U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS
-------
ABOUT THIS REPORT
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Performance and Accountability Report
for Fiscal Year 2007 provides performance and financial information that enables Congress, the
President, and the public to assess the progress EPA is making in achieving environmental
results - improving the quality of air and water and preserving and 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)
I nspector 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
Transmittal Letter to the President
This letter transmits EPA's FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report from the
Administrator to the President, Congress, and Office of Management and Budget. The letter
highlights some of the Agency's FY 2007 accomplishments. It provides an assessment of the
reliability and completeness of the financial and performance data contained in the report and a
statement of assurance, as required by FMFIA, FFMIA, and the Office of Management and
Budget revised Circular No. A-123, "Internal Control Systems."
Message from the Chief Financial Officer
The Chief Financial Officer's message describes progress and challenges pertaining to
EPA's financial management. It discusses EPA's efforts to integrate budget and performance
information, and it provides information on the Agency's management and financial reportable
controls program under FMFIA and financial management systems under FFMIA.
Section I - Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
The MD&A provides an overview of the full report. It outlines EPA's organization,
highlights the most significant performance results and challenges for FY 2007, describes EPA's
progress in implementing the President's Management Agenda, and briefly analyzes the
Agency's financial performance. The MD&A 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 operations, and it contains the Administrator's
assurance statement on the soundness of EPA's overall internal controls and its internal
controls over financial reporting. The MD&A is supported and supplemented by detailed
-------
information provided in the Performance, Financial, and Other Accompanying Information
sections of this report and the appendices.
Section II - Performance Section
This section presents performance results for each of the Agency's five strategic goals.
For each goal, we discuss our progress toward achieving the strategic objectives and targets
presented in our 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, and we provide a table of detailed performance
results for each of the FY 2007 performance measure contained in our FY 2007 Annual Plan
and Budget. This performance section addresses all of the elements of an annual program
performance report specified under OMB Circular A-11, "Preparing, Submitting and Executing
the Budget." For more information on this section, please contact EPA's Office of Planning,
Analysis, and Accountability at (202) 564-9327.
Section III - Financial Section
The Financial Section contains the Agency's financial statements and related
Independent Auditor's Report, as well as other information on the Agency's financial
management. For more information on this section, please contact EPA's Office of Financial
Management at (202) 564-4905.
Section IV- Other Accompanying Information
This section provides additional material as specified under OMB Circular A-136,
"Financial Reporting Requirements." "Management Challenges" discusses EPA's progress in
strengthening management practices to achieve program results; it includes the Inspector
General's list of top management challenges and describes the Agency's progress in
responding to each issue. This section also contains a "Summary of Financial Statement Audit
and Management Assurances" table and information on Improper Payments Information Act
reporting. For more information, please contact EPA's Office of Planning, Analysis, and
Accountability at (202) 564-9327.
Appendices
The Appendices include summaries of program evaluation results, information on data
quality, a list of relevant EPA internet links, and a glossary of acronyms.
-------
ERA'S FY 2007 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About this Report i
Table of Contents iii
Letter from the Administrator v
Message from the Chief Financial Officer viii
SECTION I - MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Mission and Organization -1
How We Work: Collaboration Wth Partners and Stakeholders -4
How We Work: Our Framework for Performance Management -6
FY 2007 Program Performance -7
Overview of Performance Trends and Results -7
Improving Performance Measures and Performance Management -9
Highlights of Program Performance by Goal -10
Accomplishments in Homeland Security and Emergency Response -26
Financial Analysis and Stewardship Information -27
Audit Results (including Restatement) -27
Overview of Financial Position -27
Improving Management and Results -32
The President's Management Agenda -32
The Program Assessment Rating Tool -35
Other Tools for Improving Management and Results -36
Grants Management -36
EPA Holds Itself Accountable: Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance -37
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act -37
Administrator's Assurance Statement -40
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act -40
Federal Information Security Management Act -41
Improving Financial Management -41
Improving Financial Management Systems -41
I nspector General Act Amendments of 1988 -42
SECTION II - PERFORMANCE RESULTS
Introduction to Performance Section 11-1
Goal 1 - Clean Air and Global Climate Change II-4
Objective! 1: Healthier Outdoor Air II-7
Objective1.2: Healthier Indoor Air 11-14
Objectivel .3: Protect the Ozone Layer 11-18
Objectivel .4: Radiation 11-21
Objectivel.5: Greenhouse Gas Intensity 11-24
Objectivel .6: Science and Research 11-29
Goal 1 Table of Performance Results: FY 2004 - FY 2007 II-33
in
-------
Goal 2 - Clean and Safe Water 11-52
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health II-53
Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality II-57
Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research II-62
Goal 2 Performance Results: FY 2004 - FY 2007 II-67
Goal 3 - Land Preservation and Restoration 11-81
Objective 3.1: Preserve Land 11-82
Objective 3.2: Restore Land II-89
Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research II-97
Goal 3 Table of Performance Results: FY 2004 - FY 2007 11-101
Goal 4- Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 11-115
Objective 4.1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks 11-116
Objective 4.2: Communities 11-124
Objective 4.3: Ecosystems 11-128
Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research 11-135
Goal 4 Table of Performance Results: FY 2004 - FY 2007 11-144
Goal 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 11-171
Objectives.!: Improve Compliance 11-172
Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance Through
Pollution Prevention and Innovation 11-177
Objective 5.3: Tribal Capacity 11-182
Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research 11-186
Goal 5 Table of Performance Results: FY 2004 - FY 2007 11-190
Enabling and Support Programs Detailed Performance Results 11-201
External Efficiency Measures Table II-208
PART Supplemental Table 11-214
SECTION III - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Introduction to Financial Section 111-1
Financial Statements III-3
Office of Inspector General Audit Report III-75
SECTION IV-OTHERACCOMPANYING INFORMATION
Management Challenges and Integrity Weaknesses IV-1
EPA's Progress in Addressing FY 2007 Weaknesses IV-1
Summary of Assurances Table IV-9
Office of Inspector General's FY 2007 Key Management Challenges IV-11
Improper Payment Information Act IV-32
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Program Evaluations Completed in FY 2007 A-1
Appendix B - Data Quality B-1
Appendix C - Acronyms C-1
Appendix D - Public Access D-1
IV
-------
ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER
November 13, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fiscal Year 2007
Performance and Accountability Report, which reviews our programmatic and financial
performance over the past fiscal year. I give my assurance that the performance and financial
data included here are complete and reliable, consistent with guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This report meets the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act
and other management legislation. It demonstrates EPA's commitment to be accountable for
results, assessed against the annual performance goals and measures we presented in our FY
2007 Annual Plan. Our FY 2007 report reveals the considerable progress EPA has made
toward each of the five long-term goals for protecting human health and the environment that
we established in our 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. These results were accomplished with the help
of our state, local, and tribal partners. We continue to rely on collaborative efforts, innovative
programs and approaches, and sound science to promote the protection of human health and
the environment and to establish a culture of environmental stewardship.
Progress and Accomplishments
In the more than 36 years that EPA has existed, we have established a strong record of
environmental progress. America's air, water, and land are cleaner today than they were just a
generation ago - and they continue to improve. Since 1970, our population has grown by
nearly 40 percent; vehicle miles traveled have almost tripled; and our energy use has increased
by almost half. Yet even with these added demands on our natural resources, emissions of the
major criteria pollutants in the United States have decreased more than 50 percent. Moreover,
during this same period our gross domestic product has nearly tripled. We have learned that
economic growth and environmental health can go hand-in-hand.
Today, EPA is laying the groundwork for a cleaner, more dependable energy tomorrow.
For example, EPA is helping American consumers and businesses make smart energy choices
that make sense for our environment and their wallets through common-sense programs like
ENERGY STAR. Last year alone, Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, saved $14
billion on their energy bills and prevented greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of 25
million vehicles.
We are also helping meet your call to green our nation's energy by encouraging
organizations to purchase green power. Through EPA's Green Power Partnership, launched in
2001, we are working with more than 750 partner organizations that voluntarily buy green power
-------
- generated from eligible renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and
biogas - to reduce the environmental impacts associated with conventional electricity use and
to promote the development of new renewable generation resources. Overall, EPA Green
Power Partners are buying more than 10 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually,
an increase of nearly 163 percent since January 2006. The National Top 25 list of Green Power
Partners accounts for more than 6 billion kWh per year of green power purchasing - more than
60 percent of the total kWh in the Green Power Partnership - reducing greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to more than 700,000 vehicles.
Since pollution knows no geographical or political boundaries, EPA is working with our
international neighbors to protect our shared environment. Earlier this year, we marked the 20th
anniversary of the signing of the landmark international treaty, the Montreal Protocol. Since its
signing in 1987, the U.S. has achieved a 90 percent reduction in the production and
consumption of ozone-depleting substances - ending the production and import of over 1.7
billion pounds per year of these chemicals. In addition, this year, the United States led the effort
to adopt a new international commitment under the Montreal Protocol to accelerate the phase-
out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Not only will we speed up the recovery of the ozone layer, the
accelerated phase-out has the additional benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
While we are working to protect our environment, EPA is also committed to putting both
people and property back to work. During FY 2007, EPA awarded supplemental grants to nine
state or local governments to help return problem properties back into productive use.
Approximately $2.2 million is being awarded to brownfields revolving loan funds grantees.
EPA's brownfields program provides funding to state, local, and tribal governments to make low-
interest loans and subgrants that fund clean-up activities at brownfields sites. Since 1997, grant
recipients have executed 114 loans and awarded 13 subgrants to support brownfields clean-ups
totaling more than $53 million. The loan funds have leveraged more than $780 million in public
and private clean-up and redevelopment investment.
And finally, we are staying on track to meet your goal under the 2004 Earth Day Initiative
by restoring and enhancing 61,856 wetland acres during FY 2007, exceeding our cumulative
target of 12,000 acres. These acres include those supported by Wetland 5 Star Restoration
Grants, the National Estuary Program, and Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source
grants.
Management
EPA's leadership team is committed to achieving the goals set under the President's
Management Agenda for delivering environmental results to the American public efficiently and
effectively. EPA now ranks first among federal agencies in its PMA progress and status scores.
During FY 2007, EPA received its first "green" status score in the Performance Improvement
Initiative (formerly Budget and Performance Integration). In addition, EPA maintained its green
status and progress scores throughout the year in Competitive Sourcing, Financial
Performance, and Eliminating Improper Payments. EPA maintained green progress scores in
Human Capital and expects to achieve a green status score later this year.
Under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, the Agency has identified three
material weaknesses. We have already corrected one in the area of delinquent receivables,
and we are addressing the remaining two, which are systems-related significant deficiencies
that must be reported as material weaknesses under Section 4 of FMFIA and as non-
compliances under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. EPA continues to
VI
-------
address improvement opportunities throughout our operations and to strengthen our overall
internal controls and internal controls related to financial reporting, as required in Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-123. Under FMFIA, I am giving a qualified statement of
assurance that EPA's overall internal controls, with the exceptions noted, and its internal
controls over financial reporting protect the Agency's programs and resources from fraud,
waste, abuse, and mismanagement. My assurance statement appears in the Management's
Discussion and Analysis section of this report.
Future
EPA is proud of the results we, and our partners, achieved in FY 2007 to improve the
quality of air and water and to protect the land. We intend to learn from our experience this year
to adjust our approaches and build on our accomplishments to better protect human health and
the environment. We will meet our responsibilities for enforcing the nation's environmental laws
and regulations, and we will continue to work in collaboration with our state and local partners to
address our biggest environmental challenges.
Together, we are promoting America's evolution to a green culture by equipping the
nation's growing army of environmental stewards with the tools they need to help pass down a
cleaner, healthier world. Today, instead of having only 17,000 EPA employees working to
protect the environment, we have more than 300 million Americans as environmental partners.
Americans from all sectors of society - businesses, communities and individuals - have begun
to embrace the fact that environmental responsibility is everyone's responsibility, not just the
responsibility of EPA. By encouraging America's shift to a green culture, EPA will meet your
charge of accelerating the pace of environmental protection while maintaining our nation's
economic competitiveness. Together, with our partners, we are not only building on our nation's
environmental accomplishments, we are creating a lasting legacy for future generations of
Americans.
Respectfully,
Stephen L. Johnson
VII
-------
CFO's MESSAGE
This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) presents the
performance and financial results that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
achieved during FY 2007. The PAR provides information to the President, the
Congress, and the public on the Agency's accomplishments and challenges in
protecting human health and the environment, use of the financial resources
entrusted to us, and progress in addressing key management challenges.
During the past year, EPA became one of the highest-rated agencies under
the President's Management Agenda (PMA) scorecard, achieving "green" status scores in four of
the five PMA initiatives. We are especially proud of achieving our first "green" status score under
the Performance Improvement Initiative, demonstrating that we use performance information to
improve our performance results. We developed Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-
approved efficiency measures for all EPA programs assessed using OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process; incorporated long-term PART measures in the
framework of our Strategic Plan; and used PART annual measures in our annual planning and
budgeting process. We are also proud to have maintained a "green" status score for the
Eliminating Improper Payments initiative.
For the eighth year in a row, EPA received an unqualified opinion on its financial
statements. During the audit, the Office of Inspector General identified three material
weaknesses, one relating to our process for determining the value of delinquent receivables and
two information technology (IT) security-related issues. We corrected the delinquent accounts
receivable material weakness and restated our FY 2006 financial statements to reflect the value
of these receivables. We have initiated corrective actions to resolve the IT-security-related
issues and will complete all actions in FY 2008.
As required by OMB Circular A-123, we conducted our annual assessment on the
effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting. Through this process, we identified
and documented ten key financial management processes and tested 260 key controls. As of
June 30, 2007, EPA found no material weaknesses. The assessment did reveal significant
deficiencies in the areas of financial reporting, accounts receivable, and data security; corrective
actions for these significant deficiencies were completed by September 30, 2007.
EPA is streamlining its financial workflow; improving financial reporting; and further
integrating programmatic, performance, and financial information with a new comprehensive
financial management system. Once implemented, our financial system will improve the
timeliness and use of financial data to manage the cost of our programs and ensure that we
spend taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. We are also replacing our current travel system
with Northrop Grumman's GovTrip system, allowing us to meet the PMA eGov Travel Initiative.
GovTrip supports the Agency's entire travel process, from planning and authorizing travel,
making reservations, delivering electronic tickets, and calculating and approving
reimbursements, to archiving data. We will complete the Agency's deployment of GovTrip by
September 2008.
EPA will continue to work to meet the financial management standards that demonstrate
our commitment to financial excellence and to ensure that we use taxpayers' dollars effectively in
fulfilling our mission to protect human health and the environment. I look forward to continuing
our collaboration with our partners and stakeholders and to developing innovative, cross-cutting
strategies to help meet the challenges ahead.
vii
-------
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to EPA's dedicated staff
across the country who work to protect human health and the environment on a daily basis and
without whom our progress in FY 2007 would not have been possible.
Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2007
VIII
-------
ERA'S FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report
Section I
Management's Discussion and Analysis
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001), published on November
15, 2007. This document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par.
Section I - Page 1
-------
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Since it was established in 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has worked
to achieve a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans. From regulating auto emissions
to banning the use of DDT, from cleaning up toxic waste to protecting the ozone layer, and from
promoting recycling and resource conservation to revitalizing inner city brownfields sites, EPA
and its partners and stakeholders have made enormous strides in protecting human health and
the environment.
But while the Agency and its partners have achieved a great deal over the past several
decades, much work remains. The environmental problems the country faces today are more
complex than those of years past, and implementing solutions—nationally and globally—is more
challenging. Population growth and its associated resource consumption, climate change,
threats to homeland security, and the spread of disease through global travel, for example, pose
important new concerns. Scientific advances and
emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology or
bioengineering, offer new opportunities for protecting __., , _ _. . . _ ,
human health and the environment, but also pose new EPA s Lon9-Term Strate9'c Goals
risks and challenges.
1. Clean Air and Global Climate Change
2. Clean and Safe Water
3. Land Preservation and Restoration
4. Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
5. Compliance and Environmental
EPA and its partners continue to work to
address these and other issues. The President has
charged EPA with accelerating progress in
environmental protection while maintaining our nation's
economic competitiveness. This report reviews the
results that EPA has achieved during FY 2007 and the advances we have made toward our
longer-term strategic goals. It also identifies program performance and overall management
challenges. The PAR fulfills the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act
and other management legislation for reporting on environmental and financial performance and
demonstrating results.1
EPA's FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report describes the Agency's results
in meeting the 167 performance measures it established in its FY 2007 Annual Plan2 It also
discusses EPA's financial activities and achievements during the year. Managing taxpayer
dollars efficiently and effectively and ensuring the integrity of our programs and processes are
critical to EPA's success in delivering the best results to the American people.
MISSION AND ORGANIZATION
EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. The Agency leads the
nation's environmental science, research, education, and assessment efforts. To accomplish
our mission, EPA:
• Develops regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. We
evaluate environmental and pollutant data to set national standards for a variety of
environmental programs and delegate to states and tribes the responsibility for issuing
permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance.
Section I - Page 2
-------
• Enforces environmental laws, regulations, and standards by taking legal action. EPA
also offers assistance to states, tribes, and the regulated community in understanding
and complying with environmental requirements to reach desired levels of environmental
quality.
• Provides grants to states, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions to support
program implementation and high-quality research that will improve the scientific basis
for decisions on national environmental and human health issues and help the Agency
achieve its goals.
• Performs environmental research at laboratories across the country.
• Sponsors voluntary partnerships and programs with more than 10,000 industries,
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and state and local governments on more than 40
pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
• Advances educational efforts to develop an environmentally conscious and responsible
public and inspires personal responsibility in caring for the environment.
• Provides publications and material on its website to inform the public.
EPA employs 17,072 people across the country, in our headquarters offices in
Washington, DC; our 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 management, and computer specialists. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson is
the first career executive and the first career scientist to lead the Agency. For more information,
visit EPA's website at http://www.epa.qov.
Section I - Page 3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resource Management
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator
for Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances
Region I
Rortnr, MA
Region 5
Chicago, IL
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
.
Inspector General
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
Kegion 2
Region 6
Dallas. TX
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
on 3
Region 7
Kansas City, KS
Assistant Administrator
for Environmental
Information
Assistant Administrator
for Water
on 1
r =1, GA
Region 8
Denver. CO
Region 9
San Francisco, CA
Region 10
Seattle, WA
Section I - Page 4
-------
How We Work: Collaboration With Partners and Stakeholders
EPA's partnerships with other countries, other federal agencies, states, tribes, and local
governments are essential to address today's increasingly complex environmental challenges.
We believe that it is only through our collaborative efforts with our partners—and the
participation of business and industry, nonprofit organizations, environmental groups, and the
American public—that we can achieve results and meet our goals for a cleaner, safer
environment.
In FY 2007, the Agency continued to participate in the Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS)-EPA Partnership and Performance Work Group, a senior-level oversight body
governing ongoing efforts to strengthen the state-EPA partnership. A major focus for the Work
Group in FY 2007 was producing a standardized template that states will use to develop and
submit their state grant agreements. The template will show linkages between states' activities
and EPA's strategic goals and will allow for meaningful comparisons between planned activities
and performance, making progress more visible and programs more transparent. During
FY 2008, EPA and states will continue examining state reporting burden and streamlining
performance measures, as well as documenting important environmental work being conducted
under different environmental program grants.
Section I - Page 5
-------
EPA continued to work in partnership with tribes in a government-to-government
relationship to improve compliance in Indian country, focusing particularly on issues concerning
drinking water systems, schools, and proper management of solid waste.
Enhancing Tribal Environmental Management
Tribal Compliance Assistance Center
In FY 2007, EPA launched a web-based Tribal Compliance Assistance Center
(www.epa.gov/tribalcompliance), specifically designed to increase access to information on federal
environmental requirements and to improve environmental compliance and management in Indian
country.
One of 15 Compliance Assistance Centers (http://www.assistancecenters.net) providing
sector-specific information, the Tribal Center offers comprehensive compliance assistance and
pollution prevention information for regulated activities in Indian country by environmental topic, as
well as by type of facility. The Tribal Center also provides links to compliance and enforcement
information and enables tribes and tribal members to report environmental violations directly to
EPA. The Center is designed to help tribal environmental professionals find training opportunities
and locate specific personnel at EPA to answer their environmental compliance questions.
EPA's 2007 Profile of Tribal Government Operations (EPA Pub # 310R07001) provides
useful information on the complex and wide array of tribal government operations and relevant
environmental regulations and pollution prevention opportunities. The Profile is available online at
http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/tribalsn.pdf
and in hard copy from the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at
http://www.epa.gov/nscep/ or by calling 800-490-9198.
Tribal Portal
In July 2007, EPA launched the first-of-its-kind portal website to assist the tribal community,
its supporters, and the public find tribal environmental information and data through a single web-
based access point. Part of EPA's commitment to strengthen its partnership with Indian tribes and
governments to protect human health and the environment, the new website allows EPA to
consolidate and share environmental information reflecting the tribal community's perspective and
needs in an easy-to-navigate structure. Programs across the Agency, including enforcement,
waste, underground storage tanks, and water, are providing information through this central web-
site. Visit the Tribal Portal at http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal.
Section I - Page 6
-------
EPA's Performance Management Framework
Planning Budgeting and Accountability for Results
Additional
Assessment Tools
Annual Plan & Budget
Identifies priorities and resources for
the year, including the Agency's annual
performance goals and measures
Annual National
Program Plans
Strategic Plan
Establishes EPA's overall plan for the
next five years, including goals, objectives,
sub-objectives, and strategic targets
Report on the
Environment
Annual Performance
& Accountability
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR)
Presents EPA's performance results measured
against its annual measures and commitments.
Demonstrates accountability and serves as a
feedback loop to inform adjustments to
priorities, strategies, and measures
Quarterly Management Report (QMR)
Provides timely performance data for a number
of the Agency's important work areas
How We Work: Our Framework for Performance Management
To carry out our mission to protect human health and the environment, EPA established
five broad, long-range goals: clean air, clean water, protecting land, providing healthy
communities and ecosystems, and promoting environmental compliance and stewardship. Our
five goals, 20 supporting objectives, and a number of strategic targets are laid out in EPA's five-
year Strategic Plan3 Our Strategic Plan also provides the structure for all of our budget
documents, and EPA is making great strides in more closely linking our performance with our
costs. Each year, we commit to annual goals and measures that support the achievement of
our longer-range strategic targets. These annual goals and measures are presented in our
Annual Performance Plan and the Congressional Justification, and we are accountable for using
our resources efficiently and effectively to achieve results against them.
We track our progress in meeting these annual goals and measures through a variety of
lenses, including Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) reviews and our internal Annual
Commitment System, which helps us develop and track regional contributions—which reflect
state and tribal efforts—to program results. We report on our performance against our annual
goals and measures in this annual Performance and Accountability Report.
Section I - Page 7
-------
FY 2007 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
In FY 2007, EPA achieved significant results under each of the five long-term
environmental goals established in its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. In this section, we (1) offer an
overview of our performance across all goals, (2) present summary results and highlight our
accomplishments and challenges under each goal, (3) present highlights of our homeland
security efforts across the Agency, and (4) describe a few of the efforts, underway in FY 2007,
that EPA has initiated to improve its performance measurement and strengthen accountability
for achieving results.
Overview of Performance Trends and Results
ERtt FT 2007 PtefonrwicB Rwilu
EPA is strengthening its performance measurement and use of performance information
to make the management and budget decisions that will help us achieve our environmental and
human health goals. In the past, we have tallied and presented our annual performance results
by annual performance goals, which may comprise multiple performance measures. In this
report, we have increased transparency and provided a more accurate and precise picture of
the Agency's FY 2007 performance by reporting results for each of our performance measures
and presenting our overall results by annual performance measures met and not met. We
believe that reporting results against individual performance measures will enhance the
Agency's, our partners' and stakeholders,' and the public's understanding of EPA's actual FY
2007 performance and help in assessing our progress toward our longer-term objectives.
Performance Measures Met
In its FY2007 Annual Plan, EPA committed to 167 annual performance measures
(PMs). In FY 2007, the Agency met 100 of these PMs, 86 percent of the PMs for which data
were available at the time this report was published.
EPA significantly exceeded its targets for a number of its FY 2007 PMs. In some cases,
a particularly strong collaborative effort or application of an innovative new approach allowed
the Agency to accomplish more than it had planned. For example, EPA exceeded its targets for
Section I - Page 8
-------
closing open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands. Several regions, notably Region
6 (Dallas) and 9 (San Francisco), were particularly successful in leveraging General Assistance
Program grants. Including open dump cleanups in RCRA Supplemental Environmental Projects
also increased regional results. In other cases, the Agency had established a new PM and,
lacking the experience and trend data it needed to determine ambitious yet realistic targets, set
FY 2007 targets conservatively.
Performance Measures Not Met
Despite our best efforts, we and our partners were unable to meet all ambitious targets
planned for FY 2007. EPA did not meet 16 of the 116 FY 2007 PMs for which performance data
were available. There are a number of reasons for missing these targets:
• Unexpected demands or competing priorities sometimes diverted resources and
prevented EPA and its partners from meeting FY 2007 targets.
• In its commitment to develop meaningful goals and measures that evidence
environmental outcomes, the Agency in some cases may have overestimated its ability
to achieve annual results. For example, EPA set an ambitious target for restoring
valuable underwater grasses in the Chesapeake Bay. However, population growth, land
use, and other factors have affected progress in reducing nitrogen, phosphorous, and
sediment pollution loads entering the Bay. Despite the efforts of EPA, states, and
others, pollution reduction strategies have not improved water quality conditions or
permitted restoration of aquatic vegetation to the extent envisioned by Chesapeake Bay
Program partners.
• Factors affecting the activities of the Agency's federal, state, and local government
partners, who collaborate closely with EPA, also had an impact on annual performance
results.
EPA is carefully considering the various causes for these FY 2007 shortfalls as we
adjust our program strategies and establish annual targets for FY 2008 and beyond. As part of
our annual planning process, EPA will continue to work closely with our partners to address
challenges and ensure progress toward our environmental and human health objectives.
Data Unavailable
Because final end-of-year data were not available when this report went to press, EPA is
not yet able to report on 51 of its 167 PMs. This delay in reporting can be largely attributed to
the Agency's sharpened focus on longer-term environmental and human health outcomes rather
than activity-based outputs. Environmental outcome results may not become apparent within a
fiscal year, and assessing environmental improvements often requires multi-year information.
Many variables are involved in evaluating progress toward an outcome-oriented goal, and it
takes time to understand and assess such factors as exposure and the resulting impact on
human health.
In many cases, reporting cycles—including some which are legislatively mandated—do
not correspond with the federal fiscal year on which this report is based. Data reported
biennially or on a calendar year basis, for example, are not yet available for this report, but will
be provided in subsequent reports. Extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
processes to ensure the reliability of performance data can also delay reporting. In some cases,
Section I - Page 9
-------
such as for certain compliance and enforcement information, the Agency has adjusted data
collection and QA/QC processes to meet the November 15 date for submitting this report. In
other cases, EPA presents the most current data now available and will provide complete data
in a future report.
EPA relies heavily on performance data obtained from local, state, and tribal agencies,
all of which require time to collect the information 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. We are reducing 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 our partners. For example, sensor network technology
offers promise for reducing data lags in measuring particulate matter levels in air and potability
in water. With sensor networks in place, EPA and its partners could obtain much of the
monitoring data required to assess progress in virtually real-time.
Data Now Available
EPA is now able, however, to report data from previous years that became available in
FY 2007. Final performance results data became available for 46 of the FY 2006 PMs on which
the Agency did not report in its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report. Of these 46
FY 2006 PMs, EPA met 39. For example, the Agency exceeded its FY 2006 target for 1,000
environmental assessments of brownfields properties by assessing 2,139 properties. EPA can
now report achieving 133 (76 percent) of the 174 FY 2006 PMs for which it has data.
Improving Performance Measures and Performance Management
During FY 2007, EPA developed and implemented a series of key initiatives designed to
improve the quality and consistency of its performance information and help the Agency's senior
leaders "use measures to manage."
The Agency continued working to improve the quality of all of its performance measures.
To support implementation of its key national programs, EPA performed a systematic Agency-
wide annual review of all its FY 2007 and FY 2008 measures, and it will continue this review
process for FY 2009 measures. These reviews have resulted in a more streamlined set of
performance measures and improved linkages between related measures, ensuring that they
are useful for performance-based management.
EPA is also creating tools to improve its access to and use of performance measures. In
2007, the Agency began a concerted effort to centralize its performance information in its
automated Annual Commitment System (ACS), creating a "Measures Central" that consolidates
measures and measures information. For example, ACS now tracks state grant performance
information annually, and EPA generates reports using the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's
Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT). The Agency has also updated its reporting
tools to simplify access to performance information within the Agency.
EPA has continued to improve and refine the Quarterly Management Report (QMR) it
initiated in FY 2006. The QMR provides timely performance data for a number of the Agency's
important work areas. It complements other budget, performance, and financial management
tools that support the Agency's performance management system. Originally, the QMR was
used exclusively as an internal management tool. In FY 2007, the Agency made the report
available to the public to increase transparency and encourage a constructive dialogue on how
Section I - Page 10
-------
EPA can use performance measures better to protect the environment. By looking at fresh data
on a quarterly basis, EPA is using performance measures to "learn and do" rather than simply to
"report." The QMR is available on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/qmr/.
EPA has become a federal leader in performance analysis and management by
integrating management systems and adopting a common vision for their use. The Agency now
routinely collects performance data and makes it readily accessible, uses performance
measures to inform decisions, and engages managers and staff at various levels. As a result,
EPA is building a stronger results-based organizational culture.
Highlights of Program Performance by Goal
The tables below summarize performance results and resource information and highlight
key achievements and challenges under each goal. Section II of this report contains detailed
performance information.
Section I - Page 11
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 1 - CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe, and risks to human health and the environment are
reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
EPA FY 2007 Obligations EPA FY 2007 Expenditures
(in thousands) (in thousands)
Goal 1 FY 2007
Performance Measures (PMs)
Met = 1 Not Met = 0
Data Available After November 15,
2007 = 25
(Total PMs = 26)
OBJECTIVE 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air
Key Achievements
• In June 2007, EPA proposed to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone,
revising the standards for the first time since 1997. The proposal is based on the most recent
scientific evidence about the health effects of ozone, the primary component of smog. EPA projects
that health benefits of the proposed ozone standard could be in the billions of dollars.4 The Agency
will issue final standards by March 2008.
• Ozone levels have dropped 21 percent nationwide since 1980 as EPA, states, and local governments
have worked together to continue to improve the nation's air.
Challenges
• Of the six tracked pollutants, ground-level ozone and particulate matter are the most widespread. We
need to integrate our toxics and climate programs with our more traditional criteria pollutant
programs. Criteria pollutant reduction strategies that result in more reductions in air toxics, increased
energy efficiency, and cleaner fuels should be emphasized in the design of control programs. The
Agency needs to ensure that individual programs work together so that we minimize the burden on
the regulated community while maximizing pollution reduction across all titles of the Clean Air Act.
OBJECTIVE 2 - Healthier Indoor Air
Key Achievements
• In 2006, the Agency held symposia and worked with grantees to train more than 3,000 health
professionals on asthma and environmental trigger management. As a result of the award-winning
Asthma Goldfish Public Service Campaign, national awareness of asthma triggers has increased to
an all-time high of 33 percent among the general public.
• Through 2006, the Agency worked with approximately 36,000 schools to help implement an effective
indoor air quality plan based on criteria set by EPA. Poor ventilation in elementary and secondary
schools contributes to unsatisfactory indoor air quality, putting at risk children, a vulnerable segment
of the population, who are more susceptible to pollutants and spend long hours in school facilities.
• Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America and is associated with about 20,000
lung cancer deaths every year.5 EPA estimates that in FY 2005 (the most recent year for which we
have complete data), the combination of homes with radon mitigation systems and homes built with
Section I - Page 12
-------
radon-resistant techniques—voluntary public actions that EPA promoted—saved approximately 575
lives.
Challenges
• Indoor Air is a small, voluntary program addressing multiple contaminants and high risks. To
maintain momentum we must work with public, private, and nonprofit partners, each with financial
and/or constituency pressures. The program also must link with EPA regulatory and other
community-based risk-reduction activities to ensure maximum leverage of limited resources.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer
Key Achievements
• 2007 marked the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Montreal Protocol. Since signing in 1987, the
United States has achieved a 90 percent reduction in the production and consumption of ozone-
depleting substances (ODS), ending the production and import of over 1.7 billion pounds of these
chemicals per year. The faster the ozone layer is healed, the greater the prevention of human health
damages caused by excess UV radiation, including skin cancer.
• In 2005 (the last year for which data are available), the United States reduced annual emissions of
ODS by more than 1200 tons (ODS equivalent, which has a climate co-benefit of 1,500 million CO2-
equivalent metric tons per year).
Challenges
• At a September 21, 2007 meeting in Montreal that recognized the 20th anniversary of the Montreal
Protocol, the 191 Parties to the Protocol reached a milestone agreement to accelerate recovery of the
earth's stratospheric ozone layer and, at the same time, prevent large quantities of greenhouse gas
emissions. Parties agreed to speed up by a decade the phaseout of hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs). Because HCFCs are also greenhouse gases, the agreement to accelerate their phaseout
also provides benefits for the climate system. The Agency will have a challenge in identifying
acceptable substitutes to ozone depleting substances.
OBJECTIVE 4 - Radiation
Key Achievements
• In FY 2007, EPA participated in several major radiological emergency response exercises, including
exercises that simulated the detonation of a defined-area radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb),
simulated the detonation of an improvised nuclear device, and tested EPA's Incident Command
System during a response to a radiological incident originating on foreign soil.
• The Agency developed RadMap, an interactive desktop tool featuring a Geographic Information
System map and quick access to information on long-term radiation monitoring locations across the
country. RadMap is designed for use by emergency responders and provides access to key
information on 500 monitors and the areas surrounding them.
Challenges
• In FY 2007, EPA continued to expand RadNet, a nationwide system to track environmental radiation.
The upgraded system is designed to provide improved coverage as well as additional air monitoring
capabilities important during radiological emergencies. Despite some early start-up problems, EPA
made significant progress during the year in deploying monitors.
OBJECTIVE 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Key Achievements
• EPA achieved significant greenhouse gas reductions in 2006 (the latest year for which data are
available) through its climate protection partnership programs and is on track to contribute about 70
percent of the reductions necessary to achieve the President's 2012 greenhouse gas intensity goal.6
Section I - Page 13
-------
• EPA partnered with over 11,000 organizations nationwide to improve energy efficiency. The
partnerships are working to increase the supply of clean energy across the building, industrial, and
transportation sectors by breaking down the market barriers that prevent investments in cost-
effective, climate-friendly technologies and practices. EPA currently estimates that its partners
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 100 million metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE)
through measures in place in 2006.
• Through ENERGY STAR, consumers saved more than $14 billion on their energy bills by purchasing
more than 300 million labeled products, constructing almost 200,000 ENERGY STAR new homes,
using EPA's energy performance rating system to track and improve the energy use of over 30,000
commercial buildings, and reducing energy use at hundreds of industrial facilities.
• More than 650 organizations committed to purchasing almost 7 billion kilowatt-hours of green power
and 200 organizations installed more than 3,500 megawatts of new combined heat and power
capacity.
• Through such efforts as the Methane-to-Markets initiative, EPA provided developing and
industrialized countries with information and increased technical capacity needed to implement
emissions reduction policies and climate protection programs.
• More than 600 freight carriers and shippers, covering 361,000 heavy duty diesel trucks, are now
participating in EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership Program. These partners account for
approximately 12 percent of the industry's greenhouse gas emissions. SmartWay partners are
implementing fuel efficiency measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 1.9
MMTCE per year, with annual fuel savings of $1.7 billion dollars.
Challenges
• EPA's latest annual report on greenhouse gas emissions, "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005" (April 2007), which was prepared for the United Nations
Framework on Climate Change, is a study in challenges.7 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. Strong economic growth starting in 2005 and an
increase in the demand for electricity during warmer summer conditions are expected to keep carbon
dioxide emissions high. EPA is targeting its climate protection partnership programs to address this
growing electricity demand in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
• For the ENERGY STAR Program, EPA will determine the need for spot testing, to ensure the integrity
of the ENERGY STAR label for consumers of home and office products.
OBJECTIVE 6 - Enhance Science and Research
Key A chievements
• EPA's Clean Air Research Program completed 100 percent of its planned actions toward the long-
term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standards setting and air quality
management decisions. As a result of research conducted under this program, EPA has proposed to
strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first
time since 1997.
Challenges
• It is difficult for the research program to meaningfully measure its annual progress in reducing
uncertainty and in completing a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to
human health As a result, the Clean Air Research Program is soliciting input from an independent
panel of experts to better define methods for measuring annual progress.
Section I - Page 14
-------
STRATEGIC 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.
EPA FY 2007 Obligations
(in thousands)
EPA FY 2007 Expenditures
(in thousands)
Goal 2 FY 2007
Performance Measures (PMs)
Met = 20 Not Met = 5
Data Available After November 15,
2007 = 7
(Total PMs = 32)
Goal 4,
$1,447,061.3,
15%
Goal 5,
$778,691.3,9%
Goal 3,
$1,550,748.7,
18%
OBJECTIVE 1 - Protect Human Health
Key Achievements
• In FY 2007, 91.5 percent of the population served by community water systems received drinking
water that met all applicable health-based drinking water standards (slightly short of EPA's target of
94 percent).
. EPA regional offices conducted emergency response preparedness exercises to improve responses
in the event of a catastrophic natural or deliberate incident at drinking water or wastewater facilities.
EPA prepared and disseminated materials to guide utilities in conducting self-assessments,
developing plans, and designing and implementing contamination warning systems.
. EPA met its FY 2007 goal by keeping coastal and Great Lakes beaches open 95 percent of beach
season days during the past year's swimming season (calendar year 2006).
. EPA completed freshwater epidemiology studies that tested a rapid indicator for pollutants in
swimming waters. These results will help local governments make decisions on beach closures and
health advisory notices quickly and more efficiently.
Challenges
• The nation's drinking water infrastructure is aging. Water utilities face the challenge of substantial
reinvestment in water infrastructure to sustain current levels of service and to meet increasing future
public health protection needs. Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (DWSRFs) offer low-interest
loans and other assistance to water systems to help provide safe, reliable water service on a
sustainable basis. The challenge for the Agency and the states is to manage the DWSRF program in
a way that can maximize public health protection with available funds.
• Water systems, particularly small systems, are challenged by the need to apply existing standards for
more than 90 chemical, radiological, and microbial contaminants and to implement new ones.
• To prevent groundwater pollution, EPA's Underground Injection Control Program works with states to
monitor hazardous and non-hazardous fluids injected into the ground. A major challenge in
implementing the Agency's rule on motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large capacity cesspools is
locating Class V wells (shallow, on-site disposal systems, such as drywells, cesspools, and septic
systems) in a Geographical Information System (CIS) format so they can be mapped and compared
Section I - Page 15
-------
to CIS locations for source water protection areas. Managers need this data to set priorities for
addressing problem areas and protecting communities with groundwater-based water systems,
OBJECTIVE 2 - Protect Water Quality
Key Achievements
• EPA is making strong progress in addressing impaired waters: In FY 2007, a cumulative 15 percent
(against the FY 2007 target of 14.1 percent) of waters listed as impaired in 2000 are now fully
attaining water quality standards.
• Under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, permits implementing standards for
industrial sources, municipal treatment plants, and storm water prevented discharge of 37 billion
pounds of pollutants into waterways.
• EPA released the Wadeable Stream Assessment, the first statistically valid assessment of national
stream condition. The assessment found that 28 percent of the nation's streams are in good
condition. (Twenty-five to thirty percent of streams across the United States were estimated to have
high levels of nutrients or excess sedimentation.)
• Data now available in FY 2007 show that annual load reductions for non-point sources of pollution
exceeded the Agency's FY 2006 targets. EPA's partners reduced phosphorus by 11.8 million
pounds, nitrogen by 14.5 million pounds, and sediment by 1.2 million tons.
• In FY 2007, the Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Program funded 65 wastewater infrastructure projects
in Indian Country, covering over 7,200 homes out of a base of 26,777 homes lacking access to basic
sanitation.
Challenges
• Progress in addressing impaired waters will likely slow as listings of waterbodies become more
accurate and "easy" restorations are completed. Many remaining problems, such as urban wet
weather impairments and persistent legacy pollutants, are complex and may take many years to
solve (e.g., restoring stream bank trees to address temperature problems).
• In FY 2007, EPA created a Climate Change Workgroup to assess the implications of climate change
for water programs, for example, warming waters, shifting precipitation patterns, and rising sea levels.
The workgroup drafted a strategy for responding to climate change, which will be released for public
review and comment in early FY 2008. EPA's National Water Program expects to finalize and begin
implementing the strategy in FY 2008.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• In FY 2007, methods, models, and tools produced by EPA's Office of Research and Development
contributed, in part, to risk assessments that resulted in EPA's preliminary determinations not to
regulate eleven chemical contaminants from the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL2). In this sound
science-based decision, EPA helped to reduce the economic and technical burden on water utilities
by allowing them to focus on protecting public health through controlling the high priority
contaminants which are currently regulated.
• Through the Salmon 2100 Project, EPA developed a set of policy options for restoring salmon runs to
significant, sustainable levels in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and southern British
Columbia.
Challenges
• To assess the utility of its research for informing key Agency decisions, EPA's Drinking Water
Research Program is implementing a measure based on analyses of EPA documents. Challenges
include determining the scope and most cost-effective means of conducting the analyses.
Section I - Page 16
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 3 - LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up
contaminated properties to reduce risk posed by releases of harmful substances.
EPA FY 2007 Obligations
(in thousands)
EPA FY 2007 Expenditures
(in thousands)
Goal 3 FY 2007
Performance Measures (PMs)
Met = 22 Not Met = 4
Data Available After November 15,
2007 = 3
(Total PMs = 29)
Goal 4,
$1,447,061.3,
15%
Goal 5,
$778,691.3,9%
OBJECTIVE 1 - Preserve Land
Key Achievements
• Through EPA-sponsored efforts, the national municipal solid waste (MSW) recycling rate has reached
32 percent of the waste stream (based on the most current data from FY 2005). EPA reduced 49.92
million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MICE), which translates into removing 39.6 million cars from
the road. The MSW recycling rate also reflects a savings of 1.4 quadrillion BTUs, which is equivalent
to 11.3 billion gallons of gas or 14 percent of U.S. residential energy demand.
• The number of hazardous waste management facilities with approved controls in place to prevent
dangerous releases to air, soil, and groundwater increased to 71 (2.8 percent of the baseline),
meeting EPA's FY 2007 target. Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
EPA's hazardous waste management program is on track to bring 95 percent of facilities under
approved controls by FY 2008.
• States made significant progress in renewing permits for hazardous waste management facilities,
renewing 96 permits during FY 2007 and enabling the RCRA program to meet its FY 2008 goal of
150 permit renewals a year early.
Challenges
• Some facilities pose more of a permitting challenge than others. While the remaining workload
represents a small percentage of facilities, it involves more complex permit actions, for example,
addressing post-closure sites, nontraditional units (SubpartX), or large and complex federal facilities.
Many of the unit types that still need to be addressed pose their own unique challenges.
• To determine underground storage tank (UST) facilities' compliance with release prevention and
release detection requirements, EPA has increased efforts to inspect all UST facilities, such that each
facility is inspected at least once every 3 years. In FY 2007, states found that many previously un-
inspected UST facilities did not comply with requirements. EPA expects that, overtime, these more
frequent inspections will result in more facilities in compliance. However in the short run, as
previously un-inspected or infrequently-inspected facilities are inspected, compliance rates are lower,
and the Agency has not met its goal for increasing significant operational compliance rates. EPA
expects that this trend will reverse as we continue to implement this inspection initiative.
Section I - Page 17
-------
OBJECTIVE 2 - Restore Land
Key Achievements
• Controlling human exposures is a top priority for EPA's Superfund Remedial Program. In FY 2007,
the program controlled all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for
current land and/or groundwater use conditions at 13 sites, exceeding our target of 10, for a
cumulative total of 1,282 (approximately 83 percent) of 1,543 sites where human exposures are a
problem.
• Because groundwater can be a vehicle for spreading contamination, EPA strives to control the
migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies or natural processes. In FY
2007, the Superfund program accomplished this goal at 19 of these sites, exceeding its target of 10,
and reaching a cumulative total of 977, or approximately 71 percent of the 1,381 sites where
groundwater migration is a problem.
• Through its Superfund program, EPA met the target of 24 by completing the construction phase of
cleanup at 24 sites across the country for a cumulative total of 1,030 or 65 percent of the sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL). In addition, 64 Superfund sites were determined to be ready for reuse
in their entirety, exceeding the target of 30.
• EPA exceeded its FY 2007 targets by addressing 1,968 high priority facilities requiring RCRA
corrective action. Of this total, current human exposures are now under control at 93 percent of
facilities, and the migration of contaminated groundwater is under control at 78 percent of facilities.
Final remedies have been constructed for 28 percent of these facilities.
• Leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) at gas stations and other locations release petroleum and
other hazardous substances into the environment and are consistently ranked by states as a leading
source of groundwater contamination. EPA's state and tribal partners met and exceeded the
Agency's target of 13,000 cleanups of leaking USTs, including 30 cleanups in Indian Country, with a
total of 13,862 cleanups, including 54 cleanups in Indian Country.
• Since the beginning of the Agency's LIST program, EPA has cleaned up more than 77 percent (or
365,361) of all reported releases. In FY2007, we continued to work with our state and tribal partners
to address the backlog of 108,766 leaking LIST cleanups not yet completed.
Challenges
• EPA's Superfund program faces several challenges. At private sites, it must balance ongoing work at
as many sites as possible while maintaining a cost-effective rate of remediation at each site. At both
private and federal sites, it must maintain a high rate of construction completions. Current NPL
sites—particularly vast federal facilities that contain a wide variety of contaminants—are far more
complex than sites that have already been completed. The program also strives to keep remedies up-
to-date in the face of continuing improvements in applicable science and/or technology and the
discovery of emerging contaminants. Finally, it must ensure that necessary institutional controls are
implemented at remediated Superfund sites, given that state and/or local governments and other
federal agencies, not EPA, are the responsible authorities.
• Similarly, meeting RCRA Corrective Action Program targets for human exposure under control and
groundwater migration under control will be more difficult in FY 2008, because only the most complex
sites remain. Furthermore, the program has begun to emphasize the construction of final remedies,
addressing the most complicated of the high priority sites. Looking forward, in FY 2009 the universe
of facilities believed to need corrective action will nearly double to 3,746 sites, because we are now
dealing with low- and medium-priority National Corrective Action Priority facilities. In the past,
emphasis was on high-priority facilities. EPA's challenge will be to accelerate corrective action to
address these sites by 2020, the end of the planning horizon.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• EPA scientists provided policymakers and land managers with 100 percent of planned research
products to support managing land resources and waste and mitigating contaminated sites.
Section I - Page 18
-------
• Agency scientific and research staff also developed new models addressing characteristics of
gasoline that contribute to pollutants in drinking water drawn from groundwater. These models
support a statutorily-mandated report on the health effects of alternatives to the gasoline additive
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), due to the Congress in August 2008.
Challenges
• Addressing the science and technology needs of decision makers—and successfully transferring
research products to users to provide better science or reduce costs—is a significant challenge.
Among other specific issues, EPA is working to establish federal agency leadership for the fate and
transport nanotechnology research program; focusing scientific activities to have a significant impact
on material reuse and Brownfields; and developing technologies to remediate Superfund mega-sites
more cost-effectively.
Section I - Page 19
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 4 - HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and
comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
EPA FY 2007 Obligations
(in thousands)
EPA FY 2007 Expenditures
(in thousands)
Goal 4 FY 2007
Performance Measures (PMs)
Met = 33 Not Met = 4
Data Available After November 15,
2007 = 13
(Total PMs = 50)
Goal 4,
$1,447,061.3,
15%
OBJECTIVE 1 - Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
Key Achievements
• An August 2007 report by the Centers for Disease Control indicated that actions EPA took in 2002 to
discontinue the industrial production of Perflurooctyl Sulfonates (PFOS) and Perflurooctanoic Acid
(PFOA) led to a reduction in human blood levels of 32 percent for PFOS and 25 percent reduction for
PFOA from 1999/2000 through 2003.
• Using data provided by industry, EPA conducted screening level hazard assessments for 223 high
production volume (HPV) chemicals sponsored by the United States and 78 international HPV
chemicals sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
• EPA conducted a significant study to evaluate lead dust levels associated with renovation, repair, and
painting that disturb lead-based paint, including developing cost/benefit analysis information. These
activities provide the groundwork for issuing the final renovation and repair rule in FY 2008 which will
establish lead-safe practices for renovation, remodeling, and painted residential structures containing
lead-based paint. This rule is a critical element in the government-wide strategy to eliminate childhood
lead poisoning as a significant public health issue by 2010.
• EPA met Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) deadlines for 99.8 percent of the 1,600
pesticide registration applications received. In FY2006, 99.9 percent of approximately 1350 PRIA
actions were completed by the due date. This fast and consistent turnaround of registration actions
helps increase protection of human health and the environment and achieve the social and economic
benefits of using pesticides.
• The Agency produced ecological risk assessments and determinations of potential risk to certain
endangered species; consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service; and completed rigorous Endangered Species Act assessments to meet tight court-monitored
schedules related to three lawsuits.
• EPA implemented the new pesticide registration review program that monitors registered pesticides to
ensure continued compliance with the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects.
• EPA promulgated priority data requirement rulemakings for conventional, microbial, and biochemical
pesticides which will strengthen technical and scientific information supporting pesticide registration
programs and decisions.
• In cooperation with the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, EPA approved two
harmonized NAFTA labels for pesticide products. This will allow pesticide products that meet the
Section I - Page 20
-------
regulatory requirements of all participating countries to move across borders and help prevent non-
complying products from entering the United States.
• In August 2007, EPA was part of the delegation that reached a landmark agreement with Canada and
Mexico under the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America to ensure the safe
manufacture and use of industrial chemicals. Under this agreement, EPA is expected to complete
characterization risk and take necessary follow-up actions on more than 9,000 moderate and HPV
chemicals by 2012.
• EPA completed validating three Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program (EDSP) test assays and
issued Federal Register notices for a draft list of 73 chemicals for initial screening and peer review.
These are long-awaited first steps toward initiating the testing phase of the EDSP.
Challenges
• To comply with the Endangered Species Act, EPA must assess the risks of more than 19,000
pesticide products—each with multiple uses—covering more than 1200 listed species. Completing
the risk assessments under the 15-year review cycle schedule established under PRIA is complicated
by EPA's need to comply with separate court-ordered schedules requiring additional assessments of
potential risks of particular pesticides to particular species.
• Designing, conducting, and getting peer review of the lead dust study for the remodeling and
renovation rule presented difficult technical and program management challenges.
• Confidential Business Information claims on industry's baseline reporting on the PFOA Stewardship
program delayed Agency efforts to quickly make the information publicly available.
• EDSP continues to experience scientific uncertainties associated with assay development and the
validation process. This can affect timing for completion of assay validation. EPA attempts to
anticipate challenges and to resolve issues as they arise.
OBJECTIVE 2 - Communities
Key Achievements
• EPA's U.S.- Mexico Border program
• Provided new drinking water connections to 1,276 homes and connected 73,475 homes to first-
time wastewater service.
• Certified 11 water infrastructure projects for construction, which should benefit more than 30,000
people when completed.
• Removed approximately 1 million tires from the U.S.-Mexico border region and used them for fuel
or in highway paving projects. Of 9 million tires, more than 3 million have been removed to date.
• Supported Mexico's switch to ultra-low sulfur fuel (less than 15 ppm sulfur) along the U.S.-Mexico
Border. This change is expected to reduce emissions along the border, affecting a population of
12 million people, and to improve availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for U.S. trucks crossing
into Mexico.
• EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program assessed 2,139 properties, cleaned up 91
properties, leveraged 5,504 jobs and $1.4 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding, and made
1,269 acres ready for reuse through site assessment or property cleanup. (These are FY 2006 results,
which became available in FY 2007 and are the most current data.)
• In FY 2007, EPA awarded 10 Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS) agreements to assist community-
based organizations in addressing a range of environmental health benefits—from reducing indoor
exposure to toxic chemicals to reducing exposure to chemicals in well water
• In FY 2007, EPA provided alternative dispute resolution and environmental law training to more than
70 environmental justice grassroots organizations and tribal government representatives. This resulted
in the signing of an agreement by the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and Navajo
environmental justice grassroots organizations aimed at increasing tribal awareness of and
participation in environmental decision-making on the Navajo reservation.
Section I - Page 21
-------
CAiaWenges
• Implementation of cooperative plans and policies is sometimes affected by circumstances beyond the
Agency's control. For example, the decision to delay by 1 year the planned FY 2007 phase-out of
leaded gasoline on the part of several Middle Eastern and North African countries was prompted by
regional and domestic political events, well beyond the scope of the Agency's influence.
• The unique nature of each community and its environmental health issues and needs often makes it
difficult to uniformly assess outcomes and benefits from CPS cooperative agreements or other
community-based collaborative problem-solving efforts.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Ecosystems
Key Achievements
• Under the President's 2004 Earth Day Initiative, EPA restored and enhanced 61,856 acres of wetland,
exceeding its FY 2007 cumulative target of 12,000 acres. These acres include those supported by
Wetland 5 Star Restoration Grants, the National Estuary Program, and Clean Water Act Section 319
Nonpoint Source grants.
• EPA issued the National Estuary Program (NEP) Coastal Condition Report, the first assessment of
overall ecological condition of the 28 NEP estuaries. Nationally, 32 percent of U.S. NEP estuaries are
in good condition, 29 percent are in fair condition, 37 percent are in poor condition, and 2 percent lack
data on condition status.
• In collaboration with its partners, EPA made progress restoring and protecting the Great Lakes
Ecosystem, remediating over 440,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments in two Legacy Act
projects.
• At measured sites in the Great Lakes, average concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
whole lake trout and walleye samples continued to decline by 5 percent, and the average
concentrations of PCBs in the air continued to decline by 7 percent.
• EPA's Chesapeake Bay program reported a decrease in nitrogen and phosphorus discharged in the
wastewater from municipal and industrial facilities which flow into the Bay, accounting for a large
portion of the estimated nutrient reductions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to date. (These
accomplishments reflect the FY 2007 mid-year results, which are the most accurate.)
• Toward a 2011 goal of 20,000 acres, EPA restored, protected, or enhanced a cumulative 18,660 acres
of coastal and marine habitat for the Gulf of Mexico, exceeding its FY 2007 goal of 15,800 acres.
• EPA reduced the number of impaired waterbody listings in the 13 priority areas of the Gulf of Mexico to
62, exceeding the target of 56.
Challenges
• Chesapeake Bay-wide acreage of valuable underwater bay grasses decreased by 25 percent in
2006. This decline was largely due to higher than normal water temperatures in the mid- and lower
Bay and poor water clarity throughout the Chesapeake Bay, due to excessive amounts of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program is working to decrease pollutants from
runoff and other sources to improve conditions in the Bay.
OBJECTIVE 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Key Achievements
• EPA research programs supported decision-making for healthy communities and ecosystems,
achieving 95 percent of research milestones on time.
• EPA's Human Health Research Program discovered a biomarker that can predict the severity of an
asthmatic response in susceptible people, resulting in new protocols for improving indoor air quality
and providing the scientific basis for public education policies and risk management strategies
involving exposure to molds.
• EPA's Global Change Research Program completed 75 percent of a framework linking global change
to air quality. By applying an air quality model under various climate scenarios, researchers can study
the effect of climate change on air quality.
Section I - Page 22
-------
• EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment program completed the Lead Air Quality Criteria Document
(AQCD) on-time—68 days prior to publication of EPA's draft Staff Paper. As a result, EPA remains on
schedule to complete by 2010 100 percent of the Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs—formerly
known as AQCDs) necessary to inform National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulatory decision-
making.
Challenges
• All research agencies and organizations face challenges in measuring and improving the efficiency of
research. In FY 2007, EPA made progress in this area by developing new measures that track
research cost and performance. Because implementing these measures in a meaningful way remains
a challenge, EPA engaged the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and other agencies, including the
Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health, in a
dialogue about how best to measure the efficiency of research. NAS expects to report its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations by early 2008.
Section I - Page 23
-------
STRATEGIC GOAL 5 - COMPLIANCE AND 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
promote environmental stewardship.
EPA FY 2007 Obligations
(in thousands)
EPA FY 2007 Expenditures
(in thousands)
Goal 5 FY 2007
Performance Measures (PMs)
Met = 11 Not Met = 3
Data Available After November 15,
2007 = 3
(Total PMs = 17)
Goal 4,
$1,447,061.3,
15%
OBJECTIVE 1 - Achieve Environmental Protection Through Improved Compliance
Key Achievements
• In FY 2007, EPA achieved an estimated 890 million pounds of reduced, treated, or eliminated
pollutants. This is the same amount as last year and represents a significant contribution to
environmental protection.8
• The twelve most significant enforcement actions taken in FY 2007 will result in an estimated 507
million pounds of reduced, treated, or eliminated sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
particulate matter (PM) with an estimated $3.8 billion human health benefit from emissions reductions
that will result in fewer premature deaths, non-fatal heart attacks, and reduced incidence of bronchitis
and asthma attacks.9
• In FY 2007, EPA required regulated entities to invest $10.6 billion in pollution control and abatement
equipment and technology to improve environmental performance or environmental management
practices.
• Compliance assistance dramatically increased since FY 2006, increasing the number of regulated
entities reached from 1.7 million in FY 2006 to 3.1 million in FY 2007.
10
Challenges
• The Agency is revising how it prioritizes and measures the achievement of environmental results to
more completely align measures with key environmental risks and noncompliance patterns addressed
by the national compliance and enforcement program. Specifically, we will establish performance
measures to track progress toward our national enforcement and compliance priorities.
OBJECTIVE 2 - Improve Environmental Performance Through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
Key Achievements
• Working through its Federal Electronics Challenge Program-a voluntary partnership representing 18
federal agencies committed to the environmentally sound acquisition, use, and disposal of electronic
products government-wide—EPA, in FY 2006, decreased federal use of hazardous materials by at
least 2.8 million pounds, conserved 452 billion BTUs of energy, and saved $11.4 million (data
substantially finalized in FY 2007). EPA's Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT) program, launched in 2006, developed a standard to help institutional purchasers of
Section I - Page 24
-------
electronics select environmentally sound personal computer products, and it is developing standards
for four additional electronics products. As a result of the adoption of this standard, the EPEAT
program decreased hazardous materials by 9.2 million pounds, conserved 1,457 billion BTUs, and
saved $37 million.
• In conjunction with industry and non-governmental organizations, EPA's Design for the Environment
(DfE) Formulator Program achieved annual reductions in the use of approximately 80 million pounds
of hazardous chemicals. Over 280 formulator products have received DfE recognition through the
"ECO-options" label sold by such major retailers as Home Depot.
• EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) eliminated about 1.3 million pounds
of priority list chemicals from being used or released into the environment. This exceeds the
Agency's FY2007 target of 500,000 pounds of chemicals. These partnerships have been established
with a variety of public and private companies and organizations that generate wastes containing one
or more of 31 "priority chemicals." As outlined in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, NPEP's long-term
goal is to reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from domestic waste streams between FY
2007 and FY 2011.
• In FY 2007, the first year of the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program, more than 5,900
participants (auto dismantlers, scrap recyclers, automakers, and steel recyclers) removed more than
680,000 mercury-containing automobile switches, preventing the potential migration of 1,500 pounds
of highly toxic mercury into the environment. Every state now participates in a mercury switch
recovery program.
• In FY 2007, EPA's National Environmental Performance Track (NEPT), a voluntary program to
recognize and reward businesses and public facilities demonstrating strong environmental
performance beyond current requirements, reported a normalized reduction in water use of
5,300,00,000 gallons and a reduction in materials use of 64,000 tons. Twenty states have adopted
programs similar to the national program, and five others are currently following suit.
Challenges
• EPA continues working to achieve consistent and timely performance information from all
components of its Pollution Prevention Program (P2), including its ten regional offices and state
pollution prevention programs. The Agency made significant progress on this front in FY 2007 by
implementing the State P2 Results Reporting System under a cooperative agreement with the
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
OBJECTIVE 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Key Achievements
• In FY2007, EPA's Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) increased participation
by tribal governments and inter-tribal consortia. This resulted in tribes building infrastructure to
handle a variety of core environmental issues helping achieve EPA/tribal long-term performance
goals.
Challenges
• Better tracking of performance and results in Indian country continues to be a challenge. EPA is
improving performance measures and will be implementing a new reporting system. By providing
information on all EPA's performance measures, including PART measures, the system will enable
EPA to standardize, centralize, and integrate EPA regional data and assign accountability for data
quality. This will improve our ability to monitor and evaluate performance results in Indian country,
helping improve environmental protection on tribal lands.
OBJECTIVE 4 - Enhance Society's Capacity for Sustainability Through Science and Research
Key Achievements
• In April 2007, EPA's People, Prosperity and the Planet (P3) Program held its fourth annual student
design competition forsustainability on the National Mall in Washington, DC. More than 300
university students from around the country exhibited their designs for a sustainable tomorrow.
Section I - Page 25
-------
Projects included green buildings, new ideas for bringing clean drinking water to underdeveloped
nations, and innovative fuel cell technologies.
Challenges
• It is difficult to measure the success of attempts to include elements of sustainability in decisions on
human health and the environment. EPA's Science and Technology for Sustainability Program will
assist the Agency in developing meaningful measures to gauge annual and long-term success in this
effort.
Section I - Page 26
-------
Accomplishments in Homeland Security and Emergency Response
Strengthening homeland security and responding to environmental emergencies is a top
priority for the Agency and the nation. EPA works with other federal agencies to protect human
health and the environment in the event of natural disasters and from intentional harm. The
Agency plays a lead role in supporting the protection of critical water infrastructure and
coordinating the development of national capabilities and strategies to address chemical,
biological, and radiological contamination during a terrorist event. Among its important
homeland security activities in FY 2007, EPA:
• Participated in several exercises to test the Agency's preparedness for responding to a
serious incident. One major exercise scenario involved a large-scale earthquake within the
New Madrid fault system, located within the Mississippi River Valley. An event of this
magnitude would present numerous serious emergency response and recovery issues. EPA
coordinated efforts with the U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies of the National Response
Team/Regional Response Team, other national-level coordinating bodies, and affected
state, local, and private sector jurisdictions. The exercise helped EPA evaluate our ability to
implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan and to
test the effectiveness of interagency and private coordination, the viability of all appropriate
plans, and the availability and adequacy of government and private sector response
resources.
• Made fully operational the first water security contamination warning system pilot to quickly
detect and respond to contamination incidents and threats to drinking water distribution
systems.
• Provided training and technical assistance to approximately 1,000 drinking water and
wastewater utilities to enhance their preparedness capabilities and improve their emergency
response coordination and communications plans.
• Proposed Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGLs) for 33 chemicals, exceeding the Agency's
FY 2007 target of 24 and bringing to 218 the cumulative total of AEGLs developed since
1996. AEGLs provide short-term exposure limits applicable to a wide range of extremely
hazardous substances and are used by first responders in dealing with chemical
emergencies, including threats of chemical terrorism.
• Advanced the development of test methods needed to determine the efficacy of disinfectant
pesticides for decontamination of important pathogenic threats, including anthrax spores,
bubonic plague, and tularemia.
• Collaborated with other federal agencies to co-develop guidelines and procedures for
responding to and decontaminating bioterrorism attacks at major airports.
• Developed "message maps"— science-based risk communication tools that enable quick
and concise delivery of pertinent information during emergencies affecting drinking water
systems.
• Prepared Version 3 of EPA's Standard Analytical Methods Manual, which provides methods
for laboratories to use when measuring specific contaminants potentially associated with a
Section I - Page 27
-------
terrorist attack, evaluating the nature and extent of contamination, and assessing
decontamination efficacy.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND STEWARDSHIP INFORMATION
Audit Results
For the eighth consecutive year, the Agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued
an unqualified opinion on EPA's financial statements. However, the OIG identified three
material weaknesses - one relating to our process for determining the value of delinquent
receivables and two information technology (IT) security-related issues. We corrected the
delinquent accounts receivable material weakness and restated our FY 2006 financial
statements to reflect the value of these receivables. We have initiated corrective actions to
resolve the IT-security issues and will complete all actions in FY 2008.
The financial statements and financial data presented in this report have been prepared
from the Agency's accounting records in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) in the United States for federal entities. GAAP for federal entities are
standards prescribed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB).
Restatement
The FY 2006 restatement impacted all financial statements except the Statement of
Budgetary Resources. The FY 2006 Consolidated Balance Sheet was restated to reflect a net
increase of $7.5 million in intragovernmental receivables and $239.9 million in non-federal
receivables, which resulted in an increase of $247.4 million in total assets. Liabilities, which
included custodial liabilities ($8.8 million), cashout advances, Superfund ($0.7 million) and other
non-federal liabilities ($3.4 million), increased by $12.9 million.
The cumulative results of operations (CRO) beginning balance on the Consolidated
Statement of Changes in Net Position for FY 2006 increased by $74.3 million. The increase
was the result of the reduction in prior fiscal years bad debt expense. In addition, the Net Cost
of Operations on this statement decreased by $160.2 million as a result of the additional
revenue earned and reduction in bad debt expense for the re-established receivables. These
changes increased the ending CRO balance by $234.5 million. On the Statement of Custodial
Activity, custodial revenue increased by $1.8 million. Additional information on the restatement
is provided in Note 40 of the "Annual Financial Statements" section (Section III) of this report.
Overview of Financial Position
The following discussion summarizes key financial information and significant variances
between FY 2006 and FY 2007 in the Agency's financial statements. The financial statements
appear in Section III of this report.
Section I - Page 28
-------
Assets
The Agency had total assets of $17.6 billion at the end of FY 2007. The decrease in the
Fund Balance with Treasury was partly offset by an increase in Investments. (See Notes 2 and
4, Section III.) The FY 2006 Consolidated Balance Sheet was restated to show a $247 million
increase in total assets, further contributing to the difference between FY 2007 and FY 2006.
(See Note 40, Section III.) The Agency's assets are summarized in the following table.
Assets, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
{Dolbrs in Thousands)
. . _ .... _„_ Restated Amount Percent
Asset by Type FY2007 _v _nA.
' Ir FY 2006 of Change Change
Fund Balance with ireasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable , Net
Loans Receivable
Property Plant and Equipment Net-
Other Assets
$ 1 0,466,600
5,753,06!
416,34!
23,161
809,873
85,653
$1 1,173,443
5,366,264
618,964
30,836
756,794
63,431
($706,843)
386,797
(202,623)
{7,675}
53,079
22,222
-63%
7.2%
-32.7%
-24.9%
7.0%
35.0%
Total Assets $17,554,689 $18,009,732 ($455,043) -2.5%
Liabilities
The Agency had total liabilities of $1.8 billion at the end of FY 2007. The increase from
FY 2006 is primarily the result of a significant increase in Grant Liabilities. (See Note 8, Section
III.)
Liabilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
{Dollars In Thousands)
,.,....,_ ..,, _nA-, Restated Amount Percent
Liabilities by Type FY2007 cv _nn.
FY 2006 of Change Change
Account Payable and Accrued
Liabilities
Debt Due to Treasury
Custodial Liabilities
Cash out Advances, Supeifund
Payroll and Benefits Payab e
Pensions and Other Actuarial
Liabilities
Environmental Cleanup Costs
Commitments and Contingencies
Other Liabilities
$1.034.207
16,156
39.369
190,269
205.198
39,786
1 8.2 1 4
-
212.099
$833.192
18,896
4 1 .800
224,407
195.746
39,408
0.083
8
237.681
$201,015
(2,740)
(2.431)
(34,138)
9,452
378
8,131
(8)
{25.582}
24.1%
-14.5%
-5.8%
-15.2%
4.8%
1.00%
80.6%
-100%
- 1 0.8%
Total Liabilities $1,755,298 $1,601,221 $154,077 9.6%
Section I - Page 29
-------
Ending Net Position
The Agency's Net Position at the end of FY 2007 was $15.8 billion, a $609 million
decrease from the previous year's total of $16.4 million. The decrease is primarily attributable
to substantially lower undelivered orders in FY 2007. (See Note 31, Section III.)
Results of Operations
The results of operations are reported in the Consolidated Statement of Net Cost and
the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position. The Agency's Net Cost of Operations
for FY 2007 increased by $528 million from FY 2006. This increase was primarily related to
substantially lower bad debts expense reported in the Restated FY 2006 Net Cost Statement.
(See Note 40, Section III). EPA's FY 2007 Net Cost of Operations ($8.7 billion) consisted of
Gross Costs ($9.3 billion) less Earned Revenue ($550 million).
The chart provides the breakout of net costs by strategic goal.
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
(Dolara in Thousands)
$778,686
8.94%
Source: hY 2007 Statement of Met Cost by Goal
acanAk-indGMx
CampHun and
Budgetary Resources
The Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
provides information on how resources were made available to the Agency and the status of
those resources at the end of the fiscal year. For FY 2007, the Agency had total budgetary
resources of $13 billion compared to $13.5 billion in FY2006.
Section I - Page 30
-------
The decrease was primarily due to decreased reimbursements related to the Hurricane
Katrina cleanup. Outlays reflect the actual cash disbursed against the Agency's obligations.
Source of Funds
(Dollars in Thousands)
$575.740
4.41%
Source: FY Z007 Combined SLalemenI
or Budgelary Resources
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward
Appropriations
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Other
Statement of Budgetary Resources
(Dollars in Thousand*)
_nn Restated Amount Percent
FY2006 of Change Change
Total Budgetary Resources
Obligations Incurred:
Direct
Reimbursable
Total Obligations Incurred
Gross Outlays
Less; Collections and Receipts
$13,058,309
$9,027,170
489,752
$9,516,922
$10.219,637
(1,962,646)
$13,452,220
$9,292,415
912,718
$10,205,133
$10,607,195
(2,291.623)
($393,911)
(265,245)
(1,402,470)
($688,21 1)
(387,558)
328,977
-2.9%
-2.9%
-46.3%
-6.7%
-3.7%
-14.4%
Total Net Outlays $8,256,991 $8,315,572 ($58,581) -0.7%
Stewardship Information
The Agency reports on Stewardship Land as a component of Required Supplementary
Information. Stewardship Land is land and land rights owned by the federal government but not
acquired for or in connection with items of general property, plant, and equipment.
EPA acquires title to certain land and land rights related to remedial cleanup sites under
the authorities provided in Section 104(j) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The land rights held by the Agency are easements
that allow access to cleanup sites or that restrict the usage of remedial sites.
Section I - Page 31
-------
In addition, the Agency reports on three areas of Required Supplementary Stewardship
Information - Research and Development, Infrastructure (clean water and drinking water
facilities), and Human Capital (awareness training).
Additional financial reporting on the stewardship of these resources is provided in the
"Annual Financial Statements" section of this report.
Government-Wide Financial Performance Measurements
The U.S. Chief Financial Officers Council publishes Government-wide financial
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, the Congress, and stakeholders to assess
the financial performance of each agency.
During FY 2007, the Agency's performance improved from yellow to green in one metric
and remained unchanged in the other eight metrics. EPA is currently green in eight and red in
one of the nine metrics.
EPA improved its performance in electronic payments by paying over 97 percent of its
invoices electronically, which exceeded the goal of 96 percent.
The red rating on the delinquent accounts receivable is a long-standing issue that EPA is
working through both internally and externally. The Refining the CFO Council's Metric Tracking
System—Metric 3 Workgroup, of which EPA is a participant, continues to strive for methods to
reduce the balance of delinquent accounts receivable government-wide. The Workgroup is
reviewing the procedures used to classify, collect, and record accounts receivable to identify
similarities which could be used to standardize processes government-wide.
>Wide Financial Performance Metrics
Financial Management Indicator
Aimwiiln SuijNnM (Abcokra)
Graanr than tt Dap Old
Rating | Rating j
September 2006 September 2007
Delinquent Accounts Receivable
from the Public Over 180 Days
Bvxrofifc HigMHBici
Percent Non-Credit Invoices
Paid On-Time
MOOmf
Futd UunewHiTmuyNet
IntarettRamMMFMt
Punfittt drd Ddkiqucnqr Hatm
Tnwri Cvd DdhNjucnc? Riw-lmlMdutty Bhd
Trtwrf Cm) MiqiMKy lUtw-Orenlly Bled
Section I - Page 32
-------
Limitations of the Financial Statements
The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position
and results of operations of EPA, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515 (b). While the
statements have been prepared from the books and records of EPA 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.
IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS
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 2007, EPA made progress under each of the six
PMA initiatives for which it is responsible: Human Capital, Competitive Sourcing, Expanded
E-Government, Improved Financial Performance, Performance Improvement, and Eliminating
Improper Payments.
This year, EPA's fourth quarter PMA scores show EPA as one of the highest-performing
agencies in the federal government.11 We are proud to demonstrate continued excellence and
progress under our PMA initiatives and expect to continue the trend in 2008.
In addition to tracking PMA progress on a quarterly basis, federal agencies establish
yearly goals for the point at which they would be "Proud to Be" in implementing PMA initiatives.
This past year, EPA achieved its first green status rating for the Performance Improvement
initiative since the PMA's inception. In addition, EPA maintained its green status and progress
scores throughout the year in Competitive Sourcing, Financial Performance, and Eliminating
Improper Payments. EPA also preserved green status scores in Expanded E-Government.
EPA maintained green progress scores in Human Capital and expects to achieve a green status
score later this year. More information about the Agency's PMA work is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/pma.htm.
Section I - Page 33
-------
EPA's FT 2007 Progress Under The President^ Management Agenda
Proud To Be
Initiative Status Progress (07/08) Resu|ts Highlights
Human Capita]
Fosters strong perfo nu-
ance and results by
increasing. Dersonaf
accountability and linking
job requirements to EPA's
mission and goals,
Competitive Sourciisg
Having pubk-prvate corn-
petit on enables tne
Agenc;/ to determine the
most economical mode of
deivering sendees while
ensur ng the h ghest quality
oi tnose services.
Expanded E-Govemment
Ut 1 zes technology tc bet-
ter serve the United States
and its people inducing
electronic information.
online transactors,, and
new informaton manage-
ment capabilities.
Improved Financial
Performance
Focjses on running ervi-
ronmerLidl programs n A
fiscally responsible manner
so citizens1 cio Stars are
used wisely ano tnerr
health and environrneni
are protected.
Yeiiow
A
w
Green
•
Green
& reen
•
"•]
n P"H^
EFA has set a goa of
n.aintaning G^-K-r
for P2B5.
EF-^ r ie~ rs goa of
or P2FM
EFA has set a goa of
namta nirg G'~x-"
forP2B5.
EFA me- r^ goi of
-Oi P134
EFA n SP _v -t
-•
r 'anK ^g
* Exceeded its SES time to hire target of 90 days with its average
h ring time of 66 days.
* Completed competency management cycles for 6 priority
Miss on Cnticel Occjpations (HCOs) resulting ir no significant
pnof aercy gaps, Identified vacancy rates wthn MGO ranss.
* Continued achievement in SES mooility implementaton, non-SES
time to hire, anc management hiring satisfaction.
• Received full Cfrrtifkahon foi SFS s:>ay drd peKrrmarxe syslern
with r.ontin.jeci efforts ~o ur-her streng~her alignment and
resu is d-Te-H avse^sments.
* fc-^A has completed 3^ competitions to date, covering 288 FTE,
with ant^cioated savings of $24,6 million.
* E--A has an approved Green compel Lion plan.
* EJA coil Dieted 7 competitions n the past year covering 70 Fit,
with S-/V2 irvllior expected 'savings.
* E^A announced 8 competitions, covering 75 FTE performing IT
and f;nanc a! audit services in the Regions and Heacquanters
* E3A is progressing with a standard competition covering 47 FTE
for desktoo services for aJ= 1 ieadquarters off ces with selection
expected in early =Y 2006.
• E-T-avel — began o-hased deployment of its new travel system.
GovTnp. wh ch will support planning and ajtnon'zing travel, mak-
ing reservations, deliv-enng electronic tickets, calculating and
approving reimbursements, ano anchivng data, ^jii Agency
deployment is antiapatec bv September 2006.
* E Rulemaking — As of September 2007. EPA has -~eceived over
1 29 million hits or Re^ul attons.gov. Migration to the Feceral
Doc
-------
Initiative
Performance Improvement
- .
i
Eliminating Improper
Payments
>
Status
*
•
•
c,,,,,
Progress
«
o.,,,
Proud To Be
(07/08) Results
' , '
1
'<" , • ,-
•* J
Highlights
' _ t ••",-.
":" , ".:, .'" : /., ',' ./" V,'
! (- f V ' t p r ,
» , | ' ' | * ,1 \ , >
• ' 1 f , ' •>, -'f f 1
Wil ' '• \\ • i1 ' ' . .-
• C ' 1 ,' .' J '!,,''
' .-' r - " ;/ ";, j - :" V . ir
r / ' M 'A ' > > r J " '
&A% taipraper ft%«w^rt tefcdKjn Efcrt
Gcan Water sr.dDnnk.ng Water Sure Revoking Funds (SRFs)
• , , - • . ,
lv J003 0 ":"':. ! i .
! v X«:>i U -I°'' i
r',OC6 O'rrt
i ' 2006 • 0 ' :>";• '
FY2007 0.35% 0.07% $1.6
Section I - Page 35
-------
The Program Assessment Rating Tool
EPA uses Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments, along with program
evaluations, audits, and other reviews, to inform policy making, facilitate allocation of resources,
and improve environmental outcomes while ensuring the most effective and efficient use of
taxpayer dollars. The tables of measures and results provided in Section II of this report,
"Performance Results," identify all performance measures associated with the PART that have
FY 2007 targets, and we report FY 2007 results for the measures where data are currently
available. PART measures without corresponding FY 2007 targets are summarized in a
separate table at the end of Section II. These measures will be incorporated into EPA's budget
and other documents, including future Performance and Accountability Reports, as data
becomes available.
Distribution of RAK1U Programs
Aerau EBVk Strat^fc Goali
BnUku Support
EPA's PART ratings, as well as the ratings for other federal programs that have been
assessed, are available to the public at http://www.Expectmore.gov. As of FY 2007, EPA
developed 193 follow-up actions in response to PART assessments. Forty follow-up actions
have been completed; 138 are currently active; and 15 have had no action taken to date.
EPA PART FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
Follow-Uo A
Performance
95
Focused on improving the Agency's ability to measure, track, and assess
programmatic performance and intended environmental outcomes.
Management
Designed to improve EPA's program management practices and
facilitate the delivery of environmental results.
Budgetary
12
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.
Section I - Page 36
-------
Other Tools for Improving Management and Results
Program Evaluation
In FY 2007, many EPA programs were evaluated for design, effectiveness, and
efficiency and to identify potential improvements. Program evaluations were conducted by
independent third parties, and a number of them were funded through the Agency's annual
program evaluation competition sponsored by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation. Appendix A lists program evaluations conducted under each of the Agency's five
strategic goals.
Office of Inspector General Audits, Reviews, and Investigations
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) contributes to the Agency's mission to improve
human health and environmental protection by assessing the economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness of EPA's program management and results; ensuring that Agency resources are
used as intended; and developing recommendations for improvements and cost savings.
Appendix A lists OIG program evaluations and reviews completed in FY 2007 in support of each
of the Agency's five strategic goals. EPA's OIG also contributes to the integrity of and public
confidence in the Agency's programs and to the security of its resources by preventing and
detecting possible fraud, waste, and abuse and pursuing judicial and administrative remedies.
Grants Management
EPA has met or exceeded all of the major performance metrics under its Grants
Management Plan and has put in place a comprehensive system of internal controls. As a
result of these controls, we have incorporated accountability in our training, performance
evaluation, and management reporting systems, enhanced transparency through our
competitive process for discretionary grants, and implemented policies to demonstrate the
environmental results of our grants. Based on the substantial progress made over the past 7
years, the Agency has corrected its long-standing grants management weakness. To address
future challenges, we are developing a new Grants Management Plan that will go into effect in
2008.
Grants Management Performance Measures
Performance Measure
Progress in
FY 2006
rogress
FY 2007
90%
* This performance measjre is tracked on a ca endar ysar DSSIS.
**This performance Tieasx.re is based on a simple of Tew grants awarded in =Y2QQ6. It is a new metric, and a baseline and target will be
developed in 1^2008. This new measure reflects anguage in EPA's Environments Results Order; and it is more precise than the meesure used
prev ously. (The earlier measure comprised "percentage of grant work plans that include a discussion of qualftatlve erviTjnnrerrtal resuhs.")
Section I - Page 37
-------
EPA HOLDS ITSELF ACCOUNTABLE:
SYSTEMS, CONTROLS, AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
The Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires agencies to conduct an
annual evaluation of their management controls and financial systems and report the results to
the President and Congress. In addition, EPA is required to report on the effectiveness of
internal controls over financial reporting, which includes safeguarding of assets and compliance
with applicable laws and regulations, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix A of
OMB revised Circular No. A-123.
In late FY 2007, the Agency was engaged in researching and resolving an emerging
issue related to delinquent receivables, which we immediately addressed. During the Agency's
FY 2007 Financial Statements Audit, the OIG identified: (1) a material weakness in our process
for determining the value of delinquent receivables and (2) six significant deficiencies. Two of
the significant deficiencies are systems-related issues, and thus the Agency is required to report
them as material weaknesses under Section 4 of FMFIA and as non-compliances under the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA). They are: (1) Key Applications Need
Controls and (2) Physical Security of Critical IT Assets. The remaining four significant
deficiencies will be reported as internal controls over financial reporting significant deficiencies
under OMB revised Circular No. A-123, Appendix A.
The Agency has corrected the delinquent receivables material weakness. We have
restated the Agency's FY 2006 financial statements to reflect the value of these receivables and
have modified our operating practice of reclassifying receivables. The revision to the FY 2006
statements is reflected in Section III, Annual Financial Statements. Corrective actions are
underway to rectify the two systems-related material weaknesses and are expected to be
completed by December 31, 2007. EPA expects to complete all corrective actions to address
the remaining significant deficiencies in FY 2008.
Section I - Page 38
-------
7-Year Trend of Material and Agency Weaknesses
Focal Years 2001-2007
19
It
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fbeal Year
In FY 2007, EPA closed three of seven Agency-level weaknesses: Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS), Improved Management of Assistance Agreements, and Clean
Water Act Section 305(b) Reporting. (See "Management Challenges" in Section IV, Other
Accompanying Information, for a detailed discussion of these issues.)
EPA's Key Management Challenges Reported by the
Office of Inspector General
1. Data Gaps
2. Data Standards and Data Quality
3. Information Technology Systems Development and
Implementation
4. Managing for Results
5. Workforce Planning
6. Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
7. Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater Resources and Infrastructure
8. Emissions Factors for Sources of Air Pollution
9. Privacy Programs
10. Voluntary Programs
For details, see "Office of Inspector General's FY 2007 Key Management
Challenges," on page 11 of Section IV-Other Accompanying Information.
Section I - Page 39
-------
During FY 2007, EPA conducted its annual assessment on the effectiveness of internal
controls over financial reporting, as required by OMB revised Circular No. A-123. Through this
process, we identified and documented ten financial management processes and tested 260
key controls. As of June 30, 2007, EPA found no material weaknesses. However, the
assessment revealed several significant deficiencies in the areas of financial reporting, accounts
receivable, and data security.
Corrective actions for these significant deficiencies were completed by September 30,
2007. Additionally, EPA closed three of its four significant deficiencies reported in the FY 2006
internal control assessment. The remaining significant deficiency, related
to quarterly cost reporting, is scheduled for closure in FY 2009. We will ;: FPA
continue to monitor the progress in correcting this issue until it is resolved. _ _
EPA took a number of steps to emphasize the importance of internal
controls and increase staff awareness of the Agency's management
integrity. In FY 2007, we updated our management integrity website so that
it now serves as a repository for all FMFIA-related information. The website
contains a comprehensive electronic library for quick access to statutory
authorities, OMB circulars, Government Accountability Office guidance,
Agency-wide guidance, and other pertinent information. In an effort to raise
employees' awareness of their responsibility for proper stewardship of
federal resources, the Agency developed a new brochure, Internal Controls
Over Financial Reporting, which is distributed to new employees during the
"New Employee Orientation Sessions." Additionally, EPA plans to develop
a prototype for annual on-line revised OMB Circular A-123 training. The
Agency will pilot the training in FY 2008, prior to expanding the program to
include all Agency employees.
Internal
Controls
Over
Financial
Reporting
(OMB Circular A-123)
Section I - Page 40
-------
Management Assurances
Fiscal Year 2007
Assurance Statement
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal
control and financial management systems that meet the objectives of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). EPA
conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance
with applicable laws and regulations in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control.
Based on the results of this evaluation, no material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the Agency's internal
controls and no financial management system non-conformances were identified. Subsequently, the Agency's Inspector General
identified two systems-related significant deficiencies, which are required to be reported as material weaknesses and as non-
compliances under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA). The Agency has initiated corrective actions to
rectify these weaknesses. Except for these weaknesses, I can provide reasonable assurance that as of September 30, 2007, the
Agency's internal controls were operating effectively and financial systems conform with government-wide requirements.
EPA conducted its assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, which includes
safeguarding of assets and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix A of
OMB Circular A-123. Based on the results of this evaluation, no material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting as of June 30, 2007. Subsequently, the Agency's Inspector General identified the Agency's
process for determining the value of delinquent receivables as a material weakness. EPA has corrected this weakness. As a result,
I can provide reasonable assurance that except for two system-related weaknesses, EPA internal controls were operating effectively
as of September 30, 2007, and no other material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the internal controls over
financial reporting. " ' , ,
November 1. 2007
Stephen L. Johnson Date
Administrator
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) requires that
agencies implement and maintain financial management systems that comply with (1) federal
financial management system requirements, (2) applicable federal accounting standards, and
(3) the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger. Annually, agency heads are required to
assess and report on whether these systems comply with FFMIA.
In assessing compliance with FFMIA, EPA uses the FFMIA implementation guidance
issued by OMB, results of OIG reports, annual financial statements audits, the Agency's annual
Federal Information Security Management Act Report, and other systems-related activities.
Last year EPA reported that two corrective actions relating to security certification
policies for contractor personnel and security certification for grantee personnel were
outstanding audit issues. During FY 2007, the Agency published the Personal Identify
Verification Handbook to resolve these issues.
Based on all information assessed, the Agency has determined that it is not in overall
substantial compliance with FFMIA for FY 2007, based on the two systems-related significant
deficiencies mentioned in the FMFIA section above.
Section I - Page 41
-------
Federal Information Security Management Act
The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) directs federal agencies to
evaluate the effectiveness of their information security programs and practices annually and
submit a report—including an independent evaluation by the Inspector General—to OMB.
Agencies also report quarterly to OMB on the status of remediation of weaknesses found.
EPA's Chief Information Officer, senior agency program officials, and Inspector General
submitted EPA's FISMA Report for Fiscal Year 2007 on October 1, 2007. The report presents
the results of the Agency's annual security program reviews and reflects EPA's continued efforts
to ensure that information 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. The Agency plans to sharpen its focus in the area of Electronic
Authentication (e-Authentication) Risk Assessments in the coming years.
In FY 2007, EPA reported no significant deficiencies in its information security systems.
However, subsequent to the Agency's submission of its FY 2007 FISMA Report, OIG identified
two significant deficiencies under FISMA that are described under the FMFIA section above.
Improving Financial Management
FY 2007 marks the fourth consecutive year in which EPA has received a "Green" PMA
score for Improved Financial Performance. EPA's financial management activities include
achieving a clean audit opinion, resolving material weaknesses in a timely manner, improving
the Agency's ability to reduce improper payments, deploying E-travel Agency-wide, and
replacing legacy systems to meet federal reporting requirements.
The Agency also successfully implemented efforts to make financial information readily
accessible to decision-makers. We developed and tested a framework to integrate financial and
contracts reporting. Reports that combine financial and contracts data are available to contract
managers and will help them address issues relating to the utilization of contract funds and the
evaluation of obligations and unliquidated balances.
In addition, we made significant progress in improving the management of financial and
administrative information associated with natural disasters and other significant emergencies.
The Agency developed a template to track costs by mission assignment, region, and state for a
given incident of national significance.
Improving Financial Management Systems
EPA's Financial System Modernization Project, a key element of the overall Financial
Replacement System Plan, supports the Agency's mission and goals and the government-wide
goals for improving financial management. In addition, the project supports the provision of
accurate and comprehensive financial data, including stewardship and operating performance
information, and enables effective decision-making at all levels to ensure cost-effective mission
achievement and risk mitigation.
The Agency continues to move forward in replacing its core financial system. In
February 2007, EPA awarded a contract for software acquisition and implementation services,
which included migrating the financial system hosting and application management to a
Section I - Page 42
-------
commercial shared-service provider. However, a protest of the contract award was filed with
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which sustained the protest. The Agency is
working to resolve the issues raised by GAO and expects to begin implementing the new
financial system in FY 2008.
EPA is also developing an accessible enterprise Administrative Data Warehouse to
provide a common source of authoritative data and reduce redundancy in management and
data sources. The new warehouse will be phased in by the end of FY 2010, in conjunction with
the new financial management system.
Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988
EPA uses the results of OIG audits and evaluations as a tool for assessing its progress
and improving its ability to meet its strategic goals. In FY 2007, in response to an OIG review of
EPA's audit management process, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, in collaboration with
the OIG, issued guidance and conducted training to reinforce Agency audit follow-up practices.
EPA will continue working to strengthen its audit management and complete corrective actions
in a timely manner.
In FY 2007, EPA was responsible for addressing OIG recommendations and tracking
follow-up activities on 424 audits. The Agency achieved final action (completing all corrective
actions associated with an audit) on 201 audits, including Program Evaluation/Program
Performance, Assistance Agreement, Contracts, and Single audits.
Section I - Page 43
-------
Category
A. Audits with management decisions but
without final action at the beginning of the
period
B. Audits for which management
decisions were made during the period
(!) Management decisions with
disallowed costs (53)
(ii) Management decisions with no
disallowed costs (151)
C. Total audits pending final action during
the period (A+B)
D. Final action taken during the period:
(i) Recoveries
a) Offsets
b) Collection
c) Value of Property
d) Other
(ii) Write-Offs
(Mi) Reinstated Through Grantee Appeal
(iv) Value of recommendations completed
(v) Value of recommendations management
decided should/could not be completed
E. Audits without final action at end of
period (C-D)
Disallowed Costs
(Financial Audits)
Number Value
*57 *$ 63,501, 358
204 $ 31,714,586
261 $95,215,944
192 $ 32,648,477
$ 15,334
$ 2,068,566
$ 0
$ 2,791,860
$ 7,535,099
$ 237,634
69 $ 62,567,467
Funds Put To Better
Use
(Performance Audits)
Number Value
3 $41,353,000
12 $ 5,844,000
15 $47,197,000
9 $ 20,000
$ 5,000
$15,000
6 $27,197,000
*Note: Table reflects data captured by EPA's Management Audit Tracking System (MATS) for management decisions and final
disposition of audit recommendations. Upon verification with OIG, discrepancies identified as omissions from MATS will be
reconciled during the next reporting period. Differences in number of reports and amounts of disallowed costs between this report
and our previous semiannual report are the result of adjustments made to follow-up data in MATS.
EPA's FY 2007 management activities for audits with associated dollars (represented in
the table above) and for audits without dollars are summarized below.
• Final Corrective Action Not Taken. Of the 424 audits that EPA tracked, a total of 232
audits—which include Program Evaluation/Program Performance, Assistance
Agreement, Contracts, and Single audits—were without final action and not yet fully
resolved at the end of FY 2007. (The 29 audits with management decisions under
administrative appeal by the grantee are not included in the 232 total; see discussion
below.)
• Final Corrective Action Not Taken Beyond 7 Year. Of the 232 audits, EPA officials had
not completed final action on 45 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 managers often
Section I - Page 44
-------
require more than 1 year after management decisions are reached with OIG to complete
the agreed-upon corrective actions. These audits are listed below by category—audits
of program performance and single audits—and identified by title and responsible office.
Additional details are available on EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par.
Audits of Program Performance: Final action for program performance audits occurs when all corrective
actions have been implemented, which may take longer than 1 year when corrections are complex and
lengthy. Some audits include recommendations requiring action by more than one office. EPA is tracking 32
audits in this category.
Office of the Administrator:
2006-P00001 Industrial Wipes Congressional Request
Off ice of Administration and Resources Management:
2000-P00029 Interagency Agreements Follow-up
2002-P00005 CFDA Program 66.606
2004-P00026 Financial Application Development and Change Control
2005-P00019 People Plus Security Controls Need Improvement
Office of Air:
2005-P00010 Evaluation of CAA Title V Operating Permit Quality
2006-P00024 IFOSEC Series: Security Practices OAR
Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
2006-P00005 IS Service Continuity & Physical Access Controls at NCC
2006-P00027 Undistributed Superfund Costs
2006-100015 2005 Agency Financial Statement - General
Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance:
2001-P00006 ENF Agreement Compliance
2001-P00013 State Enforcement Effectiveness - National Audit
2004-P00021 Evaluation of EPA's Petroleum Refinery Enforcement and Compliance
2005-P00024 Priority Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Universe
2006-P00006 Performance Measurement and Reporting for Enforcement
Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances:
1991-101378 Pesticides Inerts
2006-P00009 Impact of Data Gaps on EPA's Implementation of FQPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
2000-P00002 RCRA Corrective Actions
2004-P00005 Mega Financial Responsibilities at Superfund Mine Sites
2003-P00010 Mega EPA's National Hardrock Mining Framework
2005-P00026 RCRA Financial Responsibility Requirements
2006-P00013 SF Mandate: Program Efficiencies
2006-P00016 EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
2006-P00027 Undistributed Superfund Costs
2006-P00007 More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products
Office of Water:
2002-P00012 Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows
2003-P00018 Drinking Water Capacity
2004-P00030 EPA's Pretreatment Program
2005-P00021 SDWA Tools
2006-P00021 Information Security Series: Security Practices - SDWIS
2006-P00007 More Information Is Needed On Toxaphene Degradation Products
2006-P00016 EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
Single Audits: Final action for single audits occurs when non-monetary compliance actions are completed.
This may take longer than one year to implement if the findings are complex or if the grantee does not have
the resources to take corrective action. Single audits are conducted of nonprofit organizations, universities,
Section I - Page 45
-------
and state and local governments. EPA is tracking completion of corrective action on 13 single audits for the
period beginning October 1, 2007.
Region 5:
2005-300114
Region 9:
2005-300212
2005-300211
Region 10:
2002-300009
2002-300042
2003-300047
2003-300117
2003-300145
2004-300011
2005-300084
2005-300218
2005-300239
2006-300085
North Lawrence Water Authority, FY2003
Yavapai Apache Nation FY 2003
Yavapai Apache Nation FY 2002
Iliama Village Council
Iliama Village Council
Stevens Village Council
Stevens Village Council
Circle Village Council
Northway Village Council
Hoonah Indian Association - FY 2002
Chalkyitsik Village Council
Chalkyitsik Village Council
Stevens Village Council FY 2003
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 2007, 29 audits were in administrative appeal. When these audits are out of
appeal and all issues have been resolved, they will be captured in audit follow-up data
reported in EPA's PAR.
Section I - Page 46
-------
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 http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/2008cj .htm
3 http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2007. Regulatory Impact
Analyses. Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.htm/ria2007
http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html. and United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 2003.
"EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes PDF." EPA402-R-03-003.
6 For the President's goal, see http://www.wMtehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.htmM
7 The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1994-2004, U.S. EPA 430-R-06-002, April 2006.
o
Data Source: Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html.
g
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), October 2007, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html; Office of Air and Radiation. BenMAP
model. For additional information on FY 2007 enforcement settlements, please visit the following EPA web site:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.
10 US EPA. Integrated Compliance Information System, October 28, 2006 and on-line usage reports. These
measures are not calculated from a representative sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are
based, in part, on the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these questions on voluntary
surveys. The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these
questions or the majority of entities who chose not to answer the surveys.
11 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.
Section I - Page 47
-------
1 I
EPA's FY2007Performance and
Accountability Report
Section II
Performance Results
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001), published on November
15, 2007. This document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par.
Section II - Page 1
-------
INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE SECTION
This section provides performance information for each of EPA's five strategic goals: (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. Each goal chapter opens by reviewing the purpose of the goal and the public
benefits it provides, lists contributing EPA programs, and then discusses the progress that the
Agency has made toward achieving each of the strategic objectives supporting that goal and the
challenges we face. This general information is intended to provide an overview of EPA's FY
2007 performance and progress toward its longer-term goals and objectives.
More complete and detailed performance information for the goal is provided in the table
of results that follows the general discussion. The table is organized by objective and includes
the longer-range strategic targets that are a part of EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
Objective by objective, the table provides detailed FY 2004 through FY 2007 results for each
annual performance measure included in EPA's FY 2007 Annual Plan and Budget. For
measures where EPA has missed or significantly exceeded its FY 2007 target or does not yet
have complete FY 2007 performance data, the table provides explanations. Measures that are
not currently used for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
The Performance Section also lists PART assessments conducted under each of the
strategic goals. Future PART measures for each strategic goal are listed in a separate table,
along with the year EPA expects to begin reporting data against them. Additional information on
PART assessments and EPA's progress in making program improvements is available at
ExpectMore.gov.
Section II-Page 2
-------
EPA*s Performance Framework
FY 2007 Casts and Obligations Are Presented for Each Strategic God (Jn Thousands of Dollars)*
Clean Air &
Global Climate
Change
Cose $985.559.7
Obligation: $%3.592.5
Clean &
Safe Water
Cost: $4.035.735.7
Obligation: $3,274.3 H.I
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
Healthy
Communities
& Ecosystems
• Cose $1.362.514.8
is- . ; '. I Obligation:$1.447.061.
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
Cose $778.691.3
Obligation: $788,222.2
Strategic ObfKdvH
Outdoor Air
(16 PMs)
Cost $627,559.7
Obligation: $601,2353
Indoor Air
(4PMs)
Cost $49^6'.3
Obligation: $46,783.4
The Ozone Layer
(2 PMs)
Cost $2I,/02.B
Obligation: $90.593.5
Radiation
(0 PMs)
Cost $35.708.2
Obligation: $43.465.3
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity
(3 PMs)
Cost JI39./26.6
Obligation: $1 4 8.1 11 9
Science & Research
(1 PM)
Cost $11 1.398.1
Obligation: $103.065,1
Human Health
(12 PMs}
Cost; $1,426,541.5
Obligation: $1,173,321.5
Water Quality
(IS PMs)
Cost: $2.467,8! 95
Obligation: $1.961,309.2
Science & Research
(5 PMs)
Cost $141.374.4
Obligation: $139.683.4
Preserve Land
(9 PMs)
Cost $220,62 1*
Obligation: $243,959.6
Restore Land
( 1 8 PMs)
Cost $1.275.358.7
Obligation: $2.715.521.3
Science & Research
(2 PMs)
Cost $b4,/68,6
Obligation: J8l./44.b
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks
(14 PMs)
Cost $416.866.6
Obligation: $49?,23C.9
Communities
(3 PMs)
Cost $310.794.3
Obligation: $303.7157
Ecosystems
(16 PMs)
Cost $195.829.2
Obligation: $234.ICb,9
Science & Research
(17 PMs)
Cost $427.024.7
Obligation: $1I7.C08.8
Improved Compliance
(8 PMs)
Cost $496,644.3
Obligation: $521,369.5
Improved
Environmental
Performance Through
P2 and Stewardship
;6 PMs)
Cert: $132,385.5
OHigatiDrt $I24.4S6.7
Improved Human
Health and
Environment in
Indian Country
(3 PMs)
Cost $83.933.2
OHigatKin $/b,666b
Science & Research
(0 PMs)
Ccst $75,731.6
OHiption: $66,228.8
Nan
IVIa llama R»ulB far
i Cud and finutk Ob|«ah> fer pnmaden rf dekn andaMcl whh FIT 3007 C
Section II-Page 3
-------
Chapter Organization
STRATEGIC GOAL
OBJECTIVE
Strategic Ta
xegic Target
Strategic Target
Annual
Performance
Measures
Annual
Performance
Measures
Annual
Performance
STRATEGIC GOAL Identifies the overall environmen-
tal result that EPA Is working to achieve In carrying out
Its mission to protect human health and the environment
OBJECTIVE: Supports EFWs strategic goals by Identify-
ing more specific environmental outcomes or results the
Agency Intends to achieve within a given time frame,
using available resources. EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan
Includes 20 objectives.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: Divides the objectives Into discrete
measurable outcomes. Sub-objectives do not overlap,
but collectively contribute to the achievement of an
objective. EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan Includes 45
sub-objectives.
STRATEGIC TARGET: Occurs whhln a sub-objective
when necessary to provide additional measurable detail
or elaboration on the sub-objective. EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan Includes 26 strategic targets.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE (ARM): The
metric that EPA uses to evaluate Its success In achieving
annual progress In working toward longer-term goals.
Section II - Page 4
-------
GOAL 1 - CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe, and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with
businesses and other sectors.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS:
Acid Rain Program, AirNow, Air Toxics, Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, Clean Air
Research, National Ambient Air Quality Standards Development and Implementation, Mobile
Sources, New Source Review, Regional Haze, Indoor Air Quality, Stratospheric Ozone Layer
Protection Program, Radiation Programs, Voluntary Climate Programs.
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
pollutants, 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 difficulties. Long-term exposure to certain air pollutants may cause
cancer and may damage the immune, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems.
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 contribute
to outdoor air pollution. The Clean Air Act Amendments 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 protection. 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 control 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 providing scientific research, expert studies,
engineering designs, and money to support state clean air programs.
Since most people spend much 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 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.
EPA also works to address climate change. Since the beginning of the industrial
revolution, concentrations of several greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide, methane, and
Section II - Page 5
-------
nitrous oxide) have increased substantially, contributing to climate change. Important questions
remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will
affect the rest of the climate system. To help answer these questions, the President's climate
change program is focused on furthering understanding of the science of climate change and
developing new technologies to reduce emissions. EPA's voluntary and incentive-based
programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, such as EnergySTAR, Climate Leaders,
and the Landfill Methane Outreach program, are a critical part of the President's plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Under the stratospheric ozone layer protection program, EPA
coordinates numerous regulatory programs designed to protect and restore the ozone layer and
continues to participate actively in developing international ozone protection policies.
Annual Costs and Benefits of Air Program Compared with Benefits of All
Other U.S. Government Regulations Combined
500
^400
o
= 300
200
100-
Figures are averages for the
10-year period
Oct 96 through Sept 06
"High" and "Low " indicate
the range of uncertainty in
the estimates.
Costs Benefits
EPA Air Program
Benefits
Rest of Government
Source: Draft 2007 Report to Confess on the Cost and Benefits of Federal Regulations (OMB)
Section II-Page 6
-------
250%
200% -
150% -
100% -
Comoarison of Growth Areas and Emissions
-100%
ross Domestic Product
50% -
-50% -
I I I I
Aggregate Emissions
(Six Principal Pollutants)
70 80 90 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Section II - Page 7
-------
Objective 1: Healthier Outdoor Air
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 1, Objective 1
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 1, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$103,065.1,
11%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$111,398.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse ^ — i ^
Gas Intensity, /K \.
$148,444.9, / \ \
15% / \ 1
Radiation, \^"/''/ 1
$43,465.3,5% \/ J
x /
Protect the \ /
Ozone Layer,
$20,598.5, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $46,783.4,
5%
Healthier
Outdoor Air,
$601,235.3,
62%
Reduce
Greenhouse ^~ — i ^
Gas Intensity, /C ^\
$139,726.6, / \ \
14% / \ \
Radiation, V^^ } Healthier
$35,708.2,4% \/ /Outdoor Air,
Protect the \^ ^/ $627,559.7,
Ozone Layer, 64%
$21 ,702.8, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $49,464.3,
5%
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This table
lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to rounding.
Goal 1 : Objective 1 - Healthier Outdoor Air
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
FY 2007
Obligations
$205,599.0
$11,175.5
$27,339.6
$619.6
$22,837.7
$105,383.1
$26,981.5
$59,807.3
$945.5
$2,817.4
$2,585.1
$2,367.7
FY 2007 Expenditures
$227,407.5
$11,323.9
$27,931.3
$15,707.9
$22,839.7
$103,843.3
$26,287.6
$60,467.2
$391.2
$1,358.8
$3,439.4
$2,344.6
Section II-Page 8
-------
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
Total
$0.0
$504.6
$123.0
$7,196.3
$0.0
$978.3
$4,210.7
$3,507.6
$49,738.4
$3,223.1
$5,122.0
$619.0
$36,583.9
$4,759.2
$1,542.6
$3,641.6
$288.5
$488.9
$240.7
$2,099.6
$6,138.6
$1,769.8
$601,235.4
$60.1
$480.6
$99.7
$6,961.6
$32.5
$946.0
$4,178.6
$2,082.9
$47,012.7
$3,079.3
$5,110.7
$655.3
$30,722.1
$4,718.2
$1,486.9
$3,882.6
$257.9
$458.0
$201.5
$2,222.5
$7,856.0
$1,711.8
$627,559.9
The Clean Air Act directs EPA to identify and set national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ubiquitous ambient pollutants that adversely affect public health and the
environment. EPA has set national air quality standards for six common air pollutants—ground-
level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter (measured as PM10 and PM2.s). For each of these six pollutants, EPA has set health-
based or "primary" standards to protect public health and environment-based or "secondary"
standards to protect the public welfare (crops, vegetation, wildlife, buildings and national
monuments, visibility, etc.). The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the health and welfare-
based standards at least once every 5 years and revise them if necessary to continue to protect
public health and the environment. In July 2007, EPA proposed a new standard for ozone to be
finalized by March 2008. The Agency will also publish a proposed lead NAAQS rule by May 1,
2008, and a final lead rule by September 1, 2008. EPA is currently reviewing several of the
other criteria pollutants.
Section II-Page 9
-------
Once a NAAQS is established or revised, the Clean Air Act gives states and localities the
primary responsibility for meeting that standard. State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which
specify pollution control strategies to meet the standard, have led to substantial improvements
in air quality. The following table summarizes our progress in meeting air quality standards for
the six NAAQS.
Pollutant
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Lead
Ozone (8-hour standard)
Particulate matter
measured as PM-10
Particulate matter
measured as PM-2.5
Areas originally violating
NAAQS1
42
1
54
13
126
86
39
Current Areas Violating
NAAQS2
0
0
0
1
353
12
324
National 8-hour Ozone Air Qimllty Trend 1900-2006
M faalh ttywt Oatf MB*IMH
OIM
O.IQO
. 0.080
f
0.060
0.040
0.010
Year
In FY 2007, EPA continued to address the challenges of implementing the 1990 Clean
Air Act air toxics program, striving to meet court-ordered schedule deadlines while developing
data and improving state and local 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
standards, risk-based standards, and area source standards.
Since the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, EPA has issued 96 maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards for 174 different types of stationary industrial sources of
air toxics, including chemical plants, oil refineries, aerospace equipment manufacturers, and
steel mills. Along with these major stationary source standards, the Agency issued standards
for 16 categories of smaller stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, commercial sterilizers,
secondary lead smelters, and chromium electroplating facilities.
When fully implemented, these standards are projected to reduce annual emissions of
air toxics by about 1.7 million tons from 1990 levels. More recently, the Agency has issued
standards covering an additional 11 categories of smaller stationary sources, and will issue
Section II-Page 10
-------
standards for another 43 categories between December 2007 and June 2009. The Agency has
also issued residual risk and technology review rulemakings for 8 of the 96 major source MACT
standards and plans to issue several more of these in 2008. Reductions from these additional
standards for the smaller sources and reductions from the risk and technology review
rulemakings are not reflected in this assessment.
Vehicles and fuels also emit air toxics. By 2020, EPA's fuels and vehicles programs will
reduce air toxic emissions by another 2.4 million tons, compared to 1990 levels. In FY 2007
EPA signed the new Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) Rule, which will significantly decrease
toxic fumes from gasoline, vehicles, and fuel containers. By 2030, MSAT regulations and fuel
and vehicle standards already in place will reduce toxic emissions from cars to 80 percent below
1999 emissions.
In FY 2007, EPA promulgated a rule to establish a national Renewable Fuel Standards
Program (RFS Program). This program was developed in collaboration with the Departments of
Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA) and other stakeholders to encourage blending of
renewable fuels into the nation's motor vehicle fuel supply. Specifically, the rule establishes
standards for renewable fuel, responsibilities for refiners and other fuel producers, a credit
trading system, compliance mechanisms, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The
RFS Program is expected to increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into
gasoline every year through 2012. In 2007, 4.02 percent of the fuel sold or dispensed to U.S.
motorists, roughly 4.7 billion gallons, has come from renewable sources.
