meeting
the target for declines in con-
centration trends. Additional
reporting for this measure will be
delayed until mid-2007, due to a
change in principal investigators.
Cleanup efforts, such as remediat-
ing contaminated sediments and
reducing PCB loadings to the
Great Lakes, need to be continued
and enhanced to maintain the
declining trend. Based on Lake
Michigan data, current concentra-
tions in lake trout are approx-
imately eight times the wildlife
protection value (0.16 ppm), 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
2004, concentrations of PCBs in
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
U.S. air measured at stations on
Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Erie
decreased an average of 8 percent
annually, meeting the targeted
commitment.
In FY 2006, EPA reported the
remediation of 375,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediments
in calendar year 2005 through the
combined efforts of EPA, states,
and other partners, including the
second and third Great Lakes
Legacy Act projects. On May 15,
2006, at the completion of
Ruddiman Creek dredging,
Congressman Peter Hoekstra
stated that, "A lot of times we go
to Washington, and we pass a bill,
and we declare a victory, and
nothing has happened. This is
actually a case where we go to
Washington, we pass a bill, it
comes back, and it almost works
exactly the way we envisioned it
to work, and that's because of all
the folks that have come together
that have shared the same vision."
Having remediated 4.1 million
cubic yards of contaminated
sediments through calendar year
2005, EPA and its partners have
already substantially exceeded
the 2008 goal of remediating
3.3 million cubic yards of contam-
inated sediments.
In 2006, EPA and its state and
local partners announced that
cleanup efforts had improved con-
ditions enough to remove the
Oswego River Area of Concern
(AOC) from the list of the most
polluted areas in the Great Lakes
basin. This is the first U.S. area to
come off the list of Great Lakes'
AOCs. The Oswego River has
been transformed from an area
plagued by a legacy of pollution
problems, uncontrolled wastewater
discharges, contaminated fish and
fish habitats, and excessive algae
growth to an environmental success
story. Pollution reduction activities;
watershed best-management
practices; cooperation by local
municipalities, industry, power
utilities and the Port of Oswego;
and many other improvements
have contributed to a healthier
watershed. EPA is working with
states to restore impaired beneficial
uses (such as restrictions on fish
consumption due to high contami-
nant levels) in the AOCs in order
to delist eight AOCs by 2010 and
all by 2025. Monitoring results in
2006 identified impediments to
restoring additional AOCs until
2007. EPA has targeted additional
resources to accelerate progress in
AOCs in order to meet AOC
restoration goals.
Phosphorus is the limiting
nutrient in the Great Lakes that
controls algae growth. Lake Erie
exceeded phosphorus guideline
levels in recent years, particularly
in 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 2006 data indicate
that the targeted concentration
level was not met. Exploration of
this problem, which was identified
by the Great Lakes National
Program Office, is being augment-
ed by work with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and
Environment Canada.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
In FY 2006, the Chesapeake
Bay Program achieved 42 percent
(78,260 acres) of its long-term
goal to restore 185,000 acres of
submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) necessary to achieve
Chesapeake Bay water quality
standards, compared to 21 percent
(38,211 acres) in 1984.
To achieve water quality stan-
dards in the Chesapeake Bay as
soon as possible, EPA is committed
to increasing the current pace of
restoration. Working with its Bay
Program partners, the Agency will
make the most cost-effective use of
Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
available regulatory, incentive, and
voluntary tools; identify opportu-
nities to reduce nutrient and
sediment loads; and find new
economies and innovations to
accelerate progress dramatically.
A key strategy to reduce nutrient
discharges is implementing
advanced wastewater treatment.
Another key strategy to reduce
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sedi-
ment loadings is restoring and
protecting riparian forests that
prevent sediment and nutrient
pollution from entering waterways
from the land. Implementing best
agricultural management practices
to reduce nutrients and sediment
is also key to achieving Bay goals,
and EPA will work closely with
the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture to promote these efforts.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 4.15: EPA did not meet its
FY 2006 goal of restoring acres
of SAV to 90,000, as it missed
targets for reducing the nutrient
(phosphorus and nitrogen) and
sediment pollution loads that play a
crucial role in restoring SAV. The
FY 2006 target for SAV was devel-
oped in accordance with an
ambitious timeframe that reflects
deadlines for 2010 established in
Chesapeake 2000 agreements.
To develop the targets included
in its 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan, EPA conducted a "reality-
check" assessment of timeframes for
accomplishing long-term goals. The
FY 2011 target for achieving 45
percent (83,250 acres) of the SAV
restoration goal is ambitious, yet
realistically reflects this assessment.
GULF OF MEXICO
The National Coastal
Condition Report II released in
2005 describes the ecological and
environmental conditions in U.S.
coastal waters. It represents a
coordinated effort among EPA,
NOAA, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and coastal states. The
2005 Coastal Condition Report
was based on data collected from a
variety of federal, state, and local
sources, most notably EPA's
National Coastal Assessment
Program. These data sets include
samples taken from 1997 to 2000
at more than 191 locations across
the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting
ecological assessment of the Gulf
shows estuaries to be in fair condi-
tion. The condition of the Gulf
of Mexico improved from 1.9
in the 2001 report to 2.4 in the
2005 report. There is a data gap
of 2 years, with the next report to
be released in 2007.
In 2006, the coast-wide extent
of the Gulf of Mexico's hypoxic
zone was mapped at 17,280 square
kilometers (6,662 square miles).
The low-oxygen waters extended
from near the Mississippi River
to the Louisiana-Texas border.
The 5-year running average from
2002-2006 is now 14,994, up from
the previous average of 14,128.
Overall National Coastal Condition
Overall National
Coastal Condition
Area of Bottom Hypoxia, Gulf of Mexico, July 21 -28, 2006
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
EXPLANATION OF MISSED GOAL (SEE SECTION
11.2 FOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 4.16: This goal was not met due to an increase in
the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Seasonal forma-
tion of hypoxia is influenced by discharges and nutrient
loads of Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. The larger
hypoxic zone in summer 2006 was attributed to nitrate
loading in May. While there was a lower-than-average
Mississippi River flow in 2006, the higher nitrate loading
in May 2006 resulted in a larger hypoxic zone.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 4.3:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Chesapeake Bay Program—Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better
Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, October 28, 2005.
Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-20.
GRANTS: Section 320 of the Clean Water Act provides for annual
grants to NEPs. NEPs have been very effective at leveraging this "base"
grant funding by building relationships with diverse private, local, state,
and federal partners
Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) are critical for build-
ing state, tribal and local government capacity to protect and manage
wetlands. 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 activities.
The Great Lakes National Program Office program issues state and trib-
al grants for Lake-wide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans
(addressing Areas of Concern). The program issues competitive grants
addressing Pollution Prevention and Reduction, Habitat (Ecological)
Protection and Restoration, Invasive Species, and Strategic or Emerging
Issues, Atmospheric Deposition, Fish Contaminants, and Biology. The
program also addresses contaminated sediments through grants and
through project agreements pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
CWA Section I I7(e) grants fund the full range of state water quality
nutrient reduction programs. 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.
Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants funding goes to local govern-
ments and watershed organizations to restore wetlands, create riparian
buffers, protect undeveloped lands, and improve citizen awareness. All
of these outcomes will reduce nutrients and sediments that will help
improve water clarity, which will improve SAV habitat.
Targeted Watershed Initiative grants support nitrogen reduction in the
Mississippi River Basin, with a special emphasis on support for innova-
tive programs allowing trading of nutrient reductions.
PART: The Chesapeake Bay Program is being assessed in the 2006 PART
process and results will be included in the FY 2008 Presidents Budget
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/
http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/sedrem.html
Achievements in the Gulf of Mexico
With the support of numerous federal, state,
local, and private partners, the Gulf of Mexico
Program in FY 2006 reduced impaired water-
body listings in the I 3 priority areas of the
Gulf of Mexico by 20 percent.This achieve-
ment is largely attributable to measures the
program has taken to improve states' science
and monitoring capabilities, advancing their
ability to identify and remediate excess
sources of non-point source pollution.
In FY 2006, the Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
Observing System went "live' in South Florida.
Launched in collaboration with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
U.S. Geological Survey, and the National
Aeronautic and Space Administration, the
HABs system is recognized as a flagship model
coastal ocean monitoring application for the
Gulf Coast Ocean Observing System, currently
used to identify and track Red Tide outbreaks
in South Florida.The HABs system will provide
state public health agencies with more effective
tools for protecting the public from respiratory
risks along affected bathing beaches and poten-
tial consumption of poisoned shellfish. In FY
2007, the application helps support HABs mon-
itoring in South Texas and Veracruz, MX.
To advance best management practices for
reducing nutrient discharges and loadings to
the Mississippi River Basin, the Gulf of Mexico
Program helped to establish a four-region
(Dallas, Atlanta, Kansas City, and Chicago),
two-office (Office of Water and Gulf of
Mexico Program) cooperative.The cooperative
is expected more effectively to engage major
Mississippi River Basin agricultural producers
in the Gulf Hypoxia Reduction Program.
The Gulf Program exceeded its cumulative goal
to restore, protect, or enhance coastal and
marine habitats by 3,000 acres for FY 2006. In
collaboration with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Coastal
Restoration Program, the Corporate Wetlands
Restoration Program,The Nature Conservancy,
and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
the Gulf Program has reached 16,458 acres T
toward a 20,000 acre goal by 2009.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 a better
understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 4 •
EPA's research programs
continue to conduct leading-
edge research to provide a sound
scientific foundation for EPA's
goal of protecting, sustaining, and
restoring the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
In FY 2006, EPA developed
an interactive watershed toolkit
(Watershed Health Assessment
Tools Investigating Fisheries—
What If ) to assist environmental
managers in developing and
implementing solutions to restore
damaged areas and protect aquatic
systems. By linking habitat quality
and aquatic ecosystem response
models with a regional hydro-
logic model that simulates habitat
characteristics, managers can
determine how fisheries would
develop under differing manage-
ment scenarios.
EPA also completed research
to identify the species of mold
responsible for causing and exac-
erbating asthma. This work is
important for understanding
human health risks and develop-
ing effective mitigation strategies
following natural disasters.
Human health researchers also
developed biological models that
will help evaluate human risk of
exposure to environmental pollu-
tants such as arsenic, based on
experimental evidence from labo-
ratory animals. Collaborative
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
Validating Assays for Endocrine Disrupters
Human Health Risk Assessment Research
Research on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
Homeland Security Research
Goal Not Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
Goal Met for FY 2006
Goal Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2005
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 174-177. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See page B-13 I at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
efforts with other federal agencies
have also identified the potential
non-residential sources of expo-
sures for several environmental
agents known to produce develop-
mental toxicity. This information
is essential for risk managers
responsible for developing mitiga-
tion and prevention strategies to
prevent unnecessary exposure to
toxic materials in non-residential
settings.
Research under EPA's pesti-
cides and toxics research program
is directly influencing regulatory
actions and risk assessment deci-
sions. Research identifying
pesticides to which the young are
uniquely sensitive was critical to
EPA's decisions to cancel or
reduce household and agricultural
uses of selected cholinesterase-
inhibiting pesticides and to collect
data on comparative sensitivity to
further evaluate the risk to infants
and children. EPA created and
validated a model for assessing the
fate and transport of organophos-
phates as they move from natural
source waters through municipal
water treatment plants. Further,
EPA created a cross-laboratory
working group on perfluorinated
chemicals (PFCs) research to
foster communication and collab-
oration. PFC research products on
characterizing the developmental
toxicity and exposure levels in
animals, developing analytical
methods for characterizing their
environmental distribution, and
determining their environmental
degradation have been incorporat-
ed into EPA's risk assessments.
Additionally, EPA research found
the first evidence for escape of
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
GOAL 4: OBJECTIVE 4—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands]
Chemical,
Organism, and
Pesticide Risks
Ecosystems
Communities 15%
20% ($201,189.7)
($276,470.5)
FY 2006 Costs:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands]
Communities Ecosystems
2 I % 14%
($259,481.7) ($173,625.4)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget. Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJE
'006 OBLIGATIOr
$430,
$2
TOTAL
$427,138.5
$410,018.7
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
engineered genes from genetically
modified (GM) crops into wild
plant populations within the
United States. Experimental
protocols will be used to help
inform regulatory decisions regard-
ing the environmental safety of
GM crops.
In the study of endocrine
disrupters, EPA scientists have
developed cell lines and receptor
binding assays to measure a chem-
ical's ability to interact with
estrogen (female hormone) and
androgen (male hormone) recep-
tors. Additional research has
identified the best parameters to
use from these assays to develop
Quantitative Structure Activity
Relationship models to predict
whether an untested chemical
may interfere with these hor-
mones. EPA's research is leading
to the development of a "tool
box" of assays and computational
models that could be used to pri-
oritize and screen large numbers of
chemicals for their potential to
interfere with normal estrogenic
and androgenic activity, without
having to use large numbers of
laboratory animals.
To support homeland security
efforts, EPA developed several
tools, protocols and tested numer-
ous technologies through the
National Homeland Security
Research Center that are being
used by many federal, state and
local organizations. EPA devel-
oped a decision support tool
(DST) for disposing of residues
from the decontamination of
buildings and water systems.
The DST was successfully used
in response to Hurricane Katrina
to assess and locate landfill capac-
ity within the affected regions.
The decision to discontinue the
burning of debris in favor of
demolishing structures was based
on the tool's estimates of landfill
capacity. The DST also was used
during the anthrax response of
2006 to generate a list of incinera-
tors and landfills. However, under
the direction of EPA, the contam-
inated material was sent to and
processed at an autoclave in
Oneonta, NY to sterilize the
wastes according to procedures
developed by EPA. Additionally,
in the immediate aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, EPA quickly
modified its Emergency Conse-
quence Assessment Tool to
evaluate risks to human health
caused by the flooding. As a
result, regional public health offi-
cials had instant access to critical
information and were able to
implement actions to protect pub-
lic health from contaminants
including vibrio cholera, tetanus,
E. coli, hepatitis, shigella (dysen-
tery), and vibrio vulnificus. EPA
also tested multiple methods for
fumigating buildings contaminat-
ed with B. anthracis spores. The
results of these tests contributed
to the method used for mold
fumigation in Louisiana and
Mississippi in response to flooding
and for EPA's development of new
or modified registration claims
against B. anthracis spores for
building decontamination. EPA
also tested several low-cost liquids
for the decontamination of H5N1
viruses on indoor and outdoor
materials.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 4, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
EPA's mercury research
program continues to increase
the accuracy, precision, and
effectiveness of continuous
emission monitors. This work
is critically important to the
implementation of the Clean
Air Mercury Rule (CAMR),
since it will assist EPA, states,
and utilities in ensuring that
necessary reductions will occur
if certain technologies are
installed. In 2006, the program
conducted field tests of various
mercury monitoring technologies
at coal-fired utilities to demon-
strate their ability to achieve
required CAMR performance
specifications. Additionally, EPA
is evaluating the effectiveness of
CAMR in protecting the envi-
ronment and human health by
collecting and analyzing mercury
deposition data to study whether
mercury "hot spots" already exist
and may occur in the future as
CAMR is implemented.
EPA continues to conduct
research to understand the
implications of global change—
particularly climate change and
variability—for air and water
quality, ecosystems, and human
health in the United States. The
program also leads EPA's partici-
pation in the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program
(CCSP), which coordinates cli-
mate change research among
federal agencies and produces
statutorily mandated assessments
of the state of climate change sci-
ence. The program is producing
two of the high-priority CCSP
Synthesis and Assessment
Products that address some of the
CCSP's highest priority research
and decision support needs.
In 2006, EPA's human health
risk assessment program delivered
16 Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) assessments to
interagency or external peer
review, along with 25 Provisional
Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values
and three microbial risk assess-
ments. Additionally, the program
completed the Ozone Air Quality
Criteria Document (AQCD) to
support EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation's National Ambient
Air Quality Standards regulatory
decision-making, and it is com-
pleting the first external review of
the lead AQCD. The Hazardous
Organic NESHAP relied on
dozens of IRIS assessments, includ-
ing those for ethylene oxide,
butadiene, benzene, acrolein,
toluene, and maleic anhydride.
Global Climate Change Research
EPA's Global Change Research Program developed a Climate
Assessment Tool that has been incorporated into BASINS, a multi-
purpose environmental analysis system that regional, state, and local
agencies use to study watershed and water quality.The Climate
Assessment Tool will help managers understand how water resources
could be affected by a range of potential changes in climate and consid-
er the effectiveness of management practices to increase the resilience
of water resources to changes in climate.
Climate change influences the amount and quality of water available to
meet human needs and, therefore, can affect a community's ability to
meet the requirements of EPA's Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Control Policy. EPA completed research in 2006 to characterize the
impact of climate change on CSO mitigation efforts in the Great Lakes
and New England regions. Results suggest that projected climate change
will reduce the effectiveness of CSO abatement measures based on his-
torical precipitation characteristics.
Every day, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) discharge billions
of gallons of effluent to water bodies throughout the United States.
Because POTW design and operating costs are closely tied to climato-
logical conditions in the areas they serve, climate change may have
important implications over long POTW lifetimes. In 2006, EPA complet-
ed a study that characterized the potential effects of climate change on
operating costs at 147 POTWs that are discharging to impaired rivers
and streams in the Great Lakes Region. Results suggest that climate
change could have a significant effect on two of EPA's most important
water programs-the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permitting and POTW financing through the State Revolving Fund.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's recently completed
Report on the Environment
describes the current status of the
human health and the environ-
ment using scientifically sound
data. This data should ultimately
enable the Agency to better artic-
ulate its strategic objectives in
terms of measurable, meaningful
environmental outcomes.
EXPLANATION OF MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2
FOR PERFORMANCE
RESULTS AND TREND
INFORMATION):
APQ 4.17: The endocrine
disrupter assay program discovered
a requirement for additional
scientific and technical evaluation
that had not been anticipated in
the original schedule for develop-
ing these assays (e.g., aromatase,
steroidogenesis, androgen
binding). The program also
faced unanticipated delays in
international decisions on assays
being validated in coordination
with the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (e.g.,
estrogen and androgen binding
assays). Data are now available for
several of the assays that were
delayed because of scientific and
technical issues, and the schedule
for OECD participation is now
better understood. Using the
FY 2004 PART evaluation as a
basis, the program has reassessed
its performance measures to
account for these developments.
The results of this process are
reflected in EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 4.4:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Subcommittee on Global Change
Research: Review of ORD's Global
Change Research Program at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A-21.
GRANTS: Columbia Center for Children's
Environmental Health. This research used
biomarkers to estimate internal dose of
exposure to environmental agents and
was the first study to employ such bio-
markers of prenatal exposure to assess
the effectiveness of the integrated pest
management approach for reducing pest
infestation levels.
Reducing Uncertainty in Children's Risk
Assessment. This research generated the
first published physiologically based phar-
macokinetic model for a pyrethroid
insecticide. This research developed a
quantitative approach to estimate internal
dose following external exposure that will
facilitate the dose-response analysis and
risk assessment of a class of insecticides
in high use by the American public.
PART: The Human Health Research
Program was assessed in the 2005 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate."
In response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions which include
developing ambitious long-term performance
targets that clearly define the outcomes that
would represent a successful program. The
program is also participating in a workgroup
comprising representatives from OMB, ORD,
and the BOSC to develop long-term meas-
ures derived from an independent panel
review process.
The Ecological Research Program was first
assessed in the 2003 PART process and
initially received a rating of "results not
demonstrated." The program was reassessed
in the 2005 PART process and received a
rating of "ineffective." In response to the
PART process the program is conducting
follow-up actions, which include refining the
questions used in independent scientific
reviews to improve EPA's understanding of
program utility and performance in relation
to environmental outcomes.
The Endocrine Disrupters Research Program
was assessed in the 2004 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response
to the PART process, the program is conduct-
ing follow-up actions which include clearly
articulating R&D priorities to ensure com-
pelling, merit-based justifications for funding
allocations. The program's priorities are
now clearly articulated in the Endocrine
Disrupters Research Plan and a more
detailed Multi-Year Plan in which priorities
are specifically detailed from 2000 to 2012.
The Global Change Research Program is
being assessed in the 2006 PART process
and results will be included in the FY 2008
President's Budget.
The Human Health Risk Assessment Program
is being assessed in the 2006 PART process
and results will be included in the FY 2008
President's Budget.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/ord/
http://www.epa.gOV/o rd/htm/
researchstrategies.htm
NOTES
1. The "fairly poor" rating for the benthic health component of the Great Lakes Index has not changed. Invasive species, particularly
zebra and/or quagga mussels, are altering nutrient cycling in the environment and are likely linked to a re-emergence of nuisance
algae on Great Lakes beaches and a major decline of the salmon fishery in Lake Huron. Responding to results from the GLNPO
biological monitoring program, fisheries managers have cut back salmon stocking numbers in Lake Huron because there is
insufficient food for the salmon. These problems are being investigated through monitoring and a proposed request for proposals.
2. Watershed Health Assessment Tools Investigating Fisheries: http://www.epa.gov/athens/research/modeling/cvi_files/
WHAT%20IF%20factsheet.pdf#search=%22Watershed%20Health%20Assessment%20Tools%20Investigating%20Fisheries%20%
E2%80%93%20What%20If%22.
-------
L? JL
nvironmental Stewardship
•- .
Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental 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.
Goal Purpose
EPA ensures that government,
business, and the public comply
with federal laws and regulations by
monitoring compliance and taking
enforcement actions that result in
reduced pollution and improved
environmental management prac-
tices. To accelerate the nation's
environmental protection efforts,
EPA works to prevent pollution at
the source, to advance other forms
of environmental stewardship, and
to employ the tools of innovation
and collaboration.
Effective compliance assistance
and strong, consistent enforcement
are critical to achieving the human
health and environmental benefits
expected from our environmental
laws. EPA monitors compliance
patterns and trends and focuses on
priority problem areas identified in
consultation with states, tribes, and
other partners. The Agency supports
the regulated community by assisting
regulated entities in understanding
environmental requirements, helping
Clean Air Act Settlement: Cargill, Inc.
EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a Clean Air Act (CAA) settle-
ment with Cargill, Inc. that addresses CAA violations at 27 facilities in 5 EPA
regions and requires a cumulative reduction of 24,950 tons of pollutants per
year. Under the settlement, Cargill, Inc. will install or optimize pollution con-
trols for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and solvents.
This settlement results in environmental performance for solvent levels better
than that required under the CAA Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Standard for oilseed plants. Cargill's North Dakota facility will install $4.4 million
in better pollution control equipment. One of Cargill's Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs) will eliminate gaseous sulfur dioxide at corn mill
plants in Blair, Nebraska; Cedar Rapids and Eddyville, Iowa; Dayton, Ohio; and
Memphis,Tennessee. Other SEPs will reduce VOC and hazardous air pollutants in
Memphis,Tennessee and eliminate emissions of ozone-depleting substances in
Eddyville, Iowa and Blair, Nebraska, helping to protect people from skin cancer.
Community-based SEPs will improve air quality through the Mid-South Clean Air
Coalition diesel retrofit program in Shelby County,Tennessee. Cargill will also
conduct dune and wetland restoration projects in Eddyville and Cedar Rapids,
Iowa. Nationwide, settlements with Cargill will result in emission reductions of
nearly 1.2 million pounds ofVOCs and 400,000 pounds of carbon monoxide.The
cumulative civil penalty amount agreed to is $1.6 million and $4.4 million in SEPs.
(Data Source: US EPA. Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS),
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html.)
them identify cost-effective compli-
ance options and strategies, and
providing incentives for compliance.
EPA promotes the principles
of responsible environmental
stewardship, sustainability, and
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
accountability to achieve its
strategic goals. Collaborating
closely with other federal agen-
cies, states, and tribes, the
Agency identifies and promotes
innovations that assist businesses
and communities in improving
their environmental performance.
EPA works to improve and
encourage pollution prevention
and sustainable practices, helping
businesses and communities move
beyond compliance and become
partners in protecting our nation-
al resources and improving the
environment and our citizens'
health. It works with businesses
to increase energy efficiency, find
environmentally preferable substi-
tutes for chemicals of concern,
and change processes to reduce
toxic waste. EPA promotes
improved communication
through data sharing and collabo-
ration and conducts research on
pollution prevention, new and
developing technologies, social
and economic issues, and decision
making to help promote environ-
mental stewardship. EPA also
works with other nations as they
develop their own environmental
protection programs, leading to
lower levels of pollution in the
United States and worldwide.
Improving environmental
performance in Indian country is
an important component of the
Agency's efforts to ensure compli-
ance and promote stewardship
under this goal. EPA continues
to support approximately
513 federally recognized tribes
in assessing environmental condi-
tions on their lands and building
environmental programs tailored
to their needs. The first stewards
of America's environment, tribes,
provide an invaluable perspective
on environmental protection,
which benefits and strengthens all
of our stewardship programs.
Contributing Programs
Compliance Assistance Program
Compliance Incentives Program
Monitoring and Enforcement
Program
Toxic Substances Compliance
Grant Program
Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
Sector Grant Program
Pollution Prevention Program
State and Tribal Pollution
Prevention Grants
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
Economic Decision Sciences
Research
Sustainability Research
IN THE YEARS AHEAD. ..
EPA's annual performance goals are stepping stones to longer-range results.These results are specified in a series of
"Strategic Targets" that lay out the work we intend to accomplish over the next several years to achieve our objec-
tives under Goal S. Meeting our annual performance goals moves us closer to such Strategic Targets as:
By 201 I, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through enforcement and other
compliance assurance activities by achieving a S percent increase in the pounds of pollutants reduced, treated or
eliminated by regulated entities, including those in Indian country. (Baseline: 3-year rolling average FYs 2003-2005:
900,000,000 pounds.)
By 201 I, save $791.9 million through pollution prevention improvements in business, institutional, and governmen-
tal costs cumulatively compared to the 2002 baseline of $0.0 saved.
By 201 I, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from waste streams as measured by National Partnership
for Environmental Priorities contributions, Supplemental Environmental Projects, and other tools used by EPA to
achieve priority chemical reductions.
By 201 I,the participating manufacturing and service sectors in the Sector Strategies Program will achieve an
aggregate 10 percent reduction in environmental releases to air, water, and land working from a 2004 baseline and
normalized to reflect economic growth. (Baseline and normalization factors to be developed in December 2006.)
By 201 I, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal environmental programs in Indian country to
9 percent. (FY 2005 baseline: 5 percent of 572 tribes.)
For a complete list of strategic targets, see EPA's new 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/htm.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
FY 2OO6
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS (APGs)
Met = 1 Not Met = 6
Data Available After
November 15, 2006= 1
(Total APGs = 8)
Qoal 5 At a Qlance
FY 2006 Obligations
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
(in thousands)
GoalS
8%
Goal I I ^ ($800,006.7)
10%
($997,005.7) Goa| 4
13%
($1,373,992.9)
Goal 2
33%
($3,338,108.8) Goa| 3
36%
($3,697,844.8)
FY 2006 Costs
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
(in thousands)
GoalS
9%
-($770,477.9)
GOAL 5 FY 2OO6 PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE 1— IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
l^k By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the
jA environment through compliance assistance, compliance incentives,
mmi0^^^ anc' enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of
'"•r| pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5 percent
'*X increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements
in environmental management practices.
OBJECTIVE 2— IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND INNOVATION
3 By 2008, improve environmental protection and enhance natural
resource conservation on the part of government, business, and
the public through the adoption of pollution prevention and sustain-
able 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.
jsxp^ OBJECTIVE 3— BUILD TRIBAL CAPACITY
^PjijsWi Through 2008, assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing the
1 HEJI condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to
•PP^Dw implement environmental programs where needed to improve trib-
^Qdj£3X al health and environments, and implement programs in Indian
country where needed to address environmental issues.
, T| ' OBJECTIVE 4— ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
|J L^^^^ Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research sup-
*£ ^B porting environmental policies and decisions on compliance,
^%—^f^ pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
1 Goal Met
2 Goals Not
Met
1 Data
Available
After
11/15/06
2 Goals Not
Met
1 Goal Not
Met
1 Goal Not
Met
D^^E&W^SI
$513,705.4
$130,492.3
$80,197.8
$75,611.2
•fiSE^9
$489,415.2
$123,829.1
$80,905.1
$76,328.2
GOAL 5 TOTAL 8 APGs $800,006.7 1 $770,477.6
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objective I
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1— IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
S.I
5.2
5.3
Regulated Communities
Compliance Incentives
Non-Compliance Reduction
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through compliance assistance,
compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced,
treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5 percent increase in the number of regulated entities making
improvements in environmental management practices.
EPA provides assistance to
help members of the regulated
community understand environ-
mental regulations, improve their
environmental management
practices (EMPs), and reduce the
amount of pollution they produce
or discharge. The Agency offers
compliance assistance directly,
through onsite visits and training,
and through its Compliance
Assistance Centers. EPA uses
inspections, investigations, and
enforcement actions to identify
egregious violations and return
violators to compliance as quickly
as possible, greatly reducing
impacts on sensitive populations.
To increase compliance and
improve EMPs, EPA encourages
facilities to identify, disclose,
and correct violations through
incentives such as reduced or
eliminated penalties.
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 178-ISO.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its
performance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages
B-90-B-108 at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
EPA's progress toward this
objective can be demonstrated
through a few key performance
accomplishments. EPA has
reduced, treated, or eliminated
890 million pounds of pollution
through enforcement actions in
FY 2006. That represents an
increase of 97.78 percent over the
performance target of 450 million
pounds. EPA significantly exceeded
the FY 2006 performance target of
Millions of Pounds of Pollutants Reduced
Through EnforcementActions
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fiscal Year
450 million pounds of pollutants
due to a greater than anticipated
pollutant reduction from Clean Air
Act settlements that account for
nearly 50 percent of the total 890
million pound pollutant reduction
reported this year. Pollutant reduc-
tion totals show large variations
from year to year due to the fact
that reductions tend to be driven
by the results in a few very large
cases. For additional information
on recent air enforcement cases,
please visit EPA's web site:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
resources/cases/index.html. As a
result of concluded enforcement
actions, violators have committed
to spending $5 billion dollars to
improve their environmental
performance or improve their
EMPs. Seventy-four percent of
facilities receiving direct compli-
ance assistance from EPA have
improved their EMPs.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
GOAL 5: OBJECTIVE I—IMPROVE COMPLIANCE—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Improve Compliance
(in thousands]
FY 2006 Costs:
Improve Compliance
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research
Build Tribal »7;
Capacity
Enhance Science
and Research
10%
($76,328.2)
Build Tribal
Capacity
11%
($80,905.1)
Improve *
Environmental'
Performance
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget. Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
FY 2006 OBLIGATION.
FY 2006 COSTS
77.1
TOTAL
$513,705.4
$2
$489,415.2
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To measure and communicate
its enforcement and compliance
assurance performance results
more effectively, EPA is examin-
ing ways to move toward a
problem-based approach. Cur-
rently, the compliance objective
tracks results associated with
EPA's four tools for improving
and maintaining compliance:
compliance assistance, incentives,
monitoring, and enforcement.
While this approach clearly
communicates the strategies we
use, linking the results of these
tools directly to changes in
environmental conditions and
human health is challenging. By
altering enforcement and compli-
ance assurance performance
measures to focus on environmen-
tal compliance problems (for
example, wet weather or air toxics
noncompliance), it will be possi-
ble to more clearly link results to
precise changes in environmental
conditions. If preliminary studies
show that we can demonstrate
environmental results in a more
compelling way, EPA may develop
new performance measures and
long-term strategic sub-objectives
that focus on environmental and
human health problems for the
Agency's 2009-20J4 Strategic Plan.
OECA Enforcement Efficiency Measures
3 17,067
288,077
$2,882,426J
.256,536
173,145.
$1,118,504
$1,382,767
$1,441,213
74.8M $836'868
EXPLANATION OF THE MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND
TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 5.2: Pollutant reductions
through compliance incentives
vary widely from year to year
based on a small number of audit
settlements. In FY 2006, the
Agency did not meet the perform-
ance target for the pounds of
pollutants reduced as a result of
audits because fewer facilities
reporting large pollutant reduc-
tions chose to participate in this
voluntary compliance incentive
program in FY 2006 than initially
anticipated when the Agency set
our 0.4 million pound target. EPA
determines appropriate perform-
ance targets for the enforcement
and compliance assurance pro-
gram based on past performance.
In FY 2005, EPA reduced a record
1.9 million pounds of pollutants
through compliance incentives
due to a single audit settlement
that reduced pollution by an esti-
mated 1.5 million pounds. To
increase the pounds of pollutants
reduced through the EPA compli-
ance incentive program in future
years, the Agency will be explor-
ing ways to increase the number
of facilities participating in this
program by encouraging compa-
nies to participate in our program
following mergers and acquisi-
tions, which are often some of the
largest pollutant reduction audit
settlements from participants in
our program.
EPA did not meet the per-
formance target for the percentage
of cases that require pollutant
reductions because of a one-time
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
initiative by which the Agency
reached 2,568 enforcement settle-
ments with farms that chose
to participate in the Animal
Feeding Operations (AFO) Air
Compliance Agreement for
Animal Feeding Operations.
The Agency is currently unable
to accurately calculate pollutant
reductions for a new type of pollu-
tant reduction associated with
animal feeding operations
non-compliance under the Clean
Air Act that represents forty
percent of our cases this year. In
order to accurately estimate the
percent of cases requiring pollu-
tants to be reduced, treated, or
eliminated for animal feeding
operations in FY 2006, EPA will
conduct a two-year monitoring
study to estimate the air emissions
from AFOs and determine indi-
vidual AFO emissions under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA
would have met this performance
target if the result for this measure
excludes animal feeding operation
cases for which data are currently
unavailable until FY 2008.
APQ 5.3: EPA missed the
performance target for complying
actions taken during on-site
inspections and evaluations due to
low levels of complying actions.
The absolute number of facilities
that took complying actions
reported went from 947 in
FY 2005 to 1,234 in FY2006. The
percentage of complying actions
reported went down because
the number of facilities with a
deficiency increased by 50 percent
—from 5,061 to 7,749. While
inspectors communicated
deficiencies to 7,749 facilities,
not all deficiencies can be corrected
immediately. The data shows a
wide range between media
programs, indicative of whether
deficiencies associated with a
specific program can be corrected
immediately. For example, results
for complying actions taken
during mobile source inspections
and evaluations fluctuate greatly
from year to year from 80 percent
in 2003 to 4 percent in FY 2006.
The Agency plans to take the
following steps to address the
failure to meet the performance
target by expanding the type of
corrective actions reported to
include those which occur after
the inspector leaves and prior
to an enforcement action
and reevaluating the appropriate-
ness of this measure for specific
programs.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE I:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
EPA Performance Measures Do Not
Effectively Track Compliance Outcomes.
Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A-21.
GRANTS: Categorical Grants—
Pesticides Enforcement; Toxic Substance
Compliance.
PART: The EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws (Civil) program was first
assessed in the 2002 PART process and
initially received a rating of "results not demon-
strated." The program was reassessed in the
2004 PART process and received a rating of
"adequate." In response to the PART process,
the program is conducting follow-up actions
which include developing questions and criteria
for evaluating the civil enforcement program
and identifying potential outside independent
ponies to conduct the evaluation. The program
is also evaluating the historical use of recidi-
vism rates in the civil enforcement program to
determine whether to begin using the measure
again.
The Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Criminal) was first assessed in the 2003
PART process and received a rating of "results
not demonstrated." The program was
reassessed in the 2004 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response to
the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include developing
recidivismbaselines and targets for criminal
enforcement.
The Pesticide Enforcement Grant
program was assessed in the 2004 PART
process and received a rating of "ineffective."
In response to the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions which included
finalizing outcome performance measures in
March 2005 and negotiating state and tribal
cooperative agreements in 2006. The pro-
gram will also develop baseline and targets
for the performance measures and will evalu-
ate the cost-effectiveness of the program.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/
results/index.html
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Strategic Objectiv<
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 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.
During fiscal year 2006,
EPA made significant progress in
encouraging government, busi-
ness, and the public to adopt
pollution prevention and sustain-
able practices; in reducing reg-
ulatory barriers; and in promoting
results-based, innovative, and
multimedia approaches. Progress
was particularly notable with
respect to preventing pollution at
the source: As of early November
2006, businesses, institutions,
and governments participating
in EPA's pollution prevention
programs reduced their use of haz-
ardous materials by 482.7 million
pounds, reduced their use of
energy by 13.3 trillion BTUs, and
conserved 5.0 billion gallons of
water—exceeding associated
2006 performance targets while
achieving $20.6 million in cost
savings.1'2
These substantial pollution
prevention results were achieved
entirely through EPA-directed
voluntary and collaborative
action. For example:
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2—IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND INNOVATION
5.4
5.5
5.6
Reducing PBTs in Hazardous Waste Streams
Reduction of Industrial /Commercial Chemicals
Innovation Activities
FY 2006 Data Available in FY 2008
X Goal Not Met for FY 2004
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
X Goal Not Met for FY 2004
X Goal Not Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures: Detailed
Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 180-182. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its performance are
described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages B-I35-B-I47 at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
In response to the Presidential
Green Chemistry Challenge,
businesses and academia
developed safer chemicals and
processes.
In response to the Federal
Electronics Challenge, gov-
ernment agencies increased
their purchasing of environ-
mentally preferable products.
Through the Green Suppliers
Network, the National
Institute of Standards and
Technology expanded the
Lean Manufacturing business
paradigm and associated
technical assistance to
include pollution prevention
practices.
• Under the Design for the
Environment Program, part-
ners collaborated to develop
safer and effective substitutes
for tin lead solder and safer
detergents.
These results were accom-
plished despite numerous
challenges. While many were
overcome, some will require
further effort:
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
GOAL 5: OBJECTIVE 2—IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH
POLLUTION PREVENTION AND INNOVATION—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Improve Environmental Performance Through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
(in thousands]
FY 2006 Costs:
Improve Environmental Performance Through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation
(in thousands]
Enhance Science
and Research —
Enhance Science
and Research —
Build Tribal
Capacity -
10%
($80,197.8)
Improve
Environmental
Performance
Improve
Compliance
65%
($513,705.4)
Build Tribal
Capacity -
11%
($80,905.1)
Improve
Environmental
Performance
16%
($123,829.1)
Improve
Compliance
63%
($489,415.2)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
FY 2006 OBLIGATIONS FY 2006 COSTS
PROGRAM PROJECT
$37,2
$1
TOTAL
$130,492.2
$123,829.1
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA needs consistent, reliable
performance information from
all components of its
Pollution Prevention Program,
including its ten regional
offices and numerous state
pollution prevention pro-
grams. The Agency made
significant progress on this
front in FY 2006 by imple-
menting the State P2 Results
Reporting System under a
cooperative agreement with
the National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable.
The reporting system will
provide initial data covering
2004 and 2005 in the spring
of 2007 and will provide 2006
and subsequent years' results
approximately a year after the
close of each calendar year.
EXPLANATION OF THE
MISSED GOAL (SEE
SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 5.5: The Pollution
Prevention program no longer
collects data on these performance
measures and are developing new
metrics under the PART process
that are "intervention-based",
which track results of the pro-
gram's direct interactions with its
business, government, and institu-
tional customers and provide
more useful data on program
performance and management.
Therefore this goal is not met due
to data collection interruption.
Delayed 2004 data from EPA's
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program is designed
capture the mercury switches from old automobiles that wind up in scrap
yards to be shredded and melted to make new steel. Mercury switches
contribute at least half of the mercury emitted by electric arc furnaces,
which are the nation's fourth largest source of mercury air emissions.
Removing the switches can help to prevent the mercury emissions that
result from steel manufacturing—up to 75 tons of mercury emissions over
the next 15 years.3 Working with the Agency's Offices of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation; Air; and Solid Waste, the Pollution Prevention Division of
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, provided the expertise
needed to build an effective pollution prevention program around this
environmental issue.
reporting system made available
in FY 2006 indicated that (after
controlling for production changes
in the U.S. manufacturing sector)
while 106 million pounds of non-
recycled TRI wastes were reduced
in 2004—a 1.8 percent reduction
from 2003 levels—the program
still fell shy of its FY 2004 target
of a 2 percent decline. Due to the
difficulty in making a sufficient
causal connection between
Pollution Prevention (P2) pro-
gram activities and changes
reported in TRI, the Pollution
Prevention Program stopped using
that performance measure in
FY 2005 and has moved away
from TRI-based measures in its
performance measures currently
under development.
ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERABLE
PURCHASING
EPA made considerable
progress in promoting environ-
mentally preferable purchasing
by federal agencies.4 The federal
government is the world's largest
purchaser of information tech-
nology products and services. In
FY 2006, as a result of improve-
ments made in response to EPA's
Federal Electronics Challenge and
use of the Electronics Products
Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT), the federal government
will have decreased its use of
hazardous materials by at least
2.7 million pounds, conserved
250 billion BTUs of energy, and
saved $5.6 million.5 EPA expects
that as EPEAT criteria become a
final American National Standard
in 2006, EPEAT's benefits will
expand significantly in the future,
rising to 18 million pounds,
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
1.6 trillion BTUs, and nearly
$35 million annually by 2011.
Leading by example, EPA
used a blanket purchasing agree-
ment to increase its purchase of
environmentally safer products
and became the first federal
agency to purchase renewable
energy, or "green power," equiva-
lent to 100 percent of its annual
electricity needs. The Agency
totaled nearly 300 million kilo-
watt hours per year of direct green
power delivery or renewable energy
certificates, enough
renewable energy to
provide electricity for
27,970 homes for an
entire year. EPA's total
green power purchases
will offset more than
600 million pounds
of carbon dioxide
annually—an amount
equivalent to that emit-
ted by nearly 54,000
cars over the course of
a year.6
GREEN
SUPPLIERS
NETWORK
EPA's Green Suppliers
Network (GSN) is a collaborative
venture with industry and the
Department of Commerce's
National Institute of Standards
and Technology Manufacturing
Extension Partnerships, Working
with all levels of the manufactur-
ing supply chain, the GSN
achieves environmental, eco-
nomic, and social benefits by
leveraging a national network of
manufacturing technical assis-
tance resources. In FY 2006, the
GSN expanded efforts to include
the aerospace, automotive, health-
care/pharmaceutical, and office
furniture economic sectors. By the
end of 2006, the GSN completed
36 technical reviews, identifyng
over $22.4 million in potential
cost savings from lean and
environmental opportunities.7
PRESIDENTIAL GREEN
CHEMISTRY CHALLENGE
PROGRAM
The Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Program
fosters the development of new
chemistries that cost less, elimi-
nate or reduce hazardous chemical
usage and waste, and eliminate
the need for potentially danger-
ous processes and end-of-pipe
controls. Winners in the program's
five FY 2006 award categories
collectively accounted for 145
million pounds of hazardous
materials reduction. Since its
inception in 1995, the program
has cumulatively reduced haz-
ardous materials by 750 million
pounds and saved 550 million
gallons of water.8
DESIGN FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAM
Collaborating with industry
and nongovernmental organiza-
tions to reduce risk from
chemicals, the Design for the
Environment (DfE) Program pro-
motes opportunities for pollution
prevention and stewardship in
the design and use of chemical
products and formulations. Since
1997, DfE's Formulator Program
has reviewed and recognized more
than 130 products,
leading to reductions in
the use of approximate-
ly 37 million pounds of
hazardous chemicals. In
FY 2006, reductions
resulted specifically
from the use of 22.5
million pounds of safer
laundry detergents and
44 million pounds of
lead-free solder. DfE
Program efficiency has
increased to the point
where the program's
cost per pound of
reduction has fallen to
two cents.9
NATIONAL
PARTNERSHIP FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
PRIORITIES
The National Partnership for
Environmental Priorities (NPEP)
works to reduce priority list chem-
icals in the hazardous waste
stream. During 2006, NPEP
partners committed to reducing
priority chemicals by a total of
1.5 million pounds over the period
2007 to 2011. In June, NPEP
reached a milestone in accepting
Tinker Air Force Base (OK) as its
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
100th partner. Tinker has commit-
ted to reducing over 1,000 pounds
of priority chemicals—including
trifluralin, pendimethalin, naph-
thalene, cadmium, and mercury—
by December 2007 through
replacement of old equipment and
product substitution. In FY 2006,
NPEP also accepted its first
municipal partner; Blacksburg, VA
joined NPEP with a commitment
to reduce 325 pounds of priority
chemicals by implementing a
comprehensive chemical manage-
ment plan in facilities throughout
the municipality.
EXPLANATION OF THE MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND
TREND INFORMATION):
AQP 5.4: The FY 2006 results for
priority chemical reduction are
not currently available due to a
two-year lag in data reported in
the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI). As of August 2006, actual
reductions reported for FY 2004
totaled 941,000 pounds against
the target of 1,200,000 pounds.
TRI, NPEP's measurement tool, is
highly influenced by external fac-
tors such as industrial production.
When industrial production
increases, TRI releases and waste
stream numbers tend to increase.
Beginning in 2007, NPEP will
measure progress by program
achievements, rather than by TRI.
The new measure will allow EPA
to more accurately report what
the NPEP program has achieved,
rather than what TRI reports
regarding national industrial pro-
duction trends.
PERFORMANCE TRACK
In FY 2006, Performance
Track members made environ-
mental contributions in all six of
the target areas: water use; energy
use; materials use; solid waste; air
releases; and discharges to water.
As it intended, Performance Track
is showing that facilities of all
types and sizes are willing and able
to identify and commit to impor-
tant, beyond-compliance
environmental performance
improvement opportunities and
to share their results with the
public. In five out of the six target
areas, the number of Performance
Track members demonstrating
improved performance grew
between FY 2005 and FY 2006.
(The number of water use
improvements grew from 80 to
105; energy use improvements
grew from 96 to 129; materials use
improvements grew from 36 to 42;
solid waste improvements
increased from 116 to 127; and
the reductions in air releases grew
from 104 to 113. The number of
improvements under the water
discharge indicators stayed steady
at 19.) In fact, in four out of six
areas, the number of improve-
ments has grown steadily every
year since FY 2003. This growth
reflects not only an increase in
Performance Track membership,
but also the program's increasing
emphasis on key performance
areas.
EXPLANATION OF THE MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND
TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 5.6: In FY 2006, Perfor-
mance Track members with
commitments in the six target
areas demonstrated the following
achievements: 1.7 billion fewer
gallons of water use; 4.3 million
fewer MMBtus of energy use;
24,719 fewer tons of materials
use; 48,200 fewer tons of solid
waste; 24,400 fewer tons of air
releases; and 16,903 fewer tons
of discharges to water.
Three of these results (water
use, materials use, and discharges
to water) meet the program's
specific targets for the year.
Performance Track's APG was to
meet all six targets. In FY 2007,
Performance Track will begin to
report normalized data.
FY 2006 results are not a
factor of fewer positive results, but
of the effect that large facilities
have on the aggregate results.
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Large facilities' use of materials
and their associated impacts can
be many orders of magnitude
larger than those of other facili-
ties, so their annual results,
whether positive or negative, can
easily dominate the overall results.
Similarly, the number "high
magnitude" results contained in a
data set can affect the order of
magnitude of the aggregated
results. For example, this year's
solid waste results contained no
changes (positive or negative)
that exceeded 100,000 tons,
where as the FY 2005 results
contained three such "high mag-
nitude" pieces of data, and the
FY 2000 results contained one. It
is not surprising, then, that
despite the significantly greater
number of improvements shown
by member facilities in FY 2006,
the aggregated results are an
order of magnitude lower than
the target.
As Performance Track does
not dictate members' selection of
commitment indicators, and as it
cannot control the size of the
facilities that apply to the pro-
gram, it cannot be determined
exactly when the program will
meet these targets. However, with
the programs' increasing emphasis
on the target areas as well as a
growing interest in the program
from large companies such as
Intel, the program will believe it
will be on track with the targets
by FY 2007.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 2:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation: An Evaluation of the California
Dairy Quality Assurance Program
(CAQAP) and the Livestock and Poultry
Environmental Stewardship (LPES)
Curriculum. Additional information on this
report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A-22.
GRANTS: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grants and Source Reduction
Assistance Grants contribute directly and
significantly to the 400 million pounds of
hazardous materials use, 900 billion
BTUs of energy use, 1.8 billion gallons of
water use and nearly 40 million dollars
of business, institutional and government
cost reductions targeted by the Pollution
Prevention Program in FY 2006. These
grants are expected to account for 9 per-
cent of the pounds results, 62 percent of
the BTUs results, IS percent of the gal-
lons results, and 40 percent of the cost
savings. These grants also support the
eight Pollution Prevention Resource
Exchange (P2Rx) Centers.
PART: The Pollution Prevention program is
being assessed in the 2006 PART process
and results will be included in the FY 2008
President's Budget
Web Links:
www.epa.gov/oppt
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/
report.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/
minimize/pa rtnership.htm
http://www.greensuppliers.gov
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/
greenchemistry/
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/
greenengineering/
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
http://www.epa.gOV/N etwo rkg
http://www.p2.org/workgroup/
Background.cfm
Build Tribal Capacity
Through 2008, assist all 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.
EPA is working to develop
core tribal environmental
program capacity critical to pro-
tecting human health and the
environment in Indian country
as required by the Indian
General Assistance Program
(GAP) and the EPA Indian
Policy. Tribal capacity-building
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3—BUILD TRIBAL CAPACITY
5.7
Tribal Environmental Baseline/Environmental
Priorities
Goal Not Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages l83-!84.Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its per-
formance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See pages
B-I47-B-I50 at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
performance measures track
EPA's progress toward building
the capacity of Indian tribal
governments and intertribal
consortia to administer environ-
mental management activities
and implement multimedia
programs that address environ-
mental issues in Indian country.