In FY 2007, EPA proposed the Clean Air Locomotive and Marine Diesel Rule to set
stringent emission standards for cutting sulfur content in diesel fuel for locomotives, most
marine vessels, and land-based nonroad engines. The Clean Air Locomotive and Marine Diesel
Rule will tighten emissions standards for locomotives. Additionally, the rule sets stringent
emissions standards for new locomotive and marine diesel engines and long-term regulations
that require using advanced technology to reduce emissions. When fully implemented, this
landmark initiative will cut particulate matter emissions by these engines by 90 percent and
nitrogen oxides emissions by 80 percent.
In FY 2007, EPA also proposed a Small Engine Rule to set strict standards and cut
emissions from most lawn and garden equipment and small recreational watercraft. The
proposed rule will include fuel evaporative standards for equipment and watercraft covered by
the rulemaking, national standards for vessels powered by stern-drive or inboard engines, and
carbon monoxide standards for gasoline-powered engines used in recreational watercraft. This
rule will provide an estimated $3.4 billion in public health benefits by 2030.
Section II-Page 11
-------
U.S. Contributions of Source Categories to Total Emissions for All HAPs
12
II
10
9
I8
o
|6
I4
3
2
I
0
Major
Area and Other
Fires- -Prescribed and Wild
Non-Road Mobile
OrvRoad Mobile
11.59
1990
2002
2007
2010
2015
2020
eYear
NEIvl
(FebZOOfi)
Projection
Years
After 2010, stationary
soi lire emissions are
based only on economic
growth They do no:
account for reductions
trom ongoing toxics
programs such as the
utten ar tox cs program.
residual risk standards
and area source program,
which are expected to
-further rrrdure toxirs. In
addition, mob le source
reductions ire based on
program* currency in
piace. Programs
currently under
development will result in
ovpn further reductions.
Projected emissions
account for estimated
activity growth and
reductions resulting from
MACT ^rograr. CAIR,
and Mobile source -jles
of the 1990s
Key Findings:
• CAA nas been vet>-
effective in redjcing
overall tonnage of air
toxics,
• In absence of CAA,
total emissions woulc be
more than twice those
projected in 2020.
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign is using a 2-step
approach to reduce pollution from diesel engines: emission
standards for new diesel engines took effect in 2004, and
more stringent emission standards for these engines in
combination with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel went into effect
in 2007. EPA will be implementing new stringent emissions
standards for non-road engines in 2008. However, because
new vehicles and engines are purchased gradually over time
Section II-Page 12
-------
to replace older units, EPA has developed innovative,
sector-based strategies to address pollution from diesel
construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicles that are
currently on the road. As part of these programs, EPA
awards grants to communities to retrofit engines and
implement other strategies (fuel switching, idling reduction)
to reduce diesel pollution.
• Across the country, EPA's seven Regional Diesel
Collaboratives awarded $5 million for 27 projects to reduce
emissions in a variety of fleets and technologies. In addition,
the Collaboratives awarded $7 million for 45 diesel
emissions reduction projects to benefit school bus fleets as
part of Clean School Bus USA. As these grants are
implemented, areas will see less pollution. Communities will
include these reductions in their clean air plans for ozone
and particulate matter.
• In 2007, states received $200M in State and Tribal
Assistance Grants. These funds allowed states to continue
revising their SIPs to attain the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
PM2.sand to reduce regional haze. These funds also
provided for the continued operation of states' ambient air
monitoring networks, including PM2.s, air toxic, and visibility
monitoring.
• In partnership with the Department of Interior, EPA continues
to track improvements 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
visibility range.
• Through AIRNow, a greater number of cities started advising
the public of the health risks associated with forecasted PM
pollution on a daily basis. 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. Work under community-scale air
toxics monitoring grants progressed toward completion;
individual project goals typically include risk assessment and
identifying and characterizing local sources of hazardous air
pollutants. In FY 2007, 20 new grants for air toxics
monitoring community-scale assessments were awarded to
Section II-Page 13
-------
state, local, and tribal agencies across the United States.
EPA completed air toxics characterization and trends
analyses and made them available to the public.
• EPA is working 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, "conventional" 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 available at
www. epa.gov/woodstoves.
PART: | • The Air Toxics Program was assessed in the 2002 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." As a result of 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 2003 PART
process and received a rating of "moderately effective." As a
result of the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions, which include analyzing alternative options
for an efficiency measure and promulgation and
implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
projected to overcome deficiencies of Title IV by further
reducing SO2 and NOX emission levels.
• The Mobile Sources Program was assessed in the 2004
PART process and received a rating of "moderately
effective." As a result of the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions, which include collecting data to
support the program's efficiency measures. The baseline
data for per cent reduction in time for certificate approval for
large engines will be available in 2010, with a target in 2012
of a 50% reduction.
• 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
Section II - Page 14
-------
NAAQS Program received a rating of "adequate." The Air
Quality Grants and Permitting Program received a rating of
"ineffective." As a result of the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions, which include establishing
efficiency measures for both the Federal NAAQS and Air
Quality Grants and Permitting Programs. The annual
efficiency measure for cumulative per cent reduction in days
to process State Implementation Plan revisions is -1.2% in
2008 and -2.4% in 2009.
Web Links:
AIRNow: http://airnow.gov/
Air Program: http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/air.html
Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act:
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/
Toxic Air Pollutants Program: http://www.epa.gov/air/toxicair/
Objective 2: Healthier Indoor Air
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 1, Objective 2
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 1, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$103,065.1,
11%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$111,398.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse .
Gas Intensity, /\
$148,444.9, / \
15% / \
Radiation, ^^s'/
$43,465.3,5% W/
Protect the \^__
Ozone Layer,
$20,598.5, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $46,783.4,
5%
— -^
I Healthier
/Outdoor Air,
y $601,235.3,
^ 62%
Reduce
Greenhouse .-. — i — .
Gas Intensity, /C
$139,726.6, / \
14% / \
Radiation, ^^^^
$35,708.2,4% \/
Protect the \^
^-^ —
Ozone Layer,
$21 ,702.8, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $49,464.3,
5%
-\
^
I Healthier
/ Outdoor Air,
^/ $627,559.7,
64%
Section II-Page 15
-------
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to rounding
Goal 1 : Objective 2 - Healthier Indoor Air
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
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$7,314.2
$0.0
$0.0
$72.5
$176.8
($74.7)
($11.9)
$5,614.3
($54.6)
$30.8
($548.4)
$38.7
$9.4
$776.0
$73.6
$326.1
$269.0
$4,694.0
$255.0
$405.6
$49.4
$3,199.3
$365.6
$120.0
$274.5
$22.2
$37.5
$18.5
$607.6
$22,586.9
$135.7
$46,783.6
FY 2007 Expenditures
$8,273.1
$51.7
$218.6
$30.0
$258.7
$3,186.3
$198.3
$5,699.9
$954.8
$38.1
$74.5
$36.8
$7.6
$750.1
$71.1
$323.7
$159.6
$4,367.7
$243.6
$401.1
$49.5
$2,713.4
$362.7
$115.5
$292.7
$20.3
$35.1
$15.4
$642.8
$19,740.5
$131.2
$49,464.4
EPA employs two key strategies to provide Americans with healthier indoor air: (1)
increasing public awareness of actual and potential indoor air risks, so that individuals can take
Section II-Page 16
-------
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 professional and
research communities with essential information about indoor air risks. In partnership with
nongovernmental and professional entities, the Agency develops and disseminates multimedia
materials to improve the design, operation, and maintenance of all types of buildings—including
schools, homes, and workplaces—and bring about healthier indoor environments.
ERA'S "Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools" (IAQ TfS) effort provides individual schools,
school districts, educational organizations, and educators with information on best practices,
industry guidelines and sample policies, and management plans for improving indoor air quality.
By providing detailed guidance as well as links to other information resources, EPA's IAQ TfS
Program helps districts design new schools, as well as repair, renovate, and maintain existing
facilities. Using these tools, schools can save time and money and reduce indoor air quality
risks to students and staff, creating a healthier environment and enabling schools to direct
valuable resources toward educating children. Through 2006, approximately 36,000 schools
are implementing an indoor air quality plan based on criteria set by EPA. To share information
about improving indoor air quality, EPA partners with a variety of organizations, including the
National Education Association, the Association of School Business Officials, the American
Federation of Teachers, and the American Lung Association. EPA exceeded its goals in FY
2006 and is on track to meet its 2007 goals in 2007 but due to data lags results for 2007 will be
included in EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report.
Asthma is a serious, life-threatening respiratory disease that affects more than 20 million
Americans.5 Rates of asthma have risen sharply over the past 30 years, particularly among
children aged 5 to 14. 6 Although there is no cure, asthma can be controlled by managing
environmental asthma triggers and through medical treatment. 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. Through 2006, 4.2 million people are estimated to be taking
all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers and
approximately 60,000 emergency room visits are avoided annually. In 2006, the Agency held
symposia and worked in conjunction with grantees to train over 3,000 health professionals on
asthma and environmental trigger management and increased national awareness of asthma
triggers through the Goldfish Public Service Campaign to an all-time high of 33 percent. EPA
exceeded its goals in FY 2006 and is on track to meet its 2007 goals; results for 2007 will be
included in EPA's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report.
Radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America, and
contributes to nearly 20,000 deaths from lung cancer each year. 7 EPA's indoor radon program
promotes voluntary action to reduce risks from radon. Since the mid-1980s, the risks from
exposure to radon in homes have been reduced significantly. This progress is the result of
continuing collaboration between EPA, individuals, nongovernmental organizations, state and
local governments, the radon services 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 2006, (the most recent year for which data are
available), EPA conservatively estimates that 714,000 homes had an operating mitigation
system. In 2006 alone, approximately 79,000 additional homes were outfitted with radon
mitigation devices. These estimates are based on radon mitigation vent fan sales data provided
by the major U.S. radon vent fan manufacturers. An annual survey by the National Association
of Home Builders Research Center estimates that through 2005, 1.4 million new homes were
built radon-resistant, with more than half of those homes located in areas of high radon
Section II-Page 17
-------
potential. EPA estimates that the combination of homes with radon mitigation systems and
homes built with radon-resistant techniques saved approximately 575 lives. Data from partners
and other sources indicate that the Agency is on track to meet FY 2007 performance targets; FY
2007 results will be included in EPA's FY2009 Performance and Accountability Report.
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
PART:
Web Links:
As part of its ongoing work, in FY 2006, EPA awarded grants to
conduct demonstrations, training, and education and/or outreach
projects in all indoor-environment program areas (including radon,
asthma, and schools) that will reduce exposure to indoor air
pollutants. These assistance agreements incorporated
environmental results reporting and tracking requirements, which
have improved the Agency's ability to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of the grant. Standardized results templates are now
a part of State Indoor Radon Grants work plans, and EPA expects
to see improved comparability of reporting with the template.
The Indoor Air Program was assessed in the 2005 PART process
and received a rating of "moderately effective." As a result of the
PART process, the program is conducting follow-up actions, which
include efficiency improvements. Initial efficiency data is scheduled
to be available in 2007.
Indoor Air Quality: http://www.epa.qov/air/basic.htmlSindoor
Asthma: http://www.cdc.aov/asthma/children.htm
Radon Program: http://www.epa.qov/radon/healthrisks.html
Section II-Page 18
-------
Objective 3: Protect the Ozone Layer
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 1, Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 1, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$103,065.1,
11%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$111,398.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse ^ —
Gas Intensity, /\
$148,444.9, / \
15% / \
Radiation, V--^'/^
$43,465.3,5% \^/
x
Protect the \
Ozone Layer,
$20,598.5, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $46,783.4,
5%
I ^
\
\
]
/ Healthier
/Outdoor Air,
./ $601,235.3,
— — """"^ 62%
Reduce
Greenhouse . —
Gas Intensity, /\.
$139,726.6, / \
14% / \
Radiation, \~"^^/'
$35,708.2,4% ^/
Protect the \^
^•-*^_
Ozone Layer,
$21 ,702.8, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $49,464.3,
5%
T \
\
\
\
I Healthier
/ Outdoor Air,
./ $627,559.7,
^**^
64%
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to rounding
Goal 1 : Objective 3 - Protect the Ozone Layer
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
FY 2007
Obligations
$18.3
$73.0
$5,376.0
$11,315.0
$9.8
$2.4
$401.2
$13.7
$49.3
FY 2007 Expenditures
$7.6
$106.5
$5,093.1
$13,031.2
$9.3
$1.9
$385.5
$13.2
$48.4
Section II-Page 19
-------
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
Total
$68.0
$1,477.8
$92.5
$139.2
$19.9
$1,200.4
$92.8
$32.1
$127.1
$2.8
$9.5
$4.7
$38.8
$34.3
$20,598.6
$40.3
$1,356.2
$88.0
$136.9
$19.6
$1,017.3
$91.5
$30.7
$135.6
$2.7
$8.9
$3.9
$41.4
$33.2
$21,702.9
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 ozone-depleting substances (ODS) has destroyed
stratospheric ozone.
EPA has been at the forefront in developing and implementing flexible, innovative, and
effective approaches to ensure stratospheric ozone layer protection. In FY 2007, the Agency
approved alternatives to ozone-depleting substances, including n propyl bromide. EPA
furthered the nation's commitment to restoring the ozone layer by using a marketable permit
system to track domestic industry compliance with regulatory restrictions on the consumption of
ODS. In addition, with the 2007 launch of a Central Data Exchange (CDX)-based electronic
system, the Agency significantly streamlined the reporting process for companies that produce
and import ODS.
EPA's voluntary GreenChill Program recruited new retail, equipment and chemical
manufacturer partners to reduce emissions from supermarket chilling systems. The voluntary
Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) program partners with utilities to reap environmental
benefits through responsible appliance disposal. As part of the program, EPA serves as a
clearinghouse for technical information on developing and implementing responsible appliance
disposal programs. Under the program, utility partners encourage consumers to retire old,
inefficient refrigerators, freezers, air conditioning units, and dehumidifiers and implement best
practices for the recycling/disposal of these units. In FY 2007, the RAD program added new
utility and university partners to assure appropriate disposal and recycling or destruction of ODS
recovered from appliances. The Small Cans Partnership signed a voluntary agreement with
EPA to reduce emissions from do-it-yourself servicing of mobile vehicle air conditioners.
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 ozone-depleting substances (http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonedep.html). In
2007, the United States with support from EPA proposed to accelerate the phase-out of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) by ten years, adding interim reduction steps, setting an
earlier baseline, and, as first priority, phasing out the HCFCs most damaging to the ozone layer.
Section II-Page 20
-------
These proposals further U.S. efforts to address ozone layer protection, cleaner air, and climate
change by calling on the global community to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs
(http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/montprotocolamend.html).
Ozone-depleting substances were emitted for many years before the international
agreements and Clean Air Act requirements were established, and they have a long life. Thus
EPA's SunWise Program teaches children and their caregivers how to protect themselves from
overexposure to the sun. Since Sunwise was launched nationally in May 2000, approximately
14,000 kindergarten through grade 8 schools and 1,200 informal education institutions have
registered to use the program (http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/). In FY 2007, this program was
suspended due to funding constraints.
Ozone Isymr Expected to Ricowr 2060-207S
raMre toflKcf QtonnfnA OBtf Mvt&wl ftvlvninyAvmtts
Mdf Maf erJKfadlif nowy of At ant Iqv
Observations
e orarrcspheric node! predictions
I960
2000
3040
Semttarik
of O™ Depletion. MM
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
PART:
Web Links:
The Stratospheric Ozone Program was assessed in the 2004 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate." As a result of the
PART process, the program is conducting follow-up actions which
include monitoring intermediate goals (such as HCFC consumption)
and efficiency measures (such as cumulative dollars spent per
school in joining the SunWise program) in the near term. (The
program has long-term outcome goals that extend much further into
the future, for example, reduced melanoma skin cancers in 2165).
Ozone Depletion:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airatmospozonedepletion.html
Section II-Page 21
-------
Objective 4: Radiation
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 1, Objective 4
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 1, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$103,065.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity,
$148,444.9,
15%
Radiation,
$43,465.3, 5%
Protect the
Ozone Layer,
$20,598.5, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $46,783.4,
5%
Healthier
Outdoor Air,
$601,235.3,
62%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$111,398.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity,
$139,726.6,
14%
Radiation,
$35,708.2, 4%
Protect the
Ozone Layer,
$21,702.8, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $49,464.3,
5%
Healthier
Outdoor Air,
$627,559.7,
64%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 1 : Objective 4 - Radiation
Program Project
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
FY 2007
Obligations
$93.8
$3,947.6
$333.1
$17,120.0
$6,345.1
FY 2007 Expenditures
$39.8
$2,479.7
$493.0
$13,417.6
$5,384.7
Section II-Page 22
-------
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
Total
$53.2
$17.0
$596.5
$77.3
$287.6
$354.7
$5,707.0
$946.6
$770.7
$94.1
$5,412.5
$480.4
$155.6
$191.0
$16.9
$51.6
$25.4
$201.1
$186.6
$43,465.4
$50.7
$13.0
$570.8
$74.4
$283.0
$200.7
$5,325.5
$786.2
$718.3
$99.0
$4,501.7
$473.8
$149.0
$192.1
$16.4
$48.3
$21.2
$188.9
$180.5
$35,708.3
EPA's Radiation Protection Program minimizes unnecessary releases of radiation and
helps mitigate impacts to human health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
The program manages a nationwide environmental radiation monitoring program, RadNet, and
actively responds to accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radiological material. It also
oversees the safe disposal of radioactive waste, and provides generally applicable standards to
all federal agencies for protecting human health and the environment from radioactive material.
EPA supports safe and environmentally sound radioactive waste management by
maintaining certification and oversight responsibilities for Department of Energy (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
mechanisms for controlling industrial materials with a radioactive component; and developing
waste management regulations to facilitate the disposal of low-activity mixed waste by
combining existing RCRA requirements with traditional radiological waste management
components.
The EPA waste characterization program is focused on inspecting DOE radioactive
waste generator sites and supports the DOE's goals for disposal of defense-related transuranic
radioactive waste at the WIPP. Through 2007, DOE has made more than 6,000 waste
shipments (with a total of nearly 100,000 containers) of transuranic waste to the WIPP since its
opening in 1999.8 EPA continues its oversight responsibilities for waste disposal activities at
waste generator sites and the WIPP site itself. Through the OMB PART process, EPA
developed a measure to track progress in this program area by measuring the time it takes for
EPA to approve waste characterization program modifications at DOE waste generator sites
without diminishing EPA's oversight responsibilities and without modifying EPA's technical
Section II-Page 23
-------
approach. From an FY 2004 baseline of 150 days, EPA has already reduced the number of
days for approval to 100 in 2006.
In FY 2007, EPA continued to enhance RadNet by increasing the number of monitors
and using specific siting criteria to characterize ambient radiation for more U.S. population
centers and geographic areas.9 This enhancement strengthens the response capabilities in the
existing monitoring system and its ability to provide near real-time data directly to EPA decision
makers, states, local officials, and the Department of Homeland Security. With the information
that the radiation monitoring program provides, health officials can guide the public to take
essential actions to reduce exposures to radiation. By monitoring potential impact to population
and public health, RadNet supports EPA's role in incident assessment. Through the PART
process, EPA developed a measure to track progress in this program area by measuring the
percentage of the most populous U.S. cities with a RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring
system, which will provide data to assist in protective action determinations. EPA began with a
FY 2005 baseline of 55 percent and expects to reach 95 percent by 2010.
EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) members are systematically
provided the knowledge, skills, equipment, and support systems needed to respond to
emergencies involving radioactive materials.10 To this end, the program undertakes
preparedness activities including developing and streamlining response plans and procedures,
providing guidance and training to first responders, and testing plans and procedures during
exercises. In FY 2007, the program participated in major emergency response exercises at a
variety of venues simulating detonation of a radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb),
responding to an improvised nuclear device, and testing EPA's capabilities during a simulated
response to a foreign radiological incident originating on foreign soil. The program also
deployed personnel and physical assets in response to several actual (but minor) radiation
incidents in FY 2007. Through the PART process, EPA developed a measure to track progress
in this program area by measuring the level of readiness of radiation program personnel and
assets to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations (measured
as the percentage of radiation response team members and assets that meet response criteria).
The 2005 baseline for the emergency response program readiness was 50 percent. The
measured readiness level in FY 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, was 78
percent.
Additional Information Related to Objective 4
PART:
Web Links:
The Radiation Program was reviewed in the 2007 PART process
and received a rating of "moderately effective." As part of the
implementation plan the program will develop a functional analysis
of major radiological monitoring activity at EPA and other federal
agencies. The analysis will explore complementary efficiencies and
potential redundancies.
Radiation and Radioactivity:
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/radiationandradioactivity.html
Objective 5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Section II-Page 24
-------
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 1, Objective 5
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 1, Objective 5
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$103,065.1,
11%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$111,398.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse ., —
Gas Intensity, /\^
$148,444.9, / \
15% / \
Radiation, \^^/
$43,465.3,5% %//
x
Protect the \
Ozone Layer,
$20,598.5, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $46,783.4,
5%
V.
\
\
\
Healthier
/Outdoor Air,
/ $601,235.3,
62%
Reduce
Greenhouse .. — i ^
Gas Intensity, /C ^\
$139,726.6, / \ \
14% / \ \
Radiation, V^^ } Healthier
$35,708.2,4% \^ /Outdoor Air,
Protect the x. ./ $627,559.7,
Ozone Layer, 64%
$21 ,702.8, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $49,464.3,
5%
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 1: Objective 5 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Program Project
Climate Protection Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication
and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional , I ntergovernmental ,
External Relations
FY 2007
Obligations
$117,999.8
$0.0
$158.7
$565.3
$84.7
$20.6
$2,727.3
$125.6
$470.8
FY 2007 Expenditures
$111,796.0
($11.3)
$65.7
$829.2
$80.7
$16.7
$2,621.8
$120.8
$463.6
Section II-Page 25
-------
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
Total
$589.0
$11,194.8
$763.1
$1,151.9
$161.2
$9,386.4
$803.1
$276.0
$856.8
$27.8
$82.1
$40.4
$662.3
$297.1
$148,444.8
$349.6
$10,349.7
$725.8
$1,139.1
$163.3
$7,915.2
$792.4
$264.7
$913.5
$26.5
$76.9
$33.8
$705.6
$287.4
$139,726.7
In February 2002, the President 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 greenhouse 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 additional 104 MMTCE, 24 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
contribute 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 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 ENERGYSTAR and transportation efficiency
programs, to remove marketplace barriers and deploy technology faster in the building,
industrial, and transportation sectors of the economy. EPA programs do not provide financial
subsidies. Instead, they work by overcoming market barriers to energy efficiency and clean
energy supply: lack of clear and objective information on technology opportunities; lack of
awareness of products, services, and transportation choices; low incentives to manufacturers
for research and development; split incentives and high transaction costs.
Section II-Page 26
-------
EPA's climate protection programs reduced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
potent greenhouse gases, such as methane and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and will continue to
deliver substantial energy and environmental benefits over the next decade. As many of the
investments promoted 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 estimates that,
based on investments in equipment already made due to EPA's programs, organizations and
consumers across the country will net savings of about $130 billion and reduce greenhouse
emissions by more than 800 MMTCE over the next ten years.11 These programs continue to
offer highly cost-effective approaches for delivering environmental benefits across the country.
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 technical, educational, and outreach assistance for clean energy
projects that reduce carbon emissions.
In 2006 alone, Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, prevented 37 MMTCE of
greenhouse gas emissions, up from 35 MMTCE in 2005.12 More than 2 billion ENERGY STAR-
qualified products have been purchased; almost 725,000 new ENERGY STAR homes have been
built; more than 30,000 office buildings, schools, supermarkets, hotels, and other types of
commercial buildings have benchmarked their energy use; and hundreds of industrial facilities
have improved their energy efficiency using ENERGY STAR tools. More than 100 corporations
have committed to setting or have already set aggressive long-term greenhouse gas reduction
goals through the Climate Leaders program. More than 650 organizations purchased almost 7
billion kilowatt-hours, and 200 more have installed more than 3,500 megawatts of new
combined heat and power capacity.
Cars, trucks, aircraft, and other components of the nation's transportation system emit
more than one quarter of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation policies, 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 2007, EPA actively supported regional,
state, and community voluntary efforts that encourage additional travel choices and alternatives
to single-occupancy vehicle driving.
Section II-Page 27
-------
700
g. 650
JJ =3
^ § 600
i?
fJ550
o
« 500
EPA Voluntary Climate Programs Play Large Role in US. Climate Goals
EPA Program Contributions to U.S. Total Emissions Intensity
2002 intensity level
14.3% reduction in
2012 without
measures
2012 intensity target - 18%
EPA programs deliver 80% of
reduction goal with < 2% of total
U.S. climate change budget
17.5% reduction in
2012 from EPA
measures on top of
baseline
Sou-ce: USEPA. Draft numbers—tudargomg interage
Key Programs
-ENERGY STAR
-Clean Energy
-SmartWay Transport
-Methane Reduction
-Industrial Gases (High GWP)
-Responsible Appliance Disposal
Section II-Page 28
-------
Voluntary Climate Programs on Target to Meet 2012 Goal
O ENERGY STAR Comm/Resid
• Industrial CO2 Programs
• Voluntary HFC/PFC Programs
80
_ 70
ml
J
- 60
£
7jT SO
§ 40
•D
01
*• 30
I 2°
" 10
n Transportation Programs
D Methane Programs
f:.::
Goals
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Additional Information Related to Objective 5
Grants:
Grants are an integral part of the Climate Change Program's efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency,
clean energy, and cost-effective partnerships with industries and
governments. The climate change grant program seeks proposals
from eligible entities that will advance national, regional, state and
local energy efficiency and clean energy programs through market-
based approaches to program design, outreach, and delivery, as
well as by fostering information exchange. Programs or projects
should demonstrate potential to create lasting change in the
marketplace for energy efficient and clean energy products,
services, and best practices. Grant funding also supports technical,
outreach, and education projects to advance public and private
sector climate goals; projects for collecting and analyzing economic
data relating to climate change; and programs such as Methane to
Markets that facilitate climate technology transfer in developing
countries. All of the activities supported by the climate change
program's grant funds reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
contribute to achieving performance goals.
PART:
The Climate Change program was assessed in the 2004 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate." As a result of 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
Section II-Page 29
-------
Web Links:
and planning decisions. The program is also developing
performance measures for the Clean Automotive Technology
Program.
Energy Star Program:
http://www.eneravstar.ciov/
Objective 6: Enhance Science and Research
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 1, Objective 6
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 1, Objective 6
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$103,065.1,
11%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$111,398.1,
11%
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gas Intensity, /\.
$148,444.9, / \
15% / \
Radiation, \^^y
$43,465.3,5% ^\/
X.
Protect the \
Ozone Layer,
$20,598.5, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $46,783.4,
5%
I v.
\
\
\
Healthier
/Outdoor Air,
/ $601,235.3,
coo/
^~^ O^ /O
Reduce
Greenhouse .. 1 — .
Gas Intensity, /C
$139,726.6, / \
14% / \
Radiation, Vt^5^^
$35,708.2,4% ^l/
Protect the \s.
^"^^ -"
Ozone Layer,
$21 ,702.8, 2%
Healthier Indoor
Air, $49,464.3,
5%
1 — _
X
\
\
I Healthier
J Outdoor Air,
^/ $627,559.7,
64%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives.
This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 1 : Objective 6 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
FY 2007
Obligations
$0.0
FY 2007 Expenditures
($17.1)
Section II-Page 30
-------
Climate Protection Program
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Particulate Matter
Research: Troposphere Ozone
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
Research: NAAQS
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Total
$456.0
$5,475.5
$172.4
$458.7
$13,810.6
($534.9)
($37.8)
$92.0
$22.4
$1,964.7
$127.2
$455.2
$638.1
$4,245.7
$880.0
$1,274.3
$180.1
$7,476.9
$871.8
$302.6
$625.0
$25.4
$89.1
$43.9
$601.8
$63,025.8
$322.7
$103,065.2
$0.2
$5,174.6
$71.3
$704.6
$17,586.9
$13,667.4
$216.5
$87.6
$18.2
$1,887.6
$122.3
$446.9
$380.0
$4,317.6
$836.4
$1,299.0
$209.5
$6,008.5
$859.4
$289.8
$666.4
$25.0
$83.5
$36.7
$641.2
$55,466.0
$312.1
$111,398.1
EPA continues to conduct leading-edge research to provide and apply sound science to
support EPA's goals for clean air.
Research Supporting Standard-Setting and Air Quality Management Decisions
In FY 2007, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) completed 100 percent
of its planned actions toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard-setting
and air quality management decisions. As a result of this research, EPA has proposed to
strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for
the first time since 1997. The standards are expected to be final in March 2008.
Agency scientists also found that ultrafine particles can cause pulmonary and
cardiovascular changes in healthy young volunteers. These results are important because the
current EPA size-based standards do not protect individuals from ultrafine particles. There is
increased concern that, because of their small size, these particles may exit the lung and target
other organ systems, including the cardiovascular system.
Section II-Page 31
-------
Research to Inform State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
ORD provided states with new tools and information to improve their understanding of
sources of particulate matter and their State Implementation Plans (SIPs). These tools take the
form of improved source apportionment models and a new method for measuring elemental and
organic carbon.13
Research to Improve Assessments of Underlying Causes of Health Effects Caused by
Airborne Particulate Matter (PM)
Agency research in FY 2007 produced extensive data on the species of metals present
in combustion systems. This speciation information— relating to specific hazardous species in
PM— provides data that can augment epidemiological and toxicological studies that would
otherwise be based on elemental composition data alone. Information on the concentrations
and bioavailability of specific hazardous species should make possible much clearer
assessments of the underlying causes of adverse health effects caused by the inhalation of
airborne PM.
Additional Information Related to Objective 6
Program
Evaluations:
EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors assessed the Clean Air
Research Program's "mid-cycle" progress in September 2007. The
report resulting from this review will be available in FY 2008.
Grants:
• In a study of more than 65,000 women over the age of 50,
EPA grantees found that the risk of having a heart attack or
other cardiovascular event— and the risk of dying from that
event— was significantly higher in areas with higher average
airborne particulate matter levels14. This study confirms
previous findings and indicates that the magnitude of health
effects may be larger than previously recognized.
(Supported by Grant Entitled: "Northwest Research Center
for Particulate Air Pollution and Health.")
• EPA-funded researchers in Southern California found that
local exposure to traffic on a freeway has adverse effects on
children's lung development, which could result in important
deficits in lung function in later life15. (Supported by Grant
Entitled: "Southern California Center for Airborne Particulate
Matter.")
• EPA grantee research findings have revealed new
information about the atmospheric processes that lead to
formation of organic particulate matter, helping to explain the
discrepancy between atmospheric measurements and air
quality model predictions.16171819 These results will be used
to develop effective and efficient emission control strategies
to reduce particulate matter levels. (Supported by the
Section II-Page 32
-------
Following Four Grants: (1) "Atmospheric Processing of
Organic Participate Matter: Formation, Properties, Long
Range Transport, and Removal," (2) "Fundamental
Experimental and Modeling Studies of Secondary Organic
Aerosol,"(3) "Highly Time-Resolved Source Apportionment
Techniques for Organic Aerosols Using the Aerodyne
Aerosol Mass Spectrometer," and (4) "Secondary and
Regional Contributions to Organic PM: A Mechanistic
Investigation of Organic PM in the Eastern and Southern
United States.")
PART:
The Clean Air Research Program received an "Adequate" rating on
its most recent PART assessment, which was conducted in 2005
under the title National Ambient Air Quality Standards Research. As
a result of the 2005 PART process, the program is currently (1)
improving its financial and performance data integration, (2)
developing and finalizing methods for measuring progress toward
the program's annual and long-term measures, and (3) convening
annual program reviews. To those ends, the program has finalized
the methodology for evaluating its progress toward its long-term
measures and plans to conduct its first annual program review by
FY 2008. This program has also implemented an efficiency measure
that attempts to track cost and performance.
Web Links:
The Clean Air Research Program supports EPA's goal of clean air
by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better
understanding and characterization of human health and
environmental outcomes. Additional information on the program can
be found at http://www.epa.gov/pmresearch.
Section II-Page 33
-------
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas
intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
1.1:
Through 2011, 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.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
16
Total PMs
16
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.1: Ozone and PM2.5
By 2015, working with partners, improve air quality for ozone and PM2.5.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in all monitored counties by 14 percent from the 2003 baseline.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative percent reduction in
population-weighted ambient
concentration of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2004
Target
2
Actual
3
FY 2005
Target
3
Actual
6
FY 2006
Target
5
Actual
7
FY 2007
Target
6
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored counties,
weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate the weighting, pollutant concentrations in monitored counties are multiplied by the associated
county populations. The units for this measure are therefore "million people parts per billion." The 2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of PM2.5 in all monitored counties by six percent from the 2003 baseline
Section II-Page 34
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative percent reduction in
population-weighted ambient
concentration of fine particulate
matter (PM-2. 5) in all monitored
counties from 2003 baseline.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
?
FY 2007
Target
3
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The PM 2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate
matter PM 2.5 pollution across the monitored counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate this weighting, pollutant
concentrations in monitored counties are multiplied by the associated county populations. Therefore, the units for this measure are "million people
micrograms per meter cubed: (million people ug/mg3). The 2003 baseline is 2.581 million people-ug/mg3. Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6
inventory is used at the baseline for mobile source emissions.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, reduce emissions of fine particles from mobile sources by 134,700 tons from the 2000 level of 510,550 tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Tons of PM-2. 5 Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2004
Target
48,974
Actual
48,974
FY 2005
Target
61,217
Actual
61,217
FY 2006
Target
73,460
Actual
73,460
FY 2007
Target
85,704
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 baseline for PM 2.5 from mobile sources is 510,550 tons.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from mobile sources by 3.7 million tons from the 2000 level of 11.8 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides
FY 2004
Target
1.35
Actual
1.35
FY 2005
Target
1.69
Actual
1.69
FY 2006
Target
2.03
Actual
2.03
FY 2007
Target
2.37
Actual
Data Avail
Unit
Tons
Section II-Page 35
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(NOx) Reduced since 2000 Reduced
from Mobile Sources
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
2008
Unit
Baseline - The 1 995 baseline was 1 2.0M tons for mobile source NOx emissions. The 2000 baseline was 1 1 .8M tons for mobile source NOx
emissions.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, through federal emission standards, reduce annual emissions of volatile organic compounds from mobile sources by 1.9 million tons
from the 2000 level of 7.7 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Millions of Tons of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) Reduced since
2000 from Mobile Sources
FY 2004
Target
.68
Actual
0.68
FY 2005
Target
.86
Actual
0.86
FY 2006
Target
1.03
Actual
1.03
FY 2007
Target
1.20
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 1 995 baseline was 8.1 M tons for mobile source VOC emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7M tons for mobile source VOC emissions.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2018, visibility in eastern Class I areas will improve by 15 percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility on the 20
percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.
Strategic Target (7)
By 2018, visibility in western Class I areas will improve by five percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility on the 20
percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.
Strategic Target (8)
By 2011, with EPA support, 30 additional tribes (6 per year) will have completed air quality emission inventories.
Section II-Page 36
-------
Strategic Target (9)
By 2011, 18 additional tribes will possess the expertise and capability to implement the Clean Air Act in Indian country (as demonstrated by
successful completion of an eligibility determination under the Tribal Authority Rule).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative percent reduction in the
number of days with Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100 since 2003,
weighted by population and AQI
value.
FY 2004
Target
8
Actual
15.5
FY 2005
Target
13
Actual
32.1
FY 2006
Target
17
Actual
39
FY 2007
Target
21
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - Baseline was zero in 2003.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Percent of major NSR permits issued
within one year of receiving a
complete permit application.
65
69
70
70
75
Data Avail
2008
Percentage
Baseline - The baseline for NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application is 61% in 2004.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Percent of significant Title V operating
permit revisions issued within 18
months of receiving a complete permit
application.
88
88
91
91
94
Data Avail
2008
Percentage
Baseline - The 2004 baseline for significant title V operating revisions issued within 1 8 months of receiving a complete permit application is 85%.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Percent of new Title V operating
permits issued within 18 months of
receiving a complete permit
application.
79
79
83
83
87
Data Avail
2008
Percentage
Baseline - The 2004 baseline for new title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 85%.
Section II-Page 37
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Tons of PM-1 0 Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
49,729
18,000
62,161
62,161
74,594
74,594
87,026
Data Avail
2008
Tons
Baseline - Beginning in FY 2005, the 2000 mobile inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-1 0 from
mobile source is 613,000 tons.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.2: Air Toxics
By 2011, working with partners, reduce air toxics emissions and implement area-specific approaches to reduce the risk to public health and the
environment from toxic air pollutants.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2010, reduce toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 19 percent from the 1993 non-weighted
baseline of 7.24 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative percentage reduction in
tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer
risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
34
Actual
Data Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
35
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will utilize the National Emissions Inventory (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. The baseline is in 1993. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate
inventories for the NEI, which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The 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 toxic) is adjusted.
Explanation - Air Toxics data has always had a data lag due to the need to develop the NEI (every 3 years). The most current NEI is the 2002, which
is what we used to develop the targets. When the decision was made to re-engineer a 2005 NEI.
Section II-Page 38
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2010, reduce toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 55 percent from the 1993 non-weighted
baseline of 7.24 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative percentage reduction in
tons of toxicity-weighted (for non-
cancer risk) emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
58
Actual
Data Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
58
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will utilize the National Emissions Inventory (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. The baseline is in 1993. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate
inventories for the NEI, which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The 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 toxic) is adjusted.
Explanation - Air Toxics data has always had a data lag due to the need to develop the NEI (every 3 years). The most current NEI is the 2002, which
is what we used to develop the targets. When the decision was made to re-engineer a 2005 NEI.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.3: Chronically Acidic Water Bodies
By 2011, reduce the number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions by two percent from 1984 levels.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce national annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from utility electrical power generation sources by approximately 8.45 million
tons from the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons, through implementation of the Acid Rain Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule, achieving and
maintaining the Acid Rain statutory SO2 emissions cap of 8.95 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions from
electric power generation sources
FY 2004
Target
5,000,000
Actual
7,100,000
FY 2005
Target
6,900,000
Actual
7,200,000
FY 2006
Target
7,000,000
Actual
8,000,000
FY 2007
Target
7,500,000
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Tons
Reduced
Baseline - The baseline year is 1 980. The 1 980 SO2 emissions inventory totals 1 7.4 million tons for electric utility sources. This inventory was
developed by National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) and is used as the basis for reductions in Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Section II-Page 39
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Amendments. This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. The statutory SO2 emissions cap for year 201 0
and later is at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level. "Allowable SO2 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.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable
until 2008.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate concentration by 30 percent from 1990 monitored levels of up to
25 kilograms per hectare for total sulfur deposition and 6.4 micrograms per cubic meter for mean ambient sulfate concentration.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent change in average sulfur
deposition and mean ambient sulfate
concentrations.
FY 2004
Target
25
Actual
31
FY 2005
Target
NoFY
2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
NoFY
2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
29
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Percentage
Baseline - Sulfur deposition contributes to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and other aquatic life. Reductions in
sulfur deposition are critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient sulfate and ambient nitrate ("acid rain" "particulate")
contribute to unhealthy air and respiratory problems in humans, especially children and other sensitive populations. The baseline is established from
monitored site levels based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing a three year of deposition levels produced from the CASTNET sites
(http://www.epa.gov/castnet/sites.html).
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and mean total ambient nitrate concentration by 15 percent from 1990 monitored levels
of up to 11 kilograms per hectare for total nitrogen deposition and 4.0 micrograms per cubic meter for mean total ambient nitrate concentration.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent change in average nitrogen
deposition and mean total ambient
FY 2004
Target
5
Actual
7
FY 2005
Target
NoFY
2005
Actual
FY 2006
Target
NoFY
2006
Actual
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Percentage
Section II-Page 40
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
nitrate concentrations.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - Nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification of lakes and streams, making them unable to support fish and other aquatic life. Reductions in
nitrogen deposition are critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient nitrate ("acid rain" "particulate") contribute to
unhealthy air and respiratory problems in humans, especially and other sensitive populations. The baseline is established from monitored site levels
based on consolidated map of 1989-1991 showing a three year of deposition levels produced from the CASTNET sites
(http://www.epa.gov/castnet/sites.html)
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable
until 2008.
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Limit the increase of CO emissions (in
tons) from mobile sources compared
to a 2000 baseline.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
1.01
Actual
1.01
FY 2007
Target
1.18
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 baseline was 79.2 M tons for CO.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
1.2: AIR
Through 2012, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air contaminants through the promotion of
voluntary actions by the public.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
4
Total PMs
4
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.1: Radon
Section II - Page 41
-------
By 2012, the number of future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through lowered radon exposure will increase to 1,250 from the
1997 baseline of 285 future premature lung cancer deaths prevented.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of additional homes (new and
existing) with radon reducing features
FY 2004
Target
162,000
Actual
143,000
FY 2005
Target
173,000
Actual
194,000
FY 2006
Target
180,000
Actual
Data Avail
Late 2008
FY 2007
Target
190,000
Actual
Data Avail
Late 2008
Unit
Homes
Baseline - This performance measure includes EPA radon and asthma work. By 2008, the number of people living in homes built (new or existing)
with radon reducing features will be 225,000. The baseline for the measure if 1996 (107,000 homes). Annual Surveys are conducted by our partners
to gather information such as types of houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used, etc. Also,
the surveys gather information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new houses. Each year, the survey of building practices is mailed to
home builders. The survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market areas and Census Division in the U.S., to assess the percentage and
number of homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also used to assess the percentage and number of homes
built with radon-reducing features in high radon areas in the U.S.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until late 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.2: Asthma
By 2012, the number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers will increase to 6.5 million
from the 2003 baseline of 3 million. EPA will place special emphasis on children and other disproportionately impacted populations.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of people taking all essential
actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
4,100,000
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
NoFY
2007
Target
Actual
N/A
Unit
Number
Baseline- In FY 2006 total number of people was 4,100,000.
Explanation - No Target was set for FY 2007. For FY 2006, Data will be available FY 2008 due to reporting cycles.
Percent of public that is aware of the
>20
27.00
>20
31
>20
33
>20
Data Avail
Percentage
Section II-Page 42
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
asthma program's media campaign.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
2008
Unit
Baseline - In FY 2004 actual was 27.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Additional health care professionals
trained annually by EPA and its
partner on the environmental
management of asthma triggers.
2000
3,080
2000
3,380
2000
3,582
2000
Data Avail
2008
Number
Baseline - In FY 2004 actual was 3,080.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.3: Schools
By 2012, the number of schools implementing an effective indoor air quality management plan will increase to 40,000 from the 2002 baseline of
25,000.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Estimated annual number of schools
establishing indoor air quality
programs based on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2004
Target
3000
Actual
3,100
FY 2005
Target
2500
Actual
3,000
FY 2006
Target
1200
Actual
Data Avail
Late 2007
FY 2007
Target
1100
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Number
Baseline - The nation has approximately 118,000 (updated to include new construction) schools. Each school has an average of 525 students, faculty,
and staff for a total estimated population of 62,000,000. The IAQ "Tools for Schools" Guidance implementation began in 1997. Results from a 2002
IAQ practices in schools survey suggest that approximately 20-22% of U.S. schools report an adequate effective IAQ management plan that is in
accordance with EPA guidelines.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008. FY 2006 data is expected in late 2007 due to reporting cycles.
Section II-Page 43
-------
1.3:
By 2030, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of
recovery, and overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
2
Total PMs
2
Strategic Target (1)
By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of Class II ozone-depleting substances to less than 1,520 tons per year of ozone depleting potential from the
2003 baseline of 9,900 tons per year.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Remaining US Consumption of
HCFCs in tons of Ozone Depleting
Potential (OOP).
FY 2004
Target
<9,900
Actual
5,500
FY 2005
Target
<9,900
Actual
8,770
FY 2006
Target
<9,900
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Unit
OOP MTs
Baseline - 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, 1996, 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.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2009.
Cumulative federal dollars spent per
school joining the SunWise program.
693
693
580
580
560
544
525
Data Avail
2008
Dollars
Baseline - The base of comparson 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, 1996, 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.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Strategic Target (2)
Section II - Page 44
-------
By 2165, reduce the incidence of melanoma skin cancer to 14 new skin cancer cases avoided per 100,000 people from the 1990 baseline of 13.8
cases avoided per 100,000 people.
1,4;
Through 2011, working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the
environment should unwanted releases occur.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
0
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.4.1:
Placeholder for ST 01-RadNet Ambient Radiation Air Monitoring System and ST 02Readiness of Radiation Program Personnel and Assets
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 77 percent of the U.S. land area will be covered by the RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring system.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, the radiation program will maintain a 90 percent level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal
radiological emergency response and recovery operations.
1.5:
By 2012, 160 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of emissions will be reduced through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
3
Total PMs
3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.1: Buildings Sector
Buildings Sector. By 2012, 46 MMTCE will be reduced in the buildings sector (compared to the 2002 level).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Section II - Page 45
-------
Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the buildings sector.
Target
21.4
Actual
26.2
Target
23.8
Actual
29.9
Target
26.5
Actual
3110
Target
29.4
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
MMTCE
Baseline - 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 1 997 and 1 993. 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
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 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.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.2: Industrial Sector
Industry Sector. By 2012, 99 MMTCE will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to the 2002 level).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the industry sector.
FY 2004
Target
53.2
Actual
53.20
FY 2005
Target
53.5
Actual
58.7
FY 2006
Target
57.5
Actual
69
FY 2007
Target
62.6
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
MMCTE
Baseline - 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 1 997 and 1 993. 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
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 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.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
Section II-Page 46
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.3: Transportation Sector
By 2012, 15 MMTCE will be reduced in the transportation sector (compared to the 2002 level).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Million metric tons of carbon
equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the transportation
sector.
FY 2004
Target
2.6
Actual
2.6
FY 2005
Target
2.9
Actual
2.9
FY 2006
Target
0.6
Actual
0.8
FY 2007
Target
4.2
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
MMTCE
Baseline - 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 1 997 and 1 993. 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
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 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.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data is unavailable until 2008.
1.6:
Through 2012, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better
understanding and characterization of human health and environmental outcomes.
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
1
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Section II - Page 47
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent planned actions
accomplished toward the long-term
goal of reducing uncertainty in the
science that support standard setting
and air quality management
decisions.
FY 2004
Target
81
Actual
84
FY 2005
Target
91
Actual
94
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
94
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - The program plans to meet 100% of its planned actions in FY 2007, an improvement from 94% completion in FY 2005. In achieving these
targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and environmental
outcomes related to clean air.
Section II-Page 48
-------
DISCONTINUED MEASURES
OBJECTIVE 1.1: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative percent increase in the
number of people who live in areas
with ambient PM10 concentrations
below the level of the NAAQS as
compared to 1992.
Cumulative percent increase in the
number of areas with ambient PM1 0
concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 1992.
Total number of people who live in
areas measuring clean airforPMIO
Areas measuring clean air for PM10.
Additional people living in new areas
measuring clean airforPMIO.
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,
FY 2004
Target
6
40
53
87
Actual
6
54
49
99
FY 2005
Target
7
74
120.8
10
453,000
53
108
120.8
Actual
10
77
123.5
3
453,000
53
108
174
FY 2006
Target
11
130
126.4
38
5,500,000
66
111
189.7
Actual
10
132
125.6
68
4,675,000
67
117.6
190
FY 2007
Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
Actual
Unit
Percent
Percent
Million People
Areas
Areas
Percent
Percent
Million People
Section II-Page 49
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
N02, S02, orPb.
Areas measuring clean air for CO,
N02, S02, orPb.
Additional people living in new areas
measuring clean air for CO, NO2,
S02, orPb.
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 2001 .
Percent increase in the number of
areas with ambient PM2.5
concentrations below the level of the
NAAQS as compared to 2001 .
SO2 emissions reduced.
FY 2004
Target
1
1
5
Actual
20
46
7.1
FY 2005
Target
10
4,100,000
1
1
6.9
Actual
10
4,100,000
45
21
7.2
FY 2006
Target
4
15,500,00
0
1
1
7
Actual
18
16,795
*
*
*
FY 2007
Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
Actual
Unit
Areas
People
Percent
Percent
Million Tons
* Explanation - These measures have been replaced by PART performance measures approved by the Office of Management and Budget
through the official PART process. The program has incorporated the most critical information from these performance measures and
further improved upon them through the adoption of the program's PART measures which provide more ambitious, outcome-oriented
methods to assess environmental progress. Additionally these approved PART measures form the basis for the programs' State grant
templates and Senior Management Measures. They are widely used to ensure better collection of data from the States, as well to provide
key progress indicators to senior management at EPA.
OBJECTIVE 1.2: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
People living in healthier indoor air.
Students/Staff experiencing improved
IAQ in Schools.
FY 2004
Target
834,400
1,575,000
Actual
834,400
1,630,000
FY 2005
Target
843,300
1,312,500
Actual
843,300
1,574,000
FY 2006
Target
850,000
630,000
Actual
*
*
FY 2007
Target
No Target
No Target
Actual
Unit
People
Students/Staf
f
Section II-Page 50
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
* Explanation - These measures have been replaced by PART performance measures approved by the Office of Management and Budget through the
official PART process. The program has incorporated the most critical information from these performance measures and further improved upon them
through the adoption of the program's PART measures which provide more ambitious, outcome-oriented methods to assess environmental progress.
Additionally these approved PART measures form the basis for the programs' State grant templates and Senior Management Measures. They are
widely used to ensure better collection of data from the States, as well to provide key progress indicators to senior management at EPA.
OBJECTIVE 1.4: RADIATION
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of EPA RERT members
that meet scenario-based criteria.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
50
Actual
60
FY 2006
Target
60
Actual
*
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Actual
Unit
Percent
* Explanation - These measures have been replaced by PART performance measures approved by the Office of Management and Budget through the
official PART process. The program has incorporated the most critical information from these performance measures and further improved upon them
through the adoption of the program's PART measures which provide more ambitious, outcome-oriented methods to assess environmental progress.
Additionally these approved PART measures form the basis for the programs' State grant templates and Senior Management Measures. They are
widely used to ensure better collection of data from the States, as well to provide key progress indicators to senior management at EPA.
OBJECTIVE 1.5: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Greenhouse gas reductions from
EPA's Industrial Efficiency/Waste
Management programs.
Greenhouse gas reductions from
EPA's Industrial Methane Outreach
program.
Greenhouse gas reductions from
EPA's Industrial HFC/PFC programs.
Greenhouse gas reductions from
FY 2004
Target
7.3
18.1
29.6
2
Actual
9
19.9
28.2
2
FY 2005
Target
8
19.1
34.4
2
Actual
10.2
16.8
29.8
2
FY 2006
Target
9
20.1
41
2
Actual
*
*
*
*
FY 2007
Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
Actual
Unit
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMTCE
Section II-Page 51
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
EPA's state and local programs.
Annual Greenhouse Gas Reductions
- All EPA programs.
Annual energy savings - All EPA
programs.
Fuel economy of EPA-developed
SUV hybrid technology over EPA
driving cycles tested.
FY 2004
Target
81
110
25.2
Actual
87.9
145
25.2
FY 2005
Target
90.2
120
26.3
Actual
91.5
165
26.3
FY 2006
Target
102
145
27.3
Actual
*
*
*
FY 2007
Target
No Target
No Target
No Target
Actual
Unit
MMTCE
Billion kWh
MPG
* Explanation - These measures have been replaced by PART performance measures approved by the Office of Management and Budget through the
official PART process. The program has incorporated the most critical information from these performance measures and further improved upon them
through the adoption of the program's PART measures which provide more ambitious, outcome-oriented methods to assess environmental progress.
Additionally these approved PART measures form the basis for the programs' State grant templates and Senior Management Measures. They are
widely used to ensure better collection of data from the States, as well to provide key progress indicators to senior management at EPA.
Section II-Page 52
-------
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.
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, Drinking
Water Research, 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, Total Daily Maximum Loads,
Underground Injection Control Program, Wastewater Management, Water Efficiency,
Water Quality Standards and Criteria, Watershed Information Network, Watershed
Management, Water Quality Research.
GOAL PURPOSE:
EPA, in coordination with its partners, protects and improves the quality of the
nation's drinking and surface waters. To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, we set
limits for drinking water contaminants; 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 terrorist or other threats to our drinking water
supplies. To ensure safe ground water supplies, EPA works with our state and local
partners to implement source water protection plans for the area surrounding drinking
water sources. Also, the Underground Injection Control program regulates the
subsurface injections of hazardous and non-hazardous substances in wells. In addition,
EPA monitors surface water quality and works with state partners to strengthen water
quality standards, develop and/or approve discharge permits, and reduce pollution from
diffuse or nonpoint sources. EPA is restoring polluted waters across the country by
implementing cleanups and promoting innovative, cost-effective practices, such as water
quality trading and permitting on a watershed basis.
While EPA continues to make progress toward safe and secure drinking water,
challenges remain. Drinking water systems are increasingly stressed due to aging
infrastructure and expanding populations. In the chapter that follows, we report on our
accomplishments and challenges in addressing water quality issues—strengthening and
improving drinking water standards, maintaining safe water quality at public beaches,
restoring polluted water bodies, and improving the health of coastal waters.
Section II-Page 53
-------
Objective 1: Protect Human Health
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 2, Objective 1
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 2, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Enhance
Research to
Support Clean
and Safe
Water,
$139,683.4,
1%
Protect Wate
Quality,
$1,961,309.2,
62%
Protect Human
Health,
$1,173,321.5,
37%
Enhance
Research to
Support Clean
and Safe
Water,
$141,374.4, 1%
Protect Wate
Quality,
$2,467,819.8,
63%
Protect Human
Health,
$1,426,541.5,
36%
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to rounding
Goal 2: Objective 1 - Protect Human Health
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
FY 2007
Obligations
$96,073.7
$10,073.0
($45.4)
$10,023.4
$3,705.7
$2,774.9
$73,346.0
FY 2007 Expenditures
$110,617.0
$10,904.9
$18.1
$11,144.6
$4,019.0
$4,092.0
$93,028.1
Section II - Page 54
-------
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
Total
$105,061.2
$436.9
$14,578.9
$680.0
$789,624.4
$2,476.7
$0.0
$233.2
$56.8
$3,924.8
($13.2)
$513.3
$2,332.9
$1,621.5
$24,220.8
$1,123.5
$1,911.2
$197.3
$13,971.0
$2,209.0
$692.2
$8,463.5
$170.8
$225.9
$111.2
$1,729.0
$817.7
$1,173,321.8
$103,860.2
$180.7
$22,928.2
$999.9
$1,003,111.0
$3,424.5
$110.1
$222.1
$46.0
$3,800.9
($2,655.1)
$498.2
$2,318.9
$962.3
$22,880.8
$1,078.7
$1,904.7
$201.6
$11,891.8
$2,197.2
$669.9
$9,023.4
$146.3
$211.6
$93.1
$1,819.8
$791.0
$1,426,541.5
SAFE DRINKING WATER
EPA and its partners have made significant progress in providing the public with
drinking water that meets health-based standards. Water systems across the country
are working to meet standards for more than 90 contaminants to keep drinking water
safe and secure. In FY 2007, 91.5 percent of Americans were served by community
water systems meeting drinking water standards. This percentage fell short of the
Agency's target of 94 percent, largely as a result of the challenges water systems face in
implementing existing regulations and implementing new standards to protect public
health. In Indian country, 87 percent of the population served by community systems
received drinking water that met all applicable health-based standards, falling short of
EPA's targeted 93 percent.
In general, small drinking water systems, including those supplying drinking
water to tribes, are particularly challenged by the need to improve infrastructure and
develop the capacity to meet new and existing standards.
Section II - Page 55
-------
In addition to the challenges associated with implementing any new rule, EPA
works to provide needed technical support and assistance to the states. The cost
associated with addressing water infrastructure issues represents an ongoing and
significant challenge for the Agency as well as for states and drinking water utilities
across the country.
SAFE FISH AND SHELLFISH
Throughout FY 2007, EPA worked with states and other federal agencies to
address poor water quality in shellfish growing waters. Every year, states monitor shell
fishing waters and restrict harvesting if shellfish are unsafe for consumption. Through its
surface water protection program, EPA addresses anthropogenic activities that cause
these closures, such as discharges from sewage treatment plants.
The most recent data available is for calendar year 2005, and it showed that 81
percent of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources
were approved or conditionally approved for use, up from 77 percent in 1995. Data for
this measure comes from periodic surveys of shellfish growing states by the Interstate
Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC). At this time the ISSC has not committed to
doing another survey.
To increase the number of fish harvested in the U.S. that are safe to eat, EPA not
only works to reduce the release of toxic contaminants into the nation's waters, but
conducts activities to expand information about fish safety, and makes it available to the
public. In FY 2007, EPA continued to encourage states and tribes in monitoring fish
contaminants and issuing fish consumption advice. EPA also encouraged states to
revisit existing advisories to evaluate whether contaminants levels in fish tissue have
improved sufficiently to revise those advisories and allow more safe consumption offish.
SAFE SWIMMING
EPA, through its Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health
(BEACH) Program, is working with state, tribal, and local governmental partners to make
available to the public beach water quality information. EPA established the BEACH
Program to provide a framework for local governments to develop equally protective and
consistent programs across the country for monitoring the quality of water at beaches
and posting warnings or beach closings when pollutant levels are too high.
Beach contamination often results from stormwater running off streets, fields, and
forests, as well as other sources of contamination that feed into coastal waters. Under
EPA's Beach Program, more than 3,700 beaches were monitored by 35 states and
territories to ensure that beaches were safe for swimming. During calendar year 2006,
coastal and Great Lakes beaches were open 95 percent of beach season days,
meeting EPA's FY 2007 goal. Of the more than 676,000 beach season days during the
year, fewer than 5 percent were restricted due to contamination-related closings. More
than half of the actions lasted for two days or less.
In FY 2007, EPA worked to improve pollution control efforts that reduce potential
adverse health effects at beaches. EPA also conducted research to develop new or
revised water quality criteria and more rapid methods for assessing water quality at
beaches so that results can be made available in hours rather than days. These
Section II-Page 56
-------
quicker tests will allow beach managers to make faster decisions about the safety of
beach waters and thus help reduce the risk of illness among beachgoers.
In FY 2007, fewer beaches were in EPA's Beach program than in 2005 due to
consolidations and corrected state survey data. EPA and its state partners are
improving data collection and reporting to provide a more complete picture of the
nation's beaches.
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Program
Evaluations:
Securing Wastewater Facilities: Costs of Vulnerability Assessments,
Risk Management Plans, and Alternative Disinfection Methods Vary
Widely, GAO-07-480, March 30, 2007
http://www.gao.gov/new.itetns/d07480.pdf
Grants:
Base program support grants include: Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, PWSS Grant Program, Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Grant Program. In addition, 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 Public Water System Supervision Grant Program was
assessed in the 2004 PART process and received a rating of
"adequate." As a result of the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include 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 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." As a result of the PART process, the program
is conducting follow-up actions, including developing an
efficiency measure that is more useful and meaningful for
tracking annual programmatic efficiency.
• The UIC Grant Program was assessed in the 2004 PART
process and received a rating of "adequate." As a result of
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.
Section II-Page 57
-------
• The Drinking Water Protection Program was assessed in the
2006 PART process and received a rating of "adequate." As
a result of the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include implementing data quality
review recommendations to improve the overall quality of the
data in EPA's drinking water compliance reporting system.
Web Links:
Ground Water and Drinking Water Program:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
Shellfish Protection: http://www.epa.qov/waterscience/shellfish/
Water Science: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
Objective 2: Protect Water Quality
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 2, Objective 2
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 2, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance
Research to
Support Clean
and Safe
Water,
$139,683.4,
1%
Protect Wate
Quality,
$1,961,309.2,
62%
Protect Human
Health,
$1,173,321.5,
37%
Enhance
Research to
Support Clean
and Safe
Water,
$141,374.4,1%
Protect Watei
Quality,
$2,467,819.8,
63%
Protect Human
Health,
$1,426,541.5,
36%
Section II-Page 58
-------
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to rounding
Goal 2: Objective 2 - Protect Water Quality
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
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
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$204,706.7
$303.8
$205,320.3
$786.3
$146,254.7
$806.0
$921.5
$47,745.0
$1,033,490.9
$480.0
$13,703.4
$194,720.9
$430.2
$104.8
$7,155.5
$1,036.8
$4,869.8
$2,992.5
$44,877.9
$1,595.4
$2,957.6
$251.0
$21,520.3
$3,910.5
$1,228.0
$13,929.2
$362.0
$416.8
$205.2
$2,717.4
$1,508.7
$1,961,309.1
FY 2007 Expenditures
$232,776.3
$10,423.1
$225,486.1
$1,131.7
$211,054.7
$333.5
$1,344.9
$30,667.1
$1,442,162.3
$407.7
$11,193.1
$195,069.5
$409.7
$85.0
$6,954.3
$1,004.2
$4,856.2
$1,775.3
$42,261.6
$1,542.1
$2,915.2
$247.6
$18,560.9
$3,896.7
$1,188.6
$14,850.7
$341.7
$390.5
$171.8
$2,858.4
$1,459.3
$2,467,819.8
Section II-Page 59
-------
In FY 2007, EPA and states exceeded the goal of issuing 95 percent of designated
priority permits. EPA also approved 86% percent of the new or revised water quality
standards that states submitted for the year, exceeding the performance goal of 85
percent. This accomplishment reflects EPA's and states' continuing efforts to work
together more closely during states' formulation of new and revised standards.
Additionally, EPA and states completed 27,377 EPA-approved watershed pollutant
reduction budgets (Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs) by the end of FY 2007,
compared to the FY 2007 target of 25,811. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality
standards, and a wasteload allocation of that amount is applied to the pollutant's
sources.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program committed funds to
protect, improve, and restore waterbody quality. CWSRF performance continues to be
stable and strong; as indicated by a fund utilization rate of more than 90 percent
nationally. In partnership with EPA, the states made available more than $60 billion in
low-cost loans for a variety of wastewater projects that help communities meet
environmental standards and ensure public health.
Additionally, EPA met its 2007 target of assessing 54 percent of the Nation's waters
and is on schedule to meet future targets. EPA finished sampling for the first
statistically-valid survey to establish baseline condition of the Nation's lakes, and issued
a report on the condition of estuaries, the National Estuary Program Coastal Condition
Report. EPA also completed the design for the survey of the Nation's rivers and a
second survey of Nation's streams. Planning for a survey of the Nation's wetlands is
underway. This builds on previous successes, including the release in 2006 of the first
statistically-valid assessment of national stream condition, the Wadeable Streams
Assessment, which reported that 28 percent of the Nation's streams are in good
condition. However, across the United States, 25-30 percent of streams have high
levels of nutrients or excess sedimentation. These streams are twice as likely to have
reduced biological integrity.
The Agency made significant progress toward ensuring that the Nation's vital water
infrastructure is sustainable in the future. In FY 2007, EPA signed a Statement of
Support with six major associations pledging to work collaboratively to promote effective
utility management across the water sector, based on series of recommendations from a
select group of leading utilities from around the country.
Section II-Page 60
-------
Ovraul National Coastal Condition
Sww USE* NEfcnl CHOI Cfe-dto- RUHR I. »M*B- UXK Mm MbTotkn w*
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Program
Evaluations:
Grants:
PART:
• EPA's Allowing States to Use Bonds to Meet Revolving Fund
Match Requirements Reduces Funds Available for Water
Projects, March 28, 2007, 2007-P-00012-168.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070329-2007-P-
00012.pdf
• Clean Water: Further Implementation and Better Cost Data
Needed to Determine Impact of EPA's Storm Water Program
on Communities GAO-07-479, May 31, 2007
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07479.pdf
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 106 grants which fund state water
quality programs. CWA Section 319 non-point source grants also
support this objective with grants for developing and implementing
comprehensive watershed plans that function to restore impaired
waters and protect healthy waters on a watershed basis.
Additionally, the Targeted Watershed Grants (TWG) Program
encourages collaborative, community-driven approaches to meet
clean water goals. The National Estuary Grant Program (CFDA
66.456) also supports this objective.
• The Surface Water Protection Program was assessed in the
2005 PART process and received a rating of "moderately
effective." As a result of the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include working with
Section II-Page 61
-------
states and other partners to issue water quality reports
based on the statistically-valid surveys in the lower 48 states
by 2011.
• The Water Pollution Control (106) Grants Program was
assessed in the 2005 PART process and received a rating of
"adequate." As a result of the PART process, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include targeting
additional program funding to States implementing
probabilistic monitoring activities in support of the national
probabilistic monitoring survey.
• The Oceans and Coastal Program was assessed in the 2005
PART process and received a rating of "adequate." As a
result of the PART process, the program is conducting
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." As a
result of the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include contracting for an
independent 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." As a result of
the PART process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include focusing on improving the quality and
breadth of CWSRF performance data. In particular, EPA
needs to focus on collecting data on minor systems, which
receive a significant proportion of CWSRF funding, and
waterborne disease.
• The Alaska Native Village Program was first assessed in the
2004 PART process and initially received a rating of
"ineffective." The program was reassessed in the 2006
PART process and received a rating of "adequate." As a
result of the PART process, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include EPA developing regulations
for the management and oversight of the program, including
all grant funds to the State of Alaska and any subsidiary
recipients of EPA funds via the State of Alaska.
Web Links:
Monitoring and Assessing Quality:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
National Stream Report: http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/
National Coastal Condition Reports:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/
Survey of the Nation's Lakes:
Section II-Page 62
-------
http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/lakessurvey/
Watershed Monitoring:
http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/watershed/index.htm
Oceans, Coasts, and Estuaries Program:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/
National Estuary Program: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/
Coastal Watershed Fact sheets:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/factsheets/index.html
Wetlands Program: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan:
http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/
Coastal America: http://www.coastalamerica.gov/
TMDL Program: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
Objective 3: Enhance Science and Research
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 2, Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 2, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance
Research to
Support Clean
and Safe
Water,
$139,683.4,
1%
Protect Wate
Quality,
$1,961,309.2,
62%
Protect Human
Health,
$1,173,321.5,
37%
Enhance
Research to
Support Clean
and Safe
Water,
$141,374.4, 1%
Protect Wate
Quality,
$2,467,819.8,
63%
Protect Human
Health,
$1,426,541.5,
36%
Section II-Page 63
-------
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding.
Goal 2: Objective 3 - Enhance Research to Support Clean and Safe Water
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Research: Drinking Water
Research: Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
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
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$2,924.7
$44,628.3
$55,089.4
($6.0)
$321.8
$856.1
$171.7
$41.8
$2,454.5
$237.4
$849.7
$1,191.0
$7,924.5
$1,642.5
$2,378.4
$336.1
$13,955.4
$1,627.1
$564.9
$780.9
$47.4
$166.4
$81.9
$815.3
$602.3
$139,683.5
FY 2007 Expenditures
$11,346.9
$45,215.4
$50,668.7
$18.0
$133.1
$1,315.2
$163.6
$33.9
$2,358.2
$228.3
$834.2
$709.2
$8,058.6
$1,561.1
$2,424.5
$390.9
$11,214.6
$1,604.0
$540.9
$832.6
$46.7
$155.9
$68.6
$868.7
$582.6
$141,374.4
To support the Agency's work toward clean and safe water, EPA's research
programs conduct leading-edge research to develop a better understanding and
characterization of water-related environmental outcomes. In FY 2007, EPA's Drinking
Water Research Program completed 100 percent of its planned research outputs in
support of Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and Six-Year Review decisions. As part of
its research, the program continued developing methods for CCL chemicals; these
methods are used to collect occurrence data in Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rules and to make decisions on whether additional regulations are needed. The
Section II-Page 64
-------
program also evaluated virulence factors for microbes so that EPA could classify and
prioritize microbes for future CCLs.20
In support of Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory and non-regulatory activities,
EPA's Water Quality Research Program completed 100 percent of its planned research
outputs. For example, EPA completed freshwater epidemiology studies using a rapid
molecular-based indicator of fecal contamination. The rapid indicator was shown to be
highly associated with adverse health effects and will be available to local governments
to make timelier beach closure and advisory decisions. EPA and states may also
incorporate the rapid indicator into CWA criteria and standards.
Additionally, EPA developed a landscape model and case study in Illinois for
identifying impaired (303(d) listed) water bodies that are most likely to recover on a
statewide basis. The case study demonstrates how states can use landscape models to
prioritize water bodies for restoration providing an efficient method for increasing the
number of impaired water bodies that can be restored and removed from the 303(d) list.
21
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Program
Evaluations:
Grants:
• In FY 2007, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
assessed the Drinking Water Research Program's progress
in a report entitled Mid-Cycle Review of the Office of and
Research and Development's DrinkinQ Water Research
Prociram at the Environmental Protection Aaency.
• In FY 2007, EPA's Water Quality Research Program took
action in response to recommendations from a 2006 BOSC
report entitled Review of the Office of Research and
Development's Water Quality Research Proaram at the
Environmental Protection Aqency. The Water Quality
Research Program's response to the BOSC — along with a
list of planned actions — can be found on the BOSC Website.
o EPA STAR grantees developed methods to (1) assess the
extent to which current water and wastewater treatment
practices are successful at removing Pharmaceutical and
Personal Care Products (PPCPs) from water bodies,2223 (2)
fill important data gaps on the occurrence, fate, transport
and ecological impacts of PPCPs,242526 and (3) inform risk
assessments of Pharmaceuticals and provide a model for the
pharmaceutical commercialization process. (Supported by
the Following Five Grants: (1) "Impact of Residual
Pharmaceutical Agents and their Metabolites in Wastewater
Effluents on Downstream Drinking Water Treatment
Facilities," (2) "Pharmaceuticals and Antiseptics: Occurrence
and Fate in Drinking Water, Sewage Treatment Facilities,
and Coastal Waters," (3) "Effectiveness of UV Irradiation for
Pathogen Inactivation in Surface Waters," (4) "The
Section II-Page 65
-------
Environmental Occurrence, Fate, and Ecotoxicity of
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) in Aquatic
Environments," and (5) "Environmental Toxicology
Chemistry and The Environmental Occurrence, Fate, and
Ecotoxicity of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
(SSRIs) in Aquatic Environments."
EPA-funded research27 linked sewage disposal to the
overgrowth destruction of some coral reefs in Southeast
Florida. Florida's Department of Environmental Protection,
the Florida Wildlife Research Institute, and EPA are using
these research results to assess alternatives for wastewater
treatment and disposal in Southeast Florida. Additionally,
scientists and resource managers in the Southeast Florida
Coral Reef Initiative are using these results to improve
knowledge of land-based sources of pollution in the region.
(Supported by a Grant Entitled: Physiology and Ecology of
Macroalgal Blooms on Coral Reefs off Southeast Florida.)
PART:
o EPA's Drinking Water Research Program received an
"Adequate" rating on its 2005 OMB PART assessment,
which was conducted under the title Drinking Water
Research. As a result of the 2005 PART process, the
program is currently (1) setting targets for the remainder of
its long-term and annual measures, (2) improving its
oversight of grantees and contractors, and (3) implementing
an efficiency measure that attempts to track cost and
performance.
o EPA's Water Quality Research Program received an
"Adequate" rating on its 2006 OMB PART assessment,
which was conducted under the title Water Quality
Research. As a result of the 2006 PART process, the
program has established a procedure under which the
BOSC will assign each program long-term goal a progress
rating as part of its review. These ratings will provide the
data for new program long-term outcome measures.
Additionally, to establish an outcome-oriented efficiency
measure, ORD has initiated a National Academy of Sciences
study to determine the most appropriate approach. The
program is also working to improve its collection of grantee
and contractor performance information.
Web Links:
The Drinking Water Research and Water Quality Research
Programs conduct leading-edge research in support of EPA's goal
of clean water. Additional information on the Drinking Water
program can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ord/dw/index.html.
Section II-Page 66
-------
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.
2,1: PI-";:
Protect human health by reducing exposure to contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shellfish, and in
recreational waters.
PMs Met
5
PMs Not Met
4
Data Available After November 15,
2007
3
Total PMs
12
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.1: Water Safe To Drink
By 2011, 91 percent 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.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 90 percent of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
throughout the year.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of community water
systems that provide drinking water
that meets health-based standards
with which systems need to comply
as of December 2001.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
94
Actual
92
FY 2006
Target
94
Actual
92
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
Unit
Percentage of
CWSs
Baseline - 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.
Explanation - Target not achieved primarily due to Total Coliform violations, which are sporadic in nature and difficult to control.
Section II-Page 67
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of community water
systems that provide drinking water
that meets health-based standards
with a compliance date of January
2002 or later.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
75
Actual
97
FY 2006
Target
75
Actual
97
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
Unit
Percentage of
CWSs
Baseline - 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.
Percent of community water systems
that have undergone a sanitary
survey within the past three years
(five years for outstanding
performance.)
Baseline
80
94
94
95
94
95
92
Percent of
CWS
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 80% of community water systems in 2004.
Explanation - In FY 2006, forty eight of fifty one primacy agencies conducted sanitary surveys at all of their Community Water Systems within the last
three years. In FY 2007, five often regions met their targets. Starting in 2007, the measure changed from the percent of states to the percent of
community water systems. This change made data gathering more difficult. 2008 data is required to be reported in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED) thereby reducing data gathering issues and possible under reporting.
Percent of community water systems
that meet all applicable health-based
standards through approaches that
include effective treatment and source
water protection.
93.5
89.3
94
89
Percent of
Systems
Baseline - In 2002, 91 .8% community water systems met all applicable health-based standards through approaches that included effective treatment
and source water protection.
Explanation - Compliance has been steady for existing standards with Total Coliform Rule violations having the highest effect, and lower for new
standards, particularly for smaller water systems for more recent regulations and standards.
Section II-Page 68
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards during 96 percent
of person months (i.e., all persons served by community water systems times 12 months).
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, 86 percent of the population in Indian country served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of the population in Indian
country served by community water
systems that receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
86.3
Actual
86.3
FY 2006
Target
90
Actual
86.6
FY 2007
Target
93
Actual
87
Unit
Percent of
Population
Baseline - 91.1% of the population in Indian country was served by community water systems that received drinking water that met all applicable
health-based standards in 2002.
Explanation - Four regions were below their regional target due to violations. These violations varied from Total Coliform Rule and Disinfectants
Byproduct Rule violations.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, minimize risk to public health through source water protection for 50 percent of community water systems and for the associated 62
percent of the population served by community water systems (i.e., "minimized risk" achieved by substantial implementation, as determined by the
state, of actions in a source water protection strategy).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of source water areas (both
surface and ground water) for
community water systems will achieve
minimized risk to public health.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
20
Actual
20
FY 2006
Target
20
Actual
24
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
33
Unit
Percent of
Areas
Baseline - 8% of source water areas for community water systems achieved minimized risk to public health in 2002.
Section II-Page 69
-------
Strategic Target (5)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking
water.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of households on Tribal lands
lacking access to safe drinking water.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
30,800
Actual
38,73?
FY 2007
Target
30,500
Actual
36,575
Unit
Households
Baseline - In 2003, Indian Health Service indicated that 39,000 homes lacked access to safe drinking water (12% of tribal homes nationwide).
Explanation - The number of homes lacking access fluctuates from year to year and may not decrease due to new needs, and new homes, as well as
homes where water and wastewater facilities fall out of compliance, new environmental regulations, and population growth occur.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Population served by community
water systems that receive drinking
water that meets health-based
standards with which systems need to
comply as of December 2001.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
94
Actual
91
FY 2006
Target
94
Actual
92
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
Unit
Percent of
Population
Baseline - 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.
Explanation - The result improved over the previous year. As in 2005, the result was lowered by 2.3% by a single very large system in New York
reporting a Surface Water Treatment Rule violation. In addition, a very large system in Ohio reported a Nitrates violation, and there was an increase in
systems reporting Arsenic violations under the new standard.
Population served by community
water systems that receive drinking
water that meets health-based
standards with a compliance date of
96.3
96.3
75
97
N/A
N/A
Percent of
Population
Section II-Page 70
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
January 2002 or later.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - 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.
Percent of population served by
CWSs that will receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards through
approaches incl. effective treatment &
source water protection.
88.5
88.5
93
89.4
94
92
Percent of
Population
Baseline - In 2002, 93.6% 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.
Explanation - FY 2007 result is an increase from 2006 level (89.4%) and above FY 201 1 target of 91 %. FY 201 1 target, from the Agency's 2006-201 1
Strategic Plan is based on a larger set of regulations. Often, drinking water systems have not been monitoring for newly regulated contaminants and
thus are unaware whether they will have to implement treatment changes. These systems are thus in violation when new standards take effect. Year-
to-year performance is expected to change as systems implement recent standards.
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
80.6
82.8
81.9
84.7
83.3
86.9
85
88
Rate
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is a 79.2% fund utilization rate in 2003.
Number of additional projects
initiating operations.
405
473
415
439
425
431
433
438
Projects
Baseline - In 2002, 1 ,538 projects were initiating operations.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.2: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
By 2011, reduce public health risk and allow increased consumption of fish and shellfish, as measured by the strategic targets described. (EPA
has developed a new performance measure for future inclusion under this sub-objective. This measure will be reported in the FY 2008 PAR).
Section II-Page 71
-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce the percentage of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern to 4.6 percent.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, maintain or improve the percentage of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources that are approved or
conditionally approved for use.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of state-monitored shellfish-
growing acres impacted by
anthropogenic sources that are
approved or conditionally approved
for use.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
80
Actual
81.2
FY 2006
Target
91
(FY 08)
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
FY 2007
Target
81
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
Unit
Percent of
Areas
Baseline - For shellfish consumption, 77% of assessed estuary square miles met this designated use.
Explanation - The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) typically requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish producing states
on a two-year cycle and prepares reports. Survey responses are voluntary. The ISSC has not responded to EPA's August 1 3, 2007 request for a date
for the next Report.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of water miles/acres,
identified by states or tribes as having
fish consumption advisories in 2002,
where increased consumption offish
is allowed.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
1
Actual
0
FY 2006
Target
1
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
FY 2007
Target
2
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
Unit
Percent of
Miles/Acres
Baseline - In 2002, fish consumption advisories were 13.4 million (32.9%) lake acres and 544,000 (15.3%) river miles. In 1995, 77% of assessed
estuary square miles met the designated use for shell fish consumption.
Explanation - The percentages of lake acres and river miles under advisory increase from year to year as states increase their monitoring efforts.
Therefore, to adequately measure the percentage of waterbodies with increased fish consumption allowed, we need to look at individual waterbodies
under advisory and their respective meal advice recommendations. These meal advice recommendations were first collected in 2004 and a 2002
Section II-Page 72
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
baseline is not available. When comparing the 2004 baseline to 2005 data, a number of confounding factors arose that make it very difficult to develop
a percentage in response to this measure. States have developed their own fish advisory programs over the years, and there is variability among the
states in the scope and extent of monitoring, in how frequently previously tested waters are sampled again, in how decisions are made to place waters
under advisory, and in the specific advice that is provided when contaminated fish are found. Due to this variability, a national assessment would be
very difficult to develop and defend.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming
By 2011, the number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal and Great Lakes
waters will be maintained at two, measured as a 5-year average.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, the number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal and Great Lakes
waters will be maintained at two, measured as a 5-year average.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, 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. [Beach season days are equal to 4,025 beaches multiplied by variable number of days of beach
season at each beach).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of days of beach season that
coastal and Great Lakes beaches
monitored by State beach safety
programs are open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
94
Actual
97
FY 2007
Target
92.6
Actual
95.2
Unit
Percent of
Days/Season
Baseline - In 2002, monitored beaches were opened 94% of the days during the beach season.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Section II-Page 73
-------
Restore water quality to allow
swimming in stream miles and lake
acres identified by states.
Target
Actual
Target
2
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
Target
3
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
Target
4
Actual
Data No
Longer
Available
Unit
Percent of
Miles/Acres
Baseline - Baseline data is unavailable for this measure.
Explanation - Data is unavailable for this measure. It is unclear if data will ever be available because of lack of computer data nationally. ATTAINS
has the capability for tracking this information as it does track waterbody status for Designated Uses, but, because not all States report to us in the
timely and/or complete manner, the data is not currently available.
2.2:
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
PMs Met
10
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After November 15,
2007
4
Total PMs
15
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
By 2012, use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis.
Strategic Target (1)
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).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Annual percentage of waterbody
segments identified by States in 2000
as not attaining standards, where
water quality standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2004
Target
2
Actual
3
FY 2005
Target
2
Actual
9
FY 2006
Target
10.3
Actual
13,1
FY 2007
Target
14.1
Actual
15
Unit
Percent of
Segments
Baseline - 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.
Section II - Page 74
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
FY 2004
Target
93
Actual
93
FY 2005
Target
90
Actual
95.4
FY 2006
Target
93.3
Actual
94.7
FY 2007
Target
93.4
Actual
96,7
Unit
Rate
Baseline -The baseline for this measure is a 91% fund utilization rate in 2002.
Number of TMDLs that are
established by States and approved
by EPA on schedule consistent with
national policy (cumulative).
11,105
11,584
14,462
15,342
16,896
19,373
21,923
23,376
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,677 TMDLs in 2000.
Percentage of high priority state
NPDES permits that are scheduled to
be reissued.
95
104
95
96.4
95
111
Percentage of
Permits
Baseline - 95% (Regions required to meet 95% of the universe.)
Explanation - 483/434 = 111%. The priority permits initiative was created to prioritize the issuance of the most environmentally significant permits.
Since this process has such a significant impact on water quality, states continually strive to exceed their goals. We are ahead of schedule in issuing
designated priority permits. This is an annual measure, which represents our progress on scheduled priority permits. States can issue permits
scheduled for future years and receive credit, thus resulting in a higher than 100% rate.
Percentage of major dischargers in
Significant Noncompliance (SNC) at
any time during the fiscal year.
Baseline
22.5
Maintain/I
mprove
19.7
Maintain/I
mprove
20,2
22.5
Data Avail
2008
Percentage of
Dischargers
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 22.5% of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance in 2004.
Explanation - There is a data lag for this measure because EPA's Office of Water must coordinate with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance to compile final results (available in March 2008).
Percent of states and territories that,
within the preceding 3-year period,
submitted new or revised WQ criteria
acceptable to EPA that reflect new
science information from EPA or other
sources not considered in previous
standards.
Baseline
70
62
62
66
66.1
67
66,1
Percent of
State/
Territories
Section II-Page 75
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - Not Applicable because the number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
Explanation - Some submissions were unexpectedly delayed within the states because they were awaiting the required attorney general certifications.
Percentage of submissions of new or
revised water quality standards from
States and Territories that are
approved by EPA.
Baseline
87.6
89.5
83.5
90.9
89
85
85,8
Percentage of
Submissions
Baseline - Not Applicable because the number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
Number of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA on a
schedule consistent with national
policy (cumulative).
12,378
14,589
17,767
18,660
20,501
23,185
25,811
27,377
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,843 TMDLs in 2000.
Percentage of waters assessed using
statistically valid surveys.
38
38
38
38
54
54
54
54
Percentage of
Waters
Baseline -The baseline for this measure is 31% of waters assessed in 2000.
Percent of high priority EPA and state
NPDES permits that are reissued on
schedule.
95
100
95
98.5
95
104
Percent of
Permits
Baseline - 95% (Regions are required to meet 95% of the universe.)
Explanation - The priority permits initiative was created to prioritize the issuance of the most environmentally significant permits. Since this process
has such a significant impact on water quality, states and EPA continually strive to exceed their goals. We are ahead of schedule in issuing
designated priority permits. This is an annual measure, which represents our progress on scheduled priority permits. States and EPA can issue
permits scheduled for future years and receive credit, thus resulting in a higher than 100% rate.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2012, remove at least 5,600 of the specific causes of water body impairments identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
Annual Performance Measures and
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Section II-Page 76
-------
Reduction in phosphorus loadings
(millions of pounds).
Target
4.5
Actual
3.1
Target
4.5
Actual
3.2
Target
4.5
Actual
11.8
Target
4.5
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Unit
Lbs in
Millions
Baseline - Not Applicable.
Explanation - Data available spring 2008.
Additional pounds (in millions) of
reduction to total nitrogen loadings.
8.5
23.4
8.5
5.9
8.5
14.5
8.5
Data Avail
2008
Lbs in
Millions
Baseline - Not Applicable.
Explanation - Data available spring 2008.
Additional tons of reduction to total
sediment loadings.
700,000
5,900,000
700,000
1,500,000
700,000
1,200,000
700,000
Data Avail
2008
Tons
Baseline - Not Applicable.
Explanation - Data available spring 2008.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2012, improve water quality conditions in 250 impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative).
Strategic Target (4)
Through 2012, the condition of the nation's wadeable streams does not degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant increase in the percent of
streams rated ""poor"" and no statistically significant decrease in the streams rated ""good"").
Strategic Target (5)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal partners, reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation
(cumulative).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of households on tribal lands
lacking access to basic sanitation.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
51,000
Actual
46,728
FY 2006
Target
59,250
Actual
36,092
FY 2007
Target
40,631
Actual
28,497
Unit
Households
Baseline - In 2002, Indian Health Service indicated that 71 ,000 households on Tribal lands lack access to basic sanitation.
Section II-Page 77
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - The extent to which this measure was exceeded was partially due to inconsistencies in how the measure was counted. EPA has
changed the basic sanitation measure to better reflect program accomplishments. A new baseline and long-term target also have been established.
The new measure will be monitored beginning in FY 2008.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2012, improve water quality in Indian country at not fewer than 50 baseline monitoring stations in tribal waters (i.e., show improvement in one
or more of seven key parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, pathogen indicators, and turbidity).
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Waters
By 2011, prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to improve national coastal aquatic ecosystem health by at least 0.2
points on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Northeast
Region.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Southeast
Region.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the West Coast
Region.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the Puerto Rico
Region.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, 95 percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites will have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as reflected in
each site's management plan and measured through onsite monitoring programs).
Section II-Page 78
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
National Coastal Condition Report
(NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters
nationally (1-5 scale).
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
2.7
Actual
2.7
FY 2007
Target
2.8
Actual
2.8
Unit
Scale score
Baseline - 2002 Baseline: 2.4
2,3:
By 2011, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems-specifically, the
quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean waters.
PMs Met
5
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
5
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of Six Year
Review decisions.
FY 2004
Target
100
Actual
69
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
90
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
94
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of Six Year Review decisions and completed 100% of its actions on
time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants
in drinking water.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of Contaminant
Candidate List Decisions.
100
78
100
60
100
100
100
100
Percent
Section II-Page 79
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) decisions and completed
73% of its planned actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of
human exposure to contaminants in drinking water.
Percentage of planned outputs (in
support of Water Quality Research
Program (WQRP) long-term goal #1)
delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal one and completed 1 00% of its actions on time.
This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in fish,
shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Percentage of planned outputs (in
support of WQRP long-term goal #2)
delivered
100
75
100
67
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal two and completed 100% of its actions on time. This
measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in fish,
shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Percentage of planned outputs (in
support of WQRP long-term goal #3)
delivered
100
89
100
71
100
92
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal three and completed 1 00% of its actions on time.
This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in fish,
shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Section II-Page 80
-------
GOAL 3 - LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and
cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risk posed by releases of harmful
substances.
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 Protection and Restoration Research,
Homeland Security.
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 community. 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 properties. 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, thereby conserving 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
environment. 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.
Section II-Page 81
-------
Objective 1: Preserve Land
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 3, Objective 1
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 3, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Researc
$81,
Preserve Land,
$243,959.6,
8%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$54,768.6, 4%
Preserve Land,
$220,621.4,
14%
Restore Land,
$2,715,521.3,
89%
Restore Land,
$1,275,358.7,
82%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives.
This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 3: Objective 1 - Preserve Land
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
FY 2007
Obligations
$71,530.0
($2.8)
$29,008.8
$843.6
$2,216.9
$389.6
$711.3
FY 2007 Expenditures
$67,493.3
$49.7
$13,935.8
$799.9
$1,238.1
$161.2
$1,037.7
Section II-Page 82
-------
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
Total
$9,827.1
$66,032.9
$9,516.2
$207.9
$50.7
$2,760.3
$447.5
$2,019.4
$1,446.5
$23,781.0
$1,058.3
$1,781.9
$193.7
$13,954.5
$1,913.8
$603.5
$1,458.0
$143.8
$201.5
$99.2
$1,035.2
$729.3
$243,959.6
$9,051.4
$67,482.8
$9,718.5
$198.0
$41.1
$2,676.8
$434.1
$2,004.9
$858.1
$22,298.1
$1,014.6
$1,757.0
$191.1
$11,944.8
$1,901.4
$582.7
$1,554.4
$132.1
$188.7
$83.0
$1,086.5
$705.4
$220,621.2
Waste Recycling and Waste Reduction
In FY 2007 EPA continued to make progress toward its municipal solid waste
(MSW) reduction goals of diverting 85.2 million tons of MSWand maintaining a daily per
capita generation of MSW at 4.5 pounds. EPA missed the FY 2005 target of 81 million
tons, achieving a total of 79 million tons, a shortfall of nearly 2.5 percent. EPA has
undertaken a number of new activities to try to increase the volume of waste diverted
toward recycling (e.g., new recycling message, increasing work with local governments
and organizations, creating a new Internet toolkit, and encouraging the adoption of Pay-
As-You-Throw). The total recycling volume is influenced by many other factors, and
EPA is working hard to more clearly show the correlation between the Agency's
contributions and the targeted outcome.
EPA promotes waste reduction and recycling through partnership programs.
Over the last year we have greatly increased the number of partners with whom we are
collaborating. For example, WasteWise focuses on partnerships with businesses and
institutions such as universities, hospitals, non-profits, and state, local, and tribal
governments, and GreenScapes focuses on organics reuse. Through the successes of
partnership programs such as these, EPA is continuing to focus on improving its
performance in meeting its recycling goals.
The Coal Combustion Partnership Program (C2P2) is another premier
partnership program based on collaboration with industry and all levels of government.
Section II-Page 83
-------
C2P2 is designed to increase recycling of coal combustion products, which are
generated at the rate of 128 million tons annually. EPA surpassed its FY 2006 target by
reusing an additional 3 percent of coal ash instead of disposing of it. Data for FY 2007
will be available at the end of FY 2008. This program contributes to EPA's national
recycling goal. In fact, by 2011, the Agency is committed to increasing the use of coal
combustion ash to 50 percent from 32 percent in 2001. Reductions in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions are one of the environmental benefits of the C2P2 Partnership. For
example, substituting one ton of coal ash for one ton of cement in concrete avoids 0.8
tons of GHG emissions, while at the same time enhances the quality of the concrete
produced.
The Agency collaborated with the electronics industry, recyclers, and state and
local governments to reuse and/or recycle 34 million pounds of electronic equipment,
such as computers, printers, fax machines, and televisions. We also worked with 17
federal agencies (representing 145 partners) to reuse and recycle their electronic
equipment. We partnered with representatives from airports, stadiums, convention
centers, concert halls, offices, highway stops, and many other locations, providing tools
and technical assistance to foster an increase in the recycling rates. The municipal
waste reduction and recycling program increased its outreach efforts, educating the
public about the benefits of recycling and increasing participation in recycling programs.
In 2007, EPA made progress on building a public/private network to make
responsible chemical management available to all schools across the nation. These
partnerships help to create sustainable chemical management programs in schools.
Hazardous Waste Facility Permitting
EPA's strategy for preventing releases of hazardous waste relies on issuing and
maintaining facility permits that mandate appropriate controls for each hazardous waste
facility site. The permitting program met its 2007 annual target of increasing the
percentage of hazardous waste management facilities under appropriate controls by 2.4
percent, although many of these facilities presented types of hazardous waste units that
were difficult to address. As a result, 94.3 percent of facilities in the current universe of
2,462 are under approved controls. The program is on track to bring 95 percent of the
facilities under approved controls by the end of FY 2008.
Once a hazardous waste management facility receives a permit, the permit must
be renewed periodically in order to ensure that the facility is up to current standards for
safe waste management and prevention of hazardous waste releases. In FY 2007, state
partners issued 96 permit renewals, which exceeded the target of 50. This progress
allowed the program to meet the 2008 strategic goal a year early as the RCRA program
has already completed 163 permit renewals, ahead of the FY08 target of 150. Because
of the uncertainty in developing a renewal target number, EPA determined through
consultations with its Regions that an annual target of 50 was ambitious. Nearly two
years later, we are exceeding this target by almost two times so in retrospect the target
was not ambitious enough. Now that the program has been tracking the goal for updated
controls for two years, the program has a better understanding of the expectations and
the available work left to be done. Our regional and state counterparts are telling us that
the backlog of renewals is being significantly reduced. The next set of goals that include
updated controls are expected to be more challenging than the current ones set for the
FY08 Strategic Plan.
Section II-Page 84
-------
Regional Permitting Program Progress
Fiscal Year 2007, End of Year Results
10:
Region 8: 90.4%
\
Region 7:
94.7%
Region 5:
95.0%
Region 2:
Region I
94.4%
Region 3:
96.0%
Region 9: 92.2%
Region 4:
94.7%
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%
90.0-90.9%
Region 6:
93.8%
Hazardous waste facilities that do not have approved controls often present
complex management issues. Developing approved controls for large federal facilities,
particularly those with non-traditional treatment units, is difficult and requires more time
to evaluate technical information, address risks, and deal with public concerns. Many of
the 71 hazardous waste facilities that came under approved controls in FY 2007
presented types of units that were relatively difficult to address. The remaining facilities
left to permit in many cases have units that are either difficult to permit or have difficulty
meeting the "under control criteria" because of the large number of units at a given
facility. These facilities include many Subpart X units and federal facilities. The
permitting of RCRA Subpart X units/facilities is based, not on meeting specific
requirements common to 40 CFR 264 Subparts I - O, but on meeting the environmental
performance standard of 40 CFR 264.601. How a unit meets the performance standard
can involve screening assessments to show that releases to air, water, and soils are
minimized, and can involve detailed risk assessments that can be challenging to
conduct. We also require that all units are "under control" at that facility to count toward
meeting the GPRA permitting goal.
EPA and the states have successfully implemented a new Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest Form, which was required for all shipments of hazardous waste
beginning on September 5, 2006. The standard form streamlines the waste shipment
process, helps interstate commerce, and reduces regulatory paperwork, while ensuring
the continued safe management of hazardous waste. Successful implementation of this
new manifest form is a critical step in developing a successful electronic system.
In addition, as part of our ongoing efforts to streamline and improve tracking of
hazardous waste shipments, EPA continues work to develop an electronic manifest
system. Currently, as many as 5 million manifests are completed each year at an annual
compliance cost of approximately $200 - $500 million. We estimate that once
implemented, an electronic manifest system will result in aggregate annual savings of
Section II-Page 85
-------
$100 million to users and states (if 75 percent of the manifests are completed
electronically) and a net savings of approximately $23 - $40 per manifest.
Underground Storage Tank Significant Operational Compliance and Confirmed
Releases
Except in Indian country, the Underground Storage Tank (LIST) Program is
carried out by our state partners. To prevent releases from underground storage tanks,
EPA and its partners ensure that LIST systems are in significant operational compliance
(SOC) with release detection and release prevention equipment requirements and that
the equipment is used, Decreasing LIST National Cleanup Backlog
functioning, and properly
maintained. For FY
2006 and FY 2007, EPA
and its partners achieved
an SOC rate of 62
percent in both years.
These rates are lower
than the targets of 66
percent for FY 2006 and
67 percent for FY 2007
(which represent a 1
percent increase for
each year). To determine FiscalYear
compliance, EPA and its partners have been increasing efforts to inspect all LIST
facilities, such that each facility will be inspected at least once every 3 years. We expect
that over time the increased frequency of inspections will result in improved rates of
facility compliance. However, in the short run EPA and its partners are finding that
previously un-inspected or infrequently-inspected LIST facilities are contributing to lower
rates of compliance. We expect that implementing the inspection initiative will reverse
this downward trend. Through its compliance activities, EPA and its partners remain
committed to maintaining the number of confirmed releases at LIST facilities at 10,000 or
fewer. At the end of FY 2007, the actual number of confirmed releases was 7,570.
>
«
3
u
a.
^
I
U
200
ISO
160
120
100
80
60
0
992 1993 1994 1995 99S 1997 1998 999 2COO 2001 23C2 2003 2C!X 2C05 20C6 2007
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Program
Evaluations:
OIG Oversight Evaluation: The OIG initiated an oversight evaluation of
the LIST program in 2006. Given the ongoing changes in the LIST
program due to the Energy Policy Act, the OIG does not plan to do any
additional work on this evaluation until late FY 2007 or early FY 2008.
Grants:
Through LIST categorical grants, State and Tribal Assistance
Grants were awarded to 49 states; Washington, DC; Puerto Rico;
4 territories; and 15 tribes to encourage owners and operators to
operate and maintain their USTs properly. Tribal grants funded
projects that included developing LIST compliance assistance
Section II-Page 86
-------
and certification programs; conducting compliance assistance
visits and providing technical support for tribes; developing tribal
LIST owner/operator training workshops and outreach materials;
conducting LIST compliance inspections and tracking significant
operational compliance in Indian Country; building LIST program
capacity; and overseeing 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 their inspection
presence; and implementing delivery prohibition, secondary
containment, and other Energy Policy Act requirements. At the
end of FY 2007, there was a reduction over the previous year's
target of LIST facilities in significant operational compliance.
Additionally, between FY 1999 and FY 2007, confirmed LIST
releases averaged 10,534. The annual number of confirmed
releases in FY 2007 was 7,570.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants were used to make
competitive awards of five cooperative agreements, up to a total
of $288,000, to Indian tribal governments and intertribal consortia
in support of programs that address hazardous waste
mismanagement in Indian Country. This grant program is
designed to support comprehensive hazardous waste
management activities that will ensure that hazardous waste is
managed safely from "cradle-to-grave." The grant projects will
improve the tribe's knowledge about the location of hazardous
waste handlers/facilities and the types of hazardous waste they
manage as reflected by inventories of facilities. The projects will
also help tribes develop codes, regulations, ordinances, policies,
and/or guidance for regulating hazardous waste and promote
their ability to properly identify, manage, or dispose of hazardous
waste, as demonstrated by a reduction in the number of citations
under tribal codes, regulations, and ordinances, and fewer
reports of illegal hazardous waste disposal. In addition, the
projects will also: increase the use of hazardous waste reduction
and re-use activities as demonstrated by increased use of
household hazardous waste collection stations and re-use
centers; train tribal leaders and environmental staff and improve
community awareness of proper hazardous waste and used oil
management practices, as demonstrated by level of participation
in household hazardous waste collection events and used oil
collection programs; and increase the purchasing of alternative,
less hazardous products.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) statute
authorizes EPA to assist state governments through the
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grant program. The
Section II-Page 87
-------
PART:
Web Links:
states propose legislation and upgrade regulations to achieve
equivalence with the Federal Hazardous Waste Management
Program, and apply to EPA for authorization to administer the
program. The state grants provide for the development and
implementation of an authorized hazardous waste management
program for the purpose of controlling the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
wastes, including controlling and cleaning up past and continuing
releases from hazardous waste management facilities through
corrective action.
• The RCRA Recycling, Waste Minimization and Waste
Management Program was assessed in the 2004 PART process
and received a rating of "adequate." The program has completed
PART follow-up actions including the development of an
efficiency measure for the waste minimization component of the
RCRA base program. The cost per pound of removing a priority
chemical from a waste stream will be measured.
• The Oil Spill Program was assessed in the 2005 PART process
and received a rating of "adequate." As a result of the PART
process, the program is conducting follow-up actions, which
include refining data sources and developing outcome measures
that will be in place for FY 2009.
• The LIST (prevention) program received an overall PART rating
of "moderately effective" in 2006. As a component of the
program's improvement plan, EPA worked with its state partners
to develop an efficiency measure of the annual confirmed
releases per the annual LIST leak prevention costs.
Overview of the Federal LIST Program:
http://www.epa.qov/OUST/overview.htm,
Underground Storage Tank Provisions Of The Energy Policy Act Of
2005: http://www.epa.aov/oust/fedlaws/epact 05.htm#Final,
EPA Waste Proqrams: http://www.epa.qov/epaoswer/osw/,
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT):
http://www.epa.aov/epp/pubs/products/epeat.htm,
Oil Spill Program: http://www.epa.qov/oilspill/.
Section II-Page 88
-------
Objective 2: Restore Land
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 3, Objective 2
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 3, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Researc
$81,7.
Preserve Land,
$243,959.6,
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$54,768.6, 4%
Preserve Land,
$220,621.4,
14%
Restore Land,
$2,715,521.3,
89%
Restore Land,
$1,275,358.7,
82%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives.
This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
'Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 3: Objective 2 - Restore Land
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
FY 2007
Obligations
$31,539.2
$7,014.3
$2,298.0
$274.3
$244.3
$998.4
$52,203.5
$1,806.7
FY 2007 Expenditures
$31,992.7
$143.7
$2,280.7
$306.1
$2,373.7
$593.4
$41,038.0
$1,796.7
Section II-Page 89
-------
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
Total
$16,784.8
$63,043.5
$30,338.4
$39,593.4
$185,759.1
$211,533.9
$10,154.1
$35,957.5
($36.0)
$1,787,050.0
$4,874.2
$1,130.2
$1,044.3
$29,542.6
$2,926.1
$14,499.7
$5,002.8
$80,805.3
$21,330.4
$6,933.0
$583.3
$32,217.9
$2,109.4
$420.9
$14,620.0
$1,040.1
$1,095.1
$539.1
$3,135.4
$11,150.4
$3,963.8
$2,715,521.4
$13,706.2
$59,398.1
$13,332.0
$38,548.6
$205,147.1
$42,635.9
$11,148.4
$31,994.2
$14.6
$577,589.6
$5,705.0
$1,076.4
$688.0
$24,865.2
$2,837.2
$14,459.3
$1,064.9
$75,556.5
$17,213.1
$5,476.8
$524.8
$29,279.9
$2,095.3
$409.7
$1,702.5
$1,486.3
$1,025.9
$451.2
$2,637.7
$8,929.2
$3,834.0
$1,275,358.6
EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
[RCRA] Corrective Action, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank [LUST]) aim to
control the risks to human health and the environment at contaminated properties or
sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other actions and make land available for reuse.
These programs made significant strides in FY 2007.
In FY 2007, the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facility Response Programs
conducted or oversaw 657 ongoing cleanup construction projects (by EPA, potentially
Section II-Page 90
-------
responsible parties, and federal facilities) at 420 sites. Federal facilities accounted for
219 of these ongoing projects at 78 sites. Through these activities, the program
accomplished the following:
Number of Construction Completions and Final/Deleted IMPL Sites
Fiscal Year
• Made 395 final site-assessment decisions under Superfund, exceeding the target
of 350.
• Controlled all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination
for current land and/or groundwater use conditions at a net total of 13 additional
Superfund human exposure sites, exceeding the target of ten.
• Controlled the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered
remedies or natural processes at a net total of 19 additional Superfund
groundwater exposure sites, exceeding the target of 10.
• Completed construction of remedies at 24 Superfund sites, meeting the target of
24 private and federal sites.
• Determined that 64 Superfund sites were ready for reuse sitewide, exceeding the
target of 30. The Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse performance measure tracks those
entire NPL sites where: (1) construction of the remedy is completed; (2) all
cleanup goals to reduce unacceptable risk have been achieved that may affect
current and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the site for land/water/air;
and, (3) all institutional controls have been put in place.
The Superfund Enforcement Program continued to pursue its strategies of "Enforcement
First" and "Smart Enforcement." "Enforcement First" allows EPA to focus appropriated
funds on sites where potentially responsible parties either do not exist or lack the funds
or capabilities needed to conduct the cleanup. "Smart Enforcement" ensures that EPA
uses the most appropriate enforcement or compliance tools to address the most
significant problems and achieve the best outcomes. By applying these two strategies,
EPA's FY 2007 Superfund enforcement goals are: to reach a settlement or take an
enforcement action by the start of remedial action at 95 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 limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or
greater than $200,000.
Section II-Page 91
-------
FY 2007 Enforcement and Compliance Annual Results
Private Party Commitments far Super-fund Site Study
and Cleanup, Oversight, and Cost Recovery
FY 2003-FY 2OO7
900
800
700
-3- 600
g
| 500
*»• 400
300
200
100
0
Site Stud/ & Cleanup
Oversight
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source: Site Study and Cleanup and Cost Recovery: Comprehensive I nvironmcntal Response, Compensation and I iabilny
Information System (Cl UCI IS). IO/20O7; Oversight: Integrated Hnancial Management System (II-MS), 10/2007
*ln rY 2006. the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) changed tine reporting requirements for Consent Decrees (CDs) to
count only CDs that have been entered by the court In previous years. OSRE gave credit when the CD was referred to the
Department of Justice, lodged with the court, or entered by the court The chart shows results based an the new methodology.
In FY 2007, EPA met its goal to reach a settlement or take an enforcement action
by the start of remedial action at 95 percent of non-federal Superfund sites that have
viable, liable parties. EPA did not achieve its GPRA goal of addressing 100 percent of
the pending cost recovery cases with outstanding unaddressed past costs greater than
$200,000 and pending SOL concerns through enforcement, settlements, or
compromise/write-off. Although cost recovery was addressed at 342 NPL and non-NPL
sites, of which 155 had total costs greater than or equal to $200,000 and 65 had
potential SOL concerns, EPA achieved 98 percent. This was due to a missed SOL case
that was awaiting write-off because there were no viable responsible parties. Although
the SOL was missed, there was no loss in recovery dollars. (The region had written off
costs associated with the missed SOL, but failed to complete the supporting decision
documents before the expiration of the SOL.)
In addition, EPA secured private party commitments for cleanup and cost recovery and
billed private parties for oversight for amounts that exceeded $1 billion.
For the universe of 1,968 RCRA corrective action facilities, EPA had set 2007
targets for 92 percent of facilities with current human exposures under control, 77
percent with migration of contaminated groundwater under control, and 25 percent with
final remedies constructed. In each case EPA exceeded the target, increasing these
percentages to 93, 78, and 28 percent, respectively. The RCRA Corrective Action
Program owes its success in 2007 largely to the many years EPA regions and state
environmental agencies have spent characterizing high-priority facilities and moving
them toward final cleanups. In 2007, these efforts culminated in the control of human
exposures and the containment of contaminated groundwater at many of the Corrective
Action Program's most difficult sites. Meanwhile, the Agency's ambitious goal for 2020 -
Section II-Page 92
-------
RC-RA EnvironmcrvtaJ Indicators
Human Exposure
to complete remedy construction at 95 percent of all 3,746 facilities believed to need
Corrective Action - has spurred regions and states to accelerate remedy construction
efforts. The Corrective Action Program
also expects to meet its long-term
targets for 2008 - 95 percent human 250
exposures under control and 81 percent
groundwater migration under control -
and increase the percentage of facilities
with final remedies constructed to 30
percent.
TOO
I I50--
To meet RCRA corrective action
2020 goals, EPA is promoting
streamlined approaches, leveraging
state programs, and encouraging other
innovative activities. For example, the
State of Maryland worked with Duke
Realty to purchase and revitalize the
extensive General Motors (GM)
Baltimore site, using a facility lead
agreement. A planned business park
containing 16 buildings will bring
thousands of jobs to the shuttered GM a
property. Duke's investment in the |
project is expected to exceed $140 |
million. On a smaller scale, the Illinois §
voluntary cleanup program is addressing
those portions of RCRA sites that can be
cleaned up and reused earlier than the
rest of the site. These are two examples
of the many efforts underway to address
and revitalize RCRA sites in a timely fashion.
'<»--
SQ--
230
172
179
am
mm
2004
aois
Groundwuer Migration
200
100
50
»J
171
172
)M
142
129
IIS
ai
I I I I I
zom
3001
2004
ans
20%
The LUST Program promotes rapid and effective responses to releases from
federally-regulated underground storage tanks containing petroleum by enhancing state,
local, and tribal enforcement and response capability. EPA continues to focus on
increasing the efficiency of LUST cleanups nationwide. In FY 2007, EPA's state and
tribal partners completed 13916 UST cleanups, meeting the target of 13,000 (including
54 cleanups in Indian Country).
Preparedness and Response
In FY 2007, the Emergency Response and Removal (ERR) Program exceeded
both of its removal targets by completing 200 Superfund-lead removals and 151
voluntary removals.
During FY 2007, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) developed two
new outcome measures for the ERR Program that will go into effect in FY 2008. These
new measures will illustrate the benefits of ERR actions for reducing health risks and
protecting the environment over time.
Section II-Page 93
-------
The Core ER sets standards to ensure that each region works toward improving
and maintaining an excellent response program that is capable of responding quickly
and effectively to chemical, oil, biological agents and radiological incidents. For FY
2007, OEM has developed an Agency-wide readiness score by expanding the Core ER
evaluation in an effort to measure the progress in implementing the Agency's National
Approach to Response (NAR). OEM is now evaluating each EPA Region, headquarters,
and EPA emergency response special teams to measure their progress in preparing for
five simultaneous incidents of national significance (INS).
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Program
Evaluations:
• GAO Report (GAO-07-1091): World Trade Center - EPA's
Most Recent Test and Clean Program Raises Concerns That
Need to Be Addressed to Better Prepare for Indoor
Contamination Following Disasters. Additional information
on these reports is available in the Program Evaluation
Section, Appendix A, page A.
• GAO Report (GAO-07-806T): World Trade Center -
Preliminary Observations on EPA's Second Program to
Address Indoor Contamination. Additional information on
this report is available in the Program Evaluation Section,
Appendix A, page A.
• OIG Reports: Superfund's Board of Directors Needs to
Evaluation Actions to Improve the Superfund Program; EPA
Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative
Approaches to Superfund Cleanups; EPA Can Improve Its
Managing of Superfund Interagency Agreements with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; Environmental Justice Concerns
and Communication Problems Complicated Cleaning Up
Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site; EPA Has Improved Five-Year
Review Process for Superfund Remedies, But Further Steps
Needed; EPA Needs to Plan and Complete a Toxicity
Assessment for the Libby Asbestos Cleanup. Additional
information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A.
• OSWER Reviews: Superfund Contract Laboratory Program
Customer Satisfaction Evaluation (preliminary report).
Additional information on this report is available in the
Program Evaluation Section, Appendix A, page A.
• 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-8.
• GAO Report (GAO-07-152): Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to Better Ensure the
Section II-Page 94
-------
Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups. Additional
information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation Section Appendix.
Grants: • EPA awards Superfund cooperative 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). EPA awards Core cooperative agreements to
States and Tribes to conduct CERCLA implementation
activities that are not directly assignable to specific sites, but
are intended to develop and maintain a State's or Indian
tribe's ability to participate in CERCLA response program.
Activities funded include: hiring staff, administrative salaries,
clerical help, financial accounting, data management,
program management, medical monitoring, health and safety
training for field employees, computer systems purchases,
training, legal assistance and legislative development.
Products or funded activities include reports, accounting and
tracking systems, hired and trained staff, cost recovery
procedures and techniques, and laws and regulations for
hazardous waste control. EPA also awards site-specific
cooperative agreements (pre-remedial, remedial response,
removal, enforcement and support agency) to assure
participation of States and Indian tribes in assessing and
cleaning up Superfund sites. All 10 EPA regional offices
awarded cooperative agreements to our intergovernmental
partners to lead cleanup actions or to support EPA-lead
cleanup actions at hazardous waste sites. Cooperative
agreements were awarded to lead the evaluation of newly
discovered sites, to assess and investigate sites that have
been identified as needing further action, to select, in
partnership with EPA, the appropriate technologies and
cleanup actions for these sites, to design the selected
technologies and cleanup actions, and to construct the
designed remedy. Funding was used to start or continue
long term remedial actions to treat ground water where
remediation goals have not yet been reached. Finally,
funding was provided to States and tribes to meaningfully
and substantially participate in cleanup actions where EPA
led the cleanup.
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) are an important tool
for involving the local community meaningfully in the cleanup
process. By providing independent technical expertise to
local communities, TAGs help community members better
understand the technical issues affecting site cleanups, the
risks associated with site contamination, and options for
effective and safe site remediation.
Section II-Page 95
-------
PART:
Web Links:
• LUST Cooperative Agreements were awarded to 49 states,
The District of Columbia, 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 2007, 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. In FY 2007, EPA's state and tribal
partners completed 13916 UST cleanups, meeting the target
of 13,000 (including 54 cleanups in Indian Country).
• The Superfund Remedial Program was assessed in the
2004 PART process and received a rating of "adequate." As
a result of the PART assessment, the program is conducting
follow-up actions in three key areas: (1) implementing the
Agency's 120-day study on management of the Superfund
program, (2) developing and implementing improved
measures of program efficiency, and (3) modernizing the
program's CERCLIS data repository to ensure accurate and
complete information on program performance and financial
management. The program will undergo another PART
review in 2009.
• The Superfund Federal Facilities Program was assessed in
the 2005 PART process and received a rating of "moderately
effective." As a result of the PART assessment, the program
is conducting follow-up actions, which include working with
other federal agencies to support 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." As a result of the PART process, the program is
introducing two new outcome measures for FY 2008 and
continues to work to ensure data quality and availability.
• The RCRA Corrective Action Program was assessed in the
2003 PART process and received a rating of "adequate."
The program has completed follow-up actions including
defining new baselines for performance measures and
establishing ambitious annual targets to achieve the long-
term objectives of the program. As part of the 5-year cycle,
the Corrective Action Program is scheduled for re-PART in
2008.
Superfund Program: http://www.epa.qov/superfund/,
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Program:
http://www.epa.aov/swerffrr/;
Corrective Action:
Section II-Page 96
-------
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/index.htm,
Overview of the Federal LIST Proqram:
http://www.epa.aov/OUST/overview.htm
Objective 3: Enhance Science and Research
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 3, Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 3, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Researc
$81,7
Preserve Land,
$243,959.6,
8%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$54,768.6, 4%
Preserve Land,
$220,621.4,
14%
Restore Land,
$2,715,521.3,
89%
Restore Land,
$1,275,358.7,
82%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives.
This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 3: Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
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
FY 2007
Obligations
$20.1
$95.6
$256.3
$66,102.9
$97.5
FY 2007 Expenditures
$3,223.9
$39.5
$393.3
$33,675.9
$4,641.0
Section II-Page 97
-------
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
Total
$3,691.8
$51.0
$12.4
$1,128.1
$70.5
$252.4
$353.7
$2,358.9
$504.5
$706.6
$99.9
$4,144.3
$483.3
$167.8
$467.1
$14.1
$49.4
$24.3
$413.1
$178.9
$81,744.5
$2,487.4
$48.6
$10.1
$1,030.9
$67.8
$247.8
$210.6
$2,411.7
$488.4
$720.4
$115.9
$3,330.5
$476.4
$160.7
$295.2
$13.9
$46.3
$20.4
$439.0
$173.0
$54,768.6
Objective 3 - Enhance Science and Research
EPA continues to effectively provide timely, cutting-edge, problem-driven
research products to support sound science decisions relating to the protection and
restoration of land.
Asbestos Health Effects Research
EPA has been working in Libby, Montana since 1999, when an Emergency
Response Team was sent to investigate concerns about asbestos-contaminated
vermiculite. Since that time, EPA has been working closely with the community to clean
up contamination and reduce risks to human health. To support the Libby risk
assessment, EPA initiated studies in 2007 to assess the health effects of asbestos
fibers. To ensure broader applicability to the issues related to environmental asbestos
health effects, EPA also plans to conduct comparative research on at least two other
site-specific asbestos-containing environmental samples. EPA's ongoing cleanup and
research efforts continue to make Libby a safer place to live, work, and visit.28
Section II-Page 98
-------
Evaluation of the Aerosolization of the Asbestos and Related Fibers from Bulk
Materials
In response to emerging needs, EPA is evaluating the aerosolization of asbestos
fibers from bulk soils and developing lessons learned using the results of three field
studies. EPA will improve the field equipment and conduct additional studies in
Montana, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, and California. EPA also plans to conduct
indoor carpet sampling using a specifically designed test instrument.
Mining Site Treatment Method
EPA has carried out site-specific studies to examine the hydrogeology and
groundwater geochemistry at the Asarco East Helena Superfund Site. Subsequently, an
industry-EPA agreement (a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, or
"CRADA") was established with the primary responsible party to construct a pilot-scale
Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) to test this technology for implementation at the site.
The pilot-scale PRB was installed in June 2005 and has been monitored since that time.
EPA has been involved further in developing a site-wide plan for ground water cleanup
that includes isolation of the source and full-scale PRBs, both on the site and off-site at
the tail end of the plume. A plan has been developed to remediate a highly contaminated
aquifer.
Vapor Intrusion Research Used by States
EPA recently synthesized the results of vapor intrusion research in the document
entitled, Assessment of Vapor Intrusion in Homes Near the Raymark Superfund Site
Using Basement and Sub-Slab Air Samples29. The method and associated quality
control measures developed for sub-slab sampling are being used at EPA regional
offices across the United States. Several states, including California and Colorado, have
incorporated many of the report's recommendations into state guidance documents on
vapor intrusion.
Additional Development of Methods and Models To Provide Better Science in the
Assessment of Contaminants.
Recent EPA research products include:
• An immunochromatography sample preparation method that will allow clients to
streamline sample preparation and realize significant time and expense savings in
testing for PCBs, pyrethroid pesticides, and water soluble herbicides.
• On-line tools for assessing subsurface transport of petroleum hydrocarbons
(http://www.epa.gov/athens/onsite), which can be integrated into site assessment
and cleanup decision making.
• An updated statistical package, TAGS (Tools for Analysis of Contaminated Sites), to support
site characterization.
EPA-wide Framework for Metals Risk Assessment
Because metal compounds present unique issues for risk assessors, EPA
released a new Framework for Metals Risk Assessment, on March 8, 2007, to advance
the understanding of the impact of metals in a consistent manner across the Agency's
Section II-Page 99
-------
programs.30 The framework outlines key principles and describes how metals should be
considered in conducting human health and ecological risk assessments.
To effectively support EPA's land research needs, the Land Research Program
periodically updates its multiyear research plan. In response to Agency needs, the latest
version of the plan reflects a new nanotechnology fate and transport research program,
implemented in FY 2007.
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Program
Evaluations:
PART:
Web Links:
In FY 2007, the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program
took action to address recommendations resulting from EPA's
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) FY 2006 review: Review of
the Office of Research and Development's Land Protection and
Restoration Research Proqram at the Environmental Protection
Agency. The program's response to the BOSC — along with a list of
planned actions — can be found on the BOSC Website at
http://www.epa.aov/OSP/bosc/pdf/land0603rpt.pdf.
EPA's Land Protection and Restoration Research Program received
an "Adequate" rating on its 2006 PART assessment. Subsequent to
the review, the program will establish new long-term outcome
measures based on independent panel ratings of progress.
Additionally, ORD has initiated a National Academy of Sciences
(MAS) study to determine the most appropriate approach for
establishing an outcome-oriented efficiency measure. The program
is also working to improve its collection of partner performance
information.
Office and Research and Development: http://www.epa.aov/ord/
Section II-Page 100
-------
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by
releases of harmful substances.
3.1:
By 2011, 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.
PMs Met
5
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After November 15,
2007
3
Total PMs
9
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
By 2011, reduce materials use through product and process redesign, and increase materials and energy recovery from wastes otherwise
requiring disposal.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, increase reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris by 6 percent from a baseline of 59 percent in 2003.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of construction and
demolition debris that is reused or
recycled.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
62
Actual
65
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY2003, 160 million tons of construction and demolition debris were generated from buildings (of which 40 percent was recycled), and
170 million tons were generated from roads (of which 88 percent was recycled).
Explanation - During EPA's peer review of the baseline data used to establish the C&D materials long-term 201 1 goal and annual targets, stakeholders
provided comments and clarification on the data sources used to estimate the amount of C&D materials being recycled. After addressing these
comments and including these data, EPA recalculated the recycling rate and found that 65 percent of C&D materials were already being recycled.
During FY 2008, EPA will work with stakeholders to develop a new long-term goal and annual targets founded on improved data.
Section II-Page 101
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the use of coal combustion ash to 50 percent from 32 percent in 2001.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of coal combustion ash
that is used instead of disposed.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
1.8
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2008
Unit
Percent
Baseline - For coal combustion ash, approximately 128 million tons are generated annually. In 2006, 43percent was used rather than landfilled.
Explanation - Data will be available in September 2008.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, increase by 118 the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan compared to FY 2006.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of tribes covered by an
adequate and recently-approved
integrated solid waste management
plan.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
27
Actual
28
Unit
Tribes
Baseline - This is a new measure for FY 2007. The baseline is established as zero.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, close, clean up, or upgrade 138 open dumps in Indian Country and on other tribal lands compared to FY 2006.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of closed, cleaned up, or
upgraded open dumps in Indian
Country or on other tribal lands.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
107
Unit
Open Dumps
Section II-Page 102
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
Baseline - This is a new measure for FY 2007. The baseline is established as zero.
Explanation - EPA Regions 6 and 9 were able to effectively leverage the GAP grant by highlighting open dump closure work in the grant solicitation.
As a result, for example, the majority of Region 9 tribes included solid waste projects under GAP. Furthermore, in Region 9, dump cleanup projects
are starting to be included in RCRA Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), which increased the regional results. In fact, nearly ten dumps
were cleaned up under SEPs and a significant number of cleanups funded in prior years reached completion. We partnered with our Tribal Programs
Office to highlight dump closure work in the FY06 and FY07 GAP grant solicitation. As a result, the majority of Region 9 tribes included solid waste
projects under GAP. Dump cleanup projects have been a priority for 2 years and this type of work is starting to be included in RCRA Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs) in Region 9. Twenty-four dumps were funded in FY06 but final closure did not occur until FY07. Multiple sites were
not anticipated when we made the original bid, including the 13 sites on the Torres Martinez Reservation. Region 6 also had a number of open dumps
closed under the GAP grants, which were not expected by the Regional RCRA program. EPA expects to extensively revisit this tribal measure and
establish new targets during the development of the next EPA Strategic Plan (2009-2014).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Millions of tons of municipal solid
waste diverted.
FY 2004
Target
79
Actual
77.7
FY 2005
Target
81
Actual
79
FY 2006
Target
83.1
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2008
FY 2007
Target
85.2
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2009
Unit
Million Tons
Baseline - An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2005 shows approximately 79 million tons (33 percent) of municipal solid waste diverted.
Explanation - MSWdata will not be available until November 2008. The data lag occurs because the calculation incorporates several sources of
information and is compiled by Franklin. It takes them a year to get the information and prepare the calculations. EPA missed the FY 2005 target of
81 million tons, achieving a total of 79 million tons, a shortfall of nearly 2.5 percent. EPA has undertaken a number of new activities to try to increase
the volume of waste diverted toward recycling (e.g., new public recycling message, increasing work with local governments and organizations, creating
a new toolkit, and encouraging the adoption of Pay-As- You-Throw). The total recycling volume is influenced by many other factors, and EPA is
working hard to more clearly show the correlation between its contributions and the targeted outcome.
Daily per capita generation of
municipal solid waste.
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
Data Avail
FY 2008
4.5
Data Avail
FY 2009
Pounds MSW
Baseline - An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2005 shows approximately 4.5 Ibs of MSW per person daily generation.
Section II-Page 103
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
Explanation - MSW data will not be available until November 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products Properly
By 2011, reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, prevent releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by implementing initial approved controls or updated controls.
(The universe of facilities will be reassessed in FY 2009. However, we currently estimate that there will be about 820 facilities that will require
these controls. The goal of 500 represents about 60 percent of the universe of 820 facilities.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Annual increase in the percentage of
RCRA hazardous waste management
facilities with permits or other
approved controls.
FY 2004
Target
2.4
Actual
3.7
FY 2005
Target
2.8
Actual
3.1
FY 2006
Target
2.5
Actual
4.3
FY 2007
Target
2.4
Actual
2.9
Unit
Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2006, the percentage of hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved controls nationwide was
91 .4 percent.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection and release
prevention requirements to 71 percent from 66 percent in 2006 (an increase of 5 percent) out of a total estimated universe of approximately
245,000 facilities.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Increase the rate of significant
operational compliance by 1% over
the previous year's rate (target).
FY 2004
Target
Actual
64
FY 2005
Target
65
Actual
66
FY 2006
Target
66
Actual
62
FY 2007
Target
67
Actual
62
Unit
Percent
Section II-Page 104
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
Baseline - Annual targets increase each year by one percent from the FY04 baseline of 64 percent.
Explanation - In FY 2006 and FY 2007, states found that many previously un-inspected LIST facilities did not comply with requirements. As previously
un-inspected or infrequently-inspected facilities are inspected, compliance rates are lower, and the Agency has not met its goal for increasing
significant operational compliance rates.
Strategic Target (3)
Each year through 2011, minimize the number of confirmed releases at LIST facilities to 10,000 or fewer from a universe of approximately 650,000
LIST tanks.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
No more than 10,000 confirmed
releases per year.
FY 2004
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,848
FY 2005
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,421
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
Actual
8,361
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
Actual
7570
Unit
US T releases
Baseline - Between FY 1999 and FY2006, confirmed LIST releases averaged 10,534
3,2:
By 2011, 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.
PMs Met
15
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
18
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
By 2011, reduce and control the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases of harmful substances by improving our nation's capability to
prevent, prepare for, and respond more effectively to these emergencies.
Strategic Target (1)
Section II-Page 105
-------
By 2011, achieve and maintain at least 95 percent of maximum score on readiness evaluation criteria in each region.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Average state of emergency response
readiness as determined by readiness
criteria.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
55
Actual
96
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 96 was the average score of the ten EPA regions based on the core emergency response readiness criteria.
Explanation - The higher than expected scores for the emergency response readiness criteria reflects the regions' prompt attention to the
implementation of new policies and procedures.
Strategic Target (2)
Between 2006 and 2011, complete 975 Superfund-lead hazardous substance removal actions.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Superfund-lead removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
195
Actual
172
FY 2006
Target
195
Actual
157
FY 2007
Target
195
Actual
200
Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY2006, there were 157 Superfund-lead removal actions completed, fora total of approximately 5,300 completions since 1980.
Strategic Target (3)
Between 2006 and 2011, oversee and complete 650 voluntary removal actions.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Voluntary removal actions, overseen
by EPA, completed.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
105
Actual
137
FY 2006
Target
115
Actual
93
FY 2007
Target
120
Actual
151
Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 93 voluntary removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 1 ,200 completions since 1980.
Section II-Page 106
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reduce by 25 percent the gallons of oil spilled by facilities subject to Facility Response Plan regulations relative to the 601,000 gallons of
oil spilled in 2003.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, inspect (and ensure compliance at) 90 percent of the estimated 4,200 facilities subject to Facility Response Plan regulations, up from 50
percent in 2004.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of inspected facilities
subject to Facility Response Plan
(FRP) regulations found to be in
compliance.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
77
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
71
FY 2007
Target
75
Actual
67
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 71 percent of inspected facilities subject to FRP regulations were found to be in compliance.
Explanation - The lower than expected result is due to inspection of facilities anticipated to be out of compliance with SPCC and/or FRP regulations as
a result of State referrals, citizen complaints, and/or recent reports of oil discharges at these facilities. EPA focuses its limited resources on inspecting
facilities about which we have received complaints and/or referrals.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of inspections and exercises
conducted at oil storage facilities that
are required to have Facility
Response Plans.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
360
Actual
335
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
345
FY 2007
Target
200
Actual
335
Unit
Inspections/E
xercises
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 345 inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities that are required to have Facility Response Plans.
Explanation -
Percentage of inspected facilities
subject to Spill Prevention, Control
and Countermeasures (SPCC)
100
100
100
50
53
40
Percent
Section II-Page 107
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
regulations found to be in compliance.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In FY 2006, 50 percent of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations were found to be in compliance.
Explanation - The lower than expected result is due to inspection of facilities anticipated to be out of compliance with SPCC and/or FRP regulations as
a result of State referrals, citizen complaints, and/or recent reports of oil discharges at these facilities. EPA focuses its limited resources on inspecting
facilities about which we have received complaints and/or referrals.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
By 2011, 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.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, make final assessment decisions at 40,491 of 44,700 potentially hazardous waste sites evaluated by EPA to help resolve community
concerns on whether these sites require long-term cleanup to protect public health and the environment and to help determine if they can be
cleared for possible redevelopment.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Superfund final site assessment
decisions completed.
FY 2004
Target
475
Actual
548
FY 2005
Target
500
Actual
551
FY 2006
Target
419
Actual
518
FY 2007
Target
350
Actual
395
Unit
Assessments
Baseline - In FY 2006, Superfund completed 51 8 final site assessment decisions for a cumulative total of 39,288 since the program's inception.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for current land and/or groundwater use conditions at
approximately 85 percent (1,316) of 1,543 Superfund human exposure sites (as of FY 2005). BY 2011, increase to 95 percent the high NCAPS-
ranked RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Superfund sites with human health
protection achieved (exposure
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
34
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
13
Unit
Sites
Section II-Page 108
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
pathways are eliminated or potential
exposures are under health-based
levels for current use of land or water
resources).
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - In FY 2006, Superfund controlled human exposures at 82 percent (1 ,269 of 1 554) of eligible NPL sites.
Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with
current human exposures under
control (using 2008 baseline).
82
89
92
93
Percent
Baseline - In FY2006, 88 percent of facilities have human exposures controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, control the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies, natural processes, or other appropriate actions at 74
percent (1,017) of 1,381 Superfund groundwater sites. By 2011, increase to 80 percent the high NCAPS-ranked RCRA facilities with migration of
groundwater under control.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Superfund sites with contaminated
groundwater migration under control.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
10
Actual
21
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
19
Unit
Sites
Baseline - In FY 2006, Superfund controlled groundwater migration at 68 percent (958 of 1 402) of eligible NPL sites.
Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with
migration of contaminated
groundwater under control (using
2008 baseline).
68
74
77
78
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 73 percent of facilities have groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program.
Strategic Target (4)
Section II-Page 109
-------
By 2011, reduce the backlog of LUST cleanups (confirmed releases that have yet to be cleaned up) that do not meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and groundwater migration from 26 percent down to 21 percent. By 2011, increase to 22 percent the RCRA facilities with final
remedies constructed. By 2011, complete construction of remedies at approximately 76 percent (1,171) of 1,547 Superfund sites.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of cleanups that meet state
risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration
(tracked as the number LUST
cleanups completed).
FY 2004
Target
21,000
Actual
14,285
FY 2005
Target
14,500
Actual
14,583
FY 2006
Target
13,600
Actual
14,493
FY 2007
Target
13,000
Actual
13,862
Unit
Cleanups
Baseline - In FY2006, EPA completed 14,493 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups, fora cumulative total of 350,813 LUST cleanups
completed since the inception of the program. LUST Cleanups completed in Indian Country are included in this number.
Number of cleanups that meet risk-
based standards for human exposure
and groundwater migration in Indian
Country.
30
53
30
43
30
54
Cleanups
Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 43 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanups in Indian country, for a cumulative total of 738 LUST
cleanups completed since the inception of the program.
Explanation - The national LUST Remediation in Indian Country contract has led to an increase in LUST cleanups completed in Indian Country in FY
2007.
Annual number of Superfund sites
with remedy construction completed.
40
40
40
40
40
40
24
24
Completions
Baseline - In FY 2006, Superfund completed construction at 65 percent (1 006 of 1 557) of the eligible NPL sites.
Percent of RCRA construction
completions using 2008 baseline.
13
22
25
28
Percent
Baseline - In FY2006, RCRA achieved 22 percent construction completions.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, ensure that 36 percent (345) of 966 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites are ready for reuse site-wide.
Section II-Page 110
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of Superfund sites ready for
reuse site-wide.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
64
Unit
Sites
Baseline - Through FY 2006, there were 195 Superfund sites ready for reuse site-wide.
Explanation - EPA made an additional 64 Superfund sites ready for reuse sitewide in FY07. This number exceeded our target of 30 additional sites
due to the amount of assistance Headquarters provided the regions in training, guidance and "hands on" data entry. Because this is a brand new
measure, regions approached it conservatively. As a result, a number of regions exceeded their target. In addition, after a presentation by the
OSWER AA on the new measure, Region 6's Regional Administrator made it a priority to accelerate the Region's evaluation of candidate sites. This
led to a large number of Region 6 sites achieving this measure at the end of the fiscal year.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.3: Maximize Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites
Through 2011, conserve federal resources by ensuring that potentially responsible parties conduct or pay for Superfund cleanups whenever
possible.
Strategic Target (1)
Each year through 2011, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the start of a remedial action at 95 percent of Superfund sites
having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of Superfund sites at
which settlement or enforcement
action taken before the start ofRA.
FY 2004
Target
90
Actual
98
FY 2005
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
95
Actual
98
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 1998 approximately 70 percent of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. In FY
2003, a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90
percent of Superfund sites.
Strategic Target (2)
Section II-Page 111
-------
Each year through 2011, address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past Superfund
costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 100
% 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 2004
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
99
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
98
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 1 998 the Agency will have addressed 1 00 percent of Cost Recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total past costs equal or greater
than $200,000.
Explanation - EPA did not achieve its goal of addressing 100 percent of the pending cost recovery cases with outstanding unaddressed past costs
greater than $200,000 and pending statute of limitations (SOL) concerns through enforcement, settlements, or compromise/write-off. In FY 2007 EPA
achieved 98 percent. Although the goal was not met, there was no loss in dollars recovered. (The region wrote off the costs associated with the
missed SOL case, but decision documents were not completed before the expiration of the SOL.)
3.3:
Through 2011, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which through
collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
2
Section II-Page 112
-------
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the manage
material streams, conserve resources
and appropriately manage waste
long-term goal.
FY 2004
Target
100
Actual
80
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material streams, conserve resources and
appropriately manage waste long-term goal; 67 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the mitigation,
management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites
long-term goal.
100
55
100
70
100
96
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management and long-term stewardship
of contaminated sites long-term goal; 87 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
Section II-Page 113
-------
GOAL 4 - HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using
integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
CONTRIBUTING PROGRAMS:
Brownfields and Land Revitalization, 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 and Program
Efforts, Environment and Trade, Environmental Justice, Global Change Research, Great
Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Homeland Security Research, Human Health and Ecosystem
Protection Research, Human Health Risk Assessment, International Capacity Building,
Lead and Lead Categorical Grant Programs, Long Island Sound, Mercury Research,
National Environmental Monitoring Initiative, National Estuary Program, Other
Geographic Programs (including Lake Pontchartrain, Puget Sound, and South Florida),
Persistent Organic Pollutants, Pesticides and Toxics Research, Pesticides Licensing and
Implementation, Smart Growth, Research Fellowships, State and Local Prevention and
Preparedness, Targeted Watersheds, US-Mexico Border, Wetlands.
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, that pesticides and chemicals already in commerce do not
harm our health or environment, and that action is taken to reduce risks from pesticides
and 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 the
estimated hundreds of thousands of properties that lie abandoned or unused due to
previous pollution. We help promote public involvement and establish a sense of
environmental stewardship to sustain environmental improvements by forging
partnerships with communities to address local pollution problems.
We also collaborate with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments
and many 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.
Some threats to Americans' health and to our environment originate outside our
borders. Many pollutants can easily travel 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 participating in bilateral programs, cooperating with
multinational organizations, and contributing to a set of measurable environmental and
health end points.
Section II-Page 114
-------
Sound science guides us in identifying and addressing emerging issues and
advances our understanding of long-standing human health and environmental
challenges. Our cutting edge research helps us better characterize risks and benefits,
furthers our ability to measure and describe environmental conditions, and encourages
stewardship and sustainable solutions to environmental problems.
Objective 1: Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 4, Objective 1
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 4, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$417,008.8,
29%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$234,105.9,
16%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$492,230.9,
34%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$427,024.7,
31%
Communities,
$303,715.7,
21%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$195,829.2,
14%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$428,866.6,
32%
Communities,
$310,794.3,
23%
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 1 - Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Lead
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
FY 2007
Obligations
$13,172.1
$21,329.7
$355.4
FY 2007 Expenditures
$13,748.9
$14,179.8
$601.2
Section II-Page 115
-------
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Endocrine Disrupters
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Pesticides: Field Programs
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
POPs Implementation
Science Policy and Biotechnology
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
TRI / Right to Know
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
Total
$1,140.3
$9,870.4
$1,006.9
$5,085.8
$3,463.3
$3,193.8
$22,968.0
$62,365.2
$74,150.5
$414.7
$1,208.1
$12,428.7
$8,294.1
$46,152.7
$13,720.3
$14,626.8
$537.4
$130.9
$7,127.4
$0.0
$848.1
$3,343.6
$3,738.2
$76,955.9
$4,537.5
$6,891.6
$949.9
$58,348.0
$5,075.4
$1,721.9
$2,372.0
$207.5
$520.7
$256.3
$1,836.9
$1,884.8
$492,230.8
$6,836.0
$7,290.9
$416.6
$3,022.7
$5,055.5
$3,269.9
$24,063.7
$44,909.9
$55,320.5
$34.9
$1,448.1
$10,859.7
$8,345.3
$44,249.3
$12,580.4
$14,307.7
$511.8
$106.1
$6,871.3
$0.0
$817.5
$3,298.8
$2,217.8
$69,067.0
$4,318.7
$6,826.4
$941.3
$49,481.7
$5,015.1
$1,653.2
$2,529.0
$199.3
$487.8
$214.6
$1,945.2
$1,823.1
$428,866.7
Section II-Page 116
-------
Reviewing and Reducing Risks of New and Existing Chemicals
EPA serves as America's gatekeeper for safe chemicals, reviewing new
chemicals introduced into U.S. commerce to ensure that they do not pose unreasonable
risks to humans or the environment. The Agency judges its effectiveness in fulfilling this
important responsibility by comparing the results of its analyses to chemical hazard
reports submitted by chemical manufacturers. Performance data from FY 2004 through
FY 2007 have not identified any risks that had been overlooked, testifying to the high
caliber analyses performed for approximately 1,500 new chemicals annually.
EPA is also charged with assessing and acting on the thousands of chemicals
that were already in commerce before its authority to review new chemicals was
established in 1977. The Agency has set a strategic target to ensure that new chemicals
introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment, measured through the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI)
model, which combines Toxics Release Inventory manufacturing sector data with
chemical hazard data and U.S. Census data to generate a production-adjusted relative
risk index. While, due to TRI reporting schedules, FY 2007 results will not be available
until FY 2009, newly available data for 2004 and 2005, 20 percent and 2.5 percent
respectively, show significant progress towards the strategic target. These reductions
bring cumulative reduction to 29.3 percent since 2001.
A number of key program actions contribute to these risk reductions. EPA 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 perfluorinated chemicals, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanyl
sulfonate (PFOS.) Perfluorinated chemicals are used in the manufacture of many
consumer and industrial products including non-stick cookware coatings; waterproof,
breathable clothing; fire and chemical-resistant tubing and cables; and oil, stain, and
grease-resistant surface treatments for carpets, clothing, paper, and cardboard.
In August 2007, the Centers for Disease Control issued a report documenting
significant reductions in human blood levels of PFOS, PFOA, and related chemicals from
1999/2000 through the most recent data in 2003/2004, concluding that these reductions
"most likely are related to discontinuation in 2002 of industrial production" brought about
by EPA action on these chemicals.
Since 2000, EPA has taken a number of actions on these chemicals. After
discussions with EPA, the domestic manufacturer of PFOS phased out production
between 2000 and 2002. EPA finalized two Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) on 88
PFOS-related chemicals in 2002, and it will issue another final SNUR on 183 additional
PFOS-related chemicals in FY 2007. EPA also continued the global PFOA Stewardship
Program in FY 2007, under which participating companies have committed to reduce
PFOA and related chemicals from emissions and product content by 95 percent no later
than 2010 and to work towards eliminating emissions and product content by 2015. In
August 2007, the Centers for Disease Control issued a report documenting significant
reductions in human blood levels of PFOS, PFOA, and related chemicals from
1999/2000 through the most recent data in 2003/2004, concluding that these reductions
"most likely are related to discontinuation in 2002 of industrial production" brought about
by EPA action on these chemicals.31
Section II-Page 117
-------
EPA's High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program is a key component of
the Agency's strategy for fulfilling its responsibility to assess and take action on existing
chemicals. Under the HPV Challenge, the Agency completed work that provided the
public with access to critical health and environmental effects data on more than 2,250
chemicals encountered in communities every day. As of August 2007, 372 chemical
companies and 105 industry consortia had volunteered to provide data directly to EPA
for an additional 1,401 U.S.-sponsored HPV chemicals and to the International Council
of Chemical Associations (ICCA), the European component of the program, for 849
additional chemicals.
EPA entered the final stages of the HPV Challenge Program in FY 2007 by
initiating screening level assessments of the HPV chemicals, completing hazard
assessments for 223 HPVs. This work augments efforts by the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development, which completed Screening Information
Assessment Reports for 630 internationally-sponsored HPVs through FY 2006 and an
additional 78 HPVs during FY 2007. This work will lead to development of risk
characterizations and risk-based decisions for taking action on priority HPV chemicals.
The United States, Canada, and Mexico are strengthening their efforts to ensure
the safe manufacture and use of industrial chemicals by developing a regional
partnership for assessing and managing potential risks. On August 21, 2007, President
Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe
Calderon announced this agreement as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership
of North America. The three countries agreed that their agencies would coordinate
efforts to assess and take action on industrial chemicals. By 2012, the United States will
complete risk characterizations and take action, as needed, on more than 9,000
chemicals produced in excess of 25,000 pounds per year. The 2012 goal is to ensure
that these chemicals are produced and used in ways that minimize risks to health and
the environment. The agreement establishes goals to be met by 2020, which include
creating and updating chemical inventories in all three countries, as well as coordinating
the management of chemicals in North America as outlined in other international
agreements. This agreement will build on Canada's Chemical Management Program to
categorize chemicals for review, assessment, and management of EPA's HPV
Challenge Program.32 With the agreed goals and time horizon, this North American
program will contribute significantly to the ongoing related efforts under the Commission
on Environmental Cooperation Sound Management of Chemicals (CEC SMOC)
Working Group. It also complements the non-regulatory work under the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) to address chemical
issues.
Managing Risks of Priority Chemicals
In 2007 EPA is well on its way to meeting all of the commitments identified in its
Roadmap for Mercury. The Agency is establishing a stakeholder process to examine the
long-term management of domestic mercury stocks; developing a mercury products data
base; finalizing a Significant New Use Rule on mercury automobile switches; partnering
with automobile manufacturers to virtually eliminate mercury in all parts of cars and auto
processing; publishing a Chemical Management Guide for school administrators;
working with the states to promote recycling of fluorescent lamps and other best
Section II-Page 118
-------
management practices for products such as dental amalgam and non-fever
thermometers; and promoting the procurement of non-mercury products through the
Green Suppliers Network.
In 2007 the Agency made substantial strides in promoting the reduction of
mercury use through the UNEP Mercury Partnerships. EPA focused primarily on
reducing mercury from chlor-alkali production, mercury in products, and artisanal mining.
The Agency is exchanging information and expertise, transferring and applying best
management practices, developing and improving mercury use and emission
inventories, providing technical assistance in implementing mercury product substitution
and reduction programs, and raising public awareness. Working with Canada, Norway,
the World Chlorine Council and other partners, EPA has achieved an additional 533 kg
reduction at chlor-alkali production facilities in Russia in 2007. EPA is also working with
the Basel Secretariat to build capacity in developing countries to address mercury waste
and has established more than fifteen projects spanning Latin America, Africa, and
Eurasia.
Reducing Lead-Based Paint Risks
Lead poisoning is an entirely preventable disease that causes neurological
damage, particularly among children. The primary source of lead exposure for children is
lead based paint. EPA is one of the federal agencies combating childhood lead
poisoning, with a goal of eliminating the incidence of poisoning by 2010.
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 for the
period from 1999 to 2002. These findings indicate major progress towards EPA's 2010
strategic target. However, 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. Therefore, 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 FY 2007 the Agency launched a new
grant program designed to link national organizations that have the ability to directly
address childhood lead poisoning prevention for local communities identified as most at-
risk for childhood lead poisoning and continued a grant program aimed at reducing the
incidence of childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations.
To reduce children's exposure to hazards created by renovation, repair, and
painting that disturb lead-based paint, EPA is finalizing a major new rule to require
renovation contractors to receive training and make use of lead-safe work practices
when renovating housing and child-occupied facilities. To support this rule, EPA has
conducted a study to evaluate lead dust levels associated with renovation, repair, and
painting jobs that disturb lead-based paint.33 The Agency has also developed a
document to support EPA's analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the
rulemaking, "Approach for Estimating Changes in Children's IQ from Lead Dust
Generated During Renovation, Repair, and Painting in Residences and Child-Occupied
Facilities."34 The study and the costs/benefits analysis are the focus of a consultation
with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.35
Section II-Page 119
-------
Protect Human Health and the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the
Value from Pesticide Availability
EPA's Pesticide Program promotes public health safety, safe and abundant food,
worker safety, and protection of land and other media from pesticide contamination. Our
FY 2007 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.
• Achieving a 50 percent reduction 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.
EPA's Pesticide Registration Program licenses pesticides for use, ensuring they
present a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and the environment. The
1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) required EPA to make determinations about
the reregistration of existing pesticides and review the registrations of thousands of
pesticide end-use products. Subsequently, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
(PRIA) mandated that the Agency complete reregistration of all food-use pesticides as it
completed their tolerance reassessments. 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. During FY 2007, EPA made 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, especially children. Specific accomplishments
included:
• Completed a cumulative 95.4 percent of Registration Eligibility Decisions. EPA
did not meet its target for the year due to the extension of the comment period for
the fumigants into FY 2008.
• Completed 962 Product Reregistrations and slightly exceeded its target.
• Registered 14 reduced-risk chemicals and biopesticides, 16 new active
ingredients, and 233 new uses.
Implementing the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
EPA is implementing its Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) in three
major parts: (1) assay validation, (2) priority setting and chemical selection, and (3)
development of policies and procedures for testing. In FY 2007, the EDSP initiated EPA
Section II-Page 120
-------
peer review of three Tier 1 assays (four more peer reviews will begin before end of
calendar year). The cumulative number of assays validated in FY 2007 is 3/20 . EDSP
continues to experience scientific uncertainties associated with assay development and
the validation of process. This can affect timing for completion of assay validation.
EDSP's priority setting activities in FY 2007 included implementation of the
priority-setting methodology described in the September 2005 Federal Register notice,
and publication of a draft list of 73 chemicals to undergo initial screening in a June 2007
Federal Register Notice.
In terms of the third component, EPA has prepared draft implementation policies,
an Information Collection Request, and 408(p) orders in anticipation of issuing a Federal
Register notice.
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Grants:
• Pesticide Implementation grants, largely delegated to states
and tribes, help implement pesticide use decisions. These
grant resources assist states and tribes in developing
pesticide certification and training worker protection
programs, conducting endangered species activities, and
promoting environmental stewardship.
• Lead Categorical Grants contribute significantly to reductions
in the incidence of childhood lead poisoning. They are used
primarily to support state and EPA direct implementation of
the TSCA Section 404(g) lead-based paint professionals
certification and training program, grants to reduce lead risks
on tribal lands, and two programs targeting populations of
children deemed most at risk of exposure to lead-based paint.
By the end of FY 2007, state and EPA processing of lead-
based paint certifications resulted in a cumulative total of
31,000 estimated certified lead-based paint professionals
nationwide.
PART:
• The Pesticides Registration Program underwent PART review
in 2002 and the Pesticides Reregistration program underwent
PART review most recently in 2004. Both programs received
ratings of "Adequate."
• The Pesticides Field Program underwent PART in 2004 and
received a rating of "Results Not Demonstrated."
• EPA's Existing Chemicals Program underwent PART review
in 2002 and received a rating of "Results Not Demonstrated."
It was reassessed in 2003 and received an "Adequate" rating.
Section II-Page 121
-------
Web Links:
• EPA's New Chemicals Program underwent PART review in
2002 and initially received a rating of "Adequate." It was then
reassessed in 2003 and received a "Moderately Effective"
rating. The Existing and New Chemicals Programs were
combined and reassessed in 2007 as the Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction Program, which received a
"Moderately Effective" rating. In 2007, the Agency developed
a cost-efficiency measure for management of the TSCA 8(e)
Hazard Notification process which tracks the percent
reduction from the baseline year in the average cost of
conducting TSCA 8(e) processing and searches. A second
efficiency measure tracks the percentage reduction in cost of
managing Pre-Manufacture Notice submissions through the
focus meeting as a percentage of baseline year cost.
• EPA's chemical risk reduction programs collectively act to
assess, reduce and prevent risks to human health and the
environment posed by new and existing chemicals.
Additional program information can be found at
http://www.epa.aov/oppt/, - Pollution, Prevention and Toxics
• http://www.epa.qov/oppt/newchems/, - TSCA New Chemicals
http://www.epa.qov/oppt/chemtest/, - Chemical Information
Collection
• http://www.epa.gov/oppt/lead/, - Lead Program
http://www.epa.qov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm. - Info on Lead
Professionals
• The pesticide programs protect human health and the
environment by implementing our statutes and regulatory
actions. Through these actions, EPA ensures that pesticides
continue to be safe and available when used in accordance
with the label and that we realize the benefits of pesticide
use. For additional information, visit the following websites:
• Pesticides main paqe: http://www.epa.qov/pesticides/
Pesticide Registration:
http://www.epa.qov/pesticides/requlatinq/reqisterinq/index.htm
Registration Review:
http://www.epa.qov/oppsrrd1/reqistration review/
Status of Registrations:
http://www.epa.qov/pesticides/rereqistration/status.htm
Pesticides Fact Sheets:
http://www.epa.qov/pesticides/factsheets/index.htm
• The following website provides information about EPA's
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program:
http://www.epa.qov/scipolv/oscpendo/index.htm
Section II-Page 122
-------
Objective 2: Communities
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 4, Objective 2
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 4, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$417,008.8,
29%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$234,105.9,
16%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$492,230.9,
34%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$427,024.7,
31%
Communities,
$303,715.7,
21%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$195,829.2,
14%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$428,866.6,
32%
Communities,
$310,794.3,
23%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 2 - Communities
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Brownfields
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Environment and Trade
Environmental Justice
Geographic Program: Other
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel
and Infrastructure
FY 2007
Obligations
$49,267.2
$16,717.8
$3,855.6
$492.5
$3,860.0
$7,468.2
$3,590.2
$157.7
$326.0
FY 2007 Expenditures
$54,696.5
$34,337.4
$3,279.3
$1,178.0
$1,966.9
$6,177.5
$1,766.1
$65.7
$487.3
Section II-Page 123
-------
Brownfields Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
POPs Implementation
Regulatory Innovation
US Mexico Border
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 Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis
Total
$115,480.9
$53,967.2
$1,698.6
$3,175.8
$5,727.9
$85.6
$22.6
$2,092.1
($57.0)
$181.6
$858.0
$588.7
$10,041.7
$673.6
$799.3
$84.1
$6,130.9
$775.2
$246.4
$2,312.4
$6,281.4
$58.2
$82.9
$40.8
$1,352.5
$4,978.9
$300.1
$303,715.6
$70,851.4
$87,556.1
$2,347.6
$2,983.5
$5,471.8
$81.5
$18.0
$2,021.8
$1,882.4
$175.5
$855.4
$344.8
$9,363.6
$593.5
$764.0
$82.9
$5,206.6
$771.2
$238.7
$2,433.8
$6,424.8
$55.2
$77.7
$34.2
$1,372.9
$4,540.4
$290.3
$310,794.3
Brownfields
Brownfields are real properties where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program works
in partnership with states, tribes, localities, and other external stakeholders, as well as
with other EPA cleanup programs, to promote the assessment, cleanup and sustainable
reuse of Brownfields and other contaminated properties..
While complete FY 2007 performance information will not be available until May
2008 due to grantee reporting schedules, EPA is on track to achieve its Brownfields
performance goals. FY 2006 results now available show that the program achieved its
FY 2006 performance goals, assessing 2,139 properties, cleaning up 88 properties, and
leveraging 5,504 jobs and $1.4 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds. In addition,
the Agency made 1,59836 acres ready for reuse through site assessment or property
Section II-Page 124
-------
cleanup. We expanded the definition of "ready for reuse" to include certification that any
required institutional controls are in place.
During FY 2007, the program modernized its information collection by
implementing a web-based system for electronically reporting environmental
accomplishments for all grants awarded under the Brownfields law since FY 2003. The
program conducted three outreach workshops to encourage small and mid-sized lenders
to invest in cleanup and redevelopment projects, and it provided training and technical
assistance to increase nonprofit organizations' capacity to conduct cleanup and
revitalization activities. The Agency developed and supported the use of long-term
stewardship and land use controls tracking tools, such as the "land use control web ring"
to ensure public access to site information.
International Efforts
To meet many of our domestic environmental protection goals, we must address
international sources of pollutants. In April 2007 the United States and India signed a
memorandum of understanding renewing their commitment to work cooperatively on
environmental issues. The agreement between EPA and the Indian Minister of
Environment and Forests focuses on four priorities: air quality, water quality, toxic
chemicals and waste, and the management of environmental agencies. Also, EPA
assisted Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union in reducing or avoiding
emissions of more than 130,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) and more than 10 million
tons of CO2-eq—primarily at coal-fired power plants—in FY 2007. The reduction
amounted to more than 5-7 percent of PM emissions from Russia's power generation
sector that are reported officially.
Even in the remote Arctic, industrial chemicals such as polycholorinated
biphyenyls (PCBs) are found in the tissues of local wildlife. As a result of EPA's efforts
since 2003, more than 3,196 tons of obsolete pesticides have been inventoried and
placed into safe storage in 10 Arctic and sub-Arctic regions of Russia. These include 66
tons of mercury-containing pesticides, more than 313 tons of persistent organic
pollutants (POPs) containing pesticides, and 1,500 tons of POPs and mercury mixes.
Safely storing these pesticides reduces releases to the environment and helps prevent
exposing more than 17 million people residing in these ten regions to these harmful
chemicals.
Environmental Justice
In FY 2007, EPA's environmental justice program developed a new tool and
method for identifying areas of potential environmental and public health issues of
concern to low-income, minority, and tribal communities. Initially, EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance will use the Environmental Justice Strategic
Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT), a consistent methodology, as a screening tool
for identifying areas with potential environmental justice concerns.
The Agency also began developing processes for assessing its effectiveness in
addressing environmental justice concerns and identifying opportunities for improving its
environmental justice program. An Agency-wide workgroup is leading "Environmental
Justice Reviews" and creating protocols for reviewing the programs, policies, and
Section II-Page 125
-------
activities affiliated with EPA's primary functions: standards setting,
rulemaking/regulatory development, enforcement and compliance, cleanup and
remediation, and permitting. The Agency expects to complete developing the protocols
and begin conducting Environmental Justice Reviews by early 2008.
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
• Grants provided to the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission and the North American Development Bank
support development of water infrastructure. In FY 2007, the
U.S.-Mexico Border program received an appropriation
totally $50 million. Eleven new projects were certified in FY
2007 to begin construction while existing projects continued
to make progress in providing safe drinking water and
sanitation to citizens on the border.
• In FY 2007, EPA selected 188 Brownfields Assessment
Grants for inventory, planning, and assessment activities.
EPA selected 90 Brownfields Cleanup Grants for work at
identified properties. In addition, 13 grants were selected to
capitalize revolving loan funds that provide loans and
subgrants for property cleanup; 12 grants were awarded to
establish environmental job training programs in
communities impacted by Brownfields. EPA awarded nearly
$50 million in grant funding to states and tribes to establish
and enhance response programs.
• In 2007 EPA, in concert with the international mercury
reduction efforts of the Mercury Partnership (Canada,
Norway, the United States, and the World Chlorine Council
made up of 27 countries), achieved an additional 533 kg
mercury reduction at chlor-alkali production facilities in
Russia.
PART:
• The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program was
assessed in the 2004 PART process and received a rating of
"Adequate." As a result of the PART review, the program is
conducting follow-up actions which include developing
baselines and targets for its long-term and efficiency
measures.
• The Brownfields Program was assessed in the 2003 PART
process and received a rating of "Adequate." As a result of
the PART process, the program is implementing new
performance measures, has modernized its information
Section II-Page 126
-------
collection infrastructure, and has conducted regional
program reviews.
Web Links:
U.S. Mexico Border Program:
http://www.epa.gov/border2012/
Brownfields Information: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields
Objective 3: Ecosystems
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 4, Objective 3
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 4, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$417,008.8,
29%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$234,105.9,
16%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$492,230.9,
34%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$427,024.7,
31%
Communities,
$303,715.7,
21%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$195,829.2,
14%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$428,866.6,
32%
Communities,
$310,794.3,
23%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 3 - Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Wetlands
FY 2007
Obligations
$16,082.5
FY 2007 Expenditures
$18,092.7
Section II-Page 127
-------
Program Development
Categorical Grant: Targeted
Watersheds
Congressionally Mandated
Projects
Geographic Program:
Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great
Lakes
Geographic Program: Gulf of
Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake
Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island
Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Homeland Security:
Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of
EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
National Estuary Program /
Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional , 1 ntergovernmental ,
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 Geographic Initiatives
Regional Science and Technology
Science Advisory Board
Small Minority Business
Assistance
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
$4,578.6
$2,131.4
$20,094.9
$24,212.4
$4,373.0
$995.5
$1,326.0
$6,140.0
$44,072.1
$205.6
$173.8
$20,744.7
$60,666.8
$109.7
$26.7
$5,538.0
$276.5
$1,282.7
$763.4
$10,765.3
$351.6
$688.0
$47.3
$4,570.9
$1,023.7
$305.1
$1,345.4
($99.1)
$90.0
$106.3
$52.3
$679.9
$12,149.0
$9,446.3
$23,698.2
$20,491.6
$3,777.3
$2,027.4
$3,118.3
$5,252.3
$22,923.4
$85.1
$253.7
$24,860.7
$22,431.4
$104.5
$21.7
$5,395.5
$268.4
$1,276.8
$452.9
$10,225.2
$341.6
$678.9
$46.7
$3,929.7
$1,019.9
$297.3
$1,434.4
$420.1
$81.2
$99.6
$43.8
$711.4
Section II-Page 128
-------
Management
Regulatory/Economic-
Management and Analysis
Total
$384.9
$234,105.9
$372.3
$195,829.3
In 2007, the cooperative efforts of EPA, states, tribes, and other stakeholders
contributed to continued restoration and protection of important ecosystems throughout
the country, which resulted in some key successes:
Wetlands
According to the 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report,
wetlands gains continued to exceed wetlands losses in the United States from 1998
through 2004 at a rate of 32,000 acres per year. This is an improving trend we expect
will continue. We anticipate that the next Status and Trends Report, due out in 2011, will
show a continuation of upward trends, and show that we actually met our targets in 2007
and beyond.
National Estuary Program
During its 20th year, the National Estuary Program (NEP) in FY 2007 continued
to implement effective and innovative management solutions for the benefit and
protection of water quality and living resources in some of the nation's most important
estuaries. In particular, the NEPs and their partners protected and restored
approximately 102,463 acres of habitat and leveraged nearly $12 for every $1 of EPA
funding.
Great Lakes
Improvements in the Great Lakes Index score indicate that fewer toxins are
entering the food chain, ecosystem and human health are better protected, fish are safer
to eat, water is safer to drink, and beaches are safer for swimming. From a baseline
score of 20, EPA's Great Lakes Index target score of 22.7 out of a possible 40 indicates
long-term progress in improving the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great
Lakes Index uses assessments of the condition of select ecosystem indicators (i.e.,
coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic
health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics
deposition) to assess the overall condition of the Great Lakes. The most recent
improvement in the index is a specific result of fewer beach closures being reported in
2006, a year in which there were more beaches in the program and in which bacterial
source elimination is occurring at individual beaches.
The results of analyses reported in 2007 indicated that average long-term total
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) concentrations in top predator fish at sites on each
Great Lake declined more than 5 percent annually between 1991 and 2005, meeting the
target for declines in concentration trends. Atmospheric deposition has been shown to
be a significant source of pollutants to the Great Lakes. Average long-term
Section II-Page 129
-------
concentrations of PCBs in U.S. air measured at stations on Lakes Superior, Michigan,
and Erie decreased more than 7 percent annually, meeting the targeted commitment.
Data for 2006, which became available in FY 2007, reported the remediation of
more than 400,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments through the combined efforts
of EPA, states, and other partners and the initiation of the fourth and fifth Great Lakes
Legacy Act projects. Having remediated nearly 4.5 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments through 2006, EPA and its partners have already substantially exceeded the
2008 goal of remediating 3.3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments.
EPA achieved its Area of Concern target for FY 2007 (cumulative delisting of 1
Area of Concern) through delisting the Oswego Area of Concern in FY 2006. A de-
listing indicates that the area now meets the public's vision for that area ant that it is no
longer among the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes. GLNPO and its partners
continue to make progress in de-listings by focusing on removing individual beneficial
use impairments at Areas of Concern. In FY 2007, U.S. EPA-GLNPO, in concert with
our federal, state and local partners, successfully removed three beneficial use
impairments:
• November 16, 2006: Manistique River, Michigan AOC—Degradation of Benthos
• April 17, 2007: Presque Isle Bay, Pennsylvania AOC—Restrictions on Dredging
• May 9, 2007: Torch Lake, Michigan AOC—Fish Tumors and other Deformities
Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the Great Lakes that controls algae growth.
Elevated phosphorus concentrations are linked to the increased "dead zone," or zone of
limited dissolved oxygen. In recent years, Lake Erie exceeded phosphorus guideline
levels, particularly in its central basin, which is most representative of the Lake's anoxia
problems. FY 2006 data now available indicate that the targeted concentration level was
not met. Exploration of this problem, identified by GLNPO, is being augmented by work
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Environment
Canada.
Chesapeake Bay
Since 1985, Chesapeake Bay Program partners have achieved nearly three-
quarters of the wastewater nitrogen reduction goal and more than four-fifths of the
wastewater phosphorus reduction goal, accounting for a large portion of the estimated
nutrient reductions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to date. However, as the
population in the Chesapeake watershed continues to grow (an estimated 170,000
annually since 2000), the volume of waste requiring treatment grows. To keep pace with
the growing population and meet Bay restoration goals, Bay jurisdictions are
implementing a new permitting approach that requires hundreds of wastewater treatment
plants to install a new generation of nutrient reduction technology equipment.
Additionally, the Bay-wide acreage of underwater grasses decreased by 25
percent in 2006 to the lowest total acreage figure since 1989. This decline was largely
due to higher than normal water temperatures in the middle and lower Bay and poor
water clarity throughout the Bay, due to excessive amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment. EPA is working with federal and state Chesapeake Bay Program partners to
implement pollution reduction strategies to restore Bay health.
Section II-Page 130
-------
Gulf of Mexico
In FY 2007, the Gulf of Mexico Program in partnership with NOAA, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is supporting
a binational partnership to expand the Harmful Algal Blooms Observing System
(HABSOS) into the State of Veracruz, Mexico. This state-of-the-art technology provides
timely access to data and information via satellite for detecting, tracking and forecasting
harmful algal bloom events and their effects on public health and natural resources.
Opportunities are being explored for expanding the network established in Veracruz to
other Mexican Gulf States.
The Gulf Program exceeded its strategic target to restore, protect, or enhance
coastal and marine habitats in FY 2007, achieving 18,660 acres toward the 2009 goal of
20,000 acres, and putting the program well ahead of its FY 2007 goal of 15,800 acres.
Additionally, with the support of numerous federal, state, local, and private partners, the
Gulf Program achieved a reduction of 62 in impaired waterbody listings in the 13 priority
areas of the Gulf of Mexico, exceeding the target of 56.
An important role for the Gulf Program in 2007 was co-leading with NOAA a
federal workgroup of 13 agencies to help Gulf States identify and implement priority
actions included in the Governors' Action Plan released by the five Gulf state governors
in March 2006. These priority actions addressed such issues as water quality, wetland
conservation, and environmental education. Work on more than 90 percent of the 73
actions is in progress or has been completed in the 18 months since the release of the
Action Plan.
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Program
Evaluations:
• Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Generally
Comply Wth Major Clean Water Act Permits, September 5,
2007, 2007-P-00032
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070905-2007-P-
00032.pdf
• EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act Requirements to
Reduce Air Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and Its
Watershed, February 28, 2007, 2007-P-00009
http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/20070228-2007-P-
00009.pdf
• Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires Better
Coordination of Environmental and Agricultural Resources,
November 20, 2006, 2007-P-00004
http://www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2007/20061120-2007-P-
Section II-Page 131
-------
00004.pdf
Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed
Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, September 10,
2007, 2007-P-00031
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070910-2007-P-
00031.pdf.
Taking Environmental Protection to the Next Level: An
Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Services Delivery
System, National Academy of Public Administration, April
2007
www.napawash.org
Great Lakes. EPA and States Have Made Progress
Implementing the BEACH Act, but Additional Actions Could
Improve Public Health Protection, GAO-07-591, May 1,
2007.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07591.pdf
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 (WPDGs) are critical
for building state, tribal, and local government capacity to
protect and manage wetlands. Established in 1990, the
WPDG program provides 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 issues state and
tribal 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 117(e) grants fund the full range of state
water quality nutrient reduction programs in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. In particular, the grants
emphasize state tributary strategies to improve water
quality and help meet the goals of the Chesapeake 2000
agreement.
Section II-Page 132
-------
• Targeted Watershed Initiative grants support nitrogen
reduction in the Mississippi River Basin, with a special
emphasis on support for innovative programs allowing
trading of nutrient reductions.
PART:
The Great Lakes National Program was assessed in the
2007 PART process and received a rating of "adequate." As
a result of the PART review, the program is conducting
follow-up actions which include determining options for
ensuring that other remediation programs, such as
Superfund, consider Great Lakes water quality goals and
developing a set of recommendations for improving ways the
program targets funding and coordinates with other federal
programs.
The Chesapeake Bay Program was assessed in the 2006
PART process and received a rating of "moderately
effective." As a result of the PART review, the program is
conducting follow up actions which include investigating
potential methods to better characterize the uncertainty of
water quality models, developing a comprehensive
implementation strategy, and promoting and tracking
implementation of the most cost effective restoration
activities to maximize water quality improvements
Web Links:
Great Lakes National Program Office: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
Chesapeake Bay Grants:
http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/grants.htm
Sediment White Paper:
http://www.iic.org/php/publications/html/sedrem.html
Section II-Page 133
-------
Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 4, Objective 4
(in thousands)
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 4, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$417,008.8,
29%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$234,105.9,
16%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$492,230.9,
34%
Enhance
Science and
Research,
$427,024.7,
31%
Communities,
$303,715.7,
21%
Restore and
Protect Critical
Ecosystems,
$195,829.2,
14%
Chemical and
Pesticide Risks,
$428,866.6,
32%
Communities,
$310,794.3,
23%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding.
Goal 4: Objective 4 - Enhance Science and Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Computational Toxicology
Research: Endocrine Disrupter
Research: Global Change
Research: Human Health and
FY 2007
Obligations
$349.2
$722.6
$35,111.2
$1,922.6
$39,415.2
$12,424.8
$10,609.4
$20,317.3
$169,831.5
FY 2007 Expenditures
$10,170.5
$299.0
$34,519.4
$2,953.7
$39,271.3
$11,999.6
$12,078.3
$19,183.1
$175,731.2
Section II-Page 134
-------
Ecosystems
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Research: Fellowships
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
Total
$29,949.8
$11,982.4
$385.7
$94.0
$7,925.5
$533.2
$1,908.3
$2,674.7
$17,797.2
$3,688.9
$5,341.5
$754.8
$31,341.6
$3,654.3
$1,268.6
$2,521.0
$106.5
$373.7
$184.0
$2,466.7
$1,352.6
$417,008.8
$29,280.9
$14,336.3
$367.3
$76.2
$7,614.6
$512.7
$1,873.4
$1,592.8
$18,098.5
$3,506.0
$5,445.1
$878.0
$25,186.3
$3,602.4
$1,214.8
$2,687.8
$104.8
$350.1
$154.0
$2,628.2
$1,308.4
$427,024.7
EPA continues to conduct leading-edge research to provide a sound scientific
foundation for its work in protecting, sustaining, and restoring the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
Human Health Research
In 2007, research under EPA's Human Health Research Program led to a more
systematic understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes that
determine how environmental pollutants can affect humans. In 2007, EPA published the
comprehensive synthesis report, Important Exposure Factors for Children: An Analysis
of Laboratory and Observational Field Data Characterizing Cumulative Exposure to
Pesticides37, a critical tool in improving future assessments of children's exposures to
environmental contaminants and in minimizing risks that pesticide use poses to children.
Ecological Research
EPA's Ecological Research Program also continues to develop tools and
protocols for EPA program offices, states, tribes, and other customers to improve their
understanding and management of ecosystems. Examples of new tools that have been
recently developed and applied by clients include:
Section II-Page 135
-------
"DNA barcodes" that more accurately and efficiently identify aquatic invasive
species. This tool was recently used by scientists to confirm a new invasive species
in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. If left undetected, this species could have posed a
serious threat to the harbor and to Lake Superior.
Regionalized "individual -based" modeling methods that examine how salmon are
affected over large areas by multiple, interacting stressors such as high stream
temperature, increased turbidity, and loss of pool habitat. The Forest Service is
using this model to examine fire management strategies and their effect on salmon;
additionally, the interstate, interagency Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee
has reviewed the model for use in assessing the impacts of a potential new water
diversion on two endangered desert minnow species.
An ecological classification of rivers for regional risk assessment that describes all
river reaches and their associated drainages and riparian buffers across Illinois,
Michigan, and Wisconsin. State agencies including Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, Illinois EPA, Illinois Natural Areas Program, Michigan DNR, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, and
Wisconsin DNR are using the framework to identify conservation and bioassessment
reference reaches, establish nutrient and other water quality standards, establish
water withdrawal standards, and write state Wildlife Conservation Action Plans. In
addition, the draft framework is being used by USGS, Water Division for a Great
Lakes Basin water availability assessment, and by USGS, Biological Resource
Discipline as the basis for the Great Lakes Regional Aquatic General Assistance
Program conservation planning program.
Global Change Research
EPA's Global Change Research Program continues to enhance the
understanding of potential impacts of climate variability and change on the environment.
The program recently developed a Climate Assessment Tool to help water resource
managers address the high sensitivity of water resources and aquatic ecosystems to
changes in climate. This tool is incorporated into EPA's watershed management
program, BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources)
and allows managers to meet future demands for water and water quality regulations by
considering changes in the risk of floods and droughts, river channel stability, water
quality, and wildlife habitats due to climate change. EPA research also contributed to an
evaluation of the effect of climate change on air quality through the application of an air
quality model under various climate scenarios.
Safe Pesticides/ Safe Products Research
Safe Pesticides/ Safe Products (SP2) Research Program provides the scientific
information needed to reduce or prevent unreasonable risks from exposures to
pesticides, toxic chemicals, and products of biotechnology. In FY 2007, the program
supported the Agency's risk assessment, enforceable consent agreement, and
stewardship activities regarding Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and other perfluorinated
compounds (PFCs). It also worked on the methods for characterizing PFCs in selected
environmental and biological media, and the potential for selected PFCs to degrade to
Section II-Page 136
-------
PFOA.38 These client-oriented outputs feed into the program's measures, which relate to
1) completing planned annual outputs on time, 2) demonstrating improvements in
bibliometric analysis results, and 3) making improvements in independent panel review
ratings of overall progress. In 2007, the program completed the vast majority of its
planned outputs on time, completing 86%, 100%, and 80% of the outputs toward its
respective long-term goals. The program also established baselines for its long-term
measures, receiving a rating of "exceeds expectations" on progress toward one long-
term goal, and a rating of "meets expectations" on progress toward the other two. The
program assesses its progress on its bibliometric analysis measures biannually, and will
next assess progress in FY 2008.
The program also developed exposure tools for characterizing the fate and
transport of pesticides from source waters, through drinking water treatment plants, to
consumers, producing an advanced screening model for understanding pesticide
transformation pathways under various treatment conditions. This research—along with
companion risk management treatment research—is being used to update the existing
drinking water treatment protocols as required by the Food Quality Protection Act.39
Computational Toxicology Research
EPA's Computational Toxicology Research Program developed "ToxRefDB," a
system using computers to study data on the toxicity and health effects of hundreds of
pesticide chemicals that EPA has reviewed over the last 35 years. ToxRefDB allows
scientists and regulators to review and analyze years of complicated data that were
previously stored in paper files—sometimes for decades. Long forgotten data can now
be used with new molecular data generated from the latest scientific studies to better
understand the effects of these environmental chemicals. Additionally, EPA's new
Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network has helped to
build a data foundation for public use to improve the study and understanding of toxicity
and possible adverse effects of chemicals.
Endocrine Disrupters Research
EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Research Program provides the scientific
information necessary to reduce or prevent unreasonable risks from exposures to
endocrine disrupting chemicals. In FY 2007, EPA research demonstrated that chemicals
like those that are detected in municipal wastewaters can affect wild fish reproduction
and population sustainability.40The completion of this important research- along with the
program's other planned research- allowed the program to meet several of its annual
targets for FY 2007. The program annually assesses its progress in completing
improved protocols for screening and testing, effects and exposure milestones,
assessment milestones, and risk management milestones. Due to revisions of the
program's Multi-Year Plan, some of the work targeted for completion in FY 2007 was
shifted to other EPA research programs, and therefore was not met. However, the
program exceeded its target for effects and exposure milestones, completing an extra
milestone in FY 2007.
Section II-Page 137
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
The peer-reviewed products of EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment are
used extensively by EPA programs, regions, and other parties to support current
regulatory standards and to manage environmental cleanups. In FY 2007, EPA
delivered 16 IRIS assessments to interagency review: Tetrahydrofuran; Beryllium;
Acrylamide; Propionaldehyde; 1,2,3-Trichloropropane; Mirex; 2-Hexanone; Cerium;
Kepone; cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; Carbon tetrachloride;
Thallium; Pentachlorophenol; Trichloroacetic acid; and Ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether. EPA also completed 51 new or revised Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity
Values (PPRTVs).
EPA posted 2 final IRIS health assessment documents in FY 2007, half of the
goal of 4 final assessments: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane and Trimethylpentane. The total
number of IRIS assessments delivered and finalized are an increase over FY 2006
and EPA continues working with OMB to identify more meaningful performance
targets based on the relative priority and expected impact of the assessments. In
addition to IRIS, EPA completed the Lead Air Quality Criteria Document in support of
EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulatory decision making, and
submitted for Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee review an Integrated Science
Assessmentfor Oxides of Nitrogen and Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Sulfur.
Homeland Security
EPA's homeland security research efforts are providing decision-makers with
critical tools to help protect human health and the environment in the event of a terrorist
attack. In 2007, research conducted by EPA and the National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST) resulted in the Building Retrofit Report and Cost-Benefit
Software that provides building owners, managers, engineers, and architects with
information about retrofit options that will protect against airborne hazards. The software
also provides economic analysis tools to support informed, cost-effective risk
management decisions. In addition, EPA developed "message maps"— science-based
risk communication tools that enable quick and concise delivery of pertinent information
during an emergency—for scenarios affecting drinking water systems. Scenarios
include the injection of a disease agent into the water, damage to the distribution
infrastructure, or a massive power failure. EPA produced a video to introduce
stakeholders to the process of developing maps as part of their strategy for responding
to terrorist threats and other disasters. And EPA prepared Version 3 of the Standard
Analytical Methods Manual (SAM), which contains methods for laboratories to use when
measuring specific contaminants potentially associated with a terrorist attack, evaluating
the nature and extent of contamination, and assessing decontamination efficacy.
Additional chemical methods were added to version 3 as well as methods for detection
of pathogens, radionuclides and biotoxins. SAM has been incorporated into response
plans and was used in response to a suspected water tampering incident in Region 1.
Section II-Page 138
-------
Additional Information Related to Objective 4
Program • In FY 2007, EPA's BOSC conducted a mid-cycle review of the
Evaluations: Ecological Research Program. The resulting report is entitled Mid-
Cycle Review of the Office of Research and Development's
Ecological Research Program at the Environmental Protection
Agency.
• In FY 2007, the Global Change Research Program took action to
address recommendations resulting from BOSC FY 2006 review:
Review of the Office of Research and Development's Global
Change Research Program at the Environmental Protection
Agency. The program's response to the BOSC—along with a list
of planned actions—can be found on the BOSC Website.
• In FY 2007, the Fellowships Program took action to address
recommendations resulting from BOSC FY 2006 review: Review
of the Office of Research and Development's Science To Achieve
Results (STAR) and Greater Research Opportunities (GRO)
Fellowship Programs at the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The program's response to the BOSC can be found on
the BOSC Website.
• In FY 2007, BOSC conducted a mid-cycle review of the Human
Health Research Program. The resulting report is entitled Mid-
Cycle Review of the Office of Research and Development's
Human Health Research Program.
• In FY 2007, BOSC conducted a mid-cycle review of the Pesticides
and Toxics Research Program. The resulting report is entitled Mid-
Cycle Review of the Office of Research and Development's Safe
Pesticides/ Safe Products (SP2) Research Program.
Grants: • EPA grantee research41 led to an improved cumulative
assessment of pesticides. This work has resulted in policy and
procedural changes within local governments, grower
associations, and produce shippers that will reduce the risks of
exposures to multiple pesticides. (Supported by Grant Entitled:
"Centers of Excellence in Children's Environmental Health and
Disease Prevention Research and Centers for Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research."
EPA grantee research4243 has identified wide population variability
in a gene that produces enzymes for detoxifying organophosphate
pesticides; these results show that some people, especially young
children, are more sensitive to the adverse health effects of these
pesticides. (Supported by the Following Two Grants: (1) Centers
of Excellence in Children's Environmental Health and Disease
Section II-Page 139
-------
Prevention Research, and (2) Centers for Children's
Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research.
PART:
• In 2007, EPA research grants supported Native American Tribes
by conducting the science to determine potential risks unique to
their populations because of their customs, occupations and
lifestyles44. (Supported by Grant Entitled "Lifestyles and Cultural
Practices of Tribal Populations and Risks from Toxic Substances
in the Environment")
• In 2007, an EPA-funded study of the Willamette River in Oregon
found that restoration of the river's floodplain has the potential to
cool thermal discharges to the river, as well as to create many
other benefits such as flood control, increased aquatic habitat, and
increased recreational opportunities45. The researchers continue
to work with local stakeholders to determine the pros and cons of
alternative restoration options. (Supported by Grant Entitled
"Harnessing the hydrologic disturbance regime: sustaining multiple
benefits in large river floodplains in the Pacific Northwest.")
• EPA grantee findings indicate that global change will have
significant impacts on air quality in the United States, including
higher ozone concentrations.464748 Consequently, EPA is working
to incorporate global change impacts in the air quality
management process. (Supported by the Following Four Grants:
(1) "Modeling Heat and Air Quality Impacts of Changing Urban
Land Uses and Climate," (2) "Development and Evaluation of a
Methodology for Determining Air Pollution Emissions Relative to
Geophysical and Societal Changes," (3) "Impacts of Global
Climate and Emission Changes on U.S. Air Quality," and (4)
"Application of a Unified Aerosol-Chemistry-Climate GCM to
Understand the Effects of Changing Climate and Global
Anthropogenic Emissions on U.S. Air Quality.")
• EPA's Ecological Research Program received a "Moderately
Effective" rating on its most recent PART assessment, which was
conducted in 2007 under the title Ecological Research.
EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Program received an "Adequate"
rating on its 2004 PART review, which was conducted as a cross-
Agency assessment under the title Endocrine Disruptors. As a
result of the PART process, the program has articulated its R&D
priorities to ensure compelling, merit-based justifications for
funding allocations. Additionally, the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxics has compiled baseline data for its
efficiency measure, and continues to collect data for comparison
to its baseline.
EPA's Global Change Research Program received an "Adequate"
Section II-Page 140
-------
rating on its 2006 PART assessment, which was conducted under
the title Global Change Research. As a result of the PART
process, the program has (1) worked to finalize independent
review-informed performance measures, (2) worked to clarify its
framework and mission, (3) instituted an efficiency measure, and
(4) worked to improve budget-performance integration.
• EPA's Human Health Research Program received an "Adequate"
rating on its 2005 PART assessment, which was conducted under
the title Human Health Research. As a result of the PART
process, the program has implemented all follow-up
recommendations resulting from its 2005 BOSC review;
established preliminary targets for its long-term measures based
on BOSC mid-cycle review feedback; and worked to improve its
budget and performance integration.
• EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Program received a
"Moderately Effective" rating on its 2006 PART assessment. As a
result of the PART process, the program is currently (1) expanding
its efficiency measures, (2) implementing a new IRIS review
process, (3) investigating alternative approaches for measuring
progress related to providing timely, high quality scientific
assessments, and (4) instating regular independent program
reviews.
• EPA's Pesticides and Toxics Research Program received a
"Moderately Effective" rating on its 2007 PART assessment.
Web Links:
Children's Research Center White Paper:
http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/CEHRC Findings.htm/
$file/CEHRC%20Findings.doc
Wlamette Ecosystem Marketplace Development:
http://www.mwvcog.org/WllamettePartnershipAA/illamEcoMarket.asp
Human Health Research Program: http://www.epa.gov/hhrp/
Climate Change Program: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html -
Endocrine Disrupters Research Initiative: http://www.epa.gov/endocrine/
National Center for Environmental Research:
http://www.epa.gov/ncer/fellow
Board of Scientific Counselors: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-
hhra.htm
Section II-Page 141
-------
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
4.1:
By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
PMs Met
10
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After November 15,
2007
3
Total PMs
14
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.1: Reduce Chemical Risks
By 2011, prevent and reduce chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, eliminate or effectively manage risks associated with 100 percent of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals for which unreasonable
risks have been identified through EPA risk assessments.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of HPV chemicals
identified as priority concerns through
assessment of Screening Information
Data Sets (SIDS) and other
information with risks eliminated or
effectively managed.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent of
HPV Chems.
Baseline - The baseline for HPV measure is zero chemicals in 1998. EPA screening of data obtained through the HPV Challenge Program is
commencing in 2006; actions to obtain additional information needed to assess risks will commence subsequently as chemicals are identified as
priority concerns through the screening process.
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, ensure that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
Section II-Page 142
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that do not
pose unreasonable risks to workers,
consumers, or the environment.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for percent of chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers,
or the environment in 2004 and 2005 is100%.
Background - This measure analyzes previously reviewed PreManufacturing Notice chemical reviews with incoming 8(e) reports in the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) on an annual basis. TSCA requires that chemical manufacturers, importers, processors and distributors notify EPA
within 30 days of new information on chemicals that may lead to a conclusion of substantial risk to human health or the environment.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, achieve a 31 percent cumulative reduction of chronic human health risk from environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce
since 2001.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2010, eliminate childhood lead poisoning cases as a public health concern by reducing to zero the number of cases of children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of cases of children (aged 1-
5 years) with elevated blood lead
levels (>10ug/dl).
FY 2004
Target
270,000
Actual
Data
Avail.
2007
FY 2005
Target
BiAnnual
Actual
BiAnnual
FY 2006
Target
216,000
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2009
FY 2007
Target
BiAnnual
Actual
BiAnnual
Unit
Children
Baseline - 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 1 - 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.
Explanation - This performance measure is reported BiAnnually. FY 2004 results are currently being reviewed by CDC management.
Section II-Page 143
-------
Strategic Target (5)
By 2010, reduce to 28 percent the percent difference in the geometric mean blood lead level in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to
the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
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.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
BiAnnual
Actual
BiAnnual
FY 2006
Target
29
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2009
FY 2007
Target
BiAnnual
Actual
BiAnnual
Unit
Percent
Baseline - 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.
Explanation - This measure is reported BiAnnually.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2011, through work with international partners, eliminate the use of lead in gasoline in the remaining 35 countries that still use lead as an
additive, affecting over 700 million people.
Strategic Target (7)
By 2011, through work with international partners, over 3 billion people will have access to low-sulfur fuel in 10 countries, including China, India,
Mexico and Brazil.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Safe Disposal of Transformers
FY 2004
Target
8000
Actual
7,015
FY 2005
Target
5000
Actual
9,769
FY 2006
Target
5,000
Actual
Dafa Avail
FY2007
FY 2007
Target
N/A
Actual
N/A
Unit
Transformers
Explanation - Performance measure is no longer reported. Since the data is aggregated from facilities within the Regions, FY 2006 analysis is not
expected to be completed until late Nov2007.
Safe Disposal of Capacitors
6,000
1,457
9000
7,323
9,000
Data Avail
N/A
N/A
Capacitors
Section II - Page 144
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY2007
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Explanation - Performance measure is no longer reported. Since the data is aggregated from facilities within the Regions, FY06 analysis is not
expected to be completed until late Nov2007.
Annual number of chemicals with
proposed values for Acute Exposure
Guidelines Levels (AEGL)
20
29
20
29
24
23
24
33
Chemicals
Baseline - In 2006, a total of 185 chemicals with proposed, interim or final AEGL Values were reported for the AEGL Program (cumulative count).
Explanation - The FY 2007 target was exceeded through increased program efficiency in reviewing and presenting chemicals at international meetings
and early FY 2007 action on chemicals delayed from action in FY 2006 while issues associated with use of human testing data were resolved Agency-
wide.
Cumulative number of chemicals for
which VCCEP data needs documents
are issued by EPA in response to
Industry sponsored Tier 1 risk
assessments. (Indirectly supports
Strategic Target 1)
8
6
9
14
Cumulative
Number of
Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline for the VCCEP Program is 0 for FY 2003.
Explanation - In FY 2007, OPPT was able to continue and complete work on data needs documents for VCCEP chemicals which were not ready to
report at the end of FY 2006. Also, the program was able to group similar chemicals and issue one data needs document for each group increasing
the total number of chemicals to 14.
Reduction in the current year
production-adjusted risk-based score
of releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals from manufacturing
facilities. (Indirectly supports Strategic
Target 2)
2.5
20
2.5
2.5
2.5
Data
Avail. FY
2008
2.5
Data
Avail. FY
2009
Percent
Reduction in
RSEI Risk
Baseline - Baseline for the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model Program is based on the cumulative reduction that was reported in 2002-
2003 and is 6.6 percent.
Section II-Page 145
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
Explanation - RSEI scores are dependent on TRI data which is subject to a 2 year data lag.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
By 2011, protect human health, communities, and the environment from chemical releases through facility risk-reduction efforts and building
community preparedness and response capabilities.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, continue to maintain the Risk Management Plan (RMP) prevention program and further reduce by 5 percent the number of accidents at
RMP facilities.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce by 5 percent the consequences of accidents at RMP facilities, as measured by injuries, fatalities, and property damage.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, vulnerability zones surrounding RMP facilities will be reduced by 5 percent from the 2004 baseline, which will result in the reduction of
risk for over 4 million people in the community.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, improve by 10 percent from the 2007 baseline the capabilities of Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) to prevent, prepare
for, and respond to chemical emergencies (as measured by a survey of those LEPCs), thereby reducing the risk to communities from the
potentially devastating effects of chemical accidents.
Performance Measures supporting all Strategic Targets
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of risk management plan
audits completed.
FY 2004
Target
400
Actual
730
FY 2005
Target
400
Actual
885
FY 2006
Target
400
Actual
550
FY 2007
Target
400
Actual
628
Unit
Audits
Baseline - 2820 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2002 and FY 2006.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.3: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Section II-Page 146
-------
Through 2011, protect human health by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be safe and
available when used in accordance with the label.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce the concentration of pesticides detected in the general population by 50 percent. Baselines are determined from 1990-1992
Centers for Disease Control-National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent reduction in concentrations of
pesticides detected in general
population.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
Unit
Cumulative
Reduction
Baseline - According to NHANES data for 1999-2002 the concentration of pesticides residues detected in blood samples from the general population
are: Dimethylphosphaste = 0.41 ug/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 ug/L; Dimethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 ug/L;
Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5 ug/L; Diethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol = 1.9 ug/L.
Explanation - Data was originally expected in August of 2006 and have yet to be provided. Data is now expected in early 2008. The data required for OPP to
conduct the analysis is not yet available from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, protect those occupationally exposed to pesticides by improving upon or maintaining a rate of 3.5 incidents per 100,000 potential
risk events. Baseline: There were 1385 occupational pesticide incidents in 2003 out of 39,850,000 potential pesticide risk events/year.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by reaching a 50 percent targeted reduction in moderate to severe
incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rate: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, pyrethrins, 2,4-
dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), and carbofuran.
Performance Measures supporting all Strategic Targets
Annual Performance Measures and
FY 2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
Section II-Page 147
-------
Percentage of agricultural acres
treated with reduced-risk pesticides.
Target
8.5
Actual
13
Target
13.5
Actual
16
Target
17
Actual
18
Target
18
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
Unit
Acre-
Treatments
Baseline - The baseline for acres-treated is 3.6% of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acre 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 pesticides treatments which
acre receives each year.
Explanation - Data is collected on CY basis. Data will be available by Spring 2008.
Register reduced risk pesticides,
including biopesticides.
14
49
14
14
14
15
14
14
Pesticides
Baseline - Zero in 1996. Cumulative actuals in FY2006 for reduced risk pesticides are 182 registrations.
New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)
8
7
8
3
8
19
8
18
Chemicals
Baseline - Zero in 1996. Cumulative actuals in FY 2006 was 101 new chemicals (Al)
Explanation - Low target based on historical data; completed more than anticipated.
New Uses
200
249
200
164
200
235
200
233
Actions
Baseline - Zero in 1 996. Cumulative actuals in FY 2006 was 3,541 new use actions.
Explanation - Target exceeded as a result of improved efficiencies.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.4: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Through 2011, protect the environment by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be safe and
available when used in accordance with the label.
Strategic Target (1)
Section II-Page 148
-------
By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds sampled by the US Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (USGS
NAWQA) program that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
malathion).
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds sampled by the USGS NAWQA program that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for 2
key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos).
Performance Measures supporting all Strategic Targets
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Product Registration
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
545
Actual
545
FY 2007
Target
545
Baseline - A total of 7,358 product reregistrations were completed by 2006.
Actual
962
Unit
Actions
Explanation - Target was exceeded due to the completion of one chemical with hundreds of products as well as changes to the review process that focuses on
expediting product reregistration of chemicals with significant risk mitigation. Because of this continuing trend, we are planning to set more aggressive targets
at the earliest opportunity.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.5: Realize the Value from Pesticide Availability
Through 2011, ensure the public health and economic benefits of pesticide availability and use are achieved.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, annually avoid $900M in termite structural damage by ensuring that safe and effective pesticides are registered/re-registered and
available for termite treatment.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, avoid $1.5 billion of crop loss by ensuring that effective pesticides are available to address emergency pest infestations.
Performance Measures supporting all Strategic Targets
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Maintain timeliness ofS18 decisions
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
45
Actual
48
FY 2007
Target
45
Actual
36
Unit
Days
Section II-Page 149
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - The Section 18's 2005 baseline is 45 days.
Explanation - Target exceeded as a result of the emergency exemption streamlining rule that was completed in 2006.
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cumulative number of assays that
have been validated.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
11/20
Actual
2/21
FY 2007
Target
8/20
Actual
3/20
Unit
Assays
Baseline - There are zero assays in 2005. The reason we have no quantitative baseline was the measure is a cumulative measure and we started at
zero assays at the start of the program.
Explanation - Target not met due to scientific uncertainties associated with assay development and the validation process.
4.2:
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
3
Total PMs
3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.1: Sustain Community Health
By 2011, reduce the air, water, and land impacts of new growth and development through use of smart growth strategies in 30 communities that
will achieve significant measurable environmental and/or public health improvements. The baseline will be established in 2006.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.2: Restore Community Health through Collaborative Problem-Solving
Make significant environmental improvements in communities with potential disproportionately high and adverse environmental and/or public
health effects ("areas with potential environmental justice concerns") and foster the ability of communities to address local environmental concerns
with other stakeholders through collaborative problem solving.
Section II-Page 150
-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 30 communities with potential environmental justice concerns will achieve significant measurable environmental or public health
improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields
Working with state, tribal, and local partners, promote the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse of Brownfields properties.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, conduct environmental assessments at 13,900 properties.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Brownfield properties assessed.
FY 2004
Target
1,000
Actual
1,076
FY 2005
Target
1,000
Actual
1,381
FY 2006
Target
1,000
Actual
2,139
FY 2007
Target
1,000
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
Unit
Assessments
Baseline - In FY2005, the Brownfields program assessed 1,381 properties.
Explanation - Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY07 data will not be available until May 2008.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, make 1,125 acres (cumulative) of Brownfields ready for reuse.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, leverage $12.9 billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at Brownfields properties.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Billions of dollars of cleanup and
redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2004
Target
0.9
Actual
0.7
FY 2005
Target
0.9
Actual
1.0
FY 2006
Target
1.0
Actual
1.4
FY 2007
Target
0.9
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
Unit
Billion Dollars
in Funds
Baseline - In FY 2005, the Brownfields program leveraged $1 .OB in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
Explanation - Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY07 data will not be available until May 2008.
Section II-Page 151
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields
activities.
FY 2004
Target
2,000
Actual
2,250
FY 2005
Target
5,000
Actual
6,128
FY 2006
Target
5,000
Actual
5,504
FY 2007
Target
5,000
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
Unit
Jobs
Baseline - In FY2005, the Brownfields program leveraged 6,128 jobs.
Explanation - Due to grantee reporting cycle, complete FY07 data will not be available until May 2008.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore the United States - Mexico Border Environmental Health
By 2012, sustain and restore the environmental health along the United States-Mexico border through implementation of the "Border 2012 plan.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, achieve a majority of currently exceeded water quality standards in impaired trans-boundary surface waters.
Strategic Target (2)
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.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2012, provide adequate wastewater sanitation to 25 percent of homes in the Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation
in 2003.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2012, cleanup five waste sites
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.5: Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
By 2011, sustain and restore the environmental health of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 95 percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories served by community drinking water systems will receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout the year.
Section II-Page 152
-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, the sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 90 percent of the time with permit limits for biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for swimming 96
percent of days of the beach season.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.6: Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure
By 2011, reduce the mean maternal serum blood levels of POPs contaminants in indigenous populations in the Arctic.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous populations in the
Arctic to 5.6 ug/l.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce mean maternal blood levels of chlordane (measured as the metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor) in indigenous
populations in the Arctic to 1.1 ug/l.
4,3:
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
PMs Met
9
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After November 15,
2007
6
Total PMs
16
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.1: Increase Wetlands
By 2011, working with partners, achieve a net increase in wetlands acres with additional focus on assessment of wetland condition.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, 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. (2004 Baseline: 32,000 acres annual net wetland gain based on new U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report, 1998-2004.)
Section II-Page 153
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Working with partners, achieve a net
increase of acres of wetlands per year
with additional focus on biological and
functional measures and assessment
of wetland conditions.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2011
FY 2006
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2011
FY 2007
Target
100,000
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2011
Unit
Acres/Year
Baseline - The United States achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands over a 6-year period, from 1 998 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, I.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. 112 pp.)
Explanation - The 2006 NWI Status and Trends Report showed that wetland gains exceeded wetland losses in the US from 1998 to 2004 at a rate of
32,000 acres per year. The 2007 target was 300,000 acres cumulatively over 2005, 2006 and 2007. We are hopeful that the next report, due out in
201 1 , will show a continuation of upward trends and prove that we actually met or exceeded our targets in 2007 and beyond.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), states, and tribes, achieve "no net loss" of wetlands each year under
the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program, beginning in 2007.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
In partnership with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, states, and
tribes, achieve no net loss of wetlands
each year under the Clean Water Act
Section 404 regulatory program
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
FY 2006
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data
Avail. FY
2008
Unit
/Acres
Baseline- No Net Loss: FY2003: 1:1.12 (ELI 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the U.S., pg. 24;
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ELIMitigation2005.pdf
Explanation - EPA will have data to report under this measure once the EPA interface for the ORM 2.0 Database is complete (estimated 01/01/2008)
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.2: Facilitate the Ecosystem-Scale Restoration of Estuaries of National Significance
Section II-Page 154
-------
By 2011, working with partners, protect or restore an additional (i.e., measuring from 2007 forward) 250,000 acres of habitat within the study areas
for the 28 estuaries that are part of the National Estuary Program.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Acres protected or restored in NEP
study areas.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
25,000
Actual
103,959
FY 2006
Target
25,000
Actual
140,033
FY 2007
Target
50,000
Actual
102,462.9
0
Unit
Acres
Baseline- In 2002, 0 acres were protected or restored in NEP study areas.
Explanation - It is often difficult to determine an accurate number of habitat acres that will be protected and restored because projects can sometimes
take a number of years to design, fund, implement, and complete. In what year a project is actually completed can be difficult to predict. For example,
large restoration projects often have multiple partners, funding and other problems that delay projects for years. EPA will work with the NEPs to try
and address some of the difficulties with establishing a target in order to set more realistic targets in the future.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.3: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
By 2011, 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.
Strategic Target (1)
Through 2011, maintain or improve an average annual 5 percent decline for the long-term trend in average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake
trout and walleye samples.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Average annual percentage decline
for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in whole lake
trout and walleye samples.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2006
Target
5
Actual
8
FY 2007
Target
5
Actual
8
Unit
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Baseline - 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)
Section II-Page 155
-------
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2011, maintain or improve an average 7 percent annual decline for the long-term trend in average concentrations of toxic chemicals
(PCBs) in the air in the Great Lakes basin.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Average annual percentage decline
for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in the air in
the Great Lakes Basin.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2006
Target
7
Actual
8
FY 2007
Target
7
Actual
7,5
Unit
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Baseline - Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air (PCBs) from 2002 were; L Superior- 60 pg/m2; L Michigan- 87 pg/m2; L Huron-19
pg/m2; L Erie- 183 pg/m2; and L Ontario- 36 pg/m2.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2010, restore and delist a cumulative total of at least 8 Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes basin
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of Areas of Concern in the
Great Lakes Basin which are restored
and de-listed, (cumulative)
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
3
Actual
0
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
1
FY 2007
Target
1
Actual
f
Unit
AOC
Baseline - In 2002, no Areas of Concern had been delisted.
Explanation - Commitment was reduced to 1 , cumulative.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, remediate a cumulative total of 7 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Cubic yards of contaminated
sediment remediated (cumulative) in
the Great Lakes.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
2.9
Actual
3.7
FY 2006
Target
4.5
Actual
4.1
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
4,5
Unit
M cubic yards
Baseline - 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation.
Section II-Page 156
-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Improve the overall ecosystem health
of the Great Lakes by preventing
water pollution and protecting aquatic
systems.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
210
Actual
219
FY 2006
Target
21
Actual
21.1
FY 2007
Target
21
Actual
22,7
Unit
Scale
Baseline - Great Lakes rating of 20.9 reported 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.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.4: Improve the Aquatic Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
By 2011, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve 45 percent (83,250 acres) of the long-term restoration goal of 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
/Acres of submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) present in the
Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
90,000
Actual
72,942
FY 2006
Target
90,000
Actual
78,259
FY 2007
Target
90,000
Actual
59,090
Unit
/Acres
Baseline - In 1984, there were 38,230 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay.
Explanation - Measure not met largely due to higher than normal water temperatures in the mid and lower Bay as well as poor water clarity throughout
the Bay due to excess amounts of nitrogen and sediment.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, achieve 40 percent (29.92 cubic km) of the long-term restoration goal of 100 percent attainment of the dissolved oxygen water quality
standards in all tidal waters of the Bay.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, achieve 59 percent (95.88 million pounds) of the long-term goal to reduce annual nitrogen loads 162 million pounds from 1985 levels.
Section II-Page 157
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of point source nitrogen
reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
65
Actual
68
FY 2007
Target
70
Actual
Data Avail
Late FY
2007
Unit
Percent
Baseline - 61 % of point source nitrogen goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - End-of- Year data will not be available until 11/30/07. Based on the mid-year data, 33.7/49.9 million pound reduction goal-68% (on track
to meet target.)
Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of nitrogen reduction
practices (expressed as progress
meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of
162.5 million pounds).
44
44
47
Data Avail
Late FY
2007
Percent
Baseline - 41% of nitrogen goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - End-of- Year data will not be available until 11/30/07. Based on the mid-year data, 71.2/162.5 million pound reduction goal = 44% (on
track to meet target.)
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, achieve 74 percent (10.63 million pounds) of the long-term goal to reduce annual phosphorus loads 14.3 million pounds from 1985
levels.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of point source phosphorus
reduction goal of 6.16 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
82
Actual
84
FY 2007
Target
84
Actual
84
Unit
Percent
Baseline - 80% of point source phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - FY07 Actual based on FY07 mid-year data. End-of- Year data will not be available until 1 1/30/07. Based on the mid-year data, 5.18/6.16
million pound reduction goal = 84% (Measure Met).
Section II-Page 158
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of phosphorus
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the phosphorus
reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds).
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
61
Actual
61
FY 2007
Target
64
Actual
Data Avail
Late FY
2007
Unit
Percent
Baseline - 58% of phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - End-of- Year data will be available 11/30/07. Based on the mid-year data, 8.67/14.36 million pound reduction goal = 60% (On track to
meet target.)
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, achieve 74 percent (1.25 million tons) of the long-term goal to reduce annual land-based sediment loads 1.68 million tons from 1985
levels.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of sediment reduction
practices (expressed as progress
meeting the sediment reduction goal
of 1.69 million pounds).
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2007
Target
61
Actual
Data Avail
Late FY
2007
Unit
Percent
Baseline - 54% of sediment goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - End-of- Year data will be available 1 1/30/07. Based on mid-year data, 0.96/1 .69 million ton reduction goal = 57% (On track to meet
target.)
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Section II-Page 159
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of forest buffer planting goal
of 10,000 miles achieved.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
46
Actual
46
FY 2007
Target
53
Actual
53
Unit
Percent
Baseline - 38% of goal achieved in 2005.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.5: Improve the Aquatic Health of the Gulf of Mexico
By 2011, the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be improved from 2.4 to 2.6 on the good/fair/poor® scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 71 impaired segments (cumulative) in 13 priority coastal areas (i.e.,
20 percent of the 354 impaired segments identified in 13 priority coastal areas).
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, restore, enhance, or protect 20,000 acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2015, reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico to less
than 5,000 km2, as measured by the 5-year running average of the size of the zone.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Improve the overall health of coastal
waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
0.1
Actual
2.4
FY 2006
Target
2.4
Actual
2.4
FY 2007
Target
2.4
Actual
2.4
Unit
Scale
Baseline - 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, sediment
quality index, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants.
Section II-Page 160
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.6: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
By 2011, working through the Long Island Sound Study Management Conference partnership, prevent water pollution, improve water quality,
protect aquatic systems, and restore the habitat of Long Island Sound.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound by 58.5 percent as measured by the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Total
Maximum Daily Load.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce the size of hypoxic area in Long Island Sound (i.e., the average maximum July-September <3mg/l DO) by 25 percent; reduce
average duration of maximum hypoxic event by 25 percent.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, restore or protect an additional 300 acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands
from the 2005 baseline.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, reopen an additional 50 miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage from the 2005 baseline through removal of dams
and barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as fishways.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.7: Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Protect and maintain the South Florida Ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef ecosystems.
Strategic Target (1)
Annually, beginning in 2008, work with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and other partners to achieve "no net loss of wetlands in South Florida
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2012, working with all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, and local), achieve "no net loss" of stony coral cover (mean percent stony coral
cover) in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the FKNMS each year beginning in 2008, as measured by the long-term
sea grass monitoring project that addresses composition and abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability
Section II-Page 161
-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS each year, beginning in 2008.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, maintain the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem each year, beginning in 2008, as measured through water quality monitoring of
total phosphorus.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.8: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
By 2011, improve water quality, air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, improve water quality and lift harvest restrictions in 1,000 acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water
quality.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, 200 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments are remediated.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, 3,500 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands are restored.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, through coordinated diesel emission mitigation efforts, reduce total diesel emissions in the Puget Sound airshed by 8 percent.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.9: Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
By 2011, prevent water pollution, and improve and protect water quality and ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks to human
health and the environment.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, protect, enhance or restore 13,000 acres of wetland habitat and 3,000 acres of upland habitat.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, clean up 150 acres of known highly contaminated sediments.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue.
Section II-Page 162
-------
4,4:
Through 2011, identify and synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance and
policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on pesticides and chemical toxicology; global
change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and ecosystem health.
PMs Met
15
PMs Not Met
2
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
17
OBJECTIVE-LEVEL MEASURES
HUMAN HEALTH RESEARCH
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of public health
outcomes long-term goal
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline-ln FY2002, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its public health outcomes long-term goal and completed 100% of
outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of mechanistic
data long-term goal met.
100
100
100
92
100
100
Percent
Baseline-ln FY2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its mechanistic data long-term goal and completed 100% of outputs
on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of aggregate and
cumulative risk long-term goal.
100
86
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal and completed 80%
of outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
Section II-Page 163
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of the susceptible
subpopulations long-term goal.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its susceptible subpopulations long-term goal and completed 100%
of outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of states using a common
monitoring design and appropriate
indicators to determine the status
and trends of ecological resources
and the effectiveness of programs
and policies.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
20
Actual
22
FY 2006
Target
25
Actual
25
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
30
Unit
States
Baseline - The Ecological Research Program developed a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends of
ecological resources and the effectiveness of national programs and policies. In 2005 when usage data were first available, 22 states were using this
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and
policy decisions related to the ecosystems.
RESEARCH ON ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS
Improved protocols for screening and
testing
3
3
2
2
1
1
6
3
Reports
Baseline - In 2001, the program began tracking improved protocols for screening and testing and produced 9 of 9 reports on time. This measure
contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems,
Section II-Page 164
-------
with regard to chemical toxicology.
Explanation - The computational toxicology grants that originally supported this measure were relocated to EPA's Safe Pesticides/ Safe Products
Research Program during Multi-Year Plan revisions.
Effects and exposure milestones met
5
5
5
5
9
9
4
5
Reports
Baseline - In 2001, the program began tracking reports related to effects and exposure and produced 22 of 22 reports on time. This measure
contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems,
with regard to chemical toxicology.
Risk management milestones met
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
2
Reports
Baseline - In 2001, the program began tracking reports related to risk management and produced 2 of 2 reports on time. This measure contributes to
EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems, with regard to
chemical toxicology.
Explanation - The scope of the work in this area was revised during the Endocrine Disrupters Research Program's Multi-Year Plan Revision process.
The work in this area was relocated to the EPA's Safe Pesticides/ Safe Products Research Program.
HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of efficient and
effective clean-ups and safe disposal
of contamination wastes.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - 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.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of water security
initiatives.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - 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
Section II-Page 165
-------
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.
Percent of planned outputs delivered
in support of support risk assessors
and decision-makers in the rapid
assessment of risk and the
determination of cleanup goals and
procedures following contamination
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - 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.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of establishment
of the environmental National
Laboratory Response Network
100
100
Percent
GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
Percent progress toward completion
of a framework linking global change
to air quality.
30
33
45
47.5
60
65
75
75
Percent
Baseline - In 2001 , the program began work on a framework linking global change to air quality and completed 0% of the hierarchy. This measure
contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems,
with regard to global change.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered.
Baseline
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, the program began measuring the percentage of outputs delivered. This measure will contribute to EPA's goal of providing
Section II-Page 166
-------
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems, with regard to global change.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of Air Quality
Criteria/Science Assessment
documents.
N/A
100
N/A
100
90
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of the Air Quality/Science Assessment document and had an output
delivery of 0%. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of HHRA health
assessments.
N/A
73
N/A
108
N/A
63*
90
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of HHRA health assessments and delivered 73% or 8 of 11 planned
assessments on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems.
Explanation -The Multi-Year Plan for HHRA established an ambitious goal of completing 16 chronic assessments each year beginning in 2006, and
the program has an annual performance target of delivering at least 90% of those assessments on time. Since 2004, the number of delivered
assessments has increased significantly. In 2004, the program delivered 8 assessments. In 2005, the program delivered 13 assessments despite
planning to complete only 12. In 2006, the program delivered 10 assessments*. And in 2007, the program delivered 16 chronic assessments as
planned, exceeding the performance target.
* In 2006, as part of a pilot test, the program also completed substantial work for 5 acute assessments in support of the residual risk program (see
Integrated Risk Information System agenda in 71 FR 29149).
Percentage of planned outputs
delivered in support of HHRA
Technical Support Documents.
N/A
83
N/A
44
N/A
81
90
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents and delivered 83% of outputs on
time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
Section II-Page 167
-------
GOAL 5 - COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with
environmental requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution,
and promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide
incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote environmental
stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.
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, and Sustainability Research.
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 practices. To accelerate
the nation's environmental protection efforts, EPA works to prevent pollution at the
source, to encourage other forms of environmental stewardship, and to promote 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 them identify cost-effective
compliance options and strategies, and providing incentives for compliance.
EPA promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship,
sustainability, and accountability to achieve its strategic goals. Collaborating closely with
other federal agencies, 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 national resources and improving the
environment and our citizens' health. It works with businesses to increase energy
efficiency, find environmentally preferable substitutes for chemicals of concern, and
change processes to reduce toxic waste. EPA promotes improved communication
through data sharing and collaboration and conducts research on pollution prevention,
new and developing technologies, social and economic issues, and decision making to
help promote environmental stewardship. EPA also works with other nations as they
Section II-Page 171
-------
develop their own environmental protection programs, leading to lower levels of pollution
in the United States and worldwide.
Ensuring compliance and promoting environmental stewardship is an important
component of the Agency's efforts to protect human health and the environment in
Indian country. EPA continues to provide resources to support federally recognized
tribes and inter-tribal consortia in assessing environmental conditions on their lands and
building environmental programs tailored to their needs. Tribes, the first stewards of
America's environment, provide an invaluable perspective on environmental protection
that benefits and strengthens all of our stewardship programs.
Objective 1: Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved
Compliance
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 5, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Improve Human
Health and the
Environment in
Indian Country
$75,666.8,
10%
Improve
Environmental
Performance
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$124,456.7,
16%
Enhance
Societies
Capacity for
Sustainability
through
Science and
Research
$66,228.8,
8%
/\c""" — ir^v
^ Vv ^\ Achieve
r*8*^^. \ Environmental
^VJJ j Protection
\^^^^ 1 through
^\^ J Improved
v / Compliance
$521 ,869.9,
66%
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 5, Objective 1
(in thousands)
Enhance
Societies
Improve Human Capacity for
Health and the Sustainability
Environment in
through
Indian Country Science and
$83,933.2,
Research
11% $75,731.6,
/\n
s._/\
(^^XJ
I J^s
V^^"^
Improve C
Environmental ^~-_
Performance
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$122,382.2,
16%
9%
r\
\
\
/
/
_-/
Achieve
Environmental
Protection
through
Improved
Compliance
$496,644.3,
64%
Section II-Page 172
-------
FY 2007 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
foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives. This
table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 5: Objective 1 - Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Civil Enforcement
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Homeland Security: Communication
and Information
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
International Capacity Building
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Congressional , I ntergovernmental ,
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
FY 2007
Obligations
$18,404.5
$5,272.4
$1,161.1
$124,038.2
$28,404.6
$9,699.4
$92,683.6
($7.2)
$49,136.1
$3,479.5
$1,463.3
$5,812.6
$1,794.9
$6.3
$795.6
$212.7
$10,216.9
$1,877.6
$9,771.7
$5,464.7
$82,270.8
$5,265.1
$5,827.0
$452.8
$40,262.6
$7,201.3
$2,172.7
$2,545.8
$640.7
$770.9
$379.5
$1,601.8
FY 2007 Expenditures
$18,312.1
$5,794.3
$1,543.7
$122,709.6
$29,034.7
$9,366.7
$85,544.2
$165.9
$47,017.6
$3,709.4
$609.8
$4,901.1
$2,619.8
$10.3
$757.8
$168.5
$9,927.7
$1,821.9
$9,774.7
$3,195.2
$77,497.8
$4,517.0
$5,522.0
$445.4
$33,890.6
$7,173.1
$2,100.0
$2,640.1
$590.3
$722.2
$317.7
$1,544.1
Section II-Page 173
-------
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$2,790.4
$521,869.9
$2,699.1
$496,644.4
EPA assists members of the regulated community in understanding
environmental regulations and improving their environmental management practices
(EMPs) with the goal of reducing 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.
Millions of Pounds of Pollutants Reduced
Through EnfarcementActions
2000
2006 2007
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
2007. That is the same
amount as last year and
represents a significant
contribution to
environmental protection.
Pollutant reduction totals
show large variations from year to year due to the fact that reductions tend to be driven
by the results from a few very large cases. For additional information on recent
enforcement cases, please visit EPA's website:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html. As a result of concluded
enforcement actions, violators have committed to spending $10.6 billion to improve their
environmental performance or improve their EMPs. Ninety-one percent of facilities
receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA have improved their EMPs.
Compliance Assistance
The Agency exceeded its compliance assistance performance targets in FY2007
due to changes in how it calculates results. EPA poses set questions to compliance
assistance recipients regarding their improvements in environmental practices and
pollutant reductions. These measures are not calculated from a representative sample
of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of
regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these questions on voluntary surveys.
The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to
Section II-Page 174
-------
answer these questions or the majority of entities who chose not to answer the survey.
Even for those respondents who respond positively, there is no objective way to verify
the accuracy of their response.
Compliance Incentives
In FY 2007, 17 voluntary disclosures under EPA's Audit Policy resulted in an
estimated 1.2 million pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated. Unlike
traditional enforcement cases, voluntary disclosures under EPA's Audit Policy are
completely dependent upon regulated entities choosing to disclose violations. Pollutant
reductions vary significantly from year to year because reductions tend to be driven by a
small number of audit settlements. As an example of the variability in performance
results under the compliance incentives program, EPA reduced, treated or eliminated an
estimated 1.9 million pounds of pollutants in FY2005, and an estimated .05 million
pounds of pollutants in FY2006. In an effort to maximize environmental outcomes from
Audit Policy disclosures, the Agency recently sought public comment on the
appropriateness of a tailored incentives designed to encourage new owners of regulated
entities to audit facilities and self-disclose violations to the Agency, and whether the
Agency should test this idea through a pilot program. If a pilot is proposed, it will be
circulated for public comment in FY 2008.
Monitoring & Enforcement
Pollutant reduction results show large variations from year to year due to the fact
that the overall reductions occur from a few large cases. Two large cases, Wisconsin
Electric Power Company and the East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. resulted in
agreements to reduce, treat or eliminate an estimated 341 million pounds of pollutants.
EPA surpassed the FY 2007 performance target for the dollars invested in
improved environmental performance and management practices by $6.4 million dollars
due to particularly high injunctive relief requirements in FY 2007 Clean Air Act
settlements. Total dollars invested in environmental performance or improved
environmental management practices are dependent on a small number of significant
cases that vary widely from year to year due to specific case settlements that are entirely
unpredictable when the Agency sets performance targets two years in advance. For
example, three of the largest Clean Air Act settlements in FY 2007 account for nearly
$1.6 billion of the total $4.2 billion dollars of injunctive relief. Similarly, the two largest
Clean Water Act settlements to bring critical municipal sewer systems into compliance
account for over $3.3 billion of the FY 2007 performance result.
Explanation of the Missed Measures
EPA missed the performance target for complying actions taken by a facility
during an on-site inspection/evaluation. Activities taken by a facility to correct
deficiencies identified at the time of an on-site inspection/evaluation are known as
complying actions. The absolute number of facilities that took complying actions went up
by 9.4% - from 1,234 in FY 2006 to 1,350 in FY 2007. While inspectors communicated
deficiencies to over 7,000 facilities this year, not all deficiencies can be corrected
immediately while the inspector is on-site. The Agency plans to address the failure to
meet the performance target in FY 2008 by expanding the type of corrective actions
Section II-Page 175
-------
reported to include those which occur after the inspector leaves the site but prior to an
enforcement action.
EPA slightly missed the performance target for the percentage of concluded
cases that require pollutant reductions in FY 2007. It is not possible to predict the
number of enforcement actions that will be concluded in a given year or the percentage
that will actually require pollutants to be reduced. The absolute number of concluded
enforcement cases has increased over the last three years. And, for those three years,
EPA has exceeded its targets for pounds of pollutants reduced. In FY 2007, EPA settled
a few cases with very significant pollutant reductions. As a result, only three large Clean
Air Act settlements in FY 2007 account for nearly 50% of the total pollution reductions.
Additional Information Related to Objective 1
Program
Evaluations:
Office of the Inspector General: (1) Assessment ofEPA's Projected
Pollutant Reductions Resulting from Enforcement Actions and
Settlements;
(2) Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring Compliance: Practices in
Selected Agencies;
(3) Better Enforcement Oversight Needed for Major Facilities with
Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term Significant Non-compliance;
(4) Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Generally
Comply with Major Clean Water Act Permits.
Government Accountability Office: EPA-State Enforcement
Partnership Has Improved, but EPA's Oversight Needs Further
Enhancement.
Additional information on this report is available in the Program
Evaluation, Appendix A.