In addition, the Agency works
to establish the internal infra-
structure needed to assess
environmental conditions and
improve environmental steward-
ship in Indian country.
By inclusion of the air quality
system (AQS) air monitoring
database, the national emissions
inventory (NEI, air), and the
Tribal Association of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(TASWER) Hazardous Waste
Sites Database into the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture
(TPEA), the Agency is continu-
ing to meet the commitment to
develop and/or integrate EPA and
interagency data systems to facili-
tate the EPA TPEA information
in setting environmental priorities
and informing policy decisions. In
addition, the Agency's Indian
Environmental GAP is continuing
to eliminate data gaps for environ-
mental conditions for major water,
land, and air programs as deter-
mined through the availability of
information in the EPA TPEA by
including ambient air monitoring,
air toxics, populations served by
community water systems that
meet standards, and population
served by adequate sewer facilities.
The Agency continues to increase
its implementation of environ-
mental programs in Indian
country (cumulative total) as
determined by program delega-
tions, approvals, or primacies, or
by EPA direct implementation,
and in fact exceeded its goal in
FY 2006. In addition, the Agency
will continue to exceed our goal
and increase the number of
EPA-approved quality assurance
environmental monitoring and
assessment activities. Finally,
EPA continues on track to use
agreements with holistic program
integration and traditional use of
natural resources. EPA exceeded
its efficiency measure target
for number of environmental
programs implemented in Indian
country per million dollars.
It is uncertain if EPA will
be able to meet our strategic
objectives of providing all of the
federally-recognized Indian tribes
the capacity and tools to assess
Percent of Tribes with Access to an Environmental Presence
3J"M8J"M I I B
111 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
999
2006
Fiscal Year
their environmental/public health
conditions and building capacity
to implement environmental/
public health programs. Challenges
exist in developing underlying
baseline capacity in a limited
number of tribes; in addition, stabi-
lization in or reduction of available
funding. The Agency continues to
target funding to those areas where
there is the likelihood of environ-
mental/public health improvement.
EXPLANATION OF THE
MISSED GOAL (SEE
SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AND TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 5.7: EPA did not meet the
overall annual performance goal
due to challenges caused by com-
peting funding needs as well as
our need to continue working
with more tribes in capacity
development. Working with the
tribes, the Agency, was unable to
meet the goal of assisting 96 per-
cent of federally recognized Indian
tribes obtain an environmental
presence in Indian country. This
goal provides tribes with the
capacity and tools to protect the
environment and public health in
Indian country, consistent with
EPA's Indian Policy. Missing this
goal means that fewer tribes were
able to obtain an environmental
presence.
The performance measure to
increase tribes ability to develop
environmental program capacity
by ensuring that Federally recog-
nized tribes have access to an
environmental presence achieved
90.4 percent of the 96 percent
promised. Consequently, fewer
tribes had an environmental
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
GOAL 5: OBJECTIVE 3—BUILD TRIBAL CAPACITY—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Build Tribal Capacity
(in thousands)
FY 2006 Costs:
Build Tribal Capacity
Build Tribal
Capacity
10%
($80,197.8)
Improve
Environmental
Performance '
• Enhance Science
and Research
Improve
Compliance
Build Tribal
Capacity
11%
($80,905.1)
Improve
Environmental
Performance '
- Enhance Science
and Research
Improve
Compliance
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJE
2006 OBLIGATIOr
2006 CO!
TOTAL
$80,197.9
$80,905.0
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
presence. The Agency was unable
to meet this measure due to fund-
ing priorities.
The performance measure
to increase the percent of EPA
agreements with tribes that reflect
holistic (multimedia) program
integration and traditional use of
natural resources was not met.
The agency achieved 80 percent
of the targeted 104 percent
promised. We were unable to meet
this measure because some of the
tribes are continuing to focus on a
single program.
The performance measure
tracking the percent of tribes with
EPA-approved multimedia work-
plans achieved 33 percent of the
promised 39 percent. Six percent
was not achieved because some of
the tribes are continuing to focus
on a single area.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The performance measure
of percent of tribes with delegated
and non-delegated programs
achieved 42 percent of the
48 percent promised. The meas-
urement of percent of tribes
does not reflect our continued
efforts to reach out to smaller less
advantaged tribes.
EPA did not meet PART
measures related to the percentage
of tribes with EPA-reviewed
monitoring and assessment occur-
ring, the percentage of tribes with
delegated and non-delegated pro-
grams, or percentage of tribes with
EPA-approved multimedia work-
plans. We will continue to increase
our efforts to work with more
tribes, providing for improvement
in these measures.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 3:
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS:
Indian Tribes: EPA Should Reduce the
Review Time for Tribal Requests to
Manage Environmental Programs.
Additional information on this report is
available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A-22.
GRANTS: Categorical Grant—Tribal
General Assistance Program, authorized by
the Indian General Assistance Program Act
of 1992, as amended, 42 USC 4368(b).
PART: The Tribal General Assistance
Program was first assessed in the 2002 PART
process and initially received a rating of
"results not demonstrated."The program was
reassessed in the 2003 PART process and
received a rating of "adequate." In response
to the PART process, the program is conduct-
ing follow-up actions which include developing
ambitious performance targets for its annual
and efficiency measures and working to
increase the implementation and delegation
of environmental programs on Indian lands.
Web Links:
www.epa.gov/in d ian
Strategic Objective 4-
Enhance Science and Research
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies and decisions
on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
EPA continues to strengthen
the scientific evidence and
research supporting environ-
mental policies and decisions on
compliance, pollution prevention,
and environmental stewardship.
In 2006, EPA sustained its
work on the Shepherd Creek
Urban Watershed Management
pilot project, collecting hydro logic,
ecological, and water quality moni-
toring data in Cincinnati, Ohio's
Shepherd Creek. This year, EPA
completed a detailed assessment of
all impervious areas within in the
creek, and has scheduled an experi-
mental auction in 2007 that will
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
5.8
New Technologies
Goal Not Met for FY 2006
Detailed information on these APGs is provided in Section 11.2—Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006, pages 184-185. Additionally, the data that EPA has used to measure its
performance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. See page
B-15 I at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
employ market-based economic
incentives to home-owners in the
Shepherd Creek Watershed who
purchase stormwater best manage-
ment practices (BMPs). These
BMPs are the methods determined
to be the most effective, practical
means of preventing or reducing
pollution from nonpoint sources.
EPA presented its research on the
Shepherd Creek Urban Watershed
at several national, international,
and academic conferences in 2006,
and published both a related jour-
nal article and conference
proceeding.10'"
-------
SECTION II. 1, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—GOAL 5, COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
GOAL 5: OBJECTIVE 4—ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH—FY 2006 RESOURCES
FY 2006 Obligations:
Enhance Science and Research
FY 2006 Costs:
Enhance Science and Research
(in thousands)
Enhance Science
and Research
9%
($75,611.2)
Build Tribal
Capacity —
Improve
Environmental -
Performance
16%
($130,492.3)
Improve
Compliance
65%
($513,705.4)
Enhance Science
and Research
Build Tribal
Capacity —
I 1%
($80,905.1)
Improve
Environmental '
Performance
($123,829.1)
Improve
Compliance
63%
($489,415.2)
FY 2OO6 RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM PROJECTS SUPPORTING THIS OBJECTIVE*
Program/Projects are EPA's fundamental unit for budget execution and cost accounting, and they serve as the foundation for the Agency's budget Frequently,
program/projects support multiple APGs and objectives. This table lists the program/projects and associated resources that support this objective.
PROGRAM PROJECT
'006 OBLIGATK
$449
$1,2545
$344
$49
TOTAL
$75,611.3
$76,328.3
^Resources associated with Program Projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and costs exactly due to rounding.
EPA also held its annual
People, Prosperity and the Planet
(P3) Award Competition, an
effort intended to benefit people,
promote prosperity, and protect
the planet by rewarding innova-
tive designs that address
challenges to sustainability in
the developed and developing
world. The P3 Competition has
advanced both economic competi-
tiveness and environmental
protection through engineering
design innovations; small business
startups; improved recruitment
and retention in science and tech-
nology disciplines; development
projects for the poorest countries;
and realized reductions in emis-
sions, energy use, and finite
resource consumption. In 2006,
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA also published a report syn-
thesizing the scientific
innovations, environmental
results, and economic benefits
derived from the Technology for a
Sustainable Environment (TSE)
grant program, in which EPA
partnered with NSF, from 1995
through 2003.
EXPLANATION OF THE MISSED
GOAL (SEE SECTION 11.2 FOR
PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND
TREND INFORMATION):
APQ 5.8: The environmental
technology verification program
(ETV) committed to provide
appropriate and credible perform-
ance information about new,
commercial-ready environmental
technology that influences users
to purchase effective environmen-
tal technology in the United
States and abroad. This commit-
ment was to be assessed by the
percentage of respondents to
survey vendors of ETV-verified
technologies stating that ETV
information positively influenced
sales and/or vendor information.
However, the measurement of this
goal was discontinued due to poor
contractor performance. Because
of subsequent budget constraints,
funds were shifted to other higher
priority needs. This work will not
be resumed.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RELATED TO OBJECTIVE 4:
PART: The Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research Program was assessed
in the 2003 PART process and received a
"Results Not Demonstrated" rating. In its
PART follow-up actions, the program commit-
ted to developing a multi-year plan with an
improved strategic focus and clear goals and
priorities. The program has completed drafts
of both the ORD Sustainability Research
Strategy and the Science and Technology for
Sustainability Multi-Year Plan. These
documents will undergo revisions
following the recently completed Science
Advisory Board (SAB) review and an external
review by the program's stakeholders. Final
drafts of both documents are expected by
the fall of 2006. In conjunction with the
development of'die MYP, the program has
also begun to discuss and develop perform-
ance measures, which will be used for the
program's re-PART.
Web Links:
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/
http://www.epa.gov/ord/
NOTES
1. Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm.
2. The annual performance measures cited are revised versions of the Program's original FY 2006 performance measures, developed
and made retroactive through the program's successful FY 2006 Performance Assessment Rating Tool assessment and included in
EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
3. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm.
4. Executive Order (E.O.) 13101 requires all federal procurement officials to engage in environmentally preferable purchasing.
5. Federal Electronics Challenge: http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm; Environmental Products Environmental
Assessment Tool: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf.
6. www.epa.gov/greeningepa/greenpower.htm.
7. Data available in March, 2007 through NIST survey responses. Green Suppliers Network (GSN): http://www.greensuppliers.gov.
8. Green Chemistry (GC): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/.
9. Design for the Environment (DfE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/.
10. Retrofit stormwater management: Navigating multidisciplinary hurdles at the watershed scale. 2006. Roy AH, H Cabezas,
MP Clagett, NT Hoagland, AL Mayer, MA Morrison, WD Shuster, ]] Templeton, HW Thurston. Stormwater Magazine,
May-June 2006.
11. Simulated rain garden effectiveness and performance in response to synthetic and natural rainfall patterns. 2006. WD Shuster, HW
Thurston, Y Zhang, Proceedings IDM-WSUD, Melbourne Australia, April 2006. Volume 2, 285-292.
-------
Section 11.2:
Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results
200
This appendix provides targets and results for all of EPA's annual performance goals
(APGs) and measures for FY 2003 through FY 2006. The 4-year table included here
provides the most current performance data available. While in some cases FY 2006 data
are not yet available, FY 2005 data that has become available since the Agency published its
FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report has been included.
EPA has continued to improve and refine its performance measures, and as a result some
APGs and measures have changed over the years and may not have targets or data for all four
fiscal years included on the table. Annual performance measures that are "new" for FY 2006 are
flagged; in several cases they do not have data for FY 2003 through FY 2005. Thus in addition
to presenting the latest performance data available, the table also portrays the evolution of the
Agency's performance metrics and illustrates performance trends.
The table presents performance measures grouped first by Goal, then Strategic Objective,
and finally under the annual performance goals to which they apply. Measures developed
through the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART)
assessments are displayed in italics. Background information included with annual performance
goals will provide context for EPA's statement of intended performance with respect to the
Agency's past accomplishments and progress toward its longer-term strategic objectives.
The data that EPA has used to measure its performance are described in the "Supplemental
Information" to this report, provided on the Internet. More information available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR.
133
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal I: 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.
OBJECTIVE
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.
mm
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the
PM|0 standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of 1 1% (relative to 1992).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the
PM|0 standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 1992).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the
PM|0 standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 6% (relative to 1992).
Maintain healthy air quality for 6. 1 million people living in monitored areas attaining the PM standards; increase by
81 thousand the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have newly attained the standard.
APG 1 . 1 Performance Measures*
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of People who Live in Areas
with Ambient PM|Q Concentrations
Below the Level of the NAAQS as
Compared to 1992.
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of Areas with Ambient PM|Q
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
measuring clean air for PM|Q.
Tons of PMjQ Reduced since 2000 from
Mobile Sources.
FY 2003
Target Actual
10
45
37,297
6
50
37,297
FY 2004
Target Actual
6
40
49,729
6
54
49,729
FY 2005
Target Actual
7
74
120.8
10
453,000
62,161
10
77
123.5
3
453,000
62,161
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
II
130
126.4
38
5,500,000
74,594
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Unit
Percent
Percent
Million
People
Areas
People
Tons
Background: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air national ambient
air quality standards. The 1 992 baseline for areas is those areas that are designated as non-attainment of the NAAQs but not meeting the standard (SO
areas). Through FY 2003, 120,279,036 are living in areas designated to attainments areas are designated to attainment for this/these pollutants. The
I99S baseline for PM|Q reduced from mobile sources is 880,000 tons. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for
mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM JQ from mobile source is 6 1 3,000 tons. Prior to 2005, EPA only counted the population where the
ambient monitor was located; in 2005, EPA began to count the population in the defined planning area (CAA-Part 81) which took into account a larg-
er area and population. The FY 2003 and FY 2004 targets and actuals have been adjusted to match the new methodology.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 1.2 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy CO, SO2, NO2, Lead
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations below the
NAAQS will increase by less than 13% (relative to 2005) for a cumulative total of 66% (relative to 1992).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations below the
NAAQS will increase by less than 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to 1992).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb concentrations below the
NAAQS will increase by 4% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 53% (relative to 1 992).
Maintain healthy air quality for 53 million people living in monitored areas attaining the CO, NO2, SO2, and
Lead standards; increase by 1 . 1 million the number of people living in areas with healthy air quality that have
newly attained the standard.
APG 1 .2 Performance Measures*
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of People who Live in Areas
with Ambient CO, NO2, SO2, or Pb
Concentrations Below the Level of the
NAAQS as Compared to 1992.
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of Areas with Ambient CO,
NO2, SO2, or Pb Concentrations
Below the Level of the NAAQS as
Compared to 1992.
Total number of people who live in
areas measuring clean air for CO,
NO2, SO2, or Pb.
Areas measuring clean air for CO,
NO2, SO2, or Pb.
Additional people living in new areas
measuring clean air for CO, NO2, SO2,
or Pb.
Total Number of People Living in
Areas Designated in Attainment with
Clean Air Standards for CO, NO2,
SO2, and Pb
Additional People Living in Newly
Designated Areas with Demonstrated
Attainment of the CO, NO2, SO2, and
Pb Standards.
Limit the increase of CO emissions fin
tons) from mobile sources compared to
a 2000 baseline.
FY 2003
Target
63
74
54.2
1,118,800
0.5 /
Actual
47
91
53.7
740,000
0.5 /
FY 2004
Target Actual
53
87
174.0
6,150,000
0.67
49
99
173.3
5,400,000
0.67
FY 2005
Target Actual
53
108
120.8
10
4,100,000
0.84
53
108
174.0
10
4,100,000
0.84
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
FY 2006
Target
66
1 1 1
189.7
4
15,500,00
1.01
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Unit
Percent
Percent
Million
People
Areas
People
Million
People
People
Tons
Background: The 1992 baseline for population is the population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air national ambient
air quality standards. The 1 992 baseline for areas is those areas that are designated as non-attainment of the NAAQS but not meeting the standard
(119 areas). Through FY 2003, 167 million people are living in areas designated to attainment: 108 areas are designated to attainment for this/these
pollutants. The 1995 baseline for mobile source CO emissions was 70.9M tons. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the base-
line for mobile source emission. The 2000 baseline was 79. 2M tons for mobile source CO emissions. While on-road CO emissions continue to
decrease, there is an overall increase in mobile source CO emissions due to a growth in nonroad CO.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.3 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels — 8 Hour
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the
8-hour ozone standard will increase by 1% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the
8-hour ozone standard will increase by 4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001)
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the
8-hour standard will increase by 3% (relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of 3% (relative to 2001).
APG 1 .3 Performance Measures*
Cumulative percent reduction in popula-
tion-weighted ambient concentration of
ozone in monitored counties from 2003
baseline. (New in FY 2006)
Cumulative percent reduction in the
number of days with Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100 since 2003,
weighted by population and AQI value.
(New in FY 2006)
Percent of major NSR permits issued with-
in one year of receiving a complete permit
application. (New in FY 2006)
Percent of significant Title V operating per-
mit revisions issued within 1 8 months of
receiving a complete permit application.
(New in FY 2006)
Percent ofnewTitle V operating permits
issued within 1 8 months of receiving a
complete permit application. (New in
FY2006)
Millions of Tons ofVolatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources.
Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Reduced since 2000 Reduced from
Mobile Sources.
FY 2003
Target
0.5 /
1.02
Actual
0.5 /
1.02
FY 2004
Target
2
8
61
85
75
0.68
1.35
Actual
3
15.5
61
85
75
0.68
1.35
FY 2005
Target
3
13
65
88
79
0.86
1.69
Actual
6
69
88
79
0.86
1.69
Data Avail 2007
• Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
5
17
70
91
83
1.03
2.03
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Million Tons
Million Tons
Background: EPA designated the attainment status for areas in April 2004. That data provided the population baseline as well as the number of areas
that are not in attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 1 995 baseline was 8. 1 M tons for mobile source VOC emissions, and 1 2.0M tons for
mobile source NOx emissions. Beginning in FY 2005, the Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 base-
line was 7.7M tons for mobile source VOC emissions, and 1 I.8M tons for mobile source NOx emissions.The 1992 baseline for population is the
population in areas not classified or designated as attainment for the clean air national ambient air quality standards.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 1 .4 Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels-PM.2.5 Status
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
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 2005) for a cumulative total of less than 1% (relative to 2001).
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).
The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone 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).
APG 1 .4 Performance Measures*
Cumulative Percent Increase in the
Number of People who Live in Areas
with Ambient PM2 5 Concentrations
Below the Level of the NAAQS as
Compared to 200 1 .
Percent Increase in the Number of
Areas with Ambient PM2^
Concentrations Below the Level of the
NAAQS as Compared to 2001.
Cumulative percent reduction in popula-
tion-weighted ambient concentration of
fine paniculate matter (P/V^) in all mon-
itored counties from 2003 baseline.
Tons of P/y\2 r Reduced since 2000 from
Mobile Sources.
FY 2003
Target
36,370
Actual
36,370
FY 2004
Target
1
1
/
48,974
Actual
20
46
3
48,974
FY 2005
Target
1
1
2
6/,2/7
Actual
45
21
5
61,217
FY 2006
Target
1
1
2
73,460
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
Percent
Percent
Percent
Tons
Background: EPA designated the attainment status for areas in FY 2005. That data provided the population baseline as well as the number of areas
that are not in attainment for the Pt"^ 5 standard. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emis-
sions. The 2000 baseline for Pf"^ 5 from mobile sources is 613,000 tons.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 1.5 Reduce SO2 Emissions'
In 2006
Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the
year 2010 SC>2 emissions cap for utilities.Annual emissions reduction target is 7.0 million tons from the 1980
baseline.
Status
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the
year 2010 SC>2 emissions cap for utilities.Annual emissions reduction target is 6.9 million tons from the 1980
baseline.
Goal Met
In 2004
Maintain or increase annual SC>2 emission reduction of approximately 5 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achievement of
Year 2010 SC>2 emissions cap for utilities.
Goal Met
In 2003
Maintain or increase annual SC>2 emission reduction of approximately 5 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achievement of
Year 2010 SC>2 emissions cap for utilities.
Goal Met
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.5 Reduce SO, Emissions' (continued)
APG 1 .5 Performance Measures
SC>2 Emissions Reduced
FY 2003
Target
5
Actual
6.8
FY
Target
5
2004
Actual
7.1
FY
Target
6.9
2005
Actual
7.2
FY
Target
7.0
2006
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
Million
Tons
Background: The base is comparison for assessing progress on the annual performance goal is the 1980 emissions baseline. The 1980 SC>2 emissions
inventory totals 1 7 million tons for electric utility sources. This inventory was developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP)
and used as the basis for reductions inTitle IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments. This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions
Trends Report. Statutory SC>2 emissions cap for year 2010 and later is at 8.95 million tons which is approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emis-
sions level. "Allowable SC>2 emission level" consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under several provisions of the Act and
additional allowances carried over, or banked, from previous years. Because of year to year variations in the demand for electricity and in the
banking/consumption of allowances, progress towards the emissions cap will not necessarily be linear.
APG 1.6 Reduce Air Toxic Emissions — Mobile and Stationary Sources2 Status
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional
2% of the updated 1 993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 40%.
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%.
Air toxics emissions nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional
2% of the updated 1993 baseline of 6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 37%.
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 35%.
APG 1 .6 Performance Measures
Total Cumulative reductions in Air
Toxics Emissions (% reductions from
baseline). (New in FY 2006)
Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions
Reduced.
Major Stationary Source Air Toxics
Emissions Reduced.
Area and All Other Air Toxics
Emissions Reduced.
Annual percentage of combined station-
ary and mobile source reductions in air
toxic emissions. (New in FY 2006)
FY 2003
Target
35
0.68
1.57
0.12
Actual
39
1.5
1.8
0.05
FY 2004
Target
37
0.71
1.59
0.13
Actual
41
1.6
1.9
0.05
FY 2005
Target
38
0.80
1.59
0.14
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail 20093
Data Avail 2009
I/ Goal Met4
I/ Goal Met3
FY 2006
Target
40
0.89
1.64
0.15
2
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
Unit
Percent
Million
Tons
Million
Tons
Million
Tons
Percent
Background: The baseline begins in 1993. This is the year before the first MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) and mobile source regu-
lations developed under the Clean Air Act were to be implemented. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate inventories
for the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the
model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. As new
inventories are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted. The toxicity-weighted emission
inventory will also utilize the NEI for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk
metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis. The baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 1.7 Reduce Air Toxic Emissions — Leaded Gasoline Phase-out in Africa
In 2006
Complete the phase out of leaded gasoline in 20 countries in Africa through the partnership for clean fuels and
vehicles.
APG 1 .7 Performance Measures
Number of countries completing
phase out of leaded gasoline, (cumula-
tive) (New in FY 2006)
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY
Target
20
2006
I/ Goal Met
Actual
40
Unit
Countries
Background: The baseline begins in 1993. This is the year before the first MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) and mobile source regu-
lations developed under the Clean Air Act were to be implemented. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate inventories for
the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the
model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. As new
inventories are completed and improved inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted. The toxicity-weighted emission
inventory will also utilize the NEI for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and non-cancer health risk criteria to develop a risk
metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis, the baseline is based on emission inventory data from 1990-1993.
APG 1.8 Air Toxicity-Weighted
In 2006
Reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted for cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
Data Avail 2007
APG 1.8 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons
of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emis-
sions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
22
Data
Avail 2007
Percentage
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for noncancer risk) emis-
sions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
55
Data
Avail 2007
Percentage
Background: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory uses the NEI for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and non-cancer
health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated and tracked on an annual basis.The baseline is based on emission inventory data
from 1990-1993.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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.
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
850,000 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
Additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
Additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor environments.
Additional people will be living in healthier residential indoor environments.
APG 1 .9 Performance Measures*
People Living in
Healthier Indoor Air.
Number of additional homes (new and
existing) with radon reducing features.
(New in FY 2006)
Annual Cost to EPA per person with
asthma taking all essential actions to
reduce exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers. (New in FY 2006)
Percent of public that is aware of the
asthma program's media campaign.
(New in FY 2006)
Additional health care professionals
trained annually by EPA and its partners
on the environmental management of
asthma triggers. (New in FY 2006)
FY 2003
Target
834,400
/42.000
>20
2,000
Actual
834,400
149,000
27
2,360
FY 2004
Target
834,400
/ 62,000
>20
2,000
Actual
834,400
143,000
27
3,080
FY 2005
Target
843,300
/ 73,000
>20
2,000
Actual
843,300
Data Avail
2007
31
3,380
Data Avail 2007
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
850,000
/80.000
8.38
>20
2,000
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data Avail
2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
People
Homes
Dollars
Percentage
Number
Background: This performance measure includes EPA radon, ETS, and asthma work. 1 . By 2006, increase the number of people living in homes built
with radon reducing features to 4,785,612 from 1,826,280 in 1994 (cumulative). 2. By 2006, decrease the number of children exposed to secondhand
smoke from 7.4 million (27% of children ages 6 and under) in 1994 to an estimated 4.0 million (14.5% of children ages 6 and under) (cumulative). 3. By
2006, increase by 500,000 the number of people with asthma and their caregivers who are educated about indoor air asthma triggers.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 1.10 Healthier Indoor Air in Schools
In 2006
630,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
oal Met
In 2004
Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
oal Met
In 2003
Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
Goal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 1.10 Healthier Indoor Air in Schools (continue,,
APG 1.10
Performance Measures*
Students/Staff Experiencing Improved
IAQ in Schools.
Average cost to EPA per student per year
in a school that is implementing an
Indoor Air Quality plan. (New in FY 2006)
Estimated annual number of schools
establishing indoor air quality programs
based on EPA's Tools for Schools guid-
ance. (New in FY 2006)
FY 2003
Target
1,050,000
2,000
Actual
1,050,000
3,200
FY 2004
Target
1,575,000
3,000
Actual
1,630,000
3,100
FY 2005
Target
1,312,500
2,500
Actual
1,574,000
3,000
FY 2006
Target
630,000
2
1,200
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
Students/
Staff
Dollars
Number
Background: The nation has approximately 1 1 7,000 schools with an average of 525 students, faculty, and staff for a total baseline population of
6 1 ,425, 000. The IAQ "Tools for Schools" Guidance implementation began in 1 997. For FY 2006, the program projects an additional 1 200 schools will
implement the guidance. Results from a 2002 IAQ practices in schools survey suggest that approximately 20% of U.S. schools report an adequate IAQ
management plan that is in accordance with EPA guidelines.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
ealthier Indoor Air in Workplaces
In 2006
240,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their workplaces.
oal Met
In 2005
150,000 additional office workers will experience improved air quality in their workplaces.
Goal Met
APG 1.1 I
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Additional office workers will experi-
ence improved air quality in their
workplaces.
150,000
150,000
240,000
240,000
People
Background: There are approximately 750,000 office buildings with 12 billion square feet.There are approximately 24 million office workers with the
mean worker density at I office worker per 500 square feet. Our 2008 goal is to get an additional 3% of all office buildings to adopt good IAQ meas-
ures translating to 720,000 office workers.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 (UV) radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
APG 1.12 Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP
MTs) and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class 1 CFCs and halons below
10,000 OOP MTs.
Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP
MTs) and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class 1 CFCs and halons below
10,000 OOP MTs.
Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP
MTs) and restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class 1 CFCs and halons below
10,000 OOP MTs.
Restrict domestic consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP MTs) and
restrict domestic exempted production and import of newly produced class 1 CFCs and halons below 10,000
OOP MTs.
APG 1.12
Performance Measures*
Remaining US Consumption of HCFCs in
tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
Domestic Exempted Production and
Import of Newly Produced Class 1
CFC s and Halons
Cumulative federal dollars spent per
school joining the SunWise program.
(New in FY 2006)
FY 2003
Target
<9,900
Actual
7,110
FY 2004
Target
<9,900
< 10,000
693
Actual
5,500
1,225
693
FY
Target
<9,900
< 10,000
580
2005
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
580
FY
Target
<9,900
< 10,000
560
Data Avail 2007
&2008
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
2006
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
2007
Unit
OOP MTs
OOP
MTs
Dollars
Background: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II
HCFCs as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does to the
stratospheric ozone — this is its ozone-depletion potential (OOP). Beginning on January 1 , 1 996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the
domestic OOP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import
minus export.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
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.
iiumnrriin^iaaaaj
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
EPA will purchase 5 1 additional state of the art monitoring units
on population and geographical coverage.
EPA will purchase 5 1 additional state of the art monitoring units
on population and geographical coverage.
and initiate deployment to sites selected based
and initiate deployment to sites selected based
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.
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
1.13 Build National Radiation Monitoring System (continued)
APG 1.13
Performance Measures
Purchase and Deploy State-of-the Art
Monitoring Units.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
60
Actual
0
FY 2005
Target
SI
Actual
52
FY 2006
Target
SI
Actual
41
Unit
Units
Purchased
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: In FY 2006, EPA placed an order for 41 RadNet monitors, not the originally planned purchase of 51 .The reduced
order is based upon a revised installation schedule that allows for delays resulting from technical issues with several of the first installed monitors.
Background: The current fixed monitoring system, part of the Environment Radiation Ambient Monitoring System, was developed in the 1960s for
the purpose of monitoring radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing.The system currently consists of 52 old low-tech air participate samplers
which provide coverage in cities which represent approximately 24% of the population.The current system air samplers will be retired from service
due to age.As the system comes on line, EPA's schedule for estimated monitor deployment and population coverage is as follows: FY 2005: I I
monitors deployed—22.8%; FY 2006; 71 monitors deployed- for population coverage of approximately 67.7%; FY 2009: 172 cumulative monitors
deployed—for population coverage of approximately 69.4%.The purchase schedule is based primarily upon contract pricing terms and the deployment
schedule reflects a best estimate of our ability to get the monitors sited and out in the field.
APG 1.14 Homeland Security—Readiness & Response
In 2006
Verify that 60 percent of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members meet scenario-based
response criteria.
Status
Data Avail
Dec. 2006
In 2005
Verify that 50 percent of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members meet scenario-based
response criteria.
oal Met
APG 1.14
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Percentage of EPA RERT members
that meet scenario-based criteria
50
60
60
Data Avail
Dec. 2006
Percent
Background: EPA assesses RERT readiness based on the ability of the RERT to: I. provide effective field response, as defined today, 2. support coordi-
nation centers; and 3. provide analytical capabilities throughout as needed to support a single small-to-medium scale incident.These evaluation criteria
will be reevaluated and revised in response to the Department of Homeland Security development of criteria for the Nuclear Incident Response Team
established under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which includes EPA RERT assets.
APG 1.15 Ensure WIPP Safety
In 2006
Certify that 45,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 135,000 curies) shipped by
DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
Goal Met
In 2005
Certify that 40,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 120,000 curies) shipped by
DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
Goal Not Met
In 2004
Certify that 36,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 108,000 curies) shipped by
DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
oal Met
In 2003
Certify that 36,000 55 gallon drums of radioactive waste (containing approximately 108,000 curies) shipped by
DOE to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are permanently disposed of safely and according to EPA standards.
Goal Met
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.15 Ensure WIPP Safety (continued,
APG 1.15
Performance Measures
Number of SS-Gallon Drums of
Radioactive Waste Disposed of
According to EPA Standards.
FY 2003
Target
36,000
Actual
36,041
FY 2004
Target
36,000
Actual
36,500
FY 2005
Target
40,000
Actual
35,000
FY 2006
Target
45,000
Actual
45,000
Unit
Drums
Background: The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, NM was opened in May 1999 to accept radioactive transuranic waste. By the end
of FY 2004, approximately 109,000 (cumulative) 55 gallon drums will be safely disposed. In FY 2006, EPA expects that DOE will ship an additional
45,000 55- gallon drums of waste.Through FY 2006, EPA expects that DOE will shipped safely and according to EPA standards, approximately 23% of
the planned waste volume, based on disposal of 860,000 drums over the next 40 years. Number of drums snipped 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.
OBJECTIVE 5: 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 percent 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 Administration's business-as-usual projection for greenhouse gas intensity improvement.)
APG 1.16 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 102 MMTCE per year
through EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
Greenhouse gas 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.
Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 8 1 MMTCE per year through
EPA partnerships with businesses, schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
Greenhouse gas 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.
APG 1.16
Performance Measures*
Annual Greenhouse Gas
Reductions — All EPA Programs.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions
in the buildings sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions
in the industry sector.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste
Management Programs.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach
Programs.
FY 2003
Target
72.2
22.8
45.5
6.7
17.0
Actual
82.4
23.0
58.7
7.4
17.9
FY 2004
Target Actual
81.0
21.4
53.2
7.3
18.1
87.9
26.2
53.2
9.0
19.9
FY 2005
Target Actual
90.2
23.8
53.5
8
19.1
91.5
29.9
58.7
10.2
16.8
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met5
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
102
26.5
58.0
9.0
20.1
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMCTE
MMTCE
MMTCE
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 1.16 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (continued)
APG 1.16
Performance Measures*
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
EPA's Industrial HFC/PFC Programs.5
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions
in the transportation sector.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
EPA's State and Local Programs.
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(mmtce) prevented per societal dollar in
the building sector. (New in FY 2006)
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(mmtce) prevented per societal dollar in
the industry sector. (New in FY 2006)
Tons of greenhouse gas emissions
(mmtce) prevented per societal dollar
in the transportation sector. (New in
FY 2006)
FY 2003
Target
24.9
2.3
2.0
Actual
29.8
2.3
2.0
FY 2004
Target
29.6
2.6
2.0
Actual
28.2
2.6
2.0
FY 2005
Target
34.4
2.9
2.0
Actual
29.8
2.0
FY 2006
Target
41.0
3.3
2.0
0.7
3.1
0.15
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Data Avail
2007
Data
Avail 2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Unit
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
Background: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate
change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar
baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information
Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S.
Climate Action Report 2002 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSCIimateActionReport.html), which
provides a discussion of differences in assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency
programs are included in the estimates. EPA develops the non-CO2 emissions baselines and projections using information from partners and other
sources. EPA continues to develop annual inventories as well as update methodologies as new information becomes available.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
1.17 Reduce Energy Consumption
In 2006
Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 145 billion kilowatt hours, contributing to over
$8.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 120 billion kilowatt hours, contributing to over
$8.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
Goal Met
In 2004
Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than I 10 billion kilowatt hours, contributing to over
$7.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
Goal Met
In 2003
Reduce energy consumption from projected levels by more than 95 billion kilowatt hours, contributing to over
$6.5 billion in energy savings to consumers and businesses.
oal Met
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.17 Reduce Energy Consump
APG 1.17
Performance Measures
Annual Energy Savings — All EPA
Programs.
FY
Target
95
tion (continued)
2003
Actual
122.8
FY
Target
1 10
2004
Actual
145
FY
Target
120
2005
Actual
165
FY
Target
145
2006
Actual
Data
Avail 2007
Unit
Billion
kWh
Background: The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of the U.S. climate
change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the U.S. climate change programs in 2002, which built on similar
baseline forecasts developed in 1997 and 1993. Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use is based on data from the Energy Information
Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S.
Climate Action Report 2002 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSCIimateActionReport.html), which
provides a discussion of differences in assumptions between the 1997 baseline and the 2002 update, including which portion of energy efficiency pro-
grams are included in the estimates. EPA develops the non-CO2 emissions baselines and projections using information from partners and other
sources. EPA continues to develop annual inventories as well as update methodologies as new information becomes available.
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.
In 2006
Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet size, per-
formance, durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applications with
an average fuel economy improvement of 35% over the baseline.
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet size, per-
formance, durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applications with
an average fuel economy improvement of 30% over the baseline.
Goal Met
In 2004
Transfer hybrid powertrain components, originally developed for passenger car applications, to meet size, per-
formance, durability, and towing requirements of Sport Utility Vehicle and urban delivery vehicle applications with
an average fuel economy improvement of 25% over the baseline.
Goal Met
APG 1.18
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Fuel Economy of EPA-developed SUV
hybrid technology over EPA Driving
Cycles Tested.
25.2
25.2
26.3
26.3
27.3
Data
Avail 2007
MPG
Background: The average fuel economy of all SUVs sold in the US in 2001 is 20.2 mpg.Values for 2004, 2005, and 2006 represent 25%, 30%, and 35%
improvements over this baseline, respectively.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
In 2006
By 2006, develop and report on new data on the effects of different PM sizes or components to improve
understanding of the health risks associated with short-term exposure to PM in healthy and select susceptible
populations so that, by 2010, OAR has improved assessments of health risks to develop PM standards that max-
imize protection of human health, as determined by independent expert review.
Goal Not Met
APG 1.19
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Integrated report on the health
effects of different particle sizes or
particle components in healthy and
select susceptible subgroups.
Report
Percent progress toward completion of a
hierarchy of air pollutant sources based
on the risk they pose to human health.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Baseline
10
10
Percent
Percent of planned actions accom-
plished toward the long-term goal of
reducing uncertainty in the science
that supports standard-setting and air
quality management decisions.
Baseline
71
81
84
91
94
100
94
Percent
Background: The physical attributes of PM—size, surface area and number—influence PM deposition, penetration, and persistence in the lung, as well
as the potential for transport within the body and the inherent toxicity of the particle itself. Composition also varies by particle size, with products of
combustion usually concentrated in fine PM. Evidence from epidemiological studies suggest that small or "fine" particles (PM with diameters less than 2.5
microns, or PM2 5) are strongly associated with cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Other studies have shown that larger, "coarse" particles (PM with
diameters less than 10 microns, or PM JQ) may not contribute significantly to an increased risk of adverse health effects. In addition, a few studies show
correlations between health outcomes and ultrafine (< 100 nm) ambient PM. EPA is conducting research to determine the extent to which adverse
health effects can be attributed to PM belonging to a particular size class or chemical composition of PM.This APG will report on and integrate informa-
tion on the influence of particle size and certain compositions on health effects in healthy and select susceptible subgroups. Specific emphasis will be
placed on differential effects—in kind or intensity—for less studied particle sizes (i.e. ultrafines and coarse particles).This information will reduce uncer-
tainties in risk assessment, be used in the development of future PM standards, and inform decision makers implementing PM reduction strategies.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and successful
performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research. Recommendations
and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their progress under GPRA.
A multi-city approach to determining linkages between pollutant sources and health outcomes will ensure that program clients target air pollutant
strategies most effectively and efficiently to best protect human health and the environment. Development of a source hierarchy represents an impor-
tant effort in reducing uncertainty. Percent completion is assessed by independent expert review.
Planned actions include milestones in the program's multi-year plan and actions needed to address the results of reviews by the Board of
Scientific Councelors.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA set an ambitious goal of completing 100 percent of its key research actions toward the long-term goal
of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard-setting and air quality management decisions. Due to the difficulties in predicting
research findings, only 94 percent of planned actions were completed in 2006.The NAAQS program is continuing to work in a timely manner towards
completion of any of the remaining FY 2006 research objectives.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 1.20 PM Measurement Research
In 2006
Develop and transfer new data and tools needed by OAR and the states to predict, measure, and reduce ambi-
ent PM and PM emissions to attain the existing PM NAAQS, as determined by independent expert review.
Goal Met
In 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 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the protection of public health.
oal Met
APG 1.20
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Improved receptor models and data
on chemical compounds emitted from
sources.
models/
data
Synthesis report with improved infor-
mation on PM emissions and ambient
concentrations for use in preparation
and evaluation of state implementa-
tion plan development, application,
and compliance.
Report
Background: The designation of non-attainment areas for the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2005 will mean
that states will need to immediately begin developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs incorporate source emission reduction rules that once
implemented lead to cleaner air and standards attainment.They are due to EPA three years after designation. SIP development is predicated on the
availability of recent and credible information on state-wide and regional air quality, atmospheric chemistry, and processes that transport and transform
source emissions leading to PM concentrations in excess of the PM NAAQS.The national PM Supersites program has been applying the most sophisti-
cated instruments and methods available over the past four years in seven areas across the country to fully characterize PM, its composition and
contributing sources and atmospheric processes. Supersites have been located in Fresno, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Houston,TX; St. Louis, MO; Baltimore,
MD; Pittsburgh, PA; and New York, NY.These locations include those with the highest annual and daily PM concentrations nationally.The observational
insights from these Supersites will provide specialized information not otherwise available for their host and adjoining states. Information will be pro-
vided both as detailed area-specific information and as synthesis of findings on multiple scales.This information will provide inputs for receptor models,
and confirm the emissions and chemical process information used in air quality models as part of a weight of evidence approach to be used by states
to tag specific sources with reduction targets.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and
successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
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.
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.
I Safe Drinking Water Meeting All St
"s—Populatio
In 2006
93% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through effective treatment and source water protection.
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
93% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through effective treatment and source water protection.
X Goal Not Met
In 2004
Population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all health-based stan-
dards, up from 83% in 1994.
X Goal Not Met
In 2003
Population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all health-based stan-
dards in effect as of 1994, up from 83% in 1994.
X Goal Not Met
APG 2.1 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
% of population served by community
water systems that receive drinking
water that meets all applicable health-
based drinking water standards through
effective treatment and source water
protection.
92
90
92
90
93
88.5
93
Data Avail
2007 (89)*
Population
Background: In 1998,85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year.Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage I disinfection by-
products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
T Value represents 3rd quarter FY 05 to 3rd quarter FY 06 data.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 2.2 Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards—Population
In 2006
94% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based
standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
Status
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
94% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based
standards with which systems need to comply as of December 2001.
X Goal Not Met
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2.2 Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards—Population (continued)
APG 2.2 Performance Measures
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
Target Actual
Target Actual
Target Actual
Target Actual
Unit
Population served by community
water systems that receive drinking
water that meets health-based stan-
dards with which systems need to
comply as of December 2001.
94
91
94
Data Avail
2007 (92)*
%
Population
Background: In 1998,85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year.Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage I disinfection by-products/
interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
* Value represents 3rd quarter FY OS to 3rd quarter FY 06 data.
APG 2.3 Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards — Population Status
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
APG 2.3 Perft
75% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based _ . .. 7nf)7
standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
75% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based *
standards with a compliance date of January 2002 or later.
Population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards *
promulgated in 1998.
Population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets health-based standards *
promulgated in 1998.
>rmance Measures
Population served by community
water systems that receive drinking
water that meets health-based stan-
dards with a compliance date of
January 2002 or later.
Population served by community
drinking water systems that receive
drinking water with no violations dur-
ing the year of any Federally
enforceable health-based standards
that were in place by 1 994.
Population served by community
water systems that receive drinking
water meeting health-based standards
promulgated in 1998.
FY 2003
Target
92
85
Actual
90
96
FY 2004
Target
92
85
Actual
90
96
FY 2005
Target Actual
75
96
FY 2006
Target
75
Actual
Data Avail
2007 (97)*
Unit
%
Population
%
Population
Population
Background: In 1 998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year. Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-
products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
* Values represent 3rd quarter FY 05 to 3rd quarter FY 06 data.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 2.4 Safe Drinking Water Meeting Existing Standards-Systems
In 2006
In 2005
94% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with which sys-
tems will comply as of December 2001.
94% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all health-based standards with which
systems need to comply as of December 2001.
APG 2.4 Performance Measures
Percentage of community water sys-
tems that provide drinking water that
meets health-based standards with
which systems need to comply as of
December 2001.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
94 92
FY 2006
Data Avail 2007
X Goal Not Met
Target Actual
Q, Data Avail
2007 (92)*
Unit
%CWSs
Background: In 1 998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year. Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-products/
interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
* Value represents 3rd quarter FY 05 to 3rd quarter FY 06 data.
.5 Safe Drinking Water Meeting New Standards-Systems
In 2006
75% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compli-
ance date of January 2002 or later.
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
75% of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets health-based standards with a compli-
ance date of January 2002 or later.
Goal Met
APG 2.5 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percentage of community water sys-
tems that provide drinking water
that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January
2002 or later.
75
97
75
Data Avail
2007 (97)*
, CWSs
Background: In 1998,85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year.Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage I disinfection by-products/
interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
* Value represents 3rd quarter FY 05 to 3rd quarter FY 06 data.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2.6 Safe Drinking Water-Systems inTribal Communities Status
In 2006
In 2005
90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
90% of the population served by community water systems in Indian country will
meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
APG 2.6 Performance Measures T
Percent of the population served by
community water systems in Indian
country that receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
receive drinking water that
6 Data Avail 2007
receive drinking water that \/
A Goal Not Met
FY 2005
Target
90
Actual
86.3
FY 2006
Target Actual
on Data Avail
2007 (87)*
Unit
%
Population
Background: In 1 998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year. Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-products/
interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
T Values represent 3rd quarter FY 05 to 3rd quarter FY 06 data.
ADDITIONAL PART MEASURES SUPPORTING THE ABOVE DRINKING WATER GOALS:
APG 2.6 Performance Measures*
Fund utilization rate ofDWSRF.
Average funding (millions of dollars) per
project initiating operations.
Number of additional projects initiating
operations.
Percent of States conducting sanitary
surveys at community water systems
once every three years.
FY 2003
Target
Baseline
N/A
Actual
79.2
1.73
397
FY 2004
Target
80.6
405
Baseline
Actual
82.8
473
80
FY 2005
Target
81.9
415
94
Actual
84.7
439
94
FY 2006
Target Actual
83.3
1.67
425
98
86.9
1.9
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Unit
Rate
$
# projects
% States
Background: In 1 998, 85% of the population that was served by community water systems and 96% of the population served by non-community,
non-transient drinking water systems received drinking water for which no violations of federally enforceable health standards had occurred during
the year. Year-to-year performance is expected to change as new standards take effect. Covered standards include: Stage 1 disinfection by-
products/interim enhanced surface water treatment rule/long-term enhanced surface water treatment rule/arsenic.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 2.7 Drinking Water—Small Systems
In 2006
Reduce the number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
Data Avail 2007
APG 2.7 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Number of household on tribal lands
lacking access to safe drinking water.
(New in FY 2006)
30,800
Data Avail
2007
Households
Background: In 2003, Indian Health Service indicates that 39,000 homes lack access to safe drinking water (12% of tribal homes nationwide).
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
APG 2.8 Perfc
20% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.
20% of source water areas for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.
Number of community water systems and percent of population served by those CWSs that are implementing source
water protection programs
Number of community water systems and percent of population served by those CWSs that are implementing source
water protection programs
rmance Measures*
Percentage of source water areas
(both surface and ground water) for
community water systems will achieve
minimized risk to public health.
Percentage of source water areas (both
surface and ground water) for community
water systems will achieve minimized risk
to public health.
Number of community water systems
and percent of population served by
those CWSs that are implementing
source water protection programs.
FY 2003
Target
2,600
Actual
6,570
FY 2004
Target
7,500
Actual
13,891
FY 2005
Target
20
20
Actual
20
20
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
20
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Unit
% Areas
% Areas
#CWSs
Background: EPA defines "achieve minimized risk" as substantial implementation of source water protection actions, as determined by a State's
source water protection strategy.Approximately 268 million people are estimated to be served by Community Water Systems (CWSs) in 2002.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2.9-2. 1 0 River/Lake Assessments for Fish Consumption Status
In 2006
In 2006
In 2005
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
APG 2.9-2. 10
Performance
9 1 % of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.
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 of fish and shellfish is allowed.
80% of the shellfish growing acres monitored by states are approved or conditionally approved for use.
Percent of water miles/acres, identified by states or tribes as having fish consumption advisories in 2002, where
increased consumption of fish is allowed.
Reduced consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information available to states, tribes, local govern-
ments, citizens and decision-makers.
Reduced consumption of contaminated fish by increasing the information available to states, tribes, local govern-
ments, citizens and decision-makers.
Measures
Percent of water miles/acres, identi-
fied by states or tribes as having fish
consumption advisories in 2002,
where increased consumption offish
is allowed.
Percent of the shellfish growing acres
monitored by states that are
approved or conditionally approved
for use.
Lake acres assessed for the need for
fish advisories and compilation of
state-issued fish consumption advisory
methodologies, (cumulative)
River miles assessed for the need
for fish consumption advisories &
compilation of state-issued fish con-
sumption advisory methodologies.
(cumulative)
FY 2003
Target
29
15
Actual
33
15
FY 2004
Target
35
16
Actual
35
24
FY 2005
Target
1
80
Actual
0
Data Avail
2007
FY 2006
Target
1
91
(FY 08)
Data Avail 2007
Data Avail 2007
Data Avail 2007
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Unit
%
Miles/Acres
% Areas
% Lake
acres
% River
miles
Background: In 1 999, 7% of the nation's rivers and 1 5% of the nation's lakes were assessed to determine if they contained fish that should not be
eaten or should be eaten in only limited quantities. In September 1999, 25 states/tribes monitored and conducted assessments based on the national
guidance to establish nationally consistent fish advisories. In the 2000 Report to Congress on the National Water Quality Inventory, 69% of assessed
river and stream miles; 63% of assessed lake, reservoir, and pond acres; and 53% of assessed estuary square miles supported their designated use for
fish consumption. For shell fish consumption, 77% of assessed estuary square miles met this designated use.
APG 2.1 1-2.12 Increase Information on Beaches
In 2006
In 2006
In 2005
In 2005
Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming in
97% of the days of the beach season.
Restore water quality to allow swimming in not less than 3% of the stream miles and lake acres identified by
states in 2000 as having water quality unsafe for swimming.
Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming in
94% of the days of the beach season.
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.