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 demonstrated." The program was reassessed
in the 2004 PART process and received a rating of "adequate." As
a result of the PART process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include development of statistically valid compliance
rates for its national priority implementation when it is feasible and
serves a clear management purpose. OECA has recently revised
its national priority strategies for the FY 2008-2010 cycle and is
determining which strategies would benefit most from the
development of a compliance rate. OECA continues to work with
the Office of Air and Radiation to characterize the human health
benefits accruing from pollutant reductions due to concluded air
enforcement cases. A headquarters/regional workgroup is
reviewing options for developing a problem-based strategic
architecture. It is projected the workgroup will finalize a proposal by
Section II-Page 176
-------
Web Links:
the end of 2007.
The Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Criminal) program 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." As a
result of the PART process, the program is conducting follow-up
actions which include developing recidivism baselines and targets
for criminal enforcement.
The Pesticide Enforcement Grant program was assessed in the
2004 PART process and received a rating of "ineffective." As a
result of 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 program will also develop baselines and targets for the
performance measures and will evaluate the cost-effectiveness.
Compliance and Enforcement Program:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance,
Compliance and Enforcement Data, Planning and Results:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/index.html
Civil Enforcement Program:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html
Objective 2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention
and Other Stewardship Practices
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 5, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Improve Human
Health and the
Environment in
Indian Country
$75,666.8,
10%
CvT
^^^\Si
Improve v^^
Environmental N^^
Performance
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$124,456.7,
16%
Enhance
Societies
Capacity for
Sustainability
through
Science and
Research
$66,228.8,
8%
— ^
>w Achieve
\ Environmental
I Protection
/ through
/ Improved
^_^S Compliance
$521 ,869.9,
66%
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 5, Objective 2
(in thousands)
Enhance
Societies
Improve Human Capacity for
Health and the Sustainability
Environment in
through
Indian Country Science and
$83,933.2,
11%
ATI
C \v
r/
Improve V^^^
Environmental \^
Performance ^ —
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$122,382.2,
16%
Research
$75,731 .6,
9%
Achieve
Environmental
Protection
through
Improved
Compliance
$496,644.3,
64%
Section II-Page 177
-------
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 5: Objective 2 - Improve Environmental Perf
and Other Stewardshi
Program Project
Homeland Security:
Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of
EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
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
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Prevention
Categorical Grant: Environmental
Information
Congressionally Mandated
FY 2007
Obligations
$241.4
$521.5
$128.9
$31.4
$2,001.4
$263.6
$1,188.6
$896.4
$15,662.0
$736.4
$1,220.7
$142.0
$9,831.7
$1,213.9
$393.0
$674.4
$83.9
$124.9
$61.5
$1,142.1
$452.0
$6,010.3
$15,194.4
$2.2
ormance through Pollution Prevention
p Practices
FY 2007 Expenditures
$99.9
$760.6
$122.7
$25.5
$1,939.1
$255.4
$1,182.4
$531.8
$14,606.4
$704.9
$1,207.3
$140.0
$8,389.3
$1,205.4
$380.3
$719.1
$79.6
$117.0
$51.4
$1,211.1
$437.2
$5,382.2
$17,315.7
$2,646.2
Section II-Page 178
-------
Projects
NEPA Implementation
Pollution Prevention Program
RCRA: Waste Minimization &
Recycling
Regulatory/Economic-
Management and Analysis
Regulatory Innovation
Environmental Education
Small Business Ombudsman
Total
$14,790.2
$17,606.3
$2,971.3
($86.3)
$19,510.1
$7,678.4
$3,768.0
$124,456.6
$13,906.8
$16,831.0
$2,778.3
$118.7
$17,463.7
$7,870.9
$3,902.3
$122,382.2
During FY 2007, EPA made significant progress in preventing pollution at the
source. As of early November 2007, businesses, institutions, and governments
participating in EPA's pollution prevention programs reduced use of hazardous materials
by 419.5 million pounds, reduced use of energy by 1,035 billion BTUs, conserved 290
million gallons of water, and achieved $30.8 million in cost savings.49'50 This progress
boosted cumulative results since FY 2000 to 2.0 billion pounds reduced, 8.3 trillion
BTUs, conserved, 9.7 billion gallons of water conserved, and $182 million in cost
savings toward the Agency's strategic targets.51'52
These substantial pollution prevention results were achieved collectively through
a wide variety of established and innovative approaches:
• Regional EPA offices administered Source Reduction and State and Tribal
Assistance Grants to prevent pollution.
• P2RX centers enabled states and industry to produce P2 results by providing
comprehensive and innovative P2 information across regions.
• In response to the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, businesses and
academia have developed safer chemicals and processes.
• The federal government has increased its purchase of environmentally preferable
products through the Federal Electronics Challenge and the Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).
• 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.
• Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare enabled hospitals and other healthcare
facilities to prevent pollution and reduce hazardous wastes, such as mercury.
• Under the Design for the Environment Program, partners collaborated to develop
safer and effective substitutes for tin lead solder and safer detergents.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
EPA made considerable progress in promoting environmentally preferable
purchasing by federal agencies. In FY 2007, EPA finalized FY 2006 data for the
Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) Program and Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT) programs. Through EPA's Federal Electronics Challenge, the
federal government decreased its use of hazardous materials by 2.8 million pounds,
conserved 452 billion BTUs of energy, and saved $11.4 million. Finalized FY 2006
Section II-Page 179
-------
results became available in 2007 resulting from the EPEAT program finalizing the
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 1680 Standard for Environmental
Assessment of Personal Computer Products which decreased hazardous materials by
9.3 million pounds, conserved 1,457 billion BTUs, and saved $37 million.
Green Suppliers Network
EPA's Green Suppliers Network (GSN) provides technical assistance in lean
manufacturing and pollution prevention techniques to improve suppliers' productivity,
efficiency, and environmental performance leveraging a national network of
manufacturing technical assistance resources. By the end of 2007, the GSN completed
49 technical reviews and identified over $27.2 million in potential cost savings.53
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program
The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Program fosters development of
new chemistries that cost less, reduce hazardous chemical usage and waste, and
reduce the need for dangerous manufacturing processes. Through FY 2007, award
winners collectively account for 193 million pounds of hazardous materials reduction.
Since its inception in 1995, the program has reduced hazardous materials by 942 million
pounds and saved 605 million gallons of water.54
Design for the Environment Program
Collaborating with industry and nongovernmental organizations to reduce risk
from chemicals, the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program promotes 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 280 products. In FY 2007, all active partnership projects within DfE reduced
more than 200 million pounds of chemicals of concern. 55
Mercury Switches
The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMRP) has the
potential to recover 80 to 90 percent of available mercury switches from old automobiles
that wind up in scrap yards to be shredded and melted to make new steel-the source of
at least half of the mercury emitted by electric arc furnaces, the nation's fourth largest
source of mercury air emissions. Working together, EPA's Offices of Solid Waste;
Policy, Economics, and Innovation; Air; and Pollution Prevention and Toxics met the
goal of the first year-to engage States to encourage automobile and scrap recyclers in
their states to participate in the NVMSRP. Every state now participates in a mercury
switch recovery program. Data show that by late August 2007, over 5,900 automobile
dismantlers had joined the program; and 680,000 switches have been collected,
representing 1,500 pounds of mercury that will not be emitted to the environment during
2007, its first year of implementation.
National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) works to reduce
priority chemicals from waste streams. Under EPA's new strategic plan, the NPEP
program has committed to reducing 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from FY 2007
Section II-Page 180
-------
to FY 2011. This past fiscal year, actual reductions reported by NPEP partners and
confirmed by EPA total 1.3 million pounds against the 2007 target of 500,000 pounds.
NPEP achievements are also being used to report on historical measures from the old
strategic plan as they more accurately reflect EPA activities as opposed to economic
conditions that influence priority chemical generation. Since program inception, NPEP
partners have reduced over 3.5 million pounds of priority chemicals through both source
reduction and recycling activities.
Performance Track
In FY 2007, Performance Track members worked toward goals they set in 31
different environmental indicators. Performance Track has six priority areas for reducing
environmental impacts: water use, energy use, materials use, air emissions, discharges
to water, and solid waste. Members reported normalized reductions of 5,300,000,000
gallons of water, 72,000 tons of air emissions, and 64,000 tons of materials used.
Although the targets were not met in FY 2007 for energy use, discharges to water, and
non-hazardous waste, members reported normalized reductions of 2,600,000 MMBTUs
of energy use and 175,000 tons of solid waste. Discharges to water increased by 623
tons in FY 2007.
Also, the number of Performance Track members demonstrating improved
performance on a normalized basis increased for water use, energy use, solid waste,
and discharges to water. (The number of water use improvements grew from 105 to 113;
energy use improvements grew from 129 to 144; solid waste improvements increased
from 127 to 148; and the reductions in discharges to water grew from 20 to 28.) In fact,
in these four areas, the number of improvements 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. Improvements
made by Performance Track members demonstrate that facilities of all types and sizes
are willing and able to identify and commit to beyond-compliance environmental
performance improvement opportunities and to share their results with the public.
Additional Information Related to Objective 2
Grants:
State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Source Reduction Grants, and
grants which fund Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
Centers.
PART:
EPA's Pollution Prevention Program underwent PART review in
2006 and received a "moderately effective" rating, confirming that
the program produces important environmental results in a well-
managed and efficient manner. The Agency's PART improvement
plan calls for EPA to evaluate and implement Science Advisory
Board Report recommendations for improving performance
measures to better demonstrate Pollution Prevention results, work
to reduce barriers confronted by industry and others in attempting to
implement source reduction, fully implement the P2 State Reporting
Section II-Page 181
-------
System, and develop additional efficiency measures. The Pollution
Prevention Program has already developed one efficiency measure
focusing on the Design for the Environment Program and is in the
process of developing an efficiency measure for the Federal
Electronic Challenge Program.
Web Links:
Pollution Prevention (P2) Program: http://www.epa.gov/p2/,
P2 Grants and Funding:
http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/index.htm,
The Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange: http://www.p2rx.org/,
Design for the Environment (DfE) Program:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/dfe/,
Federal Electronics Challenge Program:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/,
Green Chemistry Program:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenchemistry/,
P2 Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare:
http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm,
The Green Suppliers Network:http://www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/,
The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable: http://www.p2.org/
Objective 3: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 5, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Improve Human
Health and the
Environment in
Indian Country
$75,666.8,
10%
Improve
Environmental
Performance
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$124,456.7,
16%
Enhance
Societies
Capacity for
Sustainability
through
Science and
Research
$66,228.8,
8%
r-"l
^ ^\ N> Achieve
T5*5*^^. \ Environmental
^xll Protection
\s^'^ 1 through
\^ J Improved
x. Compliance
$521 ,869.9,
66%
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 5, Objective 3
(in thousands)
Enhance
Societies
Improve Human Capacity for
Health and the Sustainability
Environment in
through
Indian Country Science and
$83,933.2,
Research
11% $75,731.6,
/\T~1
^fcs^Vv
j^S^\l
I s^
Improve \^^^
Environmental \^
Performance ^-—
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$122,382.2,
16%
9%
rx
\ Achieve
\ Environmental
j Protection
/ through
/ Improved
' Compliance
$496,644.3,
64%
Section II-Page 182
-------
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and
objectives. This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
"Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 5: Objective 3 - Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Congressionally Mandated
Projects
Homeland Security:
Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Protection of
EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Tribal - Capacity Building
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
Total
FY 2007
Obligations
$57,758.3
($282.6)
$56.2
$46.8
$11,048.5
$30.0
$7.3
$408.8
$76.4
$325.7
$208.5
$2,980.0
$82.2
$169.7
$12.8
$1,285.4
$270.9
$81.3
$555.5
$29.5
$29.0
$14.3
$367.2
$105.1
$75,666.8
FY 2007 Costs
$66,410.2
$46.1
$23.2
$68.3
$10,700.1
$28.5
$5.9
$397.5
$74.8
$325.0
$123.7
$2,827.0
$79.6
$170.0
$12.6
$1,147.5
$271.1
$80.5
$592.3
$30.5
$27.2
$12.0
$377.9
$101.7
$83,933.2
Section II-Page 183
-------
GAP Regional Distribution
FY 2007 Enacted Budget $56.654,000
Region 7: 2% Region 8: 5%
Region 4: 1%
Region 2: I %
Region I: 2%
EPA has demonstrated
improvements in core tribal
environmental program capacity
critical to protecting human health and
the environment in Indian country. In
2007, EPA met its overall annual
performance goal of assisting federally
recognized tribes in assessing the
condition of their environment, helping
build their capacity to implement
environmental programs where
needed to improve tribal health and
environments, and implementing
programs in Indian country where
needed to address environmental
issues. EPA considers the Indian
General Assistance Program (GAP) to
be the core component for achieving the objective of building tribal capacity. GAP
provides funds for tribes to plan, develop and/or establish an environmental protection
program. Working with the tribes, the Agency met its goal of providing 90 percent of
federally recognized Indian tribes with access to GAP grants.
Progress in building tribal capacity is also shown by exceeding targets established for
their performance measures:
Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia workplans (cumulative) -
exceeded target of 42 percent by achieving 59 percent. The additional 17
percent of tribes above the target was achieved as tribes broadened their scope
of environmental activities56.
Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs (cumulative)-
achieved 73 percent against the goal of 49 percent. The Agency exceeded its
goal as a result of continued efforts to reach out to smaller less advantaged
tribes57.
Percent of tribes with EPA reviewed monitoring and assessment occurring
(cumulative)- exceeded the target of 31 percent by achieving this measure for 43
percent of tribes. This measure counts the number of tribes with EPA reviewed
Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPS).
Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million
dollars- exceeded the target of 12.3 percent by 14 percent for this annual
efficiency measure58.
Section II-Page 184
-------
EPA will continue to increase our efforts to work with tribes to provide efficient
measures to assess environmental conditions in Indian country.
Additional Information Related to Objective 3
Program
Evaluations:
An independent evaluation of the Indian Environmental General
Assistance Program was completed in May 2007. The results of this
evaluation clearly establish that GAP has been effective in building
the foundation of environmental capacity among tribes.
Grants:
Categorical Grant—Tribal General Assistance Program, authorized
by the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act, 42
U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended
PART:
The Tribal GAP program underwent its second PART assessment in
2007 and received an overall rating of "moderately effective." As a
result of the PART process, EPA has set ambitious goals and
revised GAP performance measures to strengthen their relevance
and accuracy In response to the evaluation, EPA is implementing
the GAP tracking system. Regional training will be conducted in
Sept-Dec. 2007. The system will be evaluated in 2008 and
recommendations for improvement will be updated. Development of
a long-term solid waste measure is being considered.
Web Links:
Evaluation of the Tribal GAP program:
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/GAPFinalReport.pdf
The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO):
http://www.epa.gov/indian/
American Indian Tribal Portal: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal
Section II-Page 185
-------
Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research
FY 2007 Obligations:
Goal 5, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Improve Human
Health and the
Environment in
Indian Country
$75,666.8,
10%
Improve
Environmental
Performance
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$124,456.7,
16%
Enhance
Societies
Capacity for
Sustainability
through
Science and
Research
$66,228.8,
8%
r-"l
^ ^\ N> Achieve
/*!%^yJ \ Environmental
^xll I Protection
\s^^^ 1 through
\^ J Improved
x. Compliance
$521 ,869.9,
66%
FY 2007 Expenditures:
Goal 5, Objective 4
(in thousands)
Improve Human
Health and the
Environment in
Indian Country
$83,933.2,
11%
Improve
Environmental
Performance
through
Pollution
Prevention and
Other
Stewardship
Practices
$122,382.2,
16%
Enhance
Societies
Capacity for
Sustainability
through
Science and
Research
$75,731 .6,
9%
/\rnr^\
^^/\ \ Achieve
|^*5^\|l \ Environmental
[ ^^J I Protection
V^^^ I through
\^ / Improved
^- Compliance
$496,644.3,
64%
FY 2007 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 foundations for the Agency's budget. Frequently, program projects support multiple PMs and objectives.
This table lists the program projects and associated resources that support this objective.
'Resources associated with Program projects may not match the Goal and Objective obligations and expenditures exactly due to
rounding
Goal 5: Objective 4 - Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and
Research
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Forensics Support
Homeland Security: Communication and
Information
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
FY 2007
Obligations
$3,577.6
$17,542.9
$121.3
$358.1
FY 2007 Expenditures
$9,959.3
$16,303.5
$51.3
$546.5
Section II-Page 186
-------
Research: Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV)
Research: Pollution Prevention
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
Research: Economics and Decision
Science(EDS)
Research: Sustainability
Regulatory/Economic-Management and
Analysis
Total
$1,405.3
($403.5)
$68.6
$21.7
$1,136.1
$94.8
$348.9
$457.3
$3,566.5
$1,221.6
$1,009.5
$125.3
$5,722.5
$623.8
$204.8
$370.7
$18.9
$66.4
$32.7
$538.0
$2,290.3
$25,468.1
$240.5
$66,228.7
$1,947.5
$9,520.4
$65.3
$16.5
$1,087.3
$91.2
$340.7
$259.9
$3,550.7
$1,021.3
$963.5
$144.8
$4,599.1
$614.8
$196.1
$378.7
$18.6
$62.2
$27.4
$522.5
$393.9
$22,815.8
$232.6
$75,731.4
Objective 4: Enhance Science and Research
EPA continues to strengthen the scientific evidence and research supporting
environmental policies and decisions on compliance, pollution prevention, and
environmental stewardship. Two examples of this research are:
Shepherd Creek Urban Watershed Management Pilot Project
In 2007, EPA's Shepherd Creek Urban Watershed Management pilot project
continued to collect hydrologic, ecological, and water quality monitoring data in
Cincinnati, Ohio's Shepherd Creek. As part of this project, EPA completed an
experimental auction that provided market-based economic incentives to home-owners
Section II-Page 187
-------
in an effort to control pollution from non-point sources. The detailed assessment of all
impervious areas in the creek watershed completed in 2006 was used to determine
which geographic locations within the watershed would most benefit from best
management practices (BMPs) designed to reduce urban stormwater runoff. Through
the auction, homeowners were asked to bid on, purchase, and install the BMP of their
choice (several types were available). With the auction completed and the BMPs in
place, an evaluation of their effectiveness is now in progress. ORD expects to develop a
series of generalized methodologies for watershed management using the
hydrologic/ecological data, land-use practices, and economic incentives employed in this
pilot project.
Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) Grant Program
In 2007, EPA published a report59 synthesizing the scientific innovations,
environmental results, and economic benefits derived from the Technology for a
Sustainable Environment (TSE) grant program, a partnership between EPA and NSF
from1994 to 2003. The program invested over $50 million in innovative interdisciplinary
research in green chemistry, green engineering, and industrial ecology at universities
throughout the U.S, and supported multiple EPA goals and regional environmental
protection efforts.
The results of TSE-funded research on organic solvents60 exemplify the TSE's
program's success. Organic solvents are used in hundreds of industrial processes
ranging from manufacturing Teflon to developing film; some of these solvents are highly
toxic or can break down into ozone-depleting gases, and some processes contaminate
billions of gallons of wastewater. Given these detrimental environmental impacts, the
TSE program funded research to identify alternatives to organic solvent-based
processes. Under this grant, researchers developed detergent-like "surfactants" that
allow CO2 to dissolve substances that would not normally be soluble. One of the
consumer applications of this research is an alternative dry cleaning solution that
replaces the organic solvent perchloroethylene. This detergent system is now used in
more than 100 dry cleaning establishments in over 12 states. Additionally, a follow-up
grant has allowed for the extension of this solvent research into applications for the
microelectronics industries.
Additional Information Related to Objective 4
Program
Evaluations:
Grants:
EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors conducted a comprehensive
assessment of the Sustainability Research Program in April, 2007.
The report resulting from this review will be available in FY 2008.
In FY 2007, recipients of EPA project-specific grants found that,
while companies are willing to participate in voluntary programs that
target changes in production processes, there are no significant
sustained improvements in environmental performance. Of the
industry-led programs, only the adoption of a formal Environmental
Section II-Page 188
-------
PART:
Web Links:
Management System seems to be associated with some
environmental improvements. (These Results Were Supported by
the Following Grants: (1) "Environmental Management Strategies
and Corporate Performance: Identification and Analysis of the
Motivators of Regulated Entities' Environmental Behavior and
Performance," (2) "Do Formalized Management Systems Produce
Superior Performance?" (3) "Environmental Management Systems:
Informing Organizational Decisions," (4) "Oregon Business
Decisions for Environmental Performance," (5) "Pollution
Prevention: The Role of Environmental Management and
Information," and (6) "Comparative Plant-Level Analysis of Three
Voluntary Environmental Programs."
The Sustainability Research Program received a "Results Not
Demonstrated" rating on its 2003 PART assessment, which was
conducted under the title Pollution Prevention and New
Technoloqies Research. As a result of the PART process, the
program has improved its strategic planning, and has instituted a
plan for regular external review. The program has also worked to
establish performance measures, and instituted a new efficiency
measure in FY 2007.
Sustainability Research Program: http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/
1Koehler, D.A. "Voluntary Environmental Programs - Policy at a Crossroads?" forthcoming Policy Studies Journal, 2007.
Section II-Page 189
-------
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental requirements by enforcing environmental statutes,
preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for governments, businesses, and
the public that promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.
5,1:
By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through enforcement and other compliance assurance activities by
achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated entities, including those in Indian country.
PMs Met
6
PMs Not Met
2,
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
8
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.1: Compliance Assistance
By 2011, prevent noncompliance or reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas including those with potential
environmental justice concerns, through EPA compliance assistance by maintaining or improving on the following percentages for direct
assistance provided to regulated entities, including those in Indian country: 50 percent of the regulated entities receiving direct assistance improve
their management practices; and 12 percent of the regulated entities receiving direct assistance reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percentage of regulated entities
receiving direct compliance
assistance from EPA reporting that
they improved environmental
management practices as a result of
EPA assistance.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
50
Actual
51
FY 2006
Target
50
Actual
74
FY 2007
Target
50
Actual
91
Unit
Percent
Baseline - The FY2006 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 74 percent. These measures are not calculated from a representative sample of the regulated entity universe.
The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these questions on voluntary surveys. The
percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these questions or the majority of entities who chose not to
Section II-Page 190
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
answer the surveys.
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
15
28
15
50
Percent
Baseline - The FY2006 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 28 percent. These measures are not calculated from a representative
sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively to these
questions on voluntary surveys. The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these questions or the
majority of entities who chose not to answer the surveys.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.2: Compliance Incentives
By 2011, identify and correct noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas including those
with potential environmental justice concerns. Use of compliance incentives will result in a 5 percentage point increase in the number of facilities
that use EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat or eliminate pollution or improve environmental
practices at their facilities, including those in Indian country.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Pounds of pollutants estimated to be
reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a
result of audit agreements.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
0.25
Actual
1.9
FY 2006
Target
0.4
Actual
0.05
FY 2007
Target
0.4
Actual
1.2
Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - The FY 2006 baseline for pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements is 0.05 million
pounds of pollutants
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement
Section II-Page 191
-------
By 2011, identify, correct, and deter noncompliance and reduce environmental risks, with an emphasis on achieving results in all areas including
those with potential environmental justice concerns, through monitoring and enforcement of regulated entities' compliance, including those in
Indian country, by achieving: a 5 percent increase in the number of facilities taking complying actions during EPA inspections and evaluations after
deficiencies have been identified; a 5 percentage point increase in the percent of enforcement actions requiring that pollutants be reduced,
treated, or eliminated FY 2005 baseline: 28.8 percent); and a 5 percentage point increase in the percent of enforcement actions requiring
improvement of environmental management practices.
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Pounds of pollution estimated to be
reduced, treated, or eliminated as a
result of concluded enforcement
actions, (civil enf)
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
300
Actual
1,100
FY 2006
Target
450
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
Actual
890
Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - The FY 2004-2006 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated is 997,000,000 pounds of
pollutants.
Percentage of concluded enforcement
cases requiring that pollution be
reduced, treated, or eliminated.
30
28.8
30
Data Avail
FY 2008
30
27
Percent
Baseline - The FY2007 baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or
eliminated is the FY2005 result which is 28.8 percent. The reason for using the FY2005 result as the FY2006 baseline is due to the data lag in the
FY2006 result.
Percentage of concluded enforcement
cases requiring implementation of
improved environmental management
practices.
60
72.5
65
82
70
70
Percent
Baseline - The FY2006 baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental management
practices is 82 percent.
Percentage of regulated entities
taking complying actions as a result of
on-site compliance inspections and
evaluations.
10
19
25
16
30
18
Percent
Section II-Page 192
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - The FY 2006 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site compliance inspections and
evaluations is 16 percent.
Dollars invested in improved
environmental performance or
improved environmental management
practices as a result of concluded
enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive
relief and SEPs)
4
10
4.1
5
4.2
10.6
Billion Dollars
Baseline - The FY 2004-2006 rolling average baseline for dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental
management practices is $6,600,000,000.
5,2:
AMI.
•ER
By 2011, enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting pollution prevention
and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After November 15,
2007
3
Total PMs
6
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship by Government and the Public
Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship. By 2011, reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, and improve other
environmental stewardship practices while reducing costs through implementation of EPA's pollution prevention programs.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, reduce 4.5 billion pounds of hazardous materials cumulatively compared to the 2000 baseline of 44 million pounds reduced.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Pounds of hazardous materials
FY 2004
Target
120
Actual
155
FY 2005
Target
290
Actual
315
FY 2006
Target
401
Actual
394
FY 2007
Target
414
Actual
419,5
Unit
Million
Section II-Page 193
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
reduced by P2 program participants.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Pounds
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program hazardous material reduced was 44 million pounds in FY 2000.
Explanation - In FY 2004, the program was able to exceed its target due to the combined reporting of the Green Chemistry, P2RX, Design for the
Environment, and Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare centers of results. Results from Green Chemistry Presidential award winners were the
primary contributor for the program.
In FY 2005, the program continued to exceed its target due to the combined reporting of EPAs 10 Regions via Grant results, Green Chemistry, P2RX,
Design for the Environment, and Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare centers of results. Articulated and substantial Regional grant results as well
as expanded results from the Design for the Environment program were primary contributors to exceeding the target.
FY 2006 results represent data from six of seven P2 centers of results. All six of these centers generated substantial results leading to the program's
highest reported number of pounds to date. Partial data has been received for P2RX and our State partners through the National P2 Results
Database. It is anticipated that when more States report, the program will hit its target.
FY 2007 results represent data from five of seven centers of results and represent significant achievements from those centers who reported. Data
from the last two centers will further increase these results during the next Fiscal Year.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, reduce, conserve, or offset 31.5 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) cumulatively compared to the 2002 baseline amount of 0 BTUs
reduced, conserved, or offset.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
BTUs of energy reduced, conserved
or offset by P2 program participants.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Baseline - The baseline reference point for reductions of pollution and
Actual
FY 2006
Target
906.7
Actual
4,442
FY 2007
Target
1,106.8
conservation of BTUs and water is zero for 2002.
Actual
Data Avail
FY2008
Unit
Billion BTUs
Explanation - - In FY 2006, the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Center of results came on-line and started producing results. These results
from both the Federal Electronics Challenge and the Electronics Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) when combined with significant
Regional Grant results explain why these results are significantly greater than targets. We anticipate revising these targets at the next available
opportunity.
FY 2007 results are incomplete. Full results from both Regions and the EPP center of results will enable the program to exceed its FY 2007 target.
Section II-Page 194
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
Full results will be available next Summer for the Fall PART update.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, reduce water use by 19 billion gallons cumulatively compared to the 2000 baseline amount of 220 million pounds reduced.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Gallons of water reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
328.8
Actual
2,272
FY 2007
Target
1,790.1
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program gallons of water was 220 millions gallons in FY 2000.
Actual
Data Avail
FY2008
Unit
Million
Gallons
Explanation - In FY 2006, Regional Grant results produced greater than anticipated results allowing the program to significantly exceed its FY 2006
Performance target. Full P2 Grant Results have been made publicly available and can be viewed here:
http://www.epa. gov/p2/pubs/public_reporting_fy06.pdf .
In FY 2007, Regional Grant reports have not been received for all Grantees and from other P2 Centers of Results.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2011, save $791.9 million through pollution prevention improvements in business, institutional, and governmental costs cumulatively compared
to the 2002 baseline of $0.0 saved.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Business, institutional and
government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
30.4
Actual
27.5
FY 2006
Target
38.2
Actual
86.2
FY 2007
Target
44.3
Actual
Data Avail
FY 2008
Unit
Million Dollars
Saved
Baseline - The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program cost savings was zero dollars in FY 2002.
Explanation - FY 2007 results have not yet been received from all centers of results, including Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program.
Results will be available in Summer 2008.
Section II-Page 195
-------
Strategic Target (5)
By 2011, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from waste streams as measured by National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
(NPEP) contributions, Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), and other tools used by EPA to achieve priority chemical reductions.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Number of pounds (in millions) of
priority chemicals reduced, as
measured by National Partnership for
Environmental Priorities members.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
0.5
Actual
I ,0
Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline -The number of pounds (in millions) of priority chemicals reduced by industry through the NPEP program. The baseline is numerically zero every year
as new reductions are directly based on fiscal year partner achievements. The 2006 - 2011 strategic plan goal is to reduce four million pounds of priority
chemicals by 2011. The FY 2008 and FY 2009 targets are 1 million pounds per year. The new performance measure reflects the fact that NPEP has
significantly increased its membership and now has over 150 partners who have removed over 3.5 million pounds of priority chemicals from the environment.
Reductions will be achieved primarily through source reduction made possible by safer chemical substitutes. The FY 2007 target was exceeded because two
large facilities achieved greater than expected naphthalene and lead reductions ahead of schedule.
Number of pounds reduced (in
millions) in generation of priority list
chemicals from 2001 baseline of 84
million pounds.
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.94
1.2
Inn
.28
NoFY
2007
Target
N/A
Million
Pounds
Baseline - The 2001 baseline of priority chemicals reported to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) changes yearly as reporting errors are corrected.
This necessitated changes in performance targets which made tracking progress difficult. The NPEP measurement system described above is being
used to report on FY 2005 and FY 2006 priority chemical reduction targets because it more directly reflects reductions that are a result of EPA
activities and not a result of economic conditions that correlate to priority chemical generation. Added benefits to using this system include: reductions
correspond to the fiscal year instead of the calendar year; there is no reporting time lag; and it captures reductions of priority chemicals not reported to
TRI. Historical data is available for these years because program success was being tracked by reductions through NPEP partner achievements; this
history was a major reason for changing the performance measure with the new strategic plan.
Explanation - NPEP fell short of the FY 2005 goal as the first big wave of partner commitments were just starting to be achieved. The economic
recovery in 2005 made reaching the goal more difficult as increased industrial output is correlated with increased priority chemical generation. As a
testament to program effectiveness, NPEP met the target set under the old measure for FY 2006.
Section II-Page 196
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.2: Promote Improved Environmental Performance through Business and Community Innovation
Promote Improved Environmental Performance Through Business and Community Innovation. Through 2011, improve environmental
performance with sustainable outcomes through sector-based approaches, performance-based programs, and assistance to small business.
Strategic Target (1)
By FY 2011, the reported results of Performance Track member facilities collectively will show the following normalized annual reductions: 5.1
billion gallons in water use; 13,000 tons of hazardous materials use; 230,000 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCOE) of greenhouse
gases; 300 tons of toxic discharges to water; and 5,500 tons of combined NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM emissions. (Performance Track member
facilities make commitments to, and report yearly progress on, performance improvements in up to four environmental areas. In FY 2005,
Performance Track members achieved normalized annual reductions of 3.4 billion gallons in water use; 8,794 tons of hazardous materials use;
151,129 MTCO2E of greenhouse gases; 186 tons of toxic discharges to water; and 3,533 tons of combined NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM emissions.)
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Reduce 3. 7 billion gallons of water
use; 16.3 million MMBTUs of energy
use; 1,050 tons of materials use;
460,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000
tons of air releases; & 12,400 tons of
water discharges.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
4
Actual
3
Unit
Media
reduction
Baseline - For Performance Track, the baseline year is 2001 for FY 2005, 2006, and 2007. Performance will be measured against the 2001 baseline
annual reduction of 475 M gallons of water conserved, 0.24 million 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. For FY 2008, the baseline year is 2005. The 2005
baseline annual normalized reductions are: 3,387,333,545 gallons of water reduced, 8,794 tons of hazardous materials reduced, 151,129 MTCO2Es of
greenhouse gas emissions reduced, 186 tons of toxic discharges to water reduced, and 3,533 tons of NOx, SOx, VOCs and PM emissions reduced.
Explanation - The goal for FY07 was to meet 4 of the strategic targets for reducing environmental impacts in 6 priority areas. The reductions,
normalized for changes in production or activity level at a facility were met and/or exceeded in 3 areas, i.e., water use-reductions of 5,300,000,000
gallons; air emissions -72,000 tons; and materials use-64,000 tons. The targets were not met for energy use, discharges to water and non-hazardous
waste. Discharges to water increased by 623 tons. Setting annual targets is a challenge because it is difficult to predict the number, size, and
environmental impacts of the facilities that will join. It is also difficult to predict the 4 environmental areas that each new and renewing member will
select to set goals (facilities can choose from 31 different environmental indicators). Aggregate results are heavily impacted by large facilities whose
use of materials can be orders of magnitude higher than other participants in the program. Outlier results are difficult to predict as a few large facilities
significantly impact the overall results. Specifically, the energy use, discharges to water, and solid waste targets were not met due to this issue. The
FY07 targets were based on extrapolation of FY2005 results. A large portion of the savings achieved in FY 2005 for these areas was by a few large
facilities. PT assumed that similar reductions could be made in future years. In summary, the targets were based on results achieved in FY 2005 by a
Section II-Page 197
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
few outliers. Similarly, the materials use and water use targets were exceeded in FY 2007 due to a few facilities that achieved large reductions. The
Performance Track Program will revisit ways to set targets in FY 2008.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, 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.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.3: Promote Environmental Policy Innovation
Through 2011, achieve measurably improved environmental results, promote stewardship behavior, and advance sustainable outcomes by
testing, evaluating, and applying alternative approaches to environmental protection in states, companies, and communities. This work also will
seek to improve the organizational cost effectiveness and efficiency for regulatory agencies as well as regulated entities.
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, innovation projects under the State Innovation Grant Program and other piloting mechanisms will achieve, on average, an 8 percent or
greater improvement in environmental results (such as reductions in air or water discharges, improvements in ambient water or air quality, or
improvements in compliance rates), or a 5 percent or greater improvement in cost effectiveness and efficiency.
5,3; THE IN
Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting federally-recognized tribes to build environmental management capacity,
assess environmental conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs in Indian country.
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November 15,
2007
0
Total PMs
3
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal environmental programs in Indian country to 9 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Section II-Page 198
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of tribes with EPA-approved
multimedia workplans.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
39
Actual
33
FY 2006
Target
39
Actual
42
FY 2007
Target
42
Actual
59
Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental assessments of
their lands will be conducted.
Explanation - In 2008, the Tribal GAP program will be reporting new measures approved by OMB during our re-PART that are more specific and
accurately capture criteria to be measured.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country to 26
percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of Tribes with EPA-reviewed
monitoring and assessment occurring.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
25
Actual
29
FY 2006
Target
30
Actual
30.8
FY 2007
Target
31
Actual
43
Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental assessments of
their lands will be conducted.
Explanation - In 2008, the Tribal GAP program will be reporting new measures approved by OMB during our re-PART that are more specific and
accurately capture criteria to be measured.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2011, increase the percent of tribes with an environmental program to 67 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
Percent of tribes with delegated and
non-delegated programs (cumulative).
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
44
Actual
47
FY 2006
Target
48
Actual
57
FY 2007
Target
49
Actual
73
Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental assessments of
their lands will be conducted.
Section II-Page 199
-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2004
Target | Actual
FY 2005
Target | Actual
FY 2006
Target | Actual
FY 2007
Target | Actual
Unit
Explanation - In 2008, the Tribal GAP program will be reporting new measures approved by OMB during our re-PART that are more specific and
accurately capture criteria to be measured.
i¥E;
E
Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomic, sustainable systems, and
decision-making tools. By 2011, the products of this research will be independently recognized as providing critical and key evidence in informing
Agency polices and decisions and solving problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders.
Section II-Page 200
-------
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Energy Consumption Reduction
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available
15,
After November
2007
0
Total PMs
1
Performance Measures
Cumulative percentage reduction in
energy consumption.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
2
Actual
3
FY 2007
Target
5
Actual
9
Unit
Percent
Baseline - On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation
Management, requiring all Federal Agencies to reduce its Green House Gas intensity and its energy use by 3% annually through FY 2015.
For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the FY 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 359,087
BTUs per square foot.
Explanation - The actual number represents end of 3rd quarter data. Final data will be available in early 2008 and reported in the FY
2008 PAR.
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November
15,2007
0
Total PMs
1
Performance Measures
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Section II-Page 198
-------
Performance Measures
Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud
prevention actions.
FY 2004
Target
80
Actual
108
FY 2005
Target
80
Actual
125
FY 2006
Target
80
Actual
121
FY 2007
Target
80
Actual
103
Unit
Actions
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 98 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions. This number is
based on the difference between the 3 year average of targets versus actuals.
Audit and Advisory Services
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November
15,2007
0
Total PMs
3
Performance Measures
Environmental and business actions taken
for improved performance or risk
reduction.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
303
Actual
407
FY 2007
Target
318
Actual
464
Unit
Actions
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 426 environmental and business actions taken for improved
performance or risk reduction. This number is based on the difference between the 3 year average of targets versus actuals.
Explanation - These results (actions taken and risks reduced) are subsequent outcome actions coming to fruition from a high number of
output results (recommendations and risks identified) in the previous two years. There appears to be a ripple effect of one to two years
between the output results and the intended subsequent outcomes.
Environmental and business
recommendations or risks identified for
corrective action.
925
1,024
925
949
Recomme
ndations
Section II-Page 199
-------
Performance Measures
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - FY 2005, the OIG established 991 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action.
This number is based on the difference between the 3 year average of targets versus actuals.
Return on the annual dollar investment, as
a percentage of the OIG budget, from
audits and investigations.
150
1100
150
1 89
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established 211% in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget, from savings,
questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements.
Explanation - The OIG has increased its emphases on identifying cost efficiencies associated with performance audits, program
evaluations and investigations.
Information Exchange Network
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After November
15,2007
0
Total PMs
2
Performance Measures
Number of major EPA environmental
systems that use the CDX electronic
requirements enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
12
Actual
22
FY 2006
Target
29
Actual
32
FY 2007
Target
36
Actual
37
Unit
Systems
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Section II-Page 200
-------
Performance Measures
Number of users from states, tribes,
laboratories, and others that choose CDX
to report environmental data
electronically to EPA.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
20,000
Actual
45,000
FY 2006
Target
47,000
Actual
62,000
FY 2007
Target
55,000
Actual
88,516
Unit
Users
Baseline - The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Information Security
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available
15,
After November
2007
0
Total PMs
1
Performance Measures
Percent of Federal Information Security
Management Act reportable systems that
are certified and accredited.
FY 2004
Target
75
Actual
91
FY 2005
Target
75
Actual
90
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
Human Capital
PMs Met
PMs Not Met
Data Available After November
Total PMs
Section II-Page 201
-------
5
0
15,2007
0
5
Performance Measures
Percent to which competency/skill gaps
are reduced (beginner to intermediate) in
mission critical occupations.
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
25
Actual
62
Unit
Percent
Baseline - Survey data is used to assess the competencies of EPA's mission critical occupations (MCOs). Reassessments of the assessed
MCOs are repeated and compared to previous assessments.
Explanation - EPA exceeded the goal due to the uncertainty in originally establishing this goal with limited prior experience conducting
Agency-wide competency assessments for specific MCOs. However, greater consistency is expected in the future for both the use of
competency assessment tools and results as our knowledge increases and as we continue to assess additional MCOs and their relevant
competencies over time.
Percent to which competency/skill gaps
are reduced (intermediate to expert) in
mission critical occupations.
15
64
Percent
Baseline - Survey data is used to assess the competencies of EPA's mission critical occupations (MCOs). Reassessments of the assessed
MCOs are repeated and compared to previous assessments.
Explanation - EPA exceeded the goal due to the uncertainty in originally establishing this goal with limited prior experience conducting
Agency-wide competency assessments for specific MCOs. However, greater consistency is expected in the future for both the use of
competency assessment tools and results as our knowledge increases and as we continue to assess additional MCOs and their relevant
competencies over time.
Number of new hires recruited through
EPA 's Environmental Intern Program
(EIP) in mission critical occupations.
100
100
Percent
Baseline - The baseline of 100 % includes 28 hires into mission critical occupations.
Average time to hire non-SES positions
45
28
Days
Section II-Page 202
-------
Performance Measures
from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days
FY 2004
Target
Actual
FY 2005
Target
Actual
FY 2006
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Target
Actual
Unit
Baseline - Based on 796 cases, the average is 31 days.
For SES positions, the average time from
date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days
90
66
Days
Baseline - Based on 14 cases, the average is 116 days.
Explanation - EPA achieved this goal by reassessing the steps in SES hiring process including a review of current (or baseline)
timeliness, and developing a tactical plan for improved oversight and monitoring progress. EPA also established an efficiency strategy that
included setting expiration dates to the SES certificates of eligibles and streamlining the process related to background investigations and
drug testing.
Section II-Page 203
-------
EPA'i OIG Hdp
lAfMtqr
Return on the Annual Dollar Investment in the OIG
Annual Targets Are 150% of the OIG Budgets
Cumulative Results vs.Targets Pf 2003-2007
1,600
1,400
1,200
800
400
200
Accounablltyand Piugiimi Operations
4.500
4.000
1500
3UOOO
^500
1000
1.500
IjOOO
500
0
-
-
-
™
-
_
10
•*>
K
K
Pta^d]
FY 2007
• FY 2006
FY 2005
• FY 2004
• FY 2003
103
115
in
Actual [
In.
Emhm
«S
-
-
us
nodi Ad
xmlvriE
W»
lew
-1
«J
'
" »
160 "'B
ud [ lltemdl ftoM \
Targets Results
Source OIG nlb-malion syiaems, IGOR a~c •'
mtion^BlBrf. GORnc rTIRi
Section II-Page 204
-------
PAR: FY 2007 External Efficiency Measures
Goal 1 :
Program
Indoor Air
Program
Measure
Total Cost (public and private) per
future premature cancer death
prevented through lowered radon
exposure.
FY04
Target
FY04
Actual
FY05
Target
FY05
Actual
FY06
Target
450,000
FY06
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY07
Target
N/A
FY07
Actual
N/A
Units
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $495,000 in 2003.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data will not be available until 2008.
Indoor Air
Program
Annual cost to EPA per person
with asthma taking all essential
actions to reduce exposure to
indoor environmental asthma
triggers.
8.38
Data
Avail
2008
N/A
N/A
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $25.10 in 2003.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data will not be available until 2008.
Indoor Air
Program
Average cost to EPA per student
per year in a school that is
implementing an Indoor Air
Quality plan.
2
Data
Avail
2008
N/A
N/A
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $6.10 in 2003.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data will not be available until 2008.
Climate Change
Tons of greenhouse gas
emissions (mmtce) prevented per
societal dollar in the
transportation sector.
0.15
0.19
N/A
N/A
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $0.15 in 2006.
Section II-Page 205
-------
Climate Change
Tons of greenhouse gas
emissions (mmtce) prevented per
societal dollar in the industry
sector.
3.1
Data
Avail
2008
N/A
N/A
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $3.1 in 2006.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data will not be available until 2008.
Climate Change
Tons of greenhouse gas
emissions (mmtce) prevented per
societal dollar in the building
sector.
0.7
Data
Avail
2008
N/A
N/A
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $.70 in 2006.
Explanation - Due to reporting cycles, data will not be available until 2008.
Goal 2:
Program
Surface Water
Protection
Measure
Loading (pounds) of pollutants
removed per program dollar
expended.
FY04
Target
N/A
FY04
Actual
122
FY05
Target
180
FY05
Actual
180
FY06
Target
233
FY06
Actual
233
FY07
Target
285
FY07
Actual
310
Units
# Pounds
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 122 loading of pollutants removed per dollar expended in 2004.
Water Pollution
Control (Sec.
106)
Cost per water segment restored.
N/A
1,544,998
Baseline
828,654
1,358,351
576,618
636,744
' '35
Dollars
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $701,495 in 2005.
Water Quality
Research
Peer-reviewed publications over
FTE.
0.8
Data
Avail
2008
Publications
Baseline - In 2004, the program began measuring its number of peer reviewed publications per full-time employee and achieved a ratio of 0.76. This measure
contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and
recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Explanation - Due to the program's two year appropriations, data for this measure will not be available until 2008.
Goal 3:
Section II-Page 206
-------
Program
Land Protection
and Restoration
Research
Measure
Average time (in days) for
technical support centers to
process and respond to requests
for technical document review,
statistical analysis and evaluation
of characterization and treatability
study plans.
FY04
Target
FY04
Actual
FY05
Target
FY05
Actual
FY06
Target
32.5
FY06
Actual
31
FY07
Target
30.5
FY07
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
Units
Days
Baseline -In 2005, the program began tracking the average number of days its technical support centers take to process and respond to requests for technical
document review, statistical analysis, and the evaluation of characterization and treatability study plans for tech plans. The average amount of time to
process and respond was 35.3 days in 2005. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related
to the use of land protection and restoration.
Explanation - Data for this measure will be available in July 2008. The technical support centers compile and calculate their processing time at the end of the
calendar year.
RCRA Corrective
Action
Percent increase of final remedy
components constructed at
RCRA corrective action facilities
per federal, state, and private
sector.
3
8,2
Percent
Baseline -In FY 2006, there were .665 final remedy components constructed per million dollars.
RCRA Base,
Permits, and
Grants
Facilities under control
(permitted) per total permitting
cost.
2
3,38
Percent
Baseline -In FY 2006, there were 3.1 facilities under control (permitted) per million dollars of permitting cost.
Superfund
Removal
Superfund-lead removal actions
completed annually per million
dollars.
2.1
1.54
0.91
1.02
0.92
1,04
Removals
Baseline -In FY 2004, there were .87 removal actions annually per million dollars.
Superfund
Remedial Action
Human exposures under control
per million dollars.
6.1
8,9
Thousand
Baseline -In FY 2006, there were 6.1 human exposures under control per million dollars and in FY 2005, there were 5.7.
Goal 4:
Section II-Page 207
-------
Program
Human Health
Risk Assessment
Measure
Average cost to produce Air
Quality Criteria/Science
assessment documents.
FY04
Target
FY04
Actual
FY05
Target
FY05
Actual
FY06
Target
FY06
Actual
7,252
FY07
Target
5,386
FY07
Actual
5,533
Units
Average
Cost ($)
Baseline - When the program began producing Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents in FY 2004, the average cost to produce these
assessment documents was $1 3,989K. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the
health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
Explanation - The average annual cost was significantly lower than 2006, but marginally (2.7%) above the ambitious target for 2007.
Protect Human
Health from
Pesticide Risk
Percent reduction in review time
for registration of conventional
pesticides.
7
7
8
34
9
5
% Reduction
in Review
Time
Baseline -The original baseline was pre-PRIA and it was based on the FY 2002 turnaround time of 44 months. The reporting is based on the reduction from
the prior year.
Explanation -The actions completed in 2007 were inherently more complicated than those worked on in prior years so less improvement in review time was
realized.
Human Health
Research
Average time (in days) to process
research grant proposals from
RFA closure to submittal to EPA's
GAD, while maintaining a credible
and efficient competitive merit
review system.
307
277
292
254
Average
Days
Baseline -In 2003, the program began tracking its average grants processing time and developed a baseline of 405 days. This measure contributes to EPA's
goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
Chesapeake Bay
Total nitrogen reduction practices
implementation achieved as a
result of agricultural best
management practices
implementation per million dollars
to implement agricultural Best
Management Practices.
49,113
45,928
47,031
Data
Avail
Late
2007
Pounds per
million $
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 43,289 pounds per million dollars.
Section II-Page 208
-------
Explanation - End-of-Year data will not be available until November 30, 2007. Based on the mid-year data which is 45,928 the measure is not on track to
meet the end-of-year target.
Pesticide Field
Programs
Average cost and average time to
produce or update an
Endangered Species Bulletin.
10
0
% Reduction
Baseline -In 2004, the average cost per Endangered Species Bulletin produced or updated was $4,000 and 100 hours.
Explanation -No Bulletins were issued for FY2007 due to external factors outside EPA's control.
Pesticide
Reregistration
Cumulative percent of
Reregistration Eligibility Decisions
Completed.
81.7
77.6
81.4
82
93.5
91
97
95.4
Cumulative
%
Completed
Baseline - The baseline for REDs is completion of 612 REDs by 2008.
Explanation - The target was not met for 2 reasons: (1) Due to strong public interest in the soil fumigants, the public comment period was extended until
November 2007, thus EPA was unable to complete these REDs; (2) EPA missed the target for this APG in FY 2006 by more than 2%. The 2007 target was
not adjusted to compensate for this. We anticipate completing the soil fumigant REDs in FY 2008, thus meeting our overall target of completing all REDs by
2008.
Pesticide
Reregistration
7
75
10
62
40
40
% Reduction
Baseline - Reregistration decision time baseline is 30 months in 2002.
Chemical Risk
Review and
Reduction
Percent increase from baseline
year in cost savings due to new
chemical prescreening.
6.67
15.1
6.7
-42
% Increase
from
Baseline
Baseline - Baseline for the percent change from prior year in cost savings due to new chemical pre-screening is $51 ,000 (6.7%) in FY 2004-2005.
Explanation - The cost savings target was not achieved because the rate at which PMN submissions were pre-screened by submitters decreased to 8.7%
from 1 7% in FY 2006. These pre-screening rates drive cost savings for this measure. Pre-screening rates declined in part due to slower than expected start
up of actions by the industry association that had agreed to assume responsibility for providing training and technical assistance to industry in the use of
EPA's chemical risk screening tools.
Chemical Risk
Review and
Reduction
Percent reduction from prior year
in total EPA cost per chemical for
which proposed AEGL value sets
are developed.
34,160
(2)
12.6
Cost Savings
(Percent)
Section II-Page 209
-------
Baseline - A total EPA cost of $35,191 per chemical in 2006.
Explanation - This measure has exceeded its target through increased program efficiency in reviewing and presenting chemicals prior to and at international
meetings and early FY 2007 action on chemicals delayed from action in FY 2006 while issues associated with the use of human testing data were resolved
Agency-wide.
Lead Program
Annual percentage of lead-based
paint certification and refund
applications that require less than
20 days of EPA effort to process.
Baseline
77
N/A
89
N/A
90
90
92
Percent
Certif/Refund
Baseline - Baseline for percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 40 days of EPA effort to process is 54% in
2004.
Ocean, Coastal,
and Estuary
Protection
Program dollars per acre of
habitat protected or restored.
515
533
510
401
505
482
Dollars/acre
Baseline - 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
Goal 5:
Program
Tribal General
Assistance
Program
Measure
Number of environmental
programs implemented in Indian
Country per million dollars.
FY04
Target
FY04
Actual
FY05
Target
11.1
FY05
Actual
12.3
FY06
Target
13.7
FY06
Actual
12.4
FY07
Target
12.5
FY07
Actual
14,1
Units
Programs
Baseline - There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental assessments of their
lands will be conducted.
EPA's Recycling,
Waste
Minimization, and
Waste
Management
Number of pounds (in millions) of
priority list chemicals removed
from or reduced in waste streams
per cost to perform such actions.
1.5
Data
Avail
2008
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2006, 0.41 Ibs. of priority list chemicals were removed per dollar to perform such actions.
Explanation - Final cost figures for FY07 expected to be available by the end of December 2007.
Section II-Page 210
-------
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program PART Measures
Year Data
Available
Goal 1
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards
Research
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards
Research
Mobile Source Air
Pollution
Standards and
Certification
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards
Research
Toxic Air
Pollutants
Toxic Air
Pollutants
Goal 2
Drinking Water
Protection
Program
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Annual Performance Measure
Percentage of NAAQS program publications rated as FY2008
highly cited papers
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of FY 2008
air pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to
human health.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval FY 2012
for large engines (non-road compression-ignition
engines, heavy duty gas and diesel engines)
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule. UD
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per UD
total emission reduction dollars spent.
Tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer and non-cancer UD
risk) emissions reduced per total cost ($).
Clean and Safe Water
Annual Performance Measure
Percent of data for violations of health-based standards UD
at public water systems that is accurate and complete
in SDWIS/FED for all MCL and TT rules.
Percentage of research products used by the Office of UD
Water as the basis of or in support of Contaminant
Candidate List Decisions.
Percentage of research products used by the Office of UD
Water as the basis of or in support of Six Year Review
Decisions.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule. UD
Drinking Water People receiving drinking water that meets all FY2011
Section II-Page 211
-------
PART Program PART Measures
Year Data
Available
Protection
Program, Public
Water Supply
Systems Grants,
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund,
Underground
Injection Control
Drinking Water
State Revolving
Fund
Underground
Injection Control
Grant Program
EPA's Recycling,
Waste
Minimization and
Waste
Management
Program
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
Cleanup Program
Goal 4
EPA Human
Health Research
EPA Pesticides
and Toxics
Research
EPA Pesticides
and Toxics
Research
applicable health-based standards per million dollars
spent to manage the national drinking water program.
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project FY2012
initiating operations
Dollars per well to move Class V wells back into FY2011
compliance
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Efficiency Performance Measure
Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste recycled per
total Federal costs.
Cleanups complete (3-year rolling average) per total
cleanup dollars.
Number of annual confirmed UST releases per federal,
state and territorial costs.
UD
UD
UD
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Annual Performance Measure
Percentage of human health program publications FY2008
rated as highly cited papers.
Percentage of SP2 program publications rated as FY2008
highly cited papers.
Percentage of SP2 publications in "high impact" FY2008
journals.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Section II-Page 212
-------
PART Program PART Measures
Year Data
Available
Brownfields
Revitalization
Global Change
Research
Goal 5
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
Environmental
Education
EPA
Environmental
Education
EPA
Environmental
Education
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Enforcement
of Environmental
Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million
dollars.
Percent variance from planned cost and schedule.
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Annual Performance Measure
Change in behavior to use Improved Management
practices, (criminal enforcement)
Pollutant impact.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated or eliminated.
(criminal enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism (criminal enforcement).
Number of National
Management Studies
environmental careers.
Network Environmental
fellows who pursue
Percent of all students and teachers targeted
demonstrate increased environmental knowledge, as
measured by the Guidelines for Learning for K-12,
developed by the North American Association for
Environmental Education
Number of states adopting or aligning Guidelines for
Learning curricula and standards to state academic
standards or number of states developing new
environmental education standards based on
Guidelines for Learning
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of
inspection/enforcement, (pesticide enforcement)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations.
(pesticide enforcement)
Efficiency Performance Measure
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated
per FTE. (civil enforcement)
UD
UD
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
Pounds of pollutant reduction per FTE. (criminal FY2007
Section II-Page 213
-------
Year Data
PART Program PART Measures Available
of Environmental enforcement)
Laws (Criminal)
EPA Ratio of number of students/teachers that have FY2008
Environmental improved environmental knowledge per total dollars
Education expended.
EPA Pesticide Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) FY 2007
Enforcement Grant per million dollars of cost (Federal + State), (pesticide
Program enforcement)
Section II-Page 214
-------
Areas originally violating NAAQS are based upon 1993-1996 air quality data.
2 Current air quality violations are based upon 2004-2006 air quality data.
3 SIPs for ozone attainment were due to EPA in June 2007 with attainment dates ranging from June 2007 for ozone areas
classified as Marginal to June 2021 for areas classified as Severe-17.
4 SIPs for PM25are not due to EPA until April 2008 with required attainment by April 2010. Under certain conditions
attainment may be extended until April 2015.
5 United States Environmental Protection Agency. May 2007. "Asthma Facts." EPA 402-F-04-019
6 See: http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/children.htm
7 See: http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html. and United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 2003.
"EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes PDF." EPA 402-R-03-003.
8 See: http://www.wipp.energy.gov/
9 See: http://www.epa.gov/narel/radnet/
10 See: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/
11 2006 estimated annual results.
12 Ibid.
13 The Optimization of Thermal-Optical Analysis for the Measurement of Black Carbon in Regional PM2.5 A Chemometric
Approach U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460, EPA
600/R-07/119, August 2007
14 Miller K.A., Siscovick, D.S., Sheppard, L, Shepherd, K., Sullivan, J.H., Anderson, G.L., Kaufman, J.D. (2007). Long-
Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Women. New England Journal of Medicine,
356(5), 447-458.
15 Gauderman W.J., Vora H., McConnell R., Berhane K., Gilliland F., Thomas D., Lurmann F., Avol E., Kunzli N., Jerrett
M., Peters J. (2007). Effect of Exposure to Traffic on Lung Development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. The
Lancet, 369, 571-577.
16 Robinson AL, Donahue NM, Shrivastava MK, Weitkamp EA, Sage AM, Grieshop AP, Lane TE, Pierce JR, Pandis SN.
Rethinking organic aerosols:semivolatile emissions and photochemical aging. Science 2007;315(5816): 1259-1262.
17 Kroll, J.H., Chan, A.W.H., Ng, N.L., Flagan, R.C., and Seinfeld, J.H. Reactions of Semivolatile Organics and Their
Effects on Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 41, 10, 3545 -3550, 2007, 10.1021/es062059x.
18 Zhang, Q., J. L. Jimenez, et al. (2007). "Ubiquity and Dominance of Oxygenated Species in Organic Aerosols in
Anthropogenically-lnfluenced Northern Hemisphere Mid-latitudes." Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L13801:
doi: 10.1029/2007GL029979).
19 Carlton AG, Turpin BJ, Lim HJ, Altieri KE, Seitzinger S. Link between isoprene and secondary organic aerosol (SOA):
pyruvic acid oxidation yields low volatility organic acids in clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 2006;33:L06822,
doi: 10.1029/2005GL025374.
20 Lye, D. J., M. R. Rodgers, G. N. Stelma, S. J. Vesper, and S. L. Hayes. Characterization of Aeromonas Virulence Using
an Immunocompromised Mouse Model. C.S. Yang and P. Heinsohn (ed.), Sampling and Analysis of Indoor
Micoorganisms, Chapter7. CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY. Springer, New York, NY, 54(3):195-198, (2007).
21 Wade, T. J., R. L. Calderon, E. A. Sams, M. Beach, K. P. Brenner, A. H. Williams, and A. P. Dufour. Can Rapid
Measures of Recreational Water Quality Predict Swimming Associated Gastrointestinal Illness? Waterborne Pathogens
AWWA Manual M48, 2nd, Chapter 31.,. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, 114(1):24-28, (2006).
22 Zhengqi Y, Weinberg HS, Meyer MT. Trace Analysis of Trimethoprim and Sulfonamide, Macrolide, Quinolone, and
Tetracycline Antibiotics in Chlorinated Drinking Water Using Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Tandem Mass
Spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 2007: 79 (3), 1135 -1144.
23 Yu JT, Bouwer EJ, Coelhan M. Occurrence and biodegradability studies of selected Pharmaceuticals and personal care
products in sewage effluent. Agric. Water Manage. 2006: 86:72-80.
24 Pereira VJ, Weinberg HS, Linden KG, Singer PC. UV Degradation Kinetics and Modeling of Pharmaceutical
Compounds in Laboratory Grade and Surface Water via Direct and Indirect Photolysis at 254 nm Environ. Sci. Technol.,
2007:41 (5), 1682-1688.
25 Kwon JW, Armbrust, KL. Laboratory persistence and fate of fluoxetine in aquatic environments. Environmental
Toxicology Chemistry. 2006 25:2561-2568.
Section II-Page 215
-------
26 Kwon JW, Armbrust, KL. Degradation of Citalopram by Simulated Sunlight. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
2005. 24(7): 1618-1623.
27 Lapointe BE, Barile PJ, Matzie WR. Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment of seagrass and coral reef communities in the
Lower Florida Keys: discrimination of local versus regional nitrogen sources. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 2004;308(1 ):23-58.
28 For additional information on Libby, Montana and asbestos, see http://epa.gov/region8/superfund/libby/.
29 This publication can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ada/download/reports/600R05147/600R05147-fm.pdf.
30 Additional information may be found at http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework/.
31 http://www.ehponline.0rg/docs/2007/10598/abstract.html
biOpenDocument
33 Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/duststudy01-23-07.pdf
34 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/casac_draft_approachJuly2007.pdf
35 http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/casac.htm
36 The Brownfields Program previously reported 1,088 acres ready for reuse in FY05. Further analysis of the data
revealed an error in the calculations. The correct number of acres made ready for reuse in FY05 is 759.
37EPA/600/R-07/013, 2007
38 Henderson, W.M., Weber, E.J., Duirk, S.E., Washington, J.W., and Smith, M.A. (2007) Simplified Method to Quantify
Fluorinated Chemicals Using a Selective Ion Scan for Perfluoroalkyl Chain Fragments with GC/MS. Journal of
Chromatography B 846 (1-2): 155-161
Nakayama, S., M. Strynar, L. Helfant, P. Egeghy, X.Ye, and A.B. Lindstrom, (2007) Perfluorinated Compounds in the
Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology, 41:5271-5276.
Abbott, B.D., C.J. Wolf, J.E. Schmid, K. P. Das, R.D. Zehr, L. Helfant, S. Nakayama, A.B. Lindstrom, M.J. Strynar, C.
Lau, (2007) Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)-induced developmental toxicity in the mouse is dependent on expression of
Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor-alpha (PPAR), Toxicological Sciences. Aug; 98(2):571-81.
White, S.S., Antonia M. Calafat, Zsuzsanna Kuklenyik, LaTonya Villanueva, Robert D. Zehr, Laurence Helfant, Mark J.
Strynar, Andrew B. Lindstrom, Julie R. Thibodeaux, Carmen Wood, and Suzanne E. Fenton Gestational PFOA Exposure
of Mice is Associated with Altered Mammary Gland Development in Dams and Female Offspring, Toxicol. Sci., March
2007; 96: 133-144.
Lau C, Thibodeaux JR, Hanson RG, Narotsky MG, Rogers JM, Lindstrom AB, Strynar MJ. Effects of perfluorooctanoic
acid exposure during pregnancy in the mouse. Toxicol. Sci. (2006) 90:510-8
39 Henderson, W.M., Weber, E.J., Duirk, S.E., Washington, J.W., and Smith, M.A. (2007) Simplified Method to Quantify
Fluorinated Chemicals Using a Selective Ion Scan for Perfluoroalkyl Chain Fragments with GC/MS. Journal of
Chromatography B 846 (1-2): 155-161
Duirk, S.E. and DeSetto, L.M. Organophosphorus Pesticide Degradation Pathways During Drinking Water Treatment.
Micropol and Ecohazard, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, June 17-20, 2007
40 Kidd, K.A, P.J. Blanchfield, K.H. Mills, V.P. Palace, R.E. Evans, J.M. Lazorchak, and R.W. Flick "Collapse of a fish
population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen", PNAS, May 22, 2007,vol. 104, no. 21 ,8897-8901.
41http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/CEHRC Findinas.htm/$file/CEHRC%20Findings.doc
42 Furlong, C.E., Holland, N., Richter, R.J., Bradman, A., Ho, A., and Eskenazi, B. 2006. PON1 status of farmworker
mothers and children as a predictor of organophosphate sensitivity. Pharmacogenet Genomics 16(3):183-190.
43 Sylvan Wallenstein, Jia Chen and James G. Wetmur, Comparison of statistical models for analyzing genotype, inferred
haplotype, and molecular haplotype data, Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, Volume 89, Issue 3, November 2006,
Pages 270-273.
44 Barbara L. Harper and Stuart G. Harris, A possible approach for setting a mercury risk-based action level based on
tribal fish ingestion rates, Environmental Research, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 July 2007.
45 http://www.mwvcoa.ora/WillamettePartnershipAA/illamEcoMarket.asp
Section II-Page 216
-------
46 Bell, M.L., R. Goldberg, C. Hogrefe, P.L. Kinney, K. Knowlton, B. Lynn, J. Rosenthal, C. Rosenzweig, and J.A. Patz,
2007: Climate change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 U.S. cities. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9166-7.
47 Tao, Z., A. Williams, H.-C. Huang, M. Caughey, and X.-Z. Liang, 2007: Sensitivity of U.S. surface ozone to future
emissions and climate changes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L08811, doi:10.1029/2007GL029455.
48 Wu, S., L.J. Mickley, E.M. Leibensperger, D.J. Jacob, D. Rind, and D.G. Streets, 2007: Effects of 2000-2050 global
change on ozone air quality in the United States. J. Geophys. Res., in revision.
49 Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: http://www.epa.aov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
50 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.
51 Pollution Prevention (P2) Programs: http://www.epa.aov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
52 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.
53 Data available in April, 2007 through NIST survey responses. Green Suppliers Network (GSN):
http://www.areensuppliers.gov
54 Green Chemistry (GO: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/areenchemistrv/
55 Design for the Environment (DfE): http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/:
56 This measure counts the number of tribes with Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs), Memorandums of
Agreements (MOAs), Tribal Environmental Agreements (TEAs), Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), or grant eligible
"Treatment in a manner similar to a state" (TAS) approvals.
57 This measure counts tribes that have TAS approvals, delegations or primacies, Direct Implementation Tribal
Cooperative Agreements (DICTAs) or GAP grants with provisions for the implementation of solid waste or hazardous
waste activities.
58 The total number of tribes receiving GAP grants, TAS approvals or primacies, Direct Implementation Cooperative Tribal
Agreements (DICTAs), GAP grants with provisions for the implementation of solid and hazardous waste activities is
divided by the annual GAP appropriation (less rescissions and annual set-asides).
59 http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/tse/decadejnnovation.pdf
60 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/905/report/O
Section II-Page 217
-------
f -III- \
1 I
EPA's FY2007Performance and
Accountability Report
Section III
Financial Statements
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001), published on November
15, 2007. This document is available at: http://www.epa.ciov/ocfo/par/2007par.
Section III-Page 1
-------
INTRODUCTION TO FINANCIAL SECTION
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 information 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
The first portion of this section contains Principal Financial Statements. The statements provide
a comparison of FY 2007 and 2006 data. EPA prepares the following required statements:
• Balance Sheet - presents, as of a specific time, amounts of future economic benefits
owned or managed by the reporting entity exclusive of items subject to stewardship
reporting (assets), amounts owed by the entity (liabilities), and amounts which comprise
the difference (net position).
• Statement of Net Cost - presents the gross cost incurred by the reporting entity less any
exchange revenue earned from its activities. EPA also prepares a Statement of Net
Cost by Goal to provide cost information at the strategic goal level.
• Statement of Changes in Net Position - reports the change in net position during the
reporting period. Net position is affected by changes to its two components: Cumulative
Results of Operations and Unexpended Appropriations.
• Statement of Budgetary Resources - provides information about how budgetary
resources were made available as well as their status at the end of the period.
• 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
policies as well as detailed information on select statement lines. These Notes and the principal
statements are audited by EPA's Inspector General.
The Required Supplementary Information portion of this section provides the following
unaudited information:
• 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) acquisitions/withdrawals related to remedial clean-up sites.
Section III-Page 2
-------
The Required Supplementary Stewardship Information portion provides information on
substantial 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 presents the following unaudited information:
Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes - provides information on the Superfund
Trust Fund.
The Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 Financial Statements provides
the following 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.
Section III-Page 3
-------
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Financial Statements
1. Consolidated Balance Sheet
2. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
3. Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
4. Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
5. Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
6. Statement of Custodial Activity
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
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 Property, Plant and Equipment (PP& E)
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
Note 11. Stewardship Land
Note 12. Custodial Liability
Note 13. 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 Land
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 31. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
Note 33. Transfers-ln and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 34. Imputed Financing Sources
Note 35. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Note 36. Other Adjustments, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Section III - Page 4
-------
Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Note 37. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Note 38. Adjustment for Allocation Transfers
Note 39. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the
Statement of Financing)
Note 40. Restatement of FY 2006 Financial Statements
Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)
1. Deferred Maintenance and Stewardship Land
2. Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Superfund Financial Statements and Related Notes
Section III-Page 5
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007
ASSETS
Intragovernmental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note 2)
Investments (Notes 4 and 18)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Notes 5 and 40)
Other (Note 6)
Total Intragovernmental
Cash and Other Monetary Assets (Note 3)
Accounts Receivable, Net (Notes 5 and 40)
Loans Receivable, Net - Non-Federal (Note 7)
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net (Note 9)
Other (Note 6)
Total Assets
Stewardship PP& E (Note 11 )
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Debt Due to Treasury (Note 10)
Custodial Liability (Notes 12 and 40)
Other (Note 13)
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities (Note 8)
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities (Note 15)
Environmental Cleanup Costs (Note 24)
Cashout Advances, Superfiind (Notes 16 and 40)
Commitments & Contingencies (Notes 19 and 24)
Payroll & Benefits Payable (Note 35)
Other (Notes 13 and 40)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds (Note 17)
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Notes 20 and 40)
Cumulative Results of Operation - Other Funds (Note 40)
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
10,466,600
5,753,061
57,039
81,069
16,357,769 $
10
359,302
23,161
809,873
4,574
17,554,689 S
122,207
16,156
39,369
98,360
276,092
9,350,591
5,886,227
562,573
15,799,391
17,554,689 S
Restated
FY 2006
11,173,443
5,366,264
135,263
59,143
16,734,113
10
483,701
30,836
756,794
4,278
18,009,732
107,525
18,896
41,800
102,934
271,155
912,000 $
39,786
18,214
190,269
-
205,198
113,739
1,755,298 $
725,667
39,408
10,083
224,407
8
195,746
134,747
1,601,221
10,299,640
5,533,025
575,846
16,408,511
18,009,732
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Section III-Page 6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007
COSTS
Gross Costs (Notes 22 and 40)
Less:
Earned Revenue (Notes 21, 22 and 40)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Notes 22 and 40)
9,263,304 $
550,098
8,713,206 $
Restated
FY 2006
9,061,660
876,105
8,185,555
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Section III-Page 7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21
and 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
Clean Air
185,389
818,753
1,004,142
18,591
Clean & Safe
Water
Land
Preservation
& Restoration
Healthy
Communities &
Ecosystems
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
180,571
3,868,428
396,786
1,607,952
275,068
1,144,793
182,101
603,463
4,048,999
2,004,738
1,419,861
785,564
15,594
2,997
11,016
2,262
101,036
352,963
18,450
38,902
5,613
1,265
13,278
453,999
57,352
6,878
985,551 S 4,035,721 S 1,550,739 S
1,362,509 S
778,686
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Note 22)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Federal
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21
and 22)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Note 22)
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,219,915
$ 8,043,389
$ 9,263,304
$ 151,709
$ 398,389
$ 550,098
S 8,713,206
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Section III-Page 8
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by Goal
For the Period Ending September 30, 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Notes 22 and 40)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Fed
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21,
22 and 40)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Notes 22 and 40)
dean Air
$ 192,774
763,805
956,579
37,264
2,258
39,522
dean & Safe
Water
$ 137,874
3,717,427
3,855,301
9,088
2,822
11,910
Land
Preservation &
Restoration
$ 448,101
1,722,469
2,170,570
440,068
303,497
743,565
Healthy
Communities &
Ecosystems
$ 271,667
1,029,787
1,301,454
37,670
31,090
68,760
Compliance &
Environmental
Stewardship
$ 183,628
594,128
777,756
9,998
2,350
12,348
917,057 S 3,843,391 S 1,427,005 S 1,232,694
765,408
Costs:
Intragovernmental
With the Public
Total Costs (Notes 22 and 40)
Less:
Earned Revenue, Federal
Earned Revenue, non-Fed
Total Earned Revenue (Notes 21,
22 and 40)
NET COST OF OPERATIONS
(Notes 22 and 40)
Restated
Consolidated
Totals
$ 1,234,044
$ 7,827,616
$ 9,061,660
534,088
342,017
876,105
S 8,185,555
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Section III-Page 9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Adjustment:
Change in Accounting Principle (Note 38)
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment (Note 37)
Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 37)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
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
Other Adjustments (Note 36)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
FY2007
Earmarked
Funds
5,533,025
20,900
5,553,925 $
258,986
252,148
(25,686)
1,040,371
1,525,819 $
39
21,868
21,907 $
(1,215,424)
332,302
5,886,227 $
FY2007 All
Other Funds
575,846
_
575,846
8,367,123
-
-
43,491
(1,040,371)
7,370,243
525
113,741
114,266
(7,497,782)
(13,273)
562,573
10,299,640
-
-
-
-
-
5,886,227 S
10,299,640
7,422,635
(4,561)
(8,367,123)
(949,049)
9,350,591
9,913,164
FY 2007
Consolidated
Total
6,108,871
20,900
6,129,771
8,367,123
258,986
252,148
17,805
8,896,062
564
135,609
136,173
(8,713,206)
319,029
6,448,800
10,299,640
10,299,640
7,422,635
(4,561)
(8,367,123)
(949,049)
9,350,591
15,799,391
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
Section III-Page 10
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Cumulative Results of Operations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Prior Period Adjustment (Note 40)
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Used
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Invest (Note 37)
Nonexchange Revenue - Other (Note 37)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Trust Fund Appropriations
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Nonexchange)
Transfers In/Out (Note 33)
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
Unexpended Appropriations:
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Appropriations Received
Appropriations Transferred In/Out (Note 33)
Other Adjustments (Note 36)
Appropriations Used
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Total Unexpended Appropriations
TOTAL NET POSITION
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
Section III-Page 11
Restated
FY2006 Restated
Earmarked FY2006 All
Funds Other Funds
4,882,528 525,757
62,150 12,168
$ 4,944,678 $ 537,925 3
8,204,577
7) 206,473
249,553
(32,672) 43,366
1,204,826 (1,204,826)
$ 1,628,180 $ 7,043,117 3
(28)
19,106 121,448
$ 19,106 $ 121,420 3
(1,058,939) (7,126,616)
588,347 37,921
$ 5,533,025 $ 575,846 3
11,007,589
7,691,493
753
(195,618)
(8,204,577)
(707,949)
10,299,640
S 5,533,025 S 10,875,486 S
Restated
FY2006
Consolidated
Total
5,408,285
74,318
> 5,482,603
8,204,577
206,473
249,553
10,694
-
> 8,671,297
(28)
140,554
> 140,526
(8,185,555)
626,268
> 6,108,871
11,007,589
7,691,493
753
(195,618)
(8,204,577)
(707,949)
10,299,640
16,408,511
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007 FY 2006
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1:
Brought Forward October 1 $ 3,247,087 $ 3,106,756
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) 15,527 -
Adjusted Subtotal 3,262,614 3,106,756
Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (Note 29) 387,621 264,710
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation 7,495,028 7,828,401
Borrowing Authority 29
Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections
Earned:
Collected 640,354 930,417
Change in Receivables from Federal Sources (72,546) 87,322
Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:
Advance Received (34,934) (8,617)
Without Advance from Federal Sources (625) 149,607
Expenditure Transfers from Trusts Funds 43,491 43,366
Total Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 575,740 1,202,095
Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual (Note 33) 1,344,610 1,258,208
Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law (Note 29) - (9,466)
Permanently Not Available (Note 29) (7,333) (198,484)
Total Budgetary Resources (Note 28) $ 13,058,309 $ 13,452,220
STATUS OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Obligations Incurred:
Direct $ 9,027,170 $ 9,292,415
Reimbursable 489,752 912,718
Total Obligations Incurred (Note 28) 9,516,922 10,205,133
Unobligated Balances:
Apportioned (Note 30) 3,274,344 3,156,100
Exempt from Apportionment -
Total Unobligated Balances 3,274,344 3,156,100
Unobligated Balances Not Available (Note 30) 267,043 90,987
Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 13,058,309 $ 13,452,220
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements
Section III-Page 12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007 FY 2006
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 10,956,328 $ 11,623,098
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38) 7,215 -
Adjusted Total 10,963,543 11,623,098
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
Forward, October 1 (712,239) (486,985)
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 10,251,304 11,136,113
Obligations Incurred, Net (Note 28) 9,516,922 10,205,133
Less: Gross Outlays (Note 28) (10,219,637) (10,607,195)
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (Note 29) (387,621) (264,710)
Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 79,449 (225,252)
Total, Change in Obligated Balance 9,240,417 10,244,089
Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period:
Unpaid Obligations 9,873,207 10,956,328
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (632,790) (712,239)
Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period $ 9,240,417 $ 10,244,089
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note 28) $ 10,219,637 $ 10,607,195
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note 28) (655,188) (976,843)
Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Notes 28 and 32) (1,307,458) (1,314,780)
Total, Net Outlays $ 8,256,991 $ 8,315,572
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Section III-Page 13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Statement of Custodial Activity
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007
Restated
FY 2006
Revenue Activity:
Sources of Cash Collections:
Fines and Penalties
Other
Total Cash Collections
Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue (Note 27)
Disposition of Collections:
Transferred to Others (General Fund)
Increases/Decreases in Amounts to be Transferred
Total Disposition of Collections
Net Custodial Revenue Activity (Note 27)
86,409
(4,171)
82,238
7,092
89,330
90,774
(1,444)
89,330
35,842
66,348
102,190
(80,806)
21,384
102,298
(80,914)
21,384
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Section III-Page 14
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Notes to Financial Statements
(Dollars in Thousands)
Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
A. Basis of Presentation
These consolidated financial statements 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 OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, and the EPA's
accounting policies which are summarized in this note. In addition to the reports required by
OMB Circular A-136, the Statement of Net Cost has been prepared in accordance with the
Agency's strategic goals.
B. Reporting Entities
The EPA was created in 1970 by executive reorganization from various components of other
Federal agencies in order to better marshal and coordinate Federal pollution control efforts.
The Agency is generally organized around the media and substances it regulates - air, water,
land, hazardous waste, pesticides and toxic substances.
For FY 2007, the accompanying financial statements are grouped and presented in a
consolidated manner. These financial statements include the accounts of all funds described in
this note by their respective Treasury fund group.
General Fund Appropriations (Treasury Fund Groups 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 partnership
grants. Environmental programs and infrastructure supported are: Clean and Safe Water;
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; Clean Air; direct grants for
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure needs, partnership grants to meet Health Standards,
Protect Watersheds, Decrease Wetland Loss, and Address Agricultural and Urban Runoff and
Storm Water; Better Waste Management; Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in
Communities, Homes, Workplaces and Ecosystems; and Reduction of Global and Cross Border
Environmental Risks.
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 supplies, certain operating expenses, grants, contracts, intergovernmental
agreements, and purchases of scientific equipment. These activities provide the scientific basis
for the Agency's regulatory actions.
Section III-Page 15
-------
In FY 2007, 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 cooperative agreements for pollution abatement, control, and compliance activities and
administrative activities of the Agency's operating programs. Areas supported from this
appropriation 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 appropriation, Treasury fund
group 0110, provides for the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and
purchase of fixed equipment or facilities that are owned or used by the EPA.
e. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Appropriation: The OIG appropriation, Treasury fund
group 0112, provides funds for audit and investigative functions to identify and recommend
corrective actions on management and administrative deficiencies that create the conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and mismanagement. Additional funds for audit
and investigative activities associated with the Superfund and the LUST Trust 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
reimbursed from the appropriated trust funds accounted for under Treasury fund group 8145
and 8153.
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 0251, authorizes
appropriations from the General Fund of the Treasury to finance activities conducted through
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program.
h. Asbestos Loan Program: The Asbestos Loan Program is accounted for under Treasury
fund group 0118, Program Account, for interest subsidy and administrative support; under
Treasury fund group 4322, Financing Account, for loan disbursements, loans receivable and
loan collections on post-FY 1991 loans; and under Treasury 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 FY1992, 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 Account 0118 disburses the subsidy to the
Financing Fund for increases in the subsidy. The Financing Account 4322 receives the subsidy
payment, borrows from Treasury and collects the asbestos loans.
Section III-Page 16
-------
/'. Allocations and Appropriations Transferred to the Agency: The EPA does not receive
allocations or appropriations transferred from other Federal agencies.
j. Treasury Clearing Accounts: The EPA Department of the Treasury Clearing Accounts
include: (1) the Budgetary Suspense Account, (2) the Unavailable Check Cancellations and
Overpayments Account, and (3) the Undistributed Intra-agency Payments and Collections
(IPAC) Account. These are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 3875, 3880 and 3885,
respectively.
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 Re-estimates of Subsidies; Fees and Other
Charges for Administrative and Professional Services; and Miscellaneous Recoveries and
Refunds. These accounts are accounted for under Treasury fund groups 0895, 1099, 1435,
1499, 2753.3, 3200 and 3220, respectively.
/. Allocation of Budget Authority: EPA is an allocation budget transfer parent to five
Federal agencies: Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Labor (DOL), Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Commerce (DOC), and Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). EPA has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with each child agency to provide an annual work plan and quarterly progress report containing
an accounting of funds obligated in each budget category within 15 days after the end of each
quarter. This allows EPA to properly report the financial activity. The allocation transfers are
reported in the net cost of operations, changes in net position, balance sheet and budgetary
resources where activity is being performed by the receiving Federal entity.
Revolving Funds (Treasury Fund Group 4000 - 4999)
a. 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 reregistration 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 4311,
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 under Treasury
fund group 4322, Financing Account for loan disbursements, loans receivable and loan
collections on post-FY 1991 loans. Refer to General Fund Appropriations paragraph h. for
details.
d. Working Capital Fund (WCF): The WCF, Treasury fund group 4565, includes three
activities: computer support services, financial system services, and postage. The WCF derives
revenue from these activities based upon a fee for services. WCF's customers currently consist
primarily of Agency program offices and a small portion from other Federal agencies.
Section III-Page 17
-------
Accordingly, those revenues generated by the WCF from services provided to Agency program
offices and expenses recorded by the program offices for use of such services, along with the
related advances/liabilities, are eliminated on consolidation of the financial statements.
Special Funds (Treasury Fund Group 5000 - 5999)
a. Environmental Services Receipt Account: The Environmental Services Receipt Account
authorized by a 1990 act, "To amend the Clean Air Act (P.L. 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.
b. Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a 1992
act, "Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389)," 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 (P.L. 108-199)," 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 under the FIFRA Act of 1988, are to be paid by industry and deposited
into this fund group.
Deposit Funds (Treasury Fund Group 6000 - 6999)
Deposits include: Fees for Ocean Dumping; Nonconformance Penalties; Clean Air Allowance
Auction and Sale; Advances without Orders; Suspense and Payroll Deposits for Savings Bonds;
and State and City Income Taxes Withheld. These funds are accounted for under Treasury
fund groups 6264, 6265, 6266, 6500, 6050 and 6275, respectively.
Trust Funds (Treasury Fund Group 8000 - 8999)
a. Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the Superfund Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8145, was
established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) to provide resources needed to respond to and clean up hazardous substance
emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Trust Fund
financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry. The 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 and investment
activity.
Section III-Page 18
-------
b. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund: The LUST Trust Fund, Treasury
fund group 8153, 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 2011.
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 Response Trust Fund in 1993. The Agency is responsible for directing, monitoring and
providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities. This involves setting
oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA
and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions
when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to improve response actions to oil spills
including research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and
bioremediation. Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of
Transportation under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other
Federal agencies.
d. Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds
Trust Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as amended
by P.L. 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.
C. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
General Funds
Congress passes an annual appropriation 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 commercial activity financed from a combination of two
sources, one for the long term costs of the loans and another for the remaining non-subsidized
portion of the loans. Congress adopted a 1 year appropriation, available for obligation in the
fiscal year for which it was appropriated, to cover the estimated long term cost of the Asbestos
loans. The long term costs are defined as the net present value of the estimated cash flows
associated with the loans. The portion of each loan disbursement that did not represent long
term cost is financed under permanent indefinite borrowing authority established with the
Section III-Page 19
-------
Treasury. A permanent indefinite appropriation is available to finance the costs of subsidy re-
estimates that occur in subsequent years after the loans were disbursed.
Funds transferred from other Federal agencies are funded by a nonexpenditure transfer of
funds from the other Federal agencies. As the Agency disburses the obligated amounts, the
balance of funding available to the appropriation is reduced at Treasury.
Clearing accounts 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.
Section III-Page 20
-------
Revolving Funds
Funding of the FIFRA 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 collections of
industry fees.
Funding of the WCF is provided by fees collected from other Agency appropriations and other
Federal agencies to offset costs incurred for providing Agency administrative support 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 from the collection of reimbursements under the Exxon Valdez
settlement.
Deposit Funds
Deposit accounts receive no appropriated funds. Amounts are recorded to the deposit accounts
pending further disposition.
Trust Funds
Congress adopts an annual appropriation amount for the Superfund, LUST and the Oil Spill
Response Trust Funds to remain available until expended. A transfer account for the Superfund
and LUST Trust Fund has been established for purposes of carrying out the program activities.
As the Agency disburses obligated amounts from the transfer account, the Agency draws down
monies from the Superfund and LUST Trust Fund at Treasury to cover the amounts being
disbursed. The Agency draws down all the appropriated monies from the Principal Fund of the
Oil Spill Liability 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.
Section III-Page 21
-------
E. Revenues and Other Financing Sources.
The following EPA policies and procedures to account for inflow of revenue and other financing
sources are in accordance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS)
No. 7, "Accounting for Revenues and Other Financing Sources."
The Superfund program receives most of its funding through appropriations that may be used,
within specific statutory limits, for operating and capital expenditures (primarily equipment).
Additional financing for the Superfund program is obtained through: reimbursements from other
Federal agencies, state cost share payments under Superfund State Contracts (SSCs), and
settlement proceeds from Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) under CERCLA Section
122(b)(3) may be placed in site-specific special accounts. Special accounts were previously
limited to settlement amounts for future costs. However, beginning in FY 2001, cost recovery
amounts received under CERCLA Section. 122 (b)(3) settlements could be placed in special
accounts. Cost recovery settlements that are not placed in reimbursable special accounts
continue to be deposited in 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 operating and capital
expenditures. However, under Credit Reform provisions, the Asbestos Loan Program received
funding to support the subsidy cost of loans through appropriations which may be used within
statutory limits. The Asbestos Direct Loan Financing fund 4322, an off-budget fund, receives
additional funding to support the outstanding loans through collections from the Program fund
0118 for the subsidized portion 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 collected for services
provided and interest on invested funds. The WCF receives revenue through fees collected for
services provided to Agency program offices. Such revenue is eliminated with related Agency
program expenses 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
recognized when earned (i.e., when services have been rendered).
Section III-Page 22
-------
F. Funds with the Treasury
The Agency does not maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Cash receipts and
disbursements are handled 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
authorized obligations, as applicable.
G. Investments in U.S. Government Securities
Investments in U.S. Government securities are maintained by Treasury and are reported at
amortized cost net of unamortized discounts. Discounts are amortized over the term of the
investments and reported as interest income. No provision is made for unrealized gains or
losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity (see Note
4).
H. Notes Receivable
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 securities at cost as of the date of receipt. Marketable
securities are held by Treasury and reported at their cost value in the financial statements until
sold (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 intragovernmental reimbursements receivable,
allocations receivable from Superfund (eliminated in consolidated totals), and refunds receivable
for the STAG appropriation.
Superfund accounts receivable represent 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 receivable from PRPs for Superfund site response costs when a
consent decree, judgment, administrative order, or settlement is entered. These agreements
are generally negotiated after site response costs have been incurred. It is the Agency's
position that until a consent decree or other form of settlement is obtained, the amount
recoverable should not be recorded.
Section III-Page 23
-------
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 privately or publicly
operated at the time of hazardous substance disposal and whether the Agency response action
was removal or remedial. SSC agreements are usually for 10 percent or 50 percent of site
remedial action costs, depending on who has the lead for the site (i.e., publicly or privately
owned). States may pay the full amount of their share in advance or incrementally throughout
the remedial action process.
During fiscal year 2007, EPA collected debt previously written-off and considered not collectible.
Consequently, EPA reevaluated its implementation of the policy on delinquent debt classified as
Currently Not Collectible (CMC). The Agency determined that it cannot forecast collections with
absolute certainty due to the nature and unpredictability of external factors that impact a
debtor's ability to pay. Therefore, EPA has discontinued writing off delinquent receivables over
2-years old as CMC.
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
uncollectible loans. Loans receivable resulting from loans obligated on or after October 1, 1991,
are reduced by an allowance equal to the present value of the subsidy costs associated with
these loans. The subsidy cost is calculated based on the interest rate differential between the
loans and Treasury borrowing, the estimated delinquencies and defaults net of recoveries offset
by fees collected and other estimated cash flows associated with these loans.
M. Appropriated Amounts Held by Treasury
For the Superfund and LUST Trust Funds and for amounts appropriated from the Superfund
Trust Fund to the S&T and OIG funds, cash available to the Agency that is not needed
immediately for current disbursements remains in the respective Trust Funds managed by
Treasury.
N. Property, Plant, and Equipment
EPA accounts for its personal and real property accounting records in accordance with SFFAS
No. 6, "Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment." For EPA-held property, the Fixed
Assets Subsystem (FAS) automatically generates depreciation entries monthly based on
acquisition dates.
Section III-Page 24
-------
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 modified 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 purchased before the implementation of FAS was assumed to have an estimated
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 15 years.
Personal property also consists of capital leases. In order to be defined as a capital lease, it
must, at its inception, have a lease term of two or more years and the lower of the fair value or
present value of the minimum lease payments must be $75 thousand or more. In addition, the
lease must meet one of the following criteria: transfers ownership to EPA, contains a bargain
purchase option, the lease term is equal to 75 percent or more of the estimated service life, or
the present value of the lease and other minimum lease payments equal or exceed 90 percent
of the fair value.
Superfund contractor-held property used as part of the remedy for site-specific response actions
is capitalized in accordance with the Agency's capitalization threshold. This property is part of
the remedy at the site and eventually becomes part of the site itself. Once the response action
has been completed and the remedy implemented, EPA retains control of the property (i.e.,
pump and treat facility) for 10 years or less, and transfers its interest in the facility to the
respective state for mandatory operation and maintenance - usually 20 years or more.
Consistent with EPA's 10 year retention period, depreciation for this property is based on a 10
year life. However, if any property is transferred to a state in a year or less, this property is
charged to expense. If any property is sold prior to EPA relinquishing interest, the proceeds
from the sale of that property shall be applied against contract payments or refunded as
required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
An exception to the accounting of contractor-held property includes equipment purchased by the
Working Capital Fund (WCF). This property is retained in FAS and depreciated utilizing the
straight-line method based upon the asset's acquisition date and useful life.
Real property consists of land, buildings, and capital and leasehold improvements. Real
property, other than land, is capitalized when the value is $85 thousand or more. Land is
capitalized regardless of cost. Buildings were valued at an estimated original cost basis, and
land was valued at fair market value if purchased prior to FY 1997. Real property purchased
during and after FY 1997 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 amortized 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.
Section III-Page 25
-------
Software for the WCF, a revenue generating activity, is capitalized if the purchase price was
$100 thousand or more with an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. All other funds
capitalize software if those investments are considered either Capital Planning and Investment
Control (CPIC) or CPIC Lite systems with the provisions of SFFAS No. 10, "Accounting for
Internal Use Software." Once software enters the maintenance life cycle phase, it is
depreciated using the straight-line method over the specific asset's useful life ranging from 2 to
10 years.
O. Liabilities
Liabilities represent the amount of monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the
Agency as the result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability
can be paid by the Agency without an appropriation or other collections. Liabilities for which an
appropriation has not been enacted are classified as unfunded liabilities and there is no
certainty that the appropriations will be enacted. Liabilities of the Agency arising from other than
contracts can be abrogated by the Government acting in its 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.
At the end of FY 2006 and FY 2007, 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 is not accrued as a liability. Annual leave earned but not taken as of the end of the
fiscal year is accrued as an unfunded liability. Accrued unfunded annual leave is included in
Note 39, Statement of Financial Position, as a component of "Payroll and Benefits Payable."
S. Retirement Plan
There are two primary retirement systems for Federal employees. Employees hired prior to
January 1, 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 1, 1984, elected to either join
FERS and Social Security or remain in CSRS.
Section III-Page 26
-------
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 CSRS and FERS, 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: (1) the current period financial
statements, and (2) the prior period financial statements presented for comparison.
Adjustments related to changes in accounting principles will only be made to the current period
financial statements, but not to prior period financial statements presented for comparison.
Section III-Page 27
-------
Note 2. Fund Balance with Treasury (FBWT)
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2007 and 2006, consist of the following:
Trust Funds:
Superfund
LUST
Oil Spill &Msc.
Revolving Funds:
HFRA/Tolerance
Working Capital
Cr. Reform Finan.
Appropriated
Other Fund Types
Total
Entity
Assets
51,081 S
32,406
4,576
9,313
70,460
429
10,084,002
205,693
10,457,960 S
FY2007
Non-Entity
Assets
i -$
-
-
.
-
-
8,640
i 8,640 $
Total
51,081
32,406
4,576
9,313
70,460
429
10,084,002
214,333
10,466,600
Entity
Assets
35,086 S
25,497
6,789
8,074
77,635
400
10,820,079
182,303
11,155,863 j
FY2006
Non-Entity
Assets
5 -$
-
-
.
-
-
-
17,580
i 17,580$
Total
35,086
25,497
6,789
8,074
77,635
400
10,820,079
199,883
11,173,443
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.
FY2007
Status of Fund Balances:
FY 2006
Unobligated Amounts in Fund Balances
Available for Obligation $3,274,338 $3,156,100
Unavailable for Obligation 267,042 90,987
Net Receivables from Invested Balances (2,527,186) (2,515,007)
Balances in Treasury Trust Fund (Note 18) 14,394 12,505
Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 9,240,417 10,244,089
Non-Budgetary FBWT 197,595 184,769
Totals $10,466,600 $11,173,443
Section III-Page 28
-------
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 2007 and
FY 2006 no differences existed between Treasury's accounts and EPA's statements for fund
balances with Treasury.
Note 3. Cash and Other Monetary Assets
For September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2006, cash consists of an imprest fund of $10
thousand.
Note 4. Investments
For September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2006 investments related to Superfund and LUST
consist of the following:
Unamortized T ,, ,
^ .L rr^ • s Interest .•*.•,. Market
Cost (Premium) „ ... Investments, Net ,T ,
\_. Receivable Value
Discount
Intragovemmental Securities:
Non-Marketable FY2007 $ 5,680,321$ (29,481)$ 43,259$ 5,753,061$ 5,753,061
Non-Marketable FY2006 $ 5,305,992$ (21,752)$ 38,520$ 5,366,264$ 5,366,264
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to recover monies to clean up Superfund sites
from responsible parties (RP). Some RPs file for bankruptcy under Title 11 of the U.S. Code. In
bankruptcy settlements, EPA is an unsecured creditor and is entitled to receive a percentage of
the assets remaining after secured creditors have been satisfied. Some RPs satisfy their debts
by issuing securities of the reorganized company. The Agency does not intend to exercise
ownership rights to these securities, and instead will convert them to cash as soon as
practicable. (See Note 6.) All investments in Treasury securities are earmarked funds (See
Note 20).
The Federal Government does not set aside assets to pay future benefits or other expenditures
associated with earmarked funds. The cash receipts collected from the public for an earmarked
fund are deposited in the U.S. Treasury, which uses the cash for general Government purposes.
Treasury securities are issued to EPA as evidence of its receipts. Treasury securities are an
asset to EPA and a liability to the U.S. Treasury. Because EPA and the U.S. Treasury are both
parts of the Government, these assets and liabilities offset each other from the standpoint of the
Government as a whole. For this reason, they do not represent an asset or liability in the U.S.
Government-wide financial statements.
Treasury securities provide EPA with authority to draw upon the U.S. Treasury to make future
benefit payments or other expenditures. When EPA requires redemption of these securities to
make expenditures, the Government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash
balances, by raising taxes or other receipts, by borrowing from the public or repaying less debt,
or by curtailing other expenditures. This is the same way that the Government finances all other
expenditures.
Section III-Page 29
-------
Note 5. Accounts Receivable
The Accounts Receivable for September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2006 Restated, consist of
the following:
Restated
FY 2007 FY 2006
Intragovernmental Assets:
Accounts & Interest Receivable $ 57,039 $ 148,796
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles - (13,533)
Total $ 57,039~ $ 135,263~
Non-Federal Assets:
Unbilled Accounts Receivable $ 136,779 $ 116,060
Accounts & Interest Receivable 992,575 1,076,891
Less: Allowance for Uncollectibles (770,052) (709,250)
Total $ 359,302 $ 483,701
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.
Section III-Page 30
-------
Note 6. Other Assets
Other Assets for September 30, 2007 and 2006, consist of the following:
FY 2007 FY 2006
Intragovernmental Assets:
Advances to Federal Agencies $ 80,940 $ 58,847
Advances for Postage 129 296
Total Intragovernmental Assets $ 81,069 $ 59,143
Non-Federal Assets:
Travel Advances $ 106 $ 154
Letter of Credit Advances 9 9
Grant Advances 116 118
Other Advances 3,699 3,249
Operating Materials and Supplies 160 183
Inventory for Sale 246 565
Securities Received in Settlement of Debt 238
Total Non-Federal Assets $ 4,574 $ 4,278
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 uncollectible 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,
interest 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, 2007and
2006, are as follows:
Section III-Page 31
-------
FY 2007
FY 2006
Direct Loans
Obligated Prior to $
FY1992
Direct Loans
Obligated After FY
1991
Total S
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
7,435 $
18,440
25,875 S
Allowance*
(2,714)
(2,714) S
Value of Assets
Related to
Direct Loans
7,435 $
15,726
23,161 S
Loans
Receivable,
Gross
Allowance*
12,327
22,391
(3,882)
Value of Assets
Related to Direct
Loans
12,327
18,509
34,718 S
(3,882) S
30,836
* Allowance for Pre-Credit Reform loans (prior to FY 1992) is the Allowance for Estimated Uncollectible Loans, and
the Allowance for Post Credit Reform Loans (after FY 1991) is the Allowance for Subsidy Cost (present value).
Subsidy Expenses for Credit Reform Loans (reported on a cash basis):
Interest Technical
Rate Re- Re-
estimate estimate
Total
Downward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2007 $
FY 2007 Totals
Upward Subsidy Reestimate - FY 2006
FY 2006 Totals
(17) $
(12) $
(29)
$
$
$
(17)$
32 $
32 $
(12)$
26 $
26 $
(29)
58
58
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, 2007 and 2006.
Section III-Page 32
-------
FY 2007
FY 2006
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
2,611 $
19,878
99,718
122,207 $
FY 2007
114,082 $
16
7
601,034
196,861
912,000 $
923
20,580
86,022
107,525
FY 2006
106,156
16
7
414,112
205,376
725,667
Note 9. General 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, 2007 and 2006, Plant, Property and Equipment consist of the
following:
EPA-Held Equipment
Software
Contractor Held Equip.
Land and Buildings
Capital Leases
Total
FY2007
FY2006
Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Value Acquisition Accumulated Net Book
Value Depreciation Value Depreciation Value
222,848 $
258,637
64,641
579,880
47,505
1,173,511 S
(119,605)$
(49,407)
(23,486)
(143,594)
(27,546)
(363,638) S
103,243 $
209,230
41,155
436,286
19,959
809,873$
207,328 $
198,961
64,757
573,887
49,844
1,094,777$
(116,228)$
(37,871)
(25,001)
(132,168)
(26,715)
(337,983) $
91,100
161,090
39,756
441,719
23,129
756,794
Section III-Page 33
-------
Note 10. Debt Due to Treasury
The debt due to Treasury consists of the following as of September 30, 2007 and 2006:
AUOther Funds FY2007 FY2006
Beginning Net Ending Beginning Net Ending
Balance Borrowing Balance Balance Borrowing Balance
Intragovemniental:
Debt to Treasury $ 18,896 $ (2,740) $ 16,156 $ 21,744 $ (2,848) $ 18,896
Note 11. Stewardship Land
The Agency acquires title to certain land and land rights under the authorities provided in
Section 104 (J) CERCLA related to remedial clean-up sites. The land rights are in the form of
easements to allow access to clean-up sites or to restrict usage of remediated sites. In some
instances, the Agency takes title to the land during remediation and returns it to private
ownership upon the completion of clean-up. A site with "land acquired" may have more than one
acquisition property. Sites are not counted as a withdrawal until all acquired properties have
been transferred.
As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, the Agency possesses the following land and land rights:
FY 2007 FY 2006
Superfund Sites with
Easements
Beginning Balance 32 33
Additions 2
Withdrawals 1 1
Ending Balance 33 32
Superfund Sites with Land
Acquired
Beginning Balance 31 29
Additions 1 2
Withdrawals 0_ -_
Ending Balance 32 31
Section III-Page 34
-------
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. As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, custodial liability is $39 and $42 million
(restated), respectively.
Note 13. Other Liabilities
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2007:
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
Subsidy Payable to Treasury
Non-Current
Unfunded FECA Liability
Payable to Treasury Judgment Fund
Total Intragovernmental
Other Liabilities - Non-Federal
Current
Unearned Advances, Non-Federal
Liability for Deposit Funds, Non-Federal
Non-Current
Other Liabilities
Capital Lease Liability
Total Non-Federal
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Not Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Total
13,632
1,779
11,040
40,063
609
(37)
138
34
67.258 $
72,671
8,453
9,102
22,000
31.102 $
230
32,385
13,632
1,779
11,040
40,063
609
(37)
138
34
9,102
22,000
98.360
72,671
8,453
230
32,385
81.124 $
32.615 $
113.739
Section III-Page 35
-------
Other Liabilities consist of the following as of September 30, 2006 (Restated):
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
13,203
11,730
8,786
38,684
53
(44)
29
72.441
81,548
17,477
99.025
Not Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
Total
8,493
22,000
30.493
280
35,442
35.722
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
Note 14. Leases
Capital Leases:
The Capital Leases:
EPA has three capital leases for land and buildings housing scientific laboratories and/or
FY 2007 FY 2006
Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease:
Real Property $ 40,913 $ 40,913
Personal Property 155 2,494
Software License 6,437 6,437
Total $ 47,505 $ 49,844
Accumulated Amortization
13,203
11,730
8,786
38,684
53
(44)
29
8,493
22,000
102.934
81,548
17,477
280
35,442
134.747
$
27,546 $
26,715
computer facilities. All of these leases include a base rental charge and escalator clauses
based upon either rising operating costs and/or real estate taxes. The base operating costs are
adjusted annually according to escalators in the Consumer Price Indices published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. The real property leases terminate in
FYs2010, 2013, and 2025.
Section III-Page 36
-------
EPA also had capital leases 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 Ledger. These leases are expended out of the EPM appropriation.
EPA has two capital leases expended out of the Working Capital Fund - the capital leases are
for an IBM Supercomputer and Microsoft Office software. The IBM Supercomputer was
disposed of in FY 2007, and the Microsoft Office software's lease will terminate in FY 2009.
During FY 2005, EPA entered into a capital lease for a Storage Area Network. The lease
terminates in FY 2008 and payments are expended from the EPM appropriation.
The total future minimum capital lease payments are listed below.
Future Payments Due:
Fiscal Year Capital Leases
2008 $ 7,866
2009 6,295
2010 6,101
2011 5,714
After 5 Years 59,201
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments $ 85,177
Less: Imputed Interest (52,792)
Net Capital Lease Liability $ 32,385
Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources
(See Note 13) $ 32,385
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 two current direct operating leases and one which expired in FY 2007, for land and
buildings housing scientific laboratories and/or computer facilities. Both 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. One lease expires in FYs 2017 and
the other in 2020. These charges are expended from the EPM appropriation.
Section III-Page 37
-------
The total minimum future operating lease costs are listed below.
Operating Leases,
Land and Buildings
Fiscal Year
2008 $ 74
2009 74
2010 74
2011 74
Beyond 2011 550
Payments $ 846
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 employees whose death is
attributable to a job-related injury or occupational disease. Annually, EPA is allocated the
portion of the long term FECA actuarial liability attributable to the entity. The liability is
calculated to estimate the expected liability for death, disability, medical and miscellaneous
costs for approved compensation cases. The liability amounts and the calculation
methodologies are provided by the Department of Labor.
The FECA Actuarial Liability at September 30, 2007 and 2006, consists of the following:
FY 2007 FY 2006
FECA Actuarial Liability $ 39,786 $ 39,408
The FY 2007 present value of these estimated outflows are calculated using a discount rate of
4.93 percent in the first year, and 5.078 percent in the years thereafter. The 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 122(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.
Section III-Page 38
-------
Note 17. Unexpended Appropriations - Other Funds
As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, the Unexpended Appropriations consist of the following:
Unexpended Appropriations:
Unobligated
Available
Unavailable
Undelivered Orders
Total
FY 2007
FY 2006
1,791,873
81,753
7,476,965
9,350,591
$
$
1,724,552
51,852
8,523,236
10,299,640
Note 18. 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, interest income, and fines and penalties.
The following reflects the Superfund Trust Fund maintained by Treasury as of September 30,
2007 and 2006. The amounts contained 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.
Section III-Page 39
-------
SUPERFUND FY 2007
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
EPA
Treasury Combined
- $
1,538 $
1,538
2,466,812
1,538
12,795
272,244
1,538
12,795
2,739,056
$ 2,466,812 $ 286,577 $ 2,753,389
$ 2,466,812 $
$ 2,466,812 $
286,577 $ 2,753,389
2,753,389
$
$
$
$
- $
-
-
-
-
-
- $
1,316,114 $
- $
1,316,114
2,602 $
234,050
1,063
237,715
1,040,371
141,407
1,419,493 $
(1,316,114)$
1,370 $
(1,314,744)
2,602
234,050
1,063
237,715
1,040,371
141,407
1,419,493
.
1,370
1,370
$ 1,316,114 $ 104,749 $ 1,420,863
In FY 2007, the EPA received an appropriation for Superfund of $1,040.3 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, 2007 and 2006, the Treasury Trust Fund has a liability to EPA for previously
appropriated funds of $2,466.8 million and $2,446.5 million, respectively.
Section III-Page 40
-------
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
EPA
Treasury
Combined
2,446,467
$ 2,446,467
$
$
$"
2,446,467
2,446,467
$ 1,280,333
$
1,280,333
$ 1,280,333"
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
775
775
7,985
173,069
181,829
82,274
99,555
181,829
1,144
59,661
2,467
63,272
1,189,826
108,807
1,361,905
(1,280,333)
702
(1,279,631)
82,274
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
775
775
7,985
2,619,536
2,628,296
82,274
2,546,022
2,628,296
1,144
59,661
2,467
63,272
1,189,826
108,807
1,361,905
.
702
702
1,362,607
Section III-Page 41
-------
LUST (Unaudited)
LUST is supported primarily by a sales tax on motor fuels to clean up LUST waste sites. In FYs
2007 and 2006 there were no fund receipts from cost recoveries. The following represents the
LUST Trust Fund as maintained by Treasury. The amounts contained in these notes have been
provided by Treasury. Outlays represent appropriations received by EPA's LUST Trust Fund;
such funds are eliminated on consolidation with the LUST Trust Fund maintained by Treasury.
LUST FY 2007 EPA Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance $
Total Undisbursed Balance
Interest Receivable
Investments, Net
Total Assets $
Liabilities & Equity
Equity $
Equity $
Receipts
Highway TF Tax $
Airport TF Tax
Inland TF Tax
Refund Gasoline Tax
Refund Diesel Tax
Refund Aviation Fuel
Refund Aviation Tax
Total Revenue
Interest Income
Total Receipts $
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net $
Total Outlays
Net Income $
- $ 12,856 $
12,856
30,465
80,252 2,890,497
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
80,252 $ 2,933,818 $
- $ 204,272 $
23,528
457
(914)
(934)
(197)
(18)
226,194
117,579
- $ 343,773 $
72,035 $ (72,035) $
72,035 (72,035)
72,035 $ 271,738 $
12,856
12,856
30,465
2,970,749
3,014,070
3,014,070
3,014,070
204,272
23,528
457
(914)
(934)
(197)
(18)
226,194
117,579
343,773
-
-
343,773
Section III-Page 42
-------
LUST FY 2006 EPA Treasury Combined
Undistributed Balances
Uninvested Fund Balance $ -_ $ 11,750 $ 11,750
Total Undisbursed Balance - 11,750 11,750
Interest Receivable - 30,535 30,535
Investments, Net 88,417 2,619,793 2,708,210
Total Assets $ 88,417 $ 2,662,078 $ 2,750,495
Liabilities & Equity
Equity $ 88,417 $ 2,662,078 $ 2,750,495
Equity $ 88,417 $ 2,662,078 $ 2,750,495
Receipts
Highway TF Tax $ - $ 196,371$ 196,371
Airport TF Tax - 2,772 2,772
Inland TF Tax - 404 404
Transfers from EPA - 15,000 15,000
Refund Gasoline Tax - (1,453) (1,453)
Refund Diesel Tax - (1,434) (1,434)
Refund Aviation Fuel - (409) (409)
Refund Aviation Tax -_ (24) (24)
Total Revenue - 211,227 211,227
Interest Income ^_ 97,666 97,666
Total Receipts $ -_$ 308,893 $ 308,893
Outlays
Transfers to/from EPA, Net $ 86,861 $ (86,861) $ -_
Total Outlays 86,861 (86,861) -_
Net Income $ 86,861 $ 222,032 $ 308,893
Section III-Page 43
-------
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, 2007, there are currently two CERCLA Section 106(b) administrative
claims. If the claimants are successful, the total losses on the claims could amount to
approximately $5.7 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.