Status
I/ Goal Met
Data Avail 2007
I/ Goal Met
Data Avail 2007
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 2.1 1-
In 2004
In 2003
an on Beaches (continue,, Status
Reduced human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing the information available to the pub- y
lie and decision-makers.
Reduced human exposure to contaminated recreation waters by increasing the information available to the pub- *
lie and decision-makers.
APG 2.1 1-2.12
Performance Measures
Days (of beach season) that coastal
and Great Lakes beaches monitored
by state beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.
Restore water quality to allow swim-
ming in stream miles and lake acres
identified by states.
Beaches for which monitoring and
closure data is available to the public
at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
beaches/, (cumulative)
FY 2003
Target
2,550
Actual
2,823
FY 2004
Target Actual
2,823
1,857.00
FY 2005
Target Actual
94
2
96
Data Avail
2007
FY 2006
Target
94
3
Actual
97
Data Avail
2007
Unit
% Days/
Season
% Miles/
Acres
Beaches
Background: By the end of FY 1999, 33 states had responded to EPA's first annual survey on state and local beach monitoring and closure practices
and EPA made available to the public via the internetAn average of 9 recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the
Centers for Disease Control for the years 1994-1998, based on data housed in EPA/ORD internal database. In 2002, monitored beaches were opened
94% of the days during the beach season.
OBJECTIVE 2: PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
APG 2.1 3-2.14 Watershed Protection
Status
In 2006
In 2006
In 2005
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
APG 2.13 2.1
Performance
472 of the nation's watersheds have water quality standards met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments.
Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 20 1 2, with an interim mile-
stone of restoring 10.3% of these waters — identified in 2000 as not attaining standards by 2005.
462 of the nation's watersheds have water quality standards met in at least 80% of the assessed water segments.
Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 20 1 2, with an interim mile-
stone of restoring 2% of these waters — identified in 2000 as not attaining standards by 2005.
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.
By FY 2003, water quality will improve on a watershed basis such that 600 of the nation's 2,262 watersheds
have greater than 80% of assessed waters meeting all water quality standards.
4
Measures*
Annual percentage ofwaterbody seg-
ments identified by States in 2000 as
not attaining standards, where water
quality standards are now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY
Target
2003
Actual
FY
Target
2
2004
Actual
3
FY
Target
2
2005
Actual
9
FY
Target
10.3
will
Data Avail 2007
Data Avail 2007
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
2006
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Unit
% Miles/
Acres
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2. 13-2. 14 Watershed Protection (continued)
APG 2.13 2.14
Performance Measures*
Watersheds that have greater than
80% of assessed waters meeting all
water quality standards.
Number ofTMDLs requires that are
established by States and approved by
EPA on a schedule consistent with
national policy, (cumulative)
Number ofTMDLs required that are
established or approved by EPA on a
schedule consistent with national policy
(cumulative).
Percentage of high priority state NPDES
permits that are on a schedule to be
re-issued.
Percentage of high priority EPA and
State NPDES permits that are re-issued
on schedule.
Percentage of states, territories and
authorized tribes that within the pre-
ceeding 3 year period, submitted new or
revised water quality criteria acceptable
to EPA that reflect scientific information
from EPA to other sources not consid-
ered in the previous standard..
Percentage of submissions of new or
revised water quality standards from
States, and Territories that are
approved by EPA.
Cost per water segment restored.
Maintain/Improve # of majors in
Significant Noncompliance at any time
during the fiscal year.
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction
to total phosphorous loadings.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction
to total nitrogen loadings.
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction
to total sediment loadings.
Pounds of pollutants removed per program
dollar expended.
Percentage of waters assessed using
statistically valid surveys.
FY 2003
Target
600
93
4.5
8.5
700,000
Actual
453
93.7
14.7
12.5
2,800,000
FY 2004
Target
500
11,105
12,378
Baseline
Baseline
N/A
Baseline
93
4.5
8.5
700,000
N/A
38
Actual
450
/ 1,584
14,589
70
87.6
1,544,998
22.5
93
3.1
23.4
5,900,000
122
38
FY 2005
Target
462
14,462
17,767
95
95
62
89.5
Baseline
Maintain!
Improve
90
4.5
8.5
700,000
180
38
Actual
450
/5,338
18,660
104
100
62
83.5
828,654
19.7
95.4
3.2
5.9
1,500,000
180
38
FY 2006
Target
472
18,692
20,501
95
95
66
90.9
1,358,351
Maintain!
Improve
93.3
4.5
8.5
700,000
233
54
Actual
438
/ 9,368
23,185
96.4
98.5
89
576,618
Data Avail
2007
94.7
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
233
54
Unit
8-digit
HUCs
#TMDLs
#TMDLs
% permits
% permits
% submis-
sions
% submis-
sions
$
# majors in
SNC
%Rate
# pounds
# pounds
# pounds
# pounds
% waters
Background: As of 2002 state reports 453 watersheds had met the criteria that greater than 80% of assessed waters met all water quality standards.
For a watershed to be counted toward this goal, at least 25% 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 Clean Water Act. In 2002,0% of the 255,408 miles/and 6,803,419 acres of
waters identified on 1998/2000 lists of impaired waters developed by States and approved by EPA under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 2. 1 5-2. 1 6 State/Tribal Water Quality Standards
In 2006
In 2006
In 2005
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
A pfi 9 1 c 9 1
Performance
In coordination with other federal partners reduce, by 17%, households on tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation.
Water quality in Indian country will be improved at not less than 50 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.)
In coordination with other federal partners, reduce, by 34% of households on tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation.
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 east a 1 0% improvement for each of four key parameters: total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms.)
Assure that states and tribes had effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in accordance
with the Water Quality Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards program priorities.
Assure that states and tribes had effective, up-to-date water quality standards programs adopted in accordance
with the Water Qual ty Standards regulation and the Water Quality Standards program priorities.
6
Measures
Number of monitoring stations (for
which baseline data on 4 key param-
eters are available) where water
quality is improved.
Number of households on tribal lands
lacking access to basic sanitation.
States with new or revised WQSs
that EPA has reviewed and approved
or disapproved and promulgated fed-
eral replacement standards.
Tribes with WQSs adopted and
approved (cumulative.)
FY 2003
Target
20
33
Actual
28
23
FY 2004
Target
20
33
Actual
27
25
FY 2005
Target
35
II
Actual
N/A
34
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
50
17
Actual
N/A
49
Unit
Stations
%
Households
Background: The performance measure of state submissions represents a "rolling annual total" of updated standards acted upon by EPA, and so are
neither cumulative nor strictly incremental. EPA must review and approve or disapprove state revisions to water quality standards within 60-90 days
after receiving the state's package. In 2002, there will be four key parameters available at 900 sampling stations in Indian country. In 2002, Indian Health
Service indicates that 7 1,000 households on Tribal lands lack access to basic sanitation.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA did not meet its goal for improving water quality in Indian country for FY 2005 and FY 2006 due to
limitations in data collection. The amount of data collected from monitoring stations was insufficient for analysis. As a result, EPA revised this measure
during the development of its own 2006-201 1 Strategic Plan.
APG 2.17-2.18 Dredged Material/Ocean Disposal
In 2006
In 2006
In 2005
In 2005
Improve ratings on "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report for: coastal wetlands loss
by at least 0.2 point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.7 point; benthic quality by at
least 05 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 1 .2 point.
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 0. 1 point
Improve ratings on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report for: coastal
wetlands loss by at least 0. 1 point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0. 1 point; benthic
quality by at least 0. 1 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 0. 1 point.
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
Status
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 2.17-2.18 Dredged Material/Ocean Disposal (continued)
APG 2. 17-2. 18
Performance Measures
National Coastal Condition Report
(NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters
nationally (1-5 scale).
Maintain water clarity and dissolved
oxygen in coastal waters at the
national levels reported in the 2002
National Coastal Condition Report
Improve ratings reported on the
national "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report
for coastal wetlands loss
Improve ratings reported on the
national "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report
for contamination of sediments in
coastal waters
Improve ratings reported on the
national "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report
for benthic quality
Improve ratings reported on the
national "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report
for eutrophic condition
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
2.5
4.3/4.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.8
Actual
2.7
2.6/4.6
1.7
2.1
2.0
3.0
FY 2006
Target
2.7
4.3/4.6
1.7
2.1
2.0
3.0
Actual
2.7
4.3/4.6
1.7
2.1
2.0
3.0
Unit
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Scale score
Background: National rating of "fair/poor" or 2.4 where the rating is based on a S-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good and is expressed as
an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report indicators [i.e., water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wet-
lands loss, eutrophic conditions, sediment contamination, benthic health, and fish tissue contamination]. The 2002 National Coastal Condition Report
indicated 4.3 for water clarity and 4.5 for dissolved oxygen, 1 .4 for coastal wetlands loss; 1 .3 for contamination of sediments in coastal waters; 1 .4 for
benthic quality; & 1.7 for eutrophic condition.
In 2006
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.
By 2006, provide demonstrations of bioassessment methods for Mid-Western U.S. rivers, so that, by 2010, the
Office of Water, states, and tribes have approaches and methods to develop and apply criteria for habitat alter-
ation, nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens, and toxic chemicals that will support designated
uses for aquatic ecosystems, as determined by independent expert review.
• G
oal Met
In 2005
By 2005, provide methods for developing water quality criteria 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, sus-
pended 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.
Goal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
RESEARCH
APG 2.19 Scientific Rationale for Surface Water Criteria (continued)
APG 2.19
Performance Measures
Methods for developing water quality
criteria based on population-level
risks of multiple stressors to aquatic
life and aquatic-dependent wildlife
Report on bioassessment methods
for a range of designated uses in
freshwater systems within Mid-
Western U.S. rivers.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
09/30/05
Actual
09/30/05
FY 2006
Target
1
Actual
1
Unit
Methods
Report
Background: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA),the Office ofWater is charged with setting criteria for states and tribes to use in establishing stan-
dards for identifying and restoring impaired waters and maintaining designated uses. Biological criteria have proven to be a more accurate way to
measure ecological condition of waterbodies compared to traditional chemical and physical criteria. Bioassessment methods are used to develop and
apply biocriteria.The historical focus of detection and monitoring has been on smaller, wadeable streams and rivers (where inputs are likely to have
noticeable impacts), but the rise in awareness of the substantial role of non-point-source pollution has led to an increased interest in assessment of
large rivers. Biological communities and habitats change with increasing stream size, so this research will provide river assessors with clear and consis-
tent methods for conducting bioassessments for large rivers. Since different assessment methods use different scales of biological data (e.g., bioassays
use species data and various bioassessments use community level data), this research will also compare the different levels of protection provided by
different assessment methods. States and tribes are also faced with limited monitoring resources to meet their obligations for CWA 305b and 303d
reporting and to meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. Until recently, the majority of state biomonitoring datasets were generated
from targeted sampling designs and thus may have introduced a level of bias in some analyses.This research will provide states and tribes with guid-
ance on balancing potential bias associated with the site selection approach with the monitoring objectives and the costs associated with a purely
random sampling design. Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs'
relevance, quality, and successful performance to date.
APG 2.20 Drinking Water Research
In 2006
By 2006, provide results of full-scale treatment demonstration projects and evaluations of other approaches for
managing arsenic in drinking water, so that by 2010, the Office of Water, states, local authorities and utilities have
scientifically sound data and approaches to manage risks to human health posed by exposure to arsenic, as
determined by independent expert review.
oal Met
APG 2.20
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Final reports of full-scale demonstra-
tions of arsenic treatment technologies
Reports
Background: A final drinking water standard for arsenic of ten parts per billion (10 ppb) was established by EPA in 2001, with an effective date for
compliance of 2006. Nearly 97 percent of the water systems affected by this rule are small systems that serve less than 10,000 people each.These
small systems have limited resources and need more cost-effective technologies to meet the new standard.To assist small communities, EPA has con-
ducted a series of full-scale, long-term, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal technologies, process modifications and engineering approaches. In
addition, EPA has provided technical assistance and training to operators of small water treatment systems. Accomplishment of the FY 2006 APG will
provide states, local authorities, and utilities across the country with cost-effective technologies and technical information that can be used to success-
fully implement the new arsenic standard.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and
successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
Recommendations and results from these reviews will improve the design and management of EPA research programs and help to measure their
progress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
al 3: Lai 'eservatic
and Restoration
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up con-
taminated properties to reduce risks posed by releases of harmful substances.
By 2008, reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and ensuring
proper management of waste and petroleum products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
APG 3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Divert 33.4% (83.1 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per
capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
Diverted a cumulative total of 33% or 79 million tons of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion,
and maintained per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
Diverted a cumulative total of 32% or 77.7 million tons of municipal solid waste from land filling and combus-
tion, and maintained per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.6 pounds per day.
Diverted a cumulative total of 30% or 72.3 million tons of municipal solid waste from land filling and combus-
tion, and maintained per capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.4 pounds per day.
APG 3.1 Performance Measures*
Millions of tons of municipal solid waste
diverted.
Daily per capita generation of municipal
solid waste.
FY 2003
Target
74
4.5
Actual
72.3
4.4
FY 2004
Target
79
4.5
Actual
77.7
4.6
FY
Target
81
4.5
2005
Actual
79
4.5
FY
Target
83.1
4.5
Data Avail
FY 2008
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
2006
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2008
Data Avail
FY 2008
Unit
million tons
Ibs. MSW
Background: An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2005 shows approximately 79 million tons of municipal solid waste diverted and 4.5 Ibs of
MSW per person daily generation. There is a 2 year data lag in reporting these data.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 3. 2 Waste and Petroleum Management Controls
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
Increase the number of waste and petroleum facilities with acceptable or approved controls in place to prevent
releases to the environment.
Status
Data Avail
FY 2007
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 3.2 Waste and Petroleum Management Controls (continued,
APG 3.2 Performance Measures*
Annual increase in the percentage of
RCRA hazardous waste management
facilities with permits or other approved
controls.
Number of confirmed UST releases
nationally.
Percent increase of UST facilities that
are in significant operational compli-
ance with both release detection and
release prevention (spill, overfill, and
corrosion protection requirements).
FY 2003
Target Actual
1.4
4.1
FY 2004
Target
2.4
< 10,000
Actual
3.7
7,848
FY 2005
Target
2.8
< 10,000
1
Actual
3.1
7,421
2
FY 2006
Target
2.5
< 10,000
1
Actual
4.3
8,361
Data Avail.
FY 2007
Unit
percentage
pts.
UST
releases
percent
Background: FY 2004 marked the first baseline year that states and regional offices reported the percentage of UST facilities, out of a total estimat-
ed universe of approximately 256,000 facilities, that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection and release prevention (spill,
overfill, and corrosion protection) requirements. At the end of FY 2004, the national compliance rate was 77 percent for release prevention, 72 per-
cent for release detection, and 64 percent for the combined compliance measure. Between FY 1999 and FY 2004, confirmed UST releases averaged
12,641, and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY 2004 was 7,848. The RCRA program exceeded its FY 2006 goal by establishing permits or
approved controls at an additional 4.3% of regulated facilities.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
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 Cleanup Contaminated I
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
In 2003
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.
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.
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.
Assess waste sites.
Clean up and reduce risk at waste sites.
APG 3.3 Performance Measures*
Number of cleanups that meet state
risk-based standards for human expo-
sure and groundwater migration
(tracked as the number LUST cleanups
completed).
FY
Target
22,500
2003
Actual
/ 8,5/8
FY
Target
21,000
2004
Actual
/ 4,285
FY
Target
/ 4,5 00
2005
Actual
/ 4,583
FY
Target
/ 3,600
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
2006
Actual
14,493
Unit
cleanups
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 3.3 Assess and Cleanup Contaminated Land (continued)
APG 3.3 Performance Measures*
Number of cleanups that meet risk-based
standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration on Indian Country.
Superfund final site assessment deci-
sions completed.
Annual number of Superfund sites with
remedy construction completed.
Superfund sites with human health
protection achieved (exposure path-
ways are eliminated or potential
exposures are under health-based
levels for current use of land or
water resources.
Superfund sites with contaminated
groundwater migration under control.
Number of final remedies (cleanup tar-
gets) selected at Superfund sites.
Percent of RCRA construction com-
pletions (New in FY 2006).
Percentage of RCRA CA facilities
with current human exposures under
control (New in FY 2006).
Percentage of RCRA CA facilities
with migration of contaminated
groundwater under control (New in
FY 2006).
FY 2003
Target
475
40
10
Actual
9/7
40
54
FY 2004
Target
475
40
10
20
Actual
548
40
18
30
FY 2005
Target
30
500
40
10
20
Actual
53
55 /
40
23
39
FY 2006
Target
30
4/9
40
10
10
20
13
82
68
Actual
43
518
34
21
37
22
89
74
Unit
cleanups
assessments
completions
sites
sites
remedies
percent
percent
percent
Background: By the end of FY 2005, a total of 38,770 final assessment decisions had been made out of a universe of 44,700 potentially hazardous
waste sites evaluated by EPA. Additionally, Superfund controlled groundwater migration at 937 of 1 ,38 1 eligible Superfund groundwater sites, controlled
human exposures at 1 ,266 of 1 ,543 NPL sites with potential human exposure pathways, completed construction at 966 of 1 ,498 eligible NPL sites, and
selected final remedies at 1,042 of 1,498 eligible NPL sites. The performance measures for the RCRA program reflect a universe of 1,968 facilities estab-
lished in October 2004. Through the end of FY 2005, EPA and the state partners had controlled human exposures at 83% ( 1 ,639) of 1 ,968 sites and 1 3%
(247) of 1,968 final remedy construction completions. Through FY 2005, EPA completed 33 1,988 leaking underground storage tank cleanups.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 3.4 Superfund Cost Recovery
In 2006
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 limita-
tions (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Goal Met
In 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 limita-
tions (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Goal Not Met
In 2004
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 limita-
tions (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Goal Met
In 2003
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 limita-
tions (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
oal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 3.4 Superfund Cost Recovery (continued)
APG 3.4 Performance Measures
Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 1 00%
of Statute of Limitations (SOLs) cases
for SF sites with total unaddressed past
costs equal to or greater than $200,000
and report value of costs recovered.
FY 2003
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2004
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
99
FY 2006
Target Actual
100
100
Unit
percent
Background: In FY 98 the Agency will have addressed 100% of Cost Recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total past costs equal or greater
than $200,000.
In 2006
Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 90 percent of
non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.
Goal Met
In 2005
Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 90 percent of
non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.
Goal Met
In 2004
Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 90 percent of
non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.
Goal Met
In 2003
Maximize all aspects of PRP participation which includes maintaining PRP work at 70% of the new remedial con-
struction starts at non-Federal Facility Superfund, and emphasize fairness in the settlement process.
Goal Met
APG 3.5 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percentage of Superfund sites at
which settlement or enforcement
action taken before the start of RA.
90
98
90
100
90
100
percent
Baseline: In FY 98 approximately 70% of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. In FY2003, a
settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 per-
cent of Superfund sites.
APG 3.6 Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional Releases
1
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving
our Nation's capability to prepare for and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving
our Nation's capability to prepare for and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
Reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving
our Nation's capability to prepare for and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
APG 3.6 Performance Measures*
Superfund-lead removal actions complet-
ed annually.
Voluntary removal actions, overseen by
EPA, completed.
Superfund-lead removal actions complet-
ed annually per million dollars.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target
/95
/05
2.10
Actual
172
137
1.54
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target Actual
/95
115
0.91
157
93
1.02
Unit
removals
removals
removals
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 3.6 Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional Releases (continued)
APG 3.6 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.
Compliance rate of inspected facilities
subject to Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations.
Compliance rate of inspected facilities
subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP)
regulations.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
300
Actual
308
FY 2005
Target
300
360
100
100
Actual
260
335
100
77
FY 2006
Target
300
100
100
100
Actual
215
345
50
71
Unit
spills
Inspections
/exercises
percent
percent
Background: Between 2000 and 2005 EPA completed an average 209 Superfund-lead removal actions and an average 97 removal actions were completed
by responsible parties voluntarily (i.e., undertaken without an EPA enforcement action). The efficiency baseline was 100,000 gallons of oil spilled to navigable
waters per million program dollars spent annually on prevention and preparedness at Facility Response Plan facilities; this baseline was set in 2003.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: The number of Superfund removal actions did not meet targets due to resource shifts associated with the
Agency's continued response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There were fewer oil spills requiring federal involvement in FY 2006 than anticipated. This
was due, in part, to the success of state and local prevention and preparedness activities. In September 2006, EPA adopted a stringent definition of compli-
ance to better address the SPCC and FRP requirements. This will provide greater consistency and may also necessitate a reassessment of annual targets.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
OBJECTIVE
ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge
research and developing a better understanding and characterization of environmental outcomes under Goal 3.
RESEAR
APG 3.7S
In 2006
Document the performance, including cost savings, of innovative characterization and remediation options, so that
newer approaches with cost or performance advantages are applied for Superfund and other cleanup projects.
Goal Met
In 2005
In FY 2005, complete at least four SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on NAPLs and sediments, in order to, by
2010, develop or evaluate 40 scientific tools, technologies, methods, and models, and provide technical support
that enable practitioners to I) characterize 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.
oal Met
In 2004
Provide risk assessors and managers with site-specific data sets on three applications detailing the performance
of conventional remedies for contaminated sediments to help determine the most effective techniques for reme-
diating contaminated sites and protecting human health and the environment.
Goal Met
In 2003
To ensure cost-effective and technically sound site clean-up, deliver state-of-the-science reports and methods to
EPA and other stakeholders for risk management of fuel oxygenates; organic and inorganic contamination of sedi-
ments, ground water and/or soils; and oil spills.
Goal Met
APG 3.7 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Draft of Annual SITE Report to
Congress
Report
Background: Documenting the results of SITE demonstrations can accelerate the application of new technologies in the field.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
4: Healthy Communities
and Ecosystems
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and
comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
OBJECTIVE 1: CHEMICAL, ORGANISM, AND PESTICIDE RISKS
Prevent and reduce pesticide, chemical, and genetically engineered biological
organism risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
BSD
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
.sticide Tolerance Reassessments
Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are
reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into consideration expo-
sure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans.
Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are
reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health and the environment, taking into consideration expo-
sure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of the Native Americans.
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 consideration expo-
sure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans.
Assure that pesticides active ingredients registered prior to 1 984 and the products that contain them are
reviewed to assure adequate protection for human health & the environmentAlso consider the unique expo-
sure scenarios such as subsistence lifestyles of Native Americans in regulatory decisions.
APG 4. 1 Performance Measures*
Cumulative percentage ofTolerance
Reassessments completed.
Cumulative percent of Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions Completed.
Product Reregistration.
Cumulative percentage of tolerance
reassessments completed for top 20
foods eaten by children.
Number of inert ingredients toler-
ances reassessed.
Reduction in time required to issue
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions.
FY 2003
Target
68
76
400
75
Actual
68
75
306
65.6
FY 2004
Target
78
81.7
400
83
100
Actual
73
77.6
127
68.9
28
FY 2005
Target Actual
87.7
88.2
400
93
100
7
7,8/6
(80.4;
82.3 (504)
SOI
74.4 (664)
168
75
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
FY 2006
Target Actual
100
93.5
545
100
100
10
99. /
545
97.2
286
62
Unit
% Tolerances
(Cum %)
% Decisions
(Cum
Number)
Actions
Tolerances
(Cum
Number)
Tolerances
Reduction
Background: The baseline value for tolerance reassessments is the 9,721 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006 using FQPA health and safety
standards. The baseline for REDS is the 612 REDs that must be completed by 2008. The baseline for inerts tolerances is 870 that must be reassessed
by 2006. The baseline for the top 20 foods eaten by children is 893 tolerances that must be reassessed by 2006. The measure has been completed
within the scope of reasonable expectation. Minor delays to measures for re-registration eligibility decisions and tolerance reassessments were the
result of the Congressional prohibition on the use of human studies, which resulted in delays to activities associated with n-methyl carbamate. These
actions will be completed in FY 2007. Reregistration decision time baseline 38-40 months. As a new public participation process, the efficiencies gains
and the speed at which gains were realized exceeded the goals set a few years ago. As such the Program has revised its targets for 2007 and 2008. The
Tribal Life Line Project completed the pilot in FY 2004. Work continues on the suite of models for tribal risk assessment; beta testing and peer review
will begin on the Alaska model early 2007.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4.2 Managing PBT Chemicals Internationally
In 2006
Collect mercury use and emission inventory data for key sectors in China and India.
X Goal Not Met
APG 4.2 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Emission inventory for power sectors
in China and India. (New in FY 2006).
20
Power
plants
Background: Global mercury use and emissions estimates indicate that China and India are among the world's largest emitters and users of mercury.
While a 2002 United Nations report indicates that over 50% of anthropogenic atmospheric mercury emissions are from Asia, accurate measures do not
exist for quantifying emissions and uses for specific source sectors.Targeting EPA emissions reduction efforts requires accurate information on sources.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA did not meet its target for power sector inventories due to delays in a project in India. EPA continues
to work closely with relevant ministries in the Government of India and will disseminate mercury stack emissions data to U.S. government partners
once they become available.
APG 4.3 Decrease Risk from Agricultural Pesticides — Pesticide Registration Status
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health stan-
dards and are environmentally safe.
Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health stan-
dards and are environmentally safe.
Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1 995 levels.
Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1 995 levels and assure that new pesticides that enter the
market are safe for humans and the environment, through ensuring that all registration action are timely and
comply with standards mandated by law.
APG 4.3 Performance Measures*
Register reduced risk pesticides,
including biopesticides.
New Chemicals
(Active Ingredients).
New Uses.
Maintain timeliness of SIS decisions.
Percent reduction in review time for regis-
tration of conventional pesticides.
Reduce registration decision times
for reduced risk chemicals.
FY 2003
Target
14
67
Actual
23
72
FY 2004
Target Actual
14
74
200
19
79
249
FY 2005
Target Actual
14
84
200
45
7
3
14
82
164
42
7
47
FY 2006
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
Target Actual
14
94
200
45
10
3.5
15
101
235
48
34
20
Unit
Registration
(Annual)
Registration
(Cum)
Actions
(Annual)
Days
Reduction
%
Reduction
Background: The baseline for registration of reduced risk pesticides, new chemicals, and new uses, is zero in the year 1996 (the year FQPA was
enacted). Progress is measured cumulatively since 1 996. Cumulative actual in FY 2006 for reduced risk pesticides was 1 72 registrations and 3,54 1 new
use actions. As of 2003, there are no products registered for use against other potential bio-agents (non-anthrax). Conventional pesticides FY 2002
baseline for reducing decision time is 44 months; reduced risk pesticides FY 2002 baseline for reducing time is 32.5 months. The 2005 baseline for
expedited new active ingredient pesticides is 4. The SIS 2005 baseline is 45 days.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA's response time for SIS decisions (emergency pesticide use exemptions for pest infestations) was
slightly higher than the target of 45 days because the program's focus was diverted to address Homeland Security and food security concerns
associated with soybean rust.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
In 2006
Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.
Data Avail 2007
In 2005
Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.
I/ G
oal Met
In 2004
Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1 995 levels.
I/ G
oal Met
In 2003
Decrease adverse risk from agricultural uses from 1 995 levels and assure that new pesticides that enter the
market are safe for humans and the environment, through ensuring that all registration action are timely and
comply with standards mandated by law.
Goal Met
APG 4.4 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percentage of agricultural acres treated
with reduced-risk pesticides.
8.5
13
8.7
. -,
Data Avail
2007
% Acre-
Treatments
Background: The baseline for acres-treated is 3.6% of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acres-treatments was 30,332,499 and
total (all pesticides) was 843,063,644 acre-treatments. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by Doane Marketing Research, Inc. serve as the
basis for computing the percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the total number of pesticide treatments
each acre receives each year.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 4.5 TRI Information
In 2006
The increased use of the Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) will result in a total burden reduction of
5% for FY 2005 from FY 2004 levels.
oal Met
APG 4.5 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percentage increase ofTRI chemical
forms submitted over the Internet
using TRI-ME and the Central Data
Exchange.
10
24
Percent
Background: In FY 2001, TRI electronic reporting was 70%.
In 2006
Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial chemicals.
Data Avail 2009
In 2005
Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial chemicals.
Data Avail 2009
In 2004
Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial/commercial chemicals.
X Goal Not Met
APG 4.6 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Safe Disposal of Transformers.
8,000 7,015
5000
Data Avail
2007
5,000
Data Avail
2007
Transformers
Safe Disposal of Capacitors.
6,000
1,457
9000
Data Avail
2007
9,000
Data Avail
2007
Capacitors
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4.6 Exposure to Industrial/Commercial Chemicals (continued)
APG 4.6 Performance Measures
Number of children aged 1-5 years with
elevated blood lead levels (>IOug/dl).
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
270,00
Actual
Data Avail
2007
FY 2005
Target
225,000
Actual
Data Avail
2009
FY 2006
Target
216,000
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Unit
Children
Background: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in May of 2005 estimated a population
of 310,000 children aged I - 5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater). EPA has incorporated into its Strategic Plan the federal
government goal to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by 2010.
Baseline for PCB transformers is estimated at 2.2 million units and for capacitors is estimated at 1.85 million units as of 1988 as noted in the 1989
PCB Notification and Manifesting Rule.
Baseline for percent difference in the geometric mean blood level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for
non-low income children 1-5 years old is 37% in 1991-1994.
APG 4.7 Risks from Industrial/Commercial Chemicals
In 2006
Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
X Goal Not Met
In 2005
Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
Data Avail 2008
In 2004
Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with industrial/commercial chemicals.
oal Met
APG 4.7 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percentage of HPV chemicals identified
as priority concerns through assess-
ment of Screening Information Data
Sets (SIDS) and other information
with risks eliminated or effectively
managed. (New in FY 2006).
100
100
% of HPV
Chemicals
Cumulative number of chemicals for
which VCCEP data needs documents
are issued by EPA in response to
Industry sponsored Tier I risk
assessments. (New in FY 2006).
Cumulative
Chemicals
Number of chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that pose
unreasonable risks to workers, con-
sumers, or the environment
Number
Chemicals/
Organisms
Cumulative number of chemicals with
proposed, interim, and lor fnal values for
Acute Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGLs).
105
133
125
165
145
184
Number of
Chemicals
Reduction in the percent current year
production adjusted-risk-based score of
releases and transfers of toxic chemicals.
3%
Data Avail
2008
3%
Data Avail
2008
Reduction
Background: The baseline for TSCA PMNs in FY2004 is zero. (EPA receives about 1,700 PMNs per year for chemicals about to enter commerce. From
1979-2002, EPA reviewed about 40,000 PMNs. Of the 78,000 chemicals potentially in commerce, 16,618 have gone through the risk-screening process of
Notice of Commencement) The baseline for HPV measure is zero chemicals in 1998.The baseline for the RSEI measure is the index calculated for
2001. Baseline is 2002; calculation methodology by addition of AEG L values (10 minute, I hour, 4 hour and 24 hour exposure periods) and numbers of
chemicals addressed.There is a list maintained by the AEGL FACA committee of highest priority chemicals: 99 chemicals are on List I which was gener-
ated at the program's inception in 1996 and 137 chemicals are highest priority on List 2 which was generated in 2001 .Therefore the total of highest
priority chemical stands today at 236 chemicals, however chemicals can be added or deleted from the list to fit stakeholder needs which is why we have
decided to provide percentage targets. In FY 2006, a cumulative total of 184 chemicals were identified for AEGLs. 2001 levels will serve as the baseline
reference point for the percent reduction in relative risk index for chronic human health associated with environmental releases of industrial chemicals
in commerce as measured by Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model analyzing results to date.There is an unanticipated delay in producing RSEI
results from 2004 Toxic Release Inventory data, however, data for FY 2003 and FY 2004 will be available in the FY 2007 PAR.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA did not meet its target for issuing data needs documents relating to its Voluntary Children's Chemical
Evaluation Program (VCCEP) due to unexpected delays in sponsor companies' ability to respond to requests for additional information. As a result, a
number of data needs documents could not be finalized.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 4.8 Chemical Facility Risk Reduction
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk
reduction efforts and building community infrastructures.
Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk
reduction efforts and building community infrastructures.
Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk
reduction efforts and building community infrastructures.
Increase facility risk reduction capabilities.
APG 4.8 Performance Measures
Number of risk management plan
audits completed.
FY
Target
300
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
2003 FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
300 400 730 400 885 400
Unit
Audits
Background: ,059 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2000 and FY 2003.
OBJECTIVE 2: COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
APG 4.9 World Trade Organization—Regulatory Sys'
In 2006
Assist key trade partner countries in assessing environmental effects of trade liberalization.
In 2005
Assist key trade partner countries in assessing environmental effects of trade liberalization.
Goal Met
APG 4.9 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Number of environmental reviews
initiated by FTAA countries following
the enactment of the 2002 Trade
Promotion Act (TPA). (incremental)
Countries
Latin American countries initiating
environmental assessments of trade
liberalization.
Countries
Background:As of the end of FY 2003, two environmental reviews (Chile and Singapore) have been initiated since the enactment of the 2002 Trade
Promotion Act.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4. 10 Revitalize Properties
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
APG 4. 10
Performance
Assess, clean up and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, and leverage jobs and cleanup/redevelop-
ment funding.
Leverage jobs by assessing, promoting the cleanup and reuse of Brownfields properties.
Leverage jobs by assessing, promoting the cleanup and reuse of Brownfields properties.
Measures*
Brownfeld properties assessed.
Brownfields cleanup grants awarded.
Properties cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields
activities.
Percentage of Brownfields job train-
ing trainees placed.
Billions of dollars of cleanup and rede-
velopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2003
Target
1,000
2,000
65
0.9
Actual
1,052
5,023
62
0.9
FY 2004
Target
1,000
N/A
2,000
65
0.9
Actual
1,076
17.00
2,250
61
0.7
FY 2005
Target
1,000
25
60
5,000
65
0.9
Actual
1,381
88
68
6,128
62
1.0
FY 2006
Target
1,000
25
60
5,000
65
1.0
Data Avail 2007
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Unit
Assessments
Grants
Properties
Jobs
% Trainees
placed
$ Billions
Background: By the end of FY 2005, the Brownfields program assessed 1 ,38 1 properties, leveraged 6, 1 28 jobs, achieved a 62% placement rate for
Brownfields job training program participants, and leveraged $I.OB in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 4.1 I Mexico Border Outreach
In 2006
Develop air quality assessments and programs to improve air quality standards in border communities.
oal Met
APG 4.1 I
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Border communities monitoring for a
pollutant that has not previously been
monitored in that community. (New
in FY 2006).
Community
Background: In 2004, there are no border communities monitoring for pollutants that have not previously been monitored in their community.There
are 17 monitoring stations along the US-Mexico Border (source: US-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000). Monitoring for:
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter U.S. only, particulate matter
10 micrometers or less in diameter, total suspended particulate matter Mexico only, lead.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
OBJECTIVE 3: ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of natural habitats and ecosystems.
APG 4.12 Protecting and Enhancing Esti
In 2006
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 (NEP).
Goal Met
In 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 (NEP).
oal Met
In 2004
Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans (CCMPs).
• G
oal Met
In 2003
Restore and protect estuaries through the implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans (CCMPs).
• G
oal Met
APG 4.12
Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Acres protected or restored in NEP
study areas.
118,171
118,171
25,000 107,000
25,000 103,959
25,000
140,033
Acres
Program dollars per acre of habitat pro-
tected or restored.
515
533
510
Dollars/
acre
Background: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 4 13 Protect Wetlands Status
In 2006
In 2005
APG 4. 13
Performance
Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands. Data Avail 201 1
Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands. Data Avail 201 1
Measures
Working with partners, achieve a net
increase in wetlands with additional
focus on biological and functional
measures (cumulative).
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.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
100,000
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Avail
201 1
Data Avail
201 1
FY 2006
Target
200,000
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Avail
201 1
Data Avail
201 1
Unit
Acres
Acres
Background: Annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres as measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and reported in Status and
Tends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1 986- 1 997. The United States achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of
wetlands over a 6-year period, from 1998 through 2004, as measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and reported in Status and trends of
Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. (Dahl.T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998
to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 1 1 2 pp.)
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4. 14 Great Lakes Ecosystem
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
APG 4. 14
Performance
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is
improved.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is
improved by at least 1 point.
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress on fish contaminants, beach closures, air
toxics, and trophic status.
Great Lakes ecosystem components will improve, including progress on fish contaminants, beach closures, air
toxics, and trophic status.
Measures
Prevent water pollution and protect
aquatic systems so that overall
ecosystem health of the Great Lakes
is improved (cumulative).
Cubic yards (in millions) of contami-
nated sediment remediated in the
Great Lakes (cumulative from 1997).
Average concentrations of PCBs in
whole lake trout and walleye sam-
ples will decline.
Average concentrations of toxic
chemicals in the air in the Great
Lakes basin will decline.
Restore and delist Areas of Concern
(AOCs) within the Great Lakes basin.
FY 2003
Target
O.I
5
7
Actual
0.19
5
8
FY 2004
Target
0.2
5
7
Actual
0.97
5
8.4
FY 2005
Target
21.0
2.9
5
7
3
Actual
21.9
3.7
6
7
0
FY 2006
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
Target Actual
21.0
3.2
5
7
2
21
1
4.
Data Avail
After
November
15,2006
8
Unit
Scale
Million
cubic yards
% Annual
Decrease
% Annual
Decrease
AOC
Background: Great Lakes rating of 20 9reported in 2003, based on most current data available, generally from 2001) on a 40 point scale where the
rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator, where 1 is poor and 5 is
good, (ii) 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation, (iii) On
average, total PCB concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish have recently declined 5 percent annually — average concentrations at Lake
sites from 2002 were: L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1 .6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1 .8ug/g; and L Ontario- 1 .2ug/g. 9iv) Average concentrations of
toxic chemicals in the air (PCBs) from 2002 were; L Superior- 60 pg/m2; L Michigan- 87 pg/m2; L Huron- 1 9 pg/m2; L Erie- 1 83 pg/m2; and L Ontario-
36 pg/m2. (v) In 2002, no Areas of Concern had been delisted.
APG 4.15 Chesapeake Bay Habitat
In 2006
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake
Bay is improved enough so that there are 90,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (cumulative).
X Goal Not Met
In 2005
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake
Bay is improved enough so that there are 90,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (cumulative).
X Goal Not Met
In 2004
Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay.
X Goal Not Met
In 2003
Improve habitat in the Chesapeake Bay.
Goal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 4.15 Chesapeake Bay Habitat (continued,
APG 4. 15
Performance Measures
Reduction, from 1985 levels, of
nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and
sediment loads (S) entering
Chesapeake Bay (cumulative).
Acres of submerged aquatic vegeta-
tion (SAV) present in the
Chesapeake Bay (cumulative).
FY 2003
Target
74
8.4
86,000
Actual
62.4
8.36
89,659
FY 2004
Target
74
8.4
90,000
Actual
59.9
7.7
63,524
FY 2005
Target
74
8.7
I.I
90,000
Actual
67
8.4
0.9
72,942
FY 2006
Target Actual
74
8.7
I.I
90,000
72.3
8.7
1.0
78,259*
Unit
M Ibs N
M Ibs P
M tons S
Acres
Background: In 1 984, there were 38,230 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2002, baseline for nitrogen load reduc-
tions was S3 million pounds per year; phosphorus load reductions was 8.0 million pounds per year; and sediment load reductions was 0.8 million
tons per year.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA is working with its state and local partners to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to improve condi-
tions in the bay. The target for restored acres of sub-aquatic vegetation (SAV) was not met due to a variety of external factors (e.g., weather, land use,
and population growth), which impact the Chesapeake Bay.
T Fiscal year data in this table reflects prior calendar year performance data.
APG 4. 16 Gulf of Mexico Status
In 2006
In 2005
APG 4. 16
Performance
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico. J( Qoa\ Not Met
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico. ^r Qoa\ Met
Measures
Prevent water pollution and protect
aquatic systems so that overall aquat-
ic system health of coastal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico is improved.
Reduce releases of nutrients through-
out the Mississippi River Basin to
reduce the size of the hypoxic zone
in the Gulf of Mexico, as measured by
the five year running average.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
O.I
1 2,700
Actual
2.4
1 2,700
FY 2006
Target
2.4
14,128
Actual
2.4
14,944
Unit
Scale
Sq km
Background: In 2004, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.4 where the rating is based on a 5-point system in which 1 is poor and 5 is good
and is expressed as an aerially weighted mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report II indicators: water quality index, sedi-
ment quality index, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: The target for reducing the size of the hypoxic zone was not met due to external factors (e.g., weather,
river flow, land use), which impact the Gulf of Mexico.
The hypoxia running average size for 1996-2000 = 14,128 km2.The 2002-2006 running average size = 14,944 km2.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OBJECTIVE 4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, provide a sound scientific foundation for EPA's goal of protecting, sustaining, and
toring the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research ;
, , ,
storing the health of people, communities, and ecosystems by conducting leading-edge research and
developing a better understanding and characterization of environmentaroutcomes under Goal 4.
4.17 Validating Assays for Endocrine Disrupto
In 2006
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of
endocrine test methods.
X Goal Not Met
In 2005
Standardization and validation of screening assays.
X Goal Not Met
In 2004
Standardization and validation of screening assays.
X Goal Not Met
APG4.I7
Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Cumulative number of assays that have
been validated.
II7
11/20
2121
Assays
Background: Baseline—The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) requires EPA to use validated assays to screen chemicals for their potential
to affect the endocrine system. The development and validation of assays is currently the principal effort in implementing the Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP).The validation process consists of several discrete steps:
Detailed Review Paper is the first stage of the overall validation process. It is a review of the scientific literature relevant to an assay and discusses the
scientific principles on which the assay is based, reviews candidate protocols and makes recommendations as to which is most suitable as a starting
point for assay refinement and validation. 17/18 detailed review papers were completed in 2006.
Prevalidation consists of studies to optimize and standardize the protocol and verify the ability of the protocol to accurately measure the endpoints of
concern. 53/60 prevalidation studies were completed in 2006.
Validation by Multiple Labs determines the transferability of the protocol to other laboratories and determines inter-laboratory variability. 731108 vali-
dation studies were completed in 2006.
Peer review is the review by an independent group of experts of the scientific work establishing the validity of the protocol. 1/20 peer reviews
were completed.
Assays Ready for Use are methods whose validation have been successfully completed and peer reviewed, and therefore are judged by the Agency to
be suitable for use in the EDSP either as primary or alternative tests establishing the validity of the protocol.
EPA no longer reports on each of steps as these are intermediate steps contributing toward the final product (i.e., assays ready for use).Thus, each
step is already measured within the annual performance measurement structure.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA did not meet its target for validating assays because additional scientific and technical evaluations, which
were not anticipated in the original schedule, were needed. International coordination with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development on assay validation has also taken longer than expected.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
In 2006
By 2006, deliver at least 20 dose-response assessments, provisional values, or pathogen risk assessments so that
by 2010, at least 100 assessments have been made available through the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database and other communications to EPA program offices, regions, states and Tribes providing the nec-
essary information to predict risk and make risk management decisions that protect public health.
Goal Met
APG4.I8
Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Completed dose-response assess-
ments, provisional values, or pathogen
risk assessments.
20
44
Assessments
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 4.18 Human Health P
APG 4. 18
Performance Measures
Completed dose-response assess-
ments, provisional values, or pathogen
risk assessments.
isk Asse
FY
Target
ssment R
2003
Actual
esearch
FY
Target
(continuedj
2004
Actual
FY
Target
2005
Actual
FY
Target
20
2006
Actual
44
Unit
Assessments
Background: This FY2006 APG produces dose-response assessments and health risk assessment information to support regulatory actions and risk
management decisions by clients including EPA, other Federal partners, states, tribes, and local governments.These assessments integrate relevant peer-
reviewed scientific literature and assessment methods to characterize the known or potential effects of specific contaminants on human health. Many
of these dose-response assessments will be posted on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) when completed. IRIS is widely used through-
out EPA and the broader risk management community as the premiere source of hazard and dose-response information for health risk assessment.
The assessments conducted in this APG will serve to identify and characterize environmentally-related human health problems and support evaluation
of the effectiveness of risk management actions aimed at improving public health and safeguarding the environment. In particular, these assessments will
be used to inform the decision-making process and provide scientific information to decision makers who must make regulatory, enforcement, and
remedial action decisions for chemical contaminant list microbes and chemicals in drinking water; residual risk assessments for air pollutants; site-
specific clean-up decisions at Superfund sites; pesticide registration; and control of multi-media toxicants. EPA also uses risk assessment information as
part of the Agency's risk communication efforts to convey information on environmental hazards to the public. As a result, risk assessment information
provided by products under this APG, is an integral component of environmental decision-making and information transfer processes under the
statutes implemented by the Agency.
APG 4.19 Research on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
In 2006
APG 4. 19
By 2006, develop and transfer standardized protocols for screening chemicals for their potential effects on the
endocrine system, so that EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has the necessary proto-
cols to validate for use in the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program, mandated by the Food Quality
Protection Act, as determined by independent expert review.
Performance Measures
Report on a protocol to screen envi-
ronmental chemicals for their ability
to interact with the male hormone
receptor.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
1
Actual
Unit
Report
Background: The Endocrine Disrupters program provides EPA with the scientific information necessary for the Agency to reduce or prevent
potential unreasonable risks to human health and wildlife from exposures to chemicals that adversely affect the endocrine system, called endocrine
disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In 1998, the Endocrine Disrupters Screening and Testing Advisory Committee, a FACA convened by EPA to provide
advice on the development and implementation of a screening program, identified a few assays to use as starting points. However, as they affirmed, no
assays were considered to be "validated" at the time. EPA's endocrine disrupters research program refined these assays and developed new ones when
the starting point assays were found to be unreliable or inadequate. Between FY 2000 and FY 2006, EPA will have completed 22 milestones associated
with this APG, including reducing scientific uncertainty regarding the mechanisms by which chemicals interfere with the endocrine system, developing
reports on a variety of screening assays in different animal species (e.g., fish, frogs, rats), and transferring protocols that have been standardized in
our laboratories and accompanying background documentation to OPPTS. Each milestone represents an internal EPA designation of a performance
measure, each of which, in turn, consists of the products of a significant body of research (e.g., a single milestone could include 5 peer reviewed publi-
cations). OPPTS will have the protocols validated by an external peer review panel and will implement a screening program using them.The data that
will be developed from the application of the validated protocols will enable the Agency to conduct risk assessments from which decisions can be
made that will reduce or prevent unreasonable risks to humans and wildlife from exposure to endocrine disrupters.
Beginning in FY 2005, regular evaluations by independent and external panels will provide reviews of EPA research programs' relevance, quality, and
successful performance to date, and will determine whether EPA has been successful in meeting its annual and long-term commitments for research.
Report on a protocol to screen environmental chemicals for their ability to interact with the male hormone receptor.This report represents a compilation
of a significant body of research, the products of which will provide OPPTS and the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
with assays that can be used to screen for endocrine activities mediated through the androgen receptor. OPPTS will use the results of application of the
assays to prioritize chemicals for additional testing.The body of research includes the culmination of three years' worth of research and consists of the fol-
lowing products: eight peer-reviewed publications that describe the assays and/or the results of application of the assays and three reports for the
international OECD that report on results of application of the assays.The OECD is using these results in their international harmonization of protocols.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 4.20 Homeland Security Research Status
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2004
In 2004
Provide methods, guidance documents, technologies and tools to first responders and decision-makers to
enhance safety and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biologi- ^^Goal Met
cal materials into the environment.
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 ^^Goal Met
effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the environment.
Provide to building owners, facility managers, and others, methods, guidance documents, and technologies to
enhance safety in large buildings and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous ^^Goal Met
chemical or biological materials into indoor air.
Verify two point-of-use drinking water technologies that treat intentionally introduced contaminants in drinking *
water supplies for application by commercial and residential users, water supply utilities, and public officials.
Verify two point-of-use drinking water technologies that treat intentionally introduced contaminants in drinking *
water supplies for application by commercial and residential users, water supply utilities, and public officials.
APG 4.20 Performance Measures
Verify two treatment technologies for appli-
cation in buildings by commercial and
residential users, utilities, and public officials
to treat contaminants in drinking water
supplies.
Prepare ETV evaluations on at least 5
new technologies for detection, contain-
ment, or decontamination of chemical/
biological contaminants in buildings to
help workers select safe alternatives.
Through SBIR awards, support as least
three new technologies/methods to
decontaminate HVAC systems in smaller
commercial buildings or decontaminate
valuable or irreplaceable materials.
Prepare technical guidance for building
owners and facility managers on meth-
ods/strategies to minimize damage to
buildings from intentional introduction of
biological/chemical contaminants.
A restricted access database of EPA
experts with knowledge, expertise, and
experience for use by EPA to rapidly assess
health and ecological impacts focused on
safe buildings and water security.
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/strate-
gies for minimizing damage from
intentional introduction of iological/
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.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
2
5
3
9/30/04
1
Actual
2
10
4
9/30/04
1
FY 2005
Target
1
09/30/05
09/30/05
Actual
1
09/30/05
09/30/05
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Verifications
Verifications
Techs/
Methods
Guidance
Database
Toolbox
Tech.
Guidance
Case
Studies
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 4.20 Homeland Security Research (continued,
APG 4.20 Performance Measures
Comprehensive guidance document for
building owners and managers on restora-
tion of buildings after terrorist
contamination with biological or chemical
hazards.
Guidance document for emergency and
remedial response personnel and water
utility operators for the restoration of
water systems after terrorist contamina-
tion with biological or chemical hazards.