All Other Funds:
As of September 30, 2007, there is one claim amounting to $5.6 million 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 determined to be the appropriate source
for the payment, claims that are probable and estimable must be recognized as an expense and
liability of the Agency. For these cases, at the time of settlement or 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, 2007, there are no material claims pending in the Treasury Judgment
Fund. However, EPA has a $22 million liability to the Treasury Judgment Fund for a payment
made by the Fund to settle a contract dispute claim.
Section III - Page 44
-------
Note 20. Earmarked Funds
Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2007
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Environmental
Services
LUST
Superfund
Other
Earmarked
Funds
Total
Earmarked
Funds
188,370
188,370
10,030
3,023,769
3,033,799
548,893 $
548,893
^^^^^^^^=
2,670,425
3,219,318
32,028
^^^^^^=
3,663
35,691
590,951
590,951
^^^^^^^^
5,886,227
6,477,178
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the Period Ended
September 30, 2007
Gross Programs Costs
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
76,242 $
(1,414)
1,497,010
377,904
77,656 $ 1,119,106 $
72,308
53,646
18,662 $
1,215,424
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the Period Ended
September 30, 2007
Net Position, Beginning of Period $
Changes in Accounting Principle (Alloc Trans Agency) (Note 38)
Beginning Balance as Adjusted
Nonexchange Revenue - Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue - Other
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Postion $
Net Position End of Period $
165,723
-
22,648
-
-
22,648 $
2,757,325
117,579
226,194
-
327
(77,656)
266,444 $
2,627,300
141,407
2,721
998,952
19,151
(1,119,106)
43,125 $
3,577
-
585
15,733
2,429
(18,662)
85 $
5,553,925
258,986
252,148
1,014,685
21,907
(1,215,424)
332,302
188,371 $ 3,023,769 $ 2,670,425 $
3,662 $
5,886,227
Section III-Page 45
-------
Balance Sheet as of September 30,2006
(Restated)
ASSETS
Fund Balance with Treasury
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net
Other Assets
Total Assets
Other Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Environmental
Services
165,723
$
$\
$ 165,723
$ 165,723
LUST
25,497
2,738,746
176
2,764,419
7,094
7,094
2,757,325
2,764,419
Superfund
35,086 $
2,627,521
447,747
63,874
3,174,228 $
Other
Earmarked
Funds
567,828 $
567,828 $
2,606,400 $
3,174,228 $
Total
Earmarked
Funds
31,445 $ 257,751
(3) 5,366,264
2,821 450,568
1,067 65,117
35,330 $ 6,139,700
31,753 $ 606,675
31,753 $ 606,675
3,577 $ 5,533,025
35,330 $
6,139,700
Statement of Changes in Net Cost For the
Period Ended September 30, 2006
(Restated)
Gross Programs Costs
Less: Earned Revenues
Net Cost of Operations
75,073
75,073
1,284,267 $
327,606
956,661 $
62,435 $
35,230
27,205 $
1,421,775
362,836
1,058,939
Statement of Changes in Net Position for the
Period Ended September 30, 2006 (Restated)
Net Position, Beginning of Period !
Prior Period Adjustment (Note 40)
Beginning Balance as Adjusted
Nonexchange Revenue-Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue-Other !
Other Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Change in Net Postion '
Net Position End of Period
145,088
2,523,158 $ 2,200,115 $
62,150
14,167 $ 4,882,528
62,150
145,088
20,635 $
-
-
-
20,635 $
2,523,158
97,666
196,227 $
15,000
347
(75,073)
234,167 $
2,262,265
108,807
32,691 $
1,141,824
17,474
(956,661)
344,135 $
14,167
- $
15,330
1,285
(27,205)
(10,590) $
4,944,678
206,473
249,553
1,172,154
19,106
(1,058,939)
588,347
-
165,723 $
2,757,325 $
2,606,400 $
3,577 $ _
5,533,025
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 (P.L. 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 LUST Trust Fund, Treasury
fund group 8153, 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.
Section III-Page 46
-------
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 2011.
Superfund Trust Fund: In 1980, the Superfund Trust Fund, Treasury fund group 8145, was
established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) to provide resources needed to respond to and clean up hazardous substance
emergencies and abandoned, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Trust Fund
financing is shared by federal and state governments as well as industry. The 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 responsible for directing, monitoring and
providing technical assistance for major inland oil spill response activities. This involves setting
oil prevention and response standards, initiating enforcement actions for compliance with OPA
and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure requirements, and directing response actions
when appropriate. The Agency carries out research to improve response actions to oil spills
including research on the use of remediation techniques such as dispersants and
bioremediation. Funding for oil spill cleanup actions is provided through the Department of
Transportation under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and reimbursable funding from other
Federal agencies.
Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust Fund: The Miscellaneous Contributed Funds Trust
Fund authorized in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) as amended P.L.
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 (P.L. 108-199)," 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 under the 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
Section III-Page 47
-------
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 4311, 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.
Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund: The Exxon Valdez Settlement Fund authorized by a 1992 Act,
"Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 (P.L. 102-389)," 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.
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 exception of interest earned on trust fund investments), and
miscellaneous earned revenue. As of September 30, 2007 and 2006 (restated), exchange
revenues are $550 million and $876 million (restated), respectively.
Section III-Page 48
-------
Note 22. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue
FY 2007
FY 2006 (Restated)
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 t!
Ecosystems
Program Costs
Earned Revenue
NET COST
Intragovern-
mental
185,389
15,594
169,795
180,571
11,016
396,786
101,036
295,750
275,068
18,450
With the
Public
818,753 $
2,997
815,756 $
3,868,428 $
2,262
3,866,166 $
TOTAL
1,004,142
18,591
985,551
4,048,999
13,278
1,144,793 $
38,902
1,105,891 $
Intragovern-
mental
192,774 $
37,264
155,510 $
137,874
9,088
2,004,738 $
453,999
1,550,739 $
1,419,861
57,352
With the
Public
763,805 $
2,258
761,547 $
3,714,605 $
448,101 $ 1,722,469
440,068 303,497
8,033 $ 1,418,972
TOTAL
917,057
3,855,301
11,910
1,427,005
1,301,454
68,760
998,697 $
Compliance & Environmental
Stewardship
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
Total
Program Costs $
Earned Revenue
NET COST $
182,101
5,613
176,488
1,219,915
151,709
602,198 $
8,043,389
398,389
),263,304
550,098
173,630 $
1,234,044
534,088
699,956 $
591,778 $
7,485,599 $
777,756
12,348
765,408
Intragovernmental costs relate to the source of the goods or services not the classification of the
related revenue.
Note 23. Cost of Stewardship Land
The costs related to the acquisition of stewardship were less than $150 thousand in FY
2007 and approximately $1 million in FY 2006. These costs are included in the Statement of
Net Cost.
Note 24. Environmental Cleanup Costs
As of September 30, 2007 EPA has three sites that require clean up stemming from its
activities. Costs amounting to $205 thousand may be paid out of the Treasury Judgment Fund.
Two claimants' chance of success is characterized as reasonably possible. Additionally EPA
has one site ($80 thousand) characterized as remote chance of success. EPA also holds title to
a site in Edison, New Jersey which was formerly an Army Depot.
Section III-Page 49
-------
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 two
sites that have an unfunded environmental liability of $230 thousand.
Accrued Cleanup Cost:
The EPA has 15 sites that will require future clean up associated with permanent closure. The
estimated costs will be approximately $18 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 2007 estimate for unfunded cleanup costs increased by $8 million from the FY 2006
estimate. This increase is due primarily to a change in methodology used by a site to calculate
unfunded cleanup costs.
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, 2007, the total remaining state
credits have been estimated at $14.5 million. The estimated ending credit balance on
September 30, 2006 was $17.1 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 111(a)(2). Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(1),
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, 2007, EPA had 15 outstanding preauthorized
mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $25 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.
Section III-Page 50
-------
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 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 2007
89,330 $
Restated
FY 2006
21,384
196,590 $
(156,401)
40,189 $
192,739
(150,943)
41,796
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 2007 Statement of Budgetary Resources, will be reconciled to the amounts included in the
FY 2009 Budget of the United States Government when they become available. The Budget of
the United States Government with actual numbers for FY 2007 has not yet been published.
We expect it will be published by March 2008, and it will be available on the OMB website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009. The actual amounts published for the year
ended September 30, 2006 are included in EPA's FY 2007 financial statement disclosures.
FY2006
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Unliquidated Obligations,
Unfilled Customer Orders and Other
Expired and Immaterial Funds*
Rounding Differences**
Reported in Budget of the U. S.
Government
Budgetary
Resources
13,452,220
19,090
5,763
(94,312)
1,239
Obligations
10,205,133 $'
3,563
1,825
(1,535)
1,014
Offsetting
Receipts
1,314,780 $'
Net Outlays
9,630,352
3,661
220
(1,013)
$ 13,384,000 $ 10,210,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 9,633,000
* 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.
Section III-Page 51
-------
Note 29. Recoveries and Resources Not Available, Statement of Budgetary Resources
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations, Temporarily Not Available, and Permanently Not Available
on the Statement of Budgetary Resources consist of the following amounts:
FY 2007 FY 2006
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations-downward
adjustments of prior years'obligations $ 387,621 $ 264,710
Temporarily Not Available-rescinded authority -_ (9,466)
Permanently Not Available:
Payments to Treasury (2,769) (2,848)
Rescinded authority - (185,472)
Canceled authority (4,564) (10,164)
Total Permanently Not Available $ (7,333) $ (198,484)
Note 30. Unobligated Balances Available
The unobligated balances available consist of the following as of September 30, 2007 and 2006.
Unobligated balances are a combination of two lines on the Statement of Budgetary Resources:
Apportioned, Unobligated Balances and Unobligated Balances Not Available. Unexpired
unobligated balances are available to be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the
beginning of the following fiscal year. The expired unobligated balances are only available for
upward adjustments of existing obligations.
FY 2007 FY 2006
Unexpired Unobligated Balance $ 3,279,240 $ 3,156,100
Expired Unobligated Balance 262,147 90,987
Total $ 3,541,387 $ 3,247,087
Note 31. Undelivered Orders at the End of the Period
Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of the September 30, 2007 and
2006 are as follows:
FY 2007 FY 2006
Undelivered Orders $ 8,714,675 $ 10,000,509
Note 32. Offsetting Receipts
Section III-Page 52
-------
Distributed offsetting receipts credited to the general fund, special fund, or trust fund receipt
accounts offset gross outlays. For FYs 2007 and 2006, the following receipts were generated
from these activities:
FY 2007 FY 2006
Trust Fund Recoveries $ 234,171 $ 59,748
Special Fund Environmental Service 22,648 20,634
Downward Re-estimates of Subsidies 29
Trust Fund Appropriation 1,040,372 1,204,825
Special Fund Receipt Account and Treasury
Miscellaneous Receipts and Clearing Accounts 10,238 29,573
Total $ 1,307,458 $ 1,314,780
Note 33. Transfers-ln and Out, Statement of Changes in Net Position
Appropriation Transfers, In/Out:
For FYs 2007 and 2006, 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 Prior Year Unobligated Balance, Net Transfers lines on
the Statement of Budgetary Resources. Detail of the Appropriation Transfers on the Statement
of Changes in Net Position and reconciliation with the Statement of Budgetary Resources
follow:
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Budgetary:
Fund/Type of Account FY 2007 FY 2006
Department of State $ - $ 1,500
Appalachian Regional Commission -__ (747)
Total Appropriation Transfers (Other Funds) $ -_ $ 753
Net Transfers from Invested Funds 1,344,610 1,248,523
Allocations Rescinded -_ 8,932
Total of Net Transfers on Statement of
Budgetary Resources $ 1,344,610$ 1,258,208
For FYs 2007 and 2006 Transfers In/Out under Budgetary Financing Sources on the Statement
of Changes in Net Position consists 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:
Section III-Page 53
-------
Type of Transfer/Funds FY 2007 FY 2006
Other Other
Earmark Funds Earmark Funds
Transfers-in (out),
nonexpenditure to other
federal agencies $ - $ - $ (4,509) $ (127)
Transfers-in (out)
nonexpenditure, Earmark to
S&T and OIG funds (43,491) 43,491 (43,493) 43,493
Transfer-in nonexpenditure
recovery from CDC 1,370 - - -
Transfers-in, nonexpenditure,
Oil Spill 15,734 - 15,330
Adjustment from Prior Year 701
without Reimbursement,
Budgetary $ (25,686) $ 43,491 $ (32,672) $ 43,366
Transfers In/Out without Reimbursement, Other Financing Sources:
For FYs 2007 and 2006 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 2007 FY 2006
Earmark Other Funds Earmark Other Funds
Transfers-in by allocation tranfer agency $ 39$ - $ -$
Transfers-in property - 530
Transfers (out) of prior year negative
subsidy to be paid following year - (5)_ - (28)
Total Transfers in (out) without
Reimbursement, Budgetary $ 39 $ 525 $ - $ (28)
34. Imputed Financing Sources
In accordance with SFFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government,"
Federal agencies must recognize the portion of employees' pensions and other retirement
Section III-Page 54
-------
benefits to be paid by the OPM trust funds. These amounts are recorded as imputed 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 year. These cost
factors are multiplied by the current year's salaries or number of employees, as applicable, to
provide an estimate of the imputed financing that the OPM trust funds will provide for each
agency. The estimates for FY 2007 were $133.3 million ($21.9 million from Earmark funds, and
$111.4 million from Other Funds). For FY 2006, the estimates were $131.1 million ($19.1
million from Earmark Funds, and $112 million from Other Funds).
In addition to the pension and retirement benefits described above, EPA also records imputed
costs and financing for Treasury Judgment Fund payments made on behalf of the Agency.
Entries are made in accordance with the Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards No. 2, "Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions." For FY 2007 entries
for Judgment Fund payments totaled $2.3 million (Other Funds). For FY 2006, entries for
Judgment Fund payments totaled $9.5 million (Other Funds).
The combined total of imputed financing costs for FY 2007 is $135.6 million and in FY 2006 was
$140.6 million.
Section III-Page 55
-------
Note 35. Payroll and Benefits Payable
Payroll and benefits payable to EPA employees for the years ending September 30, 2007 and
2006, consist of the following:
FY 2007 Payroll & Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable-TSP
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Current
FY 2006 Payroll & Benefits Payable
Accrued Funded Payroll & Benefits
Withholdings Payable
Employer Contributions Payable-TSP
Accrued Unfunded Annual Leave
Total - Current
Covered by
Budgetary
Resources
30,957
29,297
2,101
62,355
Not Covered
by Budgetary
Resources
$ - $
142,843
$ 142,843 $
Total
30,957
29,297
2,101
142,843
205,198
31,023 $
27,653
2,010
60,686 $'
135,060
135,060
31,023
27,653
2,010
135,060
195,746
Note 36. 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 5
years earlier. These amounts affect Unexpended Appropriations.
Rescissions to General
Appropriations
Canceled General Authority
Total Other Adjustments
Other Funds
FY 2007
4,561
$
4,561 $
Other Funds
FY 2006
185,472
10,146
195,618
Section III-Page 56
-------
Note 37. Nonexchange Revenue, Statement of Changes in Net Position
The Nonexchange Revenue, Budgetary Financing Sources, on the Statement of Changes in
Net Position for FYs 2007 and 2006 consist of the following items:
Earmark Funds
FY2007
Interest on Trust Fund
Tax Revenue, Net of Refunds
Fines and Penalties Revenue
Special Receipt Fund Revenue
Revenue
Earmark Funds
Restated
FY2006
258,986 $
228,796
704
22,648
206,473
197,372
31,422
20,759
511,134 $
456,026
Note 38. Adjustment for Allocation Transfers
Beginning in FY 2007, the agency that transfers budget authority to another Federal entity must
report all budgetary and proprietary activity related to these transfers in its financial statements.
The cumulative effect of this activity is reported as a "Change in Accounting Principle" on the
Statement of Net Position ($20.9 million - Earmark Funds) and as an "Adjustment to
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward" and an "Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations, Brought
Forward" on the Statement of Budgetary Resources.
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Beginning Balance:
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward October 1
Adjustment of Unobligated Balance (Allocation Transfer Agencies)
Adjusted Total Beginning Balance
FY 2007
3,247,087
15,527
3,262,614
Section III-Page 57
-------
Note 39. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget (formerly the Statement of
Financing)
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
Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement, Property
Imputed Financing Sources (Note 34)
Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities
Total Resources Used To Finance Activities
RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE ITEMS
NOT PART OF THE NET COST OF OPERATIONS:
Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated
Resources that Fund Prior Periods Expenses
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 Acquistion
FY 2007
9,516,922
(963,361)
8,553,561
(1,307,458)
7,246,103
Restated
FY 2006
$ 10,205,133
(1,466,805)
$ 8,738,328
(1,314,780)
$ 7,423,548
530 $
135,609
136,139 $"
3,979
267,087
(113,393)
140,554
140,554
$ 7,382,242 $ 7,564,102
$ 1,229,438 $
722,153
(2,020)
4,114
109,955
(115,641)
Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations $ 1,387,111 $ 718,561
Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 8,769,353 $ 8,282,663
Section III-Page 58
-------
Restated
FY 2007 FY 2006
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 $ 7,771 $ 4,776
Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liability 8,073 3,352
Upward/Downward Reestimates of Credit Subsidy Expense 33
Increase in Public Exchange Revenue Receivables (168,330) (42,011)
Increase in Workers Compensation Costs 986 37
Other 420 1,823
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that Require or
Generate Resources in Future Periods $ (151,047) $ (32,023)
Components Not Requiring/Generating Resources:
Depreciation and Amortization $ 52,248 $ 56,959
Revaluation of Assets and Liabilities
Expenses Not Requiring Budgetary Resources 42,652 (122,044)
Total Components of Net Cost that Will Not Require or Generate Resources $ 94,900 $ (65,085)
Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or
Generate Resources in the Current Period $ (56,147) $ (97,108)
Net Cost of Operations $ 8,713,206 $ 8,185,555
Note 40. Restatement of FY 2006 Financial Statements
In FY 2006, EPA implemented a policy following the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
Circular A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables, for delinquent
receivables that were currently not collectible (CMC). EPA's policy required receivables over 2-
years delinquent with no past collections to be written-off and reclassified as CMC or closed-out
when there was uncertainty about collection. Consistent with its policy, the Agency wrote-off
and reclassified to $704 million of non-Federal and $21 million of Federal receivables. Of this
amount, approximately $653.6 million were Superfund-related receivables. Prior to the
reclassification of the receivables in FY 2006, EPA had no material collections for these
receivables.
OMB Circular A-129 also required that in those cases where material collections could be
documented to occur after 2 years, debt could not be written-off until the estimated collections
become immaterial. In such cases, the receivable must remain on the Agency's books with an
adequate reserve for the uncollectible portion.
Late in FY 2007, EPA had material collections of receivables that had been written-off and
classified as CMC. One of the receivables was a 1989 judgment granted in favor of EPA for
cleanup costs incurred at a Superfund site. A bond for the amount due to EPA was posted in
1999. The judgment was appealed by the polluter through the U.S. Courts and was upheld in
favor of EPA on each appeal.
Section III-Page 59
-------
In FY 2005, an EPA attorney considered the receivable 100% collectible. In FY 2007, the
Agency collected the full value of the receivable established in 1989 plus interest.
Based on these material collections, EPA reevaluated its policy and implementation of
reclassifying receivables to CMC. The Agency determined that it cannot forecast collections
with absolute certainty due to the nature and unpredictability of external factors that impact a
debtor's ability to pay EPA. Therefore, EPA has updated its policy to discontinue
reclassification of its receivables over 2-years delinquent to CMC. This change is consistent
with the documented material collections language in OMB Circular A-129.
In addition, the facts related to the material collection indicated that the receivable should not
have been reclassified as CMC during FY 2006, as it was likely that EPA would collect the
receivable at some point in the future. As a result, EPA has restated its FY 2006 financial
statements to reflect the impact of recognizing the net realizable value for the receivables
previously classified as CMC. A prior period adjustment was recorded to reflect amounts that
were charged to bad debt expense in prior fiscal years related to the CMC reclassification.
The FY 2006 Consolidated Balance Sheet was restated to reflect a net increase of $7.5 million
in intragovernmental receivables and $239.9 million in non-Federal receivables, which resulted
in an increase of $247.4 million in total assets. Liabilities, which include custodial liabilities ($8.8
million), cashout advances, Superfund ($0.7 million) and other non-Federal liabilities ($3.4
million), increased by $12.9 million.
The cumulative results of operations (CRO) beginning balance on the Consolidating Statement
of Changes in Net Position for FY 2006 increased by $74.3 million. The increase is the result of
the reduction in prior fiscal years bad debt expense. In addition, on the FY 2006 Consolidating
Statement of Changes in Net Position, the Net Cost of Operations decreased by $160.2 million
as a result of the additional revenue earned and reduction in bad debt expense on the re-
established receivables. The decrease in expenses and increase in revenues increased the
ending CRO balance by $234.5 million.
On the Statement of Custodial Activity, custodial revenue increased by $1.8 million.
The following table depicts the changes by financial statements and line item for FY 2006:
Section III-Page 60
-------
Financial Statement & Line Item Affected by
Restatement
Consolidated Balance Sheet
Intragovernmental Accounts Receivable, Net
Non-Federal Assets
Accounts & Interest Receivable
Less: Allowance for Uncollectible s
Accounts Receivable, Net-Non Federal
Restatement Effect on Total Assets
Custodial Liability
Cashout Advances, Superfund
Other-Non Federal
Restatement Effect on Total Liabilities
Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds
Cumulative Results of Operation - Other Funds
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
Gross Costs
Earned Revenue
Net Cost of Operations
Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
Net Position - Beginning of Period, Prior Period
Adjustment (Earmark Funds)
Net Position - Beginning of Period, Prior Period
Adjustment (Other Funds)
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cummulative Results of Operations
Statement of Custodial Activity
Accrual Adjustment
Total Custodial Revenue
Increase/Decreases in Amounts to be transferred
Total Disposition of Collections
Restated
FY 2006
135,263
1,076,890
(709,250)
483,700
18,009,732
41,801
224,407
134,747
1,601,222
5,533,025
575,846
16,408,511
18,009,732
9,061,660
876,105
8,185,555
62,150
12,168
8,185,555
626,268
6,108,871
(80,806)
21,384
(80,914)
21,384
Original
FY 2006
127,727
364,517
(236,753)
243,824
17,762,319
32,963
223,760
131,322
1,588,312
4,177,329
1,697,038
16,174,007
17,762,319
9,215,502
869,762
8,345,740
-
-
8,345,740
466,082
5,874,367
(82,620)
19,570
(82,728)
19,570
Change
7,536
712,373
(472,497)
239,876
247,413
8,838
647
3,425
12,910
1,355,696
(1,121,192)
234,504
247,413
(153,842)
6,343
(160,185)
62,150
12,168
(160,185)
160,186
234,504
1,814
1,814
1,814
1,814
Section III-Page 61
-------
1.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
As of September 30, 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
(Unaudited)
Deferred Maintenance
The EPA classifies tangible property, plant, and equipment as follows: (1) EPA-Held Equipment,
(2) Contractor-Held Equipment, (3) Land and Buildings, and, (4) Capital Leases. The condition
assessment survey method of measuring deferred maintenance is utilized. The Agency adopts
requirements or standards for acceptable operating condition in conformance with industry
practices. No deferred maintenance was reported for any of the four categories.
Stewardship Land
Stewardship land is acquired as contaminated sites in need of remediation and clean-up; thus
the quality of the land is far-below the standard for usable and manageable land. Easements on
stewardship lands are in good and usable condition but acquired in order to gain access to
contaminated sites.
Section III-Page 62
-------
2.
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Information
Supplemental Statement of Budgetary Resources (Unaudited)
As of September 30, 2007
(Dollars in Thousands)
BUDGETARY RESOURCE
Unobligated Balance Brought Forward, October 1
Brought Forward October 1
Adjustment to Unobligation Balance (Alloc Transfer
Agencies) (Note 38)
Adjusted Subtotal
Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations
Budgetary Authority:
Appropriation
Borrowing Authority
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 transers, 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
Unbligated Balances:
Unobligated funds apportioned
Unobligated balance not available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net
Unpaid obligations brought forward, October 1
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer
Agencies) (Note 38)
Adjusted Total
Less: Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources
brought forward, October 1
Total unpaid obligation balance, net
Obligations incurred, net
Less: Gross outlays
Less: Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, actual
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
$
$
$
$
^
$
$
$
566,216 $
566,216
100,745
2,358,370
153,929
(69,820)
4,647
(28,978)
(2,855)
3,082,254 $
2,323,967 $
86,200
2,410,167
444,096
227,991
3.082.254 $_
989,404 $
.
989,404
(546,184)
443,220
2,410,167
(2,468,491)
(100,745)
98,799
382,950
830,336
(447,386)
382,950 $
2,468,491 $
(158,576)
5,645 $
5,645
828
21,390
631
28,494 $
- $
21,479
21,479
7,015
28.494 $_
2,426 $
2,426
2,426
21,478
(20,781)
(828)
2 295
2 295
2,295 $
20,781 $
(22,020)
15,266 $
15,266
2,659
44
72,034
90,003 $
83,691 $
40
83,731
6,272
90.003 $_
85,443 $
.
85,443
.
85,443
83,733
(72,986)
(2,659)
93,531
93,531
93,531 $
72,986 $
(45)
205,792
205,792
11,988
733,387
9,299
(1,648)
(1,907)
(547)
30,156
(1,668)
984,852
757,078
5,837
762,915
192,010
29,927
984.852
586,759
586,759
(42,296)
544,463
762,916
(831,325)
(11,988)
8.336
472,402
506,362
(33,960)
472,402
831,324
(43,689)
$ 1,310,813 $
1,310,813
136,882
3,213,708
6,960
(27)
$ 4,668,363 $
$ 3,337,633 $
3,337,633
1,330,730
$ 4.668.363 $_
$ 7,674,782 $
.
7,674,782
7,674,782
3,337,632
(3,945,094)
(136,882)
6,930,438
6,930,438
$ 6,930,438 $
$ 3,945,095 $
(6,959)
1,143,355 $
15,527
1,158,882
134,519
1,189,563
29
448,732
(1,051)
(38,305)
28,873
13,335
1,272,576
(2,810)
4,204,343 $
2,524,801 $
376,196
2,900,997
1,294,221
9,125
4.204.343 $_
1,617,514 $
7,215
1,624,729
(123,759)
1,500,970
2,900,996
(2,880,960)
(134,519)
(27,686)
1,358,801
1,510,245
(151,444)
1,358,801 $
2,880,960 $
(423,899)
(1,307,458)
3,247,087
15,527
3,262,614
387,621
7,495,028
29
640,354
(72,546)
(34,934)
(625)
43,491
1,344,610
(7,333)
13,058,309
9,027,170
489,75^
9,516,922
3,274,344
^67,043
13.058.309
10,956,328
7,215
10,963,543
(712,239)
10,251,304
9,516,922
(10,219,637)
(387,621)
79.449
9,240,417
9,873,207
(63V90)
9,240,417
10,219,637
(655,188)
(1,307,458)
2,309,915 $
(1,239) $
787,635 $ 3,938,136 $ 1,149,603 $ 8,256,991
Section III-Page 63
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information (Unaudited)
For the Year Ended September 30, 2007
(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, the framework, and technologies we need to
detect, abate, and avoid environmental problems. Research also provides the crucial
underpinning(s) for EPA decision-making 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 provision 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 2007, the full cost of the Agency's Research and Development activities
totaled over $724.6 million. Below is a breakout of the expenses (dollars in thousands):
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY2007
Programmatic Expenses 593,295 581,323 628,467 630,438 624,088
Allocated Expenses 106,971 91,675 112,558 104,167 100,553
See Section II of the PAR for more detailed information on the results of the Agency's
investment in research and development. Each of EPA's strategic goals has a Science and
Research Objective.
Section III-Page 64
-------
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.
State Revolving Funds: EPA provides capital, in the form of capitalization grants, to state
revolving funds which state governments use to make loans to individuals, businesses, and
governmental entities for the construction of wastewater and drinking water treatment
infrastructure. When the loans are repaid to the state revolving fund, the collections are used to
finance new loans for new construction projects. The capital is reused by the states and is not
returned to the Federal Government.
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):
FY2003 FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Construction Grants 15,845 48,948 21,148 39,193 9,975
Clean Water SRF 1,295,394 1,407,345 1,127,883 1,339,702 1,399,616
Safe Drinking Water SRF 842,936 802,629 715,060 910,032 962,903
Other Infrastructure Grants 582,091 341,767 385,226 411,023 381,481
Allocated Expenses 493,349 410,129 402,853 446,113 443,716
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.
Section III-Page 65
-------
HUMAN CAPITAL
Agencies are required to report expenses incurred to train the public with the intent of increasing
or maintaining the nation's economic productive capacity. Training, public awareness, and
research fellowships are components of many of the Agency's programs and are effective in
achieving the Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment, but the focus is
on enhancing the nation's environmental, not economic, capacity.
The Agency's expenses related to investments in the Human Capital are outlined below (dollars
in thousands):
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Training and Awareness Grants 47,827 48,416 46,750 43,765 32,845
Fellowships 6,572 7,553 10,195 12,639 12,185
Allocated Expenses 9,808 8,826 10,199 9,320 7,255
Section III-Page 66
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Balance Sheet for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007
ASSETS
Intrago vernmental:
Fund Balance With Treasury (Note SI)
Investments
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 40)
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 40)
Property, Plant & Equipment, Net
Other
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Intragovernmental:
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Other
Total Intragovernmental
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities
Pensions & Other Actuarial Liabilities
Cashout Advances, Superfund (Note S2 and Note 40)
Payroll & Benefits Payable
Other (Note 40)
Total Liabilities
NET POSITION
Cumulative Results of Operations (Note 40)
Total Net Position
Total Liabilities and Net Position
51,081
2,751,850
16,955
14,927
2,834,813
312,874
70,601
1,030
3,219,318 $
89,239
46,182
135,421 $
139,607 S
6,889
190,269
35,914
40,793
548,893
2,670,425
2,670,425
Restated
FY 2006
35,086
2,627,521
15,064
8,191
2,685,862
432,683
54,917
766
3,174,228
84,706
44,324
129,030
122,788
6,925
224,406
34,969
49,710
567,828
2,606,400
2,606,400
3,219,318 $
3,174,228
Section III-Page 67
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Net Cost for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Restated
FY 2007 FY 2006
COSTS
Gross Costs (Note 40) $ 1,497,010 $ 1,284,267
Expenses from Other Appropriations (Note S5) 76,452 61,635
Total Costs 1,573,462 1,345,902
Less:
Earned Revenue (Note 40) 377,904 327,606
NET COST OF OPERATIONS (Note 40) $ 1,195,558 $ 1,018,296
Section III-Page 68
-------
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, 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net Position - Beginning of Period
Adjustment:
(a) Change in Accounting Principles (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38)
(b) Prior Period Adjustment (Note 40)
Beginning Balances, as Adjusted
Budgetary Financing Sources:
Nonexchange Revenue -Securities Investment
Nonexchange Revenue -Other
Transfers In/Out
Trust Fund Appropriations
Income from Other Appropriations (Note S5)
Total Budgetary Financing Sources
Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange)
Transfers in/Out
Imputed Financing Sources
Total Other Financing Sources
Net Cost of Operations
Net Change
Cumulative Results of Operations
FY2007
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
2,606,400 $
20,900
-
2,627,300 $
141,407
2,721
(41,419)
1,040,371
76,452
1,219,532 $
39
19,112
19,151 $
(1,195,558)
43,125
2,670,425 $
FY2006
Cumulative
Results of
Operations
2,200,115
_
62,150
2,262,265
108,807
32,691
(48,002)
1,189,826
61,635
1,344,957
17,474
17,474
(1,018,296)
344,135
2,606,400
Section III-Page 69
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
BUDGETARY RESOURCES
Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1:
Brought Forward October 1
Adjustment to Unobligated Balance (Alloc Transfer Agcy) (Note 38)
Adjusted Subtotal
Recoveries of Prior Year 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 Offsetting Collections
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:
Apportioned
Total Unobligated Balances
Unobligated Balances Not Available
Total Status of Budgetary Resources (S6)
FY2007
$ 1,088,388 $
15,527
1,103,915
127,261
43,493
1,367,588
155,929
1,523,517
1,240,416
1,240,416
4,895
FY2006
930,392
930,392
121,664
92,269
289,736
54
(18,990)
3,693
227,367
(1,811)
(33,969)
29,999
221,586
1,272,575
(2).
$ 2,768,828 $ 2,595,460
274,493
1,184,428
(7,767)
(19)
1,337,854
169,218
1,507,072
1,088,388
1,088,388
$ 2,768,828 $ 2,595,460
Section III-Page 70
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Statement of Budgetary Resources for Superfund Trust Fund
For the Periods Ending September 30, 2007 and 2006
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007
FY 2006
CHANGE IN OBLIGATED BALANCE
Obligated Balance, Net:
Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1
Adjustment to Unpaid Obligations (Alloc Transfer Agencies) (Note 38)
Adjusted Total
Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources, Brought
Forward, October 1
Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net
Obligations Incurred
Less: Gross Outlays
Less: Recoveries of Prior Year 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
1,454,495
7,215
1,461,710
(81,983)
1,251,165
1,361,335
(110,170)
$ 1,251,165 $"
1,546,186
1,546,186
(78,234)
1,379,727
1,523,517
(1,496,631)
(127,261)
(28,187)
1,467,952
1,507,072
(1,477,100)
(121,664)
(3,748)
1,372,512
1,454,495
(81,983)
1,372,512
NET OUTLAYS
Net Outlays:
Gross Outlays (Note S6)
Less: Offsetting Collections (Note S6)
Distributed Offsetting Receipts * (Note S6)
Total, Net Outlays
1,496,631 $
(193,398)
(1,274,542)
28,691
1,477,100
(270,746)
(1,249,574)
(43,220)
""Offsetting receipts line includes the amount in 68X0250 (payment to trust fund) from Treasury.
The payment cannot be made directly through the trust fund but must go through a "pass-through" fund.
Section III-Page 71
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Supplemental Information and Other Reporting Requirements (Unaudited)
Related Notes to Superfund Trust Financial Statements
Note S1. Fund Balance with Treasury for Superfund Trust
Fund Balances with Treasury as of September 30, 2007 and 2006 consist of the following:
FY 2007
Fund Balance $ 51,081
FY 2006
$ 35,086
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 2007
51,081 $
FY 2006
1,240,417 $
4,895
(2,446,934)
1,539
1,251,164
1,088,389
-
(2,426,589)
775
1,372,511
35,086
The funds available for obligation may be apportioned by the OMB for new obligations at the
beginning of the following fiscal year. Funds unavailable for obligation are mostly balances in
expired funds, which are available only for adjustments of existing obligations.
Note S2. 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 122(b)(3), cashout funds received by EPA are placed in site-specific,
interest bearing accounts known as special accounts and are used in accordance with the terms
of the settlement agreement. Funds placed in special accounts may be used without further
appropriation by Congress.
Section III-Page 72
-------
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, 2007, the total remaining state
credits have been estimated at $14.5 million. The estimated ending credit balance on
September 30, 2006 was $17.1 million.
Note S4. Superfund Preauthorized Mixed Funding Agreements
Under Superfund preauthorized mixed funding agreements, PRPs agree to perform response
actions at their sites with the understanding that EPA will reimburse the PRPs a certain
percentage of their total response action costs. EPA's authority to enter into mixed funding
agreements is provided under CERCLA Section 111(a)(2). Under CERCLA Section 122(b)(1),
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, 2007, EPA had 15 outstanding
preauthorized mixed funding agreements with obligations totaling $25 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 S5. 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 2007 and 2006, 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.
Section III-Page 73
-------
As illustrated below, this estimate does not impact the consolidated totals of the Statement of
Net Cost or the Statement of Changes in Net Position.
FY 2006
Superfund
All Others
Total
FY 2007
Income from
Other
Appropriations
76,452 3
(76,452)
Expenses from
Other
Appropriation
s
> (76,452) $
76,452
Net
Effect
>
- $ - $ -
Income from
Other
Appropriations
61,635
(61,635)
- $
Expenses from
Other
Appropriations
(61,635) $
61,635
- $
Net
Effect
In addition, the related general support services costs allocated to the Superfund Trust Fund
from the S&T and EPM funds are $2.3 million for FY 2007 and $3 million for FY 2006.
Note S6. Statement of Budgetary Resources, Superfund
Budgetary resources, obligations incurred, and outlays, as presented in the audited FY 2007
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 2007 has not yet been published. We expect it will be
published by March 2008, and it will be available on the OMB website at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budaet/fv2009. The actual amounts published for the year
ended September 30, 2006 are included in EPA's FY 2007 financial statement disclosures.
Budgetary Offsetting
Resources Obligations Receipts Outlays
1,507,072 $ 1,249,574 $
FY2006
Statement of Budgetary Resources
Funds Reported by Other Federal Entities
Adjustments to Outlays
Rounding Differences*
2,595,460
19,090
450
3,563
365
426
1,206,354
3,661
(5,105)
90
Reported in Budget of the U. S. Government $ 2,615,000 S 1,511,000 S 1,250,000 S 1,205,000
*
Balances are rounded to millions in the Budget Appendix.
Note S7. 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:
FY 2007
FY 2006
Advances
Expenditure Transfers Payable
$ 5,817 $ 7,843
$30,948 $37,227
Section III-Page 74
-------
Accrued Liabilities $ 6,001 $ 4,642
Expenses $21,418 $25,491
Transfers $43,491 $43,493
Section III-Page 75
-------
§>
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Audit Report
Audit of EPA's
Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 08-1-0032
November 15, 2007
-------
Abbreviations
ASSERT Automated Self Evaluation and Reporting Tool
BRAINS Billing & Reimbursable Accounting Information Network System
CNC Currently Not Collectible
DOJ Department of Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act
FMFIA Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
GAO Government Accountability Office
IFMS Integrated Financial Management System
IT Information Technology
mLINQS Relocation Expense Management System
OARM Office of Administration and Resources Management
OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OIG Office of Inspector General
OMB Office of Management and Budget
READ Registry of EPA Applications and Databases
RMDS Resources Management Directive System
RSSI Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
SSFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
SUSP Suspense Table
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
08-1-0032
November 15, 2007
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:
• EPA's consolidated financial
statements were fairly stated
I in all material respects.
• EPA's internal controls over
financial reporting were in
place.
EPA management complied
with applicable laws and
regulations.
Background
The requirement for audited
financial statements was enacted
to help bring about improvements
in agencies' financial
management practices, systems,
and controls so that timely,
reliable information is available
for managing federal programs.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report, click on the
following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2008/
20071115-08-1-0032.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial Statements
EPA Receives Unqualified Opinion
We rendered an unqualified, or clean, opinion on EPA's Consolidated Financial
Statements for fiscal 2007 and 2006 (restated), meaning that they were fairly
presented and free of material misstatement.
Internal Control Material Weakness. Significant Deficiencies Noted
We noted one material weakness with EPA's Implementation of the "Currently
Not Collectible" policy for accounts receivable that caused a Material
Understatement of Asset Value and led to the restatement of the fiscal 2006
financial statements. Further, we noted the following six significant deficiencies:
• EPA did not properly compute an allowance for doubtful accounts.
• EPA needs to improve internal controls in recording and accounting for
accounts receivable.
• Key applications do not meet federal and EPA information security
requirements.
• Access and security practices over critical information technology assets
need improvement.
• EPA needs to improve controls over the Integrated Financial Management
System Suspense Table.
• EPA did not maintain adequate documentation for obligating accounting
adjustments.
Noncompliance With Laws and Regulations Noted
EPA is in noncompliance with regulations relating to reconciling
intragovernmental transactions.
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act Noncompliance
We identified two instances of substantial noncompliance under the Federal
Financial Management Improvement Act. These noncompliances are also
significant deficiencies. Two critical applications did not meet federal and EPA
information technology security requirements. Also, key controls associated
with certain servers did not comply with federal guidelines.
Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Evaluation
In a memorandum received on November 9, 2007, from the Chief Financial
Officer, the Agency recognized the issues raised and indicated it will take
corrective actions.
-------
I> UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
'
'
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
November 15,2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit of EPA' s Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated)
Consolidated Financial Statements
Report No. 08-1-0032
FROM: Paul C. Curtis _
Director, FinancTaTStatement Audits
TO: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
Attached is our audit report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Fiscal 2007
and 2006 (restated) consolidated financial statements. We are reporting a material weakness
related to EPA's accounting for delinquent receivables, as well as six reportable conditions. Two
of the reportable conditions are financial report systems-related significant deficiencies under the
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. By definition they are also instances of
substantial noncompliance under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. We also
identified a noncompliance with laws and regulations related to reporting intragovernmental
transactions. 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 $2,367,128.
This audit report represents the opinion of the Office of Inspector General, and the findings in
this report do not necessarily 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://epa.gov/oig/.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, Audit Management Process, you are required to provide
us with a written 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 completed by the response date, reference to specific
milestone dates will assist us in deciding whether or not to close this report in our audit tracking
system.
Should you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact me at
(202) 566-2523; or Melissa Heist, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (202) 566-0899.
Attachments
cc: See Appendix III, Distribution
-------
-------
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
Table of Contents
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2007
and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements 1
Review of EPA's Required Supplementary Stewardship Information,
Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information, and
Management's Discussion and Analysis 2
Evaluation of Internal Controls 3
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations 7
Prior Audit Coverage 9
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 9
Attachments 10
1. Material Weakness and Significant Deficiencies 10
EPA's Implementation of the "Currently Not Collectible" Policy for
Accounts Receivable Materially Understated Asset Value 11
EPA's Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Calculation Needs Improvement 14
EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls in Recording and
Accounting for Accounts Receivable 16
Key Applications Do Not Meet Federal and EPA Information
Security Requirements 19
Access and Security Practices Over Critical IT Assets Need Improvement 21
EPA Needs to Improve Controls Over the IFMS Suspense Table 24
EPA Did Not Maintain Adequate Documentation for Obligation
Accounting Adjustments 25
2. Compliance with Laws and Regulations 27
EPA Needs to Reconcile Differences with Trading Partners 28
3. Status of Prior Audit Report Recommendations 30
4. Status of Current Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 31
-------
Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
Appendices 35
I. EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements 35
II. Agency's Response to Draft Report 107
III. Distribution 110
-------
Inspector General's Report on EPA's Fiscal 2007 and
2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements
The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA, or the Agency) as of September 30, 2007 and 2006 (Restated), and the related
consolidated statements of net cost, net cost by goal, changes in net position, and custodial
activity; 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 U.S. generally accepted auditing standards; the
standards applicable to financial statements contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued
by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Bulletin 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements. These standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As discussed in Note 40, the Agency has restated its financial statements for fiscal 2006 due to
material errors in accounting for delinquent debts. In fiscal 2006, EPA adopted OMB Circular
A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs andNon-Tax Receivables., for accounting for what
it considered to be delinquent debts. This policy, as adopted by EPA, required that all
receivables outstanding longer than 2 years be removed from the books and put in a memo
account. In fiscal 2007, EPA received material collections on those receivables. Further review
of correspondence from attorneys indicated that material receivables removed from the books in
2006 were collectible. The evidence was available to the Agency but not considered at the time.
As a result, EPA has re-evaluated its decision to adopt OMB Circular A-129, did an in-depth
review of the receivables removed from the books, and determined that it needed to restate the
fiscal 2006 financial statements in order to properly reflect the value of Agency assets. The
Agency restated the fiscal 2006 financial statements to reflect an increase in the net book value
of receivables of $247,413, an increase in liabilities of $12,910, a reversal of write-offs to
expense of $160,185, and a prior period adjustment of $74,318.
Due to the material errors found in accounting for delinquent debts, our report on EPA's fiscal
2006 financial statements, issued on November 15, 2006, is not to be relied upon. That report is
replaced by this report on the restated fiscal 2006 financial statements. We reported the internal
control deficiencies that resulted in the material errors as a material weakness in the Internal
Control section of our report.
-------
The financial statements include expenses of grantees, contractors, and other federal agencies.
Our audit work pertaining to these expenses included testing only within EPA. Audits of grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements performed at a later date may disclose questioned costs of
an amount undeterminable at this time. The U.S. Treasury collects and accounts for excise taxes
that are deposited into the Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds. The
U.S. Treasury is also responsible for investing amounts not needed for current disbursements and
transferring funds to EPA as authorized in legislation. Since the U.S. Treasury, and not EPA, is
responsible for these activities, our audit work did not cover these activities.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is not independent with respect to amounts pertaining to
OIG operations that are presented in the financial statements. The amounts included for the OIG
are not material to EPA's financial statements. The OIG is organizationally independent with
respect to all other aspects of the Agency's activities.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements 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, custodial activity, and combined budgetary resources of EPA as
of and for the years ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 (restated), in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole. The consolidating information for earmarked and all other funds
presented in the statement of changes in net position is for purposes of additional analysis of the
consolidated financial statements. The consolidating information has been subjected to the
auditing procedures applied in the audit of the consolidated financial statements and, in our
opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole.
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 methods for preparing Required Supplementary
Stewardship Information (RSSI), Required Supplementary Information, Supplemental
Information, and Management's Discussion and Analysis, and reviewed this information for
consistency with the financial statements. The Supplemental Information includes the unaudited
Superfund Trust Fund financial statements for fiscal 2007 and 2006 (restated), which are being
presented for additional 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 Supplementary Information, Supplemental Information,
and Management's Discussion and Analysis.
We did not identify any material inconsistencies between the information presented in EPA's
consolidated 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 following objectives are met:
Reliability of financial reporting - Transactions are properly recorded, processed, and
summarized to permit the preparation of the financial statements and RSSI in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, and assets are safeguarded against loss
from unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.
Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and government-wide policies -
Transactions are executed in accordance with laws governing the use of budget authority,
government-wide policies, laws identified by OMB, and other laws and regulations that
could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements.
Reliability of performance reporting - Transactions and other data that support
reported performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to
permit the preparation of performance information in accordance with criteria stated by
management.
In planning and performing our audit, we considered EPA's internal controls over financial
reporting by obtaining an understanding of the Agency's internal controls, determining whether
internal controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of
controls. We did this as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing an opinion on the financial statements and to comply with OMB audit guidance, not
to express an opinion on internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on internal
control over financial reporting nor on management's assertion on internal controls included in
Management's Discussion and Analysis. We limited our internal control testing to those controls
necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements
for Federal Financial Statements. We did not test all internal controls relevant 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 reporting that might be significant deficiencies.
Under standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a significant
deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects
the Agency's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote
likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than
inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. A material weakness is a significant
deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or
-------
detected. Because of inherent limitations in internal controls, misstatements, losses, or
noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. We noted certain matters discussed
below involving the internal control and its operation that we consider to be significant
deficiencies, of which one is considered 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. 07-04. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on these internal controls
and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion on such controls.
Finally, with respect to internal controls related to performance measures presented in EPA 's
Fiscal Year 2007 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. 07-04. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance
on internal control over reported performance measures and, accordingly, we do not express an
opinion on such controls.
Material Weakness
EPA's Implementation of the "Currently Not Collectible" Policy for Accounts
Receivable Materially Understated Asset Value
During fiscal 2006, EPA materially understated the fiscal 2006 asset value by writing off
$150 million for 31 accounts receivable that were collectible. EPA recorded the write-
offs based on implementation of its new "Currently Not Collectible" (CNC) policy. This
policy mandated automatic write-off from accounts receivable to a CNC memo account
set up for those receivables that had no collection activity for 2 years. After write-off, the
Servicing Finance Offices were supposed to review the receivables recorded in the CNC
memo account in the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and determine
whether they were properly classified as CNC. EPA did not review accounts receivable
that were automatically written off. During fiscal 2007, EPA collected $150 million of
receivables written off, including one large receivable of $127 million. As a result, EPA
did not disclose receivables in the 2006 Financial Statements that had a material net
realizable value. Federal accounting standards require EPA to record receivables at net
realizable value. We consider the control weakness that resulted in EPA undervaluing its
fiscal 2006 receivables by $150 million to be a material weakness.
Significant Deficiencies
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Calculation Needs Improvement
EPA did not properly compute an allowance for doubtful accounts for fiscal 2006 and
2007. Federal accounting standards and OMB Circular A-136 require agencies to reduce
accounts receivable to net realizable value by computing an allowance for doubtful
accounts. EPA did not obtain sufficient objective evidence to support the calculation of
its allowance estimate on the 2006 re-established receivables and the 2007 receivables.
-------
By not using objective evidence to support their allowance estimates, EPA's financial
statements could be misstated.
EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls in Recording and Accounting for
Accounts Receivable
We found 150 errors during testing of internal controls for EPA's accounting for
accounts receivable. These errors occurred because EPA had not established or
implemented procedures to ensure timely and accurate recording of accounts receivable.
Federal accounting standards and EPA policies require accurate and timely recording of
transactions. These errors and internal control deficiencies affect the reliability and
integrity of accounts receivable on the financial statements and the information used to
manage these receivables.
Key Applications Do Not Meet Federal and EPA Information Security
Requirements
EPA had not complied with federal and Agency information security standards. In
particular, key systems (BRAINS and mLINQS)1 did not have required contingency
plans and signed authorizations to operate. The systems also lacked independent reviews
of security controls and security plans. EPA did not review these systems for compliance
with Federal Financial Management System Requirements. At the time of our review,
EPA also had not recognized these systems in either of the Agency's databases used to
track the inventory of EPA applications (ASSERT or READ).2 The conditions noted
existed because EPA management did not consider these systems "major applications,"
and thus did not believe it was necessary to comply with published requirements. This is
also a substantial noncompliance issue under the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996.
Access and Security Practices Over Critical Information Technology Assets
Need Improvement
EPA needs to take more steps to support its security practices and access controls over
critical information technology (IT) assets. In particular, our field work disclosed
concerns in the following management control areas:
• Disaster Recovery Practices - EPA had not separated duties for backing up,
transporting, and securing critical business data, thereby creating a situation where
key business data is susceptible to loss, theft, or misuse without detection. EPA lacks
accountability over the use and custody of media drives containing key financial and
sensitive personally identifiable information.
1 BRAINS (Billing & Reimbursable Accounting Information Network System) is used to process accounts
receivable; mLINQS (Relocation Expense Management System) is used to process Permanent Change of Station
payments.
2 ASSERT (Automated Self Evaluation and Reporting Tool) and READ (Registry of EPA Applications and
Databases) track the inventory of EPA applications.
-------
• System Monitoring Practices - EPA does not monitor critical servers for known
vulnerabilities or review system log files for violations of Agency policy. Personnel
with significant security responsibility did not receive training on their
responsibilities. EPA does not use all available system configuration and security
monitoring tools to enforce Agency policies.
• Server Room Access Controls - EPA lacks practices to control the access to critical
IT assets by non-EPA personnel and other visitors. EPA lacks control over keys to
the server room, and the server room activity is not captured or recorded. Critical IT
assets are not secured in a manner that would prevent an unauthorized user from
tampering with them. For example, unauthorized personnel could physically access
the server components and use this access to bypass security implemented to protect
the server's data.
Environmental Controls - The server room did not have a correctly installed water
shield to protect EPA servers and Uninterrupted Power Supply. The server room did not
have sensors that can monitor and alert appropriate personnel of environmental
conditions that are hazardous to critical IT assets (excessive humidity, high temperature,
and water).
This is also a substantial noncompliance under FFMIA.
EPA Needs to Improve Controls Over the IFMS Suspense Table
EPA needs to improve practices for removing financial transactions that do not process
completely in IFMS. IFMS is EPA's core financial accounting system. We found that,
monthly, EPA personnel automatically purged all financial transactions over 45 days old
from the IFMS Suspense Table (SUSF) without obtaining evidence that the transactions
should be deleted, as required by EPA Office of Financial Management Policy
Announcement 04-02. This occurred because EPA had not implemented a management
oversight process to enforce the Agency's policy requiring EPA offices to explain entries
in the SUSF file between 30-45 days old. Although EPA sent notices to the originator
regarding the status of its SUSF entries, the originator did not provide responses. In
addition, EPA had not put in place a delinquency notice to inform senior EPA officials
that uncleared entries remain in the SUSF. In an attempt to reduce the number of
excessive out-of-date entries in the SUSF table never reviewed, subsequently deleted, or
cleared, EPA personnel said they deleted the financial transactions instead of having the
user that originated it do so.
EPA Did Not Maintain Adequate Documentation for Obligation Accounting
Adjustments
EPA made adjustments to obligation transactions in IFMS without documenting why the
transactions were made and who approved them. This occurred because finance personnel
did not understand the policy requirements for documenting adjustments. We have
reported similar instances of unsupported transactions since fiscal 2000. EPA policy
requires that all financial transactions recorded in the accounting system be supported by
-------
adequate source documentation. Inputting adjusting entries into the Agency's accounting
system without adequate documentation increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse by
increasing the possibility that unauthorized or inaccurate information is entered.
Attachment 3 contains the status of recommendations related to significant deficiencies reported in
prior years' reports. We reported less significant matters regarding internal controls in the form of
position papers during the course of the audit. We will not issue a separate management letter.
Comparison of EPA's FMFIA Report with Our Evaluation of Internal Controls
OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, 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 a
significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that result in a more than
remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented
or detected.
The Agency reported that three material weaknesses had been identified for fiscal 2007, one of
which has been corrected. All these material weaknesses were identified by the OIG in the
course of this audit, and are described in this report.
Tests of Compliance with Laws and Regulations
EPA management is responsible for complying with laws and regulations applicable to the
Agency. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Agency's financial
statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain
provisions of laws and regulations, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material
effect on the determination of financial statement amounts, and certain other laws and
regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial
Statements. The OMB guidance requires that we evaluate compliance with federal financial
management system requirements, including the requirements referred to in the FFMIA of 1996.
We limited our tests of compliance to these provisions and did not test compliance with all laws
and regulations applicable to EPA.
Providing an opinion on compliance with certain provisions of laws and regulations was not an
objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. A number of
ongoing investigations involving EPA's grantees and contractors could disclose violations of
laws and regulations, but a determination about these cases has not been made.
-------
Our tests of laws and regulations disclosed the following noncompliance issue.
EPA Needs to Reconcile Differences With Trading Partners
As of September 30, 2007, EPA had over $375 million in net unreconciled differences with 46 of
its trading partners for intragovernmental transactions. Treasury policy requires agencies to
confirm and reconcile intragovernmental transactions with their trading partners. EPA had
difficulty reconciling these differences primarily because of differing accounting treatments and
accrual methodologies between federal agencies. EPA's inability to reconcile its
intragovernmental transactions contributes to a long-standing government-wide problem that
hinders the ability of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to render an opinion on the
Consolidated Financial Statements of the Federal Government. Attachment 2 provides
additional details and our recommendations 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
substantially comply with the federal financial management systems requirements, applicable
federal accounting standards, and the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the
transaction level. An 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 work disclosed instances where the Agency's financial management systems
did not substantially comply with the applicable federal accounting standard. We identified two
financial report systems-related significant deficiencies under the Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002. By definition they are also instances of substantial noncompliances
under FFMIA. The noncompliances are: (1) two critical applications did not meet federal and
EPA IT security requirements; and (2) key managerial, operational, and technical controls
associated with monitoring for system vulnerabilities on, controlling physical access to, and
monitoring environmental controls associated with certain servers did not comply with federal
guidelines. The noncompliances occurred because management did not consider the two critical
applications to be "major applications," did not document performance expectations in written
procedures, and did not correct previously identified deficiencies. These issues are also
considered to be significant deficiencies. The details of these noncompliances can be found
above and in attachment 1.
We reported other less significant matters involving compliance with laws and regulations in
position papers during the course of our audit. We will not be issuing a separate management
letter.
-------
Our audit work was also performed to meet the requirement in 42 U.S. Code 961 l(k) with
respect to the Hazardous Substance Superfund to conduct an annual audit of payments,
obligations, reimbursements, or other uses of the Fund. We reported a material weakness on
accounting for delinquent receivables, which relates primarily to Superfund receivables and other
significant deficiencies above.
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 the Cincinnati Finance Center.
• Contingency plans for financial applications.
• Reconciling and reporting intragovernmental transactions, assets, and liabilities by
federal trading partner.
• Recording marketable securities.
• Correcting rejected transactions.
• Assessing automated application processing controls 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 recommendations.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
In a memorandum dated November 9, 2007, 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 Statement Audits
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 14, 2007
-------
Attachment 1
Material Weakness and
Significant Deficiencies
Table of Contents
Material Weakness
1 - EPA's Implementation of "Currently Not Collectible" Policy for
Accounts Receivable Materially Understated Asset Value 11
Significant Deficiencies
2 - EPA's Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Calculation Needs Improvement 14
3 - EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls in Recording and Accounting for
Accounts Receivable 16
4 - Key Applications Do Not Meet Federal and EPA Information Security
Requirements 19
5 - Access and Security Practices Over Critical IT Assets Need Improvement 21
6 - EPA Needs to Improve Controls Over the IFMS Suspense Table 24
7 - EPA Did Not Maintain Adequate Documentation for Obligation
Accounting Adjustments 25
10
-------
1 - EPA's Implementation of the "Currently Not Collectible" Policy
for Accounts Receivable Materially Understated Asset Value
During fiscal 2006, EPA materially understated the fiscal 2006 asset value by writing off
$150 million for 31 accounts receivable that were collectible. EPA recorded the write-offs based
on implementation of its new "Currently Not Collectible" (CNC) policy. This policy mandated
automatic write-off from accounts receivable to a CNC memo account set up for those
receivables that had no collection activity for 2 years. After write-off, the Servicing Finance
Offices were supposed to review the receivables recorded in the CNC memo account in IFMS
and determine whether they were properly classified as CNC. EPA did not review accounts
receivable that were automatically written off. During fiscal 2007, EPA collected $150 million
of receivables written off, including one large receivable of $127 million. As a result, EPA did
not disclose receivables in the 2006 Financial Statements that had a material net realizable value.
Federal accounting standards require EPA to record receivables at net realizable value. We
consider the control weakness that resulted in EPA undervaluing its fiscal 2006 receivables by
$150 million to be a material weakness.
OCFO based the CNC policy on OMB Circular A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs
and Non-Tax Receivables. Circular A-129 made write-off of accounts receivable generally
mandatory for delinquent debt older than 2 years. EPA's implementation of OMB's policy in
fiscal 2006 made write-off of accounts receivable mandatory if delinquent for more than 2 years.
EPA's write-offs included receivables that were considered to be collectible.
As of September 30, 2006, EPA wrote off $725 million under the policy. In fiscal 2007, we
identified collections of $150 million on previously written-off receivables. The collections
included $127 million for one receivable written off in fiscal 2006. EPA wrote off the receivable
even though the case attorney considered the receivable to be fully collectible. The material
collections on write-offs indicate that EPA did not value the receivables at the proper net
realizable value.
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 1 prescribes asset
valuation. SFFAS states that a receivable should be recognized when a federal entity establishes
a claim. An allowance for an estimated uncollectible amount should reduce the gross amount of
receivables to its net realizable value.
EPA's Resources Management Directive System (RMDS) 2540-09,3 Chapter 9, Receivables and
Billings, stated that the Servicing Finance Offices should use a combination of the percentage
analysis method and the specific identification method. The percentage analysis method is used
for smaller dollar debts, whereas the specific identification method is used for large debts. Both
methods require an objective analysis of the outstanding debt using an aging of receivables
(debt) report at the end of each quarter.
3 RMDS 2540-09 Chapter 9 was updated on September 18, 2007, and states that EPA should recognize an allowance
for estimated uncollectible amounts to reduce the gross amount of debt to its net realizable value. EPA should
individually analyze accounts that represent significant amounts to determine the loss allowance. EPA should assess
potential losses for other accounts on a group basis.
11
-------
The CNC policy required automatic write-off of receivables that were delinquent for 2 or more
years even though they might be collected in the future. The policy was not appropriate for
valuing the majority of EPA's receivables, such as Superfund cost recovery and grant refund
receivables, because they commonly require several years to collect.
EPA's implementation of the CNC policy, as described by RMDS 2540-09 Chapter 9, is in direct
conflict with generally accepted accounting standard SFFAS Number 1. RMDS 2540-09
Chapter 9 requires receivables to be removed from the general ledger and classified as CNC if
"the debt has been delinquent for two or more years; the debt might be collected in the future and
EPA will continue .. .collection activity...." SFFAS Number 1 requires assets to be reflected at
their net realizable value. By writing off receivables that were considered collectible, EPA was
in noncompliance with standards and materially understated receivables.
EPA did not properly implement the CNC policy as required by RMDS 2540-09. In addition to
the process that automatically wrote off receivables that had no collections for 2 years, the policy
required the Servicing Finance Offices to follow up to determine if the receivable was properly
classified. If the debt was not properly classified as CNC, the Servicing Finance Offices were to
"reclassify the debt as either open or close-out." In a July 5, 2005, email, EPA's case attorney
for the $127 million settlement stated the receivable was fully collectible. EPA did not act upon
the attorney's information to prevent the write-off. The policy also required Receivables and
Billings staff in the Reports and Analysis Staff to (1) monitor and evaluate each Servicing
Finance Office's quarterly review for quality control and compliance, and (2) ensure that all
quarterly reviews collectively support the CNC 9050 general ledger account. EPA did not
perform a quarterly review of CNC receivables, nor did Reports and Analysis Staff evaluate
items reclassified as CNC. As a result, EPA wrote off some non-delinquent receivables,
including receivables that had recent collections. In reports to OMB, EPA also misstated the
amount of its delinquent receivables.
Because of the materiality of the collectible accounts receivable that were written off, the
continued collection on written-off receivables, and the likelihood such errors will repeat under
the current system of controls, we consider the Agency's valuation of accounts receivable to be a
material weakness. OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial
Statements, dated September 4, 2007, defines a material weakness as a significant deficiency, or
combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a
material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected. EPA will
need to correct this material error by restating the fiscal 2006 financial statements.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
1. Change its accounting policy to reflect receivables at their net realizable value. The
policy should provide that accounts receivable considered fully or partially collectible
should not be written off, but should remain in accounts receivable with an appropriate
allowance for doubtful accounts.
12
-------
2. Restore all CNC receivables to open accounts receivable with an appropriate allowance
for doubtful accounts.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations. The Agency restated its fiscal
2006 financial statements and discontinued the practice of writing off delinquent receivables
over 2 years old.
13
-------
2 - EPA's Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Calculation
Needs Improvement
EPA did not properly compute an allowance for doubtful accounts for fiscal 2006 and 2007.
Federal accounting standards and OMB Circular A-136 require agencies to reduce accounts
receivable to net realizable value by computing an allowance for doubtful accounts. EPA did not
obtain sufficient objective evidence to support the calculation of its allowance estimate on the
2006 re-established receivables and the 2007 receivables. By not using objective evidence to
support allowance estimates, EPA's financial statements could be misstated.
EPA re-established $704,818,433 of fiscal 2006 accounts receivable that were previously written
off as currently not collectible. We tested the allowance estimate on a majority of the
re-established high dollar receivables and some smaller receivables. Overall we tested
$661,702,225, or 94 percent, of the amount of the re-established accounts receivable. The table
below summarizes the test results.
Re-established Accounts Receivable at EPA
Amounts Tested
Unsupported Allowance
No. of
Transactions
665
55
25
Receivable
Amount
$704,818,433
$661,702,225
$201,531,819
Allowance
Amount
$507,018,368
$471,982,994
$179,729,256
Source: OIG analysis
For $201,531,819, or 29 percent of the dollars tested, accounts receivable files did not contain
sufficient objective information to support EPA's allowance estimates.
Objective evidence for allowance estimates should be documented, relevant to the conclusion,
and from an authoritative third party. Sufficient evidence may be obtained from external sources
such as the case attorney, Program Official, or Department of Justice (DOJ). Examples of
objective evidence would be the case attorney's assessment of the collectibility of an accounts
receivable, an assessment by someone in the program office with knowledge of the accounts
receivable, or historical documentation on the status of the receivable.
The Agency did not properly update or apply aging percentages in computing the fiscal 2007
allowance for doubtful accounts. We found that EPA did not properly calculate the second and
third quarter 2007 allowance for doubtful accounts. EPA did not:
• Reconcile the receivables used in the allowance calculation to the general ledger balances
and ensure the calculation included all receivables.
• Use the fiscal 2007 percentages for the second and third quarter allowance calculations.
Rather than use the 2007 percentages, EPA substituted substantially higher percentages in
several categories.
• Update the percentages based on current data. EPA has not updated its methodology since
it consolidated the receivable function at one of its finance centers.
14
-------
SFFAS Number 1 states that an allowance for estimated uncollectible amounts should be
recognized to reduce the gross amount of accounts receivable to its net realizable value.
Accounts receivable representing significant amounts should be individually analyzed to
determine loss amounts using a systematic methodology. Loss estimates should be based on
(a) the debtor's ability to pay, (b) the debtor's payment record and willingness to pay, and
(c) the probable recovery of amounts from secondary sources.
Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the Objectivity Principle states that
accounting will be recorded on the basis of objective evidence. The Objectivity Principle
describes objective evidence as "... different people looking at the same evidence will arrive at
the same values for the transaction. Accounting entries will be based on fact and not on personal
opinion or feelings."
EPA's RMDS 2540, Chapter 9, Section 10(a), requires Servicing Finance Offices to "derive by
age category an estimated percentage of the amount that will not be collected based on the
experience of collecting past due accounts."
Appropriate allowance estimates are necessary to recognize accounts receivable at net realizable
value. Without appropriate estimates of accounts receivable collectibility, EPA's financial
statements and results of operations would not be fairly stated.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
3. Prepare the specific identification allowance for doubtful accounts estimates based upon
the objective evidence. Such evidence may be obtained from the case attorney, Program
Official, DOJ assessment of the receivable's collectibility, or other sources, depending
upon the type of receivable.
4. Reconcile the receivables to the general ledger and ensure the allowance for doubtful
accounts calculation includes all receivables.
5. Use the percentages applicable to the current year for the year-end allowance for doubtful
account percentage analysis calculations.
6. Update the allowance for doubtful account percentages based on current data.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations.
15
-------
3 - EPA Needs to Improve Internal Controls in
Recording and Accounting for Accounts Receivable
We found 150 errors during testing of EPA's internal controls for accounting for accounts
receivable. These errors occurred because EPA had not established or implemented procedures
to ensure timely and accurate recording of accounts receivable. Federal accounting standards
and EPA policies require accurate and timely recording of transactions. These errors and
internal control deficiencies affect the reliability and integrity of accounts receivable on the
financial statements and the information used to manage these receivables.
GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government require accurate and timely
recording of transactions and events. OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for
Internal Control, states: "control activities include policies, procedures and mechanisms in place
to help ensure that agency objectives are met. Several examples include: proper segregation of
duties (separate personnel with authority to authorize a transaction, process the transaction, and
review the transaction); proper authorization; and appropriate documentation and access to that
documentation."
During our testing of accounts receivable, we found the following weaknesses in EPA's internal
controls and ability to account for accounts receivable:
• EPA did not timely receive 39 legal documents totaling $35,344,222 that supported
accounts receivable. Further, EPA did not timely record 11 receivables totaling
$20,612,176 after receipt of legal documents. Regional counsel and DOJ did not forward
legal documents and supporting documentation to the Finance Office within a reasonable
time. Some receivable documents were not received until up to 141 days after the
effective date. EPA's RMDS 2550 D, Chapter 14, requires regional enforcement and
counsel offices to forward copies of all entered consent decrees and judgments to the
finance offices within 3 work days of receipt from DOJ or the court. Finance offices are
to record the Superfund accounts receivable in IFMS within 3 work days of receipt of the
legal document.
• EPA did not record 10 receivables totaling $4,068,971 included on regional office and
DOJ reports. EPA finance offices did not follow up with regional offices and DOJ to
obtain legal documents when collections were received prior to accounts receivable
documentation being received and recorded in IFMS. Further, EPA finance offices did
not routinely communicate with regional counsel offices, program offices, or DOJ when
there were discrepancies between accounts receivable recorded in IFMS and external
reports. EPA's Office of the Comptroller Transmittal No. 00-05: Reporting and Tracking
Superfund Accounts Receivable, dated January 11, 2000, states finance offices must
maintain routine communications with the Office of Regional Counsel and program
offices to ensure Superfund accounts receivable are recorded timely. Subsequent to our
review, EPA researched the receivables, concurred with the auditors, and recorded the
receivables in the accounting system. These receivables represent potential monetary
benefits to EPA.
16
-------
• EPA did not record 18 bankruptcy accounts receivable totaling $9,331,597 at the court-
approved claim amount. EPA does not have a uniform process to record bankruptcies.
Some bankruptcy receivables were recorded at the assessed claim amount while others
were recorded at the collection amount. EPA's Office of the Comptroller Policy
Announcement No. 02-05: Superfund Accounts Receivable: Collection Actions for
Delinquent Accounts, dated August 20, 2002, requires EPA to record bankruptcy
accounts receivable at the assessed claim amount. EPA bankruptcy receivables may be
based on a pre-existing consent decree, judgment, administrative agreement,
Administrative Order on Consent, or a proof of claim. Subsequent to our review, EPA
researched the receivables, concurred with the auditors, and recorded the bankruptcy
receivables in the accounting system. These also represent potential monetary benefits to
EPA.
• EPA recorded 6 federal accounts receivable totaling $3,162,722 as non federal accounts
receivable. EPA staff has not received training on the different types of accounts
receivable. SFFAS Number 1 states: "Receivables from federal entities are intra-
governmental receivables, and should be reported separately from receivables from non
federal entities." In addition, EPA recorded $226,137 of interest for six receivables in
general ledger accounts used for principal instead of general ledger accounts used for
interest.
• EPA did not maintain evidence of supervisory review and approval for 5 transactions
totaling $24 million. EPA's management has not established internal control procedures
for supervisory review of transactions. EPA's current practice permits accountants and
financial specialists to record accounts receivable activity (including corrections and
cancellations) directly into IFMS without supervisory review and approval. One such
transaction was a $14 million entry that resulted in an overstatement in accounts
receivable at September 30, 2007.
OMB Circular A-123 cites supervision and the separation of duties as examples of
management control standards. It states managers should exercise appropriate oversight
to ensure individuals do not exceed or abuse their assigned authorities. GAO's Standards
for Internal Controls states: "key duties and responsibilities need to be divided or
segregated among different people to reduce the risk of error or fraud. This should
include separating the responsibilities for authorizing transactions, processing and
recording them and reviewing the transactions." The standards also state that all
transactions and other significant events are to be clearly documented, documentation is
to be readily available for examination, and qualified and continuous supervision is to be
provided to ensure that internal control objectives are achieved.
• EPA wrote off 70 accounts receivable totaling $149,900 without supporting
documentation, and also exceeded its authority when it improperly wrote off 1 accounts
receivable. We statistically sampled 55 transactions and found that EPA wrote off all 55
accounts receivable tested, totaling $45,246, because EPA could not locate the files. We
found that EPA wrote off all 70 transactions in the same manner. Office of Comptroller
Policy Announcement No. 93-02, Policies for Documenting Agency Financial
17
-------
Transactions, requires that "all financial transactions recorded in the accounting system
be supported by adequate source documentation, and that this documentation be easily
accessible." By not exercising proper collection efforts and maintaining adequate
documentation to support the validity of receivables, EPA may have incorrectly written
off receivables with net realizable values.
Without adequate supporting documentation, questions arise about the validity and integrity of
the financial information in IFMS. Failure to require adequate documentation before adjusting
entries are input in the Agency's accounting system increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse
by increasing the possibility that unauthorized or inaccurate information is entered. The high
error rate encountered on the above transactions indicates that controls are not functioning as
prescribed. The weaknesses in internal control procedures increase the risk that accounts
receivable may not be accurately stated and their status and collectibility may not be accurately
reflected.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
7. Establish procedures to monitor all tracking reports and follow up with the regional
offices and DOJ to obtain receivable documents identified through reconciliations or by
receiving collections in advance of the legal documents.
8. Develop uniform procedures to record bankruptcy receivables and establish procedures to
properly record federal receivables and their related allowance.
9. Provide staff with training to ensure accounts receivable are accurately recorded in the
accounting system.
10. Require standardized recording techniques for accounts receivable items, including
proper supporting documentation for transactions, evidence of supervisory review and
approval, and segregating duties of entry origination (accountants) and data entry.
11. Determine how the accounts receivable files were lost, and develop procedures to ensure
the situation does not repeat. Re-establish the improperly written-off accounts receivable
and establish an appropriate allowance for doubtful accounts until determination has been
made by management as to whether the debts should be written off.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations.
18
-------
4 - Key Applications Do Not Meet Federal and EPA
Information Security Requirements
EPA had not complied with federal and Agency information security standards. In particular,
key systems (BRAINS and mLINQS)4 did not have required contingency plans and signed
authorizations to operate. The systems also lacked independent reviews of security controls and
security plans. EPA did not review these systems for compliance with Federal Financial
Management System Requirements. At the time of our review, EPA also had not recognized
these systems in either of the Agency's databases used to track the inventory of EPA applications
(ASSERT or READ).5 The conditions noted existed because EPA management did not consider
these systems "major applications," and thus did not believe it was necessary to comply with
published requirements.
Our research and interviews disclosed these key systems play a vital role in EPA's mission.
For example, the EPA accounts receivable system processed over $479 million of financial
transactions in fiscal 2007. EPA enters this system's output into IFMS, the Agency's core
financial management application, and these entries make up a material amount in the accounts
receivable general ledger balance within IFMS. In addition, the system EPA uses to process
Permanent Change of Station payments contains sensitive personally identifiable information
that is susceptible to identity fraud, if compromised. Management stated EPA would also use
this system to process Permanent Change of Station payments for other federal agencies. For
these reasons, and the fact that these key systems are critical to EPA's financial mission,
management should have taken steps to comply with all mandatory information security
requirements. This includes implementing controls to protect the integrity, confidentiality, and
availability of the data processed by these applications.
While management made some progress to address weaknesses noted, much still needs to be
accomplished. An effective security program needs time to mature. Due to the significance of
these weaknesses, EPA cannot be assured that its systems and data are adequately secured. Until
these controls are in place, operating, and effectively established, information security
management remains a significant deficiency for EPA. OMB emphasizes the importance of
these required security controls and prescribes management's reporting requirements for
significant deficiencies in OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources.
With respect to Federal Financial Management System Requirements, the noted weaknesses
represent substantial noncompliance with requirements in OMB Circular A-127, Financial
Management Systems. If these weaknesses are compromised, the potential exists that EPA
cannot reasonably ensure it can: (1) provide reliable and timely financial information for
managing current operations; and (2) reliably account for its assets so that they can be properly
protected from loss, misappropriation, or destruction.
4 BRAINS (Billing & Reimbursable Accounting Information Network System) is used to process accounts
receivable; mLINQS (Relocation Expense Management System) is used to process Permanent Change of Station
payments.
5 ASSERT (Automated Self Evaluation and Reporting Tool) and READ (Registry of EPA Applications and
Databases) track the inventory of EPA applications.
19
-------
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
12. Develop a contingency plan for BRAINS and mLINQS. The plans should be approved
by management and have documented annual reviews and testing.
13. Develop a security plan for BRAINS and mLINQS. This should include having both
applications comply with all the federal security requirements specified by the National
Institute for Standards and Technology, including the completion of the security
certification and accreditation process and the resulting formal authorization to operate.
14. Record BRAINS and mLINQS in the Agency's system inventory databases (ASSERT
and READ).
15. Enter Plans of Action and Milestones for all the above noted deficiencies in the Agency's
security weakness tracking database (ASSERT).
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations and has committed to comply with
all systems and security requirements in time for the OIG to verify compliance by December 31,
2007.
20
-------
5 - Access and Security Practices Over Critical IT Assets
Need Improvement
EPA needs to take more steps to support its security practices and access controls over critical IT
assets. In particular, our field work disclosed concerns in the following management control
areas:
• Disaster Recovery Practices - EPA had not separated duties for backing up,
transporting, and securing critical business data, thereby creating a situation where
key business data is susceptible to loss, theft, or misuse without detection. EPA lacks
accountability over the use and custody of media drives containing key financial and
sensitive personally identifiable information.
• System Monitoring Practices - EPA does not monitor critical servers for known
vulnerabilities or review system log files for violations of Agency policy. Personnel
with significant security responsibility did not receive training on their
responsibilities. EPA does not use all available system configuration and security
monitoring tools to enforce Agency policies.
• Server Room Access Controls - EPA lacks practices to control the access to critical
IT assets by non-EPA personnel and other visitors. EPA lacks control over keys to
the server room and the server room activity is not captured or recorded. Critical IT
assets are not secured in a manner that would prevent an unauthorized user from
tampering with them. For example, unauthorized personnel could physically access
the server components and use this access to bypass security implemented to protect
the server's data.
• Environmental Controls - The server room did not have a correctly installed water
shield to protect EPA servers and Uninterrupted Power Supply. The server room did
not have sensors that can monitor and alert appropriate personnel of environmental
conditions that are hazardous to critical IT assets (excessive humidity, high
temperature, and water).
These controls are vital because EPA processes all of EPA's accounts receivable, except those
related to grants, contracts, and payroll. EPA uses BRAINS to process over $479 million in
accounts receivable transactions. BRAINS' output is the main data entry source for the
Agency's financial management system. EPA also uses another system, mLINQS, that contains
personally identifiable information and requires additional controls to detect a security breach
and protect the data. EPA plans to use mLINQS to process Permanent Change of Station
payments for other federal agencies. Therefore, EPA assumed greater responsibility for
(1) providing increased security, and (2) reporting security breaches for mLINQS.
The key cause for many of the noted conditions stems from EPA not stating performance
expectations in written procedures. EPA referenced many of the needed controls in its Local
Area Network security plan. However, the plan did not assign responsibility or provide detailed
steps on how to accomplish the tasks. EPA also had not reassessed its risks, although EPA
21
-------
underwent consolidation of financial services and increased the use of automation to process
financial transactions. EPA's risks also increased because EPA needed to provide increased
security to protect personally identifiable information in mLINQS. As a result, these weaknesses
placed sensitive information, including financial information and EPA employee information, at
risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, fraudulent use, improper disclosure, theft, or destruction,
possibly occurring without detection.
Federal requirements outline the design for controls reviewed during this audit. Properly
designed controls should provide the Agency the ability to reasonably ensure that they can
provide reliable and timely financial information for managing current operations. The controls
should provide the Agency the ability to account for assets reliably, so that they can be properly
protected from loss, misappropriation, or destruction. Our site visit to EPA determined that it is
highly likely that if a security incident, breach, or hazardous incident occurred, the event would
adversely affect EPA's ability to report financial information as required by federal laws.
Subsequent to audit field work, EPA transferred to the Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM) the responsibility for managing the service support of its business servers.
This includes performing data backups and system maintenance, as well as securing the server
room. EPA and OARM use a Memorandum of Understanding to outline the support
requirements between the two offices. However, our review of the Memorandum of
Understanding noted that it lacked the specific requirements as to how OARM should provide
the service support. Since EPA does not have written procedures, EPA does not have
benchmarks to measure the service provided by OARM.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
16. Update the Memorandum of Understanding with OARM to incorporate requirements for
the following key security responsibilities:
• Critical server data backup and handling of storage media - The procedures
should delineate separation of duties between the backup tasks and the media
handling tasks.
• Server scanning and monitoring - The procedures should outline the frequency for
testing servers and require a copy of the test results to be provided to the Cincinnati
Finance Center for review.
• System logs practices - The procedures should include guidance on areas such as
configuring log sources, performing log analysis, and initiating responses to identified
events.
• Server room access practices - The procedures should include steps for logging and
escorting visitors and controls over the use of the server room key.
17. Request that OARM implement the use of all available Agency-provided system
monitoring reports for operating systems in use on EPA servers and provide the results to
EPA management monthly for review.
22
-------
18. Conduct and document an annual verification and validation of implemented procedures
to ensure controls are implemented as intended and are effective.
19. Correctly install the existing water shield over the Cincinnati Finance Center's servers
and expand its coverage to include the Uninterruptible Power Supply system.
20. Add controls to protect the Cincinnati Finance Center's servers from the risk associated
with unmonitored visitors having access to servers operating critical business
applications. This could include relocating the Cincinnati Finance Center's servers to a
location controlled by the Finance Center, partitioning the server room in a manner where
servers have improved physical access controls, or installing a lockable container within
the current server room that is controlled by the Finance Center.
21. Install an environmental monitoring system to protect the Cincinnati Finance Center-
owned servers from possible heat and water damage. The system should include sensors
that monitor for humidity, temperature, and water.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings and recommendations and has committed to comply with
all systems and security requirements in time for the OIG to verify compliance by December 31,
2007.
23
-------
6 - EPA Needs to Improve Controls Over the IFMS Suspense Table
EPA needs to improve practices for removing financial transactions that do not process
completely in IFMS. IFMS is EPA's core financial accounting system. We found that, monthly,
EPA personnel automatically purged all financial transactions over 45 days old from the IFMS
Suspense Table (SUSF) without obtaining evidence that the transactions should be deleted, as
required by Office of Financial Management Policy Announcement 04-02. This occurred
because EPA had not implemented a management oversight process to enforce the Agency's
policy requiring EPA offices to explain entries in the SUSF file between 30-45 days old.
Although EPA sent notices to the originator regarding the status of its SUSF entries, the
originator did not provide responses. In addition, EPA had not put in place a delinquency notice
to inform senior EPA officials that un-cleared entries remained in the SUSF. In an attempt to
reduce the number of excessive out-of-date entries in the SUSF table never reviewed,
subsequently deleted, or cleared, EPA personnel said they deleted the financial transactions
instead of having the user that originated it do so.
The monthly purging of SUSF entries greater than 45 days old could result in relevant financial data
being deleted, causing a misstatement in IFMS. Failure to provide explanations of entries in the
SUSF table between 30-45 days is a violation of EPA's policy. It also creates a control weakness in
that the originator of a transaction has no accountability for the entry after it is created.
Subsequent to the end of the accounting period, EPA personnel completed a review of financial
transactions automatically purged from SUSF and provided results of their analysis to the OIG.
We conducted a limited review of these results, and did not find instances where EPA personnel
inappropriately deleted material financial transactions.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
22. Terminate the automatic monthly purging of all SUSF entries that are greater than
45 days old and require the originator of the SUSF entry to delete or clear the entry.
23. Continue sending out monthly SUSF entry reports to all entry originators and their
supervisors.
24. Require originators of SUSF entries to provide EPA staff with explanations for why
entries greater than 30 days old remain in the SUSF, and provide the estimated date these
entries will be cleared. EPA staff should review these explanations and share the
information with the originator's supervisor.
25. Develop a delinquency report for all SUSF transactions that are greater than 60 days old
and distribute the report monthly to EPA Assistant and Regional Administrators.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.
24
-------
7 - EPA Did Not Maintain Adequate Documentation
for Obligation Accounting Adjustments
EPA made adjustments to obligation transactions in IFMS without documenting why the
transactions were made and who approved them. This occurred because finance personnel did
not understand the policy requirements for documenting adjustments. We have reported similar
instances of unsupported transactions since fiscal 2000. EPA policy requires that all financial
transactions recorded in the accounting system be supported by adequate source documentation.
Inputting adjusting entries into the Agency's accounting system without adequate documentation
increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse by increasing the possibility that unauthorized or
inaccurate information is entered.
EPA Comptroller Policy Announcement 93-02, Policies for Documenting Agency Financial
Transactions (November 1992), requires that all financial transactions recorded in the accounting
system be supported by adequate source documentation, and that this documentation be easily
accessible. These requirements apply to transactions initially entered into IFMS and to
adjustments made to the entries. According to Policy Announcement 93-02:
"Adequately documented" means an independent individual competent in accounting and
possessing reasonable knowledge of EPA's operations should be able to examine the
documentation and reach substantially the same conclusions as the per sons who made
and/or approved the entry.
Lack of adequate supporting documentation raises questions about the validity and
integrity of the Agency's financial information contained in IFMS. Failure to require
adequate source documentation before recording transactions in the Agency's
accounting system, the IFMS, increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse by increasing
the possibility that unauthorized or inaccurate information is entered into the accounting
system.
GAO's Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state that"... all transactions
and other significant events are to be clearly documented, and the documentation is to be readily
available for examination." The standards also state "qualified and continuous supervision is to
be provided to ensure that internal control objectives are achieved."
During our analysis of obligation transactions, we found two adjustments to entries in IFMS,
totaling $50,055,643, that were not supported by sufficient documentation. There was no
explanation as to why the entries were made and no evidence of supervisory approval.
Transaction
Date
01/08/07
02/05/07
Transaction
Code
CG01
G001
Transaction
Number
CS39000106
BG99732505
Object Class
Code
4111
4108
Total
Transaction
Amount
Debit (Credit)
$(49,305,643)
$(750,000}
$(50,055,643)
Source: OIG analysis
25
-------
One obligation transaction, totaling $49,305,643, had no supporting documentation, explanation
of the entry, or evidence of supervisory approval. The second obligation transaction, totaling
$750,000, did not have a journal or standard voucher to document the reason for the entry and
evidence of supervisory approval.
Lack of adequate supporting documentation affects the validity and integrity of the Agency's
financial information. Inputting adjusting entries into the Agency's accounting system without
adequate documentation increases the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse by increasing the
possibility that unauthorized or inaccurate information will be entered in IFMS. We recognize
that the Agency has a policy in place that requires adequate documentation of adjustments to
IFMS entries; however, noncompliance with the policy indicates the need for management
attention.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OCFO:
26. Reiterate to the Finance Center personnel the importance of adequately documenting
adjusting and correcting entries entered in IFMS in accordance with the EPA Comptroller
Policy Announcement No. 93-02, Policies for Documenting Agency Financial
Transactions, and the GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government.
27. Instruct the Finance Center Directors to ensure that supervisory approval is documented
for any adjustments to IFMS entries.
28. During quality assurance reviews, verify that EPA policies on approving and
documenting accounting adjustments are being followed.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency indicated it understood the concerns raised and will emphasize the importance of
adequately documenting accounting adjustments to the financial management community and
determine the appropriate level of approval for these entries.
26
-------
Attachment 2
Compliance with Laws and Regulations
Table of Contents
8 - EPA Needs to Reconcile Differences with Trading Partners 28
27
-------
8 - EPA Needs to Reconcile Differences with Trading Partners
As of September 30, 2007, EPA had over $375 million in net unreconciled differences with 46 of
its trading partners for intragovernmental transactions. Treasury policy requires agencies to
confirm and reconcile intragovernmental transactions with their trading partners. EPA had
difficulty reconciling these differences primarily because of differing accounting treatments and
accrual methodologies between federal agencies. EPA's inability to reconcile its
intragovernmental transactions contributes to a long-standing government-wide problem that
hinders the ability of GAO to render an opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements of the
Federal Government.
In addition to the $375 million, EPA also had $371 million in differences with Treasury's
General Fund. Most of these differences related to custodial liabilities, tax revenues, and
accrued collections, as well as adjustments to benefit expenses related to EPA's contributions to
the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
Treasury's fiscal 2007 4th quarter Intragovernmental Activity Detail Report and Material
Differences Report showed the following material differences for EPA:
Federal Agency
General Services Administration
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Various Federal Agencies
Difference Category of Difference
$2 1 million Accounts Receivable/Payable
$46 million Accounts Receivable/Payable
$18 million Advances to/From Other Agencies
$22 million Buy /Sell Costs/Revenue
$36 million Advances to/From Other Agencies
$21 million Buy/Sell Costs/Revenue
$211 million Various Categories
While the Agency has actively worked with its trading partners to reduce differences, material
differences continue to exist. Many of the differences result from different accounting
treatments and accrual methodologies used by EPA's trading partners. Other situations that
contribute to the differences include incorrect trading partner coding, working capital fund
revenue recognition, and advance payments in suspense. The differences could be resolved by
EPA using the dispute resolution process described in Treasury's Financial Manual, Bulletin No.
2007-03, Intragovernmental Business Rules, and making adjustments to address the other
situations described above.
EPA reported in the 4th quarter Intragovernmental Activity Detail Report $19.9 million in
differences with seven trading partners in the Transfers Receivable/Payable category. EPA
created these differences with allocation transfer entries made in prior fiscal years and has not
provided documentation to identify reasons for the transactions. The seven trading partners did
not report any reciprocal activity in this category. Treasury's Financial Manual states that the
transferor and the transferee shall establish procedures to ensure that transfers are acknowledged
and recorded by the transferee in a timely manner. We believe EPA should review and discuss
these transfers with its trading partners to comply with Treasury guidance.
28
-------
During fiscal 2007, EPA increased its efforts to reconcile its intragovernmental activity on a
quarterly basis with its partners. Numerous differences persist, and EPA's inability to resolve
these differences negatively affects GAO's ability to opine on the Consolidated Financial
Statements. EPA should use the dispute resolution process described in the Intragovernmental
Business Rules and increase its efforts to record proper adjustments with its partners.
Recommendations
We recommend the OCFO:
29. Continue to reconcile the Agency's intragovernmental transactions and make appropriate
adjustments to comply with federal financial reporting requirements.
30. Use the resolution dispute process to work with its trading partners on the treatment of
accounting and accrual methodology differences.
31. Research prior year Transfers Receivable/Payable entries, and provide information to the
Cincinnati Finance Center for discussion with the trading partners to resolve the
$19.9 million differences.
Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Agency agreed with our findings. The also agreed to make appropriate adjustments to
comply with federal financial reporting requirements, and use the dispute resolution process to
resolve outstanding issues when appropriate.
29
-------
Attachment 3
Status of Prior
Audit Report Recommendations
EPA's position is that "audit follow-up is an integral part of good management," and "corrective
action taken by management on resolved findings and recommendations is essential to improving
the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations." The Chief Financial Officer is the
Agency Follow-up Official and is responsible for ensuring that corrective actions are
implemented. Starting in fiscal 2006, OCFO included in its Organizational Assessment
Measures a metric for audit follow-up. OCFO management regularly reviews these measures
during OCFO's monthly Budget and Performance Review meetings. In fiscal 2007, the Agency
took steps to improve its audit follow-up process by certifying completion of corrective actions
and improving documentation of corrective actions.
The Agency has continued to make substantial progress in completing corrective actions from
prior years. The status of issues from prior financial statement audits and other audits whose
findings and recommendations could have a material effect on financial statements and 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, and expects to begin implementation in
fiscal 2008. However, until EPA implements the planned replacement automated accounting
system that addresses past issues, we will continue to disclose a significant deficiency
concerning documentation of the current accounting system and its automated application
processing controls.
EPA Needs to Improve Contingency Plans for Financial Applications:
Although EPA has made some progress in correcting this deficiency, EPA still needs to
update the PeoplePlus personnel contact list within the National Computer Center Critical
Application Disaster Recovery Plan. EPA is currently updating this Plan. We plan to follow
up to verify that the Plan has been appropriately updated during the fiscal 2008 financial
statements audit.
EPA Needs to Improve Reconciliation of Differences with Trading Partners:
EPA has decreased its material differences in reconciling intragovernmental transactions
with other agencies. However, as described in Attachment 2, Compliance with Laws and
Regulations, there remain significant amounts not reconciled with trading partners.
EPA Needs to Strengthen Financial Database Security Oversight and Monitor
Compliance:
EPA did not complete all the corrective actions in response to Audit Report No. 2007-P-
00017 (March 29, 2007), EPA Needs to Strengthen Financial Database Security Oversight
and Monitor Compliance, by the end of fiscal 2007. While those actions we reviewed
appeared to have addressed our recommendations, we will need to review all corrective
actions in response to this audit during the fiscal 2008 financial statements audit to determine
if they are effective in correcting the underlying conditions.
30
-------
Attachment 4
Status of Current Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official Date
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
1 12 Change its accounting policy to reflect receivables
at their net realizable value. The policy should
provide that accounts receivable considered fully or
partially collectible should not be written off, but
should remain in accounts receivable with an
appropriate allowance for doubtful accounts.
2 13 Restore all CMC receivables to open accounts
receivable with an appropriate allowance for
doubtful accounts.
3 15 Prepare the specific identification allowance for
doubtful accounts estimates based upon the
objective evidence. Such evidence may be
obtained from the case attorney, Program Official,
DOJ assessment of the receivable's collectibility, or
other sources, depending upon the type of
receivable.
4 15 Reconcile the receivables to the general ledger and
ensure the allowance for doubtful accounts
calculation includes all receivables.
5 15 Use the percentages applicable to the current year
for the year-end allowance for doubtful account
percentage analysis calculations.
6 15 Update the allowance for doubtful account
percentages based on current data.
7 18 Establish procedures to monitor all tracking reports
and follow up with the regional offices and DOJ to
obtain receivable documents identified through
reconciliations or by receiving collections in
advance of the legal documents.
8 18 Develop uniform procedures to record bankruptcy
receivables and establish procedures to properly
record federal receivables and their related
allowance.
9 18 Provide staff with training to ensure accounts
receivable are accurately recorded in the
accounting system.
10 18 Require standardized recording techniques for
accounts receivable items, including proper
supporting documentation for transactions,
evidence of supervisory review and approval, and
segregating duties of entry origination
(accountants) and data entry.
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
$4,069.0 $4,069.0
$9,331.6 $9,331.6
31
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
11 18 Determine how the accounts receivable files were
lost, and develop procedures to ensure the
situation does not repeat. Re-establish the
improperly written-off accounts receivable and
establish an appropriate allowance for doubtful
accounts until determination has been made by
management as to whether the debts should be
written off.
12 20 Develop a contingency plan for BRAINS and
mLINQS. The plans should be approved by
management and have documented annual
reviews and testing.
13 20 Develop a security plan for BRAINS and mLINQS.
This should include having both applications
comply with all the federal security requirements
specified by the National Institute for Standards
and Technology, including the completion of the
security certification and accreditation process and
the resulting formal authorization to operate.
14 20 Record BRAINS and mLINQS in the Agency's
system inventory databases (ASSERT and READ).
15 20 Enter Plans of Action and Milestones for all the
above noted deficiencies in the Agency's security
weakness tracking database (ASSERT).
16 22 Update the Memorandum of Understanding with
OARM to incorporate requirements for the following
key security responsibilities:
• Critical server data backup and handling
of storage media - The procedures should
delineate separation of duties between the
backup tasks and the media handling tasks.
• Server scanning and monitoring-The
procedures should outline the frequency for
testing servers and require a copy of the test
results to be provided to the Cincinnati
Finance Center for review.
• System logs practices - The procedures
should include guidance on areas such as
configuring log sources, performing log
analysis, and initiating responses to identified
events.
• Server room access practices - The
procedures should include steps for logging
and escorting visitors and controls over the
use of the server room key.
17 22 Request that OARM implement the use of all
available Agency-provided system monitoring
reports for operating systems in use on EPA
servers and provide the results to EPA
management monthly for review.
18 23 Conduct and document an annual verification and
validation of implemented procedures to ensure
controls are implemented as intended and are
effective.
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
$149.9
$149.9
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
32
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Rec.
No.
19
Page
No.
23
Subject Status1
Correctly install the existing water shield over the
Cincinnati Finance Center's servers and expand its
coverage to include the Uninterruptible Power
Supply system.
Action Official
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
20 23 Add controls to protect the Cincinnati Finance
Center's servers from the risk associated with
unmonitored visitors having access to servers
operating critical business applications. This could
include relocating the Cincinnati Finance Center's
servers to a location controlled by the Finance
Center, partitioning the server room in a manner
where servers have improved physical access
controls, or installing a lockable container within the
current server room that is controlled by the
Finance Center.
21 23 Install an environmental monitoring system to
protect the Cincinnati Finance Center-owned
servers from possible heat and water damage.
The system should include sensors that monitor for
humidity, temperature, and water.
22 24 Terminate the automatic monthly purging of all
SUSF entries that are greater than 45 days old and
require the originator of the SUSF entry to delete or
clear the entry.
23 24 Continue sending out monthly SUSF entry reports
to all entry originators and their supervisors.
24 24 Require originators of SUSF entries to provide EPA
staff with explanations for why entries greater than
30 days old remain in the SUSF, and provide the
estimated date these entries will be cleared. EPA
staff should review these explanations and share
the information with the originator's supervisor.
25 24 Develop a delinquency report for all SUSF
transactions that are greater than 60 days old and
distribute the report monthly to EPA Assistant and
Regional Administrators.
26 26 Reiterate to the Finance Center personnel the
importance of adequately documenting adjusting
and correcting entries entered in IFMS in
accordance with the EPA Comptroller Policy
Announcement No. 93-02, Policies for
Documenting Agency Financial Transactions, and
the GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the
Federal Government
27 26 Instruct the Finance Center Directors to ensure that
supervisory approval is documented for any
adjustments to IFMS entries.
28 26 During quality assurance reviews, verify that EPA
policies on approving and documenting accounting
adjustments are being followed.
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
Office of the
Chief Financial Officer
33
-------
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
29 29 Continue to reconcile the Agency's Office of the
intragovernmental transactions and make Chief Financial Officer
appropriate adjustments to comply with federal
financial reporting requirements.
30 29 Use the resolution dispute process to work with its Office of the
trading partners on the treatment of accounting and Chief Financial Officer
accrual methodology differences.
31 29 Research prior year Transfers Receivable/Payable Office of the
entries, and provide information to the Cincinnati Chief Financial Officer
Finance Center for discussion with the trading
partners to resolve the $19.9 million differences.
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
34
-------
Appendix II
Agency's Response to Draft Report
November 8, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OCFO Response to OIG Draft Audit Report, "Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007
and 2006 (Restated) Consolidated Financial Statements," dated November
8, 2007
FROM: Lyons Gray
Chief Financial Officer
TO: Bill Roderick
Acting Inspector General
Thank you for another opportunity to work with the Office of the Inspector
General on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Consolidated Financial
Statements and related audit. OCFO's response to the audit report is attached.
The Agency remains committed to sound internal controls and effective policies
and procedures. We are continually evaluating ways to improve operations without
compromising fiscal integrity. In this regard, I want to personally thank your staff for
their willingness to return to Cincinnati in December to verify that we have implemented
appropriate corrective actions for the material weaknesses related to information security
and physical access to IT hardware.
I look forward to another productive year working with you and your staff. If you
have any questions pertaining to operations, please contact Milton Brown, Director of the
Office of Financial Services. Contact Lorna McAllister, Director of the Office of
Financial Management for questions on the financial statements.
Attachment
cc: Melissa Heist
Paul Curtis
Maryann Froehlich
Joshua Baylson
Lorna McAllister
Milton Brown
107
-------
Attachment
OCFO's Response to the Draft OIG Report
"Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2007 and 2006 Consolidated Financial Statements"
Introduction
In FY 2007, EPA completed the consolidation of its major financial services within OCFO's four
national finance centers. Transfers included travel payments, vendor and other commercial
payments, grant and interagency agreement payments, along with the accounts receivable
function. In addition to delivering financial services more efficiently and using automation to
gain economies of scale, the goal was to achieve greater compliance with EPA, OMB and other
government financial regulations and guidelines. The Agency financial consolidation has
reduced Agency costs and has yielded better performance against established financial goalposts.
EPA consolidated all functions to facilitate an employee move into a one-stop-shop center. This
new approach will ensure that employees are given consistent information related to their move
by experienced staff experts. The centralized web-based relocation program is supported by a
COTS software (mLINQs).
In addition, EPA re-evaluated its operating practice of reclassifying certain delinquent
receivables after it collected approximately $150 million in debts previously written-off The
Agency revised its existing policy and operating practices, and reestablished $725 million in
receivables along with appropriate allowances. As a result of these actions, EPA restated its FY
2006 financial statements to reflect the value of the previously reclassified receivables.
EPA also partnered with other Federal agencies to narrow significantly the gap in the differences
reported by the Department of the Treasury with the Agency's major trading partners.
OIG Concerns 1-3: The OIG made three recommendations on how the Agency records,
documents, and values delinquent debt.
OCFO agrees. During fiscal year 2007, EPA collected debt previously written-off and
considered not collectible. Consequently, EPA reevaluated its implementation of the policy on
delinquent debt. The Agency determined that it cannot forecast collections with absolute
certainty due to the nature and unpredictability of external factors that impact a debtor's ability
to pay. Therefore, EPA has discontinued the practice of writing off delinquent receivables over
two years old.
EPA restored all of these receivables to their net realizable value, which includes an appropriate
allowance for doubtful accounts. The fiscal year 2006 column of the financial statements has
been updated to reflect these changes.
108
-------
EPA recognizes that there are improvement opportunities in accounts receivable operating
practices including:
• Timely acquisition and maintenance of documentation and supporting evidence;
• Segregation of duties for effective verification and reconciliation;
• Staff training on standard processes, which will support uniformity and consistency; and
• Approach and method to calculate allowances for doubtful accounts.
EPA is actively working to change its business practices to address all of the above.
OIG Concerns 4-5: The OIG made two recommendations on information security for two
applications and physical access practices and safeguards over IT hardware.
OCFO agrees. The applications in question support accounts receivable work and e-Relocation
services to EPA and other government entities. EPA commits to comply with all systems and
security requirements in time for OIG to verify compliance by the end of December 2007.
OIG Concern 6: The OIG identified a minor inconsistency in the process for purging and
documenting transactions that failed automated system controls established to ensure the
integrity of the financial information.
OCFO understands the OIG's concern. EPA evaluated every questionable transaction and
determined each transaction was properly processed within a reasonable time. EPA will
establish procedures and metrics to ensure transactions are managed appropriately prior to
deletion.
OIG Concern 7: EPA did not maintain adequate documentation for obligation accounting
adjustments.
OCFO understands the concerns raised by OIG. We will emphasize the importance of
adequately documenting accounting adjustments to the financial management community and
determine the appropriate level of approval for these entries.
OIG Concern 8: EPA needs to reconcile differences with trading partners.
OCFO agrees. OCFO will make appropriate adjustments to comply with Federal financial
reporting requirements and, when appropriate, use the dispute resolution process to resolve
outstanding issues.
109
-------
Appendix
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
Assistant Administrator for Environmental Information
General Counsel
Director, Office of Policy and Resources Management, Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Director, Office of Administration, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Director, Office of Technology Operations and Planning, Office of Environmental Information
Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Financial Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Office of Financial Services, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Research Triangle Park Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Cincinnati Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Las Vegas Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Reporting and Analysis Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Financial Systems Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Financial Policy and Planning Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Washington Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Agency Follow-up Official
Agency Audit Follow-up Coordinator
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Administration and Resources Management
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Environmental Information
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Grants and Debarment
Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Inspector General
110
-------
ERA'S FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report
Section IV
Other Accompanying Information
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001), published on November
15, 2007. This document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par.
Section IV -1
-------
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND INTEGRITY WEAKNESSES
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 independent 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). EPA's senior managers remain committed to
maintaining effective and efficient internal controls to ensure that program activities are carried
out in accordance with applicable 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.
This section includes two components: (1) a brief discussion of EPA's progress in
addressing its FY 2007 integrity weaknesses, and (2) a discussion of the top ten management
challenges identified by EPA's OIG and the Agency's response.
EPA'S PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING FY 2007 WEAKNESSES
(Prepared by EPA)
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 Section I,
Management's Discussion and Analysis, for EPA's assurance statement.) Agencies also must
report any material weaknesses identified through internal and/or external reviews and their
strategies to remedy the problems.
In FY 2007, EPA reported three new material weaknesses and corrected a number of its
less severe internal control deficiencies. This section discusses the weaknesses and significant
deficiencies closed in FY 2007 as well as those for which corrective actions are still underway.
Section IV - 2
-------
MATERIAL WEAKNESSES
Value of Delinquent Receivables
In FY 2006, EPA implemented Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-129, Policies
for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables, for
delinquent receivables that were currently not collectible.
EPA's policy required that receivables over 2 years
delinquent with no past collections be written-off and
reclassified to a memo account or closed out when there
was uncertainty about collection. Consistent with its
policy, the Agency wrote-off and reclassified $725 million.
Prior to the reclassification of these receivables in FY
2006, EPA had no material collections for them.
Any receivable having documented payment
evidence would remain on the Agency's books with an
adequate allowance until the collections become
immaterial. During FY 2006, EPA collected less than $1.5
million or less than 1 percent (immaterial amount) of this
debt. In FY 2007, the Agency collected material amounts
(approximately $150 million or 20 percent) on the
outstanding reclassified debts.
EPA's FY 2007 Weaknesses and Significant Deficiencies
Material Weaknesses
1. Value of Delinquent Receivables*
2. Key Applications Lack Security Requirements
3. Physical Security of Critical IT Assets
Agency -level Weaknesses
1. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)*
2. Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Reporting*
3. Assistance Agreements*
4. Human Capital
5. Homeland Security
6. Permit Compliance System
7. Implementation of Data Standards
Significant Deficiencies
1. Timely Capitalization of Assets*
2. Personal Property Oversight*
3. Disposition of Contractor Held Property*
4. Abnormal General Ledger Balance*
5. Quarterly Treasury Reports on Receivables*
6. Interagency Agreements*
7. Superfund Cost Recovery and Cashouts*
8. Data Security (Contracts)*
9. Data Security (Payroll)*
10. Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
11. SF State Share Cost (Improved Quarterly Cost Reporting)
12. IFMS Suspense Table
* All corrective actions associated with these weaknesses or
significant deficiencies were completed in FY 2007
Based on these material collections, EPA re-
evaluated its operating practice of reclassifying
receivables. The Agency determined that it cannot forecast collections with absolute certainty
due to the nature and unpredictability of external factors that impact a debtor's ability to pay
EPA. Therefore, EPA discontinued reclassifying its receivables at least 2 years old and
standardized its approach to ensure consistency. As a result, EPA has restated its FY 2006
financial statements to reflect the value of the previously reclassified receivables.
Key Applications Lack Security Requirements
According to the OIG, two critical applications at the Cincinnati Finance Center (CFC),
the Billing & Reimbursable Accounting Information Network System (BRAINS) and the
Relocation Expense Management System (mLINQS), lack key security planning documents.
The applications need documented security plans and security controls.
• mLINQS: To remedy this deficiency, a security plan for mLINQS has been approved; a
contingency plan will be developed by December 31, 2007; and a formal risk
assessment will be conducted by an independent source by December 31, 2007.
mLINQS is currently registered in ASSERT as a major application and was included in
the final Agency ASSERT report for FY 2007.
• BRAINS: A General Support System (GSS) Security Addendum documenting controls
will be prepared and made an attachment of the Norwood LAN security plan. The User
Manual will be updated to reflect the actual business process, detailing the monthly
reconciliation procedures. BRAINS will be removed from ASSERT. All actions will be
completed by December 31, 2007.
Section IV - 3
-------
Physical Security of Critical IT Assets
Physical security and environmental controls need to be improved and previously
identified weaknesses need management's attention. To remedy this deficiency, controls over
visitor and general access to the server room will be established and physical security
enhanced with improved technology. A new camera will be installed within the existing server
room; a video recording system will be installed for all cameras; and a card reader system will
be installed outside the server room by December 31, 2007. A new file server room will be
constructed and is expected to be operational by July/August 2008, and installation of
temperature, humidity, and water sensors will be incorporated into its design. A water shield for
the servers and uninterruptible power supply (UPS) will also be provided in the new server
room.
Handling of critical business data, monitoring of key technology assets, and server room
access controls need to be improved, and CFC needs to have documented procedures. To
remedy this deficiency, standard operating procedures (SOPs) will be in place by December 31,
2007, with the verification and validation process incorporated into the performance review of
the performance-based contract currently in place to support this activity. Controls over visitor
and general access to the server room will be established and physical security enhanced with
improved technology. A new camera will be installed within the existing server room; a video
recording system will be installed for all cameras; and a card reader system will be installed
outside the server room by December 31, 2007. Written formal procedures for reviewing the
card reader log for the server room will be completed by November 30, 2007. Servers will be
monitored for known vulnerabilities; log files will be reviewed for violations of established
standards; and Agency-provided tools will be used as appropriate.
AGENCY WEAKNESSES
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
SDWIS data quality has been an Agency concern since 1998. Over the years, EPA
worked diligently to improve the quality, accuracy, and completeness of data in SDWIS. In
September 2005, we completed modernization efforts which successfully 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. Additionally, EPA has assessed data
quality and outlined improvements in its triennial Data Reliability Implementation/Action Plan. In
collaboration with states and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA),
we are now implementing a comprehensive data quality improvement plan. EPA and ASDWA
have agreed on a data quality goal of 90 percent for health-based violation data by the 2008-
2010 triennial evaluation period: 10 states have already met this goal, and the Agency is
tracking progress through its annual performance goals and measures.
EPA has focused its efforts to improve data quality on two objectives: (1) ensuring that
the system that receives and maintains the data is technologically robust and user friendly and
(2) ensuring that the compliance decisions made at the state level are appropriate and
accurately entered into the data system. EPA has undertaken considerable effort in the last
several years to modernize the SDWIS/FED database and improve the SDWIS/STATE
application. The Agency has identified completeness of data as an important issue affecting
Section IV - 4
-------
data quality. On-site data verifications (DVs) have proven critical to identifying data quality gaps
and potential root causes. EPA has adhered to a robust data verification audit process; it
conducted 15 DV audits in FY 2005, 2006, and 2007 and plans an additional 15 in 2008. The
Agency has completed all corrective actions associated with this weakness and will use
the goals and measures established to monitor the program on an on-going basis.
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 monitoring data and information and to improve reports on water
quality that are needed by decision-makers and the public to judge progress toward CWA goals.
The Agency's corrective action strategy to close this weakness focused on (1) strengthening
state water quality monitoring programs, (2) promoting the use of multiple monitoring
approaches to answer questions about different water body types at the national, regional, and
state watershed levels to support good management decisions, (3) improving reports on water
quality conditions at the national, regional, and state levels, and (4) ensuring that data
management systems contain the needed water quality information and are accessible to
decision-makers and the public.
The Agency has made progress in each of the areas; for instance, all states have
submitted and are now implementing their comprehensive water quality monitoring strategies.
Additionally, the Agency received funds to collaborate with states on a series of statistically-valid
assessments nationwide that will be used to track trends in water conditions, guide key water
management decisions, and provide information on whether our nation's pollution programs are
effectively improving water quality. The Agency has completed all corrective actions
associated with this weakness.
Improved Management of Assistance Agreements
For the past several years, OIG and GAO have raised concerns about the Agency's
grants management practices. In FY 2003, EPA established a long-term Grants Management
Plan, with associated performance measures, that serves as a road map of the Agency's
approach for improving grants management. The Plan includes five strategic goals: (1)
enhance skills of personnel involved in grants management; (2) promote competition in the
award of grants; (3) leverage technology to improve program performance; (4) strengthen EPA
oversight of grants; and (5) support identifying and realizing environmental outcomes.
EPA has taken substantial actions to improve its management of assistance agreements
through updated policies, increased training, and improved accountability. While grants
management will continue to require sustained management attention, the Agency has in place
an infrastructure responsive to the concerns identified by OIG and GAO. The Agency has
completed and validated the effectiveness of all corrective actions associated with this
weakness.
Human Capital Implementation Strategy / Employee Competencies
In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged human capital (HC) as an Agency-level weakness.
Over the years, the Agency has made significant progress in strengthening its HC program.
This included developing a robust HC accountability program, improving the HC audit program,
Section IV - 5
-------
and expanding the Agency's leadership development programs to enhance skills and ensure
continuity of leadership. Despite these accomplishments, the Agency continues to face
challenges in addressing the workforce planning component of its human capital weakness. To
address the workforce planning concerns identified by OIG and GAO, EPA developed a
workforce planning/competency management system that gauges skill gaps and guides the
design of strategies for closing the gaps. Additionally, 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.
EPA is committed to addressing its human capital challenges and expects to complete
all final corrective actions related to this weakness by FY 2008.
Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
To respond to new Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) and the
increasing complexity of its contribution to homeland security, EPA established the Homeland
Security Collaborative Network (HSCN). The HSCN coordinates and directly addresses high
priority, cross-Agency technical and policy issues related to day-to-day homeland security
policies and activities.
To address OIG's concern that EPA improve processes for identifying, obtaining,
maintaining, and tracking response equipment necessary for Nationally Significant Incidents,
EPA created and convened the Homeland Security Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC). The
PCC serves as an executive committee that is activated after a homeland-security-related
attack and acts to ensure that the Agency's senior political leadership is brought together to
provide policy direction to responders. Correction is scheduled for FY 2008.
Implementation of Data Standards
The Agency has made progress in addressing the implementation of data standards. In
FY 2007, EPA completed the remaining corrective actions associated with this weakness.
However, we will continue to monitor ongoing activities, such as tracking program
implementation of data standards, to validate the effectiveness of our actions. The validation
strategy will include continuous monitoring of implementation of data standards within the
Registry of EPA Applications and Databases and publish the semi-annual Data Standards
Report Card. Correction is scheduled for 2010.
Permit Compliance System (PCS)
EPA has developed and successfully implemented a modernized, national information
system designed to meet the needs of today's NPDES permitting and enforcement program. In
conjunction with the states, the Agency completed three major initiatives: (1) PCS
Modernization for direct user states, (2) Interim Data Exchange Format (IDEF), and (3)
Electronic Reporting to address these problems and improve the usefulness of PCS as a
management tool.
In conjunction with the states, EPA has now completed three major initiatives: PCS
Modernization; the Interim Data Exchange Format (IDEF); and Electronic Reporting to address
these problems and improve the usefulness of PCS as a management tool. Each of these
efforts incorporated extensive state involvement and defined interim milestones and expected
outcomes. The initiatives were carefully coordinated to adhere to all Agency data standards,
Section IV - 6
-------
including facility identification and locational data standards. The Agency carefully monitored its
progress in meeting the key project milestones and gauged success by the level of state
participation, improvements in the quality and comprehensiveness of the data, and reliability of
the analyses generated. EPA is redesigning PCS to better address current requirements of the
NPDES permitting and enforcement program, such as tracking pollutant loadings, capturing
information on storm water sources, and assessing the health of individual watersheds.
In FY 2007, EPA began to build the batch component for ICIS-NPDES to allow the
remaining states to electronically transfer data into the new system. The development of the
batch component of the new system will allow for the submission of NPDES data from state
systems to ICIS-NPDES in the Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) format via the National
Environmental Exchange Network and EPA's CDX. As this is completed over the next few
years, these states will be migrated from PCS to the ICIS-NPDES.
When development of the batch component of ICIS-NPDES is completed, both the
states and EPA will be able to use the new system to ensure complete and accurate NPDES
permit discharge data. The completion date for this weakness is FY 2013 and is based on
various assumptions that extend over the next 6 years1.
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES
Timely Capitalization of Real Assets
The Agency identified timely capitalization of real assets as a significant deficiency under A-123
in FY 2006. The Agency has completed all corrective actions for this significant
deficiency. The Agency will continue to periodically run reports to ensure timely and accurate
project updates.
Formal Guidance on and Implementation of Personal Property Oversight
The Agency identified personal property oversight as a significant deficiency under A-123 in FY
2006. All corrective actions for this significant deficiency have been completed. The
Agency will continue to conduct periodic internal/external reviews of property management
programs.
Formal Guidance on Disposition of Contractor-held Property
The Agency identified the disposition of contractor-held property as a significant deficiency
under A-123 in FY 2006. In April 2007, the Agency issued and implemented its revised
Contract Management Manual, Chapter 45, Government-Furnished Property. All corrective
actions for this significant deficiency have been completed.
Abnormal General Ledger Balance
The Agency identified abnormal general ledger balance as a significant deficiency under the FY
2007 internal controls over financial reporting review. The Agency developed a strategy to
address this significant deficiency, and all corrective actions have been completed.
Section IV - 7
-------
Quarterly Treasury Report on Receivables
The Agency identified quarterly treasury report on receivables as a significant deficiency under
the FY 2007 internal controls over financial reporting review. The Agency developed a
strategy to address this significant deficiency, and all corrective actions have been
completed.
Interagency Agreements
The Agency identified interagency agreements as a significant deficiency under the FY 2007
internal controls over financial reporting review. The Agency developed a strategy to
address this significant deficiency, and all corrective actions have been completed.
Superfund Cost Recovery and Cashouts
The Agency identified Superfund cost recovery and cashouts as a significant deficiency under
the FY 2007 internal controls over financial reporting review. The Agency developed a
strategy to address this significant deficiency, and all corrective actions have been
completed.
Data Security (Contracts)
The Agency identified data security (contracts) as a significant deficiency under the FY 2007
internal controls over financial reporting review. The Agency developed a strategy to
address this significant deficiency, and all corrective actions have been completed.
Data Security (Payroll)
The Agency identified data security (payroll) as a significant deficiency under the FY 2007
internal controls over financial reporting review. The Agency developed a strategy to
address this significant deficiency, and all corrective actions have been completed.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts, Fiscal Year 2007 Financial Statement Audit
According to the OIG, the CFC did not properly update or apply percentages on computing the
fiscal 2007 allowance for doubtful accounts and did not properly calculate the 2nd and 3rd quarter
allowance for doubtful accounts. The CFC response indicated agreement with certain
recommendations, provided an explanation of the way CFC computed the allowance based on
current policies and procedures, and identified where guidance referenced by OIG was not
issued or current. Corrective actions for this significant deficiency have been completed.
EPA will continue to work with OIG to clarify any remaining issues.
SF State Cost Share (Improved Quarterly Cost Reporting)
The Agency identified improved quarterly cost reporting as a significant deficiency under A-123
in FY 2006. The deficiency relates to how efficiently EPA tracks Superfund State Cost Share
(SSC) contributions and matches them to expenses each quarter. The Agency has taken steps
to centrally automate the manual SSC accrual process as part of consolidating accounts
Section IV - 8
-------
receivable functions that were previously dispersed across the Agency in the CFC. EPA
Headquarters is working with the last region to move its accounts receivable functions to CFC.
In FY 2008, the Agency will develop and test an automated process and then evaluate the
results of automation. Correction is scheduled for FY 2009.
Increased Controls Over the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) Suspense Table
(SUSF)
Increased controls over the IFMS SUSF are needed. To remedy this, the Agency will no longer
systematically purge aged data from IFMS. The Agency's policy will be updated to reflect the
applicable Office of Management and Budget system requirements. Steps to address this
deficiency have been initiated, and correction is scheduled for FY 2008.
Section IV - 9
-------
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT
Audit Opinion
Restatement
Material Weaknesses
Key Applications Need Security Controls
Physical Security of Critical IT Assets
Total Material Weaknesses
Unqualified
Yes
Beginning
Balance
0
0
0
New
1
1
2
Resolved
0
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
0
Ending
Balance
1
1
2
SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES
Effectiveness of Internal Control over Financial Reporting (FMFIA § 2) (A-123 Appendix A)
Statement of Assurance
Material Weaknesses
Total Material Weaknesses
Unqualified
Beginning
Balance
0
New
0
Resolved
0
Consolidated
0
Reassessed
0
Ending
Balance
0
Effectiveness of Internal Control over Operations (FMFIA § 2)
Statement of Assurance
Unqualified
Material Weaknesses
Not Applicable (N/A)
Total Material Weaknesses
Beginning
Balance
0
0
New
0
0
Resolved
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
Reassessed
0
0
Ending
Balance
0
0
Conformance with Financial Management System Requirements (FMFIA § 4)
Statement of Assurance
Systems Do Not Conform to Financial Management System
Requirements
Non-Conformances
Key Applications Lack
Security Requirements
Physical Security of Critical IT
Assets
Total Non-Conformances
Beginning
Balance
0
0
0
New
1
1
2
Resolved
0
0
0
Consolidated
0
0
0
Reassessed
0
0
0
Ending
Balance
1
1
2
Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)
Overall Substantial Compliance
1 . System Requirement
2. Accounting Standards
3. USSGL at Transaction Level
Agency Auditor
No No
No
Yes
Yes
Overall, EPA has a qualified statement of assurance, as described in the Administrator's
Fiscal Year 2007 Assurance Statement on page 41 of Section 1 - Management's Discussion
and Analysis. The table above represents three components of management assurances:
Section IV-10
-------
1. In FY 2007 EPA found no material weaknesses based on its annual assessment on the
effectiveness of the non-systems-related internal controls over financial reporting
(FMFIA section 2, A-123 Appendix A).
2. In FY 2007 EPA found no material weaknesses based on its review of the effectiveness
of non-systems-related programmatic internal controls over operations (FMFIA section
2).
3. During the Agency's FY 2007 Financial Statements Audit, the OIG identified two
systems-related significant deficiencies, which the Agency is required to report as non-
conformances and material weaknesses under FMFIA section 4 and as non-
compliances under FFMIA.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL'S FY 2007 KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, OIG identifies, briefly assesses,
and reports annually the most serious management and performance challenges facing the
Agency. In FY 2007 OIG identified ten areas it considers to be EPA's most pressing
management challenges. While some are new, others, such as managing human
capital/workforce planning and homeland security, are recurring issues that take time to resolve.
Notably, OIG did not suggest elevating any of these issues to the level of a material weakness.
EPA has made great progress in addressing the issues OIG identified and will continue to work
diligently in assessing and resolving vulnerabilities before they become serious management
issues.
The table below summarizes the issues that OIG identified in FY 2007 as key
management challenges facing EPA and their relationship 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 April 19, 2007 memorandum to EPA's Administrator, "EPA's
Key Management Challenges." EPA's response to each challenge follows in italics.
Section IV - 11
-------
EPA's Top Major Management Challenges FY FY FY Link to EPA Link to President's
Reported by the Office of Inspector General 2005 2006 2007 Strategic Goal 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.
Emissions Factors for Sources of Air Pollution:
Reliable emission factors and data are needed for targeting the right control strategies, ensure
permitting is done properly, and measure the effectiveness of programs in reducing air pollution.
Workforce Planning: ****
Implementing a strategy that will result in a competent, well-trained, and motivated workforce.
Voluntary Programs:***
Applying voluntary approaches and innovative or alternative practices to provide flexible,
collaborative, 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, consistent and usable data are collected.
Privacy Program:
Integrating policies and controls into EPA's E-Government and other systems infrastructure for
the protection of personal identifiable information.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
GoaM
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Goal 2
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Cross-Goal
Integrating Performance &
Budget
Homeland Security
E-Gov
Human Capital
E-Gov
E-Gov
E-Gov
Homeland Security
* From FY 2004 and 2005 Working Relationships with the States and Linking Mission to Management were consolidated into Managing for
Results.
** From FY 2004 and 2005 Information Resources Management and Data Quality were consolidated into Data Standards and Data Quality
*** FY 2006 titled Voluntary, Alternative, and Innovative Practices and Programs
**** pY 2006 and 2006 titled Human Capital Management
Managing for Results
EPA programs reviewed using OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
continue to receive improved scores. Overall, nearly 90 percent of the 51 programs reviewed
have received "adequate" or passing scores. While many of EPA's programs received high
PART scores in areas such as program purpose and program management, EPA continues to
be challenged in demonstrating program results. Only 24 percent of EPA's programs achieved
passing scores in the area of Program results/Accountability2. According to the PART results,
the Agency scored low in this area for several reasons:
Section IV-12
-------
• EPA is not regularly conducting independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality
to support program improvements and evaluate program effectiveness.
• EPA does not collect timely and credible performance information, including information
from program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance.
• EPA programs do not have ambitious targets and timeframes for their long-term
measures.
• EPA's budget requests are not tied to accomplishment of annual and long-term
performance goals, and resource needs are not presented in a complete and
transparent manner in the program's budget.3
To address these factors and better demonstrate results, EPA management needs to
make a concerted effort to focus on the logic of program design and to ensure that the Agency
designs programs and processes so that it can measure, evaluate, and demonstrate results.4
Designing programs with clear and measurable results allows for transparency of, and
accountability for, program performance. EPA also needs to ensure program managers are
held accountable for ensuring that programs are designed with the means to measure and
demonstrate program results and that the information gathered is used to manage and improve
program results.5
EPA does not have a systematic process for conducting evaluations of its programs and
operations, but rather conducts evaluations on an ad-hoc informal basis.6 The Evaluation
Support Division (ESD) in the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation serves as the
Agency's center of expertise for program evaluation and provides support to the Agency
programs when requested.7 However, with only six FTEs, ESD does not have the work force to
conduct a meaningful number of evaluations for the Agency.8 ESD primarily tries to build
capacity for program evaluation within the Agency by running a program evaluation competition
(PEC), providing performance measurement and program evaluation training, and coordinating
an evaluation network. Program and regional managers initiate evaluations of programs within
their offices. ESD provides program and regional managers an opportunity to submit proposals
for program evaluations from which ESD selects, funds, and manages approximately five
evaluations annually under the PEC. While this approach provides coverage for some Agency
programs, it does not fully meet the Agency's need for program evaluation.
EPA has limitations to overcome before establishing a systematic approach to program
evaluation. Currently, ESD estimates that EPA spends approximately $1 million annually on
program evaluation, up to .03 percent of its budget. Other Federal agencies and corporations,
considered leaders in program evaluation, budget for or set aside about 1 percent of their
annual budgets, or up to 15 percent per project, for program evaluation. EPA also needs
additional staff capable of commissioning and managing independent, high-quality program
evaluations with sound methodologies that produce evidence of program effectiveness or guide
decisions to improve effectiveness and results. EPA does not have a large community of
knowledgeable and experienced evaluators of environmental programs from which it can draw
to perform its evaluations. EPA's reliance on States and localities for data on program
performance makes obtaining consistent quality data a major challenge for the Agency.9 With
the complexity of environmental programs and the difficulty in measuring environmental
performance, a well-designed program evaluation function is an important tool that can assist
EPA in demonstrating program performance and improving results. Leveraging the evaluative
resources provided by GAO and OIG should be part of EPA's plan for addressing this
challenge.10
Section IV-13
-------
The Agency recently completed its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan (Plan) which the Agency
expects to help focus its efforts on obtaining measurable results. The Plan reported continued
improvement in the quality of the Agency's performance measures, its ability to track costs, and
its ability to provide this information to managers for their use in managing their programs more
effectively. The Plan also highlighted progress in improving the outcome orientation of
objectives and targets, analyzing performance trends and budget information to establish
budget priorities, and improving and developing performance and financial management
reports.11
The OIG recognizes that directly linking public health and environmental improvements
to actions by EPA and its partners is a challenging undertaking. Nevertheless, the Agency
should continue its efforts to improve its strategic planning and tracking of accomplishments and
their associated costs. The Agency needs to evaluate its programs to ensure that they include
the means to measure and demonstrate program results. Then it needs to follow through to
obtain timely, accurate data that it can use to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its
programs and hold Agency employees accountable.12
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
Over the past years, national programs, regional offices, and the Agency's external stakeholders
have worked collaboratively to strengthen results-based management at EPA. In FY 2006, the Agency
issued its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which charts an ambitious course for environmental protection over
the next 5 years and focuses on achieving measurable results that will help advance the protection of
human health and the environment. The revised Strategic Plan reflects more outcome-oriented goals and
objectives and benefits from information on environmental indicators and from futures analysis. The
Agency continues to improve the quality of its performance measures as well as its ability to track the
cost of achieving environmental results by reducing reporting burden, strengthening data quality, and
reinforcing accountability.
OMB acknowledges EPA 's significant accomplishments in the area of Financial Performance and
Budget and Performance Integration under the PMA. For the 2nd and 3rd quarters ofFY 2007, EPA
received status and progress scores of "green "for its continued use of financial and performance
information in day-to-day program management and decision making. EPA also continued efforts to
streamline efficiency measures.
Highlights of progress include:
• Maintained and improved the ACS as a management tool for senior managers to support more
effective program management and use of results in Agency decision making.
• 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 that contribute to OMB's PART reviews.
• Launched a new intranet website (http://intranet, epa.gov/ocfo/acs) to provide Agency staff
with information on ACS development and the annual performance commitment process.
• Developed new detailed performance reports through the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer's Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT).
• Retired the Management and Accounting Reporting Systems (MARS), saving $1 million
annually and improving Agency access to key budget and financial management reports.
• Achieved OMB approval of efficiency measures for all 51 of EPA 's completed PART
programs.
Section IV-14
-------
. Issued the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which reflects a sharper focus on priorities established
by the Administrator (i.e., environmental justice, innovation and collaboration, environmental
stewardship, and the role of state and tribal partners).
• Received a "green " status score for Budget and Performance Integration under the PMAfor
the 2nd and 3rd Quarters ofFY 2007.
Plans for further improvements:
• Identify and implement initiatives that support the Agency's vision for greater central
governance of performance measures and stronger program and organizational
accountability.
• Improve senior managers' access to the Agency's performance information by modifying data
systems (BAS, PERS, ACS) to include a "measures central" screen. The screen will improve
the usability of the data system and serve as a filter for all Agency performance measures
(GPRA, QMR, and senior management measures).
• Identify and endorse a limited set of "top tier" measures and integrate them in the FY 2008
National Program Managers Guidance, FY 2008 annual commitment process, and FY 2009
budget.
• Continue to promote and maintain ORBIT as a primary reporting tool for Agency budget,
financial, and performance data.
• Expand the Agency's use of the state grant template to report on FY 2007 results, increasing
transparency and ensuring that state grants are accountable for achieving EPA 's mission.
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
from those who seek to harm it. In addition to carrying out its mission to protect human health
and the environment, EPA also plays a vital role in homeland security efforts by helping to
protect the environment from terrorist acts. EPA has developed technical and scientific
expertise that enhances the ability of DHS to address potential terrorist threats. The National
Response Plan and several Homeland Security Presidential Directives direct EPA to support,
coordinate, or lead responses to incidents of national significance, including terrorist attacks.
EPA has faced unprecedented new challenges in responding to incidents of national
significance including the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, and Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. These events further defined and demonstrated the Nation's expectations of
EPA's emergency response role. These new expectations have expanded EPA's traditional
emergency response functions.
In June 2006, the Agency finalized its Emergency Response Business Plan (ERBP or
Plan). The stated purpose of the ERBP is to address EPA's overall readiness to respond to five
simultaneous incidents of national significance while maintaining effective day-to-day
emergency response operations. The Plan identifies national incident scenarios and gaps in
resources to respond to the scenarios, and documents the distribution of available emergency
response resources in the regions. The OIG evaluated the Plan in 2006 and 2007. We
identified planning assumptions and aspects of the planning process that may challenge EPA's
ability to rely on the Plan as a valid assessment of its readiness, including:
• The Plan does not provide the rationale for the incidents of national significance on
which it is based.
Section IV-15
-------
• The Plan does not document the methodology used to determine the required
emergency response resources.
• In developing the Plan, EPA conducted little or no coordination with other Federal
government response agencies, or State and local emergency response agencies.
The Plan does not address the likely involvement of these resources.
• The Plan does not incorporate lessons learned from responses to similar incidents of
national significance or incidents involving tasks similar to those described in the
Plan.
• The Plan does not address the criteria or responsible agencies for deciding when it is
safe for residents to return to areas impacted by the incidents.
We will formally communicate our findings to the Agency and will continue to monitor Agency
progress in ensuring readiness to meet its homeland security responsibilities.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA has an Emergency Response Business Plan to increase the Agency's preparedness in
responding to environmental and homeland security related disasters. The plan provides a framework for
the Agency to address simultaneous incidents of national significance while maintaining effective day-to-
day emergency response and removal operations. In preparing the plan, headquarters and regions use
five simultaneous incidents in a "worst case " planning scenario around which to develop detailed
assessments, gap analyses, and program activities. The plan incorporates chemical, biological and
radiological scenarios, and it briefly describes changes needed in managing personnel, financial, and
other resources required to address incidents of national significance readiness.
Additionally, the Agency has developed a Draft Homeland Security 2007, 2008, 2009 Priority
Work Plan to identify EPA 's overall planning framework for advancing the Agency to the next level of
preparedness. The draft work plan summarizes EPA 's Presidential and other externally driven homeland
security mandates and identifies the Agency's desired end state, or final destination, and its desired
results and actions for each through 2009. The Agency plans to use the work plan as a tool to define
priorities and encourage progress as EPA continues to improve its level of homeland security
preparedness.
Highlights of progress include:
• Established a Steering Committee to provide oversight and leadership to the numerous
workgroups that support the Agency's National Approach 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
(expected issuance December 2007).
• Developed and implemented an Information Technology Strategy that allows EPA to share
information with its partners through the Emergency Management Portal and with the general
public from its public web site.
• Formed an Administrative and Finance Workgroup to address procurement, property tracking,
and pay issues.
• Developed a draft plan for acquiring and maintaining field communications equipment for
EPA 's emergency response programs.
Section IV-16
-------
Plans for further improvements include:
• Release the final version of EPA's National Approach to Response (NAR) Crisis
Communication Plan. (The plan addresses roles and responsibilities for Incidents of National
Significance).
• Implement the Emergency Response Business Plan's approach for making the necessary
changes in the management of personnel, financial, and other resources through NAR priority
projects.
• Continue to develop training courses related to weapons of mass destruction and pandemic and
avian influenza.
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 initial plans to obtaining the data for analysis is not yet a routine activity in all programs.13
Data standards are an essential component of EPA's information program. They promote
efficiently sharing environmental information among EPA, States, tribes, and other information
partners. Using common data standards among partners ensures consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and ensures access to more meaningful
environmental data.
EPA has acknowledged the challenge of implementing data standards in Agency
systems, and developed a three-pronged corrective action plan involving (1) a communication
strategy that promotes awareness of implementation procedures and best practices, (2) tracking
implementation of data standards, and (3) a validation strategy to review progress in
implementing the standards and the effectiveness of corrective actions. The Agency made
considerable progress on the action plan and will continue to track program implementation of
data standards and conduct performance reviews of key systems through fiscal 2010.14
EPA and its partners also need to continue to focus on ensuring that data are of
sufficient quality for decision-making. OIG evaluation and investigative activities involving
laboratories' analysis of drinking water samples 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 laboratory integrity and incorporate promising techniques to
identify improper practices and fraud in the laboratory oversight process,
• develop a mechanism to identify, and a policy to address, data in EPA databases
from questionable laboratories15 and,
• conduct routine quality assurance and quality control analysis for the non-reporting of
violations of drinking water standards and violations of regulatory monitoring and
reporting requirements.16
EPA considers data quality for drinking water an Agency-level weakness, and originally
established a corrective action completion target that extended into 2007.17 However, EPA still
needs to negotiate several key action items and milestones that may extend the completion
date for this weakness into fiscal 2008 or beyond.
Section IV-17
-------
Recent OIG work regarding emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina, also shows an
immediate need for decision makers at various levels of government to have reliable water
quality data. One of the databases used by EPA to assist in managing environmental data
caused local officials difficulty querying the database due to a lack of training and trouble
verifying the quality of data due to inconsistent data entry. We recommended that EPA set
protocols to address these types of issues.18
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA declared "Implementation of Data Standards " an Agency-level weakness under FMFIA in
FY 2005, and has since made progress in addressing challenges related to data standards and data
quality. The Agency currently has in place a corrective action strategy that addresses issues identified by
OIG. In response to OIG concerns regarding the integrity of laboratories, EPA continues to require
laboratories to submit Quality Assurance Reports and Work Plans annually. In accordance with a
February 2004 policy directive developed by the Agency's Science Policy Council, laboratories are to
seek accreditation from independent accrediting organizations or conduct independent external
assessments of their laboratory practices to demonstrate competency. As of April 2007, nine laboratories
have achieved accreditation. While EPA has completed the milestones associated with correcting its
"Implementation of Data Standards " weakness, we will continue to monitor and verify performance,
promote awareness, and develop training modules to implement data standards.
Highlights of progress include:
• Developed a communications plan promoting implementation of upcoming standards and
awareness of associated documentation, including implementation strategy, procedures, and
best practices.
• Issued a semi-annual Data Standards "Report Card" designed to track program
implementation of data standards.
• Reviewed data standards implementation for all systems managed under one prime
contractor.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Continue to develop training modules and conduct training on standards implementation for
system developers supporting EPA program offices.
• Design and launch a new EPA data standards website that will provide data standards and
implementation information for EPA program offices and system developers.
• Continue to monitor implementation of data standards within the Registry of EPA Application
and Databases and publish the semi-annual Data Standards Report Card.
Emissions Factors for Sources of Air Pollution
Emissions factors are used to develop the emissions data that are the cornerstone of a
host of important environmental decisions made by EPA; State, local, and tribal agencies;
industries; environmental groups; and others.19 Emissions factors are used for about 80
percent of emissions determinations for sources of air pollution.20 These decisions include
facility permitting, developing control strategies, making compliance and enforcement decisions,
measuring environmental progress, and demonstrating program results under Government
Performance and Results Act.21 Without reliable emissions factors, users cannot be sure that
Section IV-18
-------
(1) air pollution control strategies target the right industries or products, (2) permitting programs
include all required sources and establish proper emissions limits, and (3) air programs are
effective in reducing air pollution.22
The Agency faces significant challenges in improving emissions factors. A March 2006
OIG evaluation found (1) conflicting guidance on the appropriate use of emissions factors, (2) a
rating system that did not quantify the uncertainty associated with the emissions factors, (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.23 These management-related issues
continue to contribute to the impairment of emissions factor development, hampering
achievement of the Clean Air Act's requirements and major Air program goals.24
As a result, emissions factors are being inappropriately used for key environmental
decisions.25 For example, emissions factors have been used for non-inventory purposes, such
as setting permit limits and reporting the level of air pollution control at specific facilities.26 For
three industry sectors EPA examined, inappropriately using emissions factors contributed to
more than one million tons of pollutants not being controlled.27 EPA guidance states that the
user must take into account the uncertainty of the emissions factor when considering its use;28
however, emissions factor uncertainty is little understood, leading to inappropriate uses.29 For
example, the fiberglass industry believed EPA emissions factors were overestimating its
emissions so it developed new emissions factors.30 However, instead of decreasing estimated
emissions for the industry, the improved emissions factors increased the estimated emissions
for the fiberglass industry by about 100 percent.31
EPA is shifting its efforts toward more direct, continuous monitoring and measurement of
emissions from all major emissions sources.32 However, increased demand for low-cost
environmental data is driving the need for more quality emissions factors.33 Use of emissions
factors will continue for a broad array of environmental decisions for years to come, including
measuring and reporting environmental progress.34 For example, EPA is planning to use
emissions factor derived data to make decisions regarding the risks that remain after air toxics
technology-based standards have been implemented, and to decide the effectiveness of
existing air toxics practices, processes, and control technologies.35 If EPA can improve the
quality of its factors, this should improve environmental decision-making for reducing air
pollution.36 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,37 and EPA and States may make misinformed decisions for the
most promising future actions to improve air quality.38
EPA has recently taken steps to improve the quality of the emissions data used to make
environmental decisions through the development of a Quality Management Plan.39 The
purpose of this management plan is to help ensure that data generated by or for the Agency are
of known and acceptable quality.40 In addition, EPA completed a statistical study of the
uncertainty associated with published emissions factors that are based on emissions testing
data.41 While progress has been made since our 2006 report, the Agency's challenges are to
address the large number of emissions factors rated low; ensure stable, sufficient funding to
address underlying data gaps and limitations;42 limit decisions made with poor quality emissions
factors; and provide significant non-regulatory incentives to industry, State, and local agencies
to provide EPA with the data the Agency has long sought to improve the quality of emissions
factors.43
Section IV-19
-------
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
The Agency has made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in OIG 's March
2006 evaluation report, EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management. EPA
remains on track in implementing its plan to make it easier for others to transmit and transform their
emissions data into emissions factors that account for uncertainty. Building on previous success, the
Agency continues to re-engineer the emissions factor program to develop emissions factors faster,
increase the number of emission factors, and account for uncertainty in emissions factors.
With respect to developing guidance for using emissions factors, EPA agrees that the Agency needs
to be clearer about the regulatory and environmental risks of using emissions factors, including the risks
associated with their original intended application and for programs that have adopted their use as an
expeditious means of achieving their goals. The Agency has developed a new, streamlined emissions
factor development process that is currently undergoing public review, and we expect to finalize these
new procedures later this year.
In response to OIG's finding that the current emissions factor rating system did not quantify the
uncertainty associated with emissions factors, the Agency has completed a statistical study of the
uncertainty associated with published emissions factors that are based on emissions testing data, such as
those contained in AP-42. We presented our approach and study results to internal reviewers and a
panel of expert peer reviewers and addressed their comments and suggestions. In February 2007, EPA
submitted a report describing the technical approach and the results to Congress and OMB. The report
is currently available on the web for public review and comment. EPA is now beginning to analyze
various policy options available for accounting for uncertainty.
The OIG has recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to improve data collection and
set emission factor priorities. We have developed and submitted a comprehensive strategic plan meeting
those recommendations, which is currently under review by OIG. The plan focuses on advancing direct,
continuous site-specific measurements of the pollutant of concern and addresses the development and use
of emissions factors for situations where site-specific measurements are infeasible or the risks of adverse
program decisions are unacceptable.
Highlights of progress include:
• Launched WebFIRE, an interactive website that combines AP-42 and FIRE data so that users
are no longer required to conduct independent checks while searching for emission factors.
• Conducted an analysis to determine the uncertainty of highly-rated emissions factors.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Enhance WebFIRE to allow users independently to check and verify background information
for emissions factors.
• 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.
Workforce Planning
Achieving EPA's environmental and human health goals depends on the ability to
attract, develop, and retain a highly skilled, diverse, and results oriented work force. To
accomplish this,
Section IV - 20
-------
EPA leaders must strategically manage their most important resource - human capital. In
March 2006, EPA issued its first comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plan to address the
challenge of having the right people, at the right location, at the right time.44
Human capital management is one of the government-wide initiatives under the
President's Management Agenda (PMA). The PMA initiative requires agencies to improve
workforce planning by moving beyond the concept of managing through attrition and replacing
employees on a one-to-one basis. Under the PMA, Federal agencies' human capital strategies
are required to be linked to organizational mission, vision, core values, goals, and objectives.
Further, the PMA requires agencies to use strategic workforce planning as a tool to recruit and
retain employees, identify required competencies, and determine the size and location of its
workforce.45
Audits reports, issued by OIG and GAO between 2000 and 2004, identified significant
concerns with EPA's human capital strategy. The reports indicated the Agency's strategy did
not (1) explain how to achieve its human capital objectives for protecting the environment, (2)
identify the resources needed and the specific milestones for implementing the human capital
objectives, and (3) provide results-oriented (outcome) measures to track the Agency's progress
and evaluate its success in achieving these objectives.46
Based in part on these concerns, as well as challenges the Agency faces in meeting
requirements under PMA, Human Capital Management has been listed as a top management
challenge since 2001. 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. 47
Actions the Agency is taking, or has completed, to improve workforce planning include:
• Completed a comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plan in March 2006.
• Developed and is currently implementing a Mission Critical Occupation (MCO)
competency-based and resource-based approach for identifying occupations deemed
critical for the Agency to achieve its mission.
• Identified 19 MCOs and prioritized the list to establish the Agency's first six priority
MCOs to be evaluated (Information Technology Specialist, Human Resources Specialist,
Leader, Toxicologist, Grant Specialist, and Contract Specialist).
• Adopted OPM's four step model for strategic workforce planning which includes an
analysis of the critical occupation supply, demand, gaps, and strategies to address gaps.
• Began applying OPM's four step process to the priority MCOs. As of March 2007, EPA
had completed the four steps for the IT Specialist; steps 1 through 3 for Human
Resources Specialist and Leader; and step 1 for Toxicologist, Grant Specialist and
Contract Specialist.
• Procured a competency assessment tool and is completing competency assessments
for toxicologists, grant and contract specialists.48
Despite these accomplishments, the Agency continues to face challenges to workforce
planning. A review of the Agency's workforce planning efforts revealed challenges which may
affect the Agency's ability to get to "green" status on the PMA scorecard, including the need to:
• Complete the remaining steps in the workforce planning model for the six priority MCOs
by the first quarter of FY 2008.
Section IV-21
-------
• Assess the remaining 13 MCOs that include occupations key to achieving the Agency's
mission, such as health and physical scientists, biologists, chemists, environmental
engineers, and support occupations.
• Meet the OPM Senior Executive Service certification requirement by aligning
performance goals using a cascading approach.
• Meet OMB and OPM expectations to identify the number of employees and locations for
each of the 19 Mission Critical Occupations, as well as narrow any gaps identified.49
EPA acknowledges human capital as an Agency-level weakness and is taking actions to
strengthen this area.50 However, because many of the actions taken are not yet completed or
not to a point where their effectiveness can be measured, additional time is needed to
determine whether the actions will be effective in addressing EPA's workforce challenges. EPA
plans to continue to monitor and report on the progress of its human capital initiatives, assess
the overall effectiveness of the Agency strategy for human capital, and determine whether EPA
is achieving its desired human capital results.51
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged human capital (HC) as an Agency-level weakness. Over the
years, the Agency has made significant progress in strengthening its HC program. This included
developing a robust HC accountability program, improving the HC audit program and expanding the
Agency's leadership development programs to enhance skills and ensure continuity of leadership.
Despite these accomplishments, the Agency continues to face challenges in addressing the workforce
planning component of its human capital weakness. To address the workforce planning concerns
identified by OIG and GAO, EPA developed a workforce planning/competency management system that
gauges skill gaps and guides the design of strategies for closing the gaps. Additionally, 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. The Agency expects to complete all final corrective actions related to this weakness by
December 2007.
Highlights of progress include:
• Furthered the local-level awareness of the comprehensive Agency Strategic Workforce Plan
and utilized various HR options to close gaps.
• Began phase I implementation of the electronic Official Personnel Folders program by
training HR specialists and administrators on its use.
• Continued to work with OMB on HR LoB initiative to address duplicative and redundant
HR systems.
• Launched the "Successful Leaders Program " to survey employees and their supervisors to
determine needed training.
• Improved the efficiency of the EZHire system, enabling the Agency to better track and
monitor its compliance with OPM's 45-day hiring model.
• With its Union partners, EPA established an Agency-wide Leave Bank Board in February
2007.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Continue to track and assess program and regional workforce plans to ensure alignment
with the Agency's workforce plans and strategic goals.
Section IV - 22
-------
. Continue to monitor and report on progress of EPA 's HC initiatives to assess the overall
effectiveness of the Agency Strategy for Human Capital and to complete all final corrective
actions related to this weakness by December 2007.
Voluntary Programs
EPA supports and advocates for a range of voluntary programs designed to provide
flexibility and novel and beneficial 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 problems not otherwise regulated by EPA (e.g. water and energy use,
recycling).52 In 2002, EPA released an innovation strategy that described EPA activities and
priority issues.53
Voluntary programs have proliferated in recent years and now address a wide variety of
environmental challenges.54 However, their growth has not been matched by appropriate
organization and oversight. Recent OIG work illustrates that EPA does not have Agency-wide
policies that require the inclusion of key evaluative elements such as standardized management
processes, consistent and reliable data, and uniform operational guidelines that allow for
comparative assessment. EPA has not developed specific definitions that help EPA staff to
categorize or identify these diverse voluntary programs. Finally, EPA has not implemented a
systematic process to develop, test, and market voluntary programs, or to regularly evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs. As a result, EPA cannot identify a consistent population of
voluntary programs, there are no policies requiring voluntary programs to have comparative
programmatic elements, and there is no systematic process in place to regularly assess the
effectiveness of these programs. In addition, we found shortcomings in EPA's "gold standard"
voluntary programs with quality controls, performance measurement, and strategic planning.55
Clearly, EPA must be innovative and flexible, and adapt to changes in environmental
protection to continue progress toward environmental goals. The challenge is to maintain those
vital elements of the existing system, such as the standards, permits, and compliance
assurance efforts which 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 regular 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 procedures, 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 programs.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA programs and regions support a range of voluntary/partnership programs, which function
as an adjunct to regulatory programs or fill in where a regulatory approach is not practicable. These
Section IV - 23
-------
programs are diverse in size, scope, environmental media, target environmental issue, and stakeholder
base. They range from high-profile programs such as ENERGY STAR and Performance Track to smaller,
more targeted programs such as Sunwise or Natural Gas STAR. There are more than 50 partnership
programs Agency-wide which are managed by many different program offices and regions, each of which
is responsible for ensuring that programs are well designed and well run. Thus, it is difficult for any
single office response to address such a broadly-defined management challenge.
However, the Agency's Innovation Action Council (IAC), which directs and oversees the
Agency's innovation agenda, has initiated a number of efforts to clarify the goals and measures and
evaluate the results of innovative and "voluntary " partnership programs. As part of this initiative, a
Partnership Program Coordination Team has been formed within OP El's National Center for
Environmental Innovation.
Highlights of progress include:
• Issued guidelines on optimal program design, performance measurement, and marketing.
• Implemented a notification system for new and expanding programs.
• Established a charter that includes an Agency-wide workgroup and network to maximize
uniform understanding of and compliance with relevant policies and procedures.
• Established a coordination function in the Office of the Administrator to encourage sound
program design and management, with a special emphasis on performance measurement.
• Finalized guidelines for marketing partnership programs, and issued a compilation of
previous guidelines. Guidelines are available on the Partners intranet website at:
http://www.epa.gov/partners.
• Formed a cross-agency Partnership Program Review Workgroup, charged with developing
a framework for the systematic evaluation and assessment of partnership programs.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Initiate the development of a new set of Guidelines on Program Evaluation for partnership
programs.
• Finalize a Progress/Accomplishments Report that will compile the environmental results
reported by programs across the Agency.
• Conduct training on best practices and procedures, and arrange seminars and discussion
groups on new research on trends and strategies.
Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater Resources and Infrastructure
America's water assets are critical to the country's public health and economic,
environmental, 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 investments.
In 2002, EPA estimated the 20-year water infrastructure capital needs as ranging
between $485 billion and $896 billion. EPA annually commits funding to the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to ensure that communities have access to
capital for their drinking and wastewater infrastructure needs. The 2008 President's Budget
proposes $688 million for the Clean Water SRF and $842 million for the Drinking Water SRF56.
These amounts are unchanged from the prior year's budget submission.
Section IV - 24
-------
EPA has to find ways to be more innovative on the finance and management fronts to
assist States and communities in overcoming infrastructure issues. OIG reports on such topics
as Drinking Water Protection Efforts, Source Water Protection, Small Drinking Water Systems57,
Combined Sewer Overflows and State Revolving Funds have identified funding as 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 program
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 continuing challenge to find ways
to reach and influence the management behavior, skills, and abilities of thousands of small
utilities. Preparing and publishing documents, and convening workshops reach only a small
portion of the systems that need EPA's expertise. Recent OIG work shows that lack of long-term
planning, management and operator competencies and retention, and problems understanding
regulations continue 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 infrastructure
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.
In addition, EPA regulations and policies allowing States to use bonds repaid from SRF
interest to meet SRF match requirements are resulting in fewer dollars being available for water
projects. Twenty States have used the Clean Water SRF to repay bonds issued to meet the
required fund match, and 16 of those States also did so for the Drinking Water SRF. Further,
four States used short-term bonds for their State match and then retired those bonds from SRF
funds within a week of issuing them. These practices have resulted in an estimated $937
million less available for loans since the inception of the SRF programs. We acknowledge that
States have funding limitations and depend on legislatures for funding. Nonetheless, the
majority of States have been able to finance their 20-percent match without using bonds
financed by the SRFs, and we believe this is a goal toward which all States should strive.58
EPA has approached this challenge by focusing on its "Four Pillars of Sustainable
Infrastructure" - better management, water efficiency, 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. In the
absence of growth in Federal funding, EPA has taken a non-financial and non-regulatory
approach to meet the infrastructure challenge. For example, in the past year it established a
voluntary program to conserve water ("WaterSense"), issued a "green infrastructure" policy, and
convened a national conference on sustainable infrastructure. The Agency recognizes that
much more remains to be done and recently pointed to the need for innovative actions and
technologies for closing the infrastructure gap. However, the critical question for the agency is
whether EPA's approach is adequate to the infrastructure challenge.
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA believes it has taken and will continue to take effective steps to define and pursue its role in
ensuring that the nation's water and wastewater infrastructure is sustainable in the future. While much
Section IV - 25
-------
of the change is needed at the local level, EPA provides leadership, tools, innovation, and momentum to
encourage a shift toward financial and managerial sustainability. The Agency's role is to provide
education and outreach and to serve as a "wholesaler" of information to our state and national
professional association partners. EPA 's Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure (SI) have provided
the structure to define the sustainability challenge, raised the visibility of the issue to a national scale,
and offered a suite of approaches to move towards sustainability. Water infrastructure has been further
elevated on the national stage as one of the Administrator's top four priorities.
EPA is leading by example by breaking down barriers to progress in its own programs and
partnerships and working toward policies that foster sustainability, while protecting human health and
the environment. Internally, EPA is speaking with one voice—reaching across offices to promote the
innovation needed to address the sustainability challenge. SI has been a major topic for the national
Water Division Directors' and SES meetings, helping the Agency work across traditional organizational
lines to allow and promote innovation. The Agency is promoting SI through permits, Special
Environmental Projects, and injunctive relief. The Agency is also coordinating efforts in its Performance
Track and Smart Growth programs to foster aspects of sustainability, energy, and infrastructure related
to climate change.
EPA 's efforts go well beyond the areas of focus under the Four Pillars. In the area of innovative
finance, the Agency is working to allow the expanded use of Private Activity Bonds to bring more private
capital into the sector and exploring and promoting innovative uses ofSRF loans. In March 2007, in
partnership with 14 other organizations, EPA convened a national conference on Paying for Sustainable
Water Infrastructure that brought stakeholders from all levels of government and the private sector
together to explore creative methods of paying for sustainable water infrastructure. Four conference
tracks covered topics related to reducing costs and increasing investment in drinking water and
wastewater systems and programs. The conference looked beyond the Four Pillars to broader issues and
expanding all stakeholders' efforts, since solutions to the sustainability challenge will require joint and
collaborative effort. EPA has since met with conference co-sponsors to consolidate learning and define
critical areas for additional collaborative action, such as improved outreach to local officials.
On July 2, 2007, EPA responded to OIG 's audit recommendations, indicating that the Agency has
followed the tenets embedded in legislation and regulation to allow states maximum flexibility in
operating their SRFs. States face differing fiscal realities and need the ability to adopt policies for
meeting their match requirements that are appropriate for their situations. As noted in the report, EPA
agreed to assess the effects on states of its state match bond policy and the potential impact of changes to
the current policy. Our assessment indicates that states show near unanimous support for the current
policy and believe that its cumulative effect on the SRF program has been highly beneficial. States
further indicate that adopting the OIG recommendation would be disruptive and detrimental to the SRF
program. Finally, at least 11 states that take advantage of the current policy believe they would be
unable to procure state appropriations for match, and therefore unable to apply for federal funds. It is
notable that the majority of states that issue match bonds also leverage their federal capitalization grants
to make maximum use of the program. EPA believes that, on balance, its current policy on state match
bonds is successful in providing maximum state flexibility and effective environmental and public health
protection and that further action is not warranted at this time.
Highlights of progress include:
• Launched WaterSense, a market enhancement program that is increasing national
awareness of water-efficient choices and the value of clean and safe water.
• Signed a ground-breaking agreement with six major water and wastewater associations
jointly to promote effective utility management based on a series of Attributes of Effectively
Managed Utilities, other management tools, and utility performance measures.
Section IV - 26
-------
. Co-sponsored the Water Quality Trading Conference with USDA that brought utility
companies and the agricultural community together to build 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 and Total
Electronic Asset Management Software).
• Convened a Watershed Forum with several major utilities to discuss ways to promote
adoption of various watershed tools, such as green infrastructure, into local infrastructure
decisions.
• Convened a panel of experts to discuss the importance of full cost pricing of water and
wastewater services by utilities.
• Co-sponsored the Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure: Innovations for the 21st
Century Conference which brought together stakeholders from all levels of government and
the private sector to explore creative methods for paying for sustainable water
infrastructure today and into the future.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Develop a Small Communities Team work plan focused on better management of
wastewater for small communities and disadvantaged or 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.
• Release the Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, which explains how to
implement the National Water Quality Trading Policy and is the first "how to trade"
guidance published by the Agency.
• By end of summer of 2008, publish a series of "technical guides " that will provide technical
information for establishing trading programs in such areas as water quality monitoring
and developing scientifically-based trade ratios.
• By winter 2008, complete the Check Up Program for Small Systems software, an asset
management tool designed to help small systems.
• Work with the Green Infrastructure Collaborative workgroup on a strategy to expand the
use of green infrastructure solutions.
Host a National Capacity Development Program workshop to expand outreach and explore
solutions to the challenges faced by small systems.
Information Technology Systems Development and Implementation
EPA requested approximately $433 million in system development/maintenance funding
for fiscal year 2007.59 As noted by GAO, major systems development efforts are inherently
risky60 and EPA has experienced problems similar to those encountered by other Federal
agencies.61 Our report on information technology (IT) project management identified instances
where EPA needed to continue efforts to ensure its IT projects met (1) planned budgets and
schedules and (2) Agency prescribed system life cycle documentation requirements.62
Since FY 2006, EPA has made some improvements in the area of IT systems
development and implementation. EPA issued an Operational Analysis Guidance document63
and System Life Cycle Management (SLCM) policy.64 In addition, EPA (1) completed
independent validations for reasonableness for 10 ongoing development projects, (2) validated
IT project manager qualifications, and (3) initiated a quarterly certification process for all major
IT acquisitions to ensure there is no duplication with the President's E-Gov initiatives.65
Section IV - 27
-------
However, despite these efforts, more management control and oversight is necessary to
ensure IT projects meet the performance standards established by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).66 In particular, EPA needs to take steps to ensure the following.
• High-risk IT projects do not exceed prescribed cost and schedule variances.
Recently, EPA reported that 22 percent (4 of 18) of its current high-risk IT projects have
cost and schedule variances over 10 percent.67 Despite having qualified project
managers for these investments, EPA has experienced: (1) schedule slippages in the
Financial System Modernization Project acquisition process, (2) unforeseen schedule
delays in system integration planning and testing of interfaces to the Defense Finance
Accounting Service payroll system, and (3) a high number of unanticipated and
significant technical and systems issues associated with the Agency's E-Travel
migration. These problems have resulted in overall schedule variances of Agency
systems ranging from 13 to 36 percent over planned milestones.68
• EPA regional and program offices complete system life cycle documentation to guide the
development of Agency systems, in a timely manner, as required by Agency policy.
The OIG conducted follow-up work on EPA efforts to complete key system
documentation for major environmental systems. This review showed that EPA offices
do not prepare essential documentation as required by Agency policy. In particular,
current audit work identified instances of missing or unapproved System Management
Plans (SMP) for major environmental systems.69 The SMP is the principal tool used by
System Managers to control, assess, and document the system throughout the system
life cycle process.70 Although EPA is currently revising its SLCM procedures to address
these issues, the Agency has not indicated when it will issue the new procedures.71
Inadequate system documentation prevents the OIG from assessing the reliability of the
automated application processing controls in EPA's Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). While EPA has made progress towards replacing IFMS, delays and the
lack of documentation continue to result in a reportable condition in the Agency's
financial statements.72
• Earned Value Management procedures are strengthened. EPA has not finalized its draft
November 2006 Earned Value Management (EVM) Procedures used to assist project
managers in collecting and reporting on performance of major IT investments.73 These
procedures include (1) implementing modifications to EPA contracts that require the
contractor to use EVM procedures and (2) validating the project's performance
measurement baseline.74
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
In its September 2005 report, "EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Information Technology
Projects, " OIG noted that EPA has experienced system development and implementation problems and
did not sufficiently oversee information technology (IT) projects to ensure they met planned budgets and
schedules. In response to OIG's audit findings, EPA developed an action plan to enhance management
control and oversight. The action plan calls for formally delegating the responsibility for independent
oversight review, adding a question in the Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process
focusing on System Life Cycle documentation and approvals, and further emphasizing the importance of
reviewing solutions architecture documents. It also calls for revising the System Life Cycle Management
Procedures and continued outreach and education for senior management and Senior Information
Officials. While EPA 's Chief Information Officer (CIO) has the lead for ensuring effective IT project
Section IV - 28
-------
management, primary authority and responsibility lies with the senior manager in the office that owns the
IT project, with appropriate oversight by the CIO.
Highlights of progress include:
• Received certification from program and regional Senior Information Officials that all IT
acquisitions of $2 million or more had undergone an E-Gov, Line of Business, and
SmartBuy review.
• Ensured that program offices completed Earned Value Management (EVM) analysis and
reporting for on-going development projects.
• Developed Enterprise Architecture Governance Procedures that require review, approval,
and certification that solutions architectures are aligned with both federal and EPA
enterprise architectures.
• Conducted outreach briefings for Agency Senior Information Officials, discussing CPIC
and project management.
• Issued the draft Enterprise Architecture Program 2007 Architecture Development Standard
and Guidance.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Finalize the draft Earned Value Management Procedures by the end ofFY 2007.
• Continue to conduct outreach briefings with senior management.
• Conduct annual EVM program reviews with project managers.
• Continue to work with the appropriate office to ensure that EVM systems are included in
contracts and to establish guidelines for project/program compliance and system
certification.
Data Gaps
If EPA is to manage for results, it needs to decide what environmental and other
indicators will be measured so that organizations responsible for delivering environmental
programs identify, collect, and measure what is important. Ensuring that the right type of data is
available for analysis is essential for effective environmental decision making. OIG audits and
evaluations pointed out that data to measure program success are not always present.
While EPA has developed a comprehensive work plan to measure the performance of
the National Environmental Exchange Network (Network), data necessary to measure progress
in meeting key Network objectives have not been collected. Such performance measures would
provide the baseline data necessary to measure the Network's performance over time. Without
the key performance data, management is hindered in its efforts to ensure funds spent on
electronic data collection initiatives provide the quality and quantity of environmental data
necessary to improve program efficiency and effectiveness.75
EPA and its partners also need to take steps to implement the numerous data
requirements designed to provide better protection against the health risks of pesticides under
the Food Quality Protection Act. Although EPA took some steps to collect required data for
assessing the health risks of pesticides on children, significant data gaps remain. EPA needs to
collect more data on aggregate exposure risk and take various steps to improve its cumulative
risk assessments, including updating databases and expanding partnerships with other Federal
organizations.76
While extensive data have been collected on mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities,
data gaps still exist with respect to understanding the effectiveness of specific controls in
Section IV - 29
-------
reducing mercury emissions from coal. In a February 2005 study on the control of mercury
emissions, EPA noted that there are data and science gaps associated with existing control
technologies that are intended to reduce emissions of other pollutants (with the co-benefit of
reducing mercury), as well as with emerging technologies specifically designed to reduce
mercury emissions. These mercury emissions uncertainties, which EPA has not yet quantified,
could impact the accuracy of the estimated utility emissions entered into EPA's atmospheric
models and the resulting deposition estimates.77
In 2006, an OIG audit revealed that data gaps exist regarding the management of
hazardous waste units granted interim status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.78 Undoubtedly, EPA must be creative and work collectively with States,
tribes, territories, and industry to address many of these immense data gap problems. In its
efforts to address these challenges, EPA implemented a process to identify and prioritize data
gaps. This included coordinating the latest draft Report of the Environment (ROE) with the
Agency's strategic planning and budgeting processes. In developing EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan, National Program Managers considered the suite of ROE questions and
indicators in an effort to help the Agency develop better environmental performance goals and
measures. This effort also set out to help the Agency identify and set priorities for filling gaps in
the information needed to manage programs. In the future, EPA must continue its plans to
analyze and discuss the ROE indicator gaps and limitations. EPA also must continue to
develop new, and strengthen existing, outreach programs to identify how and where EPA can
leverage data collection efforts among its partners.79
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
As part of its strategic planning, EPA continues to implement and refine processes to identify
data gaps and to set priorities for addressing them. For example, the Agency is coordinating the draft
Report of the Environment (ROE) with its strategic planning and budgeting process. As part of
developing EPA 's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, national program managers (NPMs) considered the suite of
ROE questions and indicators to help develop better environmental performance goals and measures and
to identify and set priorities for filling gaps in the information needed to manage programs. NPMs were
also required to develop preliminary strategies for improving performance measures to make them more
environmental-outcome oriented. Each strategy identified priorities for filling key data gaps to meet the
most critical needs and provided a brief recommendation on how to address critical gaps in program
data.
Highlights of progress include:
• Developed a pilot (endorsed by ICS) that assesses how the ROE and strategic planning
efforts can best inform and support one another.
• Completed the Water pilot, as part of the ROE/SP pilots.
• Briefed the Indicators Steering Committee on the preliminary accomplishments of the
ROE/SP Pilot.
• Implemented a comprehensive work plan to measure the performance of the Exchange
Network.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Continue to further refine the process to identify and prioritize data gaps identified in the
ROE as part of the Agency's Strategic Plan and budgeting planning processes.
Section IV - 30
-------
Privacy Program
With the increased scrutiny regarding the protection of personally identifiable information
(PII), Federal agencies' privacy programs have become the subject of recent oversight by
OMB.80 EPA, like many agencies, has found it a challenge to remain focused on its privacy
responsibilities and integrate privacy into the evolving nature of E-Government and other
mandated privacy activities. EPA is currently in the process of re-establishing its Privacy
Program (Program).81 However, recent OIG audit work discovered that EPA needs to
implement a more comprehensive management control structure to govern and ensure its
Privacy Program's success. In particular, EPA needs to strengthen its management controls
over developing and distributing key privacy guidance, monitoring the effectiveness of the
Program, and putting processes in place to measure the Agency's compliance with key privacy
program tenets.82
EPA needs to update the overarching policy that outlines the administration and
management of the Program and establish a structure to ensure key privacy policies,
procedures, and guidance are readily available to personnel responsible for implementation.
The current Program policy is outdated and lacks the specificity needed for EPA offices to
understand the Program's standards or the duties and responsibilities of those responsible for
implementing the program. Furthermore, EPA needs to complete projects to develop a
centralized location where key privacy guidance documents are accessible. EPA has indicated
it plans to establish (1) an intranet site for posting privacy policies, procedures and guidance;
and (2) a privacy liaison structure within each EPA office to ensure key documents are
distributed. EPA indicated that it is currently updating the Privacy Program policy; however, the
project intended to make key privacy guidance documents available on the Agency's intranet
site is on hold, without any planned completion milestone date. Likewise, the Agency has not
set a milestone date for establishing the envisioned privacy liaison structure.
EPA also needs to complete plans for ensuring compliance with the Agency's Privacy
Program's policies and procedures,83 and establishing an effective oversight process to perform
compliance evaluations or inspections.84 Like many of the Privacy Program provisions,
establishing a monitoring process is still in the planning stage.85 EPA's Privacy officials
indicated they plan to monitor compliance by using the Privacy Program liaison structure,
established at the program and regional office level. Privacy officials also plan to ensure that
the Agency is not collecting unnecessary PI I and that required forms have legally sufficient
Privacy Act Statements. However, none of these activities has been initiated nor has a target
date been set for their implementation.86
In addition, EPA needs to continue its efforts to establish practices that will help Privacy
Program managers effectively measure the success of the Program. Although the Agency's
Privacy Program is still in the infancy stage, EPA needs to establish a formal plan with
milestones to identify the activities to be performed and performance measures for assessing
progress.
Managing an effective Privacy Program will require EPA to work closely with its program
and regional offices to ensure they develop and implement a successful program, thereby
meeting the requirements for protecting PI I collected by the Agency. Although EPA is poised to
meet this challenge, it needs an effective, yet flexible, management control structure to oversee
what will be an evolving process. Furthermore, EPA needs to aggressively complete and
implement key Privacy Program guidance and other vital planned activities.
Section IV - 31
-------
EPA's Response (Prepared by the Agency)
EPA acknowledges that it faces challenges in establishing privacy programs, including revising
and developing policies, establishing oversight and accountability, ensuring compliance, and measuring
success. However, over the past year, EPA has made significant progress in integrating its privacy and
security reporting responsibilities into its business processes.
In June 2006, the Agency established a Personal Identifiable Information (PII) Workgroup under
the Quality Information Council to identify and implement short- and long-term actions to protect PII
from unauthorized access and disclosure. The workgroup developed an action plan to ensure that key
privacy initiatives are met and that the critical tenets of the privacy program are accomplished. The
action plan, which includes milestones and expected outcomes, will help the Agency better understand its
risks for PII breaches by knowing where its privacy collections are located, managed, and accessed and
whether the Agency is storing and collecting unnecessary PII. EPA has already completed several
critical activities within the action plan and will continue to monitor progress in this area.
Highlights of progress include:
• Reviewed the Agency's technical controls to ensure consistency with the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) and OMB requirements
• Prepared System of Records for new system (on-going)
• Established and implemented guidance for preparing Privacy Impact Assessments on all
new Agency systems (on-going).
• Reviewed Agency privacy policies to ensure they address the controls identified by NIST.
• Reviewed all Agency Privacy Act Systems of Records to determine which systems are
remotely accessed, are downloaded, and/or collect sensitive PII, and whether stringent
controls are required.
• Reviewed and submitted draft language for the Agency's new telework policy to ensure that
employees are aware of their responsibilities to protect PII when working offsite.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Develop a privacy intranet website that will make privacy documents available to
employees.
• Continue to monitor progress to ensure the Agency is in compliance with NIST and OMB
standards and/or requirements.
Section IV - 32
-------
IMPROPER PAYMENTS INFORMATION ACT OF 2002
REPORTING DETAILS
I. RISK ASSESSMENTS: To implement the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA)
requirements, the Agency reviewed and sampled disbursements made in the highest risk
susceptible inventories. EPA determined that its programs did 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 was required to submit an IPIA corrective action plan for
them. The Agency's corrective action proposed to reduce the error rate of improper payments
in the SRFs from 0.51 percent to 0.30 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:
Program: Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs
Fiscal Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
Outlays
$2.1 billion
$2.0 billion
$2.3 billion
$2.3 billion (est.)
Erroneous Payments
$10. 3 million
$3.0 million
$3.5 million
$1.64 million
Error Rate
0.49 percent
0.15 percent
0.15 percent
0.07 percent
II. STATISTICAL SAMPLING PROCESS: Based on having low error rates and less than $10
million in erroneous payments for two consecutive years (FY 2005 - 2006), OMB has approved
relief from annual statistical sampling and reporting requirements for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water SRF Programs. EPA will need to conduct a risk assessment on these programs
in three years (FY 2010), or may be required to re-initiate measurement activities if there are
any substantial changes to the program (legislation, funding, etc.) that may impact payment
accuracy.
III. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS: In order to 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 was granted relief from annual statistical
sampling of direct and subrecipient SRF payments. Since FY 2006, the Agency tracks
erroneous payments by grant recipient in the Grantee Compliance Database.
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 111 non-profit grantees. Nineteen of the non-profit grantee reviews identified potential
erroneous payments. In FY 2006, the Agency completed its risk-based judgmental CY 2005
sample of 99 non-profit recipient reports - 24 identified potential erroneous payments. Results
of both years are provided in the table below. 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.
Section IV - 33
-------
EPA will report updated information on the appeal process results (costs still in recipient appeal)
in the FY 2008 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
$407,067
0.21 percent
CY 2005
Review
$1,016,967
$217,418
$57,791
$57,791
$656,243
0.29 percent
CY 2006
Review
$563,195
$64,597
$10,476
$10,476
$488,122
0.036
percent
B. 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.
Results of EPA's Improper Contract Payments Report
Fiscal Year
2003*
2004
2005
2006
2007
Number of Erroneous
Payments
25 (of 24, 056)
21 (of 24,886)
21 (of 26,305)
25 (of 28,098)
14 (of 29,828)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$206.1
$748.5
$121.5
$406.5
$65.3
Error Rate for
Dollars
0.02 percent
0.08 percent
0.01 percent
0.03 percent
0.01 percent
• * FY 2003 only included data from January through September.
• For all five years, all erroneous payments were fully recovered.
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.
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 FY 2006 completed
Recovery Audit described above in Section III. B. Contracts. The Recovery Audit contractor
Section IV - 34
-------
reviewed 275,185 invoices paid totaling $2.2 million and found 31 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 Center. The
consolidation achieves a higher degree of internal control, consistency and oversight. The
consolidation plus several other corrective actions addressed the Recovery Audit Report
recommendations. In preparation for replacing the core financial system, EPA reviewed 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
2007
Number of Erroneous
Payments
40 (of 42,698)
102 (of 50,665)
63 (of 45, 859)
Erroneous Payments
(Dollars in Thousands)
$416.0
$695.5
$176.5
Error Rate for Dollars
0.17 percent
0.23 percent
0.06 percent
D. Payroll: By December 31, 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 in May 2006. EPA now benefits from the combination of both agencies'
internal controls.
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 biennial reviews of the purchases made within their
program offices. These reviews ensure the integrity of the purchase card program. EPA
continues to use the additional controls implemented under the FY 2006 Katrina Stewardship
plan:
• 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.
Section IV - 35
-------
IV. IMPROPER PAYMENT (IP) REDUCTION OUTLOOK FY 2004 - FY 2008
(Dollars in millions)
Program
Clean
Water
and
Drinking
Water
SRFs
FY 2004
Outlays
$2,182
(actual)
FY
2004
n>%
0.49
FY
2004
IPS
$10.3
FY 2005
Outlays
$1,963
(actual)
FY 2005
IP%
0.45
target
0.15
actual
FY
2005
IP$
$3.0
FY
2006
Outlays
$2,303
(actual)
FY
2006
IP%
0.40
target
0.15
actual
FY
2006
IP$
$3.5
FY
2007
Outlays
$2,344
(est.)
FY
2007
IP%
.0.35
target
0.07
actual
FY
2007
IP$
$1.6
FY2008
Outlays
$1,565
(est.)
FY
2008
IP%
0.30
FY
2008
IP$
$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 sections, 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 strengthened 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 semi-annually to management in both the Office of Water
and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. In all cases action is taken with the appropriate
officials to ensure 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 improper 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. In FY 2006, the Agency demonstrated a
low level of risk for the SRF programs through statistical sampling of direct payments, targeted
state reviews, statistical sampling of subrecipient payments in two states, and analysis of
subrecipient payments in Texas Single Audit Act report. In FY 2007, based on the guidelines
contained in Appendix C to OMB Circular A-123, Part I, Section K (program has documented a
minimum of two consecutive years of improper payments that are less than $10 million
annually), EPA requested relief from the annual statistical sampling and reporting requirements
of the IPIA for the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. On October 5, 2006, OMB granted
the Agency's request to waive statistical testing of SRF transactions for fiscal years 2007-2009.
EPA will be required to resume statistical assessment and report on the SRF programs in the
FY 2010 PAR. OMB's approval of the three-year waiver 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.
Section IV - 36
-------
For FY 2008, 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.
1 This completion date is based on various assumptions about the future and, therefore, any changes to the assumptions would
impact the schedule. For example, OECA is assuming that no major changes to the design of ICIS will be required for the batch
states. This scenario assumes FY 2008 and FY 2009 extramural funding for ICIS at the President's budget level of $6.7 million.
For FY 2010 and beyond it is assumed that annual funding will rise to $7.5 million. If the Agency assumes the President's
budget level of $6.7 million continues in FY 2010 and beyond, the schedule will likely move five or more quarters into the
future, with a shut down date for PCS delayed until 2015. Further, as with any project, extended timelines for completion add
risk to the project, and predictions about when the project will be completed become more speculative.
2 PART results - Source OMB Website Expect More. Gov and DIG analysis of PART results.
3 PART results - Source OMB Website Expect More.Gov and OIG summary of PART results.
4 OIG conclusion based on PART results.
PART results - Source OMB Website Expect More.Gov and OIG analysis of PART results.
6 EPA, OPEI, ESD website, Developing Program Evaluation Capacity
7 Office of Administrator Functional Statement, 14-16.
8 Information provided by OPEI in response to an OIG questionnaire on EPA's program evaluation activities, w/p
J-6.2a-l (question 9) for the Macro Risk Assessment Assignment 2007-520.
Information provided by OPEI in response to an OIG questionnaire on EPA's program evaluation activities, w/p
J-6.2a-l (question 9) for the Macro Risk Assessment Assignment 2007-520.
10 OIG conclusion.
11 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan, Charting Our Course.
12 OIG Conclusion based on PART analysis and program evaluation analysis.
13 Office of Environmental Information (OEI) FY 2005 Integrity Act Report, Implementation of Data Standards, Attachment 2,
Page 2, regarding OEI's weaknesses for an October 5, 2005, Management Integrity Meeting.
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2005, Appendix C, Data Quality,
CIS.
15 Promising Techniques to Improve Drinking Water Laboratory Integrity and Reduce Public Health Risk, OIG Report No. 2006-
P-00036, September 21, 2006.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2005, Appendix C, Data Quality,
CIS.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2005, Appendix C, Data Quality,
CIS.
18 Lessons Learned: EPA's Response to Hurricane Katrina, OIG Report No 2006-P-00033, September 14, 2006.
19 EPA Summary of Emissions Factors Improvements Projects Fact Finding Survey, June 2004, 1.
20 GAO Report No. GAO-01 -46 EPA Should Improve Oversight of Emissions Reporting by Large Facilities, April 2001, 3.
Section IV - 37
-------
21 EPA Summary of Emissions Factors Improvements Projects Fact Finding Survey, June 2004, table 2.
EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, At a Glance.
23 DIG Report No. 2006-P-00017,15-24.
24 DIG Report No. 2006-P-00017,15-24; Memorandum: Inspector General's Candidates for Fiscal 1996 Weaknesses, To:
Sallyanne Harper, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Attachment 2.
25 EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, At a Glance.
26 OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, At a Glance.
27 OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, At a Glance.
28 "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,.8; Introduction to AP-42,
Volume 1, Fifth Edition - January 1995, 4-5.
29 3.0 Options for Revising Factor Quality Assessment prepared by MACTEC for Emission Factors and Policy Application
Group, EMAD, OAQPS, OAR, August 2004, 2-4.
30 E-mail Response from Indiana Department of Environmental Management, September 22, 2005.
31 E-mail Response from Indiana Department of Environmental Management, September 22, 2005.
32 EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management, OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, 32.
33 Document prepared for OIG, by Emission factors and Policy Application Group, EMAD, OAQPS, OAR, January 6, 2005;
OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, 35.
34 OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, 35, note 1.
35 EPA Science Advisory Board "Minutes from the EPA Science Advisory Board Risk and Technology Review Consultative Panel
Public Teleconference", December 19, 2006 3; http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/consul_risk_and_tech_assessmentj3lan.htm>.
36 OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017,26, 35, note 1.
37 OIGReportNo. 2006-P-00017,25.
38
OIGReportNo. 2006-P-00017,25.
39 EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, The OAQPS Quality Management Plan, October 2006;
.
40 EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, The OAQPS Quality Management Plan, October 2006, section 1, fifth
paragraph; .
41 Emissions Factors and Policy Applications Center, Emissions Factors and Policy Application Center Highlights for 2006,
January 2007; < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/efpachilites.html>.
42 OIG Report No. 2006-P-00017, At a Glance.
43 OIGReportNo. 2006-P-00017,17-19,23-25: OIGopinion.
44 U.S. EPA Strategic Workforce Plan FY 2006, March 2006.
45 The President's Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002, 11-15.
46 EPA Performance Accountability Report,205-206.
Section IV - 38
-------
47 EPA Performance Accountability Report, 205-206.
48 E-mail correspondence from OARM/OHR/HCMD/HCPB, March 14, 2007, March 19, 2007, March 20,2007, and March 26,
2007; EPA Human Capital Management FY07 Q2 Scoring Preliminary Summary; EPA Human Capital FY01 Ql Summary
(Talent/Strategic Alignment, Item #4a); EPA Mission Critical Occupations Selection Report, September 2006.
49 E-mail correspondence from OARM/OHR/HCMD/HCPB, March 21, 2007; Strategic Workforce Planning Handout from
OARM's October 24, 2006 Human Resource Council Meeting; Human Capital PMA Talking Points for the Deputy
Administrator December 7, 2006.
50 EPA Performance Accountability Report, 205-206.
51 EPA Performance Accountability Report, 205-206.
52 EPA Everyday Choices: Opportunities for Environmental Stewardship, December 2005.
EPA Innovating for Better Environmental Results: A Strategy to Guide the Next Generation of Innovation at EPA, April 2002.
54 Partnership Programs May Expand EPA's Influence, OIG Report No. 2007-P-00003, At a Glance.
55 Performance Track Could Improve Program Design and Management to Ensure Value, OIG Report No. 2007-P-00013,At a
Glance.
56 Environmental Protection Agency 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification,
57 Much Effort and Resources Needed to Help Small Drinking Water Systems Overcome Challenges, OIG Report No. 2006-P-
00026.
58 EPA's Allowing States to Use Bonds to Meet Revolving Fund Match Requirements Reduces Funds Available for Water
Projects, OIG Report No. 2007-P-00012.
59 E-mail from OEI, Total Dollars for Major IT Investments in the Development Phase of the System Life Cycle, March 31,2006.
60 GAO ReporlNo.06-l&4, Financial Systems Modernization, March, 2006, 3.
61 GAO Report No. GAO/AIMD-96-64, Information Technology Investment - Agencies Can Improve Performance, Reduce
Costs, and Minimize Risks, September 1996,4-5.
62 EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Information Technology Projects Report, OIG Report No. 2005-P-00023, September
14,2005,4-5.
63 EPA Operational Analysis Guidance, Version 1.0, April 21, 2006 < http://intranet.epa.gov/cpic/evm/cpic-oa-guidance-
o42106.doc>.
64 System Life Cycle Management (SLCM) Policy < http://intranet.epa. gov/oei/imitpolicv/qic/ciopolicv/2100.5 .pdf >.
65 E-mail from EPA official, April 7, 2007, responding to OIG 2006 management challenge memo.
66 OMB Memorandum M-05-23, Improving Information Technology (IT) Project Planning and Execution, August 4, 2005.
67 E-mail from EPA representative, March 29, 2007, with attached EPA FY07 2nd Qtr High Risk Report.
68 E-mail from EPA representative, March 29, 2007, with attached EPA FY07 2nd Qtr High Risk Report.
69 OIG Interview with EPA Program Office on March 15, 2007.
70 System Life Cycle Management Procedure < http://intranet.epa.gov/otop/policies/Extended DraftProcedures.pdf>.
71 System Life Cycle Management Procedure.
Section IV - 39
-------
72 Audit of EPA's Fiscal 2006 and 2005 Consolidated Financial Statements, OIG Report No. 2007-1 -00019, November 15,
2006, Attachment 3.
EPA Earned Value Management Procedures < http://intranet.epa.gov/cpic/evm/evm-procedures-draft.doc>.
74 E-mail from OEI official, April 7, 2007, responding to OIG 2006 management challenge memo.
75 Improved Management Practices Needed to Increase Use of Exchange Network (Discussion Draft Audit Report) OIG Audit
Report Assignment No. 2006-000212, dated April 2007.
Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health through the Food Quality Protection Act, OIG Report No. 2006-
P-00009, January 10, 2006.
77 Monitoring Needed to Assess Impact of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule on Potential Hotspots, OIG Report No. 2006-P-00025,
May 15,2006.
78 EPA's Management of Interim Status Permitting Needs Improvement to Ensure Continued Progress, OIG Report No. 2007-P-
00005, December 4, 2006.
79 EPA's Responses to Major Management Challenges 08 CJ, Final, February 2, 2007.
80 Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-06-15, Safeguarding Personally Identifiable Information, May 22, 2006.
81 Office of Environmental Information Functional Statement, Office of Information Collection, Records, FOIA, and Privacy
Branch.
82 Review of EPA's Protection of PII & Privacy Program, Audit No. 2007-175, Working Paper M-3, regarding Summarization of
Macro-Risk Assessment Objective-3 Policy - Privacy.
83 Review of EPA's Protection of PII & Privacy Program, Audit No. 2007-175, Working Paper I-1, regarding Privacy Program-
Policy Evaluation.
84 Review of EPA's Protection of PII & Privacy Program, Audit No. 2007-175, Working Paper K-l, regarding Privacy Program-
-Monitoring Evaluation.
85 Review of EPA's Protection of PII & Privacy Program, Audit No. 2007-175, Working Paper K-l, regarding Privacy Program-
-Monitoring Evaluation.
86 Review of EPA's Protection of PII and Privacy Program, Audit No. 2007-175, Working paper M-2, regarding Documentation
of Privacy Interview Responses.
Section IV - 40
-------
EPA'sFY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix A - Program Evaluations Completed in
FY 2007
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001), published on November
15, 2007. This document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 1
-------
APPENDIX A - PROGRAM EVALUATION
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 2007. It includes evaluations
that apply to a specific goal and objective, which are presented in the Performance Results section. Appendix A lists evaluations by
goal and objective, and provides information on the evaluator; scope of the evaluation; relevant findings; and recommendations.
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
ENERGY STAR Program Can
Strengthen Controls Protecting the
Integrity of the Label/U.S. EPA Office
of Inspector General/The evaluation
sought to determine how effectively
EPA is managing the ENERGY STAR
product labeling program. Specific
questions were whether EPA ensures
consumer product specifications are
sufficient, the extent EPA verifies
ENERGY STAR label is properly
earned.
The criteria for revising specifications were
unclear and not documented. It was not
evident when or what factors would trigger a
specification revision. Furthermore, EPA
does not have reasonable assurance that
the self-certification process is effective.
EPA relies on some alternative verification
mechanisms, but lacks any quality
assurance or review of reported results. The
Agency's verification testing also lacks a
clear documented methodology governing
products selected for verification tests and
does not test for statistically valid results.
Consequently, product efficiency and energy
savings reported by manufacturers are, for
the most part, unverified by EPA review.
The IG found little oversight in using the
ENERGY STAR label in retail stores, which
is commonly the purchase point for
consumers. Manufacturers may label and
sell products as ENERGY STAR qualified
prior to submitting test results to the Agency.
The IG recommended that EPA should
strengthen management controls to
protect the integrity of the ENERGY
STAR label. EPA should : (1) clarify and
document the criteria for product
specification revisions; (2) establish a
quality assurance program for its
verification program; (3) improve its
oversight of the ENERGY STAR label by
establishing a systematic methodology
and procedures for monitoring, resolving
and following up on label misuse.
EPA's Oversight of the Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program
Needs Improvement/U.S. EPA Office
of Inspector General/The evaluation's
objective was to determine whether
selected Inspection and Maintenance
A nation-wide survey of all 10 regions
covering 34 I/M programs indicate that EPA
has not been obtaining sufficient information
to ensure that states are meeting their I/M
program commitments. In the last five years
(1999-2004), 11 of the 34 I/M programs
Obtain and evaluate all required I/M
reports to ensure that the programs are
operating effectively, and follow up with
States on significant issues identified.
Provide more technical assistance and
guidance to States, and work with State
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 2
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
(I/M) programs have been effective in
identifying poorly performing vehicles,
ensuring they are adequately repaired
and achieving emissions reductions.
Also, has EPA oversight resulted in
I/M programs achieving their goals in a
timely manner?
submitted timely reports, 14 programs had
either never submitted the required reports
or the regions were unsure whether the
submission had occurred and 4 programs
submitted reports 1-2 years late. The
remaining 5 programs had mixed reports.
Also EPA regions only audited/evaluated 9
of the 34 I/M programs and EPA reduced
resources for overseeing and assisting I/M
programs. As a result, EPA does not have
reasonable assurance that emission
reductions claimed by some I/M programs
have been achieved.
I/M programs to follow up on vehicles
with no known final outcome to a degree
proportional with the problem.
State I/M programs should share
databases to help verify the outcome of
vehicles that failed their I/M tests.
Better Enforcement Oversight Needed
for Major Facilities with Water
Discharge Permits in Long-Term
Significant Noncompliance/U.S. EPA
Office of Inspector General /
The review assessed oversight of
major facilities in long-term significant
noncompliance (SNC) with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
(NPDES) permits. The review was
conducted to determine how well EPA
is ensuring timely and appropriate
enforcement actions are taken against
NPDES facilities in long-term SNC and
what excess pollutant loads could be
minimized if facilities in long-term SNC
achieved compliance.
EPA did not provide effective enforcement
oversight of major facilities with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permits in long-term significant
noncompliance. While flexibility is required in
a national program, EPA inconsistently
applied guidance defining timely formal
actions. In addition, EPA and States also did
not maintain complete and accurate records
of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System compliance and enforcement
activities. Many region and State files were
incomplete, and data in EPA's information
systems were incomplete and inaccurate.
Further, regions and States did not report
inspection-related violations in EPA's Permit
Compliance System.
The Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance should clarify and implement
guidance regarding facilities in
significant noncompliance, implement a
quality assurance program, and
establish controls allowing EPA
leadership to identify significant
noncompliance by bacteria-only
violators.
Total Maximum Daily Load Program
Needs Better Data and Measures to
Demonstrate Environmental Results/
U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General
(OIG)/The review was conducted to
EPA does not have comprehensive
information on the outcomes of the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program
nationwide, nor national data on TMDL
implementation activities. EPA's lack of
The OIG recommends that the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Water: (1)
require EPA's Regional offices to ensure
that the National TMDL Tracking System
is complete; (2) report information on
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 3
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
identify areas ripe for evaluation in the
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
program. The TMDL's program data
and performance measures were the
focus of this preliminary evaluation.
information prevents the Agency from
determining if TMDL implementation
activities are occurring in a timely manner,
and the extent to which TMDL effluent limits
are restoring impaired waters. EPA needs to
provide more management direction to
improve its ability to assess how well this
critical program is functioning. The TMDL
and surface water quality performance
measures the OIG reviewed do not provide
clear and complete metrics of the program's
accomplishments.
TMDL implementation activities and on
the water quality improvements
associated with TMDLs; (3) clarify
terminology, and activities included in
TMDL development, and the surface
water program's efficiency and
effectiveness measures.
Great Lakes: EPA and States Have
Made Progress in Implementing the
BEACH Act, but Additional Actions
Could Improve Public Health
Protection /U.S. Government
Accountability Office/The purpose was
to assess: (1) the status of BEACH Act
implementation by EPA, (2) the status
of monitoring and notification
programs developed by Great Lake
states, and (3) the effect of the
BEACH Act on water quality
monitoring and contamination at Great
Lakes beaches.
GAO found that EPA has taken steps to
implement most of the provisions of the
BEACH Act but has missed statutory
deadlines for two critical requirements: (1)
completing pathogen and human health
studies required by 2003, and (2) publishing
new or revised water quality criteria for
pathogens required by 2005. Moreover,
GAO believed that the formula EPA uses to
distribute the BEACH Act grants does not
accurately reflect the monitoring needs of
the states.
GAO recommends that EPA distribute
grant funds in a way that reflects states'
monitoring needs and help states
improve the consistency of their
monitoring and notification activities. In
addition, Congress should consider
providing EPA more flexibility to allow
states to use BEACH Act grants to
investigate and remediate contamination
sources.
Mid-cycle Review of the Office of and
Research and Development's Drinking
Water Research Program at the
Environmental Protection
Agency/EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC)/Questions to the
panel included: (1) Does the proposed
structure for the revised Drinking
Water Multi-year Plan (MYP) provide a
The Drinking Water Mid-cycle subcommittee
members unanimously agree that the DWRP
exceeds expectations in meeting its goals,
Its science is more than competent and of
high quality. Products are timely and
milestones are largely met. The
subcommittee is supportive and favorably
impressed the the DWRP revisions of the
Long-term goals (LTGs) and the formation of
Recommendations are to (1) finale the
MYP as soon as possible; (2) pursue
strategic planning on several levels,
including: research prioritization;
resource procurement and allocation;
maintaining and promoting a leadership
agenda; integration of emerging
environmental concerns; (3) facilitate
intra-agency communication and
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 4
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
coherent framework for addressing
priority research needs?; (2) How
meaningful are the program's
performance metrics for assessing the
impacts of the program's research?;
(3) What has been the progress made
by the Drinking Water Research
Program in moving the program
forward in response to
recommendations from previous
comprehensive BOSC review?
5 Multi-year plan (MYP) thematic areas to
direct research critical to the regulatory
drivers of the LTGs. The DWRP has been
very responsive to the majority of concerns
and comments expressed in the 2005 BOSC
program review.
evaluation; (4) Investigate, refine and
apply bibliometric and client analyses
and surveys.
EPA's Allowing States to Use Bonds
to Meet Revolving Fund Match
Requirements Reduces Funds
Available for Water Projects/U.S. EPA
Office of Inspector General/The
purpose was to determine how EPA
policies have impacted State
Revolving Funds (SRF) and the
related water infrastructure funding
gap. Also, the study was to determine
the financial impact of EPA's policy
allowing states to use bonds repaid
from SRF interest to meet the SRF
match requirement.
The IG found 20 states used the match bond
authority at some time during the history of
the SRF program. This has reduced the
total amount of funding available for water
projects.
The IG recommends EPA to revise its
policy allowing states to use bonds
repaid from SRF to meet the match
requirement.
Voluntary Programs Could Benefit
from Internal Policy Controls and a
Systematic Management
Approach/U.S. EPA Office of Inspector
General (OIG)/The purpose of the
evaluation was to identify current
voluntary program management
challenges and determine whether: (1)
EPA has consistent Agency-wide
policies that govern voluntary
EPA has no Agency-wide policies that
require voluntary programs to collect
comparable data or conduct regular program
evaluations. Therefore, there can be no
determination of overall environmental
impact. EPA lacks internal controls that
outline specific ways to determine the
success or failure of EPA's overall voluntary
program effort. Recent changes to voluntary
program definitions, thereby expanding the
The OIG recommends that the Deputy
Administrator provide the Associate
Administrator for the Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation with the
authority to develop, implement, and
oversee mandatory Agency-wide
management policies for voluntary
programs. Further, those mandatory
policies should implement a systematic
management approach similar to a
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 5
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
programs; (2) EPA's definitions of
voluntary programs are understood by
its staff and the public; and (3) EPA
has the necessary processes to
consistently develop, test, and review
these programs.
scope of the population, has caused
confusion and difficulty for EPA program
offices. EPA does not have a system to
develop, test, and market new programs.
EPA also lacks a system to evaluate existing
programs. Further, EPA lacks a systematic
method to design, evaluate, and model
programs that are effective at achieving
environmental results.
research and development model, and
develop specific definitions or criteria
that outline the general intent and
function for the groups or categories of
EPA voluntary programs that are
currently implemented.
Comprehensive Procurement
Guidelines (CPG) Program
Evaluation/OSW/MISWD/MlAB with
contractor support (Indtai, Inc.)/The
evaluation reports on the effectiveness
of the Comprehensive Procurement
Guidelines (CPG) program in: (1)
promoting the use of recovered
materials and recycled products in
government procurement; and (2)
increasing demand and expanding
markets for these products. The
evaluation identified what the
government buys to identify gaps or
potential areas for future product
designation. It explored the impact
CPG has had on stimulating the
marketplace for a few high-profile,
early-designated products, and
identified factors that influenced
market dynamics.
Overall, the CPG program has been
effective at promoting the availability of
recycled content products.
Much has changed within the Federal
government and the marketplace since
the program first began. Now may be
the time to reconsider the role of CPG in
"green procurement," waste
minimization, and reduction. However
more can be done by: Targeted
promotion of awareness of the CPG
program for Federal Agencies; reviewing
and streamlining EPA's CPG database
of suppliers; simplifying access and
program information on CPG products;
working with other Agencies to create
clear priorities in procurement
requirements.
EPA Has Improved Five Year Review
Process for Superfund Remedies, But
Further Steps Needed/U.S. EPA
Office of Inspector General /The
purpose of the evaluation was to
EPA has taken actions to improve the five-
year review process, including issuing the
Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance, providing training, and reducing
the review backlog. While these actions
EPA should: (1) expand the scope of
quality assurance reviews of five-year
review reports; (2) revise guidance to
clearly define short- and long-term
protectiveness determinations and to
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 6
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
determine whether EPA has improved
the quality, completeness, and
timeliness of the five-year review and
what impact the review process has
had on remedies at Superfund sites.
The IG evaluated a random sample of
39 five-year review reports issued
between FYs 2002-2004
have resulted in improvements, EPA needs
to take additional steps to better support and
communicate conclusions, continue to
improve review timeliness, and provide fuller
assurance that cleanup actions are
protective of human health and the
environment. The random sample showed
that 21% of the reviews did not fully support
their protectiveness conclusions, 21% did
not provide complete protectiveness
conclusions, 21% did not have sufficient
information to implement recommendations,
and 23% did not meet public notification
requirements.
include specific requirements for
conducting and documenting quality
assurance reviews of FYRs; (3)
communicate to the regions the need for
public notification for the
commencement and completion of FYRs
and protectiveness conclusions that
address each operable unit at a site; (4)
evaluate annual FYR workloads and
available resources as part of the annual
planning process with the regions; (5)
monitor the status of FYRs and
recommended corrective actions
established by completed reviews using
the CERCLIS module and ensure they
are completed by the specified due
dates; (6) Use the CERCLIS to measure
the effectiveness and impacts of the
FYR program, such as measuring
timeliness of review, number of reviews
with and without protectiveness issues,
timeliness of implementing corrective
actions addressing protectiveness
issues and actual/potential results from
implementing corrective actions.
EPA Needs to Take More Action in
Implementing Alternative Approaches
to Superfund Cleanups/U.S. EPA
Office of Inspector General/The
purpose was to evaluate EPA's
Superfund Alternative approach to
clean-up hazardous waste sites.
EPA has not implemented effective
management tools or controls for the SA
approach. The OIG found that EPA has not
finalized the universe of SA sites, does not
have controls over designating SA sites in
Superfund information systems or
documenting hazard assessments for SA
sites, and only measures results at SA sites
for one of six Superfund cleanup measures.
EPA should track and report cleanup
progress at SA sites, and improve its
communications, information, and
transparency about the SA approach.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 7
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
EPA's Management of Interim Status
Permitting Needs Improvement to
Ensure Continued Progress/U.S. EPA
Office of Inspector General /The
purpose of the evaluation was to
evaluate the effectiveness of granting
"interim status" in regulating
hazardous waste units under RCRA
and of the information management
system (RCRA) in tracking permit
information for interim status units.
The OIG found that Interim Status is a
temporary designation, but some units have
existed for as many as 25 years without
formal issuance or denial of a permit, or
other regulatory controls. Under the
Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), EPA has a RCRA National
Permitting Goal to ensure that all units at
hazardous waste facilities have "controls in
place." EPA includes Interim Status units in
this goal, and the Agency's data indicate that
it has made progress in ensuring controls
are in place at interim status units. As of
2005, EPA had attained the "controls in
place" designation for 89 percent of RCRA
hazardous waste facilities. However, EPA's
continued progress may be compromised
because (1) the Agency has not sufficiently
documented some changes to the baseline it
uses to measure progress; (2) EPA does not
prioritize its National Permitting Goal
activities according to the potential risks
posed by hazardous waste facilities or units,
including the amount of time a unit may have
been operating without required controls; (3)
EPA does not monitor the creation of "new"
interim status units in its reporting and
tracking system (RCRAInfo); and (4)
RCRAInfo lacks other system controls to
protect data integrity and data quality, which
may lead to the loss of historical information
needed to track permit status. Despite data
quality problems, RCRAInfo data are
available for public use without appropriate
disclaimers.
To ensure valid progress in achieving
"controls in place" at interim status units,
the Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
should implement a process to
document changes to the GPRA
National Permitting Goal baseline;
review State GPRA National Permitting
Goal projections for 2008 and 2011 to
identify opportunities for prioritizing
facilities based on risk, including time in
interim status; oversee the designation
of "new" interim status units in
RCRAInfo; implement RCRAInfo system
controls to ensure data integrity and
improve data quality; and provide a
disclaimer on data released publicly
from RCRAInfo until data quality controls
are in place.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 8
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks:
EPA Should Take Steps to Better
Ensure the Effective Use of Public
Funding for Cleanups/Government
Accountability Office/In FY 2005
Congress asked GAO to conduct a
study of the (1) states' estimates of the
public costs to clean up known
releases; (2) states' primary sources
of cleanup funding; (3) federal
monetary sources to address
releases. GAO conducted the study
from 6/2005 through 12/2006,
surveying state officials responsible for
the underground storage tank
program, or where applicable,
managers of state cleanup funds, in
the 50 states and the District of
Columbia. Only one state did not
respond to the survey.
States estimated that fully cleaning up about
54,000 of the approximately 117,000
releases (leaks) known to them as of
September 30, 2005, will cost about $12
billion in public funds. EPA estimates that it
costs an average of about $125,000 to fully
clean up a release. State officials said that
tank owners or operators will pay to clean up
about 63,000 releases. However, an
unknown number of releases lack a viable
owner, and the full extent of the cost to clean
them up is unknown. Furthermore, 43 states
expect to confirm about 16,700 new releases
in the next 5 years that will require at least
some public funds for cleanup. States
reported that they primarily use financial
assurance funds to pay the costs of cleaning
up leaks. States reported that they spent an
estimated $1.032 billion from financial
assurance funds to clean up tank releases in
2005. Overall, fund revenues totaled about
$1.4 billion in 2005, of which about $1.3
billion came from state gasoline taxes. The
assurance funds in the 39 states for which
GAO has information held an estimated $1.3
billion as of September 30, 2005, according
to state officials. However, many states also
use these funds to clean up releases from
sources other than underground tanks.
Several state assurance funds may lack
sufficient resources to ensure timely
cleanups. While EPA monitors the status of
state funds, its method of monitoring the
soundness of these funds has limitations.
Furthermore, there are concerns that, by
Ensure that states verify, on a regular
basis, that tank owners and operators
are maintaining adequate financial
responsibility coverage, as required by
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Improve the
Agency's oversight of the solvency of
state assurance funds to ensure that
they continue to provide reliable
coverage for tank owners. Assess, in
coordination with the states, the relative
effectiveness of public and private
options for financial responsibility
coverage to ensure that they provide
timely funding for the cleanup of
releases. Better focus how EPA
distributes program resources to states,
including LUST Trust Fund money, by
ensuring that states are reporting
information in their semi-annual activity
reports that is consistent with EPA
definitions, encouraging states to review
their databases to ensure that only data
on the appropriate universe of
underground storage tanks are being
reported in their semi-annual activity
reports, and gathering available
information from states on releases
attributed to tanks without a viable
owner [abandoned LUST sites] and
taking this information into account in
distributing LUST Trust Fund money to
states.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 9
-------
Goal
3
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Strategic Agricultural Initiative Needs
Revisions to Demonstrate
Results/U.S. EPA Office of Inspector
Findings
paying the bulk of the cleanup costs, state
financial assurance funds may provide
disincentives for tank owners — who pay only
a relatively small deductible — to prevent
releases. In addition to their own funds,
states employ resources from the LUST
Trust Fund, the primary federal source of
funds for cleaning up releases from
underground storage tanks. As of
September 30, 2005, the fund balance was
about $2.5 billion. For fiscal year 2005, the
Congress appropriated about $70 million
from the fund to help EPA and the states
clean up releases and to oversee cleanup
activities. EPA distributed about $58 million
of this amount to the states to investigate
and clean up releases and conduct
enforcement efforts, among other actions.
To distribute LUST Trust Fund money
among the states, EPA uses a formula that
includes a base amount for each state and
factors to recognize states' needs and past
cleanup performance. However, although
the LUST Trust Fund provides funds to
states to assist in addressing releases from
tanks without a viable owner, EPA has not
incorporated this factor into its formula.
Furthermore, EPA's information on states'
performance comes from state reports;
however, GAO found that some of the
information in these reports is inaccurate
and inconsistent.
The SAI program does not have
performance measurement tools nor
performance measures in place to
Recommendations
OIG recommends that EPA develop a
needs assessment for the SAI program
to demonstrate how it fulfills its role in
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 10
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
General (OIG) The purpose was to
evaluate if EPA's Strategic Agricultural
Initiative (SAI) uses performance
measurement tools and efficiency
measures that demonstrate results
and provide for continuous program
improvement.
demonstrate how it fulfills its unique role of
helping growers transition away from Food
Quality Protection Act high-risk pesticides or
to facilitate continuous improvement. The
program does not have a strategic plan or
similar documents that link project mission
and goals, logic model, performance
measures, and the data collected by the
program. Headquarters and the regions
have inconsistent priorities for implementing
the program. This lack of structure makes it
difficult to measure and validate results. The
SAI databases, which are used to gather
data on project performance, lack definitions
and structure, and thus contain incomplete
and extraneous information.
meeting Food Quality Protection Act
requirements. If the need is
demonstrated, the Program Office
should create a strategic plan which sets
clear priorities for the direction of the
program. For the SAI Projects database,
the Agency should create guidance
documents and establish standards and
procedures for data collection and entry
into these databases. SAI data and
results should be accessible to grantees
and other interested stakeholders.
Superfund's Board of Directors Need
to Evaluate Actions to Improve the
Superfund Program/U.S. EPA, Office
of Inspector General (OIG)/The
purpose of the evaluation was to
determine EPA's progress in
responding to three recommendations
in the 120 Day Study of the Superfund
program. The OIG evaluated EPA's
management controls over completing
recommendations 10, 11, and 12.
The OIG found that EPA completed its work
to determine the financial impact of RCRA-
regulated facilities on the Superfund
program. The Agency is still assessing the
financial impacts of non-RCRA facilities on
the program. Some of EPA's planned
actions to address its Study
recommendations were different than the
actions recommended.
(1) The Superfund Board of Directors
are to coordinate with appropriate lead
offices to modify the Study Action Plan
to correctly state Recommendation 10
as it appears in the final Study. (2) The
Superfund Board of Directors are to
review a sample of completed actions on
the Study recommendations to confirm
that actions are complete and
responsive to the Study
recommendation(s).
EPA Can Improve Its Managing of
Superfund I nteragency Agreements
(IAG) with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers/U.S. EPA, Office of
Inspector General (OIG)/The purpose
of the evaluation was to answer: (1)
What is the effectiveness of EPA's
OIG has found EPA needs to better justify
and support its decisions to enter into
Superfund lAGs with the Corps. Decision
memorandums used to justify awarding
Superfund lAGs to the Corps did not contain
comparisons of alternatives considered, nor
did EPA develop independent cost
Specific Recommendations include: (1)
Require that regional offices develop an
EPA independent cost estimate for the
Corp's oversight of lAGs; (2) Require
that regional offices conduct a cost
analysis of alternatives when
determining whether to award an IAG
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 11
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
analysis and selection of the Corps to
perform cleanup versus an EPA
contractor, a State, or the Bureau of
Reclamation? (2) What is the
effectiveness of EPA's activity to
ensure cleanups conducted by the
Corps are accomplished on time,
within budget, and to quality
standards? The OIG reviewed and
analyzed financial assurance
regulations, documents, reports and
data.
estimates. This occurred because EPA
generally believes the Corps has more
construction and contracting expertise to
manage Superfund projects than its own
personnel. The Agency has limited
assurance, therefore, Superfund lAGs
awarded to the Corps are based on sound
decisions. EPA regions have initiated some
corrective actions, but further steps are
needed.
and evaluate the analysis against an
EPA-developed cost estimate; (3)
Develop a process for holding regional
offices and RPMs accountable for
complying with OSWER's 2003 policy
for assigning remedial work, and the
Office of Administration and Resources
Management's (OARM) 2002 guidance
to document in Decision emorandums
justifications for lAGs based on an
analysis of alternatives and EPA-
developed cost estimates; (4) Require
the Corps to improve the format of its
monthly reports so that costs and
activities correlate and can be clearly
understood; (5) Use the Intra-
governmental Payment and Collection
(IPAC) system to reimburse the Corps
for work accomplished under lAGs; (6)
Develop a specific plan for using the
$2.5 million in Management and Support
(M&S) fees held by the Corps or require
the Corps to refund these fees to EPA,
and continue to develop plans on an
annual basis to address future fees; (7)
Require future lAGs awarded to the
Corps to include terms and conditions
that will enable RPMs to monitor the
Corps' costs, quality, and timeliness;
and (8) Develop a policy on how and
when the feedback reports will be used
as an oversight tool to monitor and
improve the cost, quality, and timeliness
of the Corps' performance.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 12
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
EPA Needs to Plan and Complete a
Toxicity Assessment for the Libby
Asbestos Cleanup/U.S. EPA, Office of
Inspector General (OIG)/ The OIG
evaluated whether EPA and Region 8
personnel developed and executed an
effective cleanup process based upon
federal requirements that protect
human health. This evaluation was
performed through interviews with
EPA's OSWER staff and Region 8
personnel, and obtained documents
related to the issues dated from 1990
to 2006.
(1) EPA has not completed a toxicity
assessment of amphibole asbestos
necessary to determine the safe level for
human exposure; therefore, EPA cannot be
sure that the Libby cleanup sufficiently
reduces the risk that humans may become ill
or, if ill already, get worse; (2) EPA's public
information documents Living with
Vermiculite and Asbestos in Your Home are
inconsistent about safety concerns.
Recommendations include: (1) Fund and
execute a comprehensive amphibole
asbestos toxicity assessment (including
assessment of affects of asbestos on
children) to determine the effectiveness
of the Libby removal actions, and to
determine whether more actions are
necessary. The EPA Science Advisory
Board should review the toxicity
assessment and report to the Office of
the Administrator and the Libby
Community Advisory Group whether the
proposed toxicity assessment can
sufficiently protect human health. (2)
Review and correct any statements that
cannot be supported in any
documentation mailed or made available
to Libby residents regarding the safety of
living with or handling asbestos until
EPA confirms those facts through a
toxicity assessment.
Review of the Office of Research and
Development's Safe Pesticides/ Safe
Products (SP2) Research
Program/EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors/This evaluation assessed
the SP2 research program's
relevance, structure, performance,
quality, scientific leadership,
coordination/communication, and
outcomes.
The overall impression of the Subcommittee
is that the SP2 is a very successful program.
Its relevance to the Agency's mission is clear
and apparent. It is well managed throughout
all levels, from senior management through
data collection and analysis. The SP2
Program fills a unique niche within the
Agency. EPA needs more advanced
scientific approaches to identify chemical
risks and assess those risks, while informing
risk management to reduce risks. This is a
scientifically difficult task, requiring state-of-
the-science solutions. SP2 is supplying
these solutions. The Subcommittee believes
Follow-up recommendations resulting
from this evaluation include suggestions
to:
Improve interaction between health
scientists working under Long-Term
Goals (LTGs) 1 and 2.; develop a
process by which to verify/ validate
methods; develop a more focused
communication program to disseminate
research to EPA Offices and Regions;
pursue collaborative relationships to
advance methods and techniques in the
area of high-performance computing.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 13
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
that the program is of great value now and
will continue to be so well into the future.
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board Should Track
Adherence to Closed
Recommendations/U.S. EPA Office of
Inspector General/The purpose of the
evaluation was to determine the extent
to which recipients adhere to closed
safety recommendations issued by the
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board (CSB)
Recipients have continued to adhere to
closed recommendations issued by CSB.
Recipients cited various reasons for doing
so. Most said they addressed closed
recommendations because they made sense
and it was the right thing to do. Although
CSB has continued to increase its
investigative productivity, it does not conduct
follow-up on closed recommendations to
track adherence. As a result, CSB may be
unaware of whether report recipients
continue to adhere to recommended safety
procedures or return to prior practices.
The CSB should revise its guidance,
Board Order 022, to include followup on
closed recommendations and follow up
on a sample of closed recommendations
every 3 years and analyze whether
adherence and/or recipient conditions
have changed.
Development Growth Outpacing
Progress in Watershed Efforts to
Restore the Chesapeake Bay/U.S.
EPA Office of Inspector General
/Questions addressed: 1) Can the
goals for reducing nutrient and
sediment loads from developed and
developing lands be accomplished
and sustained to restore the ecological
health of the Chesapeake Bay by
2010? 2) To what extent is EPA
supporting the Chesapeake Bay
Program partners in their efforts to
implement and sustain load reduction
practices on developed and
developing lands within the
watershed? 3) What challenges must
be overcome to effectively implement
management practices to meet and
sustain reduction goals for nutrient
The OIG found that EPA and its
Chesapeake Bay watershed partners will not
meet load reduction goals for developed
lands by 2010 as established in the
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Developed
lands contribute less than 1/3 of Bay loads
but require about 2/3 of overall estimated
restoration costs. Challenges impeding
progress include lack of community-level
loading caps; shortage of up-to-date
information on development patterns;
ineffective use of regulatory program to
achieve reductions; limited information and
guidance on planning and applying
environmentally sensitive development
practices; and limited funding available for
costly practices.
The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office Director should prepare and
implement a strategy to reverse the
trend of increasing nutrient and
sediment loads from developed and
developing lands. The strategy should
include a set of environmentally
sensitive design practices. The
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Director should also work with Bay
partners to set realistic, community-
level goals for reducing loads from
developed and developing lands. In
addition, the EPA Region 3 Water
Protection Division Director should
establish a stormwater permitting
approach that achieves greater
nutrient and sediment reductions.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 14
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
and sediment loads from developed
and developing lands within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed?
EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act
Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric
Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay
and its Watershed/U.S. EPA Office of
Inspector General/ The purpose is to
determine the impact air pollution
control activities have had in cleaning
up the Bay.
EPA estimates that CAA regulations already
issued will reduce nitrogen that falls directly
into the Bay, as well as nitrogen deposited in
the Bay watershed, by 19.6 million pounds
annually by 2010. EPA believes these CAA-
related activities will provide sufficient
nitrogen deposition reduction to enable the
Bay to meets its overall nitrogen cap load,
assuming non-air activities achieve planned
reductions. One potentially significant source
of deposition not currently controlled is
ammonia emissions from animal feeding
operations. Many State activities being
implemented to meet national air quality
standards should have the co-benefit of
reducing nitrogen deposition in the Bay
watershed, including the adoption of
legislation and/or regulations by four
Chesapeake Bay watershed States that go
beyond EPA's air regulations. EPA
acknowledges that its goal of cleaning up the
Bay by 2010 will not be met. EPA plans to
meet with its Chesapeake Bay Program
partners in 2007 to re-visit their strategy for
cleaning up the Bay.
The EPA Region 3 Regional
Administrator should instruct the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office to use
the results of animal feeding operations
emissions monitoring studies to
determine what actions and strategies
are warranted to address nitrogen
deposition to the Bay from such
operations.
Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Generally Comply with
Major Clean Water Act Permits/U.S.
EPA Office of Inspector General/The
purpose of the evaluation was to
determine whether federal facilities in
the Chesapeake watershed are in
EPA and the States are doing well managing
how major Federal facilities comply with their
NPDES permits. In EPA's last reporting
period (2004), major Federal facilities in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed had a lower
rate of Significant Noncompliance than other
Federal and non-Federal major-permit
None
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 15
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
compliance with Clean Water Act
permitted levels, what tools are
available to identify permit
noncompliance and enforce
compliance, and whether EPA actions
are improving compliance at these
facilities.
facilities nationwide. EPA and states have a
variety of formal and informal tools available
to enforce federal facility compliance with
NPDES permits.
Saving the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Requires Better
Coordination of Environmental and
Agricultural Resources/U.S. EPA,
Office of Inspector General
Despite significant efforts to improve water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
excess nutrients and sediment continue to
be a problem. Improving water quality
conditions in the Bay is necessary to support
living resources throughout the ecosystem,
which in turn supports commercial and
recreational uses, such as fishing/shell
fishing. EPA must improve its coordination
and collaboration with its Bay partners and
the agricultural community to better reduce
nutrients and sediment entering the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
USDA, a Bay partner at the Federal level,
could significantly assist EPA in
implementing the needed conservation
practices within the agricultural community.
However, USDA has not coordinated a
Department-wide strategy or policy to
address its commitment as a Bay partner.
EPA should execute a new
Memorandum of Agreement with USDA
that specifically identifies tasks and
timeframes for meeting mutually shared
goals in the cleanup of the Bay. Further,
the two agencies should agree to a
method to track progress. Also, EPA,
USDA, and the States, with assistance
from land grant universities and
agricultural organizations, should revisit
State tributary strategies to ensure that
an effective and cost-efficient
combination of conservation practices
are adopted and implemented. In
addition, USDA should assign a senior
level official to coordinate with EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program and review
the feasibility of targeting USDA funds
geographically. Although these steps will
not by themselves solve the Bay's
problems, they will significantly assist
the Bay partners in cleaning up the Bay.
Taking Environmental Protection to
the Next Level: An Assessment of the
U.S. Environmental Services Delivery
System/National Academy of Public
Administration/The Chesapeake Bay
clean-up approach was examined and
The report concluded that Chesapeake Bay
Program had created a solid framework for
restoration, but that EPA and the rest of the
country needed to be aware of the
increasing problems from non-point sources.
The report predicts that these non-point
EPA should strengthen its position as a
partnering agency for purposes of
enhancing all its programs, both
regulatory and non-regulatory. This is
especially important for nonregulatory
programs. Also, EPA should establish a
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 16
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
then compared with relevant cases
elsewhere in the U.S.
source problems will overtake the gains from
point and other sources within the next
decade.
more systematic and holistic
intergovernmental approach to cleaning
up the ever-increasing number of listed
impaired waters throughout the nation.