Comprehensive guidance package including
data, methodologies, and other risk assess-
ment tools that will assist emergency
responders in establishing remediation goals
at incident sites.
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
1
1
1
Actual
1
1
1
Unit
Guidance
Guidance
Guidance
Background: EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to help decision-
makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical and/or biological attacks have been
directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response capabilities, by assembling and evaluating
private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders,
decision-makers, and the public. This APG will provide guidance documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the establishment of
remediation goals. These products will enable first responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by the intentional
release of toxic or infectious materials.
Discontinued APG: Reduce use of highly toxic pesticides
In 2006
Decrease occurrence of residues of carcinogenic and cholinesterase-inhibiting neurotic pesticides on foods
eaten by children from their average 1994-1996 levels.
Status
APG and
Measure
discontinued
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.
Percent occurrence of residues of FQPA priority pesticides (organophosphates and carbamates) were to be based on samples of children's foods in
baseline years 94-96. Baseline percentages were to be estimated from a composite sample of children's food. In 2005, EPA discovered that the pesti-
cides and foods surveyed by USDA change each year, thereby invalidating annual comparisons. Consequently, EPA determined that this metric cannot
be used to characterize the program's performance and is no longer collecting or reporting these data.While this performance measure will no longer
appear in the Agency's Annual Plans or Performance and Accountability Reports, EPA has developed a new measure of pesticide blood levels under
Objective 4.1 that adequately measures the programs human health outcomes. EPA will begin reporting data on this measure in 2007.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Stewardship
Improve environmental performance through compliance with environmental 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 pro-
mote environmental stewardship.
OBJECTIVE 1: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE
By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through
compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a 5 percent increase in
the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5 percent increase in
the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices.
ompliance Assistance
In 2006
Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve Environmental
Management Practices, and reduce pollutants.
Goal Met
In 2005
Through compliance assistance, EPA will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve Environmental
Management Practices, and reduce pollutants.
X Goal Not Met
APG 5.1 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percentage of regulated entities
receiving direct compliance assis-
tance from EPA reporting that they
improved EMP as a result of EPA
assistance.
SO
SI
SO
74
Percentage
Percentage of regulated entities
receiving direct assistance from EPA
reporting that they reduced, treated,
or eliminated pollution, as a result of
EPA assistance.
25
13
IS
28
Percentage
Background: The FY 2005 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they
improved EMP as a result of EPA assistance is 5 l%.The FY 2005 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance
from EPA reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of EPA compliance assistance is 13%.
APG 5.2 Compliance Incentives
In 2006
In 2005
Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will
or improving EMP.
Through self-disclosure policies, EPA will
or improving EMP.
increase the percentage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants
increase the percentage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants
Status
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 5.2 Compliance Incentives (continued)
APG 5.2 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or
eliminated, as a result of audit agree-
ments.
0.25
million
1.9
million
0.4
million
0.05
million
Pounds
Facilities voluntarily self-disclose and
correct violations with reduced or
no penalty as a result of EPA self-
disclosure policies.
500
848
500
969
Facilities
Background: The FY 2005 baseline for pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements is 1.9 million pounds
of pollutants.
Explanation of the Missed FY 2006 Goal: Pollutant reductions through compliance incentives vary widely from year to year based on a small
number of audit settlements. In FY 2006, the Agency did not meet the performance target for the pounds of pollutants reduced as a result of audits
because fewer facilities reporting large pollutant reductions chose to participate in this voluntary compliance incentive program in FY 2006 than
initially anticipated when the Agency set our 0.4 million pound target.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 5.3 Monitoring and Enforcement
In 2006
In 2005
Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treat-
ment, and improve environmental management practices.
Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treat-
ment, and improve EMP.
APG 5.3 Performance Measures*
Millions of pounds of pollutants
required to be reduced through
enforcement actions settled this fis-
cal year.(core optional)
Pounds of pollution estimated to be
reduced, treated, or eliminated as a
result of concluded enforcement
actions, (civil enf)
Percentage of concluded enforcement
cases requiring that pollution be
reduced, treated, or eliminated.
Percentage of concluded enforcement
cases requiring implementation of
improved environmental management
practices.
Percentage of regulated entities tak-
ing complying actions as a result of
on-site compliance inspections and
evaluations.
FY 2003
Target
300
Actual
600
FY 2004
Target
350
Actual
1,000
FY 2005
Target Actual
300
30
60
10
1,100
28.8
72.5
19
FY 2006
Target
450
30
65
25
Status
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
Actual
890
Data Avail
FY2008
82
16
Unit
M pounds
million
pounds
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 5.3 Monitoring and Enforcement (continued)
APG 5.3 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Dollars invested in improved environ-
mental performance or improved
environmental management practices
as a result of concluded enforcement
actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)
4 billion
10 billion
4.1
billion
5.0 billiion
Dollars
Percent of concluded enforcement
actions that require an action that
results in environmental benefits
and/or changes in facility manage-
ment or information practices.
75
63
75
83
Percent
Background: The FY 2003-2005 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated is 900,000,000 pounds of pollutants.
The FY 2005 baseline for the percent of enforcement cases requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated is 28.8%.The FY 2005 baseline
for the percent of enforcement actions requiring environmental management practice (EMP) improvements is 72.5%.The FY 2005 baseline for the per-
centage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site compliance inspections and evaluations is 19%.The FY 2003-2005 rolling
average baseline for dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices is $5,900,000,000.
Explanation of the Missed FY 2006 Goal: While the absolute number of facilities that reported taking complying actions went from 947 in
FY2005 to 1,234 in FY2006, EPA did not meet the target for percentage of facilities. In order to present a more complete picture of actions taken, the
Agency plans to expand the type of corrective actions reported to include those which occur after the inspector leaves and prior to an enforcement
action. EPA plans to re-evaluate the appropriateness of this measure for specific programs.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
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 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.
APG 5.4 Reducing PBTs in Hazardous Waste Streams
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
Reduce pollution in business operations.
Reduce pollution in business operations.
Reduce pollution in business operations.
APG 5.4
Performance Measures*
Number of pounds reduced (in millions)
in generation of priority list chemicals
from 2001 baseline of 84 million pounds.
FY
Target
2003
Actual
FY 2004
Target
1.2
Actual
1.0
FY
Target
1.2
2005
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2007
FY
Target
1.2
^^cf^^T^^^I
dgm__
Data Avail
FY 2008
Data Avail
FY 2007
X Goal Not Met
2006
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2008
Unit
Million
Pounds
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
APG 5.4 Reducing PBTs in Hazardous Waste Streams (continued)
Background: In FY 2001, the baseline of priority chemicals in waste streams was established at 88 million pounds.The FY 2008 goal is a reduction of
8.8 million pounds (10%).
Explanation of Missed FY 2004 Goal: As of August 2006, actual reductions reported for FY 2004 totaled 941,000 pounds against the target of
1,200,000 pounds.TRI, NPEP's measurement tool, is highly influenced by external factors such as industrial production.When industrial production
increases,TRI releases and waste stream numbers tend to increase.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
APG 5.5 Reduction of Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship
practices.
Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship
practices.
Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and municipal solid wastes.
APG 5.5 Performance Measures
Percent reduction in Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) reported toxic
chemical releases at Federal
Facilities.
Percent reduction in both Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) chemical
releases to the environment from
the business sector per unit of pro-
duction ("Clean Index")
Percent reduction in TRI chemicals
in production-related wastes gener-
ated by the business sector per unit
of production ("Green Index").
Reduction of TRI non-recycled
waste (normalized)
Millions of dollars saved through
reductions in pollution.
Annual cumulative quantity of water
conserved.
Billions of BTUs of energy
conserved.
FY 2003
Target Actual
200
622
FY 2004
Target
200
Actual
106
FY 2005
Target
20
10
N/A
$134
1.5
143
Actual
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FY 2006
Target
40
28
14
N/A
$170
1.5
175
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
X Goal Not Met
Actual
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unit
Percent
Releases
(Cum)
Percent
Releases
(Cum)
Percent
Waste
(Cum)
Million Ibs
Million
Dollars
(Cum)
Billion
Gallons
BTUs
(Cum)
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 5.5 Reduction of Industrial / Commercial Chemicals (continued)
Background: The baseline for theTRI non-recycled wastes measure is the amount of non-recycled wastes in 2001 reported FY 2003.The baseline
for eco-friendly detergents is 0 formulations in 1997.The baseline for the alternative feed stocks / processes measure is zero in 2000. The baseline for
the quantity of hazardous chemicals / solvents measures is zero pounds in the year 2000.The baseline for the hospitals measure is zero in FY 2001.
The baseline reference point for reductions of pollution and conservation of BTUs and water will be zero for 2003.The baseline for money saved will
be 2003.The baseline for reduction in CO2 will be zero for !996.The baseline for the Clean and Green Index would be 2001 levels.The baseline for
chemical releases is 2001 level.The baseline for chemical production related wastes is 2001 level. Note: Several output measures were changed to
internal-only reporting status in 200S. Annual Performance measures under development for EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program for
the FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: The Pollution Prevention program no longer collects data on these performance measures and are developing
new metrics under the PART process that are "intervention-based", which track results of the program's direct interactions with its business, govern-
ment, and institutional customers and provide more useful data on program performance and management.Therefore this goal is not met due to data
collection interruption. Delayed 2004 data from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting system made available in FY 2006 indicated that (after
controlling for production changes in the U.S. manufacturing sector) while 106 million pounds of non-recycled TRI wastes were reduced in 2004—a 1.8
percent reduction from 2003 levels—the program still fell shy of its FY 2004 target of a 2 percent decline. Due to the difficulty in making a sufficient
causal connection between Pollution Prevention (P2) program activities and changes reported in TRI, the Pollution Prevention Program stopped using
that performance measure in FY 2005 and has moved away from TRI-based measures in its performance measures currently under development.
APG 5.6 Innovation Activities
In 2006
Performance Track members collectively will meet targets for annual performance improvement targets for
water use, energy use, materials use, nonhazardous solid waste, air releases, and discharges to water.
Goal Not Met
In 2005
Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual reduction of 600 million gallons in water use; 2.5
million MMBTUs in energy use; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air releases; 10,000 tons in water dis-
charges; and 15,000 tons of materials compared with 2001 results.
Goal Not Met
APG 5.6 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Specific annual reductions in six
media/resource areas: water use,
energy use, solid waste, air releases,
water discharges, & materials use.
media
reduction
Reduce 3.5 billion gallons of water
use; 15.5 million MMBTUs of energy
use; 1,000 tons of materials use;
440,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000
tons of air releases; & 12,400 tons of
water discharges.
media
reduction
Background: For Performance Track, the baseline year is 2001. Performance will be measured against the 2001 baseline annual reduction of 475 M
gallons of water conserved, 0.24 MMBTUs of energy conserved, 150,000 tons of solid waste reduced, 1,113 tons of air emissions reduced, 6,870 tons
of water discharged, and -2,154 tons of materials reduced.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: Performance Track is a voluntary program. It is difficult to set annual targets in this area because EPA does
not control which companies choose to participate or their which kinds of media reductions they will pursue.The program missed its FY 2006 target,
but this is not an indicator of fewer positive results.Aggregate results are heavily impacted by large facilities whose use of materials can be orders of
magnitude higher than other participants in the program. Negative results at handful of large facilities significantly impacts the overall result.
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
OBJECTIVE
BUILD
CAPACITY
Through 2008, assist all 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.
Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity
In 2006 to implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and imple- J( QO3\ f\|ot Met
ment programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
Assist federally recognized tribes in assessing the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity
In 2005 to implement environmental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and imple- J( QO3\ f\|ot Met
ment programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
APG 5.7 Performance Measures*
Increase Tribes' ability to develop
environmental program capacity by
ensuring that Federally recognized
tribes have access to an environmen-
tal presence.
Develop or integrate EPA and intera-
gency data systems to facilitate the
use of EPA's Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture (TPEA) information in
setting environmental priorities.
Eliminate data gaps for environmental
conditions for major water, land, and
air environmental programs as deter-
mined through the availability of
information in the EPA TPEA.
Increase implementation of environ-
mental programs in Indian country as
determined by program delegations,
approvals, or primacies issued to
tribes and direct implementation
activities by EPA.
Increase the number of EPA-approved
quality assurance plans for tribal envi-
ronmental monitoring and assessment
activities. (Baseline 243)
Increase percent of EPA agreements
with Tribes that reflect holistic (multi-
media) program integration and
traditional use of natural resources.
Percent of Tribes with EPA-approved mul-
timedia workplans (cumulative).
Percent of Tribes with delegated and non-
delegated programs (cumulative).
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
18
5
Actual
26
28
FY 2005
Target
90
5
5
159
271
5
39
44
Actual
96
6
5
233
321
102
33
47
FY 2006
Target Actual
96
10
13
237
328
104
39
48
90.4
1
14
264
378
80
42
Unit
% Tribes
Systems
% Data
Gaps
Programs
Plans
%
Agreements
% Tribes
% Tribes
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APG 5.7 Tribal Environmental Baseline/Environmental Priorities (continued)
APG 5.7 Performance Measures*
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
Target Actual
Target Actual
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Percent of Tribes with EPA-reviewed mon-
itoring and assessment occurring
(cumulative).
20
44
25
29
30
30.8
% Tribes
Number of environmental programs
implemented in Indian Country per mil-
lion dollars.
12.3
12.4
13.7
Programs
Background: There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding.These entities are the ones for which environmental assess-
ments of their lands will be conducted. Consistent with EPA's Indian Policy, the Agency works with tribes to provide them with the capacity and tools
to protect the environment and public health in Indian country.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: EPA fell short of its target for assisting tribes to obtain an environmental due to resource constraints and
other challenges.The Agency also did not meet its targets for multimedia program integration and approved multimedia workplans because some
tribes are continuing to focus on a single media program or area. EPA's efforts to reach out to smaller, less advantaged tribes was a factor in not meet-
ing the percentage of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs.
* Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized.
OBJECTIVE 4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2008, strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting environmental policies
and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental stewardship.
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Provide appropriate and credible performance information about new, commercial-ready environmental tech-
nology that influences users to purchase effective environmental technology in the U.S. and abroad.
Complete 15 verifications and two testing protocols for a program cumulative total of 280 verifications and 83
testing protocols for new environmental technologies so that, by 2009, appropriate and credible performance
information about new, commercial-ready environmental technology is available that influences users to pur-
chase effective environmental technology in the US and abroad.
Verify 35 air, water, greenhouse gas, and monitoring technologies so that States, technology purchasers, and the
public will have highly credible data and performance analyses on which to make technology selection decisions.
Develop 10 testing protocols and completed 40 technology verifications for a cumulative Environmental
Technology Verification (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.
APG 5.8 Performance Measures
Verify and provide information to
States, technology purchasers, and
the public on 40 air, water, pollution
prevention and monitoring technolo-
gies for an ETV programmatic total
of 230 verifications.
FY 2003
Target
40
Actual
40
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
verifications
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
RESEARCH
APG 5.8 New Technologies (continued)
APG 5.8 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 2004
Target Actual
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
Unit
Complete an additional 10 stake-
holder approved and peer-reviewed
test protocols in all environmental
technology categories under ETV,
and provide them to international
testing organizations.
10
10
protocols
Through the ETV program, verify the
performance of 35 commercial-ready
environmental technologies.
35
35
verifications
Verifications completed
15
15
verifications
Testing protocols completed
protocols
Percent of respondents to survey of
vendors of ETV-verified technologies
stating that ETV information posi-
tively influenced sales and/or vendor
innovation.
60
Percent
Respondents
Background: Actual environmental risk reduction can be directly related to performance and effectiveness of environmental technologies purchased
and used. Private sector technology developers produce almost all the new technologies purchased in the U.S. and around the world. Purchasers and
permitters of environmental technologies need an independent, objective, high quality source of performance information in order to make more
informed decisions; and vendors with innovative, improved, faster, and cheaper environmental technologies need a reliable source of independent eval-
uation to be able to penetrate the environmental technology market. EPAs Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program develops testing
protocols for, and verifies the effectiveness of, new environmental technologies. EPA has designed surveys of vendors, purchasers, and permitters to
determine ETV's impact on I) vendor sales and technology innovation, 2) purchase decisions, and 3) permitting/regulatory-related decisions.The sur-
veys will also attempt to gather information that can be used to assess vendor satisfaction with the verification process, the value placed on
verification by vendors and others, and that will quantify any added efficiencies or benefits (either cost or time) that verification provides to innovative
technologies entering the environmental marketplace.The information collected during the surveys will allow the ETV program to further confirm its
valuable role in encouraging the use of improved environmental technologies, as well as provide information that can be used to refine or redirect
future verification efforts.These surveys are complemented by an ongoing Web site survey designed to assess customer satisfaction with ETV's web
site, as well as ongoing efforts to develop additional case studies highlighting various potential impacts, or outcomes, associated with the use of verified
technologies.
Explanation of Missed FY 2006 Goal: The environmental technology verification program (ETV) committed to provide appropriate and credible
performance information about new, commercial-ready environmental technology that influences users to purchase effective environmental technology
in the United States and abroad.This commitment was to be assessed by the percentage of respondents to survey vendors of ETV-verified technolo-
gies stating that ETV information positively influenced sales and/or vendor information. However, the measurement of this goal was discontinued due
to poor contractor performance.This work will not be resumed.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Annual Performance Goals and Measures:
Detailed Results FY 2003-FY 2006
Enabling and Support Programs
In 2006
As required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA will achieve a 2% reduction in energy consumption from the
Agency's 2003 baseline.
Data Avail 2007
ESP-1 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target Actual
FY 20048
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
Unit
Cumulative percentage reduction in
energy consumption.
16
17
20
25
Data Avail
2007
Percent
Background: For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the FY 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 341,123
BTUs per square foot.
ESP-2 Information Exchange Network
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-mak-
ing through the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-mak-
ing through the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-mak-
ing through the Central Data Exchange (CDX).
Decision makers have access to the environmental data that EPA collects and manages to make sound environ-
mental decisions while minimizing the reporting burden on data providers.
ESP-2 Performance Measures
States using the Central Data
Exchange (CDX) to send data
to EPA.
Number of major EPA environmen-
tal systems that use the CDX
electronic requirements enabling
faster receipt, processing, and quality
checking of data. The baseline is 70
data flows.
Number of users from states, tribes,
laboratories, and others that choose
CDX to report environmental data
electronically to EPA.
FY 2003
Target
46
Actual
49
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
12
20,000
Actual
22
45,000
^t^E
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
FY 2006
Target
29
47,000
Actual
32
62,000
Unit
States
Systems
Users
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
ESP-2 Information Exchange Network (continued)
In preparation for increasing the
exchange of information through
CDX, implement four data standards
in 1 3 major systems and develop
four additional standards in 2003.
Number of private sector and local
government entities, such as water
authorities, will use 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 programs
or Regions.
8
7
2,000
13
46
7,050
13
49
Data
Standards
Entities
Systems
States
Background: The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 200 1 .
formation security
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
ESP-3 Performance Measures
Percent of Federal Information
Security Management Act reportable
systems that are certified and
accredited.
Percent of intrusion detection moni-
toring sensors installed and
operational.
FY 2003
Target Actual
75
75
75
75
FY 2004
Target
75
75
Actual
91
100
FY 2005
Target
75
Actual
90
KUjUlM
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Percent
Background: In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ESP-4 Fraud Detection and Deterrence
In 2006
In 2006, the OIG will improve public confidence and integrity in EPA program operations by detecting and pre-
venting fraud, abuse and breaches of security.
Goal Met
In 2005
In 2005, the OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying 800 recommendations, potential
savings and recoveries equal to ISO percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 220 actions for better busi-
ness operations, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing risk or loss of integrity.
oal Met
In 2004
In 2004, the OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying 240 recommendations, contribut-
ing to potential savings and recoveries equal to ISO percent 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.
X Goal Not Met
In 2003
In 2003, the OIG will improve Agency business and program operations by identifying ISS recommendations,
potential savings and recoveries equal to ISO percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 75 actions for bet-
ter business operations, and SO criminal, civil or administrative actions reducing the risk of loss or integrity.
Goal Met
ESP-4 Performance Measures
FY 2003
Target
Actual
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target9
Actual
Unit
Criminal, civil, administrative, and
fraud prevention actions.
50
83
80
108
80
125
80
121
Actions
Number of improved business
practices and systems.
100
133
220
724
Improvements
Number of business recommen-
dations, risks, and best practices
identified.
155
312
240
390
800
1,1 19
Recommendations
Return on the annual dollar
investment in the OIG.
ISO
856
ISO
48
ISO
285
Percent
Background: In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 83 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
ESP-5 Audit and Advisory Services
In 2006
In 2005
In 2004
In 2003
In 2006, the OIG will contribute to human health and environmental quality through audits, evaluations, advisory
services, inspections, and investigations for improved Agency business practices, accountability, and performance.
In 2005, the OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying 95 environ-
mental 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.
In 2004, the OIG will improve environmental quality and human health by identifying 80 recommendations,
risks, or best practices; contributing to the reduction or elimination of 1 8 environmental risks; and 42 actions
influencing positive environmental or health impacts.
In 2003, the OIG will improve environmental quality and human health by identifying 80 environmental recom-
mendations, risks, and best practices; contributing to the reduction of 20 environmental risks, and 60 actions
influencing positive environmental or health impacts.
I/ Goal Met
X Goal Not Met
I/ Goal Met
I/ Goal Met
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
ESP-5 Audit and Advisory Services (continued)
ESP-5 Performance Measures
Environmental and business actions
taken for improved performance
or risk reduction.
Environmental and business rec-
ommendations or risks identified
for corrective action.
Return on the annual dollar
investment, as a percentage of the
OIG budget from audits and
investigations.
Number of environmental risks
reduced.
Number of environmental actions.
Number of environmental recom-
mendations, risks, and best
practices identified.
FY 2003
Target
20
60
80
Actual
92
185
485
FY 2004
Target
18
42
80
Actual
45
49
1 16
FY 2005
Target
23
45
95
Actual
35
35
1 12
FY 2006
Target10
303
925
ISO
*IO
*IO
**IO
Actual
407
1024
MOO
Unit
Actions
Recommendations
Percentage
Risks
Improvements
Recommendations
Background: In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 564 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk
reduction; 885 environmental and business risks or recommendations identified for corrective action; and 150% in potential dollar return on invest-
ment as a percentage of OIG budget, from savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements.
EPA's OIG Helps Improve Agency Management,
Accountability, and Program Operations
OIG Questioned Costs, Efficiencies,
Savings, Fines, and Recoveries from OIG Audits,
Evaluations, Inspections, and Investigations
Targets
Results
Planned Actual
Civil, Criminal, and Environmental and Business
Administrative Actions Recommendations,
Risks Identified
Actions Taken and
Risks Reduced
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PART Measures Without
Corresponding FY 2006 Goals
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
Status
Data
Available
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Mobile Source Air Pollution Standards
and Certification
Mobile Source Air Pollution Standards
and Certification
Toxic Air Pollutants — Regulations and
Regional Support
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Research
Acid Rain Program
Acid Rain Program
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for large
engines (nonroad, ci, Heavy duty gas and diesel engines)
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOx, PM, CO) reduced per total emis-
sion reduction dollars spent.
Tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer and noncancer risk) emis-
sions reduced per total cost ($).
Percent improvement in customer satisfaction and product use-
fulness survey score.
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power generation
sources. (New in FY 2006)
Percent change in average sulfur deposition and mean ambient
sulfate concentrations reduced.
Collecting Data
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Progress Tracked
Triennial ly
Progress Tracked
Triennial ly
FY20I2
TBD
TBD
TBD
FY 2007
FY 2007
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Alaska Native Villages
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Public Water System Supervision Grant
Program & Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
Underground Injection Control, Public
Water System Supervision
Percent of Alaska rural and Native Households with drinking
water and wastewater systems.
Percentage of research products used by the Office of Water as the
basis of or in support of Contaminant Candidate List Decisions.
Percentage of research products used by the Office of Water as
the basis of or in support of Six Year Review Decisions.
Use of Drinking Water Research Program's Contaminant
Candidate List research products by the Office of Water and
other key clients.
Use of Drinking Water Research Program's Six Year Review
research products by the Office of Water and other key clients.
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project initiating operations.
Number of people served by projects that protect or restore
waterbody uses that impact human health per million dollars of
CWSRF assistance.
Dollars per community water system In compliance with health-
based drinking water standards.
People receiving drinking water in compliance with health-based
drinking water standards per million dollars (federal and state).
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
Collecting Data
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2008
-------
SECTION 11.2, PERFORMANCE RESULTS—ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES: DETAILED RESULTS FY 2003-FY 2006
PART Program
PART Measure
Status
Data
Available
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization, and
Waste Management Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization, and
Waste Management Program
Superfund Remedial Action
Cleanups complete (3-year rolling average) per total cleanup dol-
lars.
Facilities under control (permitted) per total permitting costs.
Tons of municipal solid waste recycled over total net costs of
recovery.
Superfund NPL sites with human exposures under control per
million dollars.
Finalizing Baseline
Developing Targets
Under Development
Under Development
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Brownfields Revitalization
Brownfields Revitalization
Human Health Research
Goal 5: Compliance and Envir
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Civil)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization, and
Waste Management Program
EPA Environmental Education
Acres of brownfields property made ready for reuse.
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Average score of customer satisfaction survey for use of Human
Health Program methods, models and data
onmental Stewardship
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated per FTE.
Pollutant impact.
Pounds of pollutant reduction per FTE.
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated.
Reduction in recidivism.
Change in behavior to use Improved Management practices.
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations.
Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) per mil-
lion dollars of costs (Federal + State).
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of
inspection/enforcement.
Pounds of priority chemicals reduced in waste streams per feder-
al and private sector costs.
Ratio of number of students/teachers that have improved envi-
ronmental knowledge per total dollars expended.
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
TBD
TBD
TBD
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
Under Development
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2008
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOTES
10
Additional annual performance goals and metrics tracking sulfur and nitrogen deposition and sulfate and nitrate ambient
concentration were developed and approved for EPA's Acid Rain program through a PART assessment. These metrics have
triennial rather than annual targets with the next report date scheduled for FY 2007. The full text of the additional metrics is
available in the supplemental table, "PART Measures with Data Availability beyond FY 2006."
Results for FY 2002 are available for the first time in the FY 2006 PAR. APG Statement— In FY 2002, Air toxics emissions
nationwide from stationary and mobile sources combined will be reduced by an additional 2% of the updated 1993 baseline of
6.0 million tons for a cumulative reduction of 40%. EPA achieved a 37.6% reduction in air toxics emissions and did not meet the
goal of a 40% reduction.
The FY 05 PAR and FY 07 Annual Plan contained estimated report dates of 2015 for FY 2005 and 2018 for FY 2006. These
numbers have been revised to 2009 to reflect the Agency's data collection and processing methods.
The Air Toxics program met its overall target to reduce air toxics in 2003 and 2004 but did not achieve the expected level of
progress on all associated annual performance measures. The first two categories saw air toxics reductions greater than those
projected for FY 2003 and 2004. However, reductions for area and all other air toxics emissions were less than those projected for
both years.
The Agency met the aggregate greenhouse gas goal for FY 2005 but did not achieve the expected level of progress on all associated
annual performance measures. In FY 2005, while meeting the overall target for greenhouse gas reductions, two areas were short of
their contributions to the overall target.
Result contributes to performance measure, 'Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the
industry sector.1
In FY 2006, the target and actual reflect both the annual plan (11) and the universe of assays (20). Note also that in FY 2006, the
universe of assays increased by one (21) after EPA had set its target.
While these years represent a cumulative figure, FY 2006 is the first year for reporting on a new baseline.
In FY 2006, these PMs are merged with Audit and Advisory Services to avoid overlap, simplify data collection and streamline
reporting. The "Number of improved business practices and systems" measure is merged with the "Environmental and business
actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction". The "Number of business recommendations, risks, and best practices
identified" measure is merged with the "Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action".
*In FY 2006, these PMs are combined with the "Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk
reduction" measure in order to avoid overlap, simplify data collection and streamline reporting.
**In FY 2006, this measure is combined with the "Environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective
action" measure in order to avoid overlap, simplify data collection and streamline reporting.
-------
laee ne
Accomplishments
CONTENTS
Introduction
EPA's Progress in Addressing FY 2006 Agency Level Weaknesses
OIG's 2006 Key Management Challenges and EPA's Responses .
-------
- - •- .Management
Accomplishments
and Challenges
Introduction
Management challenges and
integrity weaknesses represent
vulnerabilities in program operations
that may impair EPA's ability to
achieve its mission and threaten the
Agency's safeguards against fraud,
waste, abuse, and mismanagement.
These areas are identified through
internal Agency reviews and inde-
pendent reviews by EPA's external
evaluators, such as the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB),
the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), and EPA's Office
of Inspector General (OIG). This
section includes two components:
(1) a brief discussion of EPA's
progress in addressing its FY 2006
integrity weaknesses, and (2) a
discussion of the top ten manage-
ment challenges identified by EPA's
OIG and the Agency's response.
Under the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA),
all federal agencies must provide
reasonable assurance that policies,
procedures, and guidance are
adequate to support the achievement
of their intended mission, goals, and
objectives. (See the Management
Discussion and Analysis section
for EPA's assurance statements.)
Agencies also must report any mate-
rial weaknesses identified through
internal and/or external reviews
and their strategies to remedy the
problems. EPA closed the last of its
material weaknesses in FY 2001 and
has had no material weaknesses since
that time. The Agency continues to
make progress in reducing a number
of less severe Agency weaknesses. In
FY 2006, EPA closed its Agency-
level weakness on water quality
standards (see page III-2 of this
section for more details). The
Agency will continue to address and
report its progress in addressing the
remaining seven weaknesses.
As required by the Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000, OIG
identifies, briefly assesses, and reports
annually the most serious manage-
ment and performance challenges
facing the Agency. In FY 2006, OIG
identified ten areas it considers to be
EPA's most pressing management
challenges. While some are new,
others are recurring issues that take
time to resolve (e.g., managing
human capital and assistance
agreements). Notably, OIG did
not suggest elevating any of these
issues to the level of a material
weaknesses—a deficiency that could
adversely impact the integrity of
Agency programs and activities.
EPA has made great progress in
addressing the issues OIG identified
and will continue to work diligently
in assessing and resolving vulnerabil-
ities before they become serious
management issues.
EPA's senior managers remain
committed to maintaining effective
and efficient internal controls to
ensure that program activities are
carried out in accordance with appli-
cable laws and sound management
policy. EPA leaders meet periodically
to review and discuss progress the
Agency is making to address issues
raised by OIG and other external
evaluators, as well as progress in
addressing current weaknesses and
emerging issues.
194
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
EPA's Progress in Addressing FY 2006 Agency
Level Weaknesses (Prepared by the EPA)
In FY 2006, EPA declared no
new material or Agency-level
weaknesses. The Agency contin-
ued to address eight Agency-level
weaknesses identified in previous
fiscal years, completing corrective
actions and closing the weakness
related to water quality standards.
This section discusses five of the
eight Agency-level weaknesses
EPA tracked in FY 2006; the
remaining three—homeland
security, assistance agreements,
and human capital—are discussed
in the management challenges
section that follows.
BACKLOG OF WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
In FY 1999, EPA identified a
weakness in the backlog of actions
to approve, disapprove, and prom-
ulgate water quality standards to
assure timely improvements in
water quality. Over the years,
the Agency has made significant
resource and programmatic
changes to help reduce the num-
ber of backlogs. In FY 2006, the
Agency restructured its oversight
of water quality standards to rely
more heavily on state and regional
standards review and has imple-
mented a real-time tracking
system. Data for the past 4 years
show that the Agency has made
good progress in reducing the
number of pre-Alaska outstanding
disapprovals and the number of
pre-Alaska outstanding submis-
sions. EPA has met its two goals
for closing this weakness: (1) no
more than one state in each EPA
region on average with pre-Alaska
disapproved elements of water
quality standards, and (2) on
an EPA regional basis, at least
75 percent of all state submissions
receiving EPA action within
90 days of submission, and at least
90 percent of all state submissions
receiving EPA action within
1 year of submission. The Agency
now has the management struc-
ture and internal control processes
in place to continue to reduce
and prevent the backlog of water
quality standards. Completed all
corrective actions in FY 2006.
SAFE DRINKING WATER
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(SDWIS)
In FY 2006, EPA worked
diligently to complete SDWIS
modernization efforts which suc-
cessfully addressed three historical
data quality issues: difficulty
getting data into SDWIS, high
costs for data processing and
storage, and difficulty getting data
out of SDWIS. The moderniza-
tion was completed on September
30, 2005. SDWIS data quality was
identified as an Agency weakness
in 1999 and has a corrective
action completion target date
that extends to 2007. SDWIS'
weaknesses centered around five
major issues: (1) completeness of
the data (e.g., the inventory of
public water systems, violations of
maximum contaminant 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 over-
sight actions suffer, (3) difficulty
receiving 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.
While the modernization does not
fully address data completeness
and timeliness, the software
applies Agency data standards as
well as streamlined validation
checks that allow the user to
perform faster, more frequent data
validations prior to submitting
data to SDWIS. The Agency is
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
also working to better quantify the
confidence levels for SDWIS data.
To fully address data completeness
and timeliness, EPA is adhering
to a robust field audit process
in the Data Reliability Plan that
provides on-site data verification
reviews and a state-EPA plan for
data reliability improvement. The
data verification reviews compare
the public water system data that
states have in their files and data-
bases with the data in SDWIS.
EPA enhanced the state data
management software (SDWIS/
STATE) to make it web accessible
and easier to use. This effort has
led to reduced data entry screens,
simplified data entry processes,
and shared-data capabilities with-
in each primacy agency.
In FY 2007, the Agency will
begin tracking the quality of data
reported to SDWIS/FED and
report on the two indicators that
support the 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan. The Agency has streamlined
its strategic targets on drinking
water standards and expects to be
able to calculate the percentage of
communities meeting EPA drink-
ing water standards, subject to a
confidence interval, by the end of
FY 2007. Correction is scheduled
for FY 2007.
CLEAN WATER ACT
SECTION 305(B)
REPORTING
EPA has worked with states,
federal agencies, and others in the
monitoring community to
improve the quality of water mon-
itoring data and information and
to improve reports on water quali-
ty that are needed by decision-
makers and the public to judge
progress toward CWA goals. In
April 2006, EPA issued a draft
report on the Wadeable Streams
Assessment that provides a statis-
tically-valid survey of stream
conditions nationwide. To keep
pace with developing technologies
and Agency-wide standards, EPA
is making significant changes to
the STORET model of data shar-
ing. The new Water Quality
Exchange system will make it easier
for partners to submit and share
water quality information over
the internet and provide a new
analytical tool to help evaluate
water quality status and trends.
The Agency's corrective
action strategy focuses on
strengthening state water quality
monitoring programs; promoting
the use of multiple monitoring
approaches to answer questions
about different water body types at
the national, regional, state, and
watershed levels to support good
management decisions; improving
reports on water quality conditions
at the national, regional, and state
levels; and ensuring that data
management systems contain the
needed water quality information
and are accessible to decision mak-
ers and the public. The Agency
has made progress in each of these
areas. Correction is scheduied for
FY 2007.
PERMIT COMPLIANCE
SYSTEM (PCS)
Since 1999, EPA has worked
with the states to identify revi-
sions needed to PCS that are
critical to effective National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program man-
agement and oversight. While
PCS has been enhanced periodi-
cally, it relies on old technology
and no longer meets the business
needs of today's NPDES program.
Moreover, states are increasingly
proposing to develop their own
systems, often multi-media inte-
grated systems, and are reluctant
to maintain data in PCS as well.
Through its modernization
efforts and data quality strategy,
EPA has been working with the
states to improve the quality and
comprehensiveness of the data
and to reduce the transaction
costs of state users.
While EPA has now
developed and successfully
implemented a modernized,
national information system
designed to meet the needs of
today's NPDES permitting and
enforcement program, not all
states have been migrated from
PCS to the new system (ICIS-
NPDES). Currently 21 states,
2 tribes, and 9 territories are using
the new system. These users are
generally referred to as "direct-
users," since they use ICIS-
NPDES directly to manage the
NPDES program.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Beginning in FY 2007, EPA
will be building the batch compo-
nent for the new system to allow
the remaining states to electroni-
cally transfer data into the new
system. The development of the
batch component of the new
system would allow for the
submission of NPDES data from
state systems to ICIS in the
Extensible Mark-up Language
format via the National
Environmental Exchange
Network and EPA's Central Data
Exchange. As this is completed
these states will migrate from PCS
to the new system over the next
few years. Correction is scheduled
for FY 2009.
IMPLEMENTATION OF
DATA STANDARDS
While the Agency has a sub-
stantive effort in place to develop
data standards and provide guid-
ance for their implementation,
EPA needs to establish a process
for ensuring that each data
standard adopted by the Agency
is fully implemented in a cost-
effective and timely manner.
The Agency has made progress
in addressing the implementation
of data standards. In FY 2006, EPA
completed five of its eight major
milestones, which included promul-
gating a number of standards,
developing and Agency-wide data
architecture to guide information
management decisions, establishing
a system of registries to provide a
reference point of implementation
of standards, developing a commu-
nications plan promoting imple-
mentation of upcoming standards,
and issuing a semi-annual Data
Standards "Report Card." The
remaining corrective actions
are on track for completion by
FY 2010.
EPA's strategy to validate the
effectiveness of its actions will
include continuous monitoring of
implementation of data standards
within the Registry of EPA
Applications and Databases and
publishing the semi-annual Data
Standards Report Card. Correction
is scheduled for 2010.
Office of Inspector General
2006 Key Management Challenges
(Prepared by the Agency's Office of Inspector General)
The table below summaries the issues identified by OIG as the 2006 key management challenges facing
EPA and the relationship of the issues to the Agency's Strategic Plan and to the President's Management
Agenda. Following the table is a detailed discussion of the challenges, as reported in OIG's memorandum to
EPA's Administrator, EPA's Key Management Challenges, dated April 21, 2006. The discussions include a box
which presents EPA's response to the challenge.
EPA's TOP MAJOR MANAGEMENT
CHALLENGES REPORTED BY THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
rY LINK TO EPA
2006 STRATEGIC GOAL
LINK TO PRESIDENT'S
MANAGEMENT
AGENDA
Managing for Results*:
Focusing on the logic of design, measures of success
(outputs and outcomes), and measures of efficiency,
so that EPA programs and processes can be set up
to evaluate results and make necessary changes.
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security:
Implementing a strategy to effectively coordinate
and address threats.
Data Standards and Data Quality**: Improving the
quality of data used to make decisions and monitor
progress, and data accessibility to EPA's partners.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Integrating
Performance & Budget
Homeland Security
E-Gov
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA's TOP MAJOR MANAGEMENT
CHALLENGES REPORTED BY THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
rY LINK TO EPA
2006 STRATEGIC GOAL
LINK TO PRESIDENTS
MANAGEMENT
AGENDA
EPA's Use of Assistance Agreements to
Accomplish Its Mission:
Improving the management of the billions of dollars
of grants awarded by EPA.
Emissions Factors for sources of Air Pollution:
Reliable emission factors and data are needed for
targeting the right control strategies, ensuring per-
mitting is done properly, and measuring the
effectiveness of programs in reducing air pollution.
Human Capital Management:
Implementing a strategy that will result in a
competent, well-trained, and motivated workforce.
Voluntary, Alternative, and Innovative Practices
and Programs:
Applying voluntary approaches and innovative or
alternative practices to provide flexible, collabora-
tive, market driven solutions for measurable results.
Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater
Resources and Infrastructure:
Current drinking water, treatment and supply, and
wastewater treatment and disposal systems are
wearing out and will take huge investments to
replace, repair and construct facilities.
Information Technology Systems Development
and Implementation:
Overseeing information technology projects to
ensure they meet planned budgets and schedules.
Data Gaps:
Deciding what environmental and other indicators
will be measured, providing data standards and
common definitions to ensure that sufficient, consis-
tent and usable data are collected.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-Goal
Goal 1
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal 2
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Financial Performance
Human Capital
E-Gov
E-Gov
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
MANAGING FOR RESULTS
EPA has made considerable
progress in linking resource
investments to results. Programs
reviewed using OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool have
received improved scores. EPA
plans to work with its partners
and stakeholders to develop more
outcome-oriented goals and
intends to integrate performance
and cost information more
closely when developing the
FY 2008 budget.
EPA needs to focus on the
logic of program design, measures
of success (outcomes and outputs),
measures of efficiency, and ensur-
ing that Agency programs and
processes are set up so that EPA
can evaluate the results and make
necessary changes. As discussed
above, the type and quality of the
data used are key factors in deter-
mining the success of any program.
This long-term challenge encom-
passes the Agency's work from
strategic planning, through track-
ing what is actually accomplished,
and how much it costs.
As the Agency drafts the new
2006-2011 Strategic Plan, it has
the opportunity to strengthen this
underlying foundation for manag-
ing for environmental results. This
effort challenges all EPA offices to:
• leverage all parties' resources
by coordinating EPA's mission
more closely with the missions
of Federal, State, and tribal
partners and identify specific
opportunities for eliminating
gaps or conflicts;
• fully address cross-media issues;
• link goals, performance
objectives, sub-objectives,
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
Over the past years, EPA has worked with stakeholders to strengthen
results-based management at EPA. In FY 2006, the Agency completed its
2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which reflects a sharpened focus on achieving
measurable results and will help advance protection of human health
and the environment.The Agency continues to improve the quality of its
performance measures and ability to track costs, and it is making cost
and performance information available to managers for operational and
strategic decision making.
Highlights of progress include:
• Improved the outcome orientation of the objectives, sub-objectives,
and strategic targets presented in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
• Worked with the Environmental Council of the States to implement
OMB's directive that requires EPA to develop standard templates for
states to use to submit state grant agreements.
• Improved the Agency's annual planning and budgeting process by
analyzing performance trends and cost information to establish
priorities for EPA's 2008 budget. Conducted performance and budget
hearings with program offices, regions, states, and tribes to review
performance and identify potential efficiencies.
• Enhanced the Annual Commitment System (ACS) to track three
new classes of measures (Senior Executive Service organizational
assessment, state grant template, and regional priorities).The system
also flags measures which contribute to OMB's Program Assessment
and Rating Tool (PART) evaluations.
• Launched a new intranet website (http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/acs)
to provide information on ACS developments and the annual
performance commitment process.
• Developed a new detailed performance report and financial
management reports through the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer's Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT).
• Recognized significant cost savings by retiring the Management and
Accounting Reporting Systems (MARS) in FY 2006.
• Finalized the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan by September 30,2006.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Continue to enhance the reporting capabilities of the Agency's ACS.
strategies and measures
explicitly and clearly;
integrate EPA's human capital
strategy into each goal;
build in considerations of risk,
cost/benefit analysis, and
stakeholder consultations; and
• incorporate the strategic goals
of its regional offices in a
coherent approach that
demonstrates how to link
local and regional environ-
mental issues to national
goals and measures.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The new plan should provide
a clear roadmap of substantive
strategies, interim and long-term
measures, and timeframes to meet
its stated goals.
To evaluate program efficiency,
EPA must continue improvements
to track the cost of achieving
environmental results. Equally
important is getting EPA man-
agers to consider cost when mak-
ing operational and strategic
decisions. With the right informa-
tion in hand, EPA can analyze
and improve its performance.
AGENCY EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) maintains the
lead for the unified national effort
to better prepare for, prevent, and
respond to potential attacks
against the United States. In addi-
tion to carrying out its mission to
protect human health and the
environment, EPA has the impor-
tant responsibility of protecting
the environment from terrorist
acts. EPA has developed chemical,
biological, 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. EPA's role in responding
to terrorist incidents and other
national emergencies, such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, has
further defined and demonstrated
the Nation's expectations of EPA's
emergency response capabilities.
The Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act (Public Law 107-
188) specifically tasked EPA with
funding and overseeing water sys-
tem vulnerability assessments and
resulting emergency response plans.
The National Response Plan and
several Homeland Security
Presidential Directives direct
EPA to support and develop the
preparedness of State, local, and
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA plays a vital 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.
To respond to growing demand, the Agency continues to coordinate and
address high-priority, cross-Agency technical and policy issues related to
day-to-day homeland security policies and activities. EPA currently
acknowledges homeland security as an Agency-level weakness and is
scheduled to close the weakness in FY 2008.
Highlights of progress include
• Developed and implemented an information technology strategy
to move seamlessly from field tools to enterprise architecture.The
strategy will link prevention and preparedness data to response.
• Developed a draft Incident Management Handbook that provides
guidance on organizational structure and outlines the communications
flow during an incident of national significance.
• Formed an Administrative and Finance Workgroup to address
procurement, property tracking, and pay issues.
• Deployed the National Decontamination Team during the Hurricane
Katrina response.
• Established a steering committee to provide oversight and leadership
to the numerous workgroups that support the Agency's National
Approach to Response.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Develop and implement homeland security performance measures to
better define expectations and assess progress.
• Develop a "How To" manual that covers roles and responsibilities for
incidents of national significance and includes pre-approved messaging
templates.
• Complete the Emergency Response Equipment Data Tracking System
(January 2007).
• Continue to coordinate the implementation of the 2004 CIPR
tribal governments, and private
industry, to respond to, recover
from, and continue operations after
a terrorist attack.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Over the past year, OIG
analyzed EPA's homeland security
emergency response activities.
We found that the Agency's
Emergency Response Business Plan
("the Plan") provides a frame-
work to address readiness for
simultaneous incidents of national
significance while maintaining
effective "day-to-day" emergency
response and removal operations.
Also, the Plan briefly describes
the necessary changes in the man-
agement of personnel, financial,
and other resources required to
address incidents of national
significance readiness. However,
continuing challenges remain as
EPA's Office of Emergency
Management finalizes the Plan to
address four observations and
related suggestions we identified
during our analysis: (1) selecting
incidents of national significance
scenarios included in the Plan,
(2) dealing with the conflicts
inherent in preparing for incidents
of national significance while
maintaining an effective emer-
gency response and removal
program, (3) specifying EPA's role
in the National Approach to
Response work plans, and
(4) monitoring progress through
the Core Emergency Response
evaluation process.
The OIG also reviewed the
accountability and procedures of
key homeland security activities
to assure they were accomplished
effectively and in a timely
manner. We found that EPA made
limited progress in accomplishing
the initiatives in its 2004 Critical
Infrastructure and Key Resources
Protection Plan (CIPP). The
CIPP contained those actions
the Agency considered essential
for identifying, acquiring and
protecting critical infrastructure
and key resources needed to
respond to emergencies. While
EPA began work on 9 of the 10
major CIPP initiatives, it had not
sufficiently accomplished 5, had
not assigned milestones for 4
other initiatives, and did not have
a system for effectively tracking
counter terrorism/emergency
response (CT/ER) equipment. As
a result, EPA's ability to protect
public health and the environment
from future terrorist attacks or
other nationally significant inci-
dents is not at the level the
Agency determined necessary.
The lack of overall accounta-
bility for monitoring the CIPP
delayed its implementation, and
hindered EPA's efforts to obtain
and protect needed CIPP assets.
Furthermore, the lack of proce-
dures for managing CT/ER
equipment caused inconsistencies
that could delay getting equip-
ment to an emergency. This was
apparent in EPA's response to
Hurricane Katrina because needed
equipment could not be located
easily. EPA needs to assign respon-
sibility for monitoring the CIPP,
which is now spread across four
offices, to one office that will be
held accountable for all key
actions, better ensuring emergency
responsiveness as envisioned by
the Agency.
DATA STANDARDS AND DATA QUALITY
The Agency has a substantive
effort in place to develop data
standards and provide guidance
for their implementation, but
incorporating data standards in
information collections from ini-
tial plans to obtaining the data for
analysis is not yet a routine activi-
ty in all programs.1 Data standards
are an essential component of
EPA's information program. They
promote efficiently sharing envi-
ronmental information among
EPA, States, tribes, and other
information partners. Using com-
mon data standards among
partners ensures consistently
defined and formatted data ele-
ments and sets of data values, and
ensures access to more meaningful
environmental data.
EPA recognizes data standards
as a weakness and has developed a
three-step corrective action plan
involving a communication strate-
gy that promotes the awareness of
implementation documentation
and best practices, tracking imple-
mentation of data standards, and a
validation strategy to review
progress in implementing the
standards and the effectiveness of
corrective actions. Completing
this plan is projected for 2010.
EPA and its partners also
need to continue to focus on
ensuring that data are of sufficient
quality for decision-making. For
example, EPA considers data qual-
ity for drinking water as an
Agency-level weakness and has a
corrective action completion tar-
get date that extends to 2007.2
OIG evaluation and investigative
activities involving laboratories'
analysis of drinking water samples
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
continue to raise concerns with
the integrity of sample results.
Without any national studies of
water quality data that include
examining laboratory integrity,
the full extent of the problem
remains unassessed. Given the
potential impact of poor quality
data on human health, EPA
should assess drinking water labo-
ratory integrity and incorporate
promising techniques to identify
improper practices and fraud
into the required elements of the
laboratory oversight process.
Also impacting the data quality
issue is the need for policies and
procedures for approving electronic
reporting systems under the Cross-
Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR). CROMERR is
intended to permit and encourage
using electronic reporting that
reduces the cost and burden of
data transfer and maintenance,
improves data quality and avail-
ability, and maintains the level
of corporate and individual
responsibility and accountability
for electronic reports and records
that exist in the paper environ-
ment.3 The integrity and quality
of electronic reports are essential.
Inconsistencies in deploying
these systems could place at risk
the continued viability of self-
monitoring and self reporting
that provide the framework for
compliance under most EPA envi-
ronmental programs. Therefore,
EPA should take further steps
to ensure consistent approval of
electronic reporting systems
throughout EPA.45 In addition,
EPA has reconsidered its approach
to electronic record keeping and is
not issuing final record keeping
rules at this time.6 Enforcement
activities rely on the availability
of electronically submitted docu-
ments needed to prosecute
enforcement violations. There-
fore, EPA should take steps to
continue its efforts to address the
"Record Keeping" portion of the
rule.7
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
The Agency currently has an organizational structure for the review
and approval of electronic reporting systems operated by EPA and
authorized state, tribal, and local government programs.The CROMERR
approval process has been in place for several months, and there is no
evidence that approvals might be inconsistent. EPA has also put additional
management controls in place to address laboratory quality system
practices. NOTE: A discussion of the progress EPA has made in the area
of data standards can be found in the preceding section on Agency-level
weaknesses.
Highlights of progress include:
• Developed draft standard operating procedures for the Technical
Review Committee.
• Developed CROMERR guidance, which includes a system checklist
and a set of examples on approaches to CROMERR-compliant
e-reporting.
• Developed a tracking system for CROMERR approvals.
• Agency laboratories must demonstrate on-going performance
through independent external assessments and participation in
inter-laboratory comparison studies (policy directive Feb. 2004).
Plans for further improvements include:
• Provide a fact sheet for existing EPA systems that are working on
CROMERR compliance.
• Develop a step-by-step guide for program system managers to
determine if they are compliant with the electronic reporting rule.
EPA'S USE OF ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS TO ACCOMPLISH ITS MISSION
Since 1996, EPA has reported
Management of Assistance
Agreements as a material or
agency weakness under the
Federal Managers Financial
than half of its fiscal year 2005
obligations to organizations
through assistance agreements.
The work involved is critically
important to fulfilling EPA's
Agency use good management
practices in awarding and oversee-
ing these agreements to ensure
they cost-effectively contribute to
attaining environmental goals.
Integrity Act.8 EPA awarded more mission; it is imperative that the EPA has taken action to improve
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
its management of grants and to
address issues in OIG reports. Two
areas where continued emphasis is
needed are incorporating environ-
mental results into grants and
holding project officers and
their supervisors accountable for
effective grants management.
Since January 2005, EPA
policy has been to link grants to
the strategic plan and ensure that
work plans contain well-defined
outputs and, to the maximum
extent practicable, well-defined
outcomes. The Agency needs
to continue its work to define
environmental measures for its
activities, so that the measures can
be incorporated into grant docu-
mentation. An agency evaluation
of non-competed grants in 2005
showed that many grant work
plans (77 percent) included a dis-
cussion of outcomes, but only a
small percentage (17 percent)
included quantifying outcomes.
EPA also needs to continue
to emphasize accountability for
managing grants in accordance
with policies and procedures. In
September 2005, the OIG reported
that while EPA had made progress
in establishing accountability,
managers did not sufficiently hold
supervisors and project officers
accountable for grants manage-
ment because no process existed
to measure most grants manage-
ment activities. Managers and
supervisors generally did not
discuss grants management
responsibilities during year-end
evaluations. In the limited cases
where grants management weak-
nesses were identified, managers
did not effectively communicate
these weaknesses to staff.9
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA has made significant progress in addressing issues raised by OIG and
GAO.The Agency has adjusted its corrective action and internal controls
as necessary to further the principles of accountability, transparency, and
results. In FY 2003, EPA issued its first long-term Grants Management
Plan, with associated performance measures, to map the Agency's
approach for improving grants management.The Agency is continuing to
implement this plan. EPA currently acknowledges assistance agreements
as an Agency-level weakness and is scheduled to close the weakness in
FY 2007.
Highlights of progress include:
• Subjected 92 percent of new grants to the revised competition policy,
exceeding the performance goal set in the Grants Management Plan.
• Conducted pre-award administrative capability reviews of nonprofit
grant applicants as a way to detect and resolve problems before
grants are awarded.
• Significantly improved the timeliness of grant closeouts.This effort
will lead to a reduction in unliquidated obligations.
• Implemented a statistical approach for selecting grantees for
administrative post award monitoring reviews that will provide
the Agency with more precise information on grants management
deficiencies.
• Provided training to headquarters users on the Integrated Grants
Management System.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Enhance the Agency's employee performance evaluation system
to require that grants management performance measures be
incorporated into the performance standards of project officers,
supervisors, and managers with grants management responsibilities.
• Require all managers and supervisors to complete the on-line grants
management training before approving grant awards.
• Require baseline monitoring for all grants documented in the Agency's
Integrated Grants Management System.
• Implement the Agency's "Green Plan" to integrate grants with
financial data and eliminate duplicate data entry.
EPA agreed with the report's
recommendations and developed a
twelve-step corrective action plan
to be completed by February 2008.
The final step is to conduct 2007
performance reviews using new
grants management performance
measures. EPA established a
Performance Measures Workgroup
to develop the 2007 performance
measures by October 2006. The
Workgroup is also exploring
options for creating new perform-
ance recognition and incentive
programs for individual project
officers and supervisors to
encourage excellence in grants
management.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
EPA; State, local, and tribal
agencies; industries; environmental
groups; and others use emissions
factors to develop the emissions
data that are the cornerstone of
many important environmental
decisions.10 Emissions factors
are used for about 80 percent
of emissions determinations for
sources of air pollution.11 These
decisions include facility permit-
ting, developing control strategies,
making compliance and enforce-
ment decisions, measuring
environmental progress, and
demonstrating program results
under the Government
Performance and Results Act.12
Without reliable emissions factors,
users cannot be sure that (1) air
pollution control strategies target
the right industries or products,
(2) permitting programs include
all required sources and establish
proper emission limits, and (3) air
programs are effective in reducing
air pollution.13
The Agency faces significant
challenges in improving emissions
factors. A recent OIG evaluation
found (1) conflicting guidance on
appropriately using emissions fac-
tors, (2) a rating system that did
not quantify the uncertainty associ-
ated with the emission factor, (3)
inadequate funding of the emissions
factor program, and (4) the lack of
a comprehensive plan to improve
data collection and set emissions
factor priorities.14 These manage-
ment-related issues contribute to
impairing emissions factor develop-
ment, and hamper achieving the
Clean Air Act's requirements and
major air program goals.15
As a result, emissions factors
are being inappropriately used for
key environmental decisions.16
For example, emissions factors are
being used for non-inventory
purposes, such as setting permit
limits and reporting the level of
air pollution control at specific
facilities.17 For three industry sectors
EPA examined, inappropriately
using emissions factors contributed
to more than 1 million tons of
pollutants not being controlled.18
EPA guidance states that the user
must take into account the uncer-
tainty of the emission factor when
considering its use;19 however, emis-
sion factor uncertainty is little
understood, leading to inappropri-
ate uses.20 As one example, because
the fiberglass industry believed
EPA emissions factors were over-
estimating their emissions, it
developed new emissions factors.21
As a result, their improved
emissions factors increased the esti-
mated emissions for the fiberglass
industry by about 100 percent.22
EPA is shifting its efforts
toward more direct, continuous
monitoring and measuring emis-
sions from all major emissions
sources.23 However, increased
demand for low-cost quality envi-
ronmental data is driving the need
for more quality emissions fac-
tors.24 Factors will continue to be
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA and its stakeholders use emissions factors to make about 80 percent
of emissions determinations for sources of air pollution and rely on them
for other environmental decisions as well.The Agency is making it easier
for industries to transform their emissions data into emissions factors
and to transmit them to state and federal reviewers quickly.
Highlights of progress include
• Developed the Electronic Reporting Tool to provide an electronic
version of emissions test plans and test reports.
• Launched WebFIRE, an interactive website of the emissions Factor
Information Retrieval System that combines AP-42 and FIRE data so
that users are no longer required to conduct independent checks
while searching for emission factors (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/
index.cfm?action=fire.main ).
• Conducted an analysis on determining the uncertainty of highly-rated
emissions factors.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Enhance WebFIRE to allow users to independently check and verify
background information for emissions factors.
• Provide the results of the uncertainty analysis to external partners
for review and comment.
• Develop emissions factors for coke ovens, landfills, municipal waste
combustors, steel mini-mills, landing losses for external floating roofs,
and low pressure petroleum storage tanks.
• Initiate development of emissions factors for natural gas engines,
rubber manufacturers, and animal feeding operations.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
used for a broad array of environ-
mental decisions, including
measuring and reporting environ-
mental progress.25 If EPA can
improve the quality of its factors,
this should improve environmen-
tal decision-making for reducing
air pollution.26 However, if EPA
continues to use insufficient
measures to determine program
results, the Agency may not be
reaching the goals it has claimed
to reach, the air may not be as
clean as the Agency claims,27 and
EPA and States may make mis-
informed selections regarding the
most promising future actions to
improve air quality.28
EPA's challenges are to limit
the decisions being made with
poor quality emissions factors, and
provide significant non-regulatory
incentives to industry, State, or
local agencies to provide EPA
with the data it has long sought to
improve the quality of emissions
factors.29
HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
Maintaining a highly skilled,
diverse, results-oriented workforce
is vital to successfully accomplish-
ing EPA's mission. EPA faces
challenges in developing, attract-
ing, and sustaining this type of
workforce. Like many Federal
agencies, EPA is trying to main-
tain its workforce as the number
of employees eligible to retire
increases.30 EPA recognizes the
importance of implementing
a workforce planning system,
supported by reliable and valid
workforce data, to ensure that it
hires the right number and type of
people, and allocates resources to
meet mission needs.31
In FY 2005, EPA reported
Human Capital Strategy
Implementation/Employee
Competencies as an Agency weak-
ness with a planned closure date in
fiscal year 2006.32 EPA's corrective
action strategy for eliminating
human capital (HC) management
as an Agency weakness includes
actions to address workforce
planning and human capital
accountability among other efforts.
Workforce Pianning. EPA issued
its first comprehensive Strategic
Workforce Plan (SWP) in March
2006, which presents a national-
level approach to workforce
planning for the Agency. This
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA is working closely with OMB and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) to align the Agency's Human Capital Strategy to
meet the objectives outlined in the PMA as it relates to the Strategic
Management of Human Capital. Developing and implementing a compre-
hensive strategic workforce planning model and development strategy
will address concerns identified. EPA currently acknowledges human
capital as an Agency-level weakness and is scheduled to close the
weakness in FY 2008.
Highlights of progress include:
• Completed and distributed comprehensive Agency Strategic
Workforce Plan, based on local level workforce plans and an Agency-
level workforce analysis.
• Completed an assessment and gap analysis of competencies for
human resources specialists, information technology specialists (IT),
and senior leaders and developed a strategy to close gaps.
• Continued progress in closing competency gaps for IT specialists.
• Worked with four federal agencies to develop a shared competency-
based approach to developing and measuring collaboration and
partnering competencies.
• Developed and implemented an Agency Plan for Strategic Leadership
Succession.
• Focused recruitment and outreach efforts on the Agency's Mission
Critical Occupations.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Track and assess program and regional workforce plans to ensure
alignment with the Agency's workforce plans and strategic goals.
• Continue to monitor and report on progress of EPA's human capital
initiatives to assess the overall effectiveness of the Agency Strategy
for Human Capital and to determine whether EPA is achieving its
desired human capital results.
SWP provides data and focuses on
developing, implementing, and
evaluating activities for meeting
the Agency's future workforce
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
needs and, as appropriate, control-
ling workforce costs. It presents a
framework that will guide all of
EPA's future workforce develop-
ment activities. The process as
shown in the SWP includes four
primary activities that EPA needs
to complete: identifying high prior-
ity competencies needed to
achieve Agency goals, completing
an inventory of the current work-
force, comparing what exists to
what is needed and identifying
gaps, and developing strategies and
solutions to close identified gaps.
The SWP recognizes the reali-
ty of tight budgets as one of the
drivers that will influence the
nature or emphasis of EPA's work.
EPA will need to impose greater
rigor in focusing on priorities and
managing limited human capital
resources to achieve continued
improvements in environmental
and human health protection.
Human Capital Accountability.
In September 2005, EPA issued the
Human Capital Accountability
Plan for Achieving Results that
focuses on both results and the
accountability process needed to
drive EPA toward achieving HC
goals. The Plan also describes how
the Agency evaluates its headquar-
ters and regional HC operations
for effectiveness, efficiency, and
compliance with Merit System
Principles and the laws and regula-
tions that support them.
On the President's Manage-
ment Agenda scorecard for the
second quarter of FY 2006, OPM
indicated that EPA continued to
make progress in developing per-
formance appraisals and workforce
planning. EPA received "Green in
Progress" for its accomplishments
during this quarter.33 However,
EPA must now evaluate the
results of the HC initiatives over
time and adjust its strategy as nec-
essary to ensure the Agency meets
its HC goals.
VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVE, AND INNOVATIVE EPA PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS
EPA supports and advocates
a range of voluntary programs,
and innovative or alternative
practices, designed to provide
flexibility and novel and benefi-
cial approaches to achieve
environmental goals. The basic
premise of voluntary approaches is
flexible, collaborative, market-
driven solutions that can deliver
measurable environmental results.
These programs primarily work
with business, community or other
partners to either reduce pollution
below regulatory requirements, or
ameliorate environmental prob-
lems not otherwise regulated by
EPA (e.g. water and energy use,
recycling). In 2002, EPA released
an innovation strategy that
described EPA activities and
priority issues.
Significant and noteworthy
examples of successful innovative
or voluntary practices and pro-
grams exist. For example, "Energy
Star," one of EPA's flagship volun-
tary programs, is recognized by
more than 60 percent of the
American public and results in
reduced energy consumption, as
well as consumer savings on utility
bills. EPA's recent "Good
Samaritan" initiative can provide
private, and innocent, landowners
the ability to voluntarily clean up
pollution from abandoned mine
sites, without fear of Superfund
liability. This innovative approach
holds promise for restoring and
protecting watersheds that could
otherwise remain contaminated
due to private party concerns
about Superfund cleanup liability.
Voluntary programs and inno-
vative or alternative approaches
hold promise and need to be
encouraged. However, their
growth has not been matched by
efforts or processes to define the
programs, determine which pro-
grams work, how efficiently they
work, or how to determine the
respective goals and expectations
of voluntary programs or alterna-
tive approaches compared to
regulated programs and approach-
es. The challenge this poses for
EPA is to overcome its inability to
fully articulate or measure the
results of voluntary programs or
innovative and alternative
approaches. In 2002, the National
Academy of Sciences reported
that rigorously evaluating volun-
tary programs is important because
of the historical failure of markets
and voluntarism to address envi-
ronmental problems, and because
resource depletion creates a heavy
burden of proof for those who
advocate voluntary alternatives to
regulation.
Clearly, EPA must be innova-
tive and flexible, and adapt to
changes in environmental protec-
tion, to move forward and
continue progress toward environ-
mental goals. The challenge is to
maintain those vital elements of
the existing system, such as the
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
standards, permits, and compli-
ance assurance efforts that are part
of EPA's basic mandate, while
simultaneously pursuing creative
new tools and approaches that
complement and enhance
the Agency's efficiency and
effectiveness.
In 2004, the Innovation
Action Council was charged with
voluntary program oversight and
created the Voluntary Program
Coordination team. This team has
issued several guidance documents
and has attempted to stay in regu-
lar contact with many of the
voluntary programs. However,
it does not have Agency-wide
oversight authority to conduct
day-to-day management functions,
or to develop management proce-
dures, measurement protocols, or
outcome reporting requirements.
EPA can take steps to address
these oversight, evaluation,
and management challenges to
maximize potential environmental
benefits of voluntary, innovative,
and alternative approaches.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA's Innovation Action Council (IAC), which directs and oversees the
Agency's innovation agenda, has a number of efforts underway to clarify
the goals and measures and evaluate the results of innovative and
"voluntary" partnership programs.While it does not have the authority
to manage or oversee voluntary programs, the IAC, supported by
the National Center for Environmental Innovation, has established
workgroups on Performance Management,Voluntary Partnership
Programs, and Environmental Stewardship.
Highlights of progress include:
• Conducted a needs assessment to identify what additional informa-
tion, tools, or services would be helpful in improving the design,
measurement, and evaluation of innovative and other programs.
• Developed guidance which promotes a strategic approach to program
evaluation and encourages innovative programs to participate in EPA's
annual Program Evaluation Competition.
• Develop a notification system to ensure that proposed new or
significantly redesigned partnership programs undergo a basic level of
Agency-wide review.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Continue implementing the three areas of the needs assessment
(design, measurement, and evaluation).
• Implement a new information collection request that will enable a
number of voluntary programs to collect data critical to evaluating
their impacts and effectiveness.
• Develop an Agency-wide partnership program accomplishments
report to summarize and aggregate the overall environmental results
achieved by these programs.
EFFICIENTLY MANAGING WATER AND WASTEWATER RESOURCES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
America's water assets are
critical to the country's public
health and economic, environ-
mental, and cultural vitality.
About 160,000 public drinking
water systems and 16,000 sewage
treatment plants throughout the
Nation supply fresh water and
remove and treat used water. Over
the past 20 years, communities
have spent more than $ 1 trillion
(in 2001 dollars) on drinking
water treatment and supply,
and wastewater treatment and
disposal. Still, these systems are
projected to have huge costs to
repair, replace, and construct new
water infrastructure. Current
systems are wearing out, and
recent and future environmental
requirements from EPA will
necessitate additional invest-
ments. In 2002, EPA estimated
the 20-year water infrastructure
capital needs as ranging between
$485 billion and $896 billion.
EPA has had a two-pronged
approach to influencing this gap.
It annually commits funding to
the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Funds
(SRFs) to ensure that communi-
ties have access to capital for
their drinking and wastewater
infrastructure needs. The 2007
President's Budget proposes
$688 million for the Clean Water
SRF and $841.5 million for the
Drinking Water SRF. These
amounts are less than previous
years and will play a limited role
in meeting overall needs. EPA has
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
approached this challenge by
focusing on its "Four Pillars of
Sustainable Infrastructure"—
better management, water effi-
ciency, full cost pricing, and the
watershed approach.
While EPA hopes to build
upon these pillars using the tools
of technology, innovation, and
collaboration, it is faced with the
challenge of trying to do more
with less. It has to find ways to be
more innovative on the finance
and management fronts to assist
States and communities in over-
coming infrastructure issues. OIG
work on such topics as Drinking
Water Protection Efforts, Source
Water Protection, Combined
Sewer Overflows and State
Revolving Funds have all found
funding to be a significant barrier
to progress. Our work has shown
that a competition exists between
infrastructure and other priority
water needs (e.g. drinking water
source protection, regulatory pro-
gram implementation, security.)
for the limited available SRF
money. Funding requirements can
be more difficult for small systems
to meet, impeding their ability to
obtain much needed resources.
The Agency faces a continu-
ing challenge to find ways to
reach and influence the manage-
ment behavior, skills, and abilities
of thousands of small utilities.
Preparing and publishing docu-
ments, and convening workshops
reach only a small portion of the
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA has taken, and will continue to take, effective steps to define its role
in closing the gap in funding for water infrastructure and assisting states
and communities in overcoming infrastructure issues.The Agency is
incorporating the four pillars of its Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Initiative—better management, full cost pricing, water efficiency, and the
watershed approach—into existing programs and redirecting funds
toward this initiative.
Highlights of progress include:
• Launched WaterSense, a market enhancement program that is increas-
ing national awareness of water-efficient choices and the value of clean
and safe water, (see http://www.epa.gov/watersense/index.htm)
• Co-sponsored the Water Quality Trading Conference with USDA that
brought together companies and the agricultural community to build
further momentum for trading programs that maximize impact from
infrastructure investments.
• Continued to produce assistance documents and tools targeting the
needs and special circumstances of small utilities (e.g., Simple Tools
for Effective Performance [STEPSJd and Total Electronic Asset
Management Software [TEAMS]).
Plans for further improvements include:
• Develop an internal strategy that focuses on better management
of wastewater for small communities and disadvantaged and
underserved populations.
• Prepare a Drinking Water Capacity Development Strategic Plan to
ensure that the Agency's outreach efforts to small utilities are well
coordinated and effective.
systems that need EPA's expertise.
Recent OIG work shows that lack
of long-term planning, manage-
ment and operator competencies
and retention, and problems
understanding regulations contin-
ue to be challenges for small
utilities. Good practices, such as
mentoring programs by larger
utilities, show promise for
wider application to benefit small
utilities and could help address
the management issues that are
a component of the water infra-
structure challenges. EPA needs
to define its role as part of a
long-term national strategy on
sustainable water infrastructure
that addresses financial and
management issues, so that the
Nation's water quality is protected
now and in the future.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
EPA requested approximately
$600 million in system develop-
ment/maintenance funding for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007.34 The
Agency has experienced system
development and implementation
problems similar to those encoun-
tered by other Federal agencies.
Recently, we reported that the
EPA did not sufficiently oversee
information technology (IT)
projects to ensure they met
planned budgets and schedules.
For example, PeoplePlus, EPA's
new combined human resources,
payroll, and time and attendance
application, cost at least $3.7
million more than originally
budgeted and took 1 year longer
than planned to deploy. The cost
of the Clean Air Markets Division
Business Systems' development
has increased by approximately
$2.8 million and the target
completion date has been extended
by 2 years.35
Among EPA's numerous
system projects, two financially
related information system efforts
have Agency-wide implications—
migrating EPA's payroll processing
functions to the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service and
replacing its core financial
accounting system. Modernizing
any major system will never
be a risk-free proposition; the
Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has reported
that the Federal government has
long been plagued by financial
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
In response to concerns noted and audit findings and recommendations
in OIG's September 2005 report, EPA developed an action plan calling
for formal delegation of independent oversight responsibility and an
additional question in the CPIC process focusing on System Life Cycle
documentation and approvals.The plan also calls for increased emphasis
on reviewing solutions architecture documents and an outreach and
education program for senior management and Senior Information
Officials.
Highlights of progress include:
• Issued a revised System Life Cycle Management Policy.
• Developed Enterprise Architecture Governance Procedures that
require review, approval, and certification that solutions architectures
are aligned with both federal and EPA enterprise architectures.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Continue to conduct outreach briefings with senior management.
• Review information submitted in response to the CPIC question on
System Life Cycle documentation and approval.
management system moderniza-
tion efforts that have failed to
meet their cost, schedule, and
performance goals.36
The EPA Chief Information
Officer has taken steps to strength-
en EPA's Capital Planning and
Investment Control (CPIC) and
system development processes by:
• updating its CPIC policy to
ensure that the process for
managing information tech-
nology investments is
consistent with Federal
statutes, regulations, and
policies, and supports the
Agency's System Life Cycle
and Enterprise Architecture
requirements37;
• publishing an interim
Agency System Life Cycle
Management Policy38; and
• promulgating procedures for
EPA offices to utilize Earned
Value Management for its IT
projects.39
EPA needs to further enhance
its IT investment control struc-
ture and hold system managers
accountable for following it.
Revisions to the Interim Policy to
define requirements for life cycle
documentation and ensuring that
system managers follow estab-
lished procedures are just two
examples of steps that should be
taken.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATA GAPS
If EPA is to manage for
results, it needs to decide what
environmental and other indica-
tors will be measured; provide data
standards so that organizations
responsible for delivering environ-
mental programs are measuring
what is important and are using
common definitions; and ensure
that data are of sufficient quality
for effective decision making.
OIG audits and evaluations have
also pointed out that data to
measure program success are not
always present.
EPA's FY 2005 Performance
Report and the latest draft of
the Report on the Environment
2007 demonstrate the utility and
value of environmental indicators
for accountability and tracking
environmental progress. Some
important environmental results
information is already being cap-
tured, such as trends in wetlands
acreage, statistically representative
baselines for the condition of the
Nation's coastal waters and small
streams, concentrations of ozone-
depleting chemicals in the lower
atmosphere, and baselines for the
number of Superfund National
Priorities List sites and Resource
Conservation Recovery Act high
priority corrective action sites
where offsite migration of contam-
inated groundwater is or is not
occurring. Such information helps
EPA managers make more effec-
tive and efficient resource
investment decisions.
While some important data
exist, EPA and its partners are not
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
As part of its strategic planning, EPA continues to implement and refine
processes to identify and prioritize data gaps, including coordinating the
draft Report of the Environment (ROE) with the Agency's strategic plan-
ning and budgeting process.
Highlights of progress include:
• Completed gaps analysis and documentation.
• Developed a process for identifying and ranking key data gaps.
• Prepared an options paper addressing ROE indicators and data gaps
for the Indicators Steering Committee (ICS).
• Developed a pilot (endorsed by ICS) that assesses how the ROE and
strategic planning efforts can best inform and support one another.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Analyze and discuss ROE indicator gaps and limitations.
• Further refine the process to identify and prioritize data gaps identi-
fied in the ROE as part of the Agency's strategic and budget planning
process.
• Continue to use existing interagency forums, such as the Global Earth
System of Systems and the Collaboration on Indicators in the Nation's
Environment, to identify how and where existing efforts can be lever-
aged among partners.
yet engaged in an effort to ensure
that high priority data gaps are
filled and that data deemed
important will be collected in the
future. Most indicators rely on
data gathered by the States, other
Federal programs, and the private
sector. Increasing budgetary pres-
sures at the State and Federal
levels may threaten the future
collection and analysis of such
data. For example, many indica-
tors in the draft Report on the
Environment 2007 are based on
land use/land cover data that
are already 15 years old. Such
information needs to be updated.
Addressing data gaps will
require a coordinated effort by
EPA and its partners involving
extensive collaboration during
both budget preparation and
strategic prioritization activities.
EPA plans additional actions
to address this challenge. We
understand that during the
development of the 2006-20 J J
Strategic Plan, the Agency will
identify data gaps by building on
the information in the draft
Report on the Environment 2007.
Progress will then be reported to
the Quality Information Council
and the Chief Financial Officer
on a regular basis.
-------
SECTION III—MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
NOTES
1. Attachment 2, p. 2, regarding OKI's Weaknesses for a 10/5/05 Management Integrity Meeting, Office of Environmental Information
FY 2005 Integrity Act Report, Implementation of Data Standards.
2. EPA's FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, Appendix C, Data Quality, p. CIS.
3. Federal Register, Part III Environmental Protection Agency, Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Final Rule, p. 59849, Section I
Overview.
4. EPA Procedure: Office of Information Collection Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) Implementation Procedures
for EPA Systems, March 22, 2006.
5. EPA Procedure: Procedure for Approval of State, Tribal or Local Government Delegated Program Allocations for Implementing the
Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), March 22, 2006.
6. Federal Register, Part III EPA, Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Final Rule, p. 59851, Section I Overview, Letter C.
7. Federal Register, Part III EPA, Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Final Rule, p.59851, Section I Overview. Letter C.
8. Additional Efforts Needed to Improve EPA's Oversight of Assistance Agreements, Report No. 2002-P-00018, September 30, 2002.
9. EPA Managers Did Not Hold Supervisors and Project Officers Accountable for Grants Management, Report No. 2005-P-00027,
September 27, 2005.
10. EPA Summary of Emissions Factors Improvements Projects Fact Finding Survey, June 2004, p. 1.
11. GAO Report # GAO-01-46 EPA Should Improve Oversight of Emissions Reporting by Large Facilities, April 2001 p. 3.
12. EPA Summary of Emissions Factors Improvements Projects Fact Finding Survey, June 2004, table 2.
13. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, At a Glance.
14. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, pp. 15-24.
15. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, pp. 15-24; Memorandum: Inspector
General's Candidates for Fiscal 1996 Weaknesses, To: Sallyanne Harper, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Attachment 2 of 9.
16. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, At a Glance.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. "Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents," EPA-454/R-95-015 revised, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1997 pg 8; Introduction to AP-42, Volume 1, Fifth
Edition—January 1995, pp. 4-5.
20. Document entitled "3.0 Options for Revising Factor Quality Assessments" prepared by MACTEC for Emission Factors and Policy
Application Group, EMAD, OAQPS, OAR, August 2004 pp. 2-4.
21. e-mail Response from Indiana Department of Environmental Management, September 22, 2005.
22. Ibid.
23. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, p. 32.
24. Document prepared for OIG, prepared by Emission factors and Policy Application Group, EMAD, OAQPS, OAR, January 6, 2005;
OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, p. 35.
25. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, p. 35.
26. Ibid.
27. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, p. 25.
28. Ibid.
29. OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, pp. 17, 18. 19, 23, 25, OIG opinion.
30. EPA's FY 2005 Human Capital Accomplishments Report, Attachment, p. 3.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
31. FY 2005 HR Integrity Act Report, p. 1.
32. FY 2005 OARM Assurance Letter, p. 8 and HR Integrity Report, p. 1.
33. EPA's PMA Scorecard for the quarter ending December 31, 2005.
34. OKI email Total Dollars for Major IT Investments in the Development Phase of the System life Cycle, March 31, 2006.
35. Report No. 2005-P-00023, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Information Technology Projects Report, September 14, 2005, p. 4.
36. GAO Report No.06-184, Financial Systems Modernization, March, 2006, pp. 1, 3.
37. CIO Policy Transmittal 06-003, Classification No.: 2100.3, Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) Program Policy for
Management of Information Technology (IT) Investments, December 15, 2005, p. 1.
38. Interim EPAOrder 2100.4, Interim Agency System Life Cycle Management Policy, December 29, 2003, p. 1.
39. EPA, Earned Value Management (EVM) Procedures, Addendum To CPIC Procedures, December 2005, p. 1.
-------
Section IV.
mnua
inancial
•PF
CONTENTS
Introduction
Principal Financial Statements
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005 Financial Statements
-------
Introduction
EPA earned a clean opinion on the financial state-
ments. For FY 2006, the auditors identified two reportable
conditions, one non-compliance and no material weak-
nesses. The Agency is proud of the reduction from ten
reportable conditions in FY 2005. The Chief Financial
Officer's comments on the audit results are included in
the Independent Auditor's Report.
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 Circular 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 Principal
Financial Statements. The statements provide a compari-
son of FY 2006 and 2005 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.
• State of Changes in Net Position—reports the change
in net position during the reporting period. Net
position is affected by changes to its two compo-
nents: Cumulative Results of Operations and
Unexpended Appropriations.
• Statement of Budgetary Resources—provides informa-
tion about how budgetary resources were made
available as well as their status at the end of the
period.
214
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INTRODUCTION
• Statement of Financing—serves as a bridge
between an entity's budgetary and financial (i.e.,
proprietary) accounting. The statement articu-
lates the relationship between net obligations
derived from an entity's budgetary accounts and
net cost of operations derived from the entity's
proprietary accounts by identifying and explain-
ing key differences between the two numbers.
• Statement of Custodial Activity—reports collection
of nonexchange revenue for the General Fund
of the Treasury, trust funds, and 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 collections as custodial activities on this
statement.
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, therefore, is put
off or delayed for a future period.
• 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.
• Stewardship PP&E (Land)—provides information
on EPA land and land rights (easements) acqui-
sitions/withdrawals related to remedial clean-up
sites.
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 three areas:
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.
• 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
2006 and 2005 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.
-------
Principal Financial Statements
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
I. Consolidated Balance Sheet
2. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
3. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
4. Consolidated 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 and Other Monetary Assets
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 (PP&E)
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
Note I I. Stewardship PP&E
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Note I 3. Other Liabilities
Note 14. Leases
Note 15. Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities
Note 16. Cashout Advances, Superfund
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations—Other Funds
Note 18. Amounts Held by Treasury
Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies
Note 20. Earmarked Funds
Note 21. Exchange Revenues, Statement of Net Cost
Note 22. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship PP&E
Note 24. Environmental Cleanup Costs
Note 25. State Credits
Note 26. Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Note 27. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Note 28. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Note 29. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of
Budgetary Resources
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
Note 3 I. Undelivered Orders at the End of Period
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
Note 33. Statement of Financing
Note 34. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
Note 35. Transfers-ln and Out, Statement of Changes in Net
Position
Note 36. Imputed Financing Sources
Note 37. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 38. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net
Position
Note 39. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net
Position
Note 40. Other, Statement of Financing
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
(UNAUDITED)
I. Deferred Maintenance (Unaudited)
2. Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
3. Stewardship PP& E (Land)
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY STEWARDSHIP
INFORMATION (UNAUDITED)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND OTHER
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (UNAUDITED)
I. Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
2. Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
216
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Balance Sheet
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
ASSETS
I ntragovernmental
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Notes 4 and I 8)
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
Stewardship PP&E (Note I I)
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Note 12)
Other (Note 13)
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions and Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 15)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 24)
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note 16)
Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 19 and 24)
Payroll and Benefits Payable (Note 37)
Other (Note 13)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations—Other Funds (Note 17)
Cumulative Results of Operations—Earmarked Funds (Note 20)
Cumulative Results of Operations—Other Funds
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
FY 2006
FY 2005
11,173,443 $
5,366,264
127,727
59,143
1 6,726,577 $
10
243,824
30,836
756,794
4,278
17,762,319 $
107,525 $
18,896
32,963
1 02,934
262,318 $
725,667
39,408
10,083
223,760
8
1 95,746
1 3 1 ,322
1,588,312 $
1 0,299,640 $
4, 1 77,329
1 ,697,038
1 6, 1 74,007
17,762,319 $
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
1 19,836
2 1 ,744
142,347
106,530
390,457
730,278
39,380
6,989
270,8 1 1
1,950
1 90,394
98,064
1,728,323
1 1 ,007,589
5,408,285
1 6,4 1 5,874
18,144,197
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2006
FY 2005
COSTS
Gross Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Notes 21, 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 22)
9,215,502 $ 8,497,422
463,477
$ 8,345,740 $ 8,033,945
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
COSTS
I ntragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 11)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air
Healthy
Clean & Land Preservation Communities
Safe Water & Restoration & Ecosystems
192,774 $
764,539
957,313
137,874 $
3,717,427
3,855,301
448,101 $
1,870,476
2,318,577
271,667
1,030,019
1,301,686
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
183,628
598,997
782,625
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note 22)
39,492
I 1,910
737,463
68,750
12,147
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
917,821 $
3,843,391 $
1,581,114 $
1232,936 $
770,478
Not Assigned Consolidated
to Goals Totals
COSTS
I ntragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
1,234,044
7,981,458
9,215,502
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note 22)
534,088
335,674
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
- $
8,345,740
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COSTS
I ntragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
3. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air
Healthy
Clean & Land Preservation Communities
Safe Water & Restoration & Ecosystems
186,667 $
803,822
990,489
209,631 $
3,297,570
3,507,20 1
2,015,874
280,492
992,360
1,272,852
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
174,321
539,857
714,178
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note 22)
20,295
2,205
22,500
15,444
2,570
18,014
42,567
3 1 2,487
355,054
15,638
32,509
48,147
1 2,000
1,353
13,353
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
967,989 $
3,489,187 $
1,660,820 $
1224,705 $
700,825
Not Assigned to Consolidated
Goals Total
COSTS
I ntragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
10,567
(13,739)
(3,172)
1,238,395
7,259,027
8,497,422
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Note 22)
6,409
105,653
357,824
463,477
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 22)
(9,581) $
8,033,945
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position—Beginning of Period
Budgets^ Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue (Note 39)
Transfers In/Out (Note 35)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 35)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 36)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position—Beginning of Period
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 35)
Other Adjustments (Note 38)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
FY 2006
Consolidated
Earmarked
Funds
4,882,528 $
4,882,528
456,025
(32,672)
1 ,204,826
1,628,179 $
19,106
19,106 $
(1,219,124)
428, 1 6 1
5,310,689 $
- $
FY 2006
Consolidated
All Other
Funds
525,757 $
525,757
8,204,577
(127)
8,204,450 $
(28)
121,448
121,420 $
(7, 1 54,589)
1,171,281
1,697,038 $
1 1 ,007,589 $
1 1 ,007,589
7,69 1 ,493
753
(195,618)
(8,204,577)
FY 2006 FY 2006
Consolidated
Eliminations Total
$ 5,408,285
5,408,285
8,204,577
456,025
43,493 1 0,694
(1,204,826)
(1,161,333) $ 8,671,296
(28)
140,554
$ 140,526
27,973 (8,345,740)
(1,133,360) 466,082
(1,133,360) $ 5,874,367
$ 1 1 ,007,589
1 1 ,007,589
7,691,493
753
(195,618)
(8,204,577)
FY 2005
Consolidated
Total
$ 5,186,611
5,186,61 1
7,787,245
318,662
1 1,136
$ 8,117,043
436
138,140
$ 138,576
(8,033,945)
22 1 ,674
$ 5,408,285
$ 10,860,136
10,860,136
8,005,446
4,702
(75,450)
(7,787,245)
147,453
Total Unexpended Appropriations
1,007,589
TOTAL NET POSITION
5,310,689 $
11,996,678 $
(1,133,360) $ 16,174,007 $
16,415,874
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October I:
Recoveries of PriorYear Unpaid Obligations (Note 29)
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Borrowing Authority
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Expenditure Transfers from Trusts Funds
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Nonexpendrture Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual (Note 35)
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 29)
Permanently Not Available (Note 29)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 28)
FY 2006
7,828,401
FY 2005
2,996,708
174,641
930,417
87,322
(8,617)
149,607
43,366
1 ,202,095
1,258,208
(9,466)
(198,484)
557,692
5,31 1
37,615
1 18,144
48,682
767,444
1 ,348,725
(11,141)
(78,244)
13,452,220 $
13231,189
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 28)
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 30)
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 30)
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
9,292,415
912,718
10,205,133
9,573,696
550,737
10,124,433
13,452,220 $ 13231,189
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
5. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October I
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought Forward, October
FY 2006
$ 11,623,098
(486,985)
FY 2005
11,592,197
(384,421)
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net
Obligations Incurred, Net (Note 28)
Less: Gross Outlays (Note 28)
Less: Recoveries of PriorYear Unpaid Obligations, Actual (Note 29)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources
I 1,136,1 13
10,205,133
(10,607,195)
(264,710)
(225,252)
I 1,207,776
10,124,433
(174,641)
(102,566)
Total, Change in Obligated Balance
10,244,089
I 1,136,1 13
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources
10,956,328
(712,239)
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period
10,244,089 $ I 1, 136,1 13
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note 28)
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note 28)
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Note 32)
10,607,195
(976,843)
(1,314,780)
9,918,889
(664,878)
(1,334,508)
Total, Net Outlays
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Financing
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(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 32)
Net Obligations
Other Resources
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 36)
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 33)
Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts that Do Not Affect Net Cost of Operations:
Credit Program Collections Increasing Loan Liabilities for Guarantees or Subsidy Allowances
Offsetting Receipts Not Affecting Net Cost
Resources that Finance Asset Acquisition
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations
FY 2006
10,205,133
(1,466,805)
7,423,548
140,554
FY 2005
$ 9,182,349
(1,334,508)
$ 7,847,841
138,140
140,554 $ 138,140
7,564,102 $ 7,985,981
722,153 $
(2,020)
4,1 14
109,955
(1 15,641)
718,561 $
8,282,663 $
(33,501)
(1,120)
4,337
87,031
(137,277)
(80,530)
7,905,45 1
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
6. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Financing
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
COMPONENTS OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS THAT WILL NOT
REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES IN THE CURRENT PERIOD:
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability (Note 33)
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability (Note 33)
Increase in Unfunded Contingencies (Note 33)
Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense (Note 33)
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs (Note 33)
Other (Note 40)
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources
Total Components of Net Cost 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 2006
FY 2005
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,776 $
3,352
(35,668)
37
1,823
(25,680) $
56,959 $
3 1 ,798
88,757 $
63,077 $
8,345,740 $
3,889
99
1,525
3
(101,645)
1,969
(94, 1 60)
39,760
1 82,894
222,654
128,494
8,033,945
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Revenue Activity:
Total Cash Collections
Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 27)
Environmental Protection Agency
Statement of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2006
$ 35,842 $
66,348
$ 102,190 $
(82,620)
FY 2005
87,251
63,565
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund)
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred
102,298 $
(82,728)
87,334
63,482
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 27)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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 exec-
utive 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 2006, 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, intragovernmental
agreements, and purchases of scientific
equipment.These activities provide the
scientific basis for the Agency's regula-
tory actions. In FY 2006, 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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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. Payments to Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Appropriation: The
Payment to the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank appropriation Treasury
fund group 025 I, authorizes appropria-
tions from the General Fund of the
Treasury to finance activities conduct-
ed through the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank program.
h. 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
1991 loans; and underTreasury fund
group 2917 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.
i 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.
j. 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 underTreasury fund
groups 3875, 3880 and 3885, respec-
tively.
k. 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 43 I 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 h. for details.
d.Working Capital Fund (WCF):The
WCFTreasury fund group, 4565,
includes three activities: computer sup-
port services, financial system services,
and postage.The WCF derives revenue
from these activities based upon a fee
for services. WCF's customers current-
ly consist primarily of Agency program
offices and a small portion from other
federal agencies. Accordingly, those rev-
enues generated by the WCF from
services provided to Agency program
offices and expenses recorded by the
program offices for use of such servic-
es along with the related
advances/liabilities, are eliminated on
consolidation.
Special Funds (Treasury Fund
Qroup 5000—5999)
a. Environmental Services Receipt
Account: The Environmental Services
Receipt Account authorized by a 1990
Act, "To amend the Clean Air Act (PL
101-549),"Treasury fund group 5295,
was established for the deposit of fee
receipts associated with environmental
programs, including radon measure-
ment proficiency ratings and training,
motor vehicle engine certifications, and
water pollution permits. Receipts in
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
this special fund will be appropriated
to the S&T and the EPM appropria-
tions to meet the expenses of the
programs that generate the receipts.
b. Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund author-
ized by a 1992 Act, "Making
appropriations for the Department of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and for sundry
independent agencies, boards, commis-
sions, corporations, and offices for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1993
(RL !02-389),"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.
c. Pesticide Registration Fund: The
Pesticide Registration Fund authorized
by a 2004 act, "Consolidated
Appropriations Act (RL. 108-199),"
Treasury fund group 5374, was author-
ized in 2004 for the expedited
processing of certain registration peti-
tions and associated establishment of
tolerances for pesticides to be used in
or on food and animal feed. Fees cov-
ering these activities, as authorized
under the FIFFlA 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 author-
ized in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Clean Water Act) as
amended RL. 92-500 (The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972),Treasury fund
group 8741, includes gifts for pollution
control programs that are usually des-
ignated for a specific use by donors
and/or deposits from pesticide regis-
trants to cover the costs of petition
hearings when such hearings result in
unfavorable decisions to the petitioner
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
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 FIFP\A 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 and
telecommunication services, financial
system services, 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 recognized when earned
and expenses are recognized when a
liability is incurred, without regard to
receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary
accounting facilitates compliance with
legal constraints and controls over the
use of federal funds. Material inter-
fund balances and transactions 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 statu-
tory limits, for operating and capital
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),
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
under CERCLA Section I22(b)(3),
placed in special accounts.The Agency
establishes a special account when, at
the time of the settlement agreement,
there is potential "future work" at the
site. Future work occurs when CER-
CLA response actions remain to be
performed or costs remain to be
incurred at the site. If no future work
remains, funds should be deposited
into the Trust Fund and made available
for future appropriation.
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.
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 4).
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 agree-
ments 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
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
been recorded, because the Agency
has not had collection problems with
these agreements.
Change in Accounting Principle for
Delinquent Debt
In FY 2006, based on Treasury's guid-
ance, "Managing Federal Receivables,"
Chapter 7, "Termination of Collection
Action, Write-off and Close-out/
Cancellation of lndebtedness,"(issued
May 2005), EPA implemented OMB
Circular A-1 29, "Policies for Federal
Credit Programs and Non-Tax
Receivables.'This Circular prescribes
policies and procedures for justifying,
designing, and managing Federal credit
programs and for collecting non-tax
receivables. OMB Circular A-129
requires write-off of delinquent debt
older than two years. In the event
debts meeting this criteria are not
written off, documentation and justifi-
cation must be provided to OMB in
consultation with Treasury. Once writ-
ten-off the agency must either classify
the debt as currently not collectible
(CMC) or close-out the debt.
During FY 2006, the agency wrote-off
and reclassified to CMC $704.2 million
of non federal receivables older than
two years. Of this amount, approxi-
mately $653.6 million are Superfund
related receivables.This is a significant
accounting change from FY 2005 when
such amounts were reported as
receivables and included in the
allowance for doubtful accounts.The
net book value of the receivables writ-
ten-off and reclassified to CMC was
$20 million.
EPA, through its own
actions or in coordina-
tion with the
Departments of
Treasury and Justice,
continues to pursue col-
lection of the CMC
debts. When it is deter-
mined that no additional
collection efforts will be
made, the debt will be
removed from CMC
and closed-out.
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, 1991, 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
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 facili-
ty, for 10 years or less, and will transfer
its interest in the facility to the respec-
tive state for mandatory operation and
maintenance—usually 20 years or
more. Consistent with EPA's 10 year
retention period, depreciation for this
property will be based on a 10 year
life. However, if any property is 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-
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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, build-
ings, and capital and leasehold
improvements. Real property, other
than land, is capitalized when the value
is $85 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 during
and after FY 1997 is valued at actual
cost. Depreciation for real property 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 lia-
bility can be paid by the Agency
without an appropriation or other col-
lections. Liabilities for which an
appropriation has not been enacted
are classified as unfunded liabilities and
there is no certainty that the appropri-
ations will be enacted. Liabilities of the
Agency arising from other than con-
tracts can be abrogated by the
Government acting in its sovereign
capacity.
P. 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 2006 and FY 2005, there
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
as of the end of the fiscal year, 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 sys-
tems for federal employees. Employees
hired prior to January I, 1987, 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 automatically 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 additional four percent of pay.
The Agency also contributes the
employer's matching share for Social
Security.
With the issuance of SFFAS No. 5,
"Accounting for Liabilities of the
Federal Government," 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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Fund Balances withTreasury as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, consist of the following
FY 2006
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets Total
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill & Misc.
Revolving Funds:
FIFRA/Tolerance
Working Capital
Cr Reform Finan.
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
$ 35,086 $
25,497
6,789
8,074
77,635
400
10,820,079
1 82,303
$ 11,155,863 $
- $ 35,086 $
25,497
6,789
8,074
77,635
400
1 0,820,079
17,580 199,883
17,580 $ 11,173,443 $
FY 2005
Entity Non-Entity
Assets Assets Total
213,797 $
17,613
9,169
7,970
69,401
489
1 1,655,287
157,303
12,131,029 $
- $ 213,797
17,613
9,169
7,970
69,401
489
1 1 ,655,287
8,178 165,481
8,178 $ 12,139207
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 inTreasuryTrust Fund (Note 18)
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed
Non-Budgetary FBWT
Totals
FY 2006
$ 11,173,443 $
FY 2005
3,018,690
88,066
(2,278,343)
19,965
I 1,136,1 12
154,717
12,139^07
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 2006 and FY 2005 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's statements for fund bal-
ances withTreasury.
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets
For September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2005, cash consists of an imprest fund of $ 10 thousand.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 4. Investments
For September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2005 investments consist of the following
Unamortized
(Premium)
Intragovernmental Securities:
Non-Marketable
Non-Marketable
FY 2006
FY 2005
Cost
$ 5,305,992 $
$ 4,762,154 $
Discount
(21,752) $
(16,261) $
Interest
Receivable
38,520 $
32,650 $
Investments,
Net
5,366,264 $
4,8 1 1 ,065 $
Market
Value
5,366,264
4,8 1 1 ,065
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.) All investments in Treasury securities are
earmarked funds.
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2005, consist of the following
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable
Non-Federal Assets:
Total
127,727 $
I 16,060 $
364,517
(236,753)
243,824 $
66,060
374,668
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.
As of September 30, 2006, EPA reclassified $704 million in non-federal and $21 million in federal receivables as Currently Not
Collectible (CNC).
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 6. Other Assets
Other Assets for September 30, 2006 and 2005, consist of the following
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies
Advances to WCF
Advances for Postage
Total Intragovernmental Assets
FY 2006
$ 58,847 $
296
$ 59,143 $
FY 2005
1,102
827
406
2,335
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
154
9
118
3,249
183
565
4^78 $
2,789
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
the Federal Credit Reform Act, which mandates that the present value of the subsidy costs (i.e., interest rate differentials, inter-
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, 2006 and 2005, are as follows:
Direct Loans Obligated
Prior to FY 1992
Direct Loans Obligated
After FY 1991
Total
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
Allowance*
12,327 $
22,391
Value of Assets Loans
Related to Receivable,
Direct Loans Gross
34,718 $
(3,882)
Allowance*
(3,882) $
12,327 $
18,509
30,836 $
18,118 $
26,427
Value of Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
(5,198)
44,545 $
(5,198) $
21,229
39,347
* 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).
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
Upward Subsidy Reestimate— FY 2006
FY 2006 Totals
Downward Subsidy Reestimate — FY 2005
Upward Subsidy Reestimate — FY 2005
FY 2005 Totals
Interest Rate
Re-estimate
$ 32
$ 32
$ (233)
129
$ (104)
Technical
Re-estimate
$ 26 $
$ 26 $
$ (203) $
128
$ (75) $
Total H
58
58
(436)
257
(179)
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,
2006 and 2005.
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
Total Non-Federal
107,525 $
106,156 $
16
7
414,1 12
205,376
725,667 $
1 19,836
105,027
24
7
449,206
176,014
730278
Note 9. Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E)
Plant, property and equipment consist of software; real, EPA-Held and Contractor-Held personal, and capital lease property.