This approach should bring nonpoint
programs up to par with point-source
programs. EPA should encourage and
support the intergovernmental
coordinating bodies needed to ensure
that regional initiatives can effectively
accomplish established water pollution
reduction outcomes. The Agency should
preserve its commitment to scientific
research and data as a basis for
policymaking and evaluation. EPA
should work with the state and local
governments, and others, to put the
financing of environmental services on a
more adequate and sustainable path,
by: Broadening the purposes and
revenue sources of the State Revolving
Fund program; developing models and
guidelines for dedicated fee-based
systems; providing leadership for
pollution credit-trading; partnering with
other federal agencies; and working with
Congress. Innovative programs should
be made available more quickly to
policymakers, program directors, and
implementation organizations. EPA
should continue to improve its outcome-
oriented performance management
systems for inputs, outputs and
outcomes provided by both traditional
and non-traditional partners. EPA and
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 17
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
other federal agencies should re-
evaluate the alignment of partners, tools,
and coordinating mechanisms within
their partnership programs, using the
analytical framework developed for this
study.
Mid-Cycle Review of the Office of and
Research and Development's
Ecological Research Program at the
Environmental Protection
Agency/EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors/Questions included: (1)
How responsive has the program been
to recommendations from its 2005
review?; (2) Are there performance
metrics the program should be using
in addition to the current indicators for
regularly assessing research progress;
(3) what progress has the Ecological
Research Program made in moving
the program forward in response to
recommendations from the previous
comprehensive BOSC review?
A rating of "Meets Expectations" was
assessed for work completed to date. ORD
has met most of the goals set after the initial
program review. ORD has been responsive
to most of the recommendations developed
during the 2005 BOSC program review and
to all of the higher priority recommendations.
The evolving emphasis on ecosystems
services and value is appropriately laid out
and justified.
Additional performance metrics should
be considered to supplement the current
indicators used for regularly assessing
research progress. Expanded
partnerships and interactions with
stakeholder communities should assist
emerging research on ecosystem
services and related economic and
human health endpoints. Achieving
needed partnerships to conduct future
research will come from collaborations
that involve ongoing, two-way
communication.
Mid-Cycle Review of the Office of
Research and Development's Human
Health Research Program/EPA's
Board of Scientific
Counselors/Questions to the BOSC
subcommittee include: (1) How
responsive has the program been to
recommendations resulting from the
2005 BOSC review?; (2) How
meaningful are the program's current
performance metrics?; What has been
the program's progress?
A rating of "Meets Expectations" was
assessed for work completed to date. The
Subcommittee noted that ORD invested
substantial effort in assessing the BOSC
comments and recommendations, revising
program scope and direction, and
developing point-by-point documentation of
programmatic changes in response to BOSC
recommendations.
Follow-up recommendations resulting
from this evaluation include suggestions
to:
Continue to follow through on the plans
and strategies that will make the Human
Health Research Program a premier
contributor in assessing environmental
risks for
human populations; develop
performance-based measures that link
directly to publications and measure
impact of ORD's research.; develop an
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 18
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
evaluative mechanism that would allow
for an assessment of how well goals
have been met and appropriately
document the plan in future revisions to
the multiyear plan.
Assessment of EPA's Projected
Pollutant Reductions Resulting from
Enforcement Actions and
Settlements/U.S. EPA Office of
Inspector General (OIG)/OIG
assessed: (1) the accuracy and
reliability of EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance's (OECA) pollution
reduction projections for enforcement
actions and settlements, and (2)
whether the reported projected
pollution reductions were achieved.
The reliability of estimated pollutant
reductions is dependent on the specific
program in which the enforcement action
takes place. Projected pollutant reductions
have been or are being achieved in most of
the cases reviewed. Due to the length of
time needed for required corrective actions,
it is not possible to make a determination in
all cases. There have been improvements in
the internal control process EPA uses to
generate pollutant reduction estimates. The
accuracy and reliability of pollutant reduction
estimates have likely improved as a result of
changes to EPA's quality assurance
process.
None.
Evaluation of the Tribal General
Assistance Program (GAP)/ Industrial
Economics, Incorporated for EPA's
Office of Environmental, Economics
and Policy Innovation/The evaluation
is designed to answer the following
questions: (1) Is the GAP accessed by
all federally-recognized tribes? If not,
why?; (2) Are tribal governments using
the resources provided and how?; (3)
What are indicators of tribal
environmental capacity?; What factors
contribute to the achievement of
environmental capacity and what is
the impact of these factors?; (4) What
The results of this evaluation clearly
establish that GAP has been effective in
building the foundation of environmental
capacity among tribes, defined as capability
in one or more of the five indicator areas -
technical, legal, enforcement, administrative,
and communications. This capability, in
turn, has allowed tribes to achieve an
environmental presence, i.e., the ability to
respond promptly and effectively to tribal
environmental concerns as they arise, as the
overarching indicator of environmental
capacity.
Recommendations for ways EPA can
enhance GAP to further support tribes'
ability to establish and sustain their
environmental program include: 1)
consider developing a mechanism to
support tribal program implementation;
2) consider working with tribes and
regions to enhance administrative, legal,
and enforcement capacity; 3) raise
awareness of innovative environmental
policy approaches to complement
traditional codes and standards; 4)
acknowledge cross-cultural differences,
and continue working with tribes to
maintain a respectful dialog; and 5) track
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 19
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
is the relative contribution of GAP
toward achieving capacity; Is the GAP
process providing adequate outputs to
achieve tribal goals and priorities?
progress toward achievement of the new
2006-2011 strategic goals and targets.
Promoting Tribal Success in EPA
Programs/U.S. EPA Office of
Inspector General & U. S. Department
of Interior (DOI), Office of Inspector
General/The purpose of the evaluation
was to identify positive tribal practices
The OIG found that Tribes have made
progress in overcoming barriers to
successful management of environmental
programs. Innovation is the key for Tribes to
maximize the effectiveness of their programs
and overcome barriers. The 14 visited Tribes
provided examples of innovative practices,
including: (1) Collaboration and
Partnerships. Many of the successful
projects result from efforts to foster good
communication and positive relationships
with others. Tribes work cooperatively with
Federal agencies, other Tribes, State and
local governments, educational institutions,
and the private sector. (2) Education and
Outreach. Tribes educate the community
regarding environmental programs. Further,
Tribes value community input and
understand that project success often
depends on community support. (3)
Expanding Resources. Based on its size,
capacity, and structure, each of the visited
Tribes has its own processes for finding
alternative sources of revenue to ensure
sustainability of natural resource and
environmental programs.
To further help Tribes build on
successful practices, the OIG
recommends that the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water: (1) work with
Tribes to promote collaboration and
partnerships; (2) identify and make
available relevant education and
outreach materials;
(3) work with Tribes to identify economic
resources and funding alternatives.
Performance Track Could Improve
Program Design and Management to
Ensure Value/U.S. EPA Office of
Inspector General/The purpose of the
evaluation was to determine how
Performance Track did not have clear plans
that connect activities with its goals, and did
not include performance measures that
show if it achieves anticipated results.
The OIG recommends the program:
Design a comprehensive strategic plan
to connect activities with goals and to
encourage staff and management to
focus on program goals and member
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 20
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
EPA's National Environmental
Performance Track program achieves
environmental goals, recognizes and
encourages environmental leadership
and tracks member performance.
commitments; the program should
measure and report on performance
related to activities and goals; maintain
centralized databases for compliance
screening and program member
information to readily demonstrate that
members meet program criteria.;
encourage member facilities to set and
achieve commitments so that the public
has a clear idea of what results
members will actually produce; include
assessing member leadership in
compliance and toxic releases according
to program criteria.
Overcoming Obstacles to Measuring
Compliance: Practices in Selected
Agencies/U.S. EPA, Office of
Inspector General (OIG)/ The purpose
of the evaluation was to collect
successful practices from Federal
agencies similar to EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) that extensively
use statistical methods, including
random sampling, to measure and
ensure compliance and to monitor
regulatory programs.
The OIG found that Federal regulatory
agencies with missions and obstacles similar
to EPA use statistical methods to generate
compliance information. These Federal
programs extensively use statistical methods
to identify and analyze risk, set goals,
develop strategies to manage the most
significant risks, and report their
accomplishments. The programs we
reviewed used practical approaches to
overcome similar obstacles as those in
OECA, and could potentially apply to
OECA's programs.
The OIG recommends the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance establish a plan
of action, with milestones, to incorporate
statistical methods to demonstrate the
results of EPA's enforcement and
compliance strategies. Additionally,
OECA can coordinate with the in-house
statistical expertise in EPA's Office of
Research and Development and Office
of Environmental Information to help
develop statistical models and evaluate
external proposals.
Interagency Agreements to Use Other
Agencies' Contracts Need Additional
Oversight/U.S. EPA, Office of
Inspector General (OIG)/The
evaluation was to determine whether
EPA effectively follows interagency
The OIG found while EPA has improved
some interagency contracting processes, the
Agency entered into some contracts without
meeting all requirements, like without
conducting cost reasonableness
assessments, or identifying alternatives,
The OIG recommends the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Provide guidance to project
officers on conducting cost
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 21
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
contracting requirements by ensuring
products and services meet quality,
cost, and timeliness requirements.
such as determining whether EPA's in-house
acquisition staff should acquire the services
or products for them.
reasonableness assessments
and identifying alternatives
before using IAG contracts.
• Strengthen training to include
how to develop independent
government cost estimates or
other appropriate cost
information, conduct cost
reasonableness assessments,
and identify alternatives.
• Ensure that the Grants
Administration Division requires
that the IAG decision
memorandum better explains
why an IAG is more cost
effective, and include an
evaluation of cost
reasonableness assessments in
reviews.
ESP Review of the Office of Research and
Development's Science to Achieve
Results (STAR) and Greater Research
Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship
Programs at the Environmental
Protection Agency/EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors/The charge to
the Subcommittee consisted of 3
specific questions concerning (1) the
fellowship recipient selection process
and decision criteria; (2) the utility of
the fellows' research to EPA and
others for decision-making and policy;
(3) practices, resources and
effectiveness of outreach; and (4)
Overall, the fellows funded by the STAR
and GRO programs have made excellent
contributions in environmental science and
engineering, and a number of them continue
to be employed in the environmental field in
academia, consulting, and government (EPA
and other agencies).
Follow-up recommendations resulting
from this evaluation include suggestions
to:
Develop an overall information collection
strategy, which includes design of an
appropriate database; require fellows to
submit an up-to-date resume annually
for at least 5 years from the conclusion
of the fellowship; consider as potential
metrics as data become available: (1)
the number of minority students who
obtain advanced degrees in
environmental disciplines; (2) the
distribution or dispersion of students
across eligible institutions, i.e., the
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 22
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
resources, information management,
and communication processes and
procedures.
concentration of fellowship recipients
among colleges and universities; and (3)
the number of awards to students
pursuing master's degrees relative to the
number of awards to students pursuing
doctoral degrees; work effectively to
communicate awards, results, and
successes to a variety of audiences,
including Congress and sponsoring
institutions; consider eliminating both
GRO Fellowship programs, while at the
same time improving marketing of the
STAR Fellowship Program to minority-
serving institutions to encourage
applications for graduate support from
underrepresented groups.
ESP Improved Management Practices
Needed to Increase Use of Exchange
Network/U.S. EPA Office of Inspector
General /The evaluation is to
determine: (1) what barriers prevent
the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network from
achieving maximum usage, and steps
EPA can take to overcome them; (2) if
EPA has developed Network
performance measures that align with
its Strategic Plan; (3) how EPA could
improve key system development
processes for analyzing costs and
ensuring Network use for new systems
and upgrades; (4) how EPA could
assist the Network governance bodies
in accomplishing their missions.
EPA has established a partnership with the
Exchange Network's governance bodies to
assist them with accomplishing Network
initiatives. To ensure partners fully utilize the
Network EPA could: (1) improve its methods
for selecting and prioritizing which data flows
to implement; (2) complete measurements of
Network initiatives to ensure investments are
delivering expected results; (3) improve its
internal system development practices to
ensure EPA offices perform cost benefit
analyses for new or upgraded environmental
systems; and (4) strengthen its policies to
define when offices should utilize the
Network for receiving environmental
information.
The Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) should execute the Exchange
Network Marketing and Communications
plan and evaluate data flows for Network
implementation; develop a new plan for
completing the Exchange Network
performance measures project; develop
policies and procedures to guide
program offices to use the Network and
conduct Exchange Network Cost Benefit
Analysis; and
include the Exchange Network in the
Enterprise Architecture.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 23
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
ESP EPA Can Improve Its Oversight of
Audit Follow-up/U.S. EPA Office of
Inspector General/The purpose of the
evaluation was to determine the status
of corrective actions in response to
OIG report recommendations for
selected water reports, and how
complete and up-to-date is the
Management Audit Tracking System
(MATS) for selected OIG water
reports.
The Agency is generally undertaking actions
for the nine water-related reports in our
review— seven directed to the Office of
Water (OW) and two directed to the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA). However, several actions in
response to individual recommendations
were delayed past milestone dates agreed to
by the OIG. Implications from these results
and opportunities for improvement are wide
spread across the Agency's audit follow-up
action process.
OWand OECA should implement EPA
Order 2750 and biannually review audit
management information for accuracy
and completeness. Those offices should
follow the certification process for
closing out reports, maintain a list of
corrective actions taken, and obtain OIG
approval for significant changes to
corrective action plans. The Chief
Financial Officer should take several
steps, including monitoring EPA Order
2750 compliance throughout the
Agency; reporting to Congress the report
names and reasons for delay past 365
days for completing corrective actions as
required under EPA Order 2750 and the
IG Act; and ensuring the validity and
reliability of data in MATS by
documenting a quality assurance plan,
issuing necessary guidance, and
providing refresher training to Audit
Follow-up Coordinators.
ESP EPA Needs to Strengthen Its Privacy
Program Management Controls/U.S.
EPA Office of Inspector General/The
purpose of the evaluation was to
determine what steps EPA took to
protect Personally Identifiable
Information (Pll). The OIG
investigated the extent to which EPA
implemented a management structure
for the Agency's privacy program.
Although EPA has made progress toward
establishing its Privacy Program, EPA needs
to set up a more comprehensive
management control structure to govern and
oversee the program by establishing goals
and activities, and measuring progress.
Further, EPA needs to update its Privacy
Program policies and establish processes to
manage and make these policies available
to responsible EPA personnel.
The Office of Environmental
Information's Director should establish
goals and performance measures for the
program. Further, the Director should
update the Agency's Privacy Program
policies and procedures, and establish a
process for managing and monitoring
compliance. We also recommended that
the Director work with the Office of
Administration and Resources
Management to develop sample
cascading goals and objectives that
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 24
-------
Goal
Evaluation Title/Evaluator/Scope
Findings
Recommendations
managers can use to establish Privacy
Program accountability processes.
ESP Number of and Cost to Award and
Manage EPA Earmark Grants, and the
Grants' Impact on the Agency's
Mission/U.S. EPA Office of Inspector
General/The purpose was to
determine the total number and dollar
amount of earmark grants, including
EPA's associated costs and what
impact earmarks have on advancing
EPA's mission and goals.
Between January 1, 2005, and March 31,
2006, EPA awarded 444 earmark grants
totaling $454 million accounting for about 13
percent of EPA grant dollars awarded. EPA
also spent about $4.9 million to award and
manage the 444 grants. The review of work
plans for 86 earmark grants found that 82
were for projects aimed at contributing to
EPA's Strategic Plan mission and goals.
Grant work plans for the other four grants did
not demonstrate how the projects would
promote EPA goals.
None
ESP Using the Program Assessment
Rating Tool as a Management Control
Process/U.S. EPA Office of Inspector
General/The purpose of the evaluation
was to examine EPA management
controls by using OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to
determine how EPA scored overall,
and if there are areas that require
management attention.
The OIG found that PART is a good
diagnostic tool and management control
process to assess program performance and
focus on achieving results. However, as
currently designed, programs can be rated
"adequate" with a passing PART score of
just 50 percent. Low passing scores
heightens the risk that actual program
results may not be achieved, and detracts
from PART'S overall focus on program
results.
OMB should modify the Performance
Improvement Initiative criteria to provide
incentives for program managers to
raise Program Results/Accountability
PART scores. In addition, OMB needs to
increase the transparency of PART
results to demonstrate the relationship
between results and the overall PART
ratings. The EPA Deputy Administrator
should: (1) increase the use of program
evaluation to improve program
performance by establishing
policy/procedures requiring program
evaluations of EPA's programs; (2)
designate a senior Agency official
responsible for conducting and
supporting program evaluations; and, (3)
allocate sufficient funds/resources to
conduct systematic evaluations on a
regular basis.
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 25
-------
Appendix A - Program Evaluations - Page 26
-------
ERA'S FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix B - Data Quality
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001),
published on November 15, 2007. This document is available at:
http://www. epa. go v/ocfo/par/200 7par.
Appendix B - Data Quality - Page 1
-------
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-11. 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 www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par (see "Supplemental Information").This
information is organized by 2007 performance measure (as presented in the FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report) and supporting database.
Completeness
In its Circular A-11 (Section 230), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
defines performance data as complete when actual or preliminary performance is
reported for every performance goal and measure, and, in cases where data are not
currently available, the Agency notes the year when actual performance data will be
reported.
According to this OMB definition, EPA's performance data for 2007 are complete.
We have provided actual performance data for each 2007 performance target or the
date when actual performance data will be reported. EPA prefers not to publish
preliminary data because early results may significantly differ from end-of-year results.
Data Gaps
EPA has made significant progress moving from program activity and output
measures to outcome measures of environmental condition, risk, or health effects.
However, a consequence of this conversion is that end-of-year results tend to be
delayed for outcome measures. In this year's PAR, 31% of measures do not yet report
actual results, but provide the date when data will be available.
There are several reasons for these delays in reporting. In many cases, because
changes in environmental outcomes typically occur over many years, it makes better
sense to look at trends for these measures rather than interpret annual results. Where
data are missing for 2007, however, results may be available for past years and are
provided in this report. Gaps in data will be filled over time, providing a historical record
that offers a more complete picture of Agency progress than could any one-year
snapshot.
In addition, representative environmental monitoring on an annual basis is not
always cost-effective. Data processing, including quality assurance and control, is
generally more time-consuming and resource intensive for outcome data than for
outputs. This is exemplified by data on blood-lead levels of women of child-bearing age,
which the Centers for Disease Control collect every calendar year by, but release to the
public in 2-year sets. The most current data set for 2001-2002 was not available to EPA
until early 2005.
EPA does utilize projections when there is a reliable empirical or computer model
to project results using prior year data. For example, the National Emissions Inventory
of Hazardous Air Pollutants is compiled every 3 years and off-year results are projected
using an emissions modeling system. Information on modeled results is contained in
this appendix.
Appendix B - Data Quality - Page 2
-------
Real-time Data
As environmental monitoring in continuous "real-time" becomes more
widespread, we can expect data gaps to be significantly reduced or eliminated. The use
of distributed sensor networks and other advanced sensor systems, including "smart"
monitors which can automate responses, is leading the way to obtaining better and more
cost-effective environmental monitoring data.
Reliability
In accordance with OMB's definitions, the performance data supporting the 2007
PAR are reliable and not materially inadequate. Agency managers and decision-makers
use these data on an ongoing basis in the normal course of their duties.
All of EPA's data are subject to the Agency's "Quality System," formal and
compulsory policies and procedures that ensure environmental programs and decisions
are supported by quality-assured data. Data collected using environmental technology,
for example, must comply with appropriate engineering standards and practices. Quality
Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) are required under
EPA's Quality System. For definitions and additional information, see EPA's Quality
System website at http://www.epa.gov/quality.
Beginning in 2007, EPA's Quality Staff will be revising its guidance for evaluating
existing data for use in environmental projects or programs. The guidance will clarify to
EPA organizations what are the quality assurance requirements for secondary use data,
including the use of program and compliance data to measure Agency performance and
progress towards environmental goals. When the revised guidance is issued, it will make
clear that projects using existing environmental data will require quality assurance
project plans or equivalent documentation, and an evaluation of the data based on
acceptance criteria. The results of the evaluation will document how well the existing
data meet the objectives of the project and will provide information on data limitations,
methods for data collection, compilation and analysis, and quality assurance procedures.
Also, where appropriate, the results of the evaluation will provide information on how
well the data meet various quality indicators (e.g., precision, bias, comparability,
completeness, or representativeness). Further, the documentation of the results of the
data quality evaluation will meet Agency information quality criteria for transparency,
objectivity, and utility. Because these quality assurance requirements are covered by
the Agency's Quality Order, the data will be certified by an appropriate quality assurance
officer, who will be accountable for their reliability.
The discussion of "Management Accomplishments and Challenges," included in
Part 3 of this report, "Other Accompanying Information," presents key management
challenges identified by EPA's Office of Inspector General in FY 2007 and the Agency's
response. A number of challenges are related to data quality and performance
measures, as well as the Agency's need to better demonstrate program results (e.g.,
data standards/data quality, emissions factors, managing for results). EPA is working to
address these challenges, setting priorities for improving its performance measures and
finding new and innovative ways to improve the quality of the data it uses for decision-
making. For example, to address OIG concerns regarding emission factors, in FY 2007
EPA created a new, streamlined emission factors development process that will provide
Appendix B - Data Quality - Page 3
-------
clearer guidance on the regulatory and environmental risk of using emission factors. For
a more detailed discussion of EPA's response to OIG's key management challenges,
refer to "Other Accompanying Information."
Appendix B - Data Quality - Page 4
-------
ERA'S FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix C - PUBLIC ACCESS
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001),
published on November 15, 2007. This document is available at:
http://www. epa.Qov/ocfo/par/200 7par.
Appendix C - Public Access - Page 1
-------
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC ACCESS
EPA invites the public to access http://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://www.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.htmltfproposed
Where You Live: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/wherevoulive.htm
- Search Your Community: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/commsearch.htm
- EPA Regional Offices: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htmtfregiontext
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.htmtfhistory
- Organization: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htmtforg
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/industry.htm
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/ezhire/
- 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/
Appendix C - Public Access - Page 2
-------
ERA'S FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report
Appendix D - ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
This document is one chapter from the "Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and
Accountability Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," (EPA-190-R-07-001),
published on November 15, 2007. This document is available at:
http://www. epa.Qov/ocfo/par/200 7par.
Appendix D - Acronyms and Definitions - Page 1
-------
APPENDIX D - ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
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 Calendar Year
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
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
HFCs 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
Appendix D - Acronyms and Definitions - Page 2
-------
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 Metric Tons 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 Air Toxics 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
DIG 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
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
Appendix D - Acronyms and Definitions - Page 3
-------
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
URE Unit Risk Estimate
USTs Underground Storage Tanks
UV Ultra Violet
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
Appendix D - Acronyms and Definitions - Page 4
-------
WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS!
Thank you for your interest in the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2007
Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your comments on how we can
make this report a more informative document for our readers. We are particularly
interested in your comments on the usefulness of the information and the manner in
which it is presented. Please send your comments to:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
This report is available on OCFO's homepage at:
www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/2007par
EPA 190-R-07-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability Report
November 15, 2007
-------
Data Quality Supplemental Information
Completeness
In its Circular A-11 (Section 230), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
defines performance data as complete when actual or preliminary performance is
reported for every performance goal and measure, and, in cases where data are not
currently available, the Agency notes the year when actual performance data will be
reported.
According to this OMB definition, EPA's performance data for 2007 are complete.
We have provided actual performance data for each 2007 performance target or the
date when actual performance data will be reported. EPA prefers not to publish
preliminary data because early results may significantly differ from end-of-year results.
Data Gaps
EPA has made significant progress moving from program activity and output
measures to outcome measures of environmental condition, risk, or health effects.
However, a consequence of this conversion is that end-of-year results tend to be
delayed for outcome measures. In this year's PAR, 31% of measures do not yet report
actual results, but provide the date when data will be available.
There are several reasons for these delays in reporting. In many cases, because
changes in environmental outcomes typically occur over many years, it makes better
sense to look at trends for these measures rather than interpret annual results. Where
data are missing for 2007, however, results may be available for past years and are
provided in this report. Gaps in data will be filled over time, providing a historical record
that offers a more complete picture of Agency progress than could any one-year
snapshot.
In addition, representative environmental monitoring on an annual basis is not
always cost-effective. Data processing, including quality assurance and control, is
generally more time-consuming and resource intensive for outcome data than for
outputs. This is exemplified by data on blood-lead levels of women of child-bearing age,
which the Centers for Disease Control collect every calendar year by, but release to the
public in 2-year sets. The most current data set for 2001-2002 was not available to EPA
until early 2005.
EPA does utilize projections when there is a reliable empirical or computer model
to project results using prior year data. For example, the National Emissions Inventory
of Hazardous Air Pollutants is compiled every 3 years and off-year results are projected
using an emissions modeling system. Information on modeled results is contained in
this appendix.
Real-time Data
As environmental monitoring in continuous "real-time" becomes more
widespread, we can expect data gaps to be significantly reduced or eliminated. The use
of distributed sensor networks and other advanced sensor systems, including "smart"
monitors which can automate responses, is leading the way to obtaining better and more
cost-effective environmental monitoring data.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 1
-------
Reliability
In accordance with OMB's definitions, the performance data supporting the 2007
PAR are reliable and not materially inadequate. Agency managers and decision-makers
use these data on an ongoing basis in the normal course of their duties.
All of EPA's data are subject to the Agency's "Quality System," formal and
compulsory policies and procedures that ensure environmental programs and decisions
are supported by quality-assured data. Data collected using environmental technology,
for example, must comply with appropriate engineering standards and practices. Quality
Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) are required under
EPA's Quality System. For definitions and additional information, see EPA's Quality
System website at http://www.epa.gov/quality.
Beginning in 2007, EPA's Quality Staff will be revising its guidance for evaluating
existing data for use in environmental projects or programs. The guidance will clarify to
EPA organizations what are the quality assurance requirements for secondary use data,
including the use of program and compliance data to measure Agency performance and
progress towards environmental goals. When the revised guidance is issued, it will make
clear that projects using existing environmental data will require quality assurance
project plans or equivalent documentation, and an evaluation of the data based on
acceptance criteria. The results of the evaluation will document how well the existing
data meet the objectives of the project and will provide information on data limitations,
methods for data collection, compilation and analysis, and quality assurance procedures.
Also, where appropriate, the results of the evaluation will provide information on how
well the data meet various quality indicators (e.g., precision, bias, comparability,
completeness, or representativeness). Further, the documentation of the results of the
data quality evaluation will meet Agency information quality criteria for transparency,
objectivity, and utility. Because these quality assurance requirements are covered by
the Agency's Quality Order, the data will be certified by an appropriate quality assurance
officer, who will be accountable for their reliability.
The discussion of "Management Accomplishments and Challenges," included in
Part 3 of this report, "Other Accompanying Information," presents key management
challenges identified by EPA's Office of Inspector General in FY 2007 and the Agency's
response. A number of challenges are related to data quality and performance
measures, as well as the Agency's need to better demonstrate program results (e.g.,
data standards/data quality, emissions factors, managing for results). EPA is working to
address these challenges, setting priorities for improving its performance measures and
finding new and innovative ways to improve the quality of the data it uses for decision-
making. For example, to address OIG concerns regarding emission factors, in FY 2007
EPA created a new, streamlined emission factors development process that will provide
clearer guidance on the regulatory and environmental risk of using emission factors. For
a more detailed discussion of EPA's response to OIG's key management challenges,
refer to "Other Accompanying Information.".
This appendix includes the metadata behind the performance measures. It
presents details of data limitations, along with a discussion of methods, data audits, and
recent data or database improvements for every performance measure in this report.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 2
-------
2007 PAR DATA QUALITY APPENDIX
GOAL 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective: Healthier Outdoor Air
• Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality
Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI
value. (PART measure)
Performance Databases:
AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to
evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.
AIRNow PMC-The AIRNow Data Management System (DMC) stores real-time ambient
air quality data used for the sole purpose of reporting real-time AQI and air quality
forecasting.
Data Sources:
AQS/DMC: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS) and National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data are gathered from monitors using EPA-
approved federal reference and/or equivalent methods, all of which are published via the
Federal Register. EPA assumes the collecting agency has properly maintained each
monitor and that the data sent to EPA have passed at least an automated QA/QC check.
The monitoring networks have been providing data for decades and the data are
considered highly reliable. In addition these data form the basis of EPA's attainment
decisions, trend analysis, and health impact assessments.
QA/QC Procedures:
AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major components:
the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and equivalent methods program,
EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), system audits, and network
reviews (Available on the Internet: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure
quality data, the SLAMS are required to meet the following: 1) each site must meet
network design and site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment,
control, and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements; 3)
all sampling methods and equipment must meet EPA reference or equivalent
requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record keeping procedures must be
followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and reported annually to EPA.
Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data collection
activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information available on the
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludvgxb/programs/namslam.html and through United
States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
DMC: The QA/QC procedures at each State, local, Tribal, or Federal agency are the
same as documented above. Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional
QA/QC data checks are built into the data flow process to further guard against
erroneous values being passed through the system. Data in the DMC are not
considered final and are not used for any regulatory purpose. Data in the AQS system
are the official values used for regulatory analyses.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 3
-------
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal
audits are regularly conducted.
PMC: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal
audits are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by
external users where applicable.
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
PMC: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still
too much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to
meteorological conditions for example) exist.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more
user friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily
accessible via the Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's
data standards (e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July
2003, agencies submitted air quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Pata
Exchange (CPX). CPX is intended to be the portal through which all environmental data
coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.
PMC: AIRNow Pata Management Center was redesigned in 2004 to more efficiently
handle additional pollutants and provide for easier access to real-time data. In addition,
automated QA/QC procedures were updated and increased flexibility for state/local
agencies to update information was included.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. For more
information on the monitoring network, as well as reference and equivalent methods, see
the Ambient Monitoring Technology Information Center (AMTIC) at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic . For information on the AIRNow real-time program, see:
http://www.airnow.gov/.
• Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000
from mobile sources. (PART measure)
• Millions of tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources. (PART measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
(PART measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
(PART measure)
• Limit the increase of CO Emissions (in tons) from mobile sources (PART
measure)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 4
-------
Performance Database: National Emissions Inventory Database. See:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/
Data Source: Mobile source emissions inventories and Regulatory Impact Analyses
Estimates for on-road, off-road mobile source emissions are built from inventories fed
into the relevant models, which in turn provide input to the National Emissions Inventory
Database.
The MOBILE vehicle emission factor model is a software tool for predicting gram per
mile emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide,
particulate matter, and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various
conditions. Inputs to the model include fleet composition, activity, temporal information,
and control program characteristics.
The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxides from small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines. Inputs to the
model include fleet composition, activity and temporal information.
Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only
if there is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)-types), temperature, gasoline properties, and the designs of
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are updated each year. Emission factors for all
mobile sources and activity estimates for non-road sources are changed only when the
Office of Transportation and Air Quality requests that this be done and is able to provide
the new information in a timely manner. The most recent models for mobile sources are
Mobile 6 and Nonroad 2002. (Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.)
EPA regulatory packages always include detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis which
estimates the costs industry is projected to accrue in meeting EPA regulations. These
cost estimates will form the basis of the numbers in the EPA performance measures.
Also, costs for the EPA mobile source program (including personnel costs) will be
included also. Estimates will be made for various years for tons/dollar for pollutants (the
total of HC, CO, NOx, and PM) removed.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: EPA issues emissions standards that set
limits on how much pollution can be emitted from a given mobile source. Mobile sources
include vehicles that operate on roads and highways ("on road" or "highway" vehicles),
as well as nonroad vehicles, engines, and equipment. Examples of mobile sources are
cars, trucks, buses, earthmoving equipment, lawn and garden power tools, ships,
railroad locomotives, and airplanes. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers have
responded to many mobile source emission standards by redesigning vehicles and
engines to reduce pollution.
EPA uses models to estimate mobile source emissions, for both past and future years.
The estimates are used in a variety of different settings. The estimates are used for
rulemaking.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 5
-------
The most complete and systematic process for making and recording such mobile
source emissions is the "Trends" inventory process executed each year by the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division (EMAD). The Assessment and Standards Division, within the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, provides EMAD information and methods for making the
mobile source estimates. In addition, EMAD's contractors obtain necessary information
directly from other sources; for example, weather data and the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimates by state. EMAD
creates and publishes the emission inventory estimate for the most recent historical
year, detailed down to the county level and with over 30 line items representing mobile
sources. At irregular intervals as required for regulatory analysis projects, EMAD creates
estimates of emissions for future years. When the method for estimating emissions
changes significantly, EMAD usually revises its older estimates of emissions in years
prior to the most recent year, to avoid a sudden discontinuity in the apparent emissions
trend. EMAD publishes the national emission estimates in hardcopy; county-level
estimates are available electronically. Additional information about transportation and air
quality related to estimating, testing for, and measuring emissions, as well as research
being conducted on technologies for reducing emissions is available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/research.htm
When major changes are made in the emission models or resulting inventories (and
even the cost estimates), the performance measures will be reviewed to determine if
they should be updated.
QA/QC Procedures: The emissions inventories are continuously improved.
Data Quality Review: The emissions inventories are reviewed by both internal and
external parties, including the states, locals and industries.
Data Limitations: The limitations of the inventory estimates for mobile sources come
from limitations in the modeled emission factors (based on emission factor testing and
models predicting overall fleet emission factors in g/mile) and also in the estimated
vehicle miles traveled for each vehicle class (derived from Department of Transportation
data).http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm. For nonroad emissions, the estimates come
from a model using equipment populations, emission factors per hour or unit of work,
and an estimate of usage. This nonroad emissions model accounts for over 200 types
of nonroad equipment. Any limitations in the input data will carry over into limitations in
the emission inventory estimates.
Error Estimate: Additional information about data integrity is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems: To keep pace with new analysis needs, new
modeling approaches, and new data, EPA is currently working on a new modeling
system termed the Multi-scale Motor Vehicles and Equipment Emission System
(MOVES). This new system will estimate emissions for on road and off road sources,
cover a broad range of pollutants, and allow multiple scale analysis, from fine scale
analysis to national inventory estimation. When fully implemented, MOVES will serve as
the replacement for MOBILE6 and NONROAD. The new system will not necessarily be a
single piece of software, but instead will encompass the necessary tools, algorithms,
underlying data and guidance necessary for use in all official analyses associated with
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 6
-------
regulatory development, compliance with statutory requirements, and national/regional
inventory projections. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ngm.htm
References: For additional information about mobile source programs see:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/.
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient
concentration of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored
counties from 2003 baseline (PART measure)
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient
concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline (PART
measure)
Performance Databases:
AQS —The Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) stores ambient air quality data used to
evaluate an area's air quality levels relative to the NAAQS.
FREDS—The Findings and Required Elements Data System is used to track progress of
states and Regions in reviewing and approving the required data elements of the State
Implementation Plans (SIP). SIPs are clean air plans and define what actions a state
will take to improve the air quality in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality
standards
Data Sources:
AQS: State & local agency data from State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS).
Population: Data from Census-Bureau/Department of Commerce
FREDS: Data are provided by EPA's Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Design values are calculated for every
county with adequate monitoring data (for more information on and a definition for
design values, see www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/cdv.pdf). Air quality levels are
evaluated relative to the baseline level and the design value. The change in air quality
concentrations is then multiplied by the number of people living in the county. This
analysis assumes that the populations of the areas are held constant at 2000 Census
levels. Data comparisons over several years allow assessment of the air program's
success.
QA/QC Procedures: AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has
several major components: the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, reference and
equivalent methods program, EPA's National Performance Audit Program (NPAP),
system audits, and network reviews (Available on the Internet:
www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure quality data, the SLAMS are required to
meet the following: 1) each site must meet network design and site criteria; 2) each site
must provide adequate QA assessment, control, and corrective action functions
according to minimum program requirements; 3) all sampling methods and equipment
must meet EPA reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and
record keeping procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be
summarized and reported annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 7
-------
review the overall air quality data collection activity for any needed changes or
corrections. Further information available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States EPA's
Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census
Bureau/Department of Commerce.
FREDS: No formal QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal
audits are regularly conducted.
Populations: No additional QA/QC beyond that done by the Census
Bureau/Department of Commerce.
FREDS: None
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
Populations: Not known
FREDS: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still
too much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to
meteorological conditions for example) exist.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
AQS: In January 2002, EPA completed the reengineering of AQS to make it a more
user friendly, Windows-based system. As a result, air quality data are more easily
accessible via the Internet. AQS has also been enhanced to comply with the Agency's
data standards (e.g., latitude/longitude, chemical nomenclature). Beginning in July
2003, agencies submitted air quality data to AQS thru the Agency's Central Data
Exchange (CDX). CDX is intended to be the portal through which all environmental data
coming to or leaving the Agency will pass.
Population: None
FREDS: None
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
• Tons of SO2 emissions from electric power generation sources (tons/yr from
1980 baseline) (PART measure)
• Percent change in average sulfur deposition and mean ambient sulfate
concentrations reduced (%from baseline) (PART measure)
• Percent change in average nitrogen deposition and mean ambient nitrate
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 8
-------
concentrations reduced (%from baseline) (PART measure)
Performance Databases:
Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SO2 and NOX emissions
• Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) - dry deposition
• National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet deposition
• Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems program (TIME) - surface water
chemistry
Long-Term Monitoring Network program (LTM) - surface water chemistry
Data Sources: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly
measurements of SO2, NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related
parameters from more than 3,400 fossil fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV
Acid Rain Program. These measurements are collected by certified continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) or equivalent continuous monitoring methods.
CASTNET measures particle and gas acidic deposition chemistry. Specifically,
CASTNET measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at
approximately 88 monitoring sites, primarily in the East. Two additional sites are
planned as part of a multi-year network refurbishment and modernization project. These
sites are scheduled to be in operation by 2007 and will help fill the coverage gap in the
middle of country. CASTNET is a long-term dry deposition network funded, operated
and maintained by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). The National Park Service
operates approximately 30 of the monitoring stations in cooperation with EPA.
NADP is a national long-term wet deposition network that measures precipitation
chemistry and provides long-term geographic and temporal trends in concentration and
deposition of precipitation components. Specifically, NADP provides measurements of
sulfate and nitrate wet deposition at approximately 255 monitoring sites. EPA, along
with several other Federal agencies, states, and private organizations, provide funding
and support for NADP. The Illinois State Water Survey/University of Illinois maintains
the NADP database.
The deposition monitoring networks have been in operation for over 25 years. They
provide invaluable measurements on long-term trends and episodes in acid deposition;
such data are essential for assessing progress toward the program's intended
environmental outcomes. These networks need to be modernized to ensure the
continued availability of these direct environmental measures. Maintaining a robust
long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network is critical for the accountability of
the Acid Rain and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Programs (and/or Clear Skies if new
legislation is enacted).
The TIME project measures surface water chemistry and is based on the concept of a
probability sample, where each site is chosen to be statistically representative of a target
population. In the Northeast (New England and the Adirondacks), this target population
consists of lakes likely to be responsive to changes in rates of acidic deposition (i.e.,
those with Gran ANC < 100 ueq/L). In the Mid-Atlantic, the target population is upland
streams with a high probability of responding to changes in acidic deposition (i.e.,
Northern Appalachian Plateau streams with Gran ANC < 100 ueq/L). Each lake or
stream is sampled annually (in summer for lakes, in spring for streams), and results are
extrapolated to the target population. The most recent (2003) TIME trends analysis
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 9
-------
reported data from 43 Adirondack lakes, 30 New England lakes, and 31Appalachian
Plateau streams.
The TIME project goals are to determine not only how a representative sample of water
bodies is changing through time, but also whether the proportion of the population that is
acidic has changed. The project is operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators
in state agencies, academic institutions and other federal agencies.
The LTM project complements TIME'S statistical approach to sampling lakes and
streams. LTM samples a subset of sensitive lakes and streams with long-term data,
most dating back to the early 1980s. These sites are sampled 3 to 15 times per year.
This information is used to characterize how the most sensitive aquatic systems in each
region are responding to changing deposition, as well as providing information on
seasonal chemistry and episodic acidification. In most regions, a small number of higher
ANC (e.g., GranANC >100 ueq/L) sites are also sampled, and help separate temporal
changes due to acidic deposition from those attributable to other disturbances such as
changes in land use. The most recent (2003) LTM trends analysis reported data from 48
Adirondack lakes, 24 New England lakes, 9 Northern Appalachian Plateau streams, and
69 streams in the Blue Ridge region of Virginia and West Virginia. The project is
operated cooperatively with numerous collaborators in state agencies, academic
institutions and other federal agencies.
Methods, Assumption, and Suitability Promulgated methods are used to aggregate
emissions data across all United States' utilities for each pollutant and related source
operating parameters such as heat input.
QA/QC Procedures:
Promulgated QA/QC requirements dictate performing a series of quality assurance tests
of CEMS performance. For these tests, emissions data are collected under highly
structured, carefully designed testing conditions, which involve either high quality
standard reference materials or multiple instruments performing simultaneous emission
measurements. The resulting data are screened and analyzed using a battery of
statistical procedures, including one that tests for systematic bias. If a CEM fails the
bias test, indicating a potential for systematic underestimation of emissions, the source
of the error must be identified and corrected or the data are adjusted to minimize the
bias. Each affected plant is required to maintain a written QA plan documenting
performance of these procedures and tests. Further information is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/reporting/index.html.
CASTNET established a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in November 2001;
The QAPP contains data quality objectives and quality control procedures for accuracy
and precision. {U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Clean Air Status
and Trends Network (CASTNet) Quality Assurance Project Plan (Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. EPA, November 2001). In addition, the program publishes annual quality
assurance reports. Both the CASTNET QAPP and 2003 Annual Quality Assurance
Report may be found at http://www.epa.gov/castnet/library.html.
NADP has established data quality objectives and quality control procedures for
accuracy, precision and representation, available on the Internet:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/QA/. The intended use of these data is to establish spatial and
temporal trends in wet deposition and precipitation chemistry.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 10
-------
For TIME and LTM, the field protocols, laboratory methods, and quality assurance
procedures are specific to each research group. QA/QC information is contained in the
cited publications of each research group and compiled in Newell et al. (1987). The
EMAP and TIME protocols and quality assurance methods are generally consistent with
those of the LTM cooperators, and are detailed in Peck (1992) and in Table 3 of
Stoddard et al (2003).
Data Quality Review: The ETS provides instant feedback to sources on data reporting
problems, format errors, and inconsistencies. The electronic data file QA checks are
described at http://www.epa.qov/airmarkets/reportinq/index.html (see Electronic Data
Report Review Process, ETS Tolerance Tables, Active ETS Error Codes/Messages
and Range Format Errors). All quarterly reports are analyzed to detect deficiencies and
to identify reports that must be resubmitted to correct problems. EPA also identifies
reports that were not submitted by the appropriate reporting deadline. Revised quarterly
reports, with corrected deficiencies found during the data review process, must be
obtained from sources by a specified deadline. All data are reviewed, and preliminary
and final emissions data reports are prepared for public release and compliance
determination.
CASTNET underwent formal peer review in 1997 by a panel of scientists from EPA and
the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Findings are documented in
Examination of CASTNET: Data, Results, Costs, and Implications (United States EPA,
Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
February 1997).
The NADP methods of determining wet deposition values have undergone extensive
peer review; this process has been managed by NADP program office at the Illinois
State Water Survey/University of Illinois. Assessments of changes in NADP methods are
developed primarily through the academic community and reviewed through the
technical literature process.
The TIME and LTM data used in EPA trends analysis reports are screened for internal
consistency among variables, including ion balance and conductance balance. Samples
with unexplained variation in these variables are deleted. Sites with mean Gran ANC
greater than 200 ueq/L also are deleted. EPA trends analyses exclude sites with chloride
values that are outliers in their region, because high Cl- is typically associated with
human development in the watershed. The Cl- and associated Na+ would alter normal
soil ion exchange relationships, thus obscuring the response to acidic deposition.
Data Limitations: In order to improve the spatial resolution of CASTNET, additional
monitoring sites are needed, particularly in the middle of the country.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program plans to modernize and enhance
CASTNET to ensure network viability and enhance the monitoring capacity to support
ongoing and future accountability needs, particularly relating to long range pollutant
transport. The refurbishment of CASTNET will result in more comprehensive air quality
data and information, made available faster by enabling real-time access to air quality
information and promoting integration with other networks through regional/rural
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 11
-------
monitoring strategies. Refurbishment activities to be pursued in FY 2007 include: (1)
completion of a pilot phase study to evaluate options for upgrading CASTNET with new
advanced measurement instrumentation; (2) selection and procurement of advanced
technology monitoring equipment for up to 10 sites; (3) establishment of 2 new sites in
the middle of the country to improve geographic coverage and spatial resolution; and (4)
implementation of new ecological indicators of air quality and atmospheric deposition to
expand the suite of environmental metrics available for measuring the performance and
efficiency of EPA's clean air programs.
References: For additional information about CASTNET, see
http://www.epa.qov/castnet.html and for NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.
For a description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/arp/index.html/ and in the electronic Code of Federal
Regulations at http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-l.info/subch-C.html (40 CFR
parts 72-78.)
For TIME and LTM data quality and QA/QC procedures, see
Newell, A. D., C. F. Powers, and S. J. Christie. 1987. Analysis of Data from Long-term
monitoring of Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Peck, D. V. 1992. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Integrated
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Surface Waters Resource Group. EPA/600/X-
91/080, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Stoddard, J. L, J. S. Kahl, F. A. Deviney, D. R. DeWalle, C. T. Driscoll, A. T. Herlihy, J.
H. Kellogg, P. S. Murdoch, J. R. Webb, and K. E. Webster. 2003. Response of surface
water chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. EPA/620/R-03/001, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline (PART measure)
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer
risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline (PART measure)
Performance Databases:
• National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
• EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization
Data Source: To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk
to the public, a toxicity-weighted emission inventory performance measure has been
developed. This measure utilizes data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from
EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.qov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html), which is a compendium of cancer and
noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This compendium includes
tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188 hazardous air
pollutants. These health risk data were obtained from various data sources including
EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, California
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The numbers from the health risk database are used for estimating the risk of
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 12
-------
contracting cancer and the level of hazard associated with adverse health effects other
than cancer.
The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried
as point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as
non-point sources, and mobile sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the
National Toxics Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 -1993) includes
emissions information for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary
sources and from mobile sources. It is based on data collected during the development
of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, state and local data,
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and emissions estimates using accepted emission
inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI contains county level emissions data and
cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain facility specific data.
The 1996 NTI and the 1999 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and mobile source
estimates. These inventories also contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions
and their source specific parameters such as location (latitude and longitude) and facility
characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.
The primary source of data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local air
pollution control agencies and Tribes. These data vary in completeness, format, and
quality. EPA evaluates these data and supplements them with data gathered while
developing MACT and residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data.
For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please go to
the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.htmltfnti. For more information
and references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following
web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmltf1999.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As the NEI is only developed every three
years, EPA utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for "off-years"
and to project the inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions
Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by
adjusting stationary source emission data to account for growth and emission reductions
resulting from emission reduction scenarios such as the implementation of the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the
inventory by "weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk
criteria. This would be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by
pollutant values would be obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline
year (1990/93). Conversion of actual tons for each pollutant for the current year and the
baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons would be accomplished by multiplying the
appropriate values from the health criteria database such as the unit risk estimate (LIRE)
or lifetime cancer risk (defined atwww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htmtfrfc) to get the
noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted values act as a surrogate for risk and allow
EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-
weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk on an annual basis
Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 13
-------
EMS-HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scramOQ1/tt22.htmtfaspen
and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html. The growth and
reduction information used for the projections are further described at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.htmL
QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other
organizations, to improve the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities
include: (1) the use of an automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data
integrity, code values, and range checks; (2) use of geographical information system
(GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and (3) automated content analysis by pollutant,
source category and facility to identify potential problems with emission estimates such
as outliers, duplicate sites, duplicate emissions, coverage of a source category, etc. The
content analysis includes a variety of comparative and statistical analyses. The
comparative analyses help reviewers prioritize which source categories and pollutants to
review in more detail based on comparisons using current inventory data and prior
inventories. The statistical analyses help reviewers identify potential outliers by
providing the minimum, maximum, average, standard deviation, and selected percentile
values based on current data. The EPA has developed an automated QC content tool
for data providers to use prior to submitting their data to EPA. After investigating errors
identified using the automated QC format and GIS tools, the EPA follows specific
guidance on augmenting data for missing data fields. This guidance is available at the
following web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/qaaugmementationmemo99nei_60603.pdf
The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and
identifies the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA
contacts data providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external
review and includes a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission
of revisions, state-by-state modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files
to assist in the review of the data. One of the summary files includes a comparison of
point source data submitted by different organizations. During the external review of the
data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and industry provide external QA of the inventory.
The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from external reviewers and prepares memos for
individual reviewers documenting incorporation of revisions and explanations if revisions
were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the database with the source of
original data and sources of subsequent revision.
The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant
changes in the initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI
for HAPs and its final version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs,
please refer to the following web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission
Inventory Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC - An Integral Step in the Development of the
1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei11/qa/pope.pdf
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF)
fields. These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and
other Federal agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 14
-------
consistently defined and formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides
public access to more meaningful data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are
the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude, Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date,
Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The 1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new
data standards except the Facility Identification Standard because OEI has not
completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for HAPs facilities.
For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information
Quality Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site
for a paper presented at the 2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego. "The
Challenge of Meeting New EPA Data Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in
the Development of the 2002 NEI Point Source Data for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei12/dm/pope.pdf The 2002 NEI for HAPs will
undergo scientific peer review in early 2005.
The tables used in the EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are compiled assessments from various
sources for many of the 188 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the
Clean Air Act of 1990. Because different sources developed these assessments at
different times for purposes that were similar but not identical, results are not totally
consistent. To resolve these discrepancies and ensure the validity of the data, EPA
applied a consistent priority scheme consistent with EPA risk assessment guidelines and
various levels of scientific peer review. These risk assessment guidelines can be found
at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/car2sab/preamble.pdf.
Data Quality Review: EPA staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the
public review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs. To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for
HAPs, the EPA provided a comparison of data from the three data sources
(MACT/residual risk data, TRI, and state, local and Tribal inventories) for each facility.
For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods were available for external review - October
2001 - February 2002 and October 2002 - March 2003. The final 1999 NEI was
completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003. Beginning in 2005, the
NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.
The EMS-HAP has been subjected to the scrutiny of leading scientists throughout the
country in a process called "scientific peer review". This ensures that EPA uses the best
available scientific methods and information. In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the 1996 national-scale assessment.
The review was generally supportive of the assessment purpose, methods, and
presentation; the committee considers this an important step toward a better
understanding of air toxics. Additional information is available on the Internet:
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer.html.
The data compiled in the Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support
hazard identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) risk assessment paradigm
(www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html). Because the health criteria data were
obtained from various sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the
performance measure, for example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 15
-------
risk assessment guidelines and 2) various levels of scientific peer review. The
prioritization process is aimed at incorporating the best available scientific data.
Data Limitations and Error Estimates: While emissions estimating techniques have
improved over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious
data limitations still exist. The NTI and the NEI for HAPs contain data from other primary
references. Because of the different data sources, not all information in the NTI and the
NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical methods. Also, for the same reason,
there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and accuracy than others.
Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI, it is currently not suitable for
input to dispersion models. For further discussion of the data limitations and the error
estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the discussion of Information Quality
Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.htmltfhaps99 .
In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a final evaluation report on
"EPA's Method for Calculating Air Toxics Emissions for Reporting Results Needs
Improvement" (report can be found atwww.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-
00012.pdf). The report stated that although the methods used have improved
substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other limitations underlying the NTI continue
to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a result of this evaluation and
the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action plan and is looking
at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet bi-annually
with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the action
plan.
While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent
limitations and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not
practical to expose humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health
implications over long periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived
from response models and laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter
used to convert from exposure to cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or LIRE) is
based on default science policy processes used routinely in EPA assessments. First,
some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but lack data in humans. These
have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air toxics in this
assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the
probability of cancer (i.e. effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher,
measurable, exposures by a straight line). Third, the LIRE used for some air toxics
compounds represents a maximum likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean
the best scientific estimate. For other air toxics compounds, however, the LIRE used was
an "upper bound" estimate, meaning that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if
it is incorrect. For these upper bound estimates, it is assumed that the LIRE continues to
apply even at low exposures. It is likely, therefore, that this linear model over-predicts
the risk at exposures encountered in the environment. The cancer weighting-values for
this approach should be considered "upper bound" in the science policy sense.
All of the noncancer risk estimates have a built-in margin of safety. All of the Reference
Concentrations (RfCs) used in toxicity-weighting of noncancer are conservative,
meaning that they represent exposures which probably do not result in any health
effects, with a margin of safety built into the RfC to account for sources of uncertainty
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 16
-------
and variability. Like the LIRE used in cancer weighting the values are, therefore,
considered "upper bound" in the science policy sense. Further details on limitations and
uncertainties associated with the agencies health data can be found at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page9.htmlSL10
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a
significant improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail
(e.g., stack heights, latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion
model input. Future inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve
significantly because of increased interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies,
environmental interests, and industry, and the greater potential for modeling and trend
analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, all primary data submitters
and reviewers were required to submit their data and revisions to EPA in a standardized
format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX). For more information on
CDX, please go the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html
Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize
ambient monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare
these values with health benchmarks to predict risks.
References:
The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
Emissions Inventory Data:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:
NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:
CHIEF:
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/Emislnventory/
1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
individuals who want full access to NTI files
http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Summary data files
EPA staff
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief
1999 NEI for HAPs data development materials
1999 Data Incorporation Plan - describes how EPA
compiled the 1999 NEI for HAPs
QC tool for data submitters
Data Augmentation Memo describes procedures EPA will
use to augment data
99 NTI Q's and A's provides answers to frequently asked
questions
NIF (Input Format) files and descriptions
CDX Data Submittal Procedures - instructions on how to
submit data using CDX
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 17
-------
Training materials on development of HAP emission
inventories
Emission factor documents, databases, and models
Audience: State/local/Tribal agencies, industry, EPA, and the public
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
EMS-HAP: http://epa.gov/scramOQ1/tt22.htmtfaspen
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html
Contents: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Audience: public
Information on EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization:
Health Criteria Data: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html
Contents: Tabulated dose response values for long-term (chronic)
inhalation and oral exposures; and values for short-term
(acute) inhalation exposure
Audience: public
• Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a
complete permit application. (PART measure)
Performance Databases: RBLC (RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology)
BACT (Best Available Control Technology) LAER (Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate)
Clearinghouse)
Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local)
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated by
determining the time period between the date of complete permit application and permit
issuance. The percentage represents the number of major NSR permits issued within
one year of complete application to the total number of permits issued within that same
period. There are no underlying assumptions in the development of this performance
measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the permit
issuance dates are after the complete permit application dates and appear reasonable,
2) t ensuring the permit processing times are similar for comparable permits in previous
reporting periods and 3) making sure the time period does not restart when additional
information is submitted after the application is received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been
made during data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 18
-------
• Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18
months of receiving a complete permit application. (PART measure)
• Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 months of
receiving a complete permit application. (PART measure)
Performance Databases: TOPS (Title V Operating Permit System).
Data Sources: Permitting Agencies (State and Local) via EPA Regional Offices
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated by
comparing the number of new permits or significant permit modifications issued during
past 18 months to the total number of new permits or significant permit modifications
received during the same period. Data are collected every 6 months. There are no
underlying assumptions in the development of this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Some data quality checks include: 1) making sure the number of
permits issued in 18 months is equal to or less than the total number of permits received.
2) ensuring the percentages seem reasonable compared to previous reporting periods,
and 3) making sure clock does not restart when additional information is submitted after
the application is received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA procedures
Data Limitations: None
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been
made during data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: TOPS has been revised and improved for 2006 to
ensure better consistency between states and to specifically track PART measures.
References: For additional information about criteria pollutant data, non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.
Objective: Healthier Indoor Air
• Number of additional homes (new and existing) with radon reducing
features (PART measure)
• Total cost (public and private) per future premature lung cancer death
prevented through lowered radon exposure (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders and internal database of fan sales.
Data Source: The survey is an annual sample of home builders in the United States
most of whom are members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).
NAHB members construct 80% of the homes built in the United States each year. Using
a survey methodology reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center estimates the
percentage of these homes that are built radon resistant. The percentage built radon
resistant from the sample is then used to estimate what percent of all homes built
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 19
-------
nationwide are radon resistant. To calculate the number of people living in radon
resistant homes, EPA assumes an average of 2.67 people per household. NAHB
Research Center has been conducting this annual builder practices survey for over a
decade, and has developed substantial expertise in the survey's design, implementation,
and analysis. The statistical estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent
confidence interval.
Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per
radon mitigated home, and a fan life of 10 years, and then multiplies the assumed
number of working fans by the assumed average of 2.67 people per household.
To estimate the reduced number of lung cancer deaths resulting from lowered radon
exposure, EPA applies risk reduction estimates from its 2003 radon risk assessment to
the number of existing homes mitigated for elevated radon levels and the number of new
homes built with radon resistant new construction. Cost estimate includes both public
and private sector costs, using EPA's 2003 estimate as a baseline.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: NAHB Research Center conducts an annual
survey of home builders in the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices.
NAHB Research Center voluntarily conducts this survey to maintain an awareness of
industry trends in order to improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs
of the home building industry. The annual survey gathers information such as types of
houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and
windows used, etc. The NAHB Research Center Builder Survey also gathers
information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new houses, and these
questions comprise about two percent of the survey questionnaire.
In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year
is typically mailed out to home builders. For the most-recently completed survey, for
building practices during calendar year 2003, NAHB Research Center reported mailing
the survey to about 45,000 active United States home building companies, and received
about 2,300 responses, which translates to a response rate of about 5 percent. The
survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market areas and Census
Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage and number of homes built
each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also used to assess
the percentage and number of homes built with radon-reducing features in high radon
potential areas in the United States (high risk areas). Other analyses include radon-
reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different
techniques for radon-resistant new home construction. The data are suitable for year-to-
year comparisons.
This measure is a combination of data that includes additional number of homes built
with radon resistant new construction (RRNC), reported by industry on an annual basis,
as well as additional radon mitigations which are estimated from annual radon fan sales.
QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, QA/QC
procedures are not entirely known. According to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC
procedures have been established, which include QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized
for key entry of data. Because fan sales data are obtained from an external organization,
EPA relies on the business practices of radon fan manufacturers for reporting the data.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 20
-------
Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data
Quality Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates
that each survey is manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to
complete. The review includes data quality checks to ensure that the respondents
understood the survey questions and answered the questions appropriately. NAHB
Research Center also applies checks for open-ended questions to verify the
appropriateness of the answers. In some cases, where open-ended questions request
numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three percent
of the values provided in the survey responses. Also, a quality review of each year's
draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer. Fan
sales data are obtained from an external organization and EPA reviews the data to
ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.
Data Limitations: The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The
NAHB Research Center survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are
not members of NAHB. Home builders that are not members of NAHB are typically
smaller, sporadic builders that in some cases build homes as a secondary profession.
To augment the list of NAHB members in the survey sample, NAHB Research Center
sends the survey to home builders identified from mailing lists of builder trade
publications, such as Professional Builder magazine. There is some uncertainty as to
whether the survey adequately characterizes the practices of builders who are not
members of NAHB. The effects on the findings are not known.
Although an overall response rate of 5 percent could be considered low, it is the
response rate for the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction
questions are only a very small portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be
doing so principally due to their radon activities. Thus, a low response rate does not
necessarily indicate a strong potential for a positive bias under the speculation that
builders using radon-resistant construction would be more likely to respond to the
survey. NAHB Research Center also makes efforts to reduce the potential for positive
bias in the way the radon-related survey questions are presented.
Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate the number
of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the
number of homes mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate radon including:
passive mitigation techniques of sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls,
installing sealed covers over sump pits, installing one-way drain valves in untrapped
drains, and installing static venting and ground covers in areas like crawl spaces.
Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods, there is again the
possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report
to EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only four (4) radon
vent fan manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70%
of the market. Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications.
However, vent fans typically used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed
as substitutes for radon vent fans in some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the
total market. Ascertaining the actual number of radon vent fans used for other
applications, and the number of non-radon fans being substituted in radon applications,
would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the benefit of having such data.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 21
-------
Error Estimate: See Data Limitations
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports
of radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ last accessed
7/25/2007 for more information about NAHB. The most recent report, "Builder Practices
Report: Radon Reducing Features in New Construction 2003,"Annual Builder and
Consumer Practices Surveys by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., November, 2004.
Similar report titles exist for prior years.
See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 7/25/2007 for National
performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985-to 2003) on radon,
measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction.
• Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers (PART measure)
• Annual cost to EPA per person with asthma taking all essential actions to
reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers (PART efficiency
measure)
Performance Database: The National Survey on Environmental Management of
Asthma and Children's Exposure to ETS (NSEMA) provides information about the
measures taken by people with asthma, and parents of children with asthma, to
minimize exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers, including environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS). Additional information about asthma morbidity and mortality in
the US is obtained from surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), including the National Health Interview Survey, the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey.
Annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Chartbook
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04_chtbk.pdf. last accessed 7/25/2007.
EPA also collects data on children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in the
home. This information is used in supporting the asthma goals of the program. EPA
focuses its work on ETS on children in low income and minority populations, and on
children with asthma. In addition to NSEMA, information about ETS is obtained
periodically from the CDC studies cited above
Data Source: The NSEMA (OMB control number 2060-0490) source is EPA. Data on
asthma morbidity and mortality is available from the National Center for Health Statistics
at the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 7/25/2007). Data on annual expenditures
for health and lost productivity due to asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook.
(www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04_chtbk.pdf. last accessed 7/25/2007). EPA will
gather asthma trigger data through questions that are being integrated into a CDC
survey. Essential actions address mold, dust mites, secondhand smoke, cockroaches,
pets, nitrogen dioxide, and chemical irritants. Cost includes EPA full cost of
implementing the asthma program.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 22
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-of-year performance for the asthma
program is a best professional estimate using all data sources (including information on
annual measures on partner performance and advertising awareness outlined below).
The estimate of the number of people with asthma who have taken steps to reduce their
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers as of 2007 will be based on a
projection from previous surveys, and this estimate will be verified using a national
survey instrument in 2009. EPA is collaborating with CDC to integrate questions on
environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national survey mechanism
to provide performance results data in the future. Also, data provided for the annual
measures are used to support progress towards the long term performance measure.
The NSEMA (OMB control number 2060-0490) is the most robust data set for this
performance measure, but it is not administered annually. The first survey, administered
in 2003, was designed in consultation with staff from EPA and the CDC National Center
for Health Statistics (NCHS) to ensure that respondents will understand the questions
asked and will provide the type of data necessary to measure the Agency's objectives.
In addition, care has been taken to ensure that the survey questions target the
population with asthma by using the same qualifier question that appears on other
national surveys on asthma collected by the CDC.
QA/QC Procedures: The NSEMA was designed in accordance with approved Agency
procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.htmL The computer assisted telephone interview
methodology used for this survey helps to limit errors in data collection. In addition, the
QA/QC procedures associated with conducting the survey include pilot testing of
interview questions, interviewer training to ensure consistent gathering of information,
and random data review to reduce the possibility of data entry error.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources to ascertain reliability.
Data Limitations: Asthma: The survey is subject to inherent limitations of voluntary
telephone surveys of representative samples. For example, 1) survey is limited to those
households with current telephone service; 2) interviewers may follow survey directions
inconsistently. An interviewer might ask the questions incorrectly or inadvertently lead
the interviewee to a response; or 3) the interviewer may call at an inconvenient time
(i.e., the respondent might not want to be interrupted at the time of the call and may
resent the intrusion of the phone call; the answers will reflect this attitude.).
ETS: Currently available cotinine (a chemical in environmental tobacco smoke) survey
data do not address 50% of the age specific portion of EPA's target population. It does
not include birth to three years old, the portion of children most susceptible to the effects
of ETS.
Error Estimate: In 2003 collection with this instrument, the Agency achieved results
within the following percentage points of the true value at the 95 percent confidence
level (survey instrument):
Adult Asthmatics plus or minus 2.4%
Child Asthmatics plus or minus 3.7%
Low Income Adult Asthmatics plusorminus 6.1%
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 23
-------
These precision rates are sufficient to characterize the extent to which the results
measured by the survey accurately reflect the characteristics of our nation's asthmatic
population.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is collaborating with CDC to integrate questions
on environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national survey
mechanism to provide performance results data in the future. The 2003 NSEMA
estimates, and the integration of the CDC survey population, will provide consistent
tracking measures at a reduced cost, while reducing the burden to the public. This
collaboration will improve national asthma surveillance efforts.
References:
Asthma
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed 7/25/2007)
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 7/25/2007)
ETS
National Health Interview Survey and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
are part of the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs last accessed 7/25/2007 )
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm last accessed 7/25/2007),
US Surgeon General's report on tobacco (http://www.cdc.qov/tobacco/sqr/index.htm/ last
accessed 7/25/2007),
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series
(http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monoqraphs/ last accessed 7/25/2007),
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureau's Current
Population Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed
7/25/2007),
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 7/25/2007).
• Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's media campaign
(PART measure)
Performance Database: A media tracking study used to assess behavior change within
that sector of the public viewing the public service announcements.
Data Source: An independent initiative of the Advertising Council provides media
tracking of outcomes of all their public service campaigns and this is publicly available
information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Methods are those of the Advertising Council,
and not controlled by EPA.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 24
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled
by EPA.
Data Quality Review: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled
by EPA.
Data Limitations: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and not controlled by
EPA.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Methods are those of the Advertising Council, and
not controlled by EPA.
References: Advertising Council Reporting. EPA Assistance Agreement number X-
82820301.
For additional information see the Ad Council web site http://www.adcouncil.org/ last
accessed 7/25/07.
• Additional health care professionals trained annually by EPA and its
partners on the environmental management of asthma triggers (PART
measure)
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status
reports used to document the outcomes of individual projects.
Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving
funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: On an annual basis, EPA requires
(programmatic terms and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide
reports identifying how many health care professionals are educated about indoor
asthma triggers.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers.
Data Quality Review: Project officers review data quality.
Data Limitations: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is exploring the development of a centralized
data base.
References: N/A
• Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality
programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (PART measure)
• Average cost to EPA per student per year in a school that is implementing
an effective indoor air quality plan. (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: EPA collects national data by conducting a survey of indoor
air quality management practices in schools approximately every three years. The first
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 25
-------
survey was administered in 2002. EPA is partnering with CDC to incorporate IAQ
management practice indicators, consistent with the benchmark survey, into the School
Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) to be administered in 2006. The SHPSS
survey is conducted at 6 year intervals so the next nationally representative data would
be collected in 2012 and would measure progress against the long term 2012 program
goal.
To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of schools who establish IAQ
Tools for Schools (TfS) programs each year from reports from partner organizations and
regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the volume of guidances distributed and
number of people trained by EPA and its partners. EPA also collects information on
program benefits such as reduced school nurse visits, improved workplace satisfaction
among staff, reduced absenteeism, and cost savings experienced by schools.
Data Source: The sources of the data include cooperative partners, USEPA and the
statistical sample of all the public and private schools in the nation during the 1999 -
2000 school year (118,000); data are from the United States Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics.
On a 6 year basis, EPA collaborates with CDC to determine the number of schools
implementing an IAQ plan. Effectiveness is defined as a plan that is consistent with
EPA's Tool for Schools guidance and scores a 70 or higher on EPA's IAQ management
index.
Total Number of students is derived from the number of schools multiplied by the
nationwide average of 525 students, faculty and staff. Effectiveness is defined as a plan
that is consistent with EPA's Tool for Schools guidance and scores a 70 or higher on
EPA's indoor air quality (IAQ) management index. Cost includes EPA full cost of
implementing IAQ programs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Calculations for the number of people
experiencing improved IAQ are based upon an average 525 students, staff and faculty
per school (data are from the United States Department of Education National Center for
Education Statistics). That number, along with the number of schools that are
adopting/implementing TfS, are used to estimate the performance result.
End-of-year performance is a best professional estimate using all data sources. The
survey provides more statistically sound results for one period of time; the next
scheduled survey will provide performance results for year 2006. Key portions of EPA's
2006 survey will be included as part of CDC's 2006 School Health Policies and
Programs Study, which is conducted every six years.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately
and completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are
conducted by EPA projects officers.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance
database to ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement
Partner status reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 26
-------
Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the 2002 survey, EPA tracked the number of
schools receiving the TfS guidance and estimated the population of the school to
determine the number of students/staff experiencing improved indoor air quality. The
survey was administered to establish a baseline for schools implementing IAQ
management practices. EPA queried a statistically representative sample of schools to
estimate the number of schools that have actually adopted and implemented good IAQ
management practices consistent with the TfS guidance. EPA has integrated key
portions of the 2002 survey into CDC's School Health Policies and Programs Study,
which will show progress from the baseline.
References: See the United States Department of Education National Center for
Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/ last accessed 7/26/2007. See also Indoor Air
Quality Tools for Schools Kit (402-K-95-001) at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last
accessed 7/26/2007 and see www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/shpps/ For additional
information about the School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS), a national
survey periodically conducted to assess school health policies and programs at the
state, district, school, and classroom levels.
Objective: Protect the Ozone Layer
• Remaining US consumption of HCFCs, measured in tons of ozone
depleting potential (OOP) (PART measure)
Performance Database: The Allowance Tracking System (ATS) database is maintained
by the Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD). ATS is used to compile and analyze
quarterly information on U.S. production, imports, exports, transformations, and
allowance trades of ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
Data Source: Progress on restricting domestic exempted consumption of Class II
HCFCs is tracked by monitoring industry reports of compliance with EPA's phase-out
regulations. Data are provided by U.S. companies producing, importing, and exporting
ODS. Corporate data are typically submitted as quarterly reports. Specific requirements
as outlined in the Clean Air Act are available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/caa603.txt. Monthly information on domestic production,
imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is maintained in the ATS.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data are aggregated across all U.S.
companies for each individual ODS to analyze U.S. total consumption and production.
QA/QC Procedures: Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40
CFR Part 82, Subpart A, Sections 82.9 through 82.13. These sections of the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rule specify the required data and accompanying
documentation that companies must submit or maintain on-site to demonstrate their
compliance with the regulation.
The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA
Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002). In addition, the data are subject to an
annual quality assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 27
-------
separate from those on the team normally responsible for data collection and
maintenance. The ATS is programmed to ensure consistency of the data elements
reported by companies. The tracking system flags inconsistent data for review and
resolution by the tracking system manager. This information is then cross-checked with
compliance data submitted by reporting companies. SPD maintains a user's manual for
the ATS that specifies the standard operating procedures for data entry and data
analysis. Regional inspectors perform inspections and audits on-site at the producers',
importers', and exporters' facilities. These audits verify the accuracy of compliance data
submitted to EPA through examination of company records.
Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a review
of U.S. participation in five international environmental agreements, and analyzed data
submissions from the U.S. under the Montreal Protocol on Substances the Deplete the
Ozone Layer. No deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report.
Data Limitations: None, since companies are required by the Clean Air Act to report
data. EPA's regulations specify a quarterly reporting system.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a
system to allow direct electronic reporting.
References: See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html for additional information on
ODSs. See http://www.unep.ch/ozone/montreal.shtml for additional information about
the Montreal Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the
Multilateral Fund. Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs,
July 2002
• Cumulative federal dollars spent per cumulative number of schools joining
the SunWise program
Performance Database: Not applicable
Data Source: Cumulative federal dollars spent is estimated from annual program
budget tracking documents. The number of schools joining the SunWise program is
measured by counting the number of schools that register to join the SunWise program
in each year, which is collected at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html. Schools
also have the option of sending in a paper registration, which EPA then enters at this
website. EPA tracks the data at http://intranet.epa.gov/sunwise/track/trac_teacher.html.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of schools joining the
SunWise program is measured by counting the number of schools that register to join
the SunWise program in each year, which is collected at
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html., and adding the incremental number of
schools joining the program to the prior year's cumulative total. The efficiency measure
is calculated by dividing the cumulative number of dollars EPA has spent on the
SunWise program by the cumulative number of schools that have joined the program.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 28
-------
QA/QC Procedures: All registrations by schools are reviewed by EPA staff for
completeness and to assure there is no double counting of entries. EPA updates the
registration information during the course of program implementation.
Data Quality Reviews: Each year researchers at an independent contractor contact a
statistical sample of schools in the program database in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. EPA updates the website based on the contractor's
findings as appropriate.
Data Limitations: The number of participating schools is probably underestimated
since schools that fail to provide full registration information are not entered into the
database, even if they participate in the program. Note that additional organizations
besides schools may also register and provide the SunWise curriculum. These
organizations include scout troupes, camps, and 4-H groups, for example. Therefore,
counting only schools underestimates the program's reach and efficiency.
Error Estimate: None
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
For more information about the SunWise School program, see:
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/ and
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html Data collection regarding schools that
participate in SunWise is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060-0439.
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
emissions reduced in the building sector (PART measure)
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
emissions reduced in the industry sector (PART measure)
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
emissions reduced in the transportation sector (PART measure)
Performance Database: Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tracking System.
The tracking system's primary purpose is to maintain a record of the annual greenhouse
gas emissions reduction goals and accomplishments for the voluntary climate program
using information from partners and other sources. It also measures the electricity
savings and contribution towards the President's greenhouse gas intensity goal.
Data Source: EPA develops carbon and non-CO2 emissions baselines. A baseline is
the "business-as-usual" case" without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs.
Baseline data for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy
Information Agency (EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S.
electric power sector. These data are used for both historical and projected greenhouse
gas emissions and electricity generation, independent of partners' information to
compute emissions reductions from the baseline and progress toward annual goals. The
projections use a "Reference Case" for assumptions about growth, the economy, and
regulatory conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 29
-------
nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases, are maintained by EPA.
The non-CO2 data are compiled with input from industry and also independently from
partners' information.
Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility- specific
improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market
data on shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment
power levels and usage patterns
Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The
report includes a complete chapter dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory
(sources, industries, emissions, volumes, changes, trends, etc.). A second chapter
addresses projected greenhouse gases in the future (model assumptions, growth,
sources, gases, sectors, etc.)
U.S. Department of State. 2002. "U.S. Climate Action Report—2002. Third National
Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change."
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific
improvements but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance
measure. EPA, however, validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based
on the actual emissions data received.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Most of the voluntary climate programs'
focus is on energy efficiency. For these programs, EPA estimates the expected
reduction in electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Emissions prevented are
calculated as the product of the kWh of electricity saved and an annual emission factor
(e.g., metric tons carbon equivalent (MMTCE) prevented per kWh). Other programs
focus on directly lowering greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Natural Gas STAR, Landfill
Methane Outreach, and Coalbed Methane Outreach); for these, greenhouse gas
emission reductions are estimated on a project-by-project basis. EPA maintains a
Atracking system® for emissions reductions.
The Integrated Planning Model, used to develop baseline data for carbon emissions, is
an important analytical tool for evaluating emission scenarios affecting the U.S. power
sector. The IPM has an approved quality assurance project plan that is available from
EPA's program office.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA devotes considerable effort to obtaining the best possible
information on which to evaluate emissions reductions from voluntary programs. Peer-
reviewed carbon-conversion factors are used to ensure consistency with generally
accepted measures of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and peer-reviewed
methodologies are used to calculate GHG reductions from these programs.
Partners do contribute actual emissions data biannually after their facility-specific
improvements but these emissions data are not used in tracking the performance
measure. EPA, however, validates the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions based
on the actual emissions data received.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 30
-------
Data Quality Review: The Administration regularly evaluates the effectiveness of its
climate programs through interagency evaluations. The second such interagency
evaluation, led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, examined the
status of U.S. climate change programs. The review included participants from EPA and
the Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, Transportation, and Agriculture. The
results were published in the U.S. Climate Action Report-2002 as part of the United
States' submission to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The
previous evaluation was published in the U.S. Climate Action Report-1997. A 1997 audit
by EPA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that the climate programs examined
"used good management practices" and "effectively estimated the impact their activities
had on reducing risks to health and the environment..."
Data Limitations: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions (carbon conversion
factors and methods to convert material-specific reductions to GHG emissions
reductions). Also, the voluntary nature of the programs may affect reporting. Further
research will be necessary in order to fully understand the links between GHG
concentrations and specific environmental impacts, such as impacts on health,
ecosystems, crops, weather events, and so forth.
Error Estimate: These are indirect measures of GHG emissions. Although EPA devotes
considerable effort to obtaining the best possible information on which to evaluate
emissions reductions from its voluntary programs, errors in the performance data could
be introduced through uncertainties in carbon conversion factors, engineering analyses,
and econometric analyses. The only programs at this time aimed at avoiding GHG
emissions are voluntary.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Administration regularly evaluates the
effectiveness of its climate programs through interagency evaluations. EPA continues to
update inventories and methodologies as new information becomes available.
References: The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 is available at:
www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. The accomplishments of many
of EPA's voluntary programs are documented in the Climate Protection Partnerships
Division Annual Report. The most recent version is Protecting the Environment
Together: ENERGY STAR and other Voluntary Programs, Climate Protection
Partnerships Division 2003 Annual Report.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
• Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources
based on the risk they pose to human health (PART Measure)
• Percent of planned actions accomplished toward the long-term goal of
reducing uncertainty in the science that supports the standard-setting and
air quality management decisions (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal
database) and list of recommendations from the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of: 1) overall progress
toward completing research goals, and 2) completion of distinct planned program
outputs.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 31
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Clean Air Research Program's long-term goals, the program
annually develops a list of key research milestones and outputs in support of the Multi-
Year Plan that are scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is
finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program
then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-
determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from
the original list that are successfully completed on-time. Additionally, Clean Air research
program "planned" actions include the completion of follow-up recommendations
resulting from external peer reviews.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones
be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones
and outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and
independent program reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though
subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007)
Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research PART Program
Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
• Percentage of NAAQS research program publications rated as highly cited
papers (PART Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system
Data Source: The source of data will be a contractor-produced bibliometric analysis of
NAAQS program publications.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The analysis will be completed using
Thomson's Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as
benchmarks. ESI are a comprehensive compilation of essential science performance
statistics and science trends data derived from Thomson's databases. The chief
indicator of output, or productivity, is journal article publication counts. For influence and
impact measures, ESI employs both total citation counts and cites per paper scores. The
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 32
-------
former reveals gross influence while the latter shows weighted influence, also called
impact. JCR presents quantifiable statistical data, which provide a systematic, objective
way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their impact and influence in the global
research community.
QA/QC Procedures: Source data will be used in comparing program publications to
field benchmarks, Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Report (JCR).
Data Quality Reviews: Additional benchmarks will be used to determine the number of
self-citations of articles by the same author in order to reduce the self-citation rate.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Essential Science Indicators®- Thomson Scientific. 2003.
Journal Citation Reports®. Thomson Scientific. 2003.
Citation Analysis. EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals (EDCs) Research Program,
publication list. BOSC Program Review. December 2004.
GOAL 2: Clean And Safe Water
Objective: Protect Human Health
• The percentage of the 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
• Percent of the population in Indian country served by community water systems
that receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards [PART measure]
• Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based
standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water
protection [PART measure]
• The percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary
survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance).
[PART measure]
Performance Database: Safe Drinking Water Information System - Federal Version
(SDWIS or SDWIS/FED). SDWIS contains basic water system information, population
served, and detailed records of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the statute's
implementing health-based drinking water regulations. The performance measures are
based on the population served by community water systems and the number of
community water systems that were active during any part of the performance year and
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 33
-------
did not have any violations designated as "health based." Exceedances of a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) and violations of a treatment technique are health-based
violations. SDWIS has provided annual results for ten years and reports on a fiscal year
basis.
Data Source: Data are provided by agencies with primacy (primary enforcement
authority) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. These agencies are
either: States, EPA for non-delegated states or territories, and the Navajo Nation Indian
tribe, the only tribe with primacy. Primacy agencies collect the data from the regulated
water systems, determine compliance, and report a subset of the data to EPA (primarily
inventory and summary violations).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Under the drinking water regulations, water
systems must use approved analytical methods for testing for contaminants. State
certified laboratories report contaminant occurrence to states that, in turn, determine
exceedances of maximum contaminant levels or non-compliance with treatment
techniques and report these violations to EPA. These results are subject to periodic
performance audits and compared to results that states report to SDWIS. Primacy
agencies' information systems and compliance determinations are audited on an
average schedule of once every 3 years, according to a protocol. To measure program
performance, EPA aggregates the SDWIS data into national statistics on overall
compliance with health-based drinking water standards using the measures identified
above.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA conducts a number of Quality Assurance/Quality Control
steps to provide high quality data for program use, including:
(1) SDWIS/FED edit checks built into the software to reject erroneous data.
(2) Quality assurance manuals for states and Regions, which provide standard
operating procedures for conducting routine assessments of the quality of the
data, including timely corrective action(s).
(3) Training to states on reporting requirements, data entry, data retrieval, and error
correction.
(4) User and system documentation produced with each software release and
maintained on EPA's web site. System, user, and reporting requirements
documents can be found on the EPA web site, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/.
System and user documents are accessed via the database link
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html, and specific rule reporting
requirements documents are accessed via the regulations, guidance, and policy
documents link http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html.
(5) Specific error correction and reconciliation support through a troubleshooter's
guide, a system-generated summary with detailed reports documenting the
results of each data submission, and an error code database for states to use
when they have questions on how to enter or correct data.
(6) User support hotline available 5 days a week.
The SDWIS/FED equivalent of a quality assurance plan is the data reliability action plan1
1 Data Reliability Action Plan. U.S. EPA, October 2002. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water internal work
plan document. Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003) For State Reported Public Water
System Data In the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal Version (SDWIS/FED)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 34
-------
(DRAP). The DRAP contains the processes and procedures and major activities to be
employed and undertaken for assuring the data in SDWIS meet required data quality
standards. This plan has three major components: assurance, assessment, and control.
Data Quality Review: SDWIS data quality was identified as an Agency weakness in
1999 and has a 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 oversight 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.
The first two issues are being addressed over a three-year period (2004-2007) through
two (2000 and 2003) Data Reliability Action Plans. OGWDW is now working with the
states to complete a 2006 data quality review and plan. An information strategic plan2
(ISP) was developed and implemented to address the last three issues, which deal
primarily with technology (hardware and software) concerns. Implementation of the ISP,
which ended in 2005, documents ways to improve tools and processes for creating and
transferring data to EPA and incorporates newer technologies and adapts the Agency's
Enterprise Architecture Plan to integrate data and allow the flow of data from reporting
entities to EPA via the Agency's secure central data exchange (CDX) environment.
Routine data quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) analyses of the Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) by the Office Water (OW) have revealed a
degree of non-reporting of violations of health-based drinking water standards, and of
violations of regulatory monitoring and reporting requirements (discussed further under
Data Limitations). As a result of these data quality problems, the baseline statistic of
national compliance with health-based drinking water standards likely is lower than
previously reported. The Agency is more accurately quantifying data quality and should
be able to better calculate the impact these data quality issues have on the estimate of
national compliance with health-based drinking water standards. OGWDW is also
working with states to develop a data quality objective for these data to better gauge
progress toward data quality improvement. Even as improvements are made, SDWIS
serves as the best source of national information on compliance with Safe Drinking
Water Act requirements for program management, the development of drinking water
regulations, trends analyses, and public information.
Data Limitations: Recent state data verification and other quality assurance analyses
indicate that the most significant data quality problem is under-reporting by the states of
monitoring and health-based standards violations and inventory characteristics. The
most significant under-reporting occurs in monitoring violations. Even though those are
not covered in the health based violation category, which is covered by the performance
measure, failures to monitor could mask treatment technique and MCL violations. Such
under-reporting of violations limits EPA's ability to: 1) accurately portray the amount of
2 U. S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Information Strategy (under revision). See
Options for OGWDW Information Strategy (Working Draft), EPA 816-P-01-001. Washington, DC, February 2001.
Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/informationstrategy.html
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 35
-------
people affected by health-based violations, 2) undertake geo-spatial analysis, 3)
integrate and share data with other data systems, and 4) precisely quantify the
population served by systems, which are meeting the health-based standards.
Therefore, the estimates of population-served could be high or low. As described in the
Data Quality Review section above, EPA is currently changing the protocol to enhance
the results of data audits as the best near-term option to improve these estimates, while
continuing to explore other approaches, including use of contaminant occurrence data.
Error Estimate: EPA will be analyzing data, derived from the improved data audit
protocol, with a robust statistical basis from which to extrapolate national results, and
better aligned with requirements of the Data Quality Act. The long-term value of the
improved audit process is that each year's results will be statistically representative and
provide information closer in time to the needed performance reporting; for example,
2006 results, the first year of the improved audit process will be reported in 2007.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Several approaches are underway.
First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP and ISP, which have
already improved the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, and consistency of the data in
SDWIS/FED through: 1) training courses for specific compliance determination and
reporting requirements, 2) state-specific technical assistance, 3) increased number of data
audits conducted each year, and 4) assistance to regions and states in the identification
and reconciliation of missing, incomplete, or conflicting data.
Second, more states (as of January 2007, 53 States, Tribes, and territories are using
SDWIS/STATE) will use SDWIS/STATE,3 a software information system jointly designed
by states and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water program.
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data
entry options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4)
ease the flow of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating
modern technologies, all of which will improve the accuracy of the data. In 2006, full use
of SDWIS/FED for receiving state reports will be implemented. Data will be stored in a
data warehouse system that is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration
from other data sources. It will improve the program's ability to more efficiently use
information to support decision-making and effectively manage the program.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules or data
systems on other drinking water programs: the Underground Injection Control Program
(UIC) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be integrated
with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the nation's
drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. Plans have now been developed
for design of systems to address these data flows. Developing the systems to receive
the data is scheduled for 2007.
References:
3 SDWIS/STATE (Version 8.1) is an optional Oracle data base application available for use by states and EPA regions
to support implementation of their drinking water programs.
U. S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Data and Databases. Drinking Water Data & Databases -
SDWIS/STATE, July 2002. Information available on the Internet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwis_st/current.html
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 36
-------
Plans*
SDWIS/FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan - it is a legacy
system which has "evolved" since the early 80s prior to the requirement for a Plan.
The SDWIS/FED equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan
Information Strategy Plan - SDWIS/FED (see footnote 2)
Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Enterprise Architecture Plan
Reports'1
• 1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
• 2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action
Plan and status report
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error
Code Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes,
etc.) Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm
Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html
Web site addresses
OGWDW Internet Site http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and
contains access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals,
tools, and reports.
Sites of particular interest are:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html contains information for users to
better analyze the data, and
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm contains reporting guidance, system
and user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.
• Percentage of source water areas (both surface and ground water) for
community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health
Performance Database: The source water assessment and protection programs are
authorized under Sections 1453, 1428, and relevant subsections of 1452 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).4 EPA issued guidance to implement these programs in
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-
564-3751 for further information.
4 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August 1996). Available on the Internet
at
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 37
-------
1997, State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance5 In March
2005, EPA issued supplemental reporting guidance, "State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance." Starting in
FY 2005, and updated annually thereafter, states report to EPA on the results of their
source water assessment programs (SWAPs) and progress in implementing source
water protection (SWP) strategies, and whether such strategy implementation is
affecting public health protection. To assess the results of the SWAPs, state reporting
includes three elements: (1) the delineated source water areas around each well and
intake, (2) whether the assessments are complete, and (3) most prevalent and most
threatening sources of contamination. To assess progress in implementing the SWP
strategies, state reporting includes two elements: (1) whether a prevention strategy for
Community Water System source water areas has been adopted, and is being
implemented and (2) whether such strategy implementation has reached a substantial
level. To assess whether the program is affecting public health protection, states report
change in the number of Community Water System source water areas with
substantially implemented source water protection strategies. The Agency will develop a
national summary of data on the progress of states' source water protection programs
using these data elements in early 2006.
In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these elements
in a spreadsheet format and this format will be used for reporting for FY 2005.
Beginning in FY 2005, states may, at their option, make available to EPA public water
system-level data for each of these elements to be maintained in a set of data tables in
the drinking water warehouse (for tabular data) and in event tables in the Office of
Water's Reach Address Database (RAD)6 (GIS data). These data will be compatible
with the inventory data States are currently reporting to the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS).7 Three states piloted this approach in 2003.
[Not publicly available. Contact the Drinking Water Protection Division at 202-564-
3797.]
Data Source: Up to the end of FY 2004, states reported to the EPA Regional Offices
the percentage of community water systems implementing source water protection
programs. As noted above, states can report to EPA's Regional Offices using a
spreadsheet approach. EPA has also developed a new source water data module to
collect, store, and use public water system-level data received from states, but it may be
refined as more states voluntarily use it over the next three years of the Strategic Plan. -
See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For this measure, the states' reporting of
progress in implementing their source water assessment and protection programs will be
based on EPA's 2005 guidance, "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and
Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting Guidance." States will only report state-
level summary information directly related to specific community water systems in a
5 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009
(Washington: US EPA, August 1997). Available on the Internet at
6 Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS). Available only on the Internet at
7 Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). Information available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 38
-------
state-level database. While state reporting will be based on definitions and procedures
found in the "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance," and even with the state flexibilities built into the
definitions for substantial implementation strategies, EPA believes that the data will be
reliable for use in making management decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures are included in the 2005 "State and Federal
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting
Guidance." Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the spreadsheet data
collection procedures given to each Region for their work with states. States will be
required to identify whether their reported summary-level data are based on a system-
level database. EPA Regional offices also will work with individual states to obtain a
description of their methods of collecting and verifying information.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA Regions will conduct data quality reviews of state data
using the QA/QC procedures included with the spreadsheet-based data system, and
work with states to resolve data issues. As a result, EPA expects the quality of data on
the results of the assessments and source water protection activities to improve over
time.
Data Limitations: Because the initial reporting provides only state-level summary
information, there is no standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate the data against
system-level information contained in state databases. In addition, much of the data
reported by states is voluntary and based on working agreements with EPA because
SDWA only requires states to complete source water assessments. That is, the only
source water information that states are required to report to EPA under SDWA is
whether the assessments are completed. Although EPA's 2005 "State and Federal
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures: Final Reporting
Guidance" set standard data definitions and procedures, it also provides for considerable
flexibility in states' definition for substantial implementation of strategies, data collection
protocols and analytical methods to evaluate their data. For example, some states may
require each public water system to report data, while others may institute a voluntary
process. Because much of the data reporting is voluntary and the individual state
protocols may vary, state data may be incomplete and inconsistent across states.
Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for this performance
measure given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The source water reporting module has been
developed as a joint initiative between EPA, the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA), and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC). It will give
EPA the ability to access the data directly from states through a data exchange
agreement using an electronic data transfer capability. A state may choose, at its
option, to provide EPA more detailed data in lieu of state-level summary reporting. The
new source water data module will be integrated into the drinking water data warehouse
and be compatible with Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) data already
reported by states. Geospatial data (i.e., the intake and well point locations and the
source water area polygons) will be maintained in EPA's Office of Water's Reach Access
Database (RAD). The source water assessment and protection indicator data and other
attribute data will be maintained in data tables in the drinking water warehouse. The
source water data module is operational for states to pilot from FY 2005 through FY
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 39
-------
2008. Three states used the module in the first pilot year 2003. A number of other
states may report using the data module for the 2005 reporting period based on
EPA/ASDWA/GWPC pilot process.
References:
Guidance Manuals
• U.S. EPA, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs Guidance. EPA 816-R-97-009 (Washington: US EPA, August 1997).
Available on the Internet at
• Source Water Assessment and Protection Measures: Initial Guidance, August,
2003.
• "State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
Measures: Final Reporting Guidance," March 2005.
Web site addresses
• US EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
• For more detailed information on Source Water topics, US EPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Source Water site.
• US EPA Office of Water (OW) Reach Access Database (RAD). Watershed
Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS).
• Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS).
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html
• Number of households on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water
Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the
Indian Health Service (IMS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE),
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).
Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems, the
Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).
The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and
communities. The IMS is required to prioritize SDS deficiencies and annually report to
Congress. The identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the
most common of which follow:
• Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
• Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives
(CHRs) nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
• Sanitary Surveys
• Community Environmental Health Profiles
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
• Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
• Tribal Master Plans for Development
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 40
-------
• Telephone Surveys
• Feasibility Studies
The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and
obtain accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian
homes within the communities must be consistent among the various methods cited
above. If a field visit cannot be made, it is highly recommended that more than one
method be used to determine sanitation deficiencies to increase the accuracy and
establish greater credibility for the data.
The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and
reporting tool.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality
performance measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS
data undergoes a series of quality control reviews at various levels within the IMS DSFC.
The DSFC is required to annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of
total and feasible project costs for proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency
levels for existing homes.
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized
reviews by experienced tribal, IMS field, IMS district and IMS area personnel. The data
are then sent to the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are
reported. The DSFC headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IMS area
offices. The data quality review consists of performing a number of established data
queries and reports which check for errors and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top
25 SDS projects and corresponding community deficiency profiles for each area are
reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly. Detailed cost estimates are highly encouraged and
are usually available for review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The IMS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the
possibility of funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program
implementation in an organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top
20%) must have cost estimates within 10% of the actual costs.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web based application and
therefore allows data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and
modified as program requirements are identified.
References:
1. Indian Health Service (IMS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for
the Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm
2. Indian Health Service (IMS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies
for Indian Homes and Communities", May 2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 41
-------
• Percentage of the water miles/acres identified by States or Tribes as having
fish consumption advisories in 2002 where increased consumption of safe
fish is allowed. (485, 205 river miles, 11,277,276 lake acres)
Performance Database: National Listing of Fish Advisories.1 The database includes
fields identifying the waters for which fish consumption advisories have been issued.
The fields also identify the date upon which the advisory was issued, thus allowing an
assessment of trends. The National Hydrographic Data (NHD) are used to calculate the
spatial extent of the fish advisory. This information is updated continually as states and
tribes issue or revise advisories. The National Listing of Fish Advisories database
includes records showing that 24% of river miles and 35% of lake acres were identified
by states or tribes in calendar year 2003 as having fish with chemical contamination
levels resulting in an advisory of potential human health risk from consumption. States
and tribes report data on a calendar year basis. The calendar year data are then used
to support the fiscal year (FY) commitments (e.g., calendar year 2005 data support the
FY 2007 commitments). Metadata are also available describing methodologies used by
states and tribes for establishing advisories. Fish advisory data have been collected
since 1993.
Data Source: State and Tribal Governments. These entities collect the information and
enter it directly into the National Listing of Fish Advisories database. EPA reviews
advisory entries, including the states' or tribes' responses to an on-line survey, which
support the advisory decision.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The performance measure is calculated as
the aggregate surface area covered by one or more individual advisories divided by the
total waters of each state or territory. If a waterbody is covered by more than one
advisory it is only counted once, and until all advisories are removed the waterbody is
counted as having an advisory. The states and tribes submit the area data to the
National Listing of Fish Advisories database.
QA/QC Procedures: A standard survey, which has been approved by OMB, is
available on the Internet for electronic submission. A password is issued to ensure the
appropriate party is completing the survey. EPA has national guidance2'3 for states and
tribes on developing and implementing quality assurance practices for the collection of
environmental information related to fish advisories. This guidance helps assure data
quality of the information that states and tribes use to decide whether to issue an
advisory. The Office of Water's "Quality Management Plan," approved in September
2001 and published in July 20024, is general guidance that applies to information
collection.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews advisory entries and responses to the survey to
ensure the information is complete, then follows-up with the state or local government to
obtain additional information where needed. However, the Agency cannot verify the
accuracy of the voluntary information that state and local governments provide. There
have been no external party reviews of this information.
Data Limitations: There are two primary data limitations. First, participation in this
survey and collection of data is voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been
high, it does not capture the complete universe of advisories. Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and Guam do not report in the survey. Second, states have not assessed all
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 42
-------
waters for the need for advisories, so the information reported reflects a subset of water
bodies in the state.
Error Estimate: We are unable to provide an error estimate. Submitting data to the
National Listing of Fish Advisories database is voluntary and the Agency cannot be
certain that the database contains information on 100% of the assessed waters in the
United States. Therefore, we may be understating the total amount of waters assessed,
the magnitude of which is not known.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will use small grants to encourage states to
investigate additional water bodies to determine if there is a need for fish consumption
advisories. This will lead to a more complete characterization of the nation's fish safety.
EPA has also begun tracking recommended "meal frequencies" in the state and tribal
advisories to account for the instances where advisories are modified to allow greater
consumption.
References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories."
Washington, DC: EPA-823-F-05-004. September 2005. Available at
http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/fs2004.pdf
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Fish Sampling and Analysis." Volume 1 of "Guidance
for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories." 3rd ed.
EPA-823-B- 00-007. Washington DC: EPA, 2000. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume1/.
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits."
Volume 2 of "Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in
Fish Advisories." 3rd ed.@ EPA-823-B-00-008. Washington DC: EPA, 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/volume2/.
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
• Percent of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by anthropogenic
sources that are approved or conditionally approved for use.
Performance Database: There is no database currently available, although one is
under development (see below)2. To date, data to support this measure have come from
surveys of States that are members of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference
(ISSC), conducted by NOAA at 5-year intervals and periodic updates requested from the
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (most recent, 2005 data released in 20063).
Data Source: The ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish
producing states and prepares reports. Survey responses are voluntary.
Methods and Assumptions: The methods used by the state programs to produce the
data used by the ISSC are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan and Model
Ordinance; the operation of those state programs is overseen by the FDA4.
Suitability: As water quality conditions are maintained or improved, "approved" or
"conditionally approved" shellfish growing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources
should not decrease. This measure is not suitable for annual comparison, but as reports
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 43
-------
are issued periodically by the ISSC, updates on progress can be provided. There is no
other suitable surrogate.
QA/QC Procedures: States are responsible for the internal QA/QC of their data.
Data Quality Reviews: The ISSC reviews the state data during report preparation to
ensure completeness and accuracy, and follows up with states where necessary.
Data Limitations: Based on NOAA's previous surveys and the voluntary nature of the
information collected, potential data limitations may include incomplete coverage of
shellfish growing areas.
Error Estimate: No estimates are available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The ISSC initiated development of the Shellfish
Information Management System (SIMS) in July 2002. The database is being developed
and implemented by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) on behalf of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), a
Cooperative Program chartered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
database will include relevant information that is collected by State Shellfish Control
Authorities. Historically, NOAA collected shellfish-growing area data in 5-year intervals,
1985, 1990, and 1995. These data were not stored in a database. Once operational,
SIMS will be the first national shellfish growing area database and will include NOAA's
1995s and the states' baseline (the ISSC is considering the most appropriate baseline
year) and most current year data. State summary information can then be used to track
trends relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as against the baseline.
The SIMS database is designed as a real time database. The ISSC plans to request
data updates annually, but states may update their data any time. These data may be
accessed at any time so timely status reports can be generated.
Currently, no long-term database management plan exists.
References:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic Plan.
Washington, D.C. Pre-publication Copy, September 29, 2006.
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
2. Kracker, L.M., Comar P.G., Meaburn, G.M., and K Murugesan. 2005. SIMS: A
Shellfish Information Management System for Molluscan Shellfish. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 17. 53 pp.
3. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. Analysis of Classified Shellfish Waters
1985-2005. Columbia, South Carolina. September 2006. (Amended March 2007)
http://www.issc.org
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish 2005. Washington D.C.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3-toc.html
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. The 1995
National Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters. Silver Spring, MD:
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic
Environmental Assessments Division. 398 pp.
• Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF [PART measure]
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 44
-------
• Number of additional projects initiating operations [PART measure]
Performance Database: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund National Information
Management System (DWNIMS.)
Data Sources: Data are entered by state regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's
Regional staff; they are collected and reported once yearly.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into DWNIMS directly represent
the units of performance for the performance measure. These data are suitable for year-
to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and Regional offices are responsible for
compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and
conformance with expected trends. States receive data entry guidance from EPA
headquarters in the form of annual memoranda (e.g., "2005 DWNIMS Data Collection.")
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and Regional offices annually review the
data submitted by the states. State data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html in individual state reports.
Headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through
the appropriate EPA Regional office. Additionally, EPA's contractor tests the data for
logical consistency. An annual EPA headquarters' "DWNIMS Analysis" provides
detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during:
1. Annual EPA Regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems with the
program's pace which might affect the performance measure.
2. Reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds.
3. Annual reviews by EPA's Regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.
State data quality is also evaluated during annual reviews performed by EPA Regions.
Any inconsistencies that are found in need of correction are incorporated into future
DWNIMS reports. These adjustments are historically rare and very minor.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states
submit voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the DWNIMS database by
typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through
data testing performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying
interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have been largely
reduced. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf. There is typically a lag of
approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the
DWNIMS database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1999. It is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.
References:
State performance data as shown in NIMS are available by state at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at:
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 45
-------
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/nims/dwdatadefs.pdf
2005 DWNIMS Data Collection - memo from Jeff Bryan, 7/12/05
DWNIMS analysis
• Percent of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches
monitored by state beach safety programs are open and safe for swimming
Performance Database: The data are stored in PRAWN (Program tracking, beach
Advisories, Water quality standards, and Nutrients), a database that includes fields
identifying the beaches for which monitoring and notification information are available
and the date the advisory or closure was issued, thus enabling trend assessments to be
made. The database also identifies those states that have received a BEACH (Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health) Act [P.L. 106-284] grant. EPA reports
the information annually, on a calendar year basis, each May. The calendar year data
are then used to support fiscal year commitments (e.g., 2008 calendar year data are
used to report against FY 2009 commitments). For the 2006 swimming season, States
and Territories monitored for pathogens at 3,771 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. In
re-evaluating their beach programs, several states combined small beaches into larger
beaches during 2006, reducing the total number of beaches monitored (from 4,025 in
2005 to 3,771 in 2006), but maintaining the scope of their programs.1
Data Source: Since 1997 EPA has surveyed state and local governments for
information on their monitoring programs and on their advisories or closures. The
Agency created the PRAWN database to store this information. State and local
governmental response to the survey was voluntary up through calendar year 2002.
Starting in calendar year 2003, data for many beaches along the coast and Great Lakes
had to be reported to EPA as a condition of grants awarded under the BEACH Act2.
Since 2005, states have used an on-line process called eBeaches to electronically
transmit beach water quality and swimming advisory information to EPA instead of using
the paper survey. The latest information reported by a state or local government is
accessible to the public through the BEACON (Beach Advisory Closing On-line
Notification) system.
Methods and Asssumptions: The data are an enumeration of the days of beach-
specific advisories or closures issued by the reporting state or local governments during
the year. Performance against the target is tracked using a simple count of the number
of beaches responding to the survey and the days over which the advisory or closure
actions were taken. This is compared to the total number of days that every beach could
be open. Thus the data are suitable for the performance measure.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the
frequency of beach closings primarily due to poor water quality conditions. Controlling
sources of contamination would result in water quality improvement at beach thereby
leading to fewer closures.
QA/QC Procedures: Since 1997, EPA has distributed a standard survey form,
approved by OMB, to coastal and Great Lake state and county environmental and public
health beach program officials in hard copy by mail. The form is also available on the
Internet for web-entry electronic submission. When a state or local official enters data
using the web-entry format, a password is issued to ensure the appropriate party is
completing the survey. Currently the Agency has procedures for information collection
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 46
-------
(see Office of Water's "Quality Management Plan," approved September 2001 and
published July 20023). In addition, coastal and Great Lakes states receiving BEACH Act
grants are subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40 CFR 31.45. These
regulations require states and tribes to develop and implement quality assurance
practices for the collection of environmental information.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is
complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information
where needed. The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by States and
Territories as part of their grant reporting. There have been no external party reviews of
this information.
Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the
survey and submission of data was voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has
been high, it did not capture the complete universe of beaches. The voluntary response
rate was 92% in calendar year 2002 (240 out of 261 contacted agencies responded).
The number of beaches for which information was collected increased from 1,021 in
calendar year 1997 to 2,823 in calendar year 2002. Participation in the survey is now a
mandatory condition for implementation grants awarded under the BEACH Act program
to coastal and Great Lakes states, with information now available for 3,771 of
approximately 6,000 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and Great Lakes
states and territories utilize the implementation grants.
Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2006,
States and Territories reported that they monitored at 3,771 of the approximately 6,000
coastal and Great Lakes beaches. This monitoring varies between States. For
example, North Carolina monitors all its 243 beaches whereas South Carolina monitors
23 of 299 beaches it identified. Where monitoring is done, there is some chance that the
monitoring may miss some instances of high pathogen concentrations. EPA's 2002
National Health Protection Survey of Beaches found that 90% of the nation's beaches
are monitored once a week or less4. Studies in southern California found that weekly
sampling missed 75% of the pathogen exceedances5, and that 70% of the exceedances
lasted for only one day6. An EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) beach
monitoring study found a positive correlation between pathogen indicator densities one
day as compared to densities the next day, but that the correlation was negligible when
compared to densities after four days7. These studies indicate that weekly sampling
most likely misses many pathogen events that can affect public health. This information
is not sufficient to calculate the potential error in the reporting, but it is sufficient to
indicate that the reporting may understate the number of days that beaches should be
closed or under advisory.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Participation in the survey is now a mandatory
condition for grants awarded under the BEACH Act program. As the Agency awards
these implementation grants, it will require standard program procedures, sampling and
assessment methods, and data elements for reporting. The amount, quality, and
consistency of available data will improve to the extent that state governments apply for
and receive these grants. In FY 2009, EPA expects all 35 coastal and Great Lakes
states to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and notification programs.
References:
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 47
-------
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2006 Swimming Season." EPA-
823-R-07-005. Washington, DC, May 2007. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2006
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all.pdf
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming
Season." EPA-823-F-03-007. Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline
Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001.
Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water
Quality at Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology,
36(18), 2002.
U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. "The EMPACT Beaches Project,
Results and Recommendations from a Study on Microbiological Monitoring In
Recreational Waters." EPA 600/9-02/xxx. Washington, DC, Sept. 2002.(Draft
Report).
Objective: Protect Water Quality
• Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys [PART
Annual Measure]
Performance Database: Data generated from the national assessment will be housed
in the EPA Office of Water's STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) data warehouse. Prior
to entering the STORET warehouse, all datasets are housed in a temporary facility, such
as ORD's SWIM database, where they are examined for QA purposes and undergo
statistical analysis. Finalized datasets transferred to the STORET warehouse will include
all water quality, physical and biological data and associated metadata for each survey.
The STORET warehouse is available on the web at
http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.
Data Source: Data are collected, processed and analyzed through EPA-State
collaboration to assess and report on the condition of the nation's waters with
documented confidence. Under this partnership, samples are collected across the
country during a specified index period for each resource. Sites are sampled one time,
with additional repeat samples collected at 10 percent of the sites to determine precision
of methods. Surveys collect a suite of indicators relating to the biological, physical
habitat and water quality of the resource in order to assess the resource condition and
determine the percentage meeting the goals of the CWA. Surveys will collect information
on biological and abiotic factors at 30-50 sites on an ecoregion level II scale for each
resource. Prior to sampling, field crews will undergo intensive training by EPA personnel
on field sampling and collection techniques. Laboratory analysis will be conducted at
either a state lab or contract lab following specified protocols for the survey. Data
collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), with subsequent testing and
auditing to ensure its application.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 48
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a
probabilistic survey design, which allows extrapolation of results to the target population
(specified water resource, e.g., wadeable streams, lakes, rivers, etc.). The collection
design maximizes the spatial spread between sites, located by specific latitude and
longitude combinations. The survey utilizes an indexed sampling period to increase the
probability of accurately assessing condition and identifying any problems in water
quality, physical or biological indices if they exist. Based on the QAPP and field protocol
documents, a site is located by the sampling crew via Global Positioning System (GPS).
Data are collected for each parameter following the protocols outlined in the field
operations manual. Indices for the probabilistic surveys relate to the condition of the
resource and the extent that the waters are supporting the fishable and swimmable
goals of the Clean Water Act. Samples taken from the field are stored in accordance
with field manual instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories will
follow quality assurance (QA) plans and complete analysis and provide electronic
information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each
has a complete set. EPA and states analyze the data to assess regional and national
condition of the water resource surveyed. Results of the analyses on a national and
regional basis will be published in a publicly accessible peer reviewed report released
within two years of sample collection. The overall change in condition of the water body
type will be assessed on a five year cycle.
Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (water resource sampled for
the survey) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and
field collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected;
(5) all analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) a
combination of data into indices is completed in a statistically rigorous manner.
Suitability: By design, all data are suitable to be aggregated up to the regional
and national level to characterize the ecological condition of the waterbody
resource and the associated stressors. Samples provide site specific point-in-
time data and excellent representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to the
entire resource supportable). Data will be used to characterize populations and
subpopulations of waterbody resources through time and space. Data analysis
and interpretation will be peer reviewed prior to completion of final report. The
data are suitable for individual reports and to establish a baseline for subsequent
surveys to evaluate trends.