As of September 30, 2006 and 2005, Plant, Property and Equipment consist of the following:
FY 2006
FY 2005
Acquisition Accumulated Acquisition Accumulated
Value Depreciation Net Book Value Value Depreciation Net Book Value
EPA-Held Equipment
Software
Contractor Held Equip.
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
$ 207,328 $
198,961
64,757
573,887
49,844
(116,228) $
(37,871)
(25,001)
(132,168)
(26,715)
91,100 $
161,090
39,756
44 1 ,7 1 9
23,129
194,410 $
146,132
56,746
558,689
50,1 II
(109,683) $
(19,777)
(22,706)
(122,012)
(23,194)
84,727
126,355
34,040
436,677
26,917
Total
1,094,777 $
(337,983) $
756,794 $
1,006,088 $
(297,372) $
708,716
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
The debt due to Treasury consists of the following as of September 30, 2006 and 2005:
All Others Funds
Intragovernmental:
Debt to Treasury
Beginnin
Balance
Net Borrowing Ending Balance
Net Borrowing Ending Balance
21,744 $
(2,848) $
18,896 $
24,101 $
(2,357) $
21,744
Note: I I Stewardship PP & E
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. For additional information on Stewardship PP & E
(Land) see Required Supplementary Information Section.
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Custodial Liability represents the amount of net accounts receivable that, when collected, will be deposited to the Treasury
General Fund. Included in the custodial liability are amounts for fines and penalties, interest assessments, repayments of loans,
and miscellaneous other accounts receivable.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note I 3. Other Liabilities
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2006:
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
Covered by Not Covered by
Budgetary Budgetary
Resources Resources
13,203 $
I 1,730
8,786
38,684
53
(44)
29
8,493
22,000
72,441 $
78,123 $
17,477
30,493 $
280
35,442
13,203
I 1,730
38,684
53
(44)
29
8,493
22,000
102,934
78,123
17,477
280
35,442
Total Non-Federal
95,600 $
35,722 $
131,322
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2005:
Covered by Not Covered by
Budgetary Budgetary
Resources 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
76,046 $
30,484 $
12,731
17,392
4,737
41,207
60
(82)
I
106,530
59,318 $
38,746 $
98,064
Note 14. Leases
Capital Leases:
The Capital Leases:
Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease:
Real Property
Personal Property
Software License
Total
Accumulated Amortization
FY 2006
$ 40,9 1 3 $
2494
6,437
$ 49,844 $
$ 26,715 $
FY 2005
40,913
2,761
6,437
50,111
23, 1 94
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. EPA also has capital leas-
es terminating in FY 2007 for seven shuttle buses. However, during FY 2006, three of the seven shuttle buses were no longer
needed and disposed of in the Fixed Asset System and General LedgerThese leases are expended out of the EPM appropria-
tion.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 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
2007
2008
2009
2010
201 I
After 5 Years
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments
Less: Imputed Interest
Capital Leases
93,449
(58,007)
Net Capital Lease Liability
Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources (See Note I 3)
35,442
35,442
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
Operating
Leases, Land &
Buildings
81
74
74
74
74
550
Payments
927
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 15. Pensions 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
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, 2006 and 2005, consists of the following:
FECA Actuarial Liability
39,408 $
39,380
The FY 2006 present value of these estimated outflows are calculated using a discount rate of 5.17 percent in the first yean
and 5.31 3 percent in the years thereafterThe estimated future costs are recorded as an unfunded liability.
Note 16. 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 for potential future work at
such sites in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Funds placed in special accounts may be disbursed to
potentially responsible parties, to States that take responsibility for the site, or to other Federal agencies to conduct or finance
response actions in lieu of EPA without further appropriation by Congress.
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations—Other Funds
As of September 30, 2006 and 2005, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the following
Unexpended Appropriations:
Unobligated
Available
Unavailable
Undelivered Orders
FY 2006
$ 1 ,724,552 $
5 1 ,852
8,523,236
FY 2005
1 ,887,884
40,328
9,079,377
Total
10,299,640 $
11,007,589
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note I 8. Amounts Held by Treasury
Amounts Held by Treasury for Future Appropriations consist of amounts held in trusteeship by Treasury in the Superfund and
LUST Trust Funds.
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.
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by Treasury as of September 30, 2006 and 2005.The amounts con-
tained in these notes have been provided by Treasury. 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.
SUPERFUND FY 2006
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Receipts and Outlays
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
Corporate Environmental
Cost Recoveries
Fines & Penalties
Total Revenue
Appropriations Received
Interest Income
Total Receipts
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net
Transfers from CDC (recovery)
Total Outlays
Net Income
Treasury Combined
775
1,361,905
,280,333 $
(1,280,333) $
702 $
,280,333
(1,279,631)
775
2,446,467
2,446,467 $
2,446,467 $
2,446,467 $
$
775
7,985
173,069
1 8 1 ,829 $
82,274
99,555 $
1 8 1 ,829 $
1,144 $
59,661
2,467
775
7,985
2,619,536
2,628,296
82,274
2,546,022
2,628,296
1,144
59,661
2,467
1,361,905
702
702
1,280,333 $
BZ274 $
1,362,607
In FY 2006, the EPA received an appropriation for Superfund of $1,207.6 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, 2006 and 2005, the Treasury Trust a has a liability to EPA for previously appropriated funds of $2,446.5 million
and $2,204.9 million, respectively.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
SUPERFUND FY 2005
EPA Treasury
$ - $ 7,212
7,212
4,180
2,204,850 88, 1 63
$ 2,204,850 $ 99,55!
$ 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
$ 7,212
7,212
4,180
2,293,013
$ 2,304,405
$ 2,304,405
$ 2,304,405
$ 3,663
62,978
2,428
69,069
1 ,247,477
52,540
$ 1 ,369,086
$
$ 1,369,086
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 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 2006 and 2005 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. 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
Transfers from EPA
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
LUST FY 2006
EPA Treasury
$ $ 1 1 ,750
1 1 ,750
30,535
88,417 2,619,793
$ 88,417 $ 2,662,078
$ 88,417 $ 2,662,078
$ 88,417 $ 2,662,078
$ $ 196,371
2,772
404
15,000
(1,453)
(1,434)
(409)
(24)
2 1 1 ,227
97,666
$ - $ 308,893
$ 86,861 $ (86,861)
86,861 (86,861)
Combined
$ 11,750
1 1,750
30,535
2,708,210
$ 2,750,495
$ 2,750,495
$ 2,750,495
$ 196,371
2,772
404
15,000
(1,453)
(1,434)
(409)
(24)
21 1,227
97,666
$ 308,893
$
Net Income
86,861 $
222,032 $
308,893
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Equity
Total Liabilities and Equity
Receipts
High way TF Tax
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
1 2,754
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
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies
EPA may be a party in various administrative proceedings, legal actions and claims brought by or against it.These include:
• Various personnel actions, suits, or claims brought against the Agency by employees and others.
• Various contract and assistance program claims brought against the Agency by vendors, grantees and others.
• The legal recovery of Superfund costs incurred for pollution cleanup of specific sites, to include the collection of fines
and penalties from responsible parties.
• Claims against recipients for improperly spent assistance funds which may be settled by a reduction of future EPA
funding to the grantee or the provision of additional grantee matching funds.
Superfund:
Under CERCLA Section 106(a), EPA issues administrative orders that require parties to clean up contaminated sites. CERCLA
Section 106(b) allows a party that has complied with such an order to petition EPA for reimbursement from the fund of its
reasonable costs of responding to the order, plus interest.To be eligible for reimbursement, the party must demonstrate either
that it was not a liable party under CERCLA Section 107(a) for the response action ordered, or that the Agency's selection of
the response action was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.
As of September 30, 2006, there are currently three CERCLA Section I06(b) administrative claims. If the claimants are suc-
cessful, the total losses on the claims could amount to approximately $36.8 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 characterized as reasonably possible.
AH Other Funds:
As of September 30, 2006, there are no claims which may be considered threatened litigation involving all other appropriated
funds of the Agency.
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, 2006, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury Judgment Fund. However, EPA has a $22 mil-
lion liability to the Treasury Judgment Fund for a payment made by the Fund to settle a contract dispute claim.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note: 20 Earmarked Funds
1 Environmental
Services
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2006
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury $ 165,722 $
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets $ 165,722 $
Other Liabilities $ - $
Total Liabilities $ - $
Cumulative Results of Operations $ 165,722 $
Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 1 65,722 $
Other Total
Earmarked Earmarked
LUST
25,497 $
2,738,746
176
$
7,094 $
7,094 $
2,757,325 $
2,764,419 $
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the Period Ended September
Gross Programs Costs $ $
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations $ - $
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the Period
Net Position, Beginning of Period $ 145,088 $
Nonexchange Revenue $ 20,634 $
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Position $ 20,634 $
Net Position End of Period $ 1 65,722 $
75,073 $
75,073 $
Superfund
35,086 $
2,627,521
221,343
63,874
2,947,824 $
563,759 $
563,759 $
2,384,065 $
2,947,824 $
30, 2006
1,438,109 $
321,263
1,116,846 $
Funds
3 1 ,444 $
(3)
2,821
1,067
35,329 $
3 1 ,753 $
3 1 ,753 $
3,576 $
35,329 $
62,435 $
35,230
27,205 $
Funds
257,749
5,366,264
224, 1 64
65,1 17
5,913,294
602,606
602,606
5,310,688
5,9 1 3,294
1,575,617
356,493
1,219,124
Earmark
Eliminations
$
(8,601)
$ (8,601)
$ (41,931)
$ (41,931)
$ (1,133,360)
$ (1,175,291)
$ (27,973)
$ (27,973)
Ended September 30, 2006
2,523,158 $
293,893 $
15,000
347
(75,073)
234, 1 67 $
$
2,200, 115 $
141,498 $
1,141,824
17,474
(1,1 16,846)
1 83,950 $
2,384,065 $
14,167 $
$
15,330
1,285
(27,205)
(10,590) $
3,57; $
4,882,528
456,025
1,172,154
19,106
(1,219,124)
428,161
5,310,689
$
$
(1,161,333)
27,973
$ (1,133,360)
$ (1,133,360)
Earmarked funds are as follows:
Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt Account authorized by a 1990 Act, "To amend
the Clean Air Act (PL. 101-549),"Treasury fund group 5295, was established for the deposit of fee receipts associated with
environmental programs, including radon measurement proficiency ratings and training, motor vehicle engine certifications, and
water pollution permits. Receipts in this special fund will be appropriated to the S&T and the EPM appropriations to meet the
expenses of the programs that generate the receipts.
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 provides funding to respond to releases from leaking underground petroleum tanks.The
Agency oversees cleanup and enforcement programs which are implemented by the states. Funds are allocated to the states
through cooperative agreements to clean up those sites posing the greatest threat to human health and 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.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SuperfundTrust Fund: In I960,the SuperfundTrust Fund,Treasury fund group 8145, was established by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of I960 (CERCLA) to provide resources needed to respond to and
clean up hazardous substance emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.The Superfund Trust Fund
financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry.The EPA allocates funds from its appropriation to
other federal agencies 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,
special account receipts from settlement agreements, and investment activity.
Other Earmarked Funds:
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 Response Trust Fund in 1993.The Agency is responsi-
ble for directing, monitoring and providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities.This involves setting
oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA and Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions when appropriate.The Agency carries out research to
improve response actions to oil spills including research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and biore-
mediation. Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department ofTransportation under the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other federal agencies.
Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed FundsTrust Fund authorized in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as amended PL. 92-500 (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972),Treasury fund group 8741, includes gifts for pollution control programs that are usually designated for a
specific use by donors and/or deposits from pesticide registrants to cover the costs of petition hearings when such hearings
result in unfavorable decisions to the petitioner
Pesticide Registration Fund: The Pesticide Registration Fund authorized by a 2004 Act, "Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL.
!08-l99),"Treasury fund group 5374, was authorized in 2004 for the expedited processing of certain registration petitions and
associated establishment of tolerances for pesticides to be used in or on food and animal feed. Fees covering these activities,
as authorized underthe FIFRA Act of 1988, are to be paid by industry and deposited into this fund group.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA):The FIFRA Revolving Fund,Treasury fund group 4310, 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 re registration and reassessment of tolerances
for pesticides used in or on food and animal feed, as required by law.
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.
Note 21. 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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note: 22 Intragovern mental Costs and Exchange Revenue
IFY 2006 FY 2005
Intragovern- With the Intragovern- With the
mental Public TOTAL mental Public TOTAL
Clean Air
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Clean & Safe Water
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Land Preservation & Restoration
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Healthy Communities & Ecosystems
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Compliance & Environmental Stewardship
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Not Assigned
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Total
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
192,774 $
37,264
155,510 $
137,874 $
9,088
128,786 $
448,101 $
440,068
8,033 $
271,667 $
37,670
233,997 $
183,628 $
9,998
173,630 $
- $
- $
1,234,044 $
534,088
699,956 $
764,539 $
2,228
762,3 1 1 $
3,717,427 $
2,822
3,714,605 $
1,870,476 $
297,395
1,573,081 $
1,030,019 $
3 1 ,080
998,939 $
598,997 $
2,149
596,848 $
- $
- $
7,981,458 $
335,674
7,645,784 $
957,313 $
39,492
917,821 $
3,855,301 $
1 1,910
3,843,391 $
2,318,577 $
737,463
1,581,1 14 $
1,301,686 $
68,750
1,232,936 $
782,625 $
12,147
770,478 $
- $
- $
9,215,502 $
869,762
8,345,740 $
186,667 $
20,295
166,372 $
209,631 $
15,444
194,187 $
376,717 $
42,567
334,150 $
280,492 $
15,638
264,854 $
174,321 $
12,000
162,321 $
10,567 $
(291)
10,858 $
1,238,395 $
105,653
1,132,742 $
803,822 $
2,205
801,617 $
3,297,570 $
2,570
3,295,000 $
1,639,157 $
312,487
1,326,670 $
992,360 $
32,509
959,851 $
539,857 $
1,353
538,504 $
(13,739) $
6,700
(20,439) $
7,259,027 $
357,824
6,901,203 $
990,489
22,500
967,989
3,507,201
18,014
3,489, 1 87
2,015,874
355,054
1 ,660,820
1,272,852
48,147
1 ,224,705
714,178
13,353
700,825
(3,172)
6,409
(9,581)
8,497,422
463,477
8,033,945
Intrasovernmental costs relate to the source of the goods or services not the classification of the related revenue.
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship PP&E
The costs related to the acquisition of stewardship land in FY 2006 were approximately $1 million.These costs are included in
the Statement of Net Cost.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 24. Environmental Cleanup Costs
As of September 30, 2006, EPA has four sites that require clean up stemming from its activities. Costs amounting to $ I 10.9
thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgment Fund. (The $1 10.9 thousand represents the lower end of a range esti-
mate, of which the maximum of the range will total $212.9 thousand.) Two claimants' chance of success is characterized as
reasonably possible and one as probable (settled July I I, 2006 for $7.9 thousand). Additionally EPA has one site ($80 thou-
sand) 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 2 sites that have an unfunded environmental liability of $280 thousand.
Accrued Cleanup Cost:
The EPA has I 5 sites that will require future clean up associated with permanent closure.The estimated costs will be approxi-
mately $ 10 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 2006 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs increased by $3 million from the FY 2005 estimate.This increase is due pri-
marily to new estimated costs for cleanup at two sites.
Note 25. 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, 2006,
the total remaining state credits have been estimated at $ 17.1 million.The estimated ending credit balance on September 30,
2005 was $10.1 million.
Note 26. 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)( I), 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, 2006, 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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 27. Custodial Revenues and Accounts Receivable
Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable for Fines, Penalties and Other Miscellaneous Receipts
Accounts Receivable
Less: Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts
Total
FY 2006
$ 19570 $
$ 155,023 $
(122,064)
$ 32,959 $
FY 2005
150,816
167,533
(5 1 ,954)
1 15,579
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.
Note 28. Statement of Budgetary Resources
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2006 Statement of Budgetary Resources, will
be reconciled to the amounts included in the FY 2008 Budget of the United States Government when they become available.The
Budget of the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2006 has not yet been published. We expect it will be pub-
lished by March 2007, and it will be available on the OMB website at .The actual
amounts published for the year ended September 30, 2005 are included in EPA's FY 2006 financial statement disclosures.
FY 2005
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations, Unfilled Customer Orders and Other
Less: 1 993 Superfund Cost Recovery
Plus: Funds received in a receipt account transferred to "no year" account
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported in Budget of the U. S. Government
Budgetary
Resources
$ 13,231,189
19,285
7,348
(1,970)
(100,687)
(2,165)
$ 13,153,000
Obligations
10,124,433
4,576
1,586
(3,312)
(1,283)
$ 10,126,000
Offsetting
Receipts
$ 1,334,508
(1,970)
1 0,780
(318)
$ 1,343,000
Net Outlays
$ 9,254,0 1 1
5,329
660
$ 9,260,000
* 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 29. 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
Permanently Not Available:
Payments to Treasury
Rescinded authority
Canceled authority
Total Permanently Not Available
174,641
(I 1,141)
(2,848)
(185,472)
(10,164)
(198,484) $
(2,793)
(64,018)
(1 1,433)
(78244)
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
The availability of unobligated balances consists of the following as of September 30, 2006 and 2005. 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 Permanently Not Available
$ 3,156,100 3,011,341
90,987 95,415
$ 3,247,087 $ 3,106,756
Note 3 I . Undelivered Orders at The End of the Period
Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of the September 30, 2006 and 2005 are as follows:
Undelivered Orders
$ 10,000,509 $ 10,636,009
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund receipt accounts offset gross outlays. For
FYs 2006 and 2005, the following receipts were generated from these activities:
Trust Fund Recoveries
Special Fund Environmental Service
Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies
Trust Fund Appropriation
Treasury Specified Miscellaneous Receipts and Clearing Accounts
Total
Note 33. Statement of Financing
1,204,825
29,573
1,314,780 $
66,419
20,176
436
1,247,477
1,334,508
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 2006 and 2005, the following line
items are reconciled to the increases or decreases in those liabilities.
FY 2006
FY 2005
Statement of Financing Lines:
Resources that fund prior period expenses
Components requiring or generating resources in future periods:
Increases in environmental liabilities
Increase in unfunded contingencies
Increase in annual leave liabilities
Up/downward re-estimates of subsidy exp.
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs
(2,020)
3,352
4,776
37
Total
6,145 $
4,396
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 33. Statement of Financing (continued)
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
Subsidy re-estimates
Total
4,776 $
(1,942)
6,145 $
4,092
325
4,396
Note 34. Costs Not Assigned to Goals
In FY 2006, there are no unassigned costs. All costs are now being allocated to the program/project level based on established
business rules. For Net Cost by Goals, program/project costs are rolled-up to the five designated EPA environmental goals.
FY 2005's Statement of Net Cost by Goal had $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 million in depreciation expenses, $0.6 million in other expenses, and
$3 million in loss on disposition of assets.
Note 35.Transfers-In and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FYs 2006 and 2005, 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:
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
Fund/Type of Account
Department of State
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 2006
1,500 $
(747)
1,248,523
1,258,208 $
FY 2005
1,328,667
4,736
8,932 10,620
1,348,725
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For FYs 2006 and 2005 Transfers 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
Operations. Detail of the transfers-in and transfers-out, expenditure and nonexpenditure, follows:
Type of Transfer/Funds
Transfers-out, nonexpenditure to other federal agencies
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure, Oil Spill
Total Transfers in (out) without Reimbursement, Budgetary
FY 2006
10,694 $
FY 2005
(4,736)
15,872
11,136
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FYs 2006 and 2005 Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement under Other Financing Sources on the Statement of
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:
Type of Transfer/Funds
FY 2006
(28)
FY 2005
436
Total Transfers in (out) without Reimbursement, Budgetary
(28) $
436
Note 36. Imputed Financing Sources
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 2006 were $131.1 million. For FY 2005, the estimates were $ 129.7 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 2006 entries for Judgment Fund
payments totaled $9.4 million. For FY 2005, entries for Judgment Fund payments totaled $8.4 million.
Note 37. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30, 2006 and 2005, consist of the following:
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Not Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
FY 2006 Payroll and Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable—TSP
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total—Current
3 1 ,023 $
27,653
2,010
60,686 $
$ 3 1 ,023
27,653
2,010
1 35,060 1 35,060
135,060 $ 195,746
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Note 37. Payroll and Benefits Payable (continued)
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Not Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
FY 2005 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
Total—Current
30,881 $ $
26,977
1,896
36
320
1 30,284
30,881
26,977
1,896
36
320
1 30,284
60,110 $
130,284 $
190,394
Note 38. 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 rescissions
to appropriated funds and cancellation of funds that expired five years earlierThese amounts affect Unexpended
Appropriations.
Rescissions to General Appropriations
Canceled General Authority
Total Other Adjustments
$
$
FY 2006
1 85,472 $
10,146
195,618 $
FY 2005
64,017
1 1,433
75,450
Note 39. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in Net Position for FYs 2006 and
2005 consists of the following items:
Interest on Trust Fund Investments
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
Fines and Penalties Revenue
Special Receipt Fund Revenue
Revenue
456,025 $
318,662
Note 40. Other, Statement of Financing
The "Other" balance on the Statement of Financing of $ 1.8 million for FY 2006 and $ 1.9 million for FY 2005 represent a por-
tion 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 68-20X8 145.The transfer was necessary in order to
execute expenditures from consent decrees.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S ANALYSIS
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
As of September 30, 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
Deferred Maintenance
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.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
OTHER
BUDGETARY RESOURCE
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October I
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Collected
Change in receivables from Federal sources
Advance received
Without advance from Federal source
Expenditure Transfers from trust funds
Nonexpenditure transfers, net anticipated and actual
Temporarily not available pursuant to Public Law
Permanently not available
Total Budgetary Resources
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Unobligated funds apportioned
Unobligated balance not available
238,199 $ 1,469,949 $
6,743 102,574
741,722
1,422,231
7,828,401
388,338
87,353
2,170
1 83,370
1,500
(40,272)
$ 3,400,892 $
$ 2,334,104 $
500,573
2,834,677
498,955
67,260
26,866 113 7,385
(143)
(437) 1 ,948
(1,342)
30,156
73,026
(1,165)
(15,171)
32,339 $ 101,450 $ 1,009,497 $
- $ 86,183 $ 797,536 $
26,693 - 6, 1 69
26,693 86,183 803,705
5,646 1 5,267 1 85,284
20,508
6,910
27
(27)
(120,602)
4,720,527 $
3,409,715 $
3,409,715
1,310,812
500,805
85
(12,298)
(32,394)
13,210
1,183,682
(8,301)
(22,439)
4,187,515 $
2,664,877 $
379,283
3,044, 1 60
1,140,136
3,219
930,417
87,322
(8,617)
149,607
43,366
1 ,258,208
(9,466)
(198,484)
13,452,220
9,292,415
912,718
1 0,205, 1 33
3,156,100
90,987
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
$ 3,400,892 $ 32,339 $ 101,450 $ 1,009,497 $ 4,720,527 $ 4,187,515 $ 13,452,220
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1. (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net
Unpaid obligations brought forward, October I
Less; Uncollected customer payments from Federal
sources brought forward, October I
Total unpaid obligation balance, net
Obligations incurred, net
Less; Gross outlays
Less; Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations,
Change in uncollected customer payments from
Federal sources
Total
Obligated balance, net, end of period:
Unpaid obligations
Less; Uncollected customer payments from
Federal sources
Total, unpaid obligated balance, net, end of
period
NET OUTLAYS
Gross outlays
Less: Offsetting collections
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts
Total, Net Outlays
945,687
(275,461)
(270,722)
443,221
989,405
(546,184)
443,221 $
2,771,891
(390,508)
2,949 $
2,426
2,426
2,426 $
26,322
(26,429)
84,528
84,528
85,443
85,443
85,443 $
627,792 $
(54,827)
8,251,146
OTHER
1,710,996
(156,697)
I 1,623,098
(486,985)
12,531
544,463
586,759
(42,296)
544,463 $
7,674,78 1
7,674,78 1
7,674,78 1
32,939
1,493,755
1,617,514
(123,759)
(225,252)
10,956,328
(712,239)
1,493,755 $ 10,244,089
76,254 $ 837,996 $
(115) (50,536)
(107)
3,883,505$ 3,011,227$ 10,607,195
(6,910) (502,345) (976,843)
- - - (1,314,780) (1,314,780)
76,139 $ 787,460 $ 3,876,595 $ 1,194,102 $ 8,315,572
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
For the year ended September 30, 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
Stewardship PP&E (Land)
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in Section 104 (J) CER.CLA related to
remedial clean-up sites. The land rights are in the form of easements to allow access to clean-up sites onto 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, 2006, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
Superfund Sites with Easements
Beginning Balance
Additions
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
33
0
I
32
Superfund Sites with Land Acquired
Beginning Balance
Additions
Withdrawals
Ending Balance
31
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended September 30, 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
Investment in the Nation's Research and Development: (Non-Federal Physical
Property):
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 environmental 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 pro-
vision 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 2006, the full cost of the Agency's Research and
Development activities totaled over $734.6 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
Programmatic Expenses
Allocated Expenses
FY 2002
$ 559,218
123,307
FY 2003
$ 593,295
106,971
FY 2004
$ 58 1 ,323
9 1 ,675
FY 2005
$ 628,467
1 12,558
FY 2006
$ 630,438
104,167
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 stations, and collection and intercept sewers, rehabilitation of sewer systems, and the control of combined sewer
overflows.The construction grants led to the improvement of water quality in thousands of municipalities nationwide.
Congress set 1990 as the last year that funds would be appropriated for Construction Grants. Projects funded in 1990 and
prior will continue until completion. After 1990, EPA shifted the focus of municipal financial assistance from grants to loans that
are provided by State Revolving Funds.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
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.
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 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
FY 2006
$ 39,193
1,339,702
910,032
4 1 1 ,023
446, 1 1 3
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.
Human Capital
Agencies are required to report expenses incurred to train the public with the intent of increasing or maintaining the nation's
economic productive capacity.Training, public awareness, and research fellowships are components of many of the Agency's
programs and are effective in achieving the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment, but the focus is
on enhancing the nation's environmental, not economic, capacity.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below (dollars in thousands):
Training and Awareness Grants
Fellowships
Allocated Expenses
FY 2002
$ 49,444
8,728
1 2,827
FY 2003
$ 47,827
6,572
9,808
FY 2004
$ 48,416
7,553
8,826
FY 2005
$ 46,750
10,195
10,199
FY 2006
$ 43,765
12,639
9,320
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Balance Sheet For Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note SI)
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Receivable, Net
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
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
FY 2006
FY 2005
$ 35,086 $
2,627,521
8,012
8,191
$ 2,678,810 $
213,331
54,917
766
$ 2,947,824 $
$ 84,706 $
44,324
$ 129,030 $
122,788
6,925
223,760
34,969
46,287
$ 563,75< $
2,384,065
2,384,065
$ 2,947,824 $
213,797
2,297,193
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
660,693
2,200,1 15
2,200,1 15
2,860,808
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2006
FY 2005
COSTS
Gross Costs
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Costs
Less:
Earned Revenue
Net Cost of Operations
1 ,438, 1 09 $
6 1 ,635
1 ,499,744
321,263
1,178,481 $
1,580,848
90, 1 67
1,671,015
336,879
1,334,136
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Changes in Net Position for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
FY 2006
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
2,200,115 $ 2,199,969
2,200,115 $ 2,199,969
29,697
(53,418)
1,247,477
90,167
,344,957 $
17,474
1,313,923
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
2,384,065 $
2,200,115
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2006
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October I:
Recoveries of PriorYear Unpaid Obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:
Earned:
Collected
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received
Without Advance from Federal Sources
Total Spending Authority from Collections
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law
Permanently Not Available
Total Budgetary Resources
92,269
FY 2005
823,713
104,852
250,487
648
274,493
1 , 1 84,428
(7,767)
(19)
2,595,460 $
282,722
1 ,274,023
(10,060)
2,475,250
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available
1,337,854
169,218
1,369,647
175,21 I
1,544,858
Total Status of Budgetary Resources (Note S6)
2,595,460 $
2,475,250
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October I
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought Forward, October
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net
Obligations Incurred
Less: Gross Outlays
Less: Recoveries of PriorYear Unpaid Obligations, Actual
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources
Total, Change in Obligated Balance
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations
Less; Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period
FY 2006
$ 1,546,186
(78,234)
1,467,952
1,507,072
(1,477,100)
(121,664)
(3,748)
1,372,512
1,454,494
(81,983)
1,372,51 I $
FY 2005
1,641,157
(71,797)
1,569,360
1,544,858
(1,534,977)
(104,852)
(6,438)
1,467,951
1,546,186
(78,235)
1,467,951
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays
Less: Offsetting Collections
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts
1,534,977
Total, Net Outlays (Note S6)
,146,606 $
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Financing for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2006
FY 2005
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
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
Adjustments to Expenditure Transfers that Do Not Affect Net Cost
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations
1 ,507,072 $
(396,158)
1,110,914 $
(59,748)
1 ,544,858
(387,574)
1,157,284
(64,964)
1,051,166 $
17,474
61,635
79,109
1, 130,275
53,253
(136)
50,561
1,180,836
1,092,320
20,359
90,167
I 10,526
1,202,846
82,049
(278)
64,964
(17,588)
(48,682)
80,465
1,283,31 I
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Financing for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2006 and 2005
(Dollars in Thousands)
COMPONENTS OF NET COST OF OPERATIONSTHATWILL NOT
REQUIRE OR GENERATE RESOURCES IN THE CURRENT PERIOD
Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:
Increase in Annual Leave Liability
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables
Other (Note S8)
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or Generate Resources in Future Periods
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 2006
FY 2005
978 $ 990
(36,455) (87,714)
1,823 1,969
(33,654) $
9,828
21,471
3 1 ,299 $
(2,355) $
1,178,481 $
(84,755)
7,849
127,730
1 35,579
50,824
1,334,136
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information (Unaudited)
Related Notes to Superfund Trust Financial Statements
Note SI. Fund Balance with Treasury for Superfund Trust
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2006 and 2005 consist of the following:
Fund Balance
FY 2006
35,086 $
FY 2005
213,797
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 2006
FY 2005
$ 930,373
19
(2,426,589) (2,191,759)
775 7,212
1,372,51 I 1,467,952
35,086 $
213,797
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.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 I22(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, 2006, the total remain-
ing state credits have been estimated at $ I 6.5 million.The estimated ending credit balance on September 30, 2005 was $ 10.1 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 under-
standing 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 122(b)( I), 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 preau-
thorized response action agreed to under a mixed funding agreement. As of September 30, 2006, 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 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 program outputs.
During FYs 2006 and 2005, 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.
Superfund
All Others
Income From
Other
Appropriations
$ 6 1 ,635
(6 1 ,635)
FY 2006
Expenses From
Other
Appropriations Net Effect
(6 1 ,635)
6 1 ,635
Income From
Other
Appropriations
$ 90, 1 67
(90, 1 67)
FY 2005
Expenses From
Other
Appropriations
(90, 1 67)
90, 1 67
Net Effect
Total
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust Fund from the S&T and EPM funds are
$3 million for FY 2006 and $6.9 million for FY 2005.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Note 56. Statement of Budgetary Resources, Superfund
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2006 Statement of Budgetary Resources,
will be reconciled to the amounts included in the Budget of the United States Government when they become available.The
Budget of the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2006 has not yet been published. We expect it will be
published by March 2007, and it will be available on the OMB website at .The actu-
al amounts published for the year ended September 30, 2005 are included in EPA's FY 2006 financial statement disclosures.
FY 2005
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Outlays
Less: 1 993 Superfund Cost Recovery
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported for Budget of tfie U.S. Government
Budgetary
Resources
$ 2,475,250
19,285
(1,970)
(4)
(561)
$ 2,492,000
Obligations
1,544,858 $
4,576
(23)
589
$ 1,550,000 $
Offsetting
Receipts
64,964 $
(1,970)
(16)
62,978 $
Outlays
1 ,258,692
5,329
5,105
(126)
1,269,000
* 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.
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:
Advances
Expenditure Transfers Payable
Accrued Liabilities
Expenses
Transfers
FY 2006
$ 7,843 $
$ 37,227 $
$ 4,642 $
$ 25,49 1 $
$ 43,493 $
FY 2005
9,256
48,903
6,398
29,674
49,097
Note 58. Other, Statement of Financing
The "Other" balance on the Statement of Financing of $ 1.8 million for FY 2006 and $ 1.9 million for FY 2005 represent a por-
tion 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 68-20X8 145.The transfer was necessary in order to
execute expenditures from consent decrees.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) Report
For the Year Ended September 30, 2006
I. RISK ASSESSMENTS: After reviewing and sampling disbursements made in the highest risk susceptible inventories, EPA deter-
mined 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 forthem.The Agency's corrective action proposed to
reduce the error rate of improper payments in the SRFs from 0.51 percent to 0.30 percent over a five-year period. By the end of
FY 2005, EPA surpassed the FY 2008 target of 0.30 percent The error rates for these two programs were as follows:
Fiscal Year
2004
2005
2006
Program: Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Outlays
$2.1 billion
$2.3 billion
$2.0 billion (est.)
Erroneous
Payments
$ 10.3 million
$3.0 million
$3.5 million
Error Rate
0.47 percent
0.1 3 percent
0.1 8 percent
II. STATISTICAL SAMPLING PROCESS: Based on the FY 2006 Measurement Plan approved by OMB, EPA pulled a statistical
sample of 252 direct payments from a population of 5,800 direct grant payments (I 26 transactions for each SRF).The error
rate for the direct payment sample was 0.0 percent. Additionally, the Agency reviewed a statistical sample of subrecipient
transactions for each SRF in South Carolina and New Hampshire. Results for South Carolina indicated erroneous payments of
$683 thousand from a universe of $56 million payments (an error rate of 1.2 percent). Erroneous payments in New
Hampshire totaled $47 thousand from a universe of $3 I million payments (an error rate of 0.1 5%). In FY 2006, EPA also
reviewed the Texas Single Audit Act audit report.The auditors did not find any improper payment issues. In addition, the
Agency reviewed a judgmental sample of over 200 transactions for each SRF program during State reviews.These reviews
identified $2.8 million of erroneous payments from a universe of over $875 million payments.
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 above, EPA continued reviewing direct and subrecipient SRF payments. In FY 2005, the
Agency identified modifications needed to enable tracking erroneous payments by grant recipient in the Grantee
Compliance Database.These modifications were implemented in FY 2006.
During FY 2005, EPA 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. Nineteen of the non-
profit grantee reviews identified potential erroneous payments. In FY 2006, the Agency completed its risk-based judgmental
sample of CY 2005 99 non-profit recipient reports to determine erroneous payments. Of the 99 reviews, 24 identified
potential erroneous payments. Results of both years are provided in the table below. EPA will report updated information
on the appeal process results (no final determination/may not to be erroneous) in the FY 2007 PAR.The Agency also
reports on these results for the Improved Financial Management Initiative of the President's Management Agenda.
Non-Profit Grantees 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
Percent of erroneous payments
CY 2004
Review
$650,799
$224,977
$ 18,755
$ 18,755
$421,260
0.21 percent
CY 2005
Review
$ 1,016,967
$217,418
$14,298
$14,298
$785,251
0.07 percent
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Additionally in FY 2006, EPA introduced a new statistical sampling approach for the review of CY 2006 non-profit
grantee monitoring/audit reports for erroneous payments
Contracts: EPA continues to take appropriate action as needed to reduce or eliminate improper payments.The
appropriate Contracts Officer Representatives or On Scene Coordinators are notified of all improper payments
discovered. In January 2003, EPA implemented a monthly Improper Contracts Payment Report.The report captures the
number of improper payments per month and provides information on each improper payment including the reason and
recovery status. In FY 2006, the Agency received final Recovery Audit Report—the audit reviewed 376,000 small
purchase and contract payment transactions worth $6.5 billion.The Audit Recovery contractor reviewed 100,471
contract payments totaling $4.3 million and found only 4 erroneous payments (a 0.01 percent error rate). EPA has
addressed all audit recommendations cited in the Recovery Audit Report.
Based on EPA's excellent performance and effective controls, the Agency does not plan future externally conducted
recovery audits—a formal Recovery Audit is not cost effective for the contractor who is paid based on erroneous
payments found/recovered.The Agency will continue using the monthly Improper Contracts Payment Report as the tool
for monitoring contract payments.
Fiscal Year
Results of EPA's Improper Contract Payments Report
Number of
Erroneous
Payments
Erroneous
Payments
(Dollars in Error Rate for
Thousands) Dollars
$206.1
$748.5
$121.5
$406.5
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 commodity payments were
included in the Recovery Audit described above in Section III. B. Contracts.The Recovery Audit contractor reviewed
275,1 85 invoices paid totaling $2.2 million and found 3 I improper payments (less than 0.01 percent error rate).The
improper commodity payments were attributed to product returns not deducted, duplicate payments due to keypunch
errors and vendor number errors, cash discounts not taken, and state and local tax exemptions not taken. As of January
2006, the Agency consolidated its commodity payments operation to one Finance CenterThe consolidation achieves a
higher degree of internal control, consistency and oversight.The consolidation plus several other corrective actions
address the Recovery Audit Report recommendations. In preparation for replacing the core financial system, EPA is
completing a review of the vendor file to ensure the accuracy of all vendor codes.
The Agency implemented a commodities payment tracking mechanism in January 2004 to gather improper payment
data.This tracking system provides the data for a monthly Improper Commodities Payment Report which includes
information on each improper payment. Given the low rate of erroneous payments, EPA does not plan future externally
conducted recovery audits—a formal Recovery Audit is not cost effective for the contractor who is paid based on
erroneous payments found/recovered.The Agency will continue using the monthly Improper Commodities Payment
Report as the tool for monitoring these payments.
Results of EPA's Improper Commodity Payments Report
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
Number of
Erroneous
Payments
40 (of 42,698)
102 (of 50,665)
Erroneous
Payments
(Dollars in Error Rate for
Thousands) Dollars
$416.0
$695.5
0.17 percent
0.23 percent
D. Payroll: By December 3 1, 2004, the Payroll Workgroup completed a comprehensive review of internal controls and submitted
recommendations to reduce improper payments. Additionally, in FY 2005, the workgroup developed a corrective action
plan/best practices. EPA implemented these corrective actions before the Agency transferred the payroll disbursement
function to the Department of Defense. EPA now benefits from the combination of both agencies' internal controls.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
E. Travel Card/Purchase Card: The Agency continues to monitor the travel and purchase charge card
transactions in accordance with the Agency policies and procedures. In addition, EPA monitors the issuance
of purchase cards to ensure that spending limits and span of control are kept to a minimum.The Agency
implemented a monitoring program that requires each of the Senior Resource Officials to perform yearly
reviews of the purchases made within their program offices. These reviews ensure the integrity of the
purchase card program. During FY 2006, EPA implemented a Katrina Stewardship plan which added the
following controls:
• Notify card holder's approving official via email for each purchase—daily;
• Conduct reviews within 60 days of transactions; and
• Review Agency Atypical Report which identifies airline ticket purchase without authorizations.
IV. IMPROPER PAYMENT (IP) REDUCTION OUTLOOK FY 2004—FY 2007
(Dollars in millions)
:Y FY FY
2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008
ram Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP % IP $ Outlays IP %
Clean
Water
and
Drinking
Water
SRFs
$2,182
(actual)
$10.3
$2,302
(actual)
0.45
target
0.13
actual
$1,963
(est.)
0.40
target
0.18
actual
$3.5
$ 1,543
(est.)
$5.4
(est.)
$1,565
(est.)
$4.7
(est.)
V. RECOVERY AUDIT PROGRAMS: The Agency hired a contractor, Business Strategy, Inc (BSI).to conduct the recovery audit.
BSI provided their final report and recommendations in FY 2006. As reported above in the Contracts and Commodities sec-
tions, BSI did not uncover any material transactions that were erroneously paid.
During FY 2006, EPA implemented cost effective corrective actions to address BSI recommendations.These actions strength-
ened payment processes and internal controls to help prevent further occurrences.
VI. ENSURING MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: As previously outlined in the corrective action plans, the Agency continues 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 ofWater and the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer In all cases action is taken with the appropriate officials to ensure improper payments are recovered and to
avoid future improper payments. Similar monitoring through reports is done for the contracts and commodities payment areas.
VII. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: The Agency's information systems are sufficient to reduce improp-
er payments to targeted levels.
VIII. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BARRIERS: None.
IX. CONCLUSIONS: EPA met all of the requirements and received a Green Status on Eliminating Improper Payments as of June
30, 2006.The Agency has demonstrated a low level of risk for the SRF programs through statistical sampling of direct payments, tar-
geted state reviews, statistical sampling of subrecipient payments in two states, and analysis of subrecipient payments in Texas Single
Audit Act report. Based on the guidelines contained in Appendix C to OMB Circular A-l 23, Part I, Section K, EPA requested relief
from the annual reporting requirements of the Improper Payment Information Act for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs.
Section K permits agencies to request relief from IPIA reporting requirements if a program has documented a minimum of two
consecutive years of improper payments that are less than $ 10 million annually. EPA met this requirement for FYs 2005 and 2006
for the SRF programs. On October 5, 2006, OMB granted the Agency's request to waive statistical testing of SRF transactions for
FYs 2007-2009. EPA will be required to resume statistical assessment and report on the SRF programs in the FY 2010 PAR OMB's
approval to begin reporting every third year is contingent on no significant legislative or programmatic changes, significant funding
increases and/or any change that would result in substantial program impact. If such changes occur, the Agency must reinitiate risk
assessments and comply with IPIA reporting requirements if there is significant risk of improper payments occurring.
For FY 2007, EPA committed to the following activities:
• Report on improper payments in the PAR;
• Continue to monitor commercial payments to ensure accuracy and characterize monitoring efforts annually in the PAR and
• Brief OMB, as needed, depending on program changes, legislative and/or funding revision, or anything that development
from EPA's monitoring.
-------
J
• 5
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal
2006 and 2005 Consolidated Financial Statements
Contents
At a Glance 274
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005 Consolidated Financial
Statements (Report No. 2007-1-00019 issued November 15, 2006)
Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information, Required Supplementary
Information, Supplemental Information, and Management's Discussion and Analysis 276
Evaluation of Internal Controls 277
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations 279
Prior Audit Coverage 280
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 280
Attachments
I. Reportable Conditions 281
EPA's Implementation of Accounting Processes Resulted in Misstatements 28!
EPA Misclassified Interagency Agreement Advances to Other Federal Agencies 282
2. Compliance with Laws and Regulations 284
EPA Did Not Reconcile Differences With Trading Partners 284
3. Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations 285
Appendices
I. EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005 Consolidated Financial Statements 216
II. Agency's Response to Draft Report 286
III. Report Distribution List 288
273
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2007-1-00019
November I 5, 2006
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Audit
We performed this audit in
accordance with the
Government Management
Reform Act, which requires the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to prepare, and
the Office of Inspector
General to audit, the Agency's
financial statements each year.
Our primary objectives were
to determine whether:
• ERA's consolidated financial
statements were fairly pre-
sented in all material
respects.
• ERA'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, con-
tact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report, click
on the following link:
Audit of EPAs Fiscal 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Financial Statements
EPA RECEIVES UNQUALIFIED OPINION
We rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA's
Consolidated Financial Statements for fiscal 2006 and 2005, meaning
that they were fairly presented and free of material misstatement.
INTERNAL CONTROL REPORTABLE CONDITIONS NOTED
We noted the two following reportable conditions:
• EPA implemented two accounting processes in fiscal 2006 that led
to misstatements of the Agency's fiscal 2006 bad debt expense, rev-
enue, contra revenue, advance accounts, and unearned revenue
accounts. The processes included reclassifying receivables older
than 2 years as currently not collectible, and transferring the
receivables and related allowance accounts from regional financial
management offices to financial management centers.
• EPA did not properly account for advance funding agreements
with other Federal Government agencies. EPA recorded advances
disbursed under Interagency Agreements as expenses instead of as
assets. As a result, EPA overstated expenses and understated
assets by $55,982,983.
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
NOTED
EPA is in noncompliance with regulations relating to reconciling
intragovernmental transactions. The Agency did not reconcile mate-
rial activity and balances with the Department of Health and Human
Services during the year, and had out of balance situations with many
other agencies.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL EVALUATION
In a memorandum received on November 13, 2006, from the
Chief Financial Officer, the Agency agreed with the issues raised and
indicated it will take needed corrective actions.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
November 15, 2006
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005 Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 2007-1-00019
FROM: Paul C.Curtis
Director, Financial Statement Audits
TO: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
Attached is our audit report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's fiscal 2006 and 2005 consoli-
dated financial statements. We are reporting a reportable condition and noncompliance with laws and
regulations related to EPA's accounting for interagency activity, as well as a reportable condition related to erro-
neous postings to bad debt expense. Attachment 3 contains the status of recommendations from prior years.
The estimated cost of this report—calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the applicable daily
full cost billing rates in effect at the time—is $2,561,416.
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. This report will be available
at http://www.epa.gov/oig/.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Process, you are required to provide us with a writ-
ten response to the final audit report within 90 days of the final report date. The response should address all
issues and recommendations contained in Attachments 1 and 2. For corrective actions planned but not complet-
ed 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 of Audit, at
(202) 566-0899.
Attachments
cc: See Appendix III, Report Distribution List
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Inspector General's Report on
EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005
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, 2006 and 2005, and
the related consolidated statements of net cost, net cost
by goal, changes in net position, financing and custodi-
al 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 opinion 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 06-03,
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.
As discussed in Note I.J., the Agency changed its
accounting for delinquent debts in fiscal 2006 to
comply with OMB Circular A-129, Policies for
Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables.
The financial statements include expenses of
grantees, contractors, and other Federal agencies. Our
audit work pertaining to these expenses included test-
ing only within EPA. Audits of grants, contracts, and
interagency agreements performed at a later date may
disclose questioned costs of an amount undeter-
minable 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 disburse-
ments 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, 2006 and 2005, 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 consis-
tency with the financial statements. The
Supplemental Information includes the unaudited
Superfund Trust Fund financial statements for fiscal
2006 and 2005, which are being presented for addi-
tional analysis and are not a required part of the basic
financial statements. However, our audit was not
designed to express an opinion and, accordingly, we
do not express an opinion on EPA's RSSI, Required
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Supplementary Information, Supplemental
Information, and Management's Discussion and
Analysis.
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.
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 preparation of the financial state-
ments and RSSI in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, and assets are
safeguarded against loss from unauthorized acqui-
sition, 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 regula-
tions: Transactions are executed in accordance
with laws governing the use of budget authority
and any other laws, regulations, and government-
wide policies identified by OMB that could have
a direct and material effect on the financial state-
ments or RSSI.
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 necessary
to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin
No. 06-03, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial
Statements. We did not test all internal controls rele-
vant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982
(FMFIA), such as those controls relevant to ensuring
efficient operations. The objective of our audit was
not to provide assurance on internal controls and,
accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal
controls.
Our consideration of the internal controls over
financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all
matters in the internal control over financial 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 internal control
does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
errors, fraud or noncompliance in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial state-
ments or RSSI being audited, or material to a
performance measure or aggregation of related per-
formance measures, may occur and not be detected
within a timely period by employees in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions. Because
of inherent limitations in internal controls, misstate -
ments, 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 condi-
tions, although none of the reportable conditions is
believed to be a material weakness.
In addition, we considered EPA's internal control
over the RSSI by obtaining an understanding of the
Agency's internal controls, determined whether these
internal controls had been placed in operation,
assessed control risk, and performed tests of controls
as required by OMB Bulletin No. 06-03. Our proce-
dures were not designed to provide assurance on these
internal controls and, accordingly, we do not express
an opinion on such controls.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Finally, with respect to internal controls related
to performance measures presented in EPA's FY 2006
Performance and Accountability Report, we obtained an
understanding of the design of significant internal
controls relating to the existence and completeness
assertions, as required by OMB Bulletin No. 06-03.
Our procedures were not designed to provide assur-
ance on internal control over reported performance
measures and, accordingly, we do not express an opin-
ion 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 two reportable conditions, as follows:
Implementing Accounting Processes Resulted in
Misstatements
EPA implemented two accounting processes in fis-
cal 2006 that led to misstatements of the Agency's
fiscal 2006 bad debt expense, revenue, contra revenue,
advance accounts, and unearned revenue accounts.
The Agency adopted OMB Circular A-129, Policies for
Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables,
which provides for the reclassification of receivables
older than 2 years as currently not collectible (CNC).
The Agency's revised CNC transaction posting model
was not mapped to the allowance account and did not
include an entry to offset the reduction of current year
revenue. The combination of subsequent CNC reclas-
sifications and allowance adjustment caused the
misstatement of EPA's fiscal 2006 bad debt expense,
revenue, contra revenue, and advance accounts. In
addition, the Agency transferred the receivables and
related allowance accounts from regional financial
management offices to financial management centers.
Inadvertent increases of allowance accounts and sub-
sequent adjustments to remove the allowance
accounts resulted in incorrect postings to bad debt
expense, revenue, contra revenue, and unearned rev-
enue accounts.
Misciassi/ied Interagency Agreement Advances to
Other Federal Agencies
EPA did not properly account for advance fund-
ing agreements with other Federal Government
agencies. Though Federal accounting standards and
EPA's accounting procedures require that advances
made to other agencies be recorded as assets, EPA
recorded advances disbursed under Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) as an expense. This occurred
because the other Federal agencies drew down the
funds under the lAGs soon after the funds were obli-
gated. EPA contributed to the problem by not
following its own accounting policies or that of the
U.S. Treasury. In addition, the Agency has not devel-
oped written procedures for recovering advances from
other Agencies. As a result, EPA overstated expenses
and understated assets by $55,982,983.
We have reported less significant matters regard-
ing internal controls in the form of position papers
during the course of the audit. We will not issue a
separate management letter.
COMPARISON OF EPA'S FMFIA REPORT
WITH OUR EVALUATION OF INTERNAL
CONTROLS
OMB Bulletin No. 06-03, 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
FMFIA report that relate to the financial statements
and identify material weaknesses disclosed by the
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
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
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
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 2006.
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. 06-03,
Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.
The OMB guidance also requires that we report on
EPA's compliance with the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996.
We limited our tests of compliance to these provi-
sions and did not test compliance with all laws and
regulations applicable to EPA.
Providing an opinion on compliance with certain
provisions of laws and regulations was not an 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 is changing the confidential
financial disclosure forms required to be filed by EPA
employees, the forms are for the period October 1,
2005 thru December 31, 2006 and are due February
15, 2007. Since the Agency did not require these
forms to be prepared in time to be reviewed for this
audit, we did not perform any tests or inquiries about
those reports. Had the Agency required the confiden-
tial financial disclosure forms be prepared and had we
been able to review the reports and perform tests or
make additional inquires, matters may have come to
our attention that would require reporting.
Our tests of laws and regulations disclosed the fol-
lowing noncompliance issue.
EPA DID NOT RECONCILE DIFFERENCES
WITH TRADING PARTNERS
EPA has taken some action to reconcile its
intragovernmental activity on a quarterly basis, but
did not reconcile differences for intragovernmental
transactions with 47 of its trading partners. During
the fourth quarter, these differences totaled $518 mil-
lion. EPA has experienced problems reconciling with
its intragovernmental trading partners in prior years,
including differences with the HHS that prohibited
EPA from fully complying with the applicable U.S.
Treasury requirements. In fiscal 2006, we found that
HHS records receipts from EPA as deferred revenue
while EPA erroneously records disbursements to HHS
as expenses when paid, rather than advances.
Without confirmation from its trading partners, EPA
has limited assurance that intragovernmental bal-
ances are accurate. Attachment 2 provides additional
details, and our recommendation on actions that
should be taken on this matter.
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 memorandum dated January 4, 2001, Revised
Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act, lists the specific
requirements of FFMIA, as well as factors to consider
in reviewing systems and for determining substantial
compliance with FFMIA. It also provides guidance to
Agency heads for developing corrective action plans
to bring an Agency into compliance with FFMIA. To
meet the FFMIA requirement, we performed tests of
compliance with FFMIA section 803(a) requirements
and used the OMB guidance, revised on January 4,
2001, for determining substantial noncompliance
with FFMIA.
The results of our tests did not disclose any
instances where the Agency's financial management
systems did not substantially comply with FFMIA
requirements.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
We reported other less significant matters involv-
ing 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, we reported weaknesses that impacted our
audit objectives in the following areas:
• Payroll Internal Controls.
• General Ledger Adjustments for Receivables
Transferred to Cincinnati Finance Center (CFC).
• Contingency Plans for Financial Applications.
• Reconciling and reporting intragovernmental
transactions, assets, and liabilities by Federal trad-
ing partner.
• Recording Marketable Securities.
• Correcting Rejected Transactions.
• Assessing automated application processing con-
trols for IFMS.
• Security Screenings for Non-Federal Personnel.
• Change Control Procedures for IFMS.
Attachment 3, Status of Prior Audit Report
Recommendations, summarizes the current status of
corrective actions taken on prior audit report recom-
mendations.
Agency Comments and OIG
Evaluation
In a memorandum dated November 13, 2006,
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
responded to our draft report.
The rationale for our conclusions and a summary
of the Agency comments are included in
the appropriate sections of this report, and the
Agency's complete response is included as Appendix
II to 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 14, 2006
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Attachment I: Reportable Conditions
I EPA's Implementation of Accounting
Processes Resulted in Misstatements
In fiscal 2006, EPA adopted OMB Circular A-
129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax
Receivables, which provides for the reclassification of
receivables older than 2 years as currently not col-
lectible (CNC). The general ledger automated
posting model established by the Agency to record
CNC entries reduced the receivables—related rev-
enue or advance account—and recorded the CNC
receivables in memo accounts. However, the posting
model was not mapped to the allowance accounts and
did not include an entry to offset the reduction of
current year revenue. The allowance account was
subsequently adjusted for decreases in the open
accounts receivable due to CNC reclassifications.
The combination of the CNC reclassifications and
subsequent allowance adjustment caused the initial
misstatement of EPA's fiscal 2006 bad debt expense,
revenue, contra revenue, and advance accounts. In
the fourth quarter, the Agency revised the accounting
model to include the allowance account.
In addition, the Agency has been moving its
financial operations from the regional FMOs to the
finance management centers over the past several
years. In fiscal 2006, the receivables and related
allowance accounts were transferred from FMOs to
financial management centers. Fourth quarter trans-
fers included amounts previously classified by the
FMOs as CNC under the original accounting model.
By reducing the receivables recorded by the FMOs
under the original accounting model, and recording
the transfer under the revised accounting model, the
allowance accounts were inadvertently increased.
Subsequent adjustments to remove the allowance
accounts resulted in additional incorrect postings to
bad debt expense, revenue, contra revenue, and
unearned revenue accounts.
As a result, at the end of fiscal 2006, bad debt
expense has a credit balance of $54,792,630 and sev-
eral revenue accounts have debit balances totaling
$9,342,912. The US Standard General Ledger dictates
that bad debt expense and contra revenue accounts
Contents
I. EPA's Implementation of Accounting
Processes Resulted in Misstatements 281
2. EPA Misclassified Interagency Agreement
Advances to Other Federal Agencies 282
should normally have a debit balance and revenue
accounts should normally have a credit balance. In
addition, the advance account for Superfund future
cost special account receivables has a debit balance of
$2,749,860. The account for advances received from
others should normally have a credit balance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the OCFO require the Reporting
and Analysis Staff:
1. Make the necessary corrections to properly adjust
fiscal 2006 bad debt expense, revenue and
advance accounts to their normal balances.
2. Work with finance offices to correct the impact
of any future CNC reductions.
We recommend the OCFO have the Financial
Management Offices and Finance Centers:
3. Monitor CNC decrease entries to transactions for
abnormal increases in the allowance accounts and
decreases in revenue.
4. Notify Reports and Analysis Staff of these CNC
decrease entries and any allowance for doubtful
account decrease entries needed to correct
allowance accounts.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The Agency generally concurred with our recom-
mendations; however, OCFO only made a partial
adjustment to bad debt expense for financial state-
ment purposes. Our analysis indicated that there were
entries that created abnormal balances in certain rev-
enue and liability accounts that need to be adjusted.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 EPA Misclassified Interagency
Agreement Advances to
Other Federal Agencies
EPA did not properly account for advance fund-
ing agreements with other Federal Government
agencies. These agreements usually involve the joint
funding of expenses, grants or contracts for projects
that are administered by another Government
agency. Federal accounting standards and EPA's
accounting procedures require that advances made to
other agencies be recorded as assets that are reduced
when goods and services are received, contract terms
are met, or progress is made. However, EPA recorded
advances disbursed to administering agencies under
lAGs as an expense. This occurred because the other
Federal agencies drew down the funds under the
lAGs soon after the funds were obligated. EPA con-
tributed to the problem by not following its own
accounting policies or that of the U.S. Treasury by
not ensuring it received support for the funds dis-
bursed under the lAGs. In addition, the Agency has
not developed written procedures for recovering
advances from other Agencies when they do not pro-
vide proper cost documentation on advance
agreements. As a result, EPA overstated expenses and
understated assets by $55,982,983.
The Treasury Financial Manual Volume 1, Part 2,
Chapter 2500, Section 2515.10, Payments to Other
Appropriations and Funds as Reimbursements or
Advances, states:
"Advance Payments Required by Law—These trans-
actions are required by a specific law, by which a
determined amount is to be transferred from one
agency and merged with a specific account of another
agency. The amount is payment in advance for goods
and services that will be provided by the second
agency.
Advance Payments to Certain Revolving and
Working Capital Funds—These are transactions
authorized by law, by which certain revolving and
working capital funds are permitted to request pay-
ment for goods and services in advance of delivery.
These advances represent a liability of the revolving or
working capital fund pending delivery of the goods
and services.
Advance Payments to Management Funds—
Management fund accounts are authorized by specific
laws to receive advances from appropriations to ease
accounting for and administration of intra-govern-
mental activities. These accounts are classified either
as annual or no-year accounts, depending on the cir-
cumstances.
Advance Payments to Consolidated Working
Funds—advances for goods and services to be provid-
ed within the same fiscal year by the performing
agency through use of its own facilities may be made
to "consolidated working fund" accounts of the per-
forming agency under Section 601 of the Economy
Act, 31 LJ.S.C. 686. This method of financing reim-
bursement for goods and services provided by one
agency to another should be used only in instances
where arrangements for current billings and reim-
bursements would be impractical."
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards No. 1, Accounting for Selected Assets and
Liabilities, dated March 30, 1993, defines advances as
cash outlays made by a Federal entity to its employ-
ees, contractors, grantees, or others to cover a part or
all of the recipients' anticipated expenses. Statement
of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 1
states that advances should be recorded as assets. The
advances should be reduced when goods or services
are received, contract terms are met, or progress is
made.
A Disbursement Interagency Agreement is an
agreement in which another Federal agency delivers
goods or services to EPA, and EPA disburses funds to
the other agency's account to pay for that agency's
expenses. EPA Resource Management Directives
2550c, Paragraphs 6. a. and b. define the methods of
payment for goods or services under disbursement
lAGs.
"a. Reimbursable Payment. The agency performing
the work specified in the agreement periodically
bills the other agency or agencies who are party to
the agreement for amounts obligated or costs
incurred in providing the services or goods. The
agency is then reimbursed by the other agencies
for those costs.
b. Advance Payment. Some agencies which perform
work on a reimbursable basis must receive pay-
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
ment for the provision of goods or services in
advance, i.e., before they actually incur costs. In
this arrangement, the agency requesting the work
provides advance payment to the other agency;
these funds are placed in the other agency's work-
ing fund account. As work is performed, the
agency doing the work will report its expenditures
on a regular basis to the agency requesting the
work. The requesting agency is then able to liqui-
date the advance payment in its accounting
records."
During disbursement testing at CFC, we identi-
fied an advance funded IAG in our sample universe
that was misclassified in IFMS. Based on the results of
that testing, we expanded our review to look at all
EPA advance lAGs with other Federal agencies. The
review included data retrieved from the Integrated
Grants Management System that identified EPA
lAGs with other Federal agencies that were marked
"advance" funded. From the search of the Integrated
Grants Management System and discussions with
EPA project officers and grant specialists, CFC veri-
fied which lAGs were truly advance funded. Then
they tried to determine the status of those lAGs by
obtaining progress reports with supporting cost detail.
Where available, CFC used the most recent progress
reports that included supporting cost detail from its
files. CFC reviewed the detailed cost documentation
to try to determine total advances, expenditures
incurred to date, and the remaining outstanding
advance for the advance funded lAGs. Based on this
review CFC identified IAG advances totaling
$55,982,983 that were misclassified as operating
expenses.
Payments made under disbursement lAGs are
typically processed with transaction codes and types
that record transactions as operating expenses. We
found that CFC recorded the entire $55,982,983 of
advance payments to other Federal agencies as oper-
ating expenses rather than as advances. Further, CFC
did not originally record the advance payments as an
advance in fiscal 2006, and did not follow up on the
status of the outstanding advance. As a result of CFC
recording advances as expenses, expenses were over-
stated by $55,982,983.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the OCFO have the CFC:
5. Ensure all future payments under advanced fund-
ed disbursement lAGs are recorded as advances,
and expenses are recognized in the period
incurred.
We recommend the OCFO:
6. Establish written procedures for recovering
advances from other agencies when those agen-
cies fail to provide proper and timely supporting
documentation of the funds being used.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG
EVALUATION
The CFO generally agreed with our recommenda-
tions, agreeing to coordinate efforts with the Office of
Grants and Debarment to strengthen procedures when
entering into agreements with other Federal entities
so that both entities will be able to accurately compile
financial reporting information. However, the OCFO
stated they have written policies and procedures in
place governing intragovernmental transactions, and
will refine them after issuance of OMB business rules
governing such transactions. OCFO volunteered to
participate on the government-wide committee
designed to resolve trading partner issues among
agencies.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Attachment 2: Compliance with Laws and Regulations
3 EPA Did Not Reconcile
Differences With Trading Partners
EPA has taken some action to reconcile its
intragovernmental activity on a quarterly basis, but
has not reconciled differences for intragovernmental
transactions with 47 of its trading partners. During
the fourth quarter, these differences totaled $518 mil-
lion. EPA has experienced problems reconciling with
its intragovernmental trading partners in prior years,
including being unable to reconcile differences with
the HHS that prohibited EPA from fully complying
with the applicable U.S. Treasury requirements. In
fiscal 2006, we found that HHS records receipts from
EPA as deferred revenue, while EPA erroneously
Contents
3. EPA Did Not Reconcile Differences
With Trading Partners
..284
records disbursements to HHS as expenses when paid,
rather than advances. Without confirmation from its
trading partners, EPA has limited assurance that
intragovernmental balances are accurate.
Of the 47 trading partners with differences, we
identified three with material differences, as shown
below. Two of the three, DHS and HHS, had outstand-
ing material differences for each quarter of fiscal 2006.
Federal Agency
Department ofTreasury General Fund
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Health and Human Services
Other Federal Agencies
Difference
$237 million
$204 million
($96 million)
$ 173 million
The U.S. Treasury's Federal Intragovernmental
Transactions Accounting Policies Guide (July 2005) pro-
vides Government-wide accounting policies for
Federal agencies to account for and reconcile
intragovernmental transactions. The Guide states
that agencies should reconcile and confirm intragov-
ernmental activity and balances with their trading
partners before submitting year-end data and report-
ing it in audited financial statements. The Guide also
provides tools (procedures and examples) to facilitate
quarterly reconciliation of intragovernmental activi-
ties.
Intragovernmental transactions have been classi-
fied by the Government Accountability Office as a
Government-wide internal control weakness due to
the lack of standardization in recording and process-
ing 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 July 24, 2006, requires Federal
agencies to report intragovernmental assets, liabili-
ties, revenue, and certain reporting entities with their
Category of Difference
Not Assigned to Any Category
Unbilled Accounts Receivables/Revenue
Advances from Other Agencies
Various Categories
trading partners. This information is presented in the
financial statements, the Closing Package, and should
be in agreement with line items reported on the bal-
ance sheet. Intragovernmental balances and
transactions are a key component in the consolida-
tion of the financial information submitted by Federal
entities and in the overall compilation process of the
government-wide financial report.
Since FY 2003 we have reported the need to rec-
oncile differences with HHS as a noncompliance
issue. The Agency has not acted to reconcile its
intragovernmental activity on a quarterly basis with
HHS, causing these differences to continue. EPA
should increase its efforts to resolve these differences.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the OCFO:
7. Require the Office of Financial Management to
reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental trans-
actions to comply with Federal financial reporting
requirements.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION
OCFO agreed with our recommendation.
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
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
Follow-up Official and is responsible for ensuring that
corrective actions are implemented. In fiscal 2006,
OCFO included in its Organizational Assessment
Measures a metric for audit follow-up. OCFO manage-
ment regularly reviews these measures during OCFO's
monthly Budget and Performance Review meetings.
The Agency has continued to make substantial
progress in completing corrective actions from prior
years. The status of issues from prior financial state-
ment audits, that have 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
EPA had not completed the remaining actions in the Agency's fiscal 1999 Remediation Plan by the end of fiscal 2006.
However, EPA reported that in October 2006 it published the Personal Identity Verification Handbook, which outlines
procedures for conducting background investigations for non-Federal workers.We will schedule a review to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Agency's implemented procedures.
EPA Did Not Promptly Record Marketable Securities:
The Agency plans to transfer the processing of marketable securities to the Cincinnati Finance Center (CFC) in January
2007. As part of the transfer, CFC will develop a reconciliation procedure to ensure a proper and complete non-cash
asset balance.
EPA Continues to Experience Difficulties in Reconciling Intragovemmental Transactions:
The Agency has been working to reconcile Intragovemmental Transactions, however, as described in attachment 2,
Compliance with Laws and Regulations, the Agency still has reconciling differences with many other Federal Government
Agencies.
Weaknesses in Change Controi Procedures for Integrated Financiai Management System:
EPA had not completed the remaining corrective action needed by the end of fiscal 2006. However, EPA reported that in
October 2006 it finalized the ENDEVOR security plan that documents the system's implemented security controls.We
will schedule a review to evaluate the effectiveness of the Agency's implemented procedures.
EPA Shouid Improve Payroll Internal Controls:
EPA has made progress towards improving payroll internal controls to reduce default payments to current and separated
employees. However, EPA has not implemented an automated control in PeoplePlus to limit the number of consecutive
default payments. EPA plans to complete the remaining action by December 31, 2006.
EPA Needs to Improve Correction of Rejected Transactions:
EPA had not completed the remaining action needed by the end of fiscal 2006. However, EPA published on November I,
2006, formal procedures for managing rejected payroll transactions between PeoplePlus and IFMS.We will schedule a
review to evaluate the effectiveness of the Agency's implemented procedures.
EPA Needs to Improve Contingency Plans for Financial Applications:
Although EPA has made some progress in correcting this reportable condition, EPA still needs to (I) finalize contingency
plans for all OCFO applications not subscribing to the National Computer Center Disaster Recovery Services Plan, and (2)
update the personnel contact information within the NCC Critical Application Disaster Recovery Plan. OCFO plans to com-
plete the first action by December 31,2006. OCFO requested NCC update the Critical Application Disaster Recovery Plan.
-------
Appendix II: Agency's Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
November 13, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report: Response to Audit of EPAs FYs 2006 and 2005 Financial Statements
FROM: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
TO: Bill Roderick
Acting Inspector General
My staff and I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Audit Report of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's FYs 2006 and 2005 Financial Statements. We agree with
the issues raised and have some observations and clarifications to offer. These are provided in the
attachment.
We believe our existing controls, policies and procedures are effective. We are in the final stages
of consolidating several financial functions that will improve our efficiency and effectiveness and have
already assisted in streamlining the audit process. As with anything new, challenges exist, but we are
currently evaluating ways to improve operations without compromising fiscal integrity.
This year was a model year for both of us. We worked closely implementing some of the best
practices in Government, which resulted in a smoother audit process. We thank you for your commit-
ment and diligence.
We look forward to another productive year working with the Office of Inspector General. If you
have any questions, please contact Lorna McAllister, Director of the Office of Financial Management at
202-564-4905.
Attachment
cc: Melissa Heist
Paul Curtis
Maryann Froehlich
Joshua Baylson
Lorna M. McAllister
lantha Gilmore
Milton Brown
Raffael Stein
-------
SECTION IV FY 2006 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Attachment I: OCFO's Response to the FY 2006 and FY 2005 Draft Audit Report
INTRODUCTION
We offer the following obser-
vations and clarifications:
• The transfer of receivables to
the Finance Centers started in
FY 2004 and continued into FY
2006. EPA was consolidating
processes for efficiency, consis-
tency, and improved internal
controls. The consolidation did
not cause changes in accounting
processes or internal controls.
• As part of the transition, we
concede that transferring the
receivables from the regions to
Cincinnati could have been
executed more effectively.
• Consolidating accounting
functions and reclassifying debt
over two years old consistent
with OMB Circular A-129 and
Treasury guidance during FY
2006 contributed to the unan-
ticipated abnormal account
balances including the year-
end bad debt expense account.
• Each quarter EPA works to rec-
oncile differences reported by
the Department of Treasury
with our major trading partners.
As a result of our preliminary
review of the 4th quarter
Treasury Intragovernmental
Activity Report, OCFO identi-
fied potential adjustments that
will reduce the total unrecon-
ciled difference from $518
million to $231 million.
REPORTABLE
CONDITIONS
1. EPA's Implementation of
Accounting Processes
Resulted in Misstatements
OIG Recommendation 1: We
recommend the OCFO require
the Reporting and Analysis
Staff: Make the necessary cor-
rections to properly adjust
fiscal 2006 bad debt expense,
revenue and advance accounts
to their normal balances.
OCFO Response: OCFO
agrees. OCFO's review deter-
mined that only the bad debt
expense account required an
adjustment. This adjustment
was made for financial state-
ment purposes and will be
posted in the accounting sys-
tem in FY 2007.
OIG Recommendation 2: We
recommend the OCFO require
the Reporting and Analysis
Staff: Work with finance
offices to correct the impact of
any future Currently Not
Collectible (CNC) reductions
against entries originally
recorded in the first through
third quarters of fiscal 2006.
OCFO Response: OCFO
believes that the recommenda-
tion should be modified to end
after the word "reductions."
An analysis was completed on
all fiscal 2006 CNC activity.
For FY 2007, the accounting
model will be re-evaluated and
the impact will be monitored.
OIG Recommendation 3: We
recommend the OCFO have
the Financial Management
Offices and Finance Centers:
Continually monitor CNC
decrease entries to transactions
originally recorded in the first
through third quarters of fiscal
2006 for abnormal increases in
the allowance accounts and
decreases in revenue.
OCFO Response: OCFO
believes that the recommenda-
tion should delete the words
"continually" and "originally
recorded the first through third
quarters of fiscal 2006." OCFO
will formally monitor these
transactions monthly instead
of quarterly.
OIG Recommendation 4: We
recommend the OCFO have
the Financial Management
Offices and Finance Centers:
Notify Reporting and Analysis
Staff of these CNC decrease
entries and any allowance for
doubtful account decrease
entries needed to correct
allowance accounts.
OCFO Response: OCFO will
revise the appropriate account-
ing models and amend the
CNC policy.
2. EPA Misciassi/ied Interagency
Agreement Advances to Other
Federal Agencies
OIG Recommendation 5: We
recommend the OCFO have
the CFC: Ensure all future pay-
ments under advanced funded
disbursement lAGs are record-
ed as advances and expenses
are recognized in the period
incurred.
OCFO Response: OCFO will
coordinate efforts with the
Office of Grants and
Debarment to strengthen pro-
cedures when entering into
advance agreements with other
federal entities. Such agree-
ments will establish terms and
conditions within the IAG
process, so that both entities
will be able to compile com-
plete, accurate and timely
financial information for
reporting and recognizing rev-
enue and expenses in the
proper period.
OIG Recommendation 6: We
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
recommend the OCFO:
Establish written procedures for
recovering advances from other
agencies when those agencies
fail to provide proper and time-
ly supporting documentation of
the funds being used.
OCFO Response: OCFO has
written policy and procedures
in place governing intragov-
ernmental transactions with
trading partners. These poli-
cies and procedures will be
refined after issuance of OMB
business rules (expected by
early calendar year 2007) with
stringent requirements govern-
ing the accounting for
intragovernmental transac-
tions including the appropriate
handling of advances and
other accounting transactions.
In addition, OCFO volun-
teered to participate on the
government-wide committee
designed to resolve trading
partner issues among agencies.
COMPLIANCE WITH
LAWS AND
REGULATIONS
3. EPA Did Not Reconcile
Differences with Trading
Partners
OIG Recommendation 7: We
recommend the OCFO:
Require the Office of
Appendix III: Report Distribution List
Chief Financial Officer, Agency
Follow-up Official
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management
Assistant Administrator for
Environmental Information
Director, Office of Policy and
Resources Management, Office
of Administration and
Resources Management
Director, Office of Grants and
Debarment
Director, Office of Technology
Operations and Planning
Director, Office of Budget
Director, Grants Administration
Division
Director, Office of Administrative
Services
Director, Office of Financial
Management
Director, Office of Financial
Services
Director, Cincinnati Finance
Center
Director, Las Vegas Finance Center
Director, Reporting and Analysis
Staff
Director, Financial Systems Staff
Director, Financial Policy and
Planning Staff
Director, Washington Finance
Center
Agency Follow-up Coordinator
Audit Liaison for the Office of
Chief Financial Officer
Audit Liaison for the Office of
Administration and Resources
Management
Audit Liaison for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Audit Liaison for the Office of
Administrative Services
Audit Liaison for the Office of
Environmental Information
Audit Liaison for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Audit Liaison for the Grants
Administration Division
Audit Liaison for the Office of the
Administrator
Audit Liaison for the Offices of
Financial Management and
Financial Services
Office of General Counsel
Acting Inspector General
Financial Management to rec-
oncile the Agency's
intragovernmental transac-
tions to comply with Federal
financial reporting require-
ments.
OCFO Response: OCFO
agrees with the recommenda-
tion and will continue to
make progress in this area.
The Office of Financial
Services will work with the
appropriate EPA offices and
other federal agencies to
obtain the necessary docu-
mentation to support these
transactions.
Abbreviations
CFC Cincinnati Finance Center
CMC Currently Not Collectible
EPA U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
FFMIA Federal Financial
Management
Improvement Act
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act
FMO Financial Management
Office
IAG Interagency Agreement
IFMS Integrated Financial
Management System
HHS Heath and Human
Services
OCFO Office of the Chief
Financial Officer
OIG Office of Inspector
General
OMB Office of Management and
Budget
RSSI Required Supplementary
Stewardship Information
-------
dti
CONTENTS
Appendix A—Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2006
Appendix B—Data Quality
Appendix C—Public Access
Appendix D—Acronyms and Definitions
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Appendix A:
'ogra Evaluations
Completed in FY 2006
INTRODUCTION
EPA relies on program evaluations and analyses to inform decisions, design effective strategies, and adjust approaches to
improve results. Appendix A lists and summarizes information for each program evaluation completed in FY 2006. 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
Evaluation Title: Particulate Matter: EPA Has Started to Address the National Academies'
Recommendations on Estimating Health Benefits, but More Progress is Needed
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA periodically reviews the appropriate air quality level at which to
set national standards to protect the public against the health effects of particulate matter EPA proposed revisions to these standards in
January 2006 and issued a draft regulatory impact analysis of the revisions' expected costs and benefits. A 2002 National Academies
(NAS) report generally supported EPA's approach but made 34 recommendations to improve how EPA implements its approach. GAO
was asked to determine whether and how EPA applied the NAS' recommendations in its estimates of the health benefits expected from
the January 2006 proposed revisions to the particulate matter standards. GAO examined the draft analysis, met with EPA officials and
interviewed members of the NAS' committee.
Evaluation Findings: EPA has begun to change the way it conducts and presents its analyses of health benefits in response to recommen-
dations from the NAS. Specifically EPA applied, at least in part, 22 of the recommendations to its health benefit analysis of proposed
revisions to particulate matter standards. EPA officials said that ongoing research and development efforts will allow the agency to gradu-
ally achieve more progress in applying the recommendations. EPA has not applied the remaining 12 recommendations to the analysis for
a variety of reasons. EPA considers most of these recommendations as relevant to its health benefit analyses and emphasized the
agency's commitment to respond to the recommendations.
Planned Response: As noted, EPA considers most of the NAS recommendations as relevant to its health benefit analyses and remains
committed to implementing the NAS recommendations.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06780.pdf Report No. GAO-06-780, July 2006.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Clean Air Act: EPA Should Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics Program
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I. EPA's most recent data indicates that 95 percent of all Americans face an increased likelihood
of developing cancer as a result of breathing air toxics—pollutants such as benzene and asbestos that may cause cancer or other
serious health problems. Sources of air toxics include large industrial facilities, smaller facilities such as dry cleaners and cars and trucks.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to regulate 190 pollutants from these sources through a multifaceted regulatory
program. While EPA issues federal standards, state and local agencies generally administer these standards and some develop their
own rules to complement the federal standards. In this context, GAO was asked to assess: (I) EPA's progress and challenges in
implementing the air toxics program; (2) available information on the program's costs and benefits; and, (3) practices of state and local
air toxics programs.
Evaluation Findings: While EPA has made some progress implementing the 1990 CAA air toxics program, major aspects of the program
have still not been addressed. Many of the unmet requirements pertain to limiting emissions from small stationary and mobile sources,
which collectively account for most emissions of air toxics.The agency faces continuing implementation challenges stemming from the
programs low priority relative to other programs and related funding constraints.The program's agenda is largely set by external stake-
holders who file litigation when the agency misses deadlines. As a result of EPA's limited progress, the Agency has not addressed health
risks from air toxics to the extent or in the time frames envisioned in the CAAA. Available information on EPA's efforts to control air
toxics is not sufficiently comprehensive to measure the program's total costs and benefits. Specifically EPA has not comprehensively esti-
mated the national economic costs of all air toxics standards and lacks the data necessary to assess the benefits of these standards.The
state and local programs reviewed use practices that could potentially help EPA enhance the effectiveness of its air toxics program. For
example several state programs have systematic approaches for identifying and prioritizing new pollutants that could inform EPA's efforts
to meet the Act's requirement to review and update the list of regulated pollutants.
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA agrees in part with the conclusions and recommendations in the report. EPA must coordinate its
internal plans to reduce toxic air pollution with court ordered actions. EPA has a large number of rules pertaining to hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) scheduled for completion under different provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA): mobile source emission standards,
stationary source emission standards, and risk-based standards. In March 2006, EPA proposed a rule that would reduce air toxics from
mobile sources. Specifically the rule proposes standards to limit: (a) the benzene content of gasoline; (b) exhaust and evaporative emis-
sions from passenger vehicles; and (c) emissions from gas cans due to evaporation and spillage. Promulgation of this rule is expected to
reduce 350,000 tons of air toxics by 2030.The result of the proposal and other mobile source control programs would be a reduction
by over I million tons in mobile source air toxics between 1999 and 2030.The final rule is expected to be promulgated February 9,
2007.The final MSAT rule mentioned above is the only mandatory air toxics activity for mobile sources. EPA has aggressively been work-
ing on mobile source regulations through fuel and engine standards, and other efforts.The Agency is focusing on reducing air toxics
through regulatory actions, as well as a voluntary diesel retrofit program, which we are expanding to include stationary diesel engines.
Based on 1990 levels, we expect a 90 percent reduction in diesel emissions and a 60 percent reduction in other mobile source air toxics
(MSAT) by 2020. GAO recommends that EPA develop a plan for improving the management of its air toxics program, including a priori-
tization scheme, timelines, and estimates of resources needed to meet its statutory obligations. EPA met its obligations to adopt
standards for major stationary source categories by issuing 96 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards that apply
to 174 source categories.To meet fully our statutory obligations, we are developing additional standards for area source categories
according to the following schedule that is consistent with an order recently issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia in Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. I :OI-cv-OI 537-PLF (August 2, 2006). While EPA sought to develop a strategy that prioritizes
resources to maximize risk reduction, the above-mentioned court-ordered schedule has caused us to reexamine our plans in light of the
extremely tight deadlines imposed by the court's order We are making every effort to complete the remaining rules and comply with
the court's order; but this will have a significant impact on our ability to prioritize based on risk, and will necessitate our focusing on
those rules for which we have the greatest available information currently and can thus most readily meet the near-term deadlines.
Planned Response: EPA will work on meeting the court-ordered deadlines and on developing the residual risk and technology review
program.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06669.pdf Report No. GAO-06-780, June 2006.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Monitoring Needed to Assess Impact of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule on Potential Hotspots
Evaluator: U.S. EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I .About 40 percent of U.S. man-made airborne mercury is emitted from coal-fired utilities. EPA
revised a previous finding that mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities be regulated with a Maximum Achievable control Technology
standard. Instead, EPA adopted a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions. Several State agencies and environmental groups
objected to these actions. One concern was that a cap-and-trade program could result in localized areas with unacceptably high levels of
mercury or "hotspots." In support of its Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), the EPA conducted a detailed analysis of mercury emissions
and deposition. EPA concluded that "utility-attributable" hotspots would not occur after implementation of CAMR's mercury trading
program.This evaluation assesses the basis for EPA's conclusion.
Evaluation Findings: EPA brought significant scientific, technical and modeling expertise to bear in developing a specific methodology to
consider the potential for mercury hotspots. Several uncertainties associated with key variables in the analysis could affect the accuracy
of the Agency's conclusion that the CAMR will not result in "utility-attributable" hotspots.The OIG noted: gaps in available data and
science for mercury emissions estimates; limitations with the model used for predicting mercury deposition; uncertainty over how
mercury reacts in the atmosphere; and, uncertainty over how mercury changes to a more toxic form in waterbodies.The OIG also
concluded that based on their interpretation of CAMR, the Agency could not take action to mitigate a mercury hotspot unless the
Agency first determined that the hotspot was solely "utility-attributable."
Evaluation Recommendations:The OIG recommended that EPA develop and implement a mercury monitoring plan to: (I) assess the
impact of CAMR, if adopted on mercury deposition and fish tissue; and (2) evaluate and refine mercury estimation tools and models.
The OIG also recommended that EPA clarify in the final rule that the "utility-attributable" hotspot does not establish a prerequisite for
making future revisions to CAMR.
Planned Response: EPA agrees that additional mercury monitoring is needed and explained that CAMR does not establish the "utility-
attributable" hotspot definition as a prerequisite for future changes to CAMR.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/200605 15-2006-P-00025.pdf Report No. 2006-P-00025,
May 15, 2006.
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management
Evaluator: U.S. EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective I. Emissions factors are broad estimates of the emissions generated from a source, such as a
factory Nationally emissions factors are used for about 80 percent of emissions reporting. An emissions factor is a representative value
that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant released with an activity rate associated with the release. Emissions factors underlie
many environmental decisions. Recently states and industry have been developing emissions factors and submitting them to EPA.
The OIG sought to determine whether the air emissions factors used by EPA are of acceptable quality for making environmental
decisions, and whether EPA's decisions, and whether EPA's process for developing, improving and rating emissions factors is sufficient to
meet users' needs.
Evaluation Findings: EPA has made progress in emissions factors development since our review of the program in 1996 but a large
number of factors continue to be rated low.The number of EPA-rated factors increased by nearly 94 percent from 1996 to 2004.
However the percentage of emissions factors rated below average or poor increased from 56 percent in 1996 to 62 percent in 2004.
The quality of many emissions factors remains low in part because EPA did not have a sufficient process for developing, improving
and rating emissions factors, nor did EPA have a comprehensive strategic plan.The OIG found inconsistent emissions factors guidance,
continuing reliance on a qualitative rating system when a quantitative range of uncertainty is needed, an insufficient program funding
when needs are increasing.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG made a number of recommendations including: develop emissions factors guidance that addresses
the development and appropriate use of emissions factors for non-inventory purposes; establish a rating system that provides the quantitative
range of uncertainty for emissions factors for both inventory and non-inventory purposes; work with industry state and local agencies, and
others to leverage available resources for meeting increasing demands for new factors; and establish a workgroup to develop a comprehen-
sive strategic plan for the Emissions Factors Program, and ensure that requested resources are used to achieve program goals.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management
Evaluator: U.S. EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Planned Response: The OIG recommendations generally align with EPA's current improvement efforts. EPA is making it easier for
industry to transform their emissions data into emissions factors and to transmit them to State and Federal reviewers quickly through
reengineering the program to speed the development of emissions factors, increasing the number of emissions factors, and accounting
for uncertainty in emissions factors. By analyzing and reporting on the uncertainty of emissions factors, we will be able to assess the
uncertainty of not only future, but also existing, emissions factors. Our analysis and report have undergone an internal peer review
process, and our efforts were determined to be acceptable, scientific approaches to evaluating uncertainty We are summarizing the
documents now for a non-technical audience.The analysis and report will be available on the web for external review and comment
this year We expect that discussions and decisions on the means to express uncertainties will take eighteen to twenty-four months to
complete. In addition, guidance on rulemaking that may follow from the decisions is expected to take at least another thirty-six months.
Before fall 2006, EPA will have developed and tested a new emissions factors streamlining process and developed emissions factors for
coke ovens, landfills, municipal waste combustors, steel mini-mills, landing losses for external floating roofs, and low pressure petroleum
storage tanks. Working with other groups-consistent with our long-term goal of using others' resources to improve emissions factors—
we will initiate development of emissions factors for natural gas engines, rubber manufacturers, and animal feeding operations.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060322-2006-P-OOOI7.pdf Report No. 2006-P-OOOI7,
March 22, 2006.
Evaluation Title: Climate Change: EPA and DOE Should Do More to Encourage
Progress Under Two Voluntary Programs
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Scope of Evaluation: Goal I, Objective 5.To reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, two voluntary programs
encourage participants to set emissions reduction goals.The Climate Leaders Program, managed by EPA, focuses on firms.The Climate
VISION (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiative: Opportunities Now) Program, managed by the Department of Energy (DOE) along with
other agencies, focuses on trade groups. GAO examined: (I) participants' progress in completing program steps, the agencies' procedures
for tracking progress, and their policies for dealing with participants that are not progressing as expected; (2) the types of emissions
reduction goals established by participants; and, (3) the agencies' estimates of the share of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that their
programs account for and their estimates of the programs' impacts on U.S. emissions.
Evaluation Findings: EPA expects Climate Leaders firms to complete several program steps within general time frames, but firms'
progress on completing those steps is mixed. EPA is developing a system for tracking firms' progress in completing these steps, but it has
no written policy on what to do about firms that are not progressing as expected. DOE has no means of tracking trade groups' progress
in completing the steps in their plans and no written policy on what to do about group that are not progressing as expected.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommends that DOE develop a system for tracking groups' progress in completing program
steps. Also, GAO recommends that both agencies develop written policies on what to do about participants not progressing as quickly
as expected. EPA did not comment on the recommendation and DOE agreed with the recommendation on a tracking system and said
it will consider the recommendation on establishing a written policy.
Planned Response: EPA believes that the recommendation identified by GAO is not a program weakness and has been addressed in
the initial design of the program. In response to GAO's finding, EPA has detailed its existing policy in an internal written memo which
documents the steps that EPA will take if it believes a Partner is not progressing in completing the program requirements in a timely
manner Given the differences in the size and complexity of Partners' corporate inventories, EPA believes that a public written policy
establishing consequences for not meeting program steps on a specified schedule would be detrimental to recruiting companies to
undertake the significant voluntary effort that is necessary to meet the program requirements.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0697.pdf Report No. GAO-06-97, April 2006.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 2
Evaluation Title: Drinking Water: EPA Should Strengthen Ongoing Efforts to Ensure
That Consumers Are Protected from Lead Contamination, GAO-06-148
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I. GAO was asked to evaluate: (I) the completeness of information that EPA has to evaluate
implementation; (2) areas of the rule where modifications could strengthen public health protection; and (3) the availability of informa-
tion to assess the quality of drinking water in schools and child care facilities with respect to lead.
Evaluation Findings: GAO found that data submitted by states to EPA is incomplete and EPA has not analyzed violation and enforcement
data to assess the adequacy of state oversight efforts.They identified several areas of the rule where, based on their review, protection
could be strengthened.They identified other issues that require additional research and evaluation to inform whether changes to rule or
guidance are needed and found there is little information on how states implemented the 1988 Lead Contamination Control Act.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommended that EPA (I) work with states to get complete data and analyze data on violations
and corrective actions, (2) review regulations and guidance to address specific issues raised in the report, (3) carry out additional
research to address other issues raised in the report, and (4) collect and analyze the results of testing in schools and child care facilities,
assess the pros and cons of remediation strategies, and make results known the public.
Planned Response: As part of its Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan (announced in March 2005), EPA is carrying out a number of
activities that are responsive to the findings raised in the report, specifically with respect to changes to regulation and guidance.
Regulatory revisions, which addressed some of GAO's concerns, were proposed in July 2006. EPA will continue to work with states to
ensure that we have complete data with which to assess implementation and engaging in a broad effort to encourage voluntary testing
for lead in drinking water in schools and child care facilities.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06l48.pdf
Evaluation Title: Promising Techniques Identified to Improve Drinking Water
Laboratory Integrity and Reduce Public Health Risks
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I .This evaluation was conducted to identify: vulnerabilities in the drinking water sample analysis
process, techniques to mitigate those vulnerabilities, and opportunities to further safeguard human health.
Evaluation Findings: Within the drinking water sample analysis process, we identified vulnerabilities not addressed by EPA's process which
can compromise the integrity of the analysis process and the quality of data produced. States that have implemented new techniques to
detect laboratory integrity problems have found additional deficiencies, inappropriate procedures, and even cases of fraud. Without any
national studies of water quality data that examine the integrity of laboratories, the full extent of the problem remains unassessed.
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA assess drinking water laboratory integrity and incorporate promising techniques to better identify
inappropriate procedures and fraud into the laboratory oversight process. In addition, EPA must better address the root causes of
vulnerabilities, including limited laboratory controls and economic pressures.
Specifically EPA needs to:
• Enhance guidance and further encourage EPA and State laboratory certification officers to use promising techniques, and reduce
uncertainty by monitoring and assessing laboratory and certification program conditions.
• Review procurement policy and promote ethical practices.
• Create a policy and mechanism to identify affected data.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Promising Techniques Identified to Improve Drinking Water
Laboratory Integrity and Reduce Public Health Risks
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Planned Response: EPA indicated that it will encourage the use of promising techniques identified and "play a greater role" in preventing
and detecting inappropriate procedures and fraud in drinking water laboratories. EPA stated a commitment to the quality of data in
Agency databases and will submit OIG's recommendations to the Agency's Quality and Information Steering Committee for action. A full
corrective action plan is expected.
Public Access: Website access: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060921 -2006-P-00036.pdf. Available: September 21, 2006.
Report number: 2006-P-00036.
Evaluation Title: Lessons Learned: EPA's Response to Hurricane Katrina
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Connection to EPA's Strategic P/on:This evaluation was not included in the "Proposed Future Program Evaluation" section in the
FV 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2; Objective I .This report consolidated the lessons learned by the OIG in conducting three prior evaluations
in assessing EPA's response to Hurricane Katrina in restoring drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities; and managing debris and
hazardous waste removal.The report also compared EPA's response to Hurricane Katrina to the lessons learned in the prior OIG
report on EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement (Rpt. No. 2003-P-OOO12,
August 21, 2003).
Evaluation Findings: We found that coordination problems within EPA, with State and local officials, and with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer (USAGE) resulted in duplicative work being completed by EPA and Louisiana officials. Also, initially there were problems with
the transport of drinking water in potentially hazardous tanker trucks. In addition, State of Louisiana officials reported problems querying
and verifying the quality of data in EPA's database used to collect floodwater results.
Evaluation Recommendations: We recommended that the Assistant Administrators for the Offices of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and of Water; as part of EPA's lessons learned from Katrina, ensure that planned corrective actions are implemented, including
conducting interagency meetings and establishing coordination protocols with the trucks in tribal lands in Region 4.
Planned Response: EPA agreed with our recommendations and have taken action or is currently taken actions to implement the
recommendations.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/200609l4-2006-P-00033.pdf. Also, the report is available by
contacting the OIG Office of Congressional and Public Liaison. September 14, 2006. Report No. 2006-P-00033.
Evaluation Title: Much Effort and Resources Needed to Help Small
Drinking Water Systems Overcome Challenges
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective I .The challenges of small drinking water systems in providing water that is safe to drink and the
adequacy of EPA and State initiatives for addressing those challenges, including: (I) assuring that drinking water meets current and future
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements; (2) the effectiveness of EPA and the States in assisting small drinking water systems and
(3) the impact of these efforts on the health of consumers of drinking water from small systems.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Much Effort and Resources Needed to Help Small
Drinking Water Systems Overcome Challenges
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation Findings: After many years, small drinking water systems continue struggling with financial/management matters and regulatory/
compliance issues, despite many Government and nongovernmental initiatives and approaches to assist their resolution of these
problems. While it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of individual EPA and State activities to assist small drinking water systems, we
identified several indicators of success as well as limitations of these approaches.
Limited data exist on the health impacts related to small drinking water systems.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) states that while incidence is vastly underreported, data does show health outbreaks related to small drinking water systems.
Evaluation Recommendations: EPA should work with States to identify successful approaches for working with small systems to obtain
financing. EPA should work closer with States to identify and compile small system best practices and establish a method for disseminat-
ing the information, to maximize limited resources to assist small systems.
Planned Response: In response to our report, the Agency has agreed to accept our recommendations, and proposed corrective actions
that the OIG has accepted.The OIG will track the Agency's progress implementing these actions.
Public Access: The report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060530-2006-P-00026.pdf Report Number:
2006-P-00026.
Evaluation Title: Clean Water: How States Allocate Revolving Loan Funds and Measure Their Benefits
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2. At the request of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee
on Interior; Environment, and Related Agencies, GAO undertook a study of (I) the extent to which states currently use their Clean
Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) to support conventional wastewater treatment plant construction versus other qualifying
expenses; (2) the strategies states use to allocate their CWSRF dollars among qualifying expenses; and (3) the measures states use to
evaluate their allocation strategies.
Evaluation Findings: (I) Since 1987, states have used 96 percent (about $50 billion) of their CWSRF dollars to build, upgrade, or enlarge
conventional wastewater treatment facilities and conveyances. (2) The 50 states (and Puerto Rico) have used a variety of strategies to
allocate CWSRF funds to meet their individual needs. For example, some states target a certain portion of their funds to nonpoint
source projects, while other states target borrowers in small or rural communities. States' allocation strategies may change as certain
states' priorities and clean water needs shift. (3) EPA and the states use a uniform set of financial and environmental measures to help
determine efficient and effective use of CWSRF resources. EPA regional officials conduct annual reviews of each state program to
help ensure the fiscal integrity of the state programs. All programs are also subject to annual independent financial audits.To measure
environmental outcomes of CWSRF-funded projects, in FY 2005, EPA developed an electronic benefits reporting system that all
5 I programs have agreed to use.
Evaluation Recommendations: None.
Planned Response: No response or action is necessary since the GAO report did not contain recommendations.
Public Access: Public access to the report can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06579.pdf
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance Watershed Approach
Evaluator: EPA's Office of Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.The OIG undertook this evaluation to determine how well the EPA is doing in four critical
elements to advance the watershed approach.These four elements are integration, stakeholder participation, strategic planning, and
performance measurement.
Evaluation Findings: EPA has made progress integrating watershed approach principles into some of its core water programs, but needs to
address challenges to ensure further success. Stakeholders were enthusiastic about the watershed approach, but identified a number of
obstacles when adopting the approach. EPA has made important strides incorporating the watershed approach into its strategic plans, but
it must improve some key steps. Although EPA developed a performance measurement system for improving water quality on a water-
shed basis, EPA did not develop measures to evaluate key programs and activities, and its national outcome measures were not
understandable, comparable, and reliable.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended that EPA address challenges to integrating watershed approach principles into its
core programs, as well as obstacles identified by stakeholders concerning the watershed approach. EPA also needs to improve its strategic
plans and performance measurement system that address the watershed approach.
Planned Response: EPA will continue to integrate the watershed approach into its core water programs; work in partnership with stake-
holders to ensure obstacles with implementing the watershed approach are addressed; continue to refine and improve key aspects of
the strategic planning process; and continue to improve key aspects of the performance measurement system.The results of the pro-
gram evaluation will influence changes in the strategic architecture.The evaluation impacted how EPA develops the performance baseline
for sub objective 2.2.1 of the strategic plan.The evaluation also recommends that EPA improve the design of the outcome measures for
sub objective 2.2.1. Finally, the evaluation recommends that EPA revise its Program Activity Measures to better measure the impact of
critical national strategies and core water programs that lead to achieving sub objective 2.1.1.
Public Access: Public access to the report can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/2005092l-2005-P-00025.pdf
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Implement Its Strategy for Managing Contaminated Sediments
Evaluator: EPA's Office of Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 2.The OIG undertook this evaluation to determine the effectiveness and outcomes achieved
from the EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (1998). In particular the OIG evaluated whether Federal authorities and
resources provided effective solutions, and how well EPA measured Strategy effectiveness and assessed contamination.
Evaluation Findings: EPA needs to better manage its efforts to clean up contaminated sediments on a nationwide basis. EPA made some
progress with its Contaminated Sediments Management Strategy. However; the Agency cannot assure that resources devoted to address-
ing contaminated sediments provide the most effective and efficient solutions for reducing the environmental and human health risks
posed by this national problem. Program offices generally did not use National Sediment Inventory data for decision making, even though
the inventory represents the most comprehensive source of data on contaminated sediments in the United States. EPA did not
sufficiently coordinate contaminated sediment activities performed by various EPA program offices.The Agency did not develop
sediment quality criteria to ensure the comparability of data gathered to assess sediment contamination and its effects. EPA contaminated
sediment research efforts did not fully meet the Agency's needs, and EPA can improve coordination of its research efforts with those of
other Federal agencies.The Agency also did not establish cross-program performance measures that fully evaluate the effectiveness of
its Strategy and enable EPA to determine its progress. Many of these issues occurred because no program office within EPA has respon-
sibility for overseeing contaminated sediments. EPA's 2004 National Sediment Quality Survey report did not provide a complete
assessment of the extent and severity of sediment contamination across the Nation, nor fully meet the requirements of the Water
Resources Development Act.
Evaluation Recommendations: The committee indicated below is addressing.
Planned Response: An Intra-agency Committee on Preventing and Managing Contaminated Sediments led by OW was established on
April 6, 2006.The committee is meeting regularly and has developed an initial workplan for completing the Action Plan which will
describe specific actions to: (I) ensure that the Agency uses the National Sediment Inventory as part of EPA's decision making; (2)
ensure that contaminated sediment issues are managed and addressed through a cross-program approach; and 3) update the Strategy
Public Access: Public access to the report can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/stratndx.html.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Review of the Office of Research and Development's Drinking Water
Research Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluator: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Subcommittee on Drinking Water Research.
Strategic Plan Connection: This evaluation was conceptually included as a Proposed Future Program Evaluation in the FY 2003-2008
Strategic Plan. Under "Research" evaluations, research programs were proposed to be reviewed against the OMB Criteria of relevance,
quality and performance.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 3.This evaluation reviewed the DWRP performance, relevance, quality and scientific leadership.
Evaluation Findings:The DWRP is relevant and critically important to the overall EPA mission.The DWRP is also focused on timely
delivery of high-quality research that is of national importance. It has remained involved within rapidly evolving drinking water areas by
conducting innovative research and methods development.
Evaluation Recommendations:
Key recommendations for this program include:
• The decision to consolidate three long-term goals into two is not well justified.
• Evaluate strategies that could be implemented to encourage more cutting edge research to identify and circumscribe issues, prob-
lems, and solutions that impact safe drinking water
• Develop a "Science Leadership" mission statement and to identify those areas it believes it is capable of establishing or sustaining
international leadership over the long term.
• Be proactive in developing metrics to document and support its assertion that translation of its research outputs is making signifi-
cant contributions.
• Aggressively pursue partnering with other agencies and nongovernment organizations to ensure that the Criteria Contaminant List
(CCL) needs are addressed adequately
• To anticipate new problems in drinking water contamination, treatment, distribution, and source water protection, the Agency
should consider STAR solicitations that are somewhat more open ended.
Planned Response: Findings from this evaluation will be used to revise the long-term goal structure of the program to encourage antici-
patory and cutting-edge research ideas.The DWRP will also increase utilization of research partnerships to help fund research of mutual
interest. Finally the DWRP is working towards improved long-term outcome metrics that will measure program performance.
Public Access: The report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/dwl027rpt.pdf
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Review of the Office of Research and Development's Water Quality
Research Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluator: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Subcommittee on Water Quality Research
Strategic Plan Connection: This evaluation was conceptually included as a Proposed Future Program Evaluation in the FY 2003-2008
Strategic Plan. Under "Research" evaluations, research programs were proposed to be reviewed against the OMB Criteria of relevance,
quality and performance.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 2, Objective 3.This evaluation reviewed the Water Quality Research Program's (WQRP) performance,
relevance, quality, scientific leadership, and coordination/communication.
Evaluation Findings: Overall, the WQRP is contributing significantly to the strategic goals of the EPA and provides needed technical
support and products for environmental managers.The program also has a diverse and competent staff and is providing leadership in
the area of water quality research for management.
Evaluation Recommendations:
Key recommendations for this program include:
• A more transparent approach to prioritizing research is recommended.This should be provided in the next update to Multi-Year
Plan document.
• An annual accounting of Program outcomes is needed.
• The exploratory part of the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Program should be reinstated and made sustainable.
• The Program should continue to improve partnering and collaboration, particularly with the states.
• The Multi-Year Plan needs considerable improvement if it is to better communicate the goals of the Program as it is intended.
• Biosolids should not be elevated to a Long-Term Goal (LTG).This research should be subsumed either in LTG 3 or under the
same structure as other pollutant sources in the frameworks for LTGs 1, 2, and 3.
Planned Response: The program is currently revising its Multi-Year Plan (MYP) document with attention to creating a process for collect-
ing information and transparently prioritizing its research. In this revised MYP the program is striving to provide greater background
information and context, along with a description of future research directions. Also as part of the MYP process, workgroups (consisting
of representative from ORD, OW offices, and Regions) are actively seeking new opportunities for collaboration by identifying State
and/or Regional individuals who can help create local contributions to national efforts on a subject-by-subject basis. Additionally, the
program is developing metrics and collecting data to better track progress toward its outcomes.
Public Access: The report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/wq0605rpt.pdf
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 3
Evaluation Title:A Comprehensive Review of EPA Policy and Guidance for
Federal Facility Cleanup and Property Transfer
Evaluator: U. S. EPA, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO)
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2. As a follow-up to the Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program's 2005 PART assessment,
the purpose of this evaluation was to inform the program of where current policy and/or guidance could be made more effective, as
well as identify means to make future policy development and implementation more efficient and effective.
Evaluation Findings:The evaluation found that despite their age, policy and guidance for Federal facilities cleanup and property transfer
should not be retired, nor should they be revised or updated unless a change in statute or EPA policy would require it. In addition, the
evaluation identified key aspects of the policy development process where improvements could be made for future policy development,
as well as methods to ensure policy and guidance are more accessible and meet the needs of EPA Regions.
Evaluation Recommendations:
The evaluation resulted in the following key recommendations:
• Evaluate the current policy development process to increase effectiveness of Regional participation;
• Leverage existing communications infrastructure to inform policy development;
• Develop policy and guidance "packaging" prototype;
• Implement website improvements;
• Consider developing training or outreach on complex subject matters; and
• Review policy and guidance inventory to identify appropriate candidates for revisions.
Planned Response: The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program will evaluate the findings and recommendations of the evaluation
and implement appropriate actions in FY 2007.
Public Access: Additional information on this evaluation can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedfac.
Evaluation Title: More Complete Data and Continued Emphasis on Leak Prevention Could
Improve EPA's Underground Storage Tank Program (GAO-06-45)
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Strategic Plan Connection: This evaluation was a "Proposed Future Program Evaluation" in the FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. The title in
the Plan was: Evaluation of Factors Influencing Performance in Underground Storage Tank Program. The completed Program Evaluation
focused on one of the aspects affecting the Agency's ability to meet or exceed the performance goal of cleanups completed.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.To investigate the national status of abandoned tank cleanup.The study includes 5 case studies
of states and how they prioritize, conduct, and fund cleanups, including Federal funding sources, such as the Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks (LUST) Trust Fund.
Evaluation Findings: The data the states report to EPA on underground storage tanks provides the Agency with information it can use to
determine the overall trends and status of the UST program; however; with the data currently collected, the Agency cannot readily
determine the number of abandoned tanks requiring cleanup nationwide, whether this number is growing, whether states are completing
work, and what are the potential impacts on state and Federal resources.
Evaluation Recommendations: GAO recommends that the Administrator of EPA require that states separately identify in their reports
to the Agency information on the number of and cleanup status of all known abandoned underground storage tanks within their
boundaries.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: More Complete Data and Continued Emphasis on Leak Prevention Could
Improve EPA's Underground Storage Tank Program (GAO-06-45)
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Planned Response: Obtaining information on abandoned tanks would be an important contribution to the underground storage tank
program. In EPA's response, it states that the Agency will explore the extent to which states may already have information on aban-
doned tanks and whether EPA can access it without placing an undue burden on states. Additionally EPA noted that collecting specific
information on abandoned tank sites might be difficult because of the need to conduct site assessments.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0645.pdf . Contact: Robin Hughes, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, hughes.robin@epa.gov
Evaluation Title:The National Academy of Sciences Report on Superfund and Mining Megasites:
Lessons from the Coeur d'Alene River Basin.
Evaluator: National Academy of Sciences.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2. In 2002, Congress instructed EPA to ask the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct an
independent evaluation of the Coeur d'Alene River basin Superfund site in northern Idaho as a case study to examine EPA's scientific
and technical practices in Superfund megasites, including physical site definition, human and ecologic risk assessment, remedial planning,
and decision making. NRC established the Committee on Superfund Site Assessment and Remediation in the Coeur d'Alene River Basin.
In this report, the committee analyzes the record of decision and supporting documents from this Superfund site to assess the adequacy
and application of EPA's own Superfund guidance in terms of available scientific and technical knowledge and best practices.
Evaluation Findings: The committee found that scientific and technical practices used by EPA for decision making regarding human health
risks at the Coeur d'Alene River basin Superfund site are generally sound. However; for EPA's decision-making regarding environmental
protection, the committee has substantial concerns, particularly regarding the effectiveness and long-term protection of the selected
remedy The findings included the need for greater collection and use of site-specific information, the need for universal blood lead
screening of children age I -4 years, increased support of institutional-control programs, increased attention to groundwater, factoring in
flooding in the remedy decision, and increased attention to needed waste repositories.
Evaluation Recommendations: In its remedial planning, EPA should incorporate new data that have been made available by the
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), the Coeur d'Alene tribe, and others since issuance of the ROD and should proceed, as planned, with
more thorough source identification before cleanup to verify the location, magnitude, disposition, and contributions from contaminant
sources. A better understanding of dissolved metals, particularly zinc, is needed to account for movement to and from groundwater and
surface water The chemical and hydrologic components of the assessment should be sufficiently rigorous to identify source areas of con-
taminants and permit evaluation of the consequences of alternative remedies to the transport of dissolved metals through the system.
Understanding the speciation of metals is important to characterize risk more effectively and ascertain the potential effectiveness of
remedial actions. Speciation information should be collected and examined to elucidate the potential for metal transport and the effect
of transformation processes on the fluxes and bioavailability of metals.
Planned Response: EPA's National MiningTeam (NMT) has formed a subgroup to carefully evaluate each one of the recommendations
made by the NAS. Over the next yean the subgroup will draft action items for each recommendation, as it sees applicable and develop
work plans as appropriate.These draft action items will be discussed with the entire NMT and senior management and finalized, if
approved. In addition, EPA will develop blood lead and geometric standard deviation (GSD) guidance, and bioavailability guidance.
Public Access: The report can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/reports/coeurhtm.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources; Report No. 2006-P-OOOI3;
dated February 28, 2006.The OIG closed this report on July 07, 2006.
Evaluator: EPA's Office of Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.The OIG performed this review in response to a congressional request to evaluate Superfund
expenditures at headquarters and the regions and recommended options to increase resources directed to extramural cleanup while
minimizing administrative costs.The OIG addressed four questions, developed in agreement with Senate and House Appropriations
Committee staff:
• What have headquarters and regional Superfund expenditures been for the last 5 years (FYs 1999 to 2203)?
• How effective are the processes and criteria for determining, allocating, and optimizing regional and headquarters' Superfund
administrative and support resources?
• How effective are the processes and criteria for allocating Superfund program dollars to program needs?
• How effective are EPA's procedures for integrating efficiency and effectiveness information into the Superfund program?
Evaluation Findings: The OIG provided answers to congressional questions about EPA's Superfund program expenditures and identified
numerous opportunities for EPA to more effectively manage its existing Superfund resources, its program, and direct more resources to
cleanup. EPA needs to overcome challenges in accounting for Superfund resources, understanding the program's resource needs, and
decentralized management of the Superfund program. Several obstacles prevented EPA from efficiently and effectively managing the
Superfund program for performance and adequately accounting for Superfund resources. EPA has been unable to allocate and manage
Superfund resources for cleanup efficiently and effectively as possible because of the way the Agency accounts for program resources,
manages by functions, supplements the program with other funds, relies on an outdated workload model, and maintains unliquidated
Superfund obligations and funds in special accounts. Closely aligning offices that support the Superfund program, and producing program
performance and cost data, have been limited because EPA disperses the responsibility for allocating and managing program resources.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommended changes that will help EPA overcome these obstacles and better manage its
Superfund resources.They recommended actions that enabled the Agency to direct additional funds to Superfund cleanup and recom-
mended a specific action Congress could take to help improve the Superfund program.
Planned Response: The Agency concurred with the OIG's recommendation that there be an accountable entity to allocate and manage
Superfund resources across the Agency and stated that the existing Superfund Board of Directors serves that purpose.The Agency con-
curred with the OIG's recommendation that costs be defined in a manner that supports management decision making and as a result
modified Superfund eFacts to reflect site costs. In addition, the Agency agreed to explore alternative definitions of administrative costs
and to seek approval from Congress, as appropriate, to revise the definition.The Agency concurred with the OIG's recommendation that
EPA monitor Superfund carryover and evaluate the need to reprogram carryover for extramural cleanup.The Agency stated that we
would continue to monitor the utilization of appropriated Superfund resources periodically throughout each fiscal year and evaluate the
need to reprogram carryover for extramural cleanup on an annual basis.The Agency concurred with the OIG recommendation that EPA
undertake a workforce assessment and stated that an FTE analysis was already underway across headquarters and regions to assist in
making future resource allocations.This workload assessment is scheduled for completion by January 3 1, 2007.The Agency concurred
with the recommendation that EPA continue to review and deobligate unliquidated obligations with the goal of reducing the time it cur-
rently takes to deobligate funds.The Agency described their existing annual process to review unliquidated obligations and return funds
to the national remedial action funding pool.The Agency concurred in part with the OIG recommendation on the need to monitor the
use of special accounts. While the Agency disagreed with the OIG's identification of $465 million as available for deobligation, EPA stated
that they would continue to monitor special accounts in accordance with the existing "Management of Special Accounts" guidance.
Concurring with the OIG recommendations to continue EPA's processes for effectively managing Superfund resources did not result in
any change in the Agency's strategic architecture in terms of what should be measured or what the targets should be.
Public Access: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund Resources; Report No. 2006-P-OOOI 3; dated February 28, 2006; can be viewed in full
at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/land.htm.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Site-Specific Charging at Superfund Sites: Benchmarking Regional Practices
Evaluator: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2. EPA conducted its first benchmarking project, which is the process of identifying best practices
and adapting these practices for use throughout an organization to improve program performance.The first process selected by EPA
Superfund's Best Practices/Benchmarking Steering Committee was to identify regional best practices in site-specific payroll charging.
Site-specific charging is the basis for the Agency's cost recovery efforts and is a primary means of demonstrating to external parties, such
as Congress and OMB, how the Agency is managing and accounting for its Superfund resources. A small benchmarking team composed
two regional EPA employees and three from EPA headquarters interviewed staff from four regions (regions 3,5,7,10) and headquarters
for this project.
Evaluation Findings: The Benchmarking Team identified four primary regional Best Practices with respect to site-specific payroll charging:
I) availability of technical assistance and training on all aspects of PeoplePlus to staff via a point of contact(s); 2) availability of regular in
Superfund site-specific payroll charging reports to managers on all staff with Superfund fixed account numbers (FAN); 3) providing clear
criteria for what can and what cannot be charged site-specifically; and 4) providing consistent and firm senior and mid-level management
attention and oversight. The Benchmarking Team also identified several issues that impact site-specific payroll charging nationwide and,
ultimately impact the ability of the Agency to accurately document the hours spent doing site-specific work.There are instances where
staff can do site-specific work but cannot charge their time to specific sites according to Agency policy or are unsure of the Agency
policy with respect to these instances.These instances are time spent responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; and
overtime or compensatory time. By excluding this time from site-specific payroll charging, the Agency is not accurately accounting for all
the time staff spent doing site-specific work. The Benchmarking Team also identified time that is charged site-specifically using Special
Accounts that is not being captured in Agency site-specific payroll charging reports.
Evaluation Recommendations: The Benchmarking Team recommended: (I) that EPA headquarters and regional Superfund personnel
work to implement these best practices; (2) that regional and headquarters Superfund site-specific payroll charging be benchmarked
again in FY 2007 to determine whether practices have changed; (3) that the Agency address the FOIA and overtime/compensatory
charging issue; and (4) that the Agency capture site-specific time charged to Special Accounts in its standard reports on site-specific
payroll charging.
Planned Response: The program is implementing recommendations 1, 2, and 4. Work is underway to determine how to address
recommendation 3.
Public Access: This is an internal program report. Fora copy of this report, please contact Melanie Hoff of EPA's Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation at 703-603-8808.
Evaluation Title: Information Security Series: Security Practices - Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Information System; Report No. 2006-P-OOOI9;
dated March 28, 2006.This evaluation was closed August 10,2006.
Evaluator: EPA's Office of Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.The overall general objective of this assignment was to perform an independent evaluation of
the implementation and effectiveness of EPA's information security practices. More in depth reviews were conducted in the following
security areas:
• To what extent have program and regional offices implemented processes and security controls over contractor owned and oper-
ated information systems which contain EPA data?
• Has EPA: (I) developed and implemented procedures for performing incident handling and reporting and (2) implemented inci-
dent prevention strategies to complement its incident response capability?
Evaluation Findings: The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's (OSWER's) implemented practices to ensure production
servers were being monitored for known vulnerabilities and personnel with significant security responsibility completed the Agency's rec-
ommended specialized security training. However; the OIG found that OSWER's CERCLIS, a major application, was operating without a
current (I) certification and accreditation package and (2) contingency plan or testing of the plan. OSWER officials could have discov-
ered the noted deficiencies had they implemented practices to ensure these Federal and Agency information security requirements
were followed. As a result, CERCLIS had security control weaknesses that could effect OSWER's operations, assets, and personnel.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: Information Security Series: Security Practices - Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Information System; Report No. 2006-P-OOOI9;
dated March 28, 2006.This evaluation was closed August 10,2006.
Evaluator: EPA's Office of Inspector General
Evaluation Recommendations: It was recommended that the CERCLIS System Owner:
• Conduct an independent review of security controls and a full formal risk assessment of CERCLIS and update the certification and
accreditation package in accordance with Federal and Agency requirements,
• Conduct a test of the updated CERCLIS contingency plan, and
• Develop a Plan of Action and Milestones in the Agency's security weakness tracking system (ASSERT database) for all noted
deficiencies.
It was recommended that the OSWER Information Security Officer:
• Conduct a review of OSWER's current information security oversight processes and implement identified process improvements.
Planned Response: OSWER agreed with the report's findings and has updated the CERCLIS security plan and re-authorized the
application. OSWER has also updated the CERCLIS contingency plan and conducted a tabletop exercise in the updated plan.
• An independent review of CERCLIS security controls, and an inspection and update of the current risk assessment.These activities
resulted in a subsequent update to the CERCLIS Security Plan which was approved and signed December 23, 2005.
• A review, update, and test of the CERCLIS Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) conducted on December 17, 2005.
• All security vulnerabilities identified during the FISMA annual self-assessments will be documented and monitored in the Agency's
ASSERT database. Upon completion of the risk assessment, risks will be identified and documented, and all deficiencies will be
monitored and remediated using ASSERT
• A re-certification and accreditation of CERCLIS in accordance with Federal and Agency requirements approved and signed
February 01, 2006.
Public Access: Information Security Series: Security Practices - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System; Report No. 2006-P-OOOI9; dated March 28, 2006; can be viewed in full at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/
infotech.htm.
Evaluation Title: A Formative Evaluation of a National Program for School
Pollution Prevention and Chemical Cleanout (SC3).
Evaluator: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, prepared by Indtai, Inc.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 2.The goal of this evaluation project was to gain insights into the structure, processes,
stakeholders and administrators, and operations of existing SC3-like programs to help EPA design its national SC3 program.The purpose
of this formative evaluation was to provide EPA with a review of the potential components of a national SC3 program, and an analysis of
potential roles for EPA and various partner organizations in program scoping and implementation.
Evaluation Findings: While each school has its own set of unique circumstances, one common thread is the need for chemical manage-
ment and prevention practices that ensure schools are safe from chemical risks.The formative evaluation has clearly shown that
elements of a SC3 program are not one size fits all due to the complex nature of effective chemical management.
Evaluation Recommendations: The evaluation made the following recommendations: conduct a scoping and needs assessment exercise
prior to SC3 program creation; increase promotion of EPA grant fund availability; use the grant process to inventory current state of
chemicals in schools; provide program management services; leverage existing resources and relationships; and dedicate a source of
"emergency" funds for cleanout.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: A Formative Evaluation of a National Program for
School Pollution Prevention and Chemical Cleanout (SC3).
Evaluator: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, prepared by Indtai, Inc.
Planned Response: EPA plans to use the results of this evaluation, in combination with the results of the results evaluation which is
underway to develop a national cleanout, prevention, and awareness program. A national schools chemical cleanout campaign will help
achieve the our 2008 performance objectives under several sub-objectives:
• 3.2.1 —Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases.
• 4.1.3—Reduce Chemical and Biological Risks.
• 4.2.2—Restore Community Health.
• 5.2.1—Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship by Government and Public.
As a result of the formative evaluation and the early findings of the program evaluation, EPA has worked to build a national public/
private network to address the issue of dangerous chemicals in K-12 schools. Using the logic model approach in the evaluations, this
group is developing tools and approaches for behavior change, based on the findings of the evaluation.
Public Access: The SC3 formative program evaluation is not yet publicly available.
Evaluation Title: Review of the Office of Research and Development's Land Restoration and
Preservation Research Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluator: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Subcommittee on Land Restoration and Preservation Research
Strategic Plan Connection: This evaluation was conceptually included as a Proposed Future Program Evaluation in the FY 2003-2008
Strategic Plan. Under "Research" evaluations, research programs were proposed to be reviewed against the OMB Criteria of relevance,
quality and performance.
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 3, Objective 3.This evaluation reviewed the Land Research program's performance, relevance, quality and
leadership.
Evaluation Findings: The Land Research program is relevant and bases its research plans and goals off of the needs of EPA Program
Offices and Regions.The program design used for producing knowledge, know-how, and decision-support tools is logical and
comprehensive.The Land program also applies regular peer review to maintain high quality output.
Evaluation Recommendations: Key recommendations for this program include:
• Improve the primary planning document to better anticipate future conditions, increase clarity and search for additional
collaboration opportunities.
• Increase focus on emerging issues.
• Address problem of retiring scientific expertise by developing new scientists.
• Balance need for performance metrics with the costs and restraints these place on the program.
• Improve linkage between short-term performance outcomes with long-term outcomes.
• Consider how to characterize and communicate uncertainties inherent in assessment methods and models.
Planned Response: The program has taken steps in its revised Multi-Year Plan to better communicate research, document collaboration,
and anticipate future needs. For example, the program is currently discussing how nanotechnology research should fit into the program.
Additionally Land program researchers routinely note emerging issues as part of their professional activities and advise the research
coordination team of potential research directions. In conjunction with the 2006 PART review, the program is working to improve the
clarity of the linkages between its annual performance measures and its long-term measures.
Public Access: Full report available online at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/land0603rpt.pdf
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Goal 4
Evaluation Title: Measuring the Impact of the Food Quality Protection Act: Challenges and Opportunities
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective I. Determine the ability of EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to measure its performance
in meeting the mandates of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the strengths and weaknesses of OPP's current measuring system,
ways OPP can use existing data to measure, and the impact FQPA had on mitigating dietary pesticide exposure risk on children's health.
Evaluation Findings: EPA has made progress in implementing the requirements of the FQPA, however OPP has primarily measured its
success and the impact of FQPA by adherence to its reregistration schedule rather than by reductions in risk to children's health. OPP
generally uses measures of actions taken, but lacks measures of outcomes to assess the specific impact of those actions on the health of
children and others. By integrating existing data on health-based indicators of children's health risks from other federal agencies into a
suite of performance measures, OPP can better track the effectiveness of regulatory decisions and program performance. For example
EPA can measure the impact of FQPA on children's health more efficiently with the pesticide exposure, changes in usage patterns,
substitutions, and import trends by using the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program data to illustrate dietary risk
changes since the passage of FQPA in toxicity risks on foods consumed by children.
Evaluation Recommendations: OPP should implement a suite of output and outcome measures to assess the human health and environ-
mental impacts of its work. OPP should pursue revision of EPA's goal structure as appropriate, and work with other EPA program offices
and other Federal agencies to obtain needed data.
Planned Response: In response to our report, the Agency has agreed to accept our recommendations.The OIG awaits the Agency's
90-Day Response specifying the corrective actions to be taken. Outcome oriented strategic targets have been developed for the
2006-201 I Strategic Plan, still awaiting final acceptance. Likewise the program is developing output oriented goals and measures to be
included in the 2008 Annual Plan and Congressional Justification.
Public Access: The report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/2006080l-2006-P-00028.pdf Report Number
2006-P-00028.
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of EPA Hospitals for Healthy Environment (H2E) Program
Evaluator: Eastern Research Group Inc. for EPA Office of Planning, Economics and Innovation and
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective I .The evaluation attempted to answer 6 questions covering assessment of measurable environ-
mental outcomes and waste reducing environmental activities for both mercury and non-mercury waste reductions; satisfaction of H2E
partners with the program; and, potential improvements to the program.
Evaluation Findings: The H2E Program has developed a product that has met the needs of its customer base; almost all hospitals have
taken actions, or are taking actions, to virtually eliminate mercury; H2E partners have tended to take more actions that lead to successful
outcomes than non-partners; and, it is not possible to generate representative estimates of reduced waste or to isolate the effect of the
H2E program given the available data.
Evaluation Recommendations: Use the results of this evaluation for strategic planning purposes; focus on what customers liked and
where improvements are still needed; make a strong effort to collect baseline and annual follow-up Facility Assessment form data from
current partners; collect baseline and annual follow-up data from new partners; and, develop a method of normalizing the data collected
from the Facility Assessment form.
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Evaluation of EPA Hospitals for Healthy Environment (H2E) Program
Evaluator: Eastern Research Group Inc. for EPA Office of Planning, Economics and Innovation and
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Response to recommendations: The H2E program was launched as an independent, non-profit organization in the spring of 2006 and is
no longer an EPA-run program.Though EPA is no longer able to unilaterally direct the program to implement the recommended
changes on its own, we will continue to ensure continuous improvement, including the recommendations from this assessment by (I)
including performance requirements in any future EPA cooperative agreements with the H2E organization and (2) having the EPA repre-
sentative, who serves as a non-voting representative on the Board of Directors of the H2E organization, ensure that the Board of
Directors reviews progress on the implementation of the recommendations in the Program Evaluation, as well as other continuous
improvement measures.
Public Access: This report is available at http://www.h2e-online.org/.
Evaluation Title: Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health
through the Food Quality Protection Act
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective I. Determine the impact of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) on EPA's need for
scientific data on the impact of pesticides on children's health, and whether EPA enacted guidelines and procedures, and addressed new
aggregate exposure and cumulative risk assessment efforts.
Evaluation Findings:To meet the requirements of FQPA, EPA instituted numerous data requirements designed to provide infants and
children with better protection against the health risks of pesticides, and revisions of regulations, guidelines, and procedures.The Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) made substantial changes to the aggregate risk assessment process and collected data on the cumulative
effects of pesticides sharing a common mechanism of toxicity representing combined risks from a group of pesticides. EPA's required
testing does not include sufficient evaluation of behavior; learning, or memory in developing animals and there is no standard evaluation
procedure for interpreting results from developmental neurotoxicity tests. OPP is unable to collect sufficient data on aggregate risk due
to time and cost, relying on data of other agencies. Evaluation Recommendations: EPA can improve: its data collection by developing
standard evaluation procedures, evaluating certain testing methods, and reducing uncertainties; and its aggregate exposure and cumula-
tive risk assessments, including updating databases and expanding partnerships with other Federal organizations. EPA can also enhance
accountability, act on Science Policy papers, try alternative testing strategies, and develop an overarching logic model and long-term
strategic plan.
Planned Response: OPP agreed to develop a Standard Evaluation Procedure to assess results of developmental neurotoxicity testing
(DNT), and to update the dietary exposure databases.The Office also agreed to finalize selected Science Policy Issue papers; sustain the
development of an alternative testing strategy and develop an overarching logic model and long-term strategic plan across divisions to
identify and link immediate work outputs to outcomes. Finally that OPP coordinate with the Office of Research and Development on a
variety of pesticide science issues to address FQPA mandates.
Public Access: The report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060l IO-2006-P-00009.pdf. Report Number:
2006-P-00009.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies, and Activities
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 2. Determine whether EPA's program and regional offices performed environmental justice
reviews of their programs, policies, and activities as required by Executive Order 12898 and whether they needed additional guidance.
Evaluation Findings:The OIG survey results showed that EPA senior management has not sufficiently directed program and regional
offices to conduct environment justice reviews in accordance with Executive Order 12898. Consequently environmental justice reviews
were not conducted and survey respondents expressed a need for further guidance to conduct reviews. Until environmental justice
reviews are performed, the Agency cannot determine whether its programs cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
Evaluation Recommendations: The Deputy Administrator should: (I) require the Agency's program and regional offices, to the Executive
Order applies, to plan for performing the necessary reviews; (2) ensure that environmental justice reviews determine whether the
programs, policies, and activities may have a disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impact on minority and
low-income populations; (3) require each program and regional office to develop, with the assistance of the Office of Environmental
Justice, specific environmental justice review guidance, which includes protocols, a framework, or directions for conducting environmental
justice reviews; and (4) designate a responsible office to (a) compile the results of environmental justice reviews, and (b) recommend
appropriate actions to review findings and make recommendations to the decision-making office's senior leadership.
Planned Response: The Agency has agreed to accept our recommendations and is developing its plan for taking specific corrective
actions.
Public Access: The report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/200609l8-2006-P-00034.pdf Report Number:
2006-P-00034
Evaluation Title: Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess,
Report, and Manage Restoration Progress, October 28, 2005
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 3. Examine (I) the extent to which appropriate measures for assessing restoration progress have
been established, (2) the extent to which current reporting mechanisms clearly and accurately describe the bay's overall health, (3) how
much funding was provided for the effort for FYs 1995 through 2004, and (4) how effectively the effort is being coordinated and man-
aged.
Evaluation Findings: Need to improve measures and communication about Bay health and develop realistic measures. Refer to summary
of findings at http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0696high.pdf
Evaluation Recommendations: (I) complete its efforts to develop and implement an integrated assessment approach; (2) revise its
reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and credibility of its reports; and (3) develop a comprehensive, coordinated implemen-
tation strategy that takes into account available resources. In commenting on this report, the signatories to the Chesapeake 2000
agreement generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.
Planned Response: The Chesapeake Bay Program concurred in all the recommendations and has implemented, or is in the process of
implementing, all of them. At a July 13, 2006, follow-up hearing, GAO testified that EPA-CBPO had taken affirmative steps on all the
assessing and reporting recommendations.The GAO also acknowledged that the Program was engaged in a program management
review to address the recommendation for a "realistic" implementation plan that takes into account available resources. New communi-
cations products that reflect the assessment and reporting recommendations from GAO have been adopted by the Program. Integrated
assessment methods are under further development, including peer-review by the Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee.The Program has worked with the Office ofWater to revise the FY07 Guidance to better reflect realistic targets, and the
Program has similarly worked with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to develop more appropriate targets for the draft Strategic
Plan for FY 2006-201 I .The results of the program evaluation influenced changes to the strategic plan through development of ambitious
yet realistic (taking into account available resources) targets for FY 2006-201 I Strategic Plan.
Public Access: Public access to the report can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0696high.pdf
-------
APPENDIX A. PROGRAM EVALUATIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2006
Evaluation Title: Review of the Office of Research and Development's Global Change Research
Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Evaluator: Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Subcommittee on Global Change Research
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 4, Objective 4.This evaluation reviewed the Global Change Research Program's performance, relevance,
quality, scientific leadership, and resources.
Evaluation Findings: The Global Change Research Program has provided substantial benefits to the nation and is on course to make
significant further contributions to societal outcomes by informing and facilitating decisions by the public and private sector actors who
must consider the prospects of global change.
Evaluation Recommendations: Key recommendations for this program include:
• A more rigorous approach to priority setting.
• Redirection of its place-based activities toward those that will have broader national applicability
• Increased attention to threshold and episode-driven changes.
• An expansion of its consultation with external advisors who can identify emerging opportunities for productive work, help the Program
avoid projects with minimal payoffs, and increase interaction with complementary U.S. Climate Change Science Program efforts.
Planned Response: The program is in the process of developing a more rigorous approach to priority setting. Specifically the program is
exploring a "decision-assessment" approach; if successful, the results will be used to develop an explicit framework for priority setting and
project selection.The approach entails developing a dynamic "decision inventory" to identify different classes of climate-sensitive decisions
in different regions of the country and evaluating the returns from providing better scientific information to inform those decisions.The
program is also committed to continuing its practice of engaging external advisors at key points in its research activities during which
major decisions are made about future program directions and focus area projects. As a result of BOSC recommendations, the program
has already taken action to integrate its ecosystems and water quality components, more closely aligning those areas with EPA's statutory
mandates related to water quality
Public Access: The full report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/glob0603rpt.pdf
Goal 5
Evaluation Title: EPA Performance Measures Do Not Effectively Track Compliance Outcomes.
Evaluator: EPA's Office of the Inspector General
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective I.The evaluation examined the methods EPA uses to measure and report effectiveness and
progress in achieving enforcement and compliance assurance results.The evaluation assessed how well the Agency's performance
measures track changes in compliance or other outcomes and ensure transparency
Evaluation Findings:The assessment of EPA compliance and enforcement performance measures indicated that: (I) some measures track
outputs, rather than outcomes; (2) there are data gaps associated with compliance rates; (3) EPA cannot demonstrate the reliability of its
proxy measures because it has not verified the estimated, predicted, or facility self-reported outcomes; and (4) changes in performance
measures through time reduces transparency.
Evaluation Recommendations: The OIG recommends that the Agency verify and publicly report estimated, predicted, and facility-reported
outcomes of enforcement and compliance assurance work. While continuing to improve enforcement and compliance performance
measures, the OIG also recommended that the EPA continue publicly reporting key measures and comparable trend data.The report
highlights the need for stronger linkages between goals and measures that appear in Strategic Plans and budget documents.
Planned Response: EPA will design and implement a pilot project over the next twelve months that verifies the estimated, predicted, and
facility self-reported outcomes of the enforcement and compliance assurance program. EPA will improve the linkage and relationship
between goals and measures in strategic planning, annual performance reporting, and budget documents by increasing the consistency of
the wording of the goals and measures across these documents.
Public Access: The report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/2005 1215-2006-P-00006.pdf December I 5, 2005,
Report Number: 2006-P-00006.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Evaluation Title: An Evaluation of the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CAQAP) and the
Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship (LPES) Curriculum
Evaluator: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective 2.The goal of this evaluation is to determine whether these two innovative programs are good
candidates for broader Agency application.
Evaluation Findings: Scale-up of the CDQAP could include: (I) expand to address new regulations; (2) adapt for use by a new segment
of the animal production sector and; (3) transfer to dairy producers in other states. Scale-up efforts for the LPES Curriculum could
include: (I) provide additional support for current dissemination efforts, (2) develop and promote an LPES modeled curriculum for
other segments of the agricultural industry (for example, crop growers), (3) develop and promote an LPES modeled curriculum for
other non-agriculture industry sectors, and (4) add materials to the existing curriculum.
Evaluation Recommendations: For the CDQAP environmental stewardship program, OPEI recommends three actions. First, look for
potential locations where industry groups within the agriculture sector have expressed clear interest in and concern about improving
their environmental stewardship and compliance practices. Second, address barriers to environmental stewardship certification in order
to enhance program results, e.g. developing financial or regulatory-based incentives.Third, consider scaling up specific components of the
CDQAP environmental stewardship program, e.g., developing comprehensive regulatory checklists for federal, state and local regulations
applicable to various types of producers. For the LPES Curriculum, OPEI recommends three actions. First, update and expand existing
curriculum materials with greater industry participation in curriculum development and dissemination. Second, repeat the LPES
Curriculum Impact survey to develop quantitative data of the numbers of producers, students and other stakeholders trained with the
curriculum and what modifications they have made in order to apply it for local use.Third, promote further state and local dissemination
activities to facilitate modifying and adapting the curriculum.
Planned Response: The agency's Innovation Action Council will consider the results of this evaluation as part of its plans for promoting
innovative environmental solutions in the Agriculture sector in FY 2007.
Public Access: For a copy of the report, please contact Katherine Dawes at dawes.katherine@epa.gov
Evaluation Title: Indian Tribes: EPA Should Reduce the Review Time for Tribal
Requests to Manage Environmental Programs
Evaluator: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Scope of Evaluation: Goal 5, Objective 3. At the request of Congressional sponsors, GAO evaluated the extent to which EPA has
followed its processes for reviewing and approving tribal applications forTAS and program authorization under the Clean Water; Safe
Drinking Water and Clean Air Acts.
Evaluation Findings: The report found that "EPA followed its processes in most respects for approving tribal requests forTAS status and
program authorization for the 20 cases we reviewed, but we found some lengthy delays in these processes.'The report also notes that
some tribes are frustrated by what they perceive as difficulty in getting clear information about the status of pending applications.
Evaluation Recommendations: To better facilitate the timely review of tribal requests forTAS status for program authorization and to
increase the transparency of the process to tribes, GAO recommends that "EPA should develop a written strategy including estimated
time frames, for reviewing tribes'TAS applications for program authority and updating the tribes on the review status."
Planned Response: EPA sent its response to GAO on June 8, 2006. EPA agrees with GAO's recommendation and agrees more could
be done to improve the timeliness of EPA's reviews and to improve communication with tribes concerning theirTAS requests. EPA is
developing a strategy for improving the management of EPA's reviews of tribal TAS applications to administer EPA regulatory programs.
The strategy will be designed to improve the timeliness and efficiency of EPA's reviews and provide regular; useful feedback to applicant
tribes concerning the status of their requests.
Public Access: Public access to the report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0695.pdf
-------
APPENDIX B. DATA QUALITY
This section addresses performance data completeness and reliability in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's)
Circular A-1 I. For a fuller explanation of data limitations, data quality reviews and audits as well as improvements to data systems and
collection activities, please refer to the on-line Data Quality Appendix at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006PAR (see
"Supplemental Information").This information is organized by 2006 performance measure (as presented in the FY 2006 Performance and
Accountability Report [PAR]) and supporting database.
Data Completeness
Per OMB's definition of data complete-
ness in its Circular A-1 I (Section 230),
EPA's performance data for 2006 are
complete. According to OMB, perform-
ance data are complete if actual or
preliminary performance is reported for
every performance goal and measure.
In cases where data are not currently
available, OMB considers data complete if
the Agency notes the year when actual
performance data will be published.
For each 2006 performance target, EPA
provides a measure of actual performance
or a projected date when actual perform-
ance will be reported. EPA prefers not
to publish preliminary data for end-of-
year results where externalities could
have an unpredicted impact on measured
performance. As a result, in instances
where a data lag exists and a date substi-
tutes for actual data, an expectation of
whether or not the annual target will be
met is usually included in the goal chapter
Limitations on Data Completeness
Output Measures versus Outcome
Measures—EPA's on-going measurement
improvement effort, centered in the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer and
in conjunction with OMB's PART process,
results in the conversion of program
outputs into outcome measures that track
environmental results and health effects.
Often, changes in environmental out-
comes occur over a longer time frame
than a year Consequently EPA emphasizes
the use of performance data as a trend
rather than as a I-year result. Section 11.2
(Annual Performance Goals and
Measures: Detailed Results FY 2003-
FY 2006) of the PAR presents these
trends. In most cases where data are
missing for 2006, results are reported for
prior years. These trend data provide a
fuller picture of Agency progress than any
I year snapshot could capture.
Monitoring and Reporting—One reason
why annual results may be missing for
2006 is because monitoring data for
outcomes may be collected biennially or
even less frequently Processing the data
takes additional time and results for
"off-years" may be modeled.The National
Emissions Inventory of Hazardous Air
Pollutants, for example, is compiled every
3 years. Consequently off-year results are
projected using an emissions modeling
system which accounts for economic
growth and implementation of the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards.
In the cases where performance data are
collected on a calendar year basis, final
results are often not published until at
least the next fiscal year report. For
example, data on blood-lead levels in
children are collected every calendar year
(by the Centers for Disease Control), but
released to the public in 2-year sets.The
most current data set for 2001 -2002 was
released in early 2005. Section 11.2
(Annual Performance Goals and
Measures: Detailed Results FY 2003-
FY 2006), which contains more descrip-
tive information on the performance data,
indicates whether the data are collected
on a fiscal or calendar year basis.
Data Reliability
Per OMB's definition of reliable data, the
performance data supporting the 2006
PAR are reliable. Agency managers and
decision-makers use these data on an
ongoing basis in the normal course
of their duties, taking into account data
limitations, compensating for uncertainties,
and qualifying results.
EPA has a "Quality System" in place,
which encompasses formal and compul-
sory policies and procedures "to ensure
that environmental programs and
decisions are supported by the type and
quality of data appropriate for their
intended use and decisions involving
environmental technology are supported
by appropriate quality-assured engineering
standards and practices." Quality system
policies and documentation (e.g., Quality
Management Plans), annual reviews
and planning, management assessments,
training, project planning, project imple-
mentation and quality assurance project
plans, and verification and validation of
data are all components of the Agency's
Quality System. For additional information,
see EPA's Quality System website at
http://www.epa.gov/quality
Because the Agency's performance data
are reliable, they are not materially inade-
quate and, therefore, do not significantly
impede the use of performance data by
Agency managers.
Limitations on Data Reliability
Notwithstanding the reliability of the data
presented in the FY 2006 PAR, EPA's
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
and the U.S. Government Accountability
Office have raised broad concerns
beyond the scope of the PAR. The issues
include the need to make the incorpora-
tion of data standards into data
collections routine across all Agency
programs, data quality associated with
laboratories, and the need to be system-
atic in filling data gaps relating to outcome
indicators presented in EPA's DRAFT
Report on the Environment
In addition, EPA is internally tracking three
data-related management issues: data
standard implementation, Permit
Compliance System modernization, and
Safe Drinking Water Information System
Improvements. None are considered
material weaknesses under the Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act.
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Section III, Management Accomplishment
and Challenges, includes a discussion of
issues identified as management chal-
lenges by the OIG (e.g., Data Standards
and Data Quality) as well as the Agency's
progress in addressing its self-declared
management issues.
Data Standards and Data Quality—Data
standards are necessary to allow EPA
offices, states, tribes, and other partners
to share and integrate performance
information seamlessly Without data
standards, national composites can be
biased, incomplete, and/or inaccurate, and
development of performance outcomes
can be impeded. For example, current
land cleanup performance measures
are based on the number of cleaned-up
contaminated sites. Capturing the area
or extent of land ready for use/reuse,
however; would more accurately and
clearly communicate the outcomes or
results that EPA and its partners are
striving to achieve. Some, but not all,
of EPA's cleanup programs are using con-
sistent definitions and accounting for
programmatic differences in collecting
placed-based information.The Agency is
continuing to develop data standards
and guide their implementation, for
example, through an organization
structured to review and approve
electronic reporting systems operated by
EPA and authorized state, tribal, and local
government programs.
EPA and its partners are also working to
ensure that data are of sufficient quality
for decision making. For example, the
OIG raised concerns about the integrity
of results provided by laboratories' analy-
sis of drinking water samples and the
implications of poor quality data for
decisions regarding human health.To
address laboratory quality, EPA developed
training to deter and detect improper
laboratory practices. All Agency organiza-
tions, including laboratories,
continue to operate under approved
Quality Management Plans, which are
reviewed every 3 to 4 years. For additional
discussion of the Agency's efforts to
address data standards and data quality
see Section III, Management
Accomplishments and Challenges.
Data Gaps—The expense of collecting
statistically-valid, environmental monitoring
and human health data creates a chal-
lenge for the Agency to fill critical data
gaps. Also, it keeps the Agency from
developing important outcome measures.
The Office of Water; for example, recog-
nizes that current monitoring and
assessment activities have not provided
consistent and defensible national
assessments of water and ecological
quality (e.g., areal extent of streams, coastal
waters, lakes, rivers, and wetlands impacted
by nutrients, excess sedimentation, acidifi-
cation, pathogens, fish and benthic animal
pathologies, etc.) Collaborative efforts
among EPA's Office of Research and
Development and Office of Water; United
States Geological Survey National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and
other partners will result in leveraged
resources and a large-scale effort to
eliminate this gap.
As part of the development of the
Agency's 2006-201 I Strategic Plan, EPA's
programs were required to develop
Preliminary Strategies for addressing
critical data gaps, which now prevent the
use of environmental outcomes.The
Preliminary Strategies articulate a plan for
improved environmental measures in
future Strategic Plans as well as innovative
approaches for implementation, using
advanced technologies (e.g., e-reporting),
collaboration and pooled resources to fill
the data gaps.
-------
APPENDIX C. PUBLIC ACCESS
Appendix C: 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:
http://vwvw.epa.gov/newsroom/
• News releases:
http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/newsreleases.htm
• Regional Newsrooms:
http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/newsrooms.htm
Laws, Regulations, and Dockets:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/lawregs.htm
• Major Environmental Laws:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/laws.htm
• Regulations and Proposed Rules:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/rules.htmlttproposed
Where You Live:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htm
• Search Your Community:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/commsearch.htm
• EPA Regional Offices:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htmttregiontext
Information Sources:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/resource.htm
• Hotlines and Clearinghouses:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/hotline.htm
• Publications:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/publications.htm
Education Resources:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/educational.htm
• Teachers:
http://www.epa.gov/teachers/
• Office of Environmental Education:
http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/
About EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm
• History:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htmtthistory
• Organization:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htmttorg
Programs:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/programs.htm
• List of All Programs and Projects:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/abcpgram.htm
• Programs with a Geographic Focus:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/places.htm
Partnerships:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/partnerships.htm
• Central Data Exchange:
http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
• Industry Partnerships:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/industryhtm
Business Opportunities:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/doingbusiness.htm
• Small Business Opportunities:
http://www.epa.gov/osdbu/
• Grants and Environmental Financing:
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/finance.htm
Careers:
http://www.epa.gov/careers/
• EZ Hire:
http://www.epa.gov/ezh i re/
• Student Opportunities:
http://www.epa.gov/careers/stuopp.html
EPA en Espanol:
http://www.epa.gov/espanol/
Environmental Kids Club:
http://www.epa.gov/kids/
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Appendix D:
Acronyms Definitic
ACS Annual Commitment System
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
AFO Animal Feeding Operation
AOC Area of Concern
APG Annual Performance Goal
AQCD Air Quality Criteria Document
AQI Air Quality Index
AQS Air Quality System
BMPs Best Management Practices
BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CARE Community Action for a Renewed
Environment
CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CCMPs Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CRTs Cathode Ray Tubes
CWA Clean Water Act
CY CalendarYear
DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
DfE Design for the Environment
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
DST Decision Support Tool
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
EDSP Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
EHPV Extended High Production Volume
EIA Energy Information Agency
EMPs Environmental Management Practices
EMS-HAP Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous
Air Pollutants
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPEAT Electronics Products Environmental
Assessment Tool
ET Evapotranspiration
ETS Emissions Tracking System
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
Program
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFMIA Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act of 1996
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office
FISMA Federal Information Security Management
Act
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of
1982
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GAO Government Accountability Office
GAP General Assistance Program
GIS Geographical Information System
-------
APPENDIX D. ACRONYMS
GM Genetically Modified
GMRA Government Management Reform Act
GPRA Government Performance and
Accountability Act of 1993
GSN Green Suppliers Network
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2E Hospitals for Healthy Environment
HABs Harmful Algal Blooms
HCFCs Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
MFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HPV High Production Volume
HPVIS High Production Volume Information
System
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
lAQTfS Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
IPIA Improper Payments Information Act
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISSC Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
LoB Line of Business
LUSTs Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MCO Mission Critical Occupation
MD&A Management's Discussion and Analysis
MMBTUs Million Metric British Thermal Units
MMTCE Million MetricTons of Carbon Equivalent
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAPL Non-aqueous Phase Liquids
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National-Scale AirToxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NEP National Estuary Program
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Non Road Cl Non Road Compression Ignition
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPAP National Performance Audit Program
NPEP National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities
NPL National Priorities List
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSR New Source Review
NTI National Toxics Inventory
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
ODS Ozone-Depleting Substances
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
OEI Office of Environmental Information
OFM Office of Financial Management
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPAA Office of Planning, Analysis and
Accountability
ORD Office of Research and Development
P2RX Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
P3 People, Prosperity and the Planet
PAR Performance and Accountability Report
PARS Performance Appraisal and Recognition
System
PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
Pb Lead
PBDEs Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCFV Partnership for Clean Fuels
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
-------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PM Particulate Matter
PM Performance Measure
PMA President's Management Agenda
PMN Pre-Manufacture Notice
PMO Program Management Office
PPM Parts Per Million
PPRTVs Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values
PRP Potential Responsible Parties
PWSS Public Water System Supervision
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
R&D Research and Development
RA Remedial Action
RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA CA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Corrective Action
RED Registration Eligibility Decision
RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team
RfC Reference Concentrations
RFS Renewable Fuels Standard
RSEI Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
RTP Research Triangle Park
SAB Science Advisory Board
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SEMARNAT Secretariat of Environment & Natural
Resources
SEPs Supplemental Environmental Projects
SES Senior Executive Service
SIDS Screening Information Data Sets
SIMS Shellfish Information Management System
SIP State Implementation Plans
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOC Significant Operational Compliance
SOL Statute of Limitations
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures
SRF State Revolving Fund
TAGs Technical Assistance Grants
TASWER Tribal Association of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOSC Technical Outreach Services for
Communities
TPEA Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TRI-ME Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSE Technology for a Sustainable Environment
TWG Targeted Watershed Grants
UIC Underground Injection Control
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
LIRE Unit Risk Estimate
USTs Underground Storage Tanks
UV UltraViolet
VCCEP Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation
Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WHAT If Watershed Health Assessment Tools
Investigating Fisheries
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
WPDG Wetland Program Development Grants
-------
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 I -800-490-9198,
or by ordering online at:
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom.
EPA'S FY 2006 PERFORMANCE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
The FY 2006 report is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/finstatement/2006par
EPA's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/plan/plan.htm
The FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan is available a
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/index.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 2006 Performance and
Accountability Report. We welcome
your comments on how we can
make this report a more informa-
tive 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
EPA-19O-R-O6-OO2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FISCAL YEAR 2OO6 PERFORMANCE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
NOVEMBER 15, 2OO6
-------
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
www.epa.gov/ocfopage
EPA-I90-R-06-002
November 2006
Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
------- |