QA/QC Procedures: Collection and processing of all samples are described in QAPP
and Field Protocols documents associated with each survey. In addition, the QAPP will
contain specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and Measurement Quality Objectives
(MQOs) associated with each survey. To ensure that the survey is obtaining the DQOs
and MQOs, there are several QA steps built into each survey. Training for all crew
members is required before sampling begins. Field evaluations are conducted for all
crews to ensure methods are being followed. Each laboratory involved in the sample
processing will adhere to the specified laboratory protocols and undergo a thorough and
documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process. Submitted data will
undergo a final QC check before analysis begins.
Data Quality Reviews: A peer review and public comment period will be held for each
survey. During this time, the draft report will be posted on the web for interested parties
to review and submit comments. An independent group of experts will be selected to
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 49
-------
serve on a peer review panel for the report. In house audits will also be conducted over
the course of the survey.
Data Limitations: Because the data are collected in a manner to permit calculations of
uncertainty and designed to meet specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), the results at
the regional level are within about 2-4% of true values dependent upon the specific
sample type. Detailed QA/QC checks throughout the survey reduce the data limitations
and errors in sampling. The scale of the reporting units is limited by the number of
samples taken in a specific region. To make a statistically valid statement about the
condition of the resource, sample size should minimally include 30-50 sites per region.
Since samples are collected one time at each site per survey, trends analysis will
depend on future survey work. Lag time between sample collection and reporting will be
between 1-2 years.
Error Estimate: The estimation of condition will vary for the national condition and the
regional condition for each survey. The condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and statistically-based uncertainty
estimates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Additional indicators, addressing regional specific
needs can be added to the survey over time. QA requirements will be met by all
laboratories participating in the surveys. Probabilistic surveys repeated on the same
water body type utilizing a similar sample design will show condition trends for the
resource on a broad geographic scale.
References:
Olsen, A. R. etal. 1999. Statistical Issues for Monitoring Ecological and Natural
Resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54,
1-45
Stevens Jr., D. L. & Urqhart, N. S. 2000. Response Designs and Support Regions in
Sampling Continuous Domains. Environmetrics 11, 11-41
Stevens Jr., D. L. 1997. Variable Density Grid-based Sampling Designs for Continuous
Spatial Populations. Environmetrics 8, 167-195
STORET database website. http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-
620/R-01/005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-
620/R-03/002
• Annual percentage of water body segments identified by States in 2000 as not
attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained
(PART measure)
• Restore water quality to allow swimming in stream miles and lake acres
identified by states
• Cost per water segment restored (PART measure)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 50
-------
Performance Database: The Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results
System (WATERS- found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is EPA's approach for viewing
water quality information related to this measure. WATERS can be used to view "303(d)
Information," compiled from, States' Listings of Impaired Waters as Required by Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) (referred to here in brief as "303(d) lists"), which are recorded
in the National Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking System. This information
(found at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/status.html) is used to generate reports that identify
waters that are not meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters"). This
information, combined with information and comment from EPA Regions and states,
yields the baseline data for this measure: the number of impaired waters in 1998/2000.
As TMDL and other watershed-related activities are developed and implemented, water
bodies which were once impaired will meet water quality standards, and thus will be
removed from the year 1998/2000 impaired totals. Changes will be recorded in reports,
scheduled every six years (e.g. reporting years 2006 and 2012), as percentage
improvements to water body impairment.
Data Source: The underlying data source for this measure is State 303(d) lists of their
impaired water bodies. These lists are submitted with each biennial (calendar year)
reporting cycle. The baseline for this measure is the 1998 list (States were not required
to submit lists in 2000; however, if states did submit a 2000 list, then that more recent list
was used as the baseline). States prepare the lists using actual water quality monitoring
data, probability-based monitoring information, and other existing and readily available
information and knowledge the state has, in order to make comprehensive
determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body impairments. Once
EPA approves a state's 303(d) list, EPA enters the information into WATERS, as
described above. Delays are often encountered in state submissions and in EPA's
approval of these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to keep on
schedule is being considered.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: States employ various analytical methods of
data collection, compilation, and reporting including: 1) Direct water samples of
chemical, physical, and biological parameters; 2) Predictive models of water quality
standards attainment; 3) Probabilistic models of pollutant sources; and 4) Compilation of
data from volunteer groups, academic interests and others. EPA-supported models
include BASINS, QUAL2E, AQUATOX, and CORMIX. Descriptions of these models and
instructions for their use can be found at www.epa.gov/OST/wgm/. State-provided data
describe attainment of designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards
and thus represent a direct measure of performance. Delays are often encountered in
state 303d lists and 305b submissions, and in EPA's approval of the 303(d) portion of
these biennial submissions. Establishing more certain procedures to prevent these
delays is being considered.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by states pursuant to individual state
303(d) lists (under CWA Section 303(d)) is dependent on individual state procedures.
EPA regional staff interacts with the states during the process of approval of the lists and
before the information is entered into the database to ensure the integrity of the data.
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP), renewed every five years, was
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 51
-------
approved in July 20018. EPA requires that each organization prepare a document called
a quality management plan (QMP) that: documents the organization's quality policy;
describes its quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the
quality system applies (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of
environmental data).
Data Quality Review: Recent independent reports have cited that weaknesses in
monitoring and reporting of monitoring data undermine EPA's ability to depict the
condition of the Nation's waters and to support scientifically sound water program
decisions. The most recent reports include the 1998 Report of the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program9, the March 15, 2000
Government Accounting Office report Water Quality: Key Decisions Limited by
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data10, the 2001 National Academy of Sciences Report
Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management11 and EPA's Draft Report
on the Environment.12
In response to these evaluations, EPA has been working with states and other
stakeholders to improve: 1) data coverage, so that state reports reflect the condition of
all waters of the state; 2) data consistency to facilitate comparison and aggregation of
state data to the national level; and 3) documentation so that data limitations and
discrepancies are fully understood by data users.
First, EPA enhanced two existing data management tools (STORE! and the National
Assessment Database) so that they include documentation of data quality information.
Second, EPA has developed a GIS tool called WATERS that integrates many databases
including STORET, the National Assessment Database, and a new water quality
standards database. These integrated databases facilitate comparison and
understanding of differences among state standards, monitoring activities, and
assessment results.
Third, EPA and states have developed guidance. The 2006 Integrated Report Guidance
(released August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG)13 provides
comprehensive direction to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act
National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load
Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, Assessing the TMDL
Approach to Water Quality Management (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
9 USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, Report of the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. EPA 100-R-09-8006 (1998).
10 GAO. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data (Washington, DC:
2000), RCED-00-54 and Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most
Polluted Waters, GAO-02-186 (Washington, DC: 2002)
1' Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. 2001. Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of
the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board,
National Research Council
12 US EPA, Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006 (2003). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm (accessed 12 December 2005)
13 USEPA, Office of Water, 2006 Guidance for Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant
to Sections, 303 (d), 305 (b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act (2005). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG (accessed 12 December 2005)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 52
-------
sections 305 (b) and 303(d). Also, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing
Methodology- Toward a Compendium of Best Practices™ (released on the Web July
31, 2002 atwww.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html) intended to facilitate increased
consistency in monitoring program design and the data and decision criteria used to
support water quality assessments.
Fourth, the Office of Water (OW) and EPA's Regional Offices have developed the
Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, (March, 2003).15 This
guidance describes ten elements that each state water quality monitoring program
should contain and proposes time-frames for implementing all ten elements.
In addition, a recent evaluation by the EPA Office of the Inspector General16
recommended that EPA focus on improving its watershed approach by:
• Facilitating stakeholder involvement in this approach
• Better integrating the watershed approach into EPA core programs,
• Refining the Agency strategic plan to better evaluate key programs and
activities, and
• Improving the measurement system by which watershed progress is
assessed.
EPA is engaged in many activities to strengthen its footprint in above four foci. Specific
examples, as noted in Assistant Administrator Grumbles' December 2005 reply to the
Inspector General's evaluation, follow:
First, examples of how the EPA Office of Water is working to facilitate stakeholder
involvement in this approach are monthly Webcasts (topics have included strategies,
tools, and techniques for sustainable watersheds) and plans to release a Watershed
Planning Handbook in 2006.
Second, EPA core program activities are focusing more heartily on watershed initiatives.
EPA is preparing 2006 guidance on watershed TMDLs and guidance for using Clean
Water State Revolving funds for state watershed activities.
Third, EPA is working to refine its strategic planning process with the April 2005
inception of the Watershed Managers Forum, a channel of communication between EPA
Regional offices and Headquarters on issues, planning, and organizational steps to
successfully implement watershed initiatives of EPA's Strategic Plan17. The Office of
Water is also strengthening linkage of its information technology capabilities and
monitoring efforts to meet goals of EPA's strategic planning.
14U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology- Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices. (Washington, DC: 2002) Available at www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html (accessed 12
December 2005)
15 USEPA, Office of Water, Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, EPA 841-B-
03-003 (Washington, DC: 2003). Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoirng/repguide.html
(accessed 12 December 2005)
16 USEPA Office of the Inspector General, Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance the
Watershed Approach (2005). Available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-
00025.pdf.
17 USEPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2003-2008 Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future,
(2003). Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf_(accessed 16 December 2005).
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 53
-------
Fourth, EPA is working to improve measurement of its progress by conducting detailed
analysis of options for measuring performance. Areas of general interest in this effort
include tracking improvements short of full restoration, and measures for the extensive
work the Office of Water does to maintain water quality.
Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters
because states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters. States,
territories and tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their water bodies.
States do not use a consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of
water quality standards. For example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from
biological community assessments to levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of
toxic pollutants. These variations in state practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b)
reports and the 303(d) lists provided by states can be used to describe water quality at
the national level. There are also differences among their programs, sampling
techniques, and standards.
State assessments of water quality may include uncertainties associated with derived or
modeled data. Differences in monitoring designs among and within states prevent the
agency from aggregating water quality assessments at the national level with known
statistical confidence. States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify
problems and typically lag times between data collection and reporting can vary by state.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to
improve the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. EPA issued new listing
guidance entitled Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act during summer 2005.
The Guidance is a comprehensive compilation of relevant guidance EPA has issued to
date regarding the Integrated Report. There are a few specific changes from the 2004
guidance. For example, the 2006 Integrated Report Guidance provides greater clarity
on the content and format of those components of the Integrated Report that are
recommended and required under Clean Water Act sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314.
The guidance also gives additional clarity and flexibility on reporting alternatives to
TMDLs for attaining water quality standards (e.g., utilization of reporting Category 4b).
References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2005. Sustained Commitment Needed to
Further Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025.pdf.
USEPA, Office of Water. 2005. Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG..
USEPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 2003. 2003-2008 Strategic Plan:
Direction for the Future. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf.
USEPA. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006. Available
at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm..
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 54
-------
USEPA, Office of Water. 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program. EPA 841-B-03-003. Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid.html.
USEPA, National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. 1998.
Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
EPA100-R9-8006.
USEPA. 2002. Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a
Compendium of Best Practices. Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.
Government Accountability Office. 2002. Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches
Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify its Most Polluted Waters. GAO-02-186.
Washington, DC.
Government Accountability Office. 2000. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. GAO-RCED-00-54. Washington, DC.
National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. 2001. Assessing the
TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
• Number of TMDLs required that are established or approved by EPA on
schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) [PART Annual measure]
• Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA on a
schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) [PART Annual measure]
Performance Database: The Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Tracking And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS) is a database which will capture water
quality information related to this measure. This database is an upgrade to the existing
National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS). ATTAINS will be an integrated system capable
of documenting and managing the connections between state assessment and listing
decisions reported under sections 305(b) and 303(d) (i.e., integrated reporting) and
completed TMDL information. This system will allow seamless access to all information
about assessment decisions and restoration actions across reporting cycles and over
time until water quality standards are attained. Watershed Assessment Tracking
Environmental Results System (WATERS- found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/) is
EPA's approach for viewing water quality information related to this measure. TMDL
information (found at http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control) is used to
generate reports that identify waters for which EPA has approved state-submitted
TMDLs and for which EPA has established TMDLs. Annual TMDL totals, spanning 1996
to the present, are available from ATTAINS on a fiscal year basis. As TMDLs and other
watershed-related activities are developed and implemented, water bodies which were
once impaired will meet water quality standards. Thus these TMDL measures are
closely tied to the PART measure, "Number of water body segments identified by States
in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained."
Newly attaining water bodies will be removed from the list of impaired water segments.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 55
-------
Data Source: State-submitted and EPA-approved TMDLs and EPA-established TMDLs
are the underlying data for this measure. Electronic and hard copies are made
available by states and often linked to EPA Web sites. More specifically, WATERS
allows search for TMDL documents at
http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl document search.html.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: State and EPA TMDLs are thoroughly and
publicly reviewed during their development. Upon approval by EPA, relevant information
from each TMDL is entered into the ATTAINS by EPA Regional staff.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data is provided by EPA Regional staff and through
cross-checks of WATERS information regarding impaired water listings, consistent with
the Water Quality Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires that organizations prepare a
document called a QMP that: documents the organization's quality policy; describes its
quality system; and identifies the environmental programs to which the quality system
applies (e.g., those programs involved in the collection or use of environmental data).
Data Quality Review: Internal reviews of data quality have revealed some
inconsistencies in the methodology of data entry between EPA Regional Offices. In
2005 and 2006, EPA convened a meeting of NTTS users to discuss how to improve the
database. As a result, data field definitions were clarified, the users' group was
reinstituted, several training sessions were scheduled, and an ATTAINS design team is
currently directing the database upgrades. One of the issues raised included the
methodology used to count TMDLs. Previous methodology generated a TMDL "count"
based on the causes of impairment removed from the 303(d) impaired waters list as well
as the TMDL pollutant. EPA proposed to change the counting methodology to directly
reflect only the pollutants given allocations in TMDLs. During a recent EPA Office of the
Inspector General review they concurred with this recommendation. This proposed
change was vetted during the TMDL Program's annual meeting in March 2007 and
implemented in August 2007. This modification has decreased the number of TMDLs
developed historically by about 7%. Current realization of targets shows the TMDL
Program continues to make sizable steps in meeting Clean Water Act goals despite the
challenges.
Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information,
EPA is both upgrading the current database and overseeing quality review of existing
data. In the process of developing the new database existing data entry requirements
and procedures are being reevaluated and communicated with data entry practitioners.
Data quality has been improving and will continue to improve during this overhaul.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is currently available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: See above.
References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2005. Sustained Commitment Needed to
Further Advance the Watershed Approach. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025.pdr
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 56
-------
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General, September 19, 2007, Total Maximum Daily
Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results,
Report No. 2007-P-00036.
National Research Council, Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the Total
Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction. 2001. Assessing the
TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Link to TMDL report data can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
Link to the Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS)
can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
• Percentage of States and Territories that within the preceding three year
period submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA
that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
considered in the previous standards. [PART measure]
• Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from
States and Territories that are approved by EPA [PART measure]
Performance Database: The Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application
(WATA), an internal tracking application managed by the Office of Science and
Technology described at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf, is the
performance database for these measures. The information in this system provides the
baseline and performance data for these measures.
Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from
states and territories of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act
and EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR Part 131. States and territories
are required to review their water quality standards at least once every three years and
submit any new or revised water quality standards to EPA for review and approval.
Each submission is accompanied by a letter from an appropriate official, and includes a
certification by the state or territorial attorney general that the standards were duly
adopted pursuant to state or territorial law.
EPA Regional Office staff members compile information from each submission and enter
it into the WATA system. The information includes identifying data (name of jurisdiction,
date of submission), data concerning components of the submission, and data
concerning EPA's action on the submission. EPA has delegated approval and
disapproval decisions to the Regional Administrator; the Regional Administrator may re-
delegate the decisions to the appropriate Division Director, but no further. Approval
decisions are judicially reviewable, and are accompanied by an appropriate
administrative record.
Methods and Assumptions: The Office of Science and Technology has established
computation metrics in the Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application (WATA)
system to produce the baselines and performance data for both measures. These
metrics are as follows:
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 57
-------
• Percentage of State and Territorial water quality standards submissions (received
in the 12 month period ending April 30th of the fiscal year) that are approved by
EPA. Partial approvals receive fractional credit.
This metric considers all new or revised submissions from May 1 of the previous year
through April 30 of the current year. This reporting period provides regions at least five
months to reach and document a valid approval decision. EPA management believes
this is an adequate time for processing submissions. A "submission" is determined by
the submitting jurisdiction, as described above. The metric then searches for whether
the Regional Office has made any approval decision concerning the submission. If EPA
approves the submission in full by the end of the reporting period, it will be counted with
an approval value of 1. If EPA disapproves all provisions of the standards, it will be
counted with an approval value of 0 (zero). In some cases the Regional decision official
may decide to approve some portions of the standards provisions, disapprove some
portions, or defer actions on some portions. To accommodate these possibilities, and to
reflect the complex nature of some submissions, the WATA system allows Regional staff
to track portions of a submission as separate parts with weights corresponding to the
number of actual provisions involved. When different decisions are reached on different
parts or provisions of a submission, the metric calculates a fractional approval value.
The fractional approval value is a number between 0 and 1, equal to the number of
provisions approved, divided by the total number of provisions in the original submission.
For example, if a submission contains 10 provisions and EPA approves 8 and
disapproves 2, then the metric would count this as 0.8 submissions. The final
performance metric is the sum of full or fractional approval values divided by the total
number of submissions during the reporting period.
• Number of States and Territories that within the preceding three year period
submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous
standards
This measure utilizes a Regional Office entry in the WATA system which indicates
whether a submission or submission part includes one or more new water quality criteria
or revised criteria that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
considered in the previous criteria. Biological criteria that are reflected explicitly in
designated uses would count under this entry. If a state or territory has not adopted any
such criteria, the jurisdiction can nevertheless be counted under this measure if (a) EPA
has issued new or revised water quality criteria, including revisions to the published
table of EPA recommended criteria at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html, but the state has determined
through a scientific assessment that such a change is not relevant for its waters, or (b)
the jurisdiction could certify to EPA that it has completed a defensible scientific review of
the new scientific information EPA has issued and has determined that no changes are
needed to their existing water quality criteria. The metric searches for one or more
qualifying submissions or submission parts for each jurisdiction during the three-year
period ending five months before the end of the reporting period, and that have been
approved by EPA by the end of the reporting period. For example, for FY 2009 any
qualifying submissions from May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2009, that were approved by
September 30, 2009, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted. Note the overlap from
one reporting year to the next: a state that last made such a submittal, in, say, February
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 58
-------
2005, would be counted in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007 but not in FY 2008 or FY
2009.
Suitability: These two performance measures provide important information about how
well EPA and states/territories are carrying out their respective roles and responsibilities
for establishing and approving up-to-date scientifically defensible WQS. The first
measure describes how well EPA and states/territories are working together to set
revised WQS that EPA can approve in a timely fashion. The second measure provides
an indicator of how well states' WQS reflect latest scientific data.
QA/QC Procedures: States and territories conduct QA/QC of water quality standards
submissions pursuant to individual state procedures. Because such submissions are
subject to judicial review, the attorney general's certification described above provides
assurance of the content of each submission. EPA regional staffs provide support to
and interact with the jurisdictions as they develop, review, and adopt water quality
standards. Each Regional Office provides data quality review of its entries in the WATA
system. For example, Regional Offices generally assure that each entry is reviewed by
the water quality standards coordinator, usually a senior scientist or environmental
protection specialist with extensive experience in water quality standards actions. Data
validation algorithms built into each entry screen also help improve data quality. In
addition, a sample of entries is spot-checked by Headquarters' Office of Science and
Technology staff. The Regions and Headquarters have been able to conduct the data
quality reviews fairly easily because the number of submissions has averaged about 50
submissions per year in recent years, well within their available resources to provide
adequate review.
Data Quality Review: No external reviews of the data have been conducted.
Data Limitations: Submissions may vary considerably in size and complexity. For
example, a submission may include statewide water quality standards revisions, use
attainability analyses for specific water bodies, site-specific criteria applicable to specific
types of waters, general statewide policies, antidegradation policies or procedures, and
variances. Therefore, these measures - the number of submissions approved, and the
number of jurisdictions with updated scientific information contained in adopted
standards - do not provide an indicator of the scope, geographic coverage, policy
importance, or other qualitative aspects of water quality standards. This information
would need to be obtained in other ways, such as by reviewing the content of adopted
and approved standards available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/wqslibrary/, or contacting the appropriate
Regional Office or state/territorial personnel.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Science and Technology is planning to
enhance the existing WATA system to improve its capabilities and data quality.
References:
USEPA. September 13, 2006. Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application:
Users Manual. Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 59
-------
USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40
CFR part 131. Available at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfr131_05.html.
USEPA. August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.
• Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (reported in millions of pounds),
phosphorous (millions of pounds), and sediment (tons) from nonpoint
sources to waterbodies. [PART Annual Measure]
Performance Database: The Section 319 Grant Reporting and Tracking System
(GRTS) is used by grant recipients (State agencies) to supply information about State
NPS Management Programs and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which
include watershed-based BMP implementation projects. GRTS includes information
about Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented under 319-funded watershed
projects, and the NPS load reductions achieved as a result of implementation. EPA
uses GRTS to compile and report information about state section 319 program projects,
including load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to waterbodies.
State reporting via GRTS in part fulfills requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Sections 319(h)(11) and 319(m)(1); however, GRTS also provides EPA and other
stakeholders greater and more efficient access to data, information, and program
accomplishments than would otherwise be available. Besides load reduction information,
GRTS, in conjunction with WATERS (see below) provides detailed georeferencing (i.e.,
National Hydrography Dataset - or "NHD"~ reach addresses) for 319-funded projects,
project cost information, and a host of other elements.
GRTS is also part of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
System (WATERS), which is used to provide water program information and display it
spatially using a geographic information system integrated with several existing
databases. These databases include the STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) database,
the National Assessment Database (NAD), the TMDL Tracking System (NTTS), the
Water Quality Standards Database (WQSDB), and GRTS.
Data Source: States enter load reduction data for individual 319-funded projects into
GRTS. Various watershed models are used in the States to estimate the load
reductions resulting from implementation of BMPs. Two models used by many states,
and directly supported by EPA, are the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads
(STEPL) model, and the "Region 5" model. States, at their discretion, may use other
models or methods (e.g., AGNPs, SWAT, GWLF, etc), or may use actual water
monitoring data to generate estimates of pollutant load reduction resulting from BMP
implementation. The load reduction data generated by modeling and/or monitoring
efforts are entered by State staff directly into the appropriate GRTS data fields.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ two main methods to make
pollutant load reduction estimates for the purpose of entering information into GRTS: 1)
watershed models to estimate load reductions after watershed project BMPs are
implemented, and 2) direct sampling over time of pollutants using targeted site selection.
Even direct sampling methods, however, usually involve some type of modeling to
separate BMP effects from other variables when determining load reductions.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 60
-------
EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into GRTS to generate the national
load reduction number for each pollutant. With each successive time period - each of
which includes load reduction estimates from projects funded under more than one fiscal
year grant (since BMPs are still "working" for some time after initial installation) - the
total from the previous period is subtracted from the total of the current time period to get
the incremental total. For example, our first report on national load reduction numbers in
the PART included projects funded from FY 2002 and most of FY 2003 (FY 2002 was
the first grant year for which load reduction information was mandated). For the next
report in PART, we totaled load reductions for projects from FY 2002 through 2004, with
a smattering of projects for FY 2005 for which information was available in GRTS. The
total from the first time around was subtracted from this latter total to give us the
increment. This increment is what we reported in OMB's Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) in November 2005.
This method of determining the increment has been necessary because of the particular
structure and previous software used for GRTS, which houses projects by grant year. A
project funded in a single grant year is usually implemented over several years. Within a
single project form, the load reduction number (or numbers if more than one watershed
is being addressed by the project) is updated at least annually, but there is no
requirement to keep the "original" load reduction number in the system. Therefore, we
did not always have a record of how load reductions have increased over time for a
given project; hence, we use the method described above to estimate the national load
reduction increment from one time period to the next.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of load reduction estimates generated by states is
dependent on individual state procedures, such as state Quality Management Plans
(QMPs), which are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.
EPA provides user support and training to states in the use of the STEPL and Region 5
models. EPA emphasizes that Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be
developed (in accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for watershed projects,
especially where water quality models are being used or where monitoring is being
conducted. EPA also stresses that site-specific parameters be used whenever possible
for input to water quality models, as opposed to default input values provided by some
modeling tools.
States have continual access and opportunity to review the information in GRTS to
ensure it accurately reflects the data they entered (according to their QA procedures).
EPA periodically reviews GRTS and reminds states of the critical importance of their
completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner.
Data Quality Review: Data entered in GRTS are periodically reviewed by EPA Regions
and Headquarters. Regional personnel also maintain hardcopies of the states work
programs, watershed project implementation plans, and Annual Progress Reports.
Verification of data in GRTS can be cross-checked with these documents to ensure
quality, consistency, and reliability in progress reporting on an incremental (such as,
year-to-year) basis, or to note any problems in data quality in GRTS. EPA frequently
reviews various aggregation(s) of all the data in GRTS by our use of "ad-hoc" and
standard reports available in the GRTS reporting system.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 61
-------
In the past, Nonpoint Source Program reporting under Section 319 had been identified
as an Agency-level weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. The
Agency's establishment and subsequent enhancements of GRTS has served to mitigate
this problem by requiring states to identify the activities and results of projects funded
with Section 319(h). In response to the FMFIA evaluation, EPA has been working with
states and other stakeholders to improve data input and quality. We sponsor national
GRTS-users group meetings each year. These meetings serve not only to meet the
training needs of the user community, but also provide a forum for discussing needed
enhancements to GRTS. These enhancements range from better capturing
environmental results to improving consistency of data entry to facilitate state-by-state
comparisons.
The CWA Sections 319(h)(11) and 319(m)(1) require States to report their Nonpoint
Source Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load
reductions, and water quality improvements. These sections provide the EPA Office of
Water (OW) authority to require water quality monitoring and/or modeling, and to require
reporting by states to demonstrate their success in reducing nonpoint source pollutant
loads and improving water quality. OW has issued several guidance documents
designed to improve state NPSMPs, watershed-based projects, and consistency in state
progress reporting, including their use of GRTS. In September 2001, EPA issued
"Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants."
This memorandum outlines the process for reporting in GRTS load reductions for
nutrients and sediment (for applicable Section 319(h) funded projects). Our current
"National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines" (October, 2003) includes
sections on all nonpoint source grant reporting requirements, including GRTS reporting.
Furthermore, EPA, in consultation with the States, has established the nonpoint source
program activity measures (PAMs) - including nonpoint load reductions - which are
now part of EPA's Strategic Plan and the PART. We have also communicated (e.g., via
email) to states further detailed explanations of the NPS program activity measures,
expected reporting sources and dates, and results of our reviews of data input to GRTS
by the States.
Data Limitations: State NPSMP work to model (and monitor) watersheds is often not
integrated or coordinated with state water quality monitoring and assessment strategies,
and therefore use of the data may be rather limited. Load reduction data are typically
generated from the use of water quality models, and there is a great deal of uncertainty
in model inputs and outputs. States generally do not apply model results to decision-
making for implementing and/or revising their NPS Management Programs.
State assessments of load reductions and water quality typically include uncertainties
associated with any measuring or modeling tools. Variability in the environment, as well
as in state methods and application of tools limit the accuracy of data for describing load
reductions and water quality at the project level. Aggregating the load reduction data up
to the national measure compounds the level of uncertainty, thereby preventing the
Agency from assigning a reasonable numerical confidence level to it.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: GRTS has recently been converted to an Oracle
database. Oracle is the standard database used by Federal agencies. Conversion to
Oracle will allow GRTS to seamlessly connect with WATERS, as well as facilitate
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 62
-------
potential linkages to a variety of other databases, models, and watershed planning tools.
The Oracle-based GRTS will greatly improve reporting capabilities for all end users, and
make it easier to quickly answer questions for stakeholders. Questions which will be
easier to answer include, "Where are watershed projects being developed and
implemented? Are they concurrent with impaired waters and established TMDLs? Do
they pursue actions necessary to reduce pollutant loads and attain water quality
standards?"
Oracle provides users the capability of customizing data entry screens to facilitate
various reporting needs of the States and EPA. We can customize screens to reflect
various programmatic needs of Regional offices and States, such as to view only the
mandated elements, or a mix of mandated elements and other Regionally-required data
fields.
Training on STEPL and the Region 5 model are ongoing in hopes of minimizing
operational mistakes for State staff utilizing one or both of these models to estimate
section 319 project load reductions.
• Percentage of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance at any
time during the fiscal year (PART measure)
Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit
compliance and enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Data in PCS include major
permittee self reported data contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), data on
permittee compliance status, data on state and EPA inspection and enforcement
response.
Data Source: Permittee self reported DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or
EPA Regional offices. PCS automatically compares the entered DMR data with the
pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES permit. This automated
process identifies those facilities which have emitted effluent in excess of permitted
levels. Facilities are designated as being in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) when
reported effluent exceedances are 20% or more above permitted levels for toxic
pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of conventional pollutants. PCS
contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site inspections, which are
used to determine SNC, including: non-effluent limit violations such as unauthorized
bypasses, unpermitted discharges, and pass through of pollutants which cause water
quality or health problems; permit schedule violations; non-submission of DMRs;
submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state or federal enforcement
orders.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are established computer algorithms to
compare DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels. The algorithms also
calculate the degree of permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether
toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds have been reached.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references]
are in place for PCS data entry. State and regional PCS data entry staff are required to
take PCS training courses [See references]. Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are
prepared for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 63
-------
(OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for
ensuring timely input, review and certification of PCS information. OC=s QMP, effective
for 5 years, was approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) and is required to be re-approved in 2008.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in PCS is required by policy to be
reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. SNC
data in PCS are reviewed quarterly.
Data Limitations: Legal requirements for permittees to self report data on compliance
with effluent parameters in permits generally results in consistent data quality and
accuracy. EPA monitors and measures the timeliness of DMR submissions and data
entry quality. National trends over the past several years show an average of 94% of
DMRs are entered timely and complete. Where data entry problems are observed,
OECA works directly with regions and states to improve performance, and in limited
circumstances has dedicated supplemental grant resources to help regions and states
correct problems. As part of ICIS-NPDES implementation OECA is working to deploy an
electronic DMR process to save resources on data entry workload and reduce data input
errors.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: PCS was developed during the 1980s and has
undergone periodic revision and upgrade since then. OECA is currently developing a
modernized data system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and
analytical approaches. The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated
Compliance Information System - NPDES), a modernized and user-friendly NPDES
data system, began in June 2006 when eleven states began using the system; seven
other states will be migrated to the new system in August. During phased
implementation of ICIS-NPDES across the states a combination of PCS and ICIS-
NPDES will be used to generate SNC data. Once fully implemented, ICIS-NPDES will
be the sole source of NPDES SNC data.
References:
PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm
• Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued
on schedule (PART Measure)
• Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are scheduled to be
reissued (PART Measure)
Performance Database:
U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS), [database]. Washington, DC
[Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
U.S. EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES).
[database]. Washington, DC [Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance]
Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) [database].
Washington, DC [Office of Water]
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 64
-------
Priority Permits Data Base, [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office
of Water]
EPA has carried out detailed permit renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since
November 1998. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS-NPDES) are used to determine which individual permits are
current through date fields for permit issuance and expiration. To supplement the
individual permit data from PCS, EPA uses the Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting
Tool (E-PIFT) to track the current or expired status of facilities covered under non-storm
water general permits. E-PIFT has been used to track non-storm water general permit
facilities since January 2001.
In March 2004 a new priority permit issuance strategy was initiated under the Permitting
for Environmental Results (PER) program. The priority permits issuance strategy
focuses permitting activities on environmentally and administratively significant expired
permits. The Priority Permits Database is a web-based system that tracks the specific
permits that each State and Region has identified as priority. States and Regions enter
the permits, and EPA HQ uses PCS/ICIS-NPDES to track permit issuance status of
these permits.
Data Source: EPA=s Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into
PCS and/or ICIS-NPDES and EPA=s Regional offices are responsible for entering data
to the E-PIFT. EPA's Regional offices and States also enter permit identification
information into the Priority Permits database.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annually, Office of Wastewater Management
(OWM) provides State and Regional authorities with a list of candidate priority permits,
defined as permits that have been expired for two years or more. States and Regions
then use several programmatic and environmental criteria to select which of those
candidate permits should be prioritized for issuance. They then commit to issue these
permits over the next two fiscal years, with the goal of achieving a 95% issuance rate.
Regions enter their commitments into the Priority Permits Data Base. Results are
confirmed using PCS/ICIS-NPDES reports.
QA/QC Procedures: The PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases are managed by the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA); E-PIFT and Priority Permits
Database are web-based systems that are managed by the Office of Water (OW). EPA
Headquarters (HQ) staff in OECA review data submitted by states as part of the QA/QC
process. In addition, OW continues to work with States and Regions to improve the
quality and completeness of the data. EPA generates state-by-state reports that list
PCS/ICIS-NPDES Akey data® fields, including permit issuance and expiration dates, as
well as compliance and enforcement data, and provides these lists to NPDES states and
Regions for review and cleanup. EPA also created a spread sheet comparing
latitude/longitude (lat/long) data for municipal treatment systems collected by the Clean
Water Needs Survey to the lat/long data in PCS. This spread sheet is provided to States
and Regions so that, where discrepancies exist between state and PCS/ICIS-NPDES
data, EPA and States can make corrections in PCS/ICIS-NPDES. EPA will continue to
focus on improving the lat/long data in PCS/ICIS-NPDES, especially at the pipe level.
Additionally, where States maintain Akey® permit data in separate state-level systems,
EPA is providing support to upload these data to PCS.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 65
-------
Data Quality Review: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued several findings
regarding poor PCS data quality, and PCS has been listed as an Agency-Level
Weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act since 1999. This
weakness affects EPA=s ability to obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES
program. Fortunately, permit event data such as the permit issuance and expiration
data needed for this performance measure are generally better populated than other
Akey® data elements. As noted previously, OW is offering support to States for data
upload, data entry, and, if necessary, data compilation to improve data quality. This has
resulted in improved tracking of data, particularly industrial permits.
The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES
data system, began in June 2006 and nineteen states and several territories have
successfully migrated to the new system. Use of ICIS-NPDES should greatly increase
state participation and data quality. Batch states (those states with their own data
systems) will not be migrated to ICIS-NPDES until appropriate mechanisms are in place
to transfer the data.
Data Limitations: Priority Permits data are verified and reliable. We are aware of data
gaps in PCS in general, particularly for minor facilities, and of discrepancies between
state databases and PCS; however, EPA=s data clean-up over the past five years has
significantly improved data quality. E-PIFT has enabled EPA to report on inventories
and status of non-storm water facilities covered by NPDES general permits, but the data
are not as comprehensive as those tracked in PCS. In addition, to date, there has been
no national-level data system to track permit issuance and expiration status of facilities
covered by stormwater general permits. In 2007, OWM is planning to improve E-PIFT to
enable tracking of stormwater general permits and facilities covered under them.
Error Estimate: We believe that the permit renewal backlog data for major facilities is
accurate within 2 percent based on input from EPA=s Regional offices and states
through a quarterly independent verification. For minor facilities, however, the
confidence interval is less precise and probably overestimates the permit renewal
backlog for minor facilities by 5 percent based on anecdotal information from EPA=s
Regional offices and states.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA headquarters has been providing contractor
assistance to improve the data quality in PCS and will continue to do so. The new
modernized ICIS-NPDES was rolled out in June 2006, with nineteen states and several
territories now using the system. ICIS -NPDES will be easier to use and will improve
the quality of data needed to manage the NPDES program.
References: Information for PCS and ICIS-NPDES is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
• Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended
(PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are derived using different methods for
industries subject to effluent guidelines, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs),
municipal storm water and construction storm water (industrial storm water is not
included nor are reductions from water quality based effluent limits). The values derived
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 66
-------
from these methods are summed to obtain the total pollutant load reductions achieved
under the surface water program.
To calculate the PART efficiency measure, the total cumulative pollutant reductions are
divided by the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface Water Program
(SWP), grants to States under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 106, plus State 'match'
dollars, annually. SWP and CWA Section 106 budget is pulled from EPA's Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS). State 'match' dollars are reported to EPA by
States.
Data Sources: For industry sectors subject to effluent guidelines, estimated loading
reductions are taken from reductions estimated in the Technical Development Document
(TDD) when the effluent guideline is developed. The common components for such
analyses include wastewater sampling, data collection from the regulated industry, and
some amount of estimation or modeling. TDDs are available for: Pulp & Paper,
Pharmaceuticals, Landfills, Industrial Waste Combustors, Centralized Waste Treatment,
Transportation Equipment Cleaning, Pesticide Manufacturing, Offshore Oil & Gas,
Coastal Oil & Gas, Synthetic Based Drilling Fluid, Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations, Meat and Poultry, Metal Products and Machinery, Aquaculture. States and
EPA=s Regional offices enter data into PCS and ICIS.
For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), trend data is taken from a detailed
analysis for BOD and TSS loadings from POTWs in AProgress in Water Quality: An
Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment®, USEPA,
June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-008. The report provides flow estimates, loading estimates
and a distribution of treatment class for every 2 to 4 years from 1968 through 1996. In
addition, the report uses data from the Clean Watershed Needs Survey (CWNS) to
provide projections for 2016. EPA has also prepared a A2004 Update to Progress in
Water Quality® that uses data from the 2004 CWNS to provide flow and loading
estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2025. The 2004 CWNS is currently at
OMB for clearance.
For Municipal Stormwater, estimates were derived from EPA models of the volume of
storm water discharged from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
developed as part of a 1997 EPA draft report. The methodology and results of the 1997
draft report are described in AEconomic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water
Rule®, EPA, October 1999.18
Estimates of the sediment load present in Construction Stormwater is derived using a
model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The model uses the construction
site version of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Uncontrolled (i.e.
prior to implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)) and controlled (i.e. after
the implementation of BMPs) sediment loadings were estimated for 15 climatic regions
with three site sizes (one, three, and five acres), three soil erodability levels (low,
medium, and high), three slopes (3%, 7%, and 12%), and various BMP combinations.
18 Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule, Oct. 1, 1999, US EPA. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes or
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/docs.cfm?program_id=6&view=allprog&sort=name
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 67
-------
The methodology and results are described in "Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II
Storm Water Rule."
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) loadings are estimated based on data obtained from
the Clean Watershed Needs Survey and from the "Report to Congress on the Impacts
and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows." States and
EPA=s Regional offices provide data for the CSO Report to Congress and the Clean
Watershed Needs Survey.
Data for the PART denominator, i.e. the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA
Surface Water Program (SWP), are assembled and updated as new data becomes
available. EPA Surface Water Program funds and CWA Section 106 budget are initially
based on the President's Budget until a final budget is adopted; it is then pulled from
EPA's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). State 'match' dollars are
reported to EPA by States; where updated data is not available, the last year of
confirmed data is carried forward.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA uses the spreadsheet described above
to estimate loadings. The data are aggregated across different sources to determine
loading reductions at the national level. Loadings appear to be the best surrogate for
determining the environmental impacts of point sources. Pollutant load reductions,
along with some of the water quality improvement measures, tell the story about
environmental outcomes. Pollutant reductions per dollar spent provides a snapshot of
the effectiveness and efficiency of the surface water program, and comparing this over
time helps to delineate a trend.
QA/QC Procedures: The loadings spreadsheets are based on information from
rulemakings and policies that have undergone extensive review. The effluent guidelines
follow EPA quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: The methodology for this measure was submitted to OMB for
review during the PART process.
Data Limitations: Loadings data must be modeled rather than measured as there is
inconsistent and poor data quality in the PCS data base with respect to flow and
discharge monitoring, including missing data for minor facilities which has not been
required to be entered. Neither monitoring nor flow data are required for certain
categories of general permits. The Agency, therefore, is not able to measure actual
loadings reductions for all of the approximately 550,000 facilities that fall under the
NPDES program. As a result, loadings estimates are based upon models.
When the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is issued, the quality and quantity of Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data is expected to improve. This will enable development of
improved methods for estimating and validating loading reductions.
Error Estimate: At this time we are unable to estimate error due to the lack of actual
national level data to compare to estimates based on models.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA continues to evaluate and explore improved
methods for calculating loadings reductions nation-wide from all sources.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 68
-------
References:
Clean Watershed Needs Survey 2000 [Electronic data base]. (2000). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].
Effluent guidelines development documents are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide.
Modeling databases and software being used by the Office of Water are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/soft.html
SWP PART Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet]. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].
• Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF [PART annual measure]
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information
Management System (NIMS.)
Data Sources: Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and
reported once yearly.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NIMS are the units of
performance. These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for
compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and
conformance with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual
memoranda. A generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of
Data for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System, July 1, 200X through June 30, 200X."
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and regional offices annually review the
data submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf in individual state reports. EPA's headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the
appropriate EPA regional office. An annual EPA headquarters' "N IMS Analysis"
provides detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during
annual EPA regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems which might
affect the performance measure, biennial reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional
oversight of state revolving funds and, annual reviews by EPA's regional offices of their
states' revolving funds operations.
State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent
auditors or by the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General. These audits
are incorporated into EPA headquarters' financial management system.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states
submit voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the NIMS database by
typographic or definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 69
-------
data testing performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying
interpretations of information requested for specific data fields have been virtually
eliminated in the past two years as a result of EPA headquarters' clarification of
definitions. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf. There is typically a lag of approximately two
months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the NIMS database, and
when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.
Error Estimate: Due to the rapid growth of this program, past estimates of annual
performance (relative to a target), compared to actual performance data received two
years later, have been accurate to an average of approximately plus or minus2
percentage points.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 1996. It is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.
References:
State performance data as shown in NIMS are available by state at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28,
2001) addresses the quality of data in NIMS. Not publicly available.
• Reduction in the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation
Performance Database: Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (STARS), the
Indian Health Service (IMS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE),
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC).
Data Sources: The STARS includes data on sanitation deficiencies, Indian homes and
construction projects. STARS is currently comprised of two sub data systems, the
Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) and the Project Data System (PDS).
The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies for existing Indian homes and
communities. The IMS is required to prioritize SDS deficiencies and annually report to
Congress. The identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the
most common of which follow:
• Consultation with Tribal members and other Agencies
• Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives
(CHRs), nurses, or by other IHS or tribal heath staff
• Sanitary Surveys
• Community Environmental Health Profiles
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Inventory
• Census Bureau Reports (for comparison purposes only)
• Tribal Master Plans for Development
• Telephone Surveys
• Feasibility Studies
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 70
-------
The most reliable and preferred method is a field visit to each community to identify and
obtain accurate numbers of homes with sanitation deficiencies. The number of Indian
homes within the communities must be consistent among the various methods cited
above. If a field visit cannot be made, it is highly recommended that more than one
method be used to determine sanitation deficiencies to increase the accuracy and
establish greater credibility for the data.
The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and
reporting tool.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance for the Indian country water quality
performance measure depends on the quality of the data in the STARS. The STARS
data undergoes a series of quality control reviews at various levels within the IMS DSFC.
The DSFC is required to annually report deficiencies in SDS to Congress in terms of
total and feasible project costs for proposed sanitation projects and sanitation deficiency
levels for existing homes.
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data initially undergoes a series of highly organized
reviews by experienced tribal, IMS field, IMS district and IMS area personnel. The data
are then sent to the DSFC headquarters office for review before final results are
reported. The DSFC headquarters reviews the SDS data for each of the 12 IMS area
offices. The data quality review consists of performing a number of established data
queries and reports which check for errors and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top
25 SDS projects and corresponding community deficiency profiles for each area are
reviewed and scrutinized thoroughly. Detailed cost estimates are highly encouraged and
are usually available for review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The IMS DSFC requires that higher-level projects (those with the
possibility of funding prior to the next update) must be developed to allow for program
implementation in an organized, effective, efficient manner. Those SDS projects (top
20%) must have cost estimates within 10% of the actual costs.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The STARS is a web based application and
therefore allows data to be continuously updated by personnel at various levels and
modified as program requirements are identified. PDS has been modified to meet
40CFR31.40 reporting requirements. In 2006 STARS is being modified to include rural
communities that are not Alaska Native Villages but has a substantial Alaska Native
population.
References:
1. Indian Health Service (IMS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm
2. Indian Health Service (IMS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies
for Indian Homes and Communities", May 2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 71
-------
• National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic
ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale) [PART Long-term
outcome measure tracked annually]
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf
Ecology Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf
Breeze, FL (Gulf Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for
data where they are examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached
and undergo initial statistical analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata
completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA database and are web available at
www.epa.gov/emap/nca. The final data are then migrated to the STORET data
warehouse for integration with other water quality data with metadata documenting its
quality.
Data Source: Probabilistic surveys of ecological condition completed throughout the
Mid- Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
in 1991-1994, in southern Florida in 1995, in the Southeast in 1995-1997, in the Mid-
Atlantic in 1997-1998, in each coastal state in 2000-2004 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in
Alaska in 2002 and 2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004, and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and
2004, and in other island territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in
2004. Surveys collect condition information regarding water quality, sediment quality
and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/Region (e.g., mid-Atlantic) each year of collection
prior to 1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or territory/year (site number dependent
upon state) after 1999. Additional sampling by the National Estuary Program (NEP)
included all individual national estuaries; the total number of sites within NEP boundaries
was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2002.
These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the
States follow a rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA
personnel. Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a
national EPA contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(either the National Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a
probabilistic survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population
(in this case - all estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design
maximizes the spatial spread between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude
combinations. The survey utilizes an indexed sampling period (generally late summer)
to increase the probability of encountering water quality, sediment quality and biotic
condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP and field collection manual, a site
in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global Positioning System (GPS)
and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water samples are taken for
chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and benthic
community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data
and provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet
contaminant concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual
instructions and shipped to the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 72
-------
complete analyses and provide electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the
state exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to
assess Regional conditions, whereas the states analyze the data to assess conditions of
state-specific waters. Results of analyses on a national and Regional basis are reported
as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series. The overall
Regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores used in the
Coastal Condition Report (in the NCCR2 a recalculation method was provided for direct
comparison of the successive reports). An improvement for one of the indicators by a
full category unit over the eight year period will be necessary for the Regional estimate
to meet the performance measurement goal (+0.2 over an eight year period).
Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the
United States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field
collection manuals are followed; (4) all samples are successfully collected; (5) all
analyses are completed in accordance with the QAPP; and (6) all combinations of data
into indices are completed in a statistically rigorous manner.
Suitability. By design all data are suitable to be aggregated to the state and
Regional level to characterize water quality, sediment quality, and biotic condition.
Samples represent "reasonable", site-specific point-in-time data (not primary intention of
data use) and an excellent representation of the entire resource (extrapolation to entire
resource supportable). The intended use of the data is the characterization of
populations and subpopulations of estuarine resources through time. The data meet this
expectation and the sampling, response, analysis and reporting designs have been peer
reviewed successfully multiple times. The data are suitable for individual calendar year
characterization of condition, comparison of condition across years, and assessment of
long-term trends once sufficient data are collected (7-10 years). Data are suitable for use
in National Coastal Condition calculations for the United States and its Regions to
provide performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis will
appear in the next NCCR (NCCRIII) representing trends between"!990-2002.
QA/QC Procedures: The sampling collection and analysis of samples are controlled by
a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) [EPA 2001] and the National Coastal
Assessment Information Management Plan (IMP)[EPA 2001]. These plans are followed
by all twenty-three coastal states and 5 island territories. Adherence to the plans are
determined by field training (conducted by EPA ORD), field audits (conducted by
EPA/ORD), round robin testing of chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD),
overall systems audits of state programs and national laboratory practices (conducted by
EPA), sample splits (sent to reference laboratories), blind samples (using reference
materials) and overall information systems audits (conducted by EPA/ORD). Batch
sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA samples in each
batch. All states are subject to audits at least once every two years. All participants
received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA
ORD at the Regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment
2000-2003) and by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003 (assessment
completed in June, 2003 and written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no
deficiencies). No deficiencies were found in the program. A national laboratory used in
the program (University of Connecticut) for nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and
fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the Inspector General's Office for potential
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 73
-------
falsification of laboratory results in connection with other programs not related to NCA.
The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only one incorrect use of a
chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was found. This
error was corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no cost.
Data Limitations: Data limitations are few. Because the data are collected in a manner
to permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality
Objective (DQO) (<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the
results at the Regional level (appropriate for this performance measure) are within about
2- 4% of true values dependent upon the specific sample type. Other limitations as
follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are minimized by audits, in the first year of
the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting in loss of some data. These
problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been observed since, (b) In
some instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found irregularities regarding
the precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing of controls exceeded
detection limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were "flagged" so that users are aware of
the potential limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at
a small scale (~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the
estimate of condition. Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S.
coastal states and territories would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure.
(d) The only major source of external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought
vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.) and the only source of internal variation is
modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices, not a change in data collected and
analyzed). This internal reporting modification requires a re-analysis of earlier
information to permit direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag from the
time of collection until reporting. Sample analysis generally takes one year and data
analysis another. Add another year for report production and peer review, (f) Data
collections are completed annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration will
continue through 2004. Beginning in 2005, ORD began assisting OW, as requested,
with expert advice, but discontinued its financial support of the program.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about
5-7% for individual Regional indicators (composite of all five states data into a Regional
estimate), and about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are
determined from the survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the
uncertainty estimates are calculated using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
(1) Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based
on scientific review and development. A change in some reporting indicators has
occurred in order to more accurately represent the intended ecological process
or function. For example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the
2000 data. In order to compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier
data results must be recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is
possible because the underlying data collection procedures have not changed.
(2) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on
competition. QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing
at these facilities is completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA adherence
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 74
-------
and cross-laboratory sample analysis has minimized data variability resulting
from new laboratories entering the program.
(3) The only reason for the discontinuation of the National performance goal would
be the elimination of the surveys after 2004 or any other year thereafter.
In order to continue to utilize the 2001 National Coastal Condition report as the
baseline for this performance measure, the original scores reported in 2001 have been
re-calculated in the 2004 report using the index modifications described above (#1).
These "new" results for the baseline (re-calculated scores) are reported in Appendix C of
the 2005 report.
References:
1. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Database (1990-1998) and National
Coastal Assessment Database (2000- 2004) websites: www.epa.gov/emap and
www.epa.gov/emap/nca (NCA data for 2000 is only data available at present)
2. National Coastal Assessment. 2000-2003. Various internal memoranda regarding
results of QA audits. (Available through John Macauley, National QA Coordinator
NCA, USEPA, ORD/NHEERL/GED, 1 Sabine Island, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561)
3. National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA/620/R-
01/002.(Available through John Macauley above)
4. National Coastal Assessment. 2001. Information Management Plan. EPA/620/R-
01/003 (Available through Stephen Hale, NCA IM Coordinator,
ORD/NHEERL/AED, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rl)
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report.
EPA-620/R- 01/005.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II.
In review Assigned Report Number EPA-620/R-03/002.
Objective: Enhance Research to Support Clean and Safe Water
• Report on the conditions and seasonal trends of water quality in the Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone
Performance Database: Program output; no internal tracking system
Data Source: N/A
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 75
-------
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Six Year Review
decisions (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Contaminated
Candidate List decisions (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #1)
delivered on time (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #2)
delivered on time (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #3)
delivered on time (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal
database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of
key research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is
finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program
then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-
determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from
the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones
and outputs be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of
each fiscal year. Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD
management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones
and outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and
independent program reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though
subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Drinking Water Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/dw.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007).
Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007).
Drinking Water Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004371.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 76
-------
Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
GOAL 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective: Preserve Land
• Percentage of Construction and Demolition debris that is reused or
recycled
Performance Database: EPA does not maintain a database for this information.
Data Sources: The baseline numbers for construction and demolition (C&D) debris
generation and recycling in the United States rely on data from two recent draft EPA
studies characterizing generation and management of building-related and road-related
C&D debris: (1) "Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition
Debris in the United States," and (2) "Characterization of Road and Bridge-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States." The building-related report is
an update of EPA's 1998 report by the same name. It includes additional sampling data
published after 1998 to strengthen the source category database. The purpose of the
reports is to characterize the various components of the C&D waste stream and estimate
the total amount of debris generated and recycled nationally. It is important to note that
the data and information provided in these reports are preliminary and are currently
undergoing review.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Building-Related C&D: The methodology
used to estimate the amount of building-related C&D debris generated nationally
combines national Census Bureau data on construction industry activities (e.g.,
construction permits and the value of new private and public residential construction
from the Department of Commerce Current Construction Reports) with point source
waste assessment data (i.e., waste sampling and weighing at a variety of construction
and demolition sites). Recycling estimates are based on data from national industry
surveys and local communities.
Road- and Bridge-Related C&D: A model is used to estimate the amount of road-related
C&D generation. The model is a series of steps applied to road statistics published by
the Federal Highway Administration to determine, in 12-foot lane widths, the number of
lane-miles in the U.S. This area measurement is then combined with assumptions on
pavement type, maintenance time frames, reconstruction and resurfacing depths, and
weight factors to estimate road C&D generation on a tons per year basis. Assumptions
pertaining to asphalt and cement concrete debris generation include: "Asphalt roads are
reconstructed on the average every 30 years," and "the cement concrete layer on
reconstructed roads averages eight inches." Recycling estimates are based on limited
data obtained from state highway departments as well as industry surveys.
To support attainment of the 65% C&D recycling goal, EPA is currently developing
program objectives and strategic tasks focused on increasing the recycling rate of five
materials that comprise the majority of the C&D waste stream: concrete pavement,
asphalt pavement, gypsum wallboard, wood, and asphalt shingles.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control are provided by internal
procedures and systems of the Department of Commerce and the Federal Highway
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 77
-------
Administration, the sources of data on which the EPA reports are based. The reports
prepared by the Agency are reviewed by industry experts for accuracy and soundness.
Data Quality Review: The 1998 edition of the building-related report underwent
extensive review. Due to the general acceptance of this methodology and data sources
by the reviewers, the 2005 report follows the original study to the extent possible.
However, comments received on the latest revision raised concerns about the validity of
the data and repeatability of the methodology. EPA is interacting with reviewers to
address their concerns.
Data Limitations: The limited point source waste assessment data used in the building-
related C&D analysis is a source of uncertainty. Additional limitations stem from the fact
that in both studies, the baseline statistics and annual rates of C&D debris generation
and recycling are based on a series of assumptions and extrapolations and, as such, are
not an empirical accounting of national C&D debris generated or recycled.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The need for further efforts to improve the data and
the methodology has been expressed by peer reviewers. The agency is undertaking
action to secure additional sources of information to bolster the data and fill identified
data gaps, including trade associations from specific industry sectors and additional
governmental entities.
References: Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in
the United States, EPA, June 1998 (EPA530-R-98-010),
http://www.epa. gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf
Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States, Franklin Associates, draft dated December 2005.
Characterization of Road and Bridge-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States, EPA, draft dated December 2005.
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste [PART performance]
• Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted [PART performance]
Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce. EPA does
not maintain a database for this information.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste (MSW) source reduction
and recycling are developed using a materials flow methodology employing data largely
from the Department of Commerce and described in the EPA report titled
"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States." The Department of
Commerce collects materials production and consumption data from various industries.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on domestic production of materials and
products are compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Commerce
sources are used, where available; but in several instances more detailed information on
production of goods by end-use is available from trade associations. The goal is to
obtain a consistent historical data series for each product and/or material. Data on
average product lifetimes are used to adjust the data series. These estimates and
calculations result in material-by-material and product-by product estimates of MSW
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 78
-------
generation, recovery, and discards. To strategically support attainment of the 35%
recycling goal, EPA has identified specific components of the MSW stream on which to
focus: paper and paperboard, organics (yard and food waste), and packaging and
containers. For these targeted efforts EPA will examine data on these waste
components.
There are various assumptions factored into the analysis to develop estimates of MSW
generation, recovery and discards. Example assumptions (from pages 141-142 of year
2000 "Characterization Report") include: Textiles used as rags are assumed to enter the
waste stream the same year the textiles are discarded. Some products (e.g.,
newspapers and packaging) normally have short lifetimes and products are assumed to
be discarded in the year they are produced.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the
Department of Commerce's internal procedures and systems. The report prepared by
the Agency, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States," is
reviewed by a number of experts for accuracy and soundness.
Data Quality Review: The report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of
recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation, is widely accepted among
experts.
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and
annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal solid waste generation are based on a
series of models, assumptions, and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical
accounting of municipal solid waste generated or recycled.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data
on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Because the statistics on MSW generation and
recycling are widely reported and accepted by experts, no new efforts to improve the
data or the methodology have been identified or are necessary.
References: Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, EPA,
April 2005 (EPA530-F-05-003), http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
• Percentage of coal combustion product ash that is used rather than
disposed
Performance Database: Data to support this measure are provided by the Department
of Energy and American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). EPA collects data on generation
of materials (Toxic Release Inventory), but it does not maintain a database for utilization.
Data Source: The ACAA conducts a voluntary survey on coal ash generation and
recycling practices of its membership, which comprises approximately 35% of the
electricity generating capacity of the United States. The ACAA survey information is
compared to the other sources of utilization data, including the Department of Energy's
Energy Information Agency (EIA), the Portland Cement Association and other publicly
available trade association data. A limited amount of data relevant to recycling has been
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 79
-------
reported on EIA Form 767, which was discontinued in 2007. These data will likely be
collected on a different EIA form in the future.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The CCP recycling rate is defined as the
tonnage of coal ash recycled divided by the tonnage of coal ash generated nationally by
coal-fired electric utilities. Data on domestic production of materials and products are
compiled using published data series. U.S. Department of Energy sources are used,
where available; but for specific utilization data more detailed information on the
production of CCPs is available from trade associations. The goal is to obtain a
consistent historical data series for products and materials. Data on average production
as compared to utilization may provide estimates as to the effectiveness of beneficial
use outreach.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control for production numbers
reported on EIA 767 are provided by the Department of Energy's internal procedures
and systems. Data on utilization are reviewed by CCP industry experts for accuracy.
Data Quality Review: The reporting of utilization data is voluntary and requires
extrapolation and integration with several sources of data. TRI data does not track end-
use and does not require reporting of materials by their utilization
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and
annual rates of utilization are collected from different sources and are not mandated by
statute or regulation. New data sources may be compared to historic data to determine
if trends are reasonable and expected.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data
on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: New or additional measurement techniques will need
to be developed for 2007 data and beyond based on the development of new EIA forms
to track generation and recycling.
References: The American Coal Ash Annual Survey is located at http://www.acaa-
usa.org/.
• Number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated
solid waste management plan
• Number of closed, cleaned-up or upgraded open dumps in Indian Country
and on other Tribal lands
Performance Database: EPA's regional offices, in collaboration with the Indian Health
Service (IMS), report annually the performance data to the WSTARS database.
Data Source: EPA and the Indian Health Service are co-sponsors of the Tribal Solid
Waste Management Assistance Project. The formation of this workgroup resulted from
the 1998 Report to Congress on open dumps on Indian Lands. The Indian Health
Service was tasked to identify the high threat sites in need of upgrade or closure, and
report the information to the WSTARS Database. The IHS WSTARS data are reported
voluntarily by federally recognized tribal members. The member tribal data are
extrapolated to generate national estimates, per the request from Congress.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 80
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Tribal Solid Waste Management
Assistance Project is a national program that began in 2001 to increase the number of
tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated waste management
plan, and to close, clean-up, or upgrade open dumps in Indian country and on other
tribal lands.
The latest EPA and IMS annual data show that an annual, incremental rate will allow the
tribes to reach the goals established by 2011.
QA/QC Procedures: The IMS WSTARS data are reported voluntarily by federally
recognized tribal members. Quality assurance and quality control are provided by
internal procedures of the IMS WSTARS reporting process.
Data Quality Review: The data are reviewed by the EPA and IMS for data quality. The
data are considered to be accurate on a national scale.
Data Limitations: The WSTARS contains data pertaining to the open dumps and solid
waste management plans of the federal recognized tribal members. The WSTARS
membership comprises all of the 562 federally recognized tribes of the United States.
Because accurate assumptions can be made about the numbers of open dumps and the
solid waste management plans generated, the data may be extrapolated to estimate the
total open dumps and solid waste management plans for the federally recognized tribes
within the United States. The data, however, may be limited in certain regions of the
country, making extrapolations to a national statistic inaccurate.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data
on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to gather different or additional data
are contemplated at this time.
References: The IMS, WSTARS data are available from the HIS website at
www.ihs.gov.
• Annual increase in the percentage of RCRA hazardous waste management
facilities with permits or other approved controls
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are mainly entered by the states and can be entered directly into
RCRAInfo, although some choose to use a different program and then "translate" the
information into RCRAInfo. Supporting documentation and reference materials are
maintained in Regional and state files.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo, the national database which
supports EPA's RCRA program, contains information on entities (generically referred to
as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste generation and management activities
regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 81
-------
RCRAInfo has several different modules, including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA
permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage
data quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application
software contains structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority
national components. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and
interpretation of data. Even with the increasing emphasis on data quality, with roughly
10,000 units in the baseline (e.g., a facility can have more than one unit), we hear of
data problems with some facilities every year, particularly with the older inactive
facilities. When we hear of these issues, we work with the EPA Regional offices to see
that they get resolved. It may be necessary to make a few adjustments to the permitting
baseline as data issues are identified. Determination of whether or not the facility has
approved controls in place is based primarily on the legal and operating status codes for
each unit. Each year since 1999, in discussions with Regional offices and states, EPA
has highlighted the need to keep the data that support the GPRA permitting goal current.
RCRAInfo is the sole repository for this information and is a focal point for planning from
the local to national level. Accomplishment of updated controls is based on the permit
expiration date code. We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions.
During 2008, we plan to update the baseline for tracking in FY09 and beyond. The
updates are anticipated to be minimal. New reports should be developed in RCRAInfo in
FY08 in order to better track FY09 goals.
Note: Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized
state personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains
enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data
Warehouse to obtain filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.
Data Quality Review: The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's
Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf) on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information
System reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the
states in managing their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincide with
ongoing internal efforts to improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data
collected provide critical information and minimize the burden on states. RCRAInfo, the
current national database has evolved in part as a response to this report.
The U.S. EPA Office of the Inspector General issued on December 4, 2006 a report
titled, "EPA's Management of Interim Status Permitting Needs Improvement to Ensure
Continued Progress." The report discusses "Interim Status" as a designation for
hazardous waste units regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Although such a status is meant to be temporary, some units have existed for as many
as 25 years as "Interim Status" without formal issuance or denial of a permit or other
regulatory controls. This may have implications for measuring the Agency's progress in
attaining "controls in place" for all RCRA facilities, including "Interim Status" facilities.
Recommendations have been made to identify opportunities for prioritizing facilities
based on risk, and time in interim status and to adjust the baseline based on "new"
designation of interim status. In response, EPA incorporated a new element within the
FY2008 National Program Guidance (NPG) which encouraged regions and states to
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 82
-------
consider risk in determining the prioritization of facilities to be addressed in the multi-
year strategies. EPA is committed to reducing the nmber of facilities in interim status by
getting them permitted or clean closed. EPA believes, however, that permitting activities
have been generally prioritized based on risk, and the Agency does not believe "time in
interim status" by itself is a meaningful criterion for prioritizing which units present the
highest risks, but it can be part of the overall risk evaluation.
Data Limitations: The authorized states have ownership of their data and EPA has to
rely on them to make changes. The data that determine if a facility has met its permit
requirements are prioritized in update efforts. Basic site identification data may become
out-of-date because RCRA does not mandate annual or other periodic notification by the
regulated entity when site name, ownership and contact information changes.
Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by their IDs and those should not change even
during ownership changes. The baselines are composed of facilities that can have
multiple units. These units may consolidate, split or undergo other activities that cause
the number of units to change. We aim to have static baselines, but there may be
occasions where we would need to make minor baseline modifications. The baseline of
facilities that are currently tracked for updated controls are intended to apply to the
facilities that are "due for permit renewals," but we anticipate that there will be some
facilities that cease to be "due for permit renewals" because of a change in facility status.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSWdoes not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the
regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated
activities, and compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the
generation of hazardous waste by large quantity generators and on waste management
practices from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. RCRAInfo is web accessible,
providing a convenient user interface for Federal, state and local managers, encouraging
development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and using commercial off-the-
shelf software to develop reports from database tables. New reporting capabilities have
been added in FY07.
References: RCRAInfo documentation and data (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/).
The 1995 GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits ofEPA's Information System Are
Limited (AIMD-95-167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
"EPA's Management of Interim Status Permitting Needs Improvement to Ensure
Continued Progress," U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General, Report No. 2007-P-00005
December 4, 2006.
Objective: Restore Land
• Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 100% of Statute of Limitations (SOLs)
cases for Superfund sites with total unaddressed past costs equal to or
greater than $200,000 and report value of costs recovered
• Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action
taken before the start of a remedial action (RA)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 83
-------
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database contains information on
hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites and remedial activities across
the nation. The database includes sites that are on the National Priorities List (NPL) or
being considered for the NPL.
Data Source: Automated EPA system; Headquarters and EPA's Regional Offices enter
data into CERCLIS
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods
used to collect the information. The performance data collected on a fiscal year basis
only. Enforcement reports are run at the end of the fiscal year, and the data that support
this measure are extracted from the report.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative
controls are in place: 1) Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM), the
program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report
Specifications, which are published for each report detailing how reported data are
calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical instructions to such data users as
Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, data
owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quick Reference Guides (QRG), which are
available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed instructions on
data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track,
budget, plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures;
(6) a historical lockout feature in CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data can
be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a Change
Log report. Specific direction for these controls is contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2008/2009
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following
administrative control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental
Information Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and
hardware standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality
Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being
developed and maintained (http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5)
Agency security
procedures(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security?OpenView). In
addition, specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data
capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality Review: The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an
informal process, to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically,
there are no published results.
Data Limitations: None
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 84
-------
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management
Plan, approved April 11, 2001. [OSRE submitted an updated QMP to the OEI Quality
staff in August 2006. In response to comments from OEI, OSRE submitted a revised
draft QMP in March 2007. The revised draft awaits OEI approval or further comment.]
• No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year
• Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 1% over the
previous year's rate (target)
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not
maintain a national database. States individually maintain records for reporting state
program accomplishments.
Data Source: Designated state agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the
EPA Regional offices. For the PART Efficiency Performance Measure, OUST will
estimate the value of this efficiency measure based on data that EPA and state agencies
currently collect and maintain. The data includes the states' semi-annual activity reports,
which track the number of releases confirmed each year and the number of active
underground storage tanks; the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) funding for
leak prevention and matching expenditure of 25 percent for every dollar of STAG funding
the states receive; and EPA's prevention program administration costs, such as salary,
travel expenses, contracts and working capital funds.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: For the semi-annual activity report data, EPA's Regional offices
verify and then forward the data in an Excel spreadsheet to OUST. OUST staff examine
the data and resolve any discrepancies with the regional offices. The data are displayed
in an Excel spreadsheet on a region-by-region basis, which is a way regional staff can
check their data. For the PART Efficiency Measure, FY 2007 will serve as the baseline
for implementation and QA/QC procedures are not yet in place.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: For the semi-annual activity report, percentages reported are
sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations from sample data. Data quality
depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References: FY 2007 Mid-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office
of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
dated May 7, 2007 (updated semiannually); http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_07_12.pdf
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 85
-------
• Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration. (Tracked as: Number of leaking
underground storage tank cleanups completed.) [PART performance]
• Number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure
and groundwater migration in Indian country. (Tracked as: Number of
leaking underground storage tank cleanups completed in Indian Country.)
[PART performance]
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not
maintain a national database. States individually maintain records for reporting state
program accomplishments.
Data Source: Designated State agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the
EPA regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of confirmed
releases where cleanup has been initiated and where the state has determined that no
further actions are currently necessary to protect human health and the environment,
includes sites where post-closure monitoring is not necessary as long as site specific
(e.g., risk based) cleanup goals have been met. Site characterization, monitoring plans
and site-specific cleanup goals must be established and cleanup goals must be attained
for sites being remediated by natural attenuation to be counted in this category. (See
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/pm032603.pdf.)
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in an Excel
spreadsheet to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with
the regional offices. The data are displayed in an Excel spreadsheet on a region-by-
region basis, which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state
records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: FY 2007 Mid-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office
of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
dated May 7, 2007 (updated semiannually); http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_07_12.pdf
• Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with current human exposures under control
• Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater
under control
• Percentage of RCRA construction completions
• Percent increase of final remedy components constructed at RCRA CA
facilities per federal, state, and private sector dollars per year [PART
efficiency]
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 86
-------
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is
made in the database with respect to final assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" entry is
made in the database with respect to meeting the human exposures to toxins controlled
and releases to groundwater controlled indicators. An entry will be made in the database
to indicate the date when a remedy is selected and the complete construction of a
remedy is made. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in
the Regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter data on
a continual basis. For the efficiency measure, federal and state cost data are assembled
from their respective budgets. Private sector costs are derived from data published in
the Environmental Business Journal.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo contains information on entities
(generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in hazardous waste (HW) generation and
management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that provides for regulation
of hazardous waste. Within RCRAInfo, the Corrective Action Module tracks the status of
facilities that require, or may require, corrective actions, including information related to
the four measures outlined above. Performance measures are used to summarize and
report on the facility-wide environmental conditions at the RCRA Corrective Action
Program's highest-priority facilities. The environmental indicators are used to track the
RCRA Corrective Action Program's progress in getting highest-priority contaminated
facilities under control. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated
using a series of simple questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable,
defensible determination. These questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim
Final Guidance for RCRA Corrective Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid
Waste, Februarys, 1999). Lead regulators for the facility (authorized state or EPA) make
the environmental indicator determination, but facilities or their consultants may assist
EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the current environmental conditions.
Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies measure are used to track
the RCRA program's progress in getting its highest-priority contaminated facilities
moving towards final cleanup. Like with the environmental indicators determination, the
lead regulators for the facility select the remedy and determine when the facility has
completed construction of that remedy. Construction completions are collected on both
an area-wide and site-wide basis for sake of the efficiency measure.
QA/QC Procedures: States and Regions generate the data and manage data quality
related to timeliness and accuracy (i.e., the environmental conditions and determinations
are correctly reflected by the data). Within RCRAInfo, the application software enforces
structural controls that ensure that high-priority national components of the data are
properly entered. RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line,
provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of data. Training on use
of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending on the nature of
systems changes and user needs.
Access to RCRAInfo is open only to EPA Headquarters, Regional, and authorized state
personnel. It is not available to the general public because the system contains
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 87
-------
enforcement sensitive data. The general public is referred to EPA's Envirofacts Data
Warehouse to obtain filtered information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste facilities.
Data Quality Review: GAO's 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information
System (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html) reviewed
whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing
their hazardous waste programs. Recommendations coincide with ongoing internal
efforts (WIN/Informed) to improve the definitions of data collected, ensure that data
collected provide critical information and minimize the burden on states. EPA's Quality
Staff of the Office of Environmental Information conducted a quality systems audit in
December 2003. The audit found the corrective action program satisfactory.
Data Limitations: No data limitations have been identified for the performance
measures. As discussed above, the performance measure determinations are made by
the authorized states and EPA Regions based on a series of standard questions and
entered directly into RCRAInfo. EPA has provided guidance and training to states and
Regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations. High priority facilities are
monitored on a facility-by-facility basis and the QA/QC procedures identified above are
in place to help ensure data validity. For the efficiency measure, private sector costs are
not publicly available. Estimates of these costs are derived from Environmental
Business Journal data.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for
managing environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing
the old data systems (the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and
the Biennial Reporting System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of
information on the regulated universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as
facility status, regulated activities, and compliance history. The system also captures
detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste from large quantity generators and
on the waste management practices of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
RCRAInfo is web-accessible, providing a convenient user interface for federal, state and
local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and
using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.
References: GAO's 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
reviewed whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in
managing their hazardous waste programs. This historical document is available on the
Government Printing Office Website
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html).
• Facilities under control (permitted) per total permitting cost [PART
efficiency]
Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program and provides
information on facilities under control.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 88
-------
Costs by the permittee are estimated through the annual cost estimates contained in the
Information Collection Requests (ICR) supporting statements relevant to the RCRA Base
Program. ICRs are contained in the Federal Docket Management System. Base
program appropriation information is maintained in the Budget Automation System
(BAS).
Data Source: The Office of Solid Waste develops ICRs and ensures they have active
ICRs approved by the OMB for all of their RCRA permitting and base program
information collection activities. The Budget Automation System (BAS) automates
EPA's budget processes, including planning, budgeting, execution, and reporting.
Budget data is entered at a general level by offices and regions or by the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Numerator - Facilities under control is an
outcome based measure as permits or similar mechanisms are not issued until facilities
have met standards or permit conditions that are based on human health or
environmental standards. Under the corresponding performance measure, 95% of
facilities are to be under control by 2008.
Denominator - The denominator is the sum of two costs. The first is permitting costs
based on Information Collection Requests for the base RCRA program. The costs will
take into account recent rulemakings, including the Burden Reduction Rulemaking
(published April 2006), which will impact program expenditures. The costs will also take
into account one time costs associated with first year implementation.
The second program cost in the denominator is the input of a 3 year rolling average
appropriation for Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and State Tribal and
Grant (STAG) program. Corrective action programs costs will not be included but will be
addressed in a separate efficiency measure. A rolling average of appropriations is more
appropriate since some of the facility controls depend upon past resources. Issuance
time for a permit, for example, can exceed one year with public hearings and appeals.
The cumulative number of facilities with controls in place is appropriate (rather than a
single year's increment) because the appropriations are used to maintain facilities that
already have controls in place (e.g. inspections and permit renewals) as well as to
extend the number of facilities with controls.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of the ICR costs is based on internal and external review
of the data. BAS data undergoes quality assurance and data quality review through the
Chief Financial Officer.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: The data sources for the program costs identified in the denominator
of the measure include all of the RCRA base program appropriations (e.g. RCRA
Subtitle D program implementation) and not just costs for permitting. Accordingly, the
measure cannot be compared with other similar government programs.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSWdoes not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to improve the data or methodology
have been identified
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 89
-------
References: Federal DocumentManagementSystemwww.regulations.gov; Budget
Automation Management System
• Superfund final site assessment decisions completed [PART performance]
• Number of Superfund sites with human health protection achieved (exposure
pathways are eliminated or potential exposures are under health-based levels
for current use of land or water resources) [PART performance]
• Number of Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under
control [PART performance]
• Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed [PART
performance]
• Number of Superfund sites ready for reuse site-wise
• Program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing cleanup
activities [Federal Facilities PART efficiency measure].
• Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed [PART
performance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually [PART performance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars [PART
efficiency]
• Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control per million
dollars obligated [PART efficiency]
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all remedies have completed
construction [PART]
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where the final remedial decision
for contaminants at the site has been determined [PART]
Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability System (CERCLIS) is the database used by the Agency to track, store, and
report Superfund site information.
Data Source: CERCLIS is an automated EPA system; headquarters and EPA's
Regional offices enter data into CERCLIS on a rolling basis. The Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) is EPA's financial management system and the official
system of record for budget and financial data.
Methods and Assumptions: Except for financial information, each performance
measure is a specific variable entered into CERCLIS following specific coding guidance
and corresponding supporting site-specific documentation.
IFMS contains records of all financial transactions (e.g., personnel, contracts, grants,
other) of Superfund appropriation resources, as distinguished by U.S. Treasury schedule
codes. Procurement data are entered manually into IFMS by Funds Control Officers
throughout the Agency. Site-specific obligations are distinguished through the
Site/Project field of the IFMS account number that is assigned to every financial
transaction.
Total annual obligations include current and prior year appropriated resources, excluding
Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Science and Technology transfers. Site-specific
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 90
-------
obligation data are derived using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the
IFMS account number.
Suitability: The Superfund Remedial Program's performance measures for FY 2009
are the result of several years of refinement with OMB as follow-up to the Program's
2004 PART Review. The measures currently used to demonstrate program progress
reflect several major milestones that reflect site cleanup progress from start (final
assessment decision) to finish (sites ready for anticipate use). Each measure marks a
significant step in ensuring human health and environment protection at Superfund sites.
OMB has accepted these measures for monitoring program performance on an annual
basis.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative
controls are in place: 1) Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM), the
program management manual that details what data must be reported; 2) Report
Specifications, which are published for each report detailing how reported data are
calculated; 3) Coding Guide, which contains technical instructions to such data users as
Regional Information Management Coordinators (IMCs), program personnel, data
owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quick Reference Guides (QRG), which are
available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed instructions on
data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track,
budget, plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures;
(6) a historical lockout feature in CERCLIS so that changes in past fiscal year data can
be changed only by approved and designated personnel and are logged to a Change
Log report. Specific direction for these controls is contained in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2008/2009
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following
administrative control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental
Information Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and
hardware standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality
Assurance Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being
developed and maintained (http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5)
Agency security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView). In addition,
specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and
CERCLIS outputs.
The financial data are compliant with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA) of 1982 and received FY 2005 FMFIA certification.
Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the
other by Government Accountability Office (GAO), were conducted to assess the validity
of the data in CERCLIS. The OIG audit report, Superfund Construction Completion
Reporting (No.E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, was prepared
to verify the accuracy of the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 91
-------
the public. The OIG report concluded that the Agency "has good management controls
to ensure accuracy of the information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can
rely upon the information EPA provides regarding construction completions." Further
information on this report is available at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm. The
GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated
August 28, 1998, was prepared to verify the accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on
sites' cleanup progress. The report estimates that the cleanup status of National Priority
List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September 30, 1997, is accurate for 95
percent of the sites. Additional information on the Status of Sites may be obtained at
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf.
Another OIG audit, Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.
2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002, evaluated the accuracy, completeness,
timeliness, and consistency of the data entered into CERCLIS. The report provided 11
recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS data quality. EPA concurred with the
recommendations contained in the audit, and many of the identified problems have been
corrected or long-term actions that would address these recommendations continue to
be underway.
Additional information about this report is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the
data That supports the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) was signed in August 2003
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf).
EPA received an unqualified audit opinion by the OIG for the annual financial
statements, and the auditor recommended several corrective actions. All
recommendations have been implemented by Office of the Chief Financial Officer in
IFMS.
Data Limitations: Weaknesses were identified in the OIG audit, Information Technology
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002. The Agency disagreed with the study design and report conclusions; however, the
report provided 11 recommendations with which EPA concurred and either implemented
or continues to implement. These include: 1) FY 02/03 SPIM Chapter 2 update was
improved to define the Headquarters' and Regional roles and responsibilities for
maintaining planning and accomplishment data in ERCLIS; 2) language was added to
the FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site Status Indicators' to clarify the use
of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) a data quality section was added to the FY 04/05
SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.6 'Data Quality'; 4) FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix E, Section
E.A.5 "Data Owners/Sponsorship' was revised to reflect what data quality checks (focus
data studies) will be done by designated Regional and headquarters staff; 5) a data
quality objectives supplement for GPRA measures was added in Change 6 to the
FY04/05 SPIM. For changes implemented due to this OIG audit, see the Change Log for
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 92
-------
this SPIM at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/pdfs/changelog6.pdf); The
development and implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data
continues. This process includes delineating data quality objectives for GPRA targets,
program measures, and regional data. The Agency has begun reporting compliance
with the current data quality objectives.
Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of
National Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites.
The OIG report, Information Technology- Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No.
2002-P-00016), dated September 30, 2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS
data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not adequately supported. Although the
11 recommendations were helpful and improved some controls over CERCLIS data, the
Agency disagreed and strongly objected to the study design and report conclusions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As a result of a modernization effort completed in
2004, CERCLIS has standards for data quality and each EPA Region's CERCLIS Data
Entry Control Plan, which identifies policies and procedures for data entry, is reviewed
annually. EPA Headquarters has developed data quality audit reports and provided
these reports to the Regions. These reports document data quality for timeliness,
completeness, and accuracy as determined by the Superfund data sponsors to
encourage and ensure high quality. Information developed and gathered in the
modernization effort is being used as a valuable resource for scoping the future redesign
of CERCLIS. The redesign is necessary to bring CERCLIS into alignment with the
Agency's mandated Enterprise Architecture. The first major step in this effort was the
migration of all 10 Regional databases and the Headquarters database into one single
national database at the National Computing Center in RTP. The Superfund Document
Management System (SDMS) has also migrated to RTP to improve efficiency and
storage capacity. During this migration the SDMS was linked to CERCLIS which enable
users to easily transition between programmatic accomplishments as reported in
CERCLIS and the actual document that defines and describes the accomplishments.
EPA Headquarters is also evaluating the need and increased functionality of an
integrated SDMS-CERCLIS system. Tentatively that system is called the Superfund
Enterprise Management System (SEMS). Work on SEMS has started in FY 2007 and
will continue through FY 2009.
In an effort to better facilitate and capture important Superfund data, a new Five-Year
Review Module was released in CERCLIS in June 2006. In addition, a new
Reuse/Acreage Module was released in CERCLIS in June of 2007 to support two new
performance measures.
References: OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_8100030) and Information Technology - Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016, http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm);
and the GAO report, Superfund Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241,
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf). The Superfund Program
Implementation Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/guidance.htm). The Quality Management Plan
(QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August 2003,
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 93
-------
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). Office of Environmental Information
Interim Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf). The Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). EPA platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf). Quality Assurance
Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS are being developed and
maintained (http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines). EPA security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView).
FY 2005 FMFIA Certification 2004 Audited Financial Statements, see
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/financial.htm OIG Audit "EPA Needs to Improve Change
Controls for Integrated Financial Management System" dated August 24, 2004 (2004-P-
00026)
All referenced internet addressed were last accessed on 07/31/07.
• Average state of emergency response readiness as determined by readiness
criteria
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from
evaluations from each of the 10 Regions are tabulated and stored using standard
software (e.g., Word spreadsheets).
Data Source: Data are collected through detailed surveys of all Regional programs, as
well as HQ offices and Special Teams of responders; the process includes interviews
with personnel and managers in each program office. The score represents acomposite
based upon data from each unique Regional and headquarters organization. Annual
increments represent annual improvements. The survey instrument was developed
based upon Core Emergency Response (ER) elements, and has been approved by EPA
Headquarters and Regional managers. Core ER elements cover all aspects of the Core
ER program, including Regional Response Centers, transportation, coordination with
backup Regions, health and safety, delegation and warrant authorities, response
readiness, response equipment, identification clothing, training and exercises, and
outreach.
While EPA is currently prepared to respond to chemical, biological, and radiological
incidents, improvement in the emergency response and homeland security readiness
measure will demonstrate an increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to
national-scale events. The FY 2009 Core ER target is to improve emergency response
and homeland security readiness by 10 points from the FY 2008 performance.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Core ER elements were developed over
the last several years by the EPA Removal Program to identify and clarify what is
needed to ensure an excellent emergency response program. The elements, definitions,
and rationales were developed by staff and managers and have been presented to the
Administrator and other high level Agency managers. Based on the Core ER standards,
evaluation forms and criteria were established for EPA's Regional programs, the
Environmental Response Team (ERT), and Headquarters. These evaluation criteria
identify what data need to be collected, and how that data translate into an appropriate
score for each Core ER element. The elements and evaluation criteria will be reviewed
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 94
-------
each year for relevance to ensure that the programs have the highest standards of
excellence and that the measurement clearly reflects the level of readiness. The data
are collected from each Regional office, Special Teams, and Headquarters using a
systematic, objective process. Each evaluation team consists of managers and staff,
from Headquarters and possibly from another EPA Regional office, with some portion of
the team involved in all reviews for consistency and some portion varying to ensure
independence and objectivity. For instance, a team evaluating Region A might include
some or all of the following: a staff person from Headquarters who is participating in all
reviews, a staff person from Headquarters who is very familiar with Region A activities, a
manager from Headquarters, and a staff person and/or manager from Region B. One
staff or group will be responsible for gathering and analyzing all the data to determine
the overall score for each Regional office, Special Teams and Headquarters, and for
determining an overall National score.
QA/QC Procedures: See "Methods, Assumptions and Suitability."
Data Quality Review: The evaluation team will review the data (see Methods,
Assumptions and Suitability) during the data collection and analysis process. Additional
data review will be conducted after the data have been analyzed to ensure that the
scores are consistent with the data and program information. There currently is no
specific database that has been developed to collect, store, and manage the data.
Data Limitations: One key limitation of the data is the lack of a dedicated database
system to collect and manage the data. Standard software packages (word processing,
spreadsheets) are used to develop the evaluation criteria, collect the data, and develop
the accompanying readiness scores. There is also the possibility of subjective
interpretation of data.
Error Estimate: It is likely that the error estimate for this measure will be small for the
following reasons: the standards and evaluation criteria have been developed and
reviewed extensively by Headquarters and EPA's Regional managers and staff; the data
will be collected by a combination of managers and staff to provide consistency across
all reviews plus an important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be
developed by a team looking across all ten Regions, Special Teams, and Headquarters;
and only twelve sets of data will be collected, allowing for easier cross-checking and
ensuring better consistency of data analysis and identification of data quality gaps.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated
system to manage the data.
References: None.
• Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities
required to have Facility Response Plans
• Percentage of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations found to be in
compliance. [PART performance]
• Percentage of inspected facilities subject to FRP regulations found to be in
compliance. [PART performance]
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 95
-------
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) in BAS is the
database for the number of inspections/exercises at SPCC and FRP facilities. Using
data submitted directly by Regional staff as well as data in ACS, Office of Emergency
Management (OEM) tracks in a spreadsheet national information about Regional
activities at FRP facilities. Data about gallons of oil spilled are maintained in a National
Response Center (NRC) database that reflects information reported to the NRC by those
responsible for individual oil spills. Prevention and preparedness expenditures are
tracked in the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), the Agency's financial
database.
Data Source: Data concerning inspections/exercises at FRP and SPCC facilities are
provided by Regional staff. Data concerning gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters are
gathered from the publicly available National Response Center database. Data about
program expenditures are extracted by EPA HQ from IFMS.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The spill/exercise data are entered by
Regional staff experienced in data entry. In every case, direct data (rather than
surrogates open to interpretation) are entered.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to
identify potential errors.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA regularly reviews recent data, comparing them to data
gathered in the past at similar times of year and in the same Regions. Any questionable
data are verified by direct contact with the Regional staff responsible for providing the
data.
Data Limitations: The NRC data will reflect the extent to which those responsible for oil
spills accurately report them to the NRC.
Error Estimate: Data reported by the Regions should be relatively free of error. There
may be some error in the NRC data, due to the fact that some spills might not be
reported and/or some spills might be reported by more than one person. NRC and EPA
procedures should identify multiple reports of the same spill, but it is not usually possible
to identify an unreported spill.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated
system, to manage the various data.
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material
streams, conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term
goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation,
management and long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term
goal (PART Measure)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 96
-------
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal
database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program's long-term
goals, the Land program annually develops a list of key research outputs scheduled for
completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the fiscal
year, after which no changes are made. The program then tracks quarterly the progress
towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and
milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs
being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates
of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Land Protection and Restoration Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
• Average time (in days) for technical support centers to process and
respond to requests for technical document review, statistical analysis and
evaluation of characterization and treatability study plans. (Efficiency
Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on technical support centers' tracking of
timeliness in meeting customer needs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response
time, and customer outcome feedback are tabulated for the Engineering, Ground Water,
and Site Characterization Technical Support Centers.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 97
-------
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Land Protection and Restoration Research PART Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gOv/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
GOAL 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective: Chemical and Pesticide Risks
• Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected in general
population (PART measure)
Performance Database: The Agency will use the Centers for Disease Control's
(CDC's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-
2002 as the baseline. For this measure, the Agency intends to report on the changes in
levels of organophosphate pesticides at the 50th percentile (or median.) This group of
chemicals was selected for a number of reasons. A large proportion of data collected
from the general population are detectable residues (or their metabolites) for the
organophosphate pesticides. In addition, the metabolites for which the analyses are
performed are derived exclusively from the OP pesticides. The Agency selected a
measure based on central tendency because it provides an overall picture of trends and
is not distorted by anomalies in the data. However, the Agency intends to follow a range
of metrics to more fully understand trends in the data. The annual targets will change
every two years because each survey is performed over a two year period.
Data Sources: NHANES (see above)
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The NHANES data were selected because
the surveys provide a statistically representative data set for the entire U.S. population.
It is an ongoing program, with funding from numerous cooperating Federal agencies.
The data are based on measurement of chemical levels in blood and urine.
QA/QC Procedures: This large scale survey is performed in strict compliance with CDC
QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize NHANES data. NHANES is a major
program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Public Health Service, and has
the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. The National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is one of the Federal statistical agencies belonging
to the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP). The ICSP, which is led by the
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 98
-------
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is composed of the heads of the Nation's 10
principal statistical agencies plus the heads of the statistical units of 4 nonstatistical
agencies. The ICSP coordinates statistical work across organizations, enabling the
exchange of information about organization programs and activities, and provides advice
and counsel to OMB on statistical activities. The statistical activities of these agencies
are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing or analysis of information for
statistical purposes. Within this framework, NCHS functions as the Federal agency
responsible for the collection and dissemination of the Nation's vital and health statistics.
Its mission is to provide statistical information that will guide actions and policies to
improve the health of the American people.
To carry out its mission, NCHS conducts a wide range of annual, periodic, and
longitudinal sample surveys and administers the national vital statistics systems.
As the Nation's principal health statistics agency, NCHS leads the way with accurate,
relevant, and timely data. To assure the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of its
statistical products, NCHS assumes responsibility for determining sources of data,
measurement methods, methods of data collection and processing while minimizing
respondent burden; employing appropriate methods of analysis, and ensuring the public
availability of the data and documentation of the methods used to obtain the data. Within
the constraints of resource availability, NCHS continually works to improve its data
systems to provide information necessary for the formulation of sound public policy. As
appropriate, NCHS seeks advice on its statistical program as a whole, including the
setting of statistical priorities and on the statistical methodologies it uses. NCHS strives
to meet the needs for access to its data while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the
confidentiality of individual responses.
Three web links to background on data quality are below:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/quality.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/lab_b_generaldoc.pdf#search=%2
2quality%20control%20NHANES%22
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/lab_c_generaldoc.pdf#search=%2
2quality%20NHANES%22
Data Limitations: Some limitations include that not all pesticides are included, it is a
measure of exposure instead of risk, and there is a time-lag between EPA actions and
the CDC's analysis of the data.
Error Estimate: There is the potential of identifying metabolites that comes from both a
pesticide and another source.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
2005, CDC/National Center for Environmental Health/Environmental Health Laboratory
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/nhanes
• Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered
Species Bulletin (PART efficiency)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 99
-------
Performance Database: The Bulletins Live! application is enabled by a multi-user
relational database system that maintains a permanent archive with dates of the draft
and final content for each endangered species protection Bulletin that is created or
updated in the system. When the Bulletins Live! application is made available to the
public, EPA will take over the complete Bulletin production process, which is currently
carried out by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) staff through an Interagency
Agreement (see below). Additionally, tracking and summary reporting of all endangered
species mitigation actions including the time between which a decision is made to issue
a Bulletin and its availability to the public will be made available as a part of the OPP
"PRISM" information system that is planned for development in FY 2007. This system
will track the staff working on mitigation development and bulletin production, and the
time spent on these activities, allowing for a calculation of the cost per bulletin issued
with Bulletins Live!
Data Source: The data necessary to track progress towards the targets for this
measure are currently being collected by EPA. The Bulletins are being developed for
EPA by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cartography and Publishing Program under
an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with OPP. The data will be collected annually through
the end-of-year report under the Interagency Agreement (IAG). The baseline year will
be 2004 cost and time averages ($4000.00 and 100 hours per Endangered Species
Bulletin production or update).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: These Bulletins are a critical mechanism for
ensuring protection of endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications
Bulletins are legally enforceable extensions to pesticide labels that include
geographically specific use limitations for the protection of endangered species. The
faster the Bulletins can be developed, the earlier the protections are available to
endangered and threatened species. Similarly, the less it costs to produce the Bulletins,
the more Bulletins can be produced within available budget and the greater the impact
on saving endangered and threatened species.
This measure is calculated as follows:
100 - [(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in
current 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the same 12
month period)/(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species
Bulletins in previous 12 month period) X 100] This is intended to be a measure
that captures improvements in current year cost per bulletin vs. previous year
cost per bulletin.
100 - [(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update Endangered Species
Bulletins in current 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in
the same 12 month period)/(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update
Endangered Species Bulletins in previous 12 month period/number of bulletins
produced or updated in the previous 12 month period) X 100]
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan to ensure
the overall quality of data in the Bulletins Live! system. Bulletins pass through a multi-
level quality control and review process before being released to the public. After the
initial Bulletin is created by trained staff in the Endangered Species Protection Program,
the draft is automatically routed in the system to a senior staff member who reviews the
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 100
-------
information in the Bulletin as a quality control check. After this Agency review, Bulletins
are then subject to review and comment by Regional and State regulatory partners
responsible for different aspects of the field implementation program and Bulletin
enforcement.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews for the Bulletins themselves are ongoing
through the QA/QC methodology described above. Data quality reviews for components
of the measure (time per bulletin and cost per bulletin) will be carried out by the Project
Officers who manage the Bulletins Live! and PRISM systems.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The web-based Bulletins Live! system will facilitate
the expedited production and delivery of endangered species protection Bulletins as
compared to the 2004 baseline.
References:
Endangered Species Protection Program website and Bulletins Live!:
http://www.epa.gov/espp; QMP: Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides
Program, February 2006; Endangered Species Act.
• Cumulative number of assays that have been validated. (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the cumulative number of
assays validated. The completion of the validation process for an assay can take
several years. Excel spreadsheets are used to capture and track various steps within
the validation process in order to better show progress. These steps within the validation
process include: detailed review papers completed, prevalidation studies completed,
validation by multiple labs completed, peer reviews, and the cumulative number of
assays that have been validated.
Data Source: Data are generated to support all stages of validation of endocrine test
methods through contracts, grants and interagency agreements, and the cooperative
support of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The scope of the effort includes the
conduct of laboratory studies and associated analyses to validate the assays proposed
for the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measure is a program output which
when finalized, helps to ensure that EPA meets The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA) requirement that EPA validate assays to screen chemicals for their potential to
affect the endocrine system. The measure represents the ultimate objective of this
program (e.g., validating assays for use in screening and testing chemicals for potential
endocrine effects, as required by FQPA.)
QA/QC Procedures: EDSP's contractors operate independent quality assurance units
(QAUs) to ensure that all studies are conducted under appropriate QA/QC programs.
Two levels of QA/QC are employed. First, the contractors operate under a Quality
Management Plan designed to ensure overall quality of performance under the
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 101
-------
contracts. Second, prevalidation and validation studies are conducted under a project-
specific Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) developed by the contractor and
approved by EPA. These QAPPs are specific to the study being conducted. Most
validation studies are conducted according to Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). In
addition, EPA or its agent conducts an independent lab/QA audit of facilities participating
in the validation program.
Data Quality Review: All of the documentation and data generated by the contractor,
OECD and ORD, as it pertains to the EDSP, are reviewed for quality and scientific
applicability. The contractor maintains a Data Coordination Center which manages
information/data generated under EDSP. The contractor also conducts statistical
analyses related to lab studies, chemical repository, and quality control studies.
Data Limitations: There is a data lag of approximately 9-24 months due to the variation
in length and complexity of the lab studies, and for time required for review, analysis and
reporting of data.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Endocrine Disrupter Screening
Program Proposed Statement of Policy, Dec. 28, 1998; Endocrine Disrupter Screening
and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report (EPA/743/R-98/003); EPA
Contract* 68- W-01-023.
• Register reduced risk pesticides including biopesticides
• New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)
• New Uses
• Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Decisions
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network) consolidates various pesticides program databases. It is maintained by the
EPA and tracks regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific
discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in support of a pesticide's registration. In
addition to tracking decisions in OPPIN, manual counts are also maintained by the office
on the registrations of reduced risk pesticides. Results for reduced risk pesticides, new
active conventional ingredients, and new uses have been reported since 1996. The
results are calculated on a fiscal year (FY) basis. For antimicrobial new uses, results
have been reported since FY 2004 on a FY basis. S18 timeliness was reported on a FY
basis for the first time in FY 2005.
Data Source: Pesticide program reviewers update the status of the submissions and
studies as they are received and as work is completed by the reviewers. The status
indicates whether the application is ready for review, the application is in the process of
review, or the review has been completed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which
when
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 102
-------
finalized, represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides
entering the marketplace are safe for human health and the environment, and when
used in accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm.
While program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, registration outputs
do provide a means for reducing risk by ensuring that pesticides entering the
marketplace meet the latest health standards, and as long as used according to the label
are safe.
QA/QC Procedures: A reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in
Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced risk pesticides include
those which reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-target organisms;
reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water or other valued
environmental resources; and/or broaden the adoption of integrated pest management
strategies, or make such strategies more available or more effective. In addition,
biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus reduced risk). All registration
actions must employ sound science and meet the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
new safety standards. All risk assessments are subject to public and scientific peer
review. The office adheres to its Quality Management Plan (May 2000) in ensuring data
quality and that procedures are properly applied.
Data Quality Review: These are program outputs. EPA staff and management review
the program outputs in accordance with established policy for the registration of
reduced-risk pesticides as set forth in Pesticide Regulation Notice 97-3, September 4,
1997.
Data Limitations: None. All required data must be submitted for the risk assessments
before the pesticide is registered. If data are not submitted, the pesticide is not
registered. As stated above, a reduced risk pesticide must meet the criteria set forth in
PRN 97-3 and all registrations must meet FQPA safety requirements. If a pesticide does
not meet these criteria, it is not registered. If an application for a reduced risk pesticide
does not meet the reduced risk criteria, it is reviewed as a conventional active ingredient.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network), which consolidates various pesticides program databases, will reduce the
processing time for registration actions.
References: FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration
Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997; Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; OPP Quality
Management Plan, May 2000); Endangered Species Act.
• Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced risk pesticides (PART
measure)
Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, Doane Marketing Research
data, for this measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an
FY basis.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 103
-------
Data Source: Primary source is Doane Marketing Research, Inc. (a private sector
research database). The database contains pesticide usage information by pesticide,
year, crop use, acreage and sector.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A reduced-risk pesticide must meet the criteria
set forth in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997. Reduced-risk
pesticides include those which reduce the risks to human health; reduce the risks to non-
target organisms; reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water,
or other valued environmental resources; and/or broaden the adoption of integrated pest
management strategies or make such strategies more available or more effective. In
addition, biopesticides are generally considered safer (and thus reduced-risk). EPA's
statistical and economics staff review data from Doane. Information is also compared to
prior years for variations and trends as well as to determine the reasons for the
variability.
Doane sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their
website. More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is
required. Data are weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for
known disproportionalities (known disproportionality refers to a non proportional sample,
which means individual respondents have different weights) and ensure consistency with
USDA and state acreage estimates.
QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are
subject to public and scientific peer review. Doane data are subject to extensive QA/QC
procedures, documented at their websites. In ensuring the quality of the data, EPA's
pesticide program adheres to its Quality Management Plan (QMP), approved May 2000.
The main customers for Doan pesticide usage data are the pesticide registrants. Since
those registrants know about sales of their own products, they have an easy way to
judge the quality of Doane provided data. If they considered the quality of the data to be
poor, they would not continue to purchase the data.
Data Quality Review: Doane data are subject to extensive internal quality review,
documented at the website. EPA's statistical and economics staff review data from
Doane. Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to
determine the reasons for the variability. For some crops and states, comparisons are
also made with a more limited pesticide usage database from the National Agricultural
Statistics of USDA.
Data Limitations: Doane data are proprietary; thus in order to release any detailed
information, the Agency must obtain approval. There is a data lag of approximately 12-
18 months, due to the collection of data on a calendar year (CY) basis, time required for
Doane to process data, lead time for EPA to purchase and obtain data, plus the time it
takes to review and analyze the data within the office's workload.
Error Estimate: Error estimates differ according to the data/database and year of
sampling. This measure is compiled by aggregating information for many crops and
pesticides. While considerable uncertainty may exist for a single pesticide on a single
crop, pesticide use data at such a highly aggregated level are considered quite accurate.
Doane sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at their
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 104
-------
website. More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription fee is
required. Data are weighted and multiple regression procedure is used to adjust for
known disproportionalities and ensure consistency with USDA and state acreage
estimates
New/Improved Data or Systems: These are not EPA databases; thus improvements
are not known in any detail at this time.
References: EPA Website; EPA Annual Report; Annual Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report, http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/download.htm; Doane
Marketing Research, Inc.: http://www.doanemr.com; http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs and
http://www.usda.nass/nass/nassinfo; FFDCA Sec408(a)(2); EPA Pesticide Registration
Notice 97-3, September 4, 1997; Endangered Species Act.
• Cumulative percent of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs)
completed (PART measure)
• Product Reregistration
• Reduction in time required to issue Reregistration Eligibility Decisions
(PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network) consolidates various EPA program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and
tracks regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which
are submitted by the registrant in support of a pesticide's reregistration. In addition to
tracking decisions in OPPIN, manual counts are also maintained by the office on the
reregistrations decisions. Decisions are logged in as the action is completed, both for
final decisions and interim decisions. REDs and product reregistration decisions have
been reported on a FY basis since FY 1996. Reduction in decision times for REDs will
be reported on an FY basis in FY 2005. Reduction in cost per RED will be reported in
FY 2008.
For this measure, the number of FTEs is the surrogate for cost. The baseline is 11.5
FTEs per reregistration decision completed. The measure is derived by taking the total
FTE devoted to reregistration activities, as reported in OPP's Time Accounting
Information System (TAIS), divided by the number of reregistration decisions completed.
Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program staff and managers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which
represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that pesticides entering the
marketplace are safe for human health and the environment and when used in
accordance with the packaging label present a reasonable certainty of no harm. While
program outputs are not the best measures of risk reduction, they do provide a means
for reducing risk in that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from
entering the marketplace.
QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standards. All risk assessments are
subject to public and scientific peer review. The office adheres to the procedures for
quality management of data as outlined in its QMP approved May 2000.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 105
-------
Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the
decision document.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides
program databases, will contribute to reducing the processing time for reregistration
actions.
References: EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA
Number 735-R-03-001; 2003 Annual Performance Plan OPP Quality Management Plan,
May 2000; Endangered Species Act.
• Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications
that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process (PART efficiency
measure)
Performance Database: The National Program Chemicals Division (NPCD) in the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) maintains the Federal Lead-Based
Paint Program (FLPP) database, an electronic database of applications for certification
by individuals and firms and applications for accreditation by training providers in states
and tribal lands administered by a Federal lead program. The database provides a
record of all applications for certification or accreditation for Federally-managed lead
programs and the actions on those applications including final decisions and the multiple
steps in the process used for measurement. The database is augmented by hard copy
records of the original applications. EPA uses an Oracle Discoverer application to query
the database to collect measurable performance data.
Data Source: The FLPP database is available internally to EPA Headquarters and
Regional lead program staff who process the applications or oversee the processing.
The database is maintained on an EPA Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina
server. Access to the database is granted by the Lead, Heavy Metals, and Inorganics
Branch (LHMIB) in NPCD. Overall maintenance of the database and periodic
improvements are handled by a contractor, currently ICF Consulting, located in Fairfax,
Virginia. Data entry of application data is conducted by a second contractor, currently
Optimus Corporation, located in Silver Spring, Maryland. Optimus Corporation
maintains the file of the original applications. Each EPA Regional office maintains a file
of copies of the original applications for that region.
Methods and Assumptions: Each complete application for certification or accreditation
in Federally-managed states and tribal lands is processed (approximately 3000 per
year). Certification is issued if all criteria are met. Some applications may be returned to
the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant. For the applications that are fully processed,
the length of time for EPA processing can be determined from date fields in the FLPP
database. Accordingly, a census of all the fully processed applications for certification is
periodically conducted, and the percentage of applications that took more than the
prescribed number of days (e.g., 20) of EPA effort to process is computed based on this
census. The census is conducted every six months, and the annual percentage
calculated appropriately from the six month percentages. The data used to estimate this
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 106
-------
performance measure directly reflect all information that has been recorded pertaining to
certification applications and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data
meet the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: This measure tracks EPA Headquarters and Regional effort in processing
lead-based paint certification and refund applications. This measure reflects an integral
part of the Lead Program and ensures proper training for lead-based professionals.
Data are available mid-year and end-of-year and enable the program to demonstrate
program efficiencies and enhance accountability.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. In addition, NPCD has an approved Quality
Management Plan in place, dated January 2005. Applications and instructions for
applying for certification and accreditation are documented and available at the Web site
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm. Documentation for the FLPP database is
maintained internally at EPA and is available upon request.
Data Quality Reviews: The FLPP database is an internal EPA database, maintained
for the purpose of processing and tracking applications. The database is interactive, and
operational usage in processing applications by Headquarters and the Regional offices
provides ongoing internal quality reviews. Further, EPA periodically checks contractors'
data entry quality.
Data Limitations: Applications that were returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the
applicant are not captured in the database and are out of scope for this performance
measure. While the report is based on a census, it generates some duplicative data,
which must be removed manually. Efforts are made to remove all duplicative data, while
preserving valid data. However, because this is a non-automated process, a small
amount of human error is possible. Some variability occurs due to unique conditions
that vary by Region. Some Regions consistently process applications in less time than
others. This variability may be due to factors such as badge printing capabilities and
economies of scale.
Error Estimate: There is little or no sampling error in this performance measure,
because it is based on a census of all applicable records.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The FLPP database is scheduled to undergo
improvements in the next few years after the renovation, remodeling and painting rule is
finalized. The performance measurement system will help determine if there is a change
in timeliness after the improvements are implemented.
References: 1) Quality Management Plan for National Program Chemicals Division,
January 2005; 2) FLPP database documentation; 3) URL for Applications and
Instructions, http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm.
• Number of cases of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels
(> 10 ug/dL) (PART measure)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 107
-------
• 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. (PART measure)
Performance Database: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is recognized as
the primary database in the United States for national blood lead statistics. NHANES is
a probability sample of the non-institutionalized population of the United States. Data
are collected on a calendar year basis, and are currently released to the public in two
year sets. Blood lead levels are measured for participants who are at least one year old.
The survey collects information on the age of the participant at the time of the survey.
Data Source: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey is a survey
designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S.
The survey program began in the early 1960s as a periodic study, and continues as an
annual survey. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of
approximately 5,000 men, women, and children each year located across the U.S.
CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is responsible for the conduct of the
survey and the release of the data to the public. NCHS and other CDC centers publish
results from the survey, generally in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(MMWR), but also in scientific journals. In recent years, CDC has published a National
Exposure report based on the data from the NHANES. The most current National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released July 2005, and is
available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. The Fourth National
Exposure report is expected in the summer of 2008.
Methods and Assumptions: Detailed interview questions cover areas related to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related questions. The survey also
includes an extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological
measurements, and laboratory tests. Specific laboratory measurements of
environmental interest include: metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, and mercury), VOCs,
phthalates, organophosphates (OPs), pesticides and their metabolites, dioxins/furans,
and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-
derived biological markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results
of physical exams. For this performance measure, NHANES has been recognized as
the definitive source. Estimates of the number of children 1-5 years with an elevated
blood lead level based on NHANES have been published by CDC, most recently in May
2005. (See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm). Analytical
guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data should be
combined for an analysis. The NHANES data directly estimate the values included in
the two performance measures and are nationally recognized as the best source of this
data. This data source measures blood levels in the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at
standard detection limits.
Suitability: The first measure supports the long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning as a public health concern by the year 2010. Data are collected on a
calendar year basis and released to the public in two-year data sets. Data as of May
2005 reflecting 1999-2002 results, demonstrate progress towards the EPA's long-term
target.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 108
-------
The second measure examines the disparities of blood lead levels in low-income
children compared to non low-income children and uses this measure to track progress
towards EPA's long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in harder to reach
vulnerable populations.
QA/QC Procedures: Background documentation is available at the NHANES Web site
at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The analytical guidelines are available at the
Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
Data Quality Reviews: CDC follows standardized survey instrument procedures to
collect data to promote data quality, and data are subjected to rigorous QA/QC review.
Additional information on the interview and examination process can be found at the
NHANES web site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
Data Limitations: NHANES is a voluntary survey and selected persons may refuse to
participate. In addition, the NHANES survey uses two steps, a questionnaire and a
physical exam. There are sometimes different numbers of subjects in the interview and
examinations because some participants only complete one step of the survey.
Participants may answer the questionnaire but not provide the more invasive blood
sample. Special weighting techniques are used to adjust for non-response. Seasonal
changes in blood lead levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES design.
Because NHANES is a sample survey, there may be no children with elevated blood
lead levels in the sample, but still some children with elevated blood lead levels in the
population.
Error Estimate: Because NHANES is based on a complex multi-stage sample design,
appropriate sampling weights should be used in analyses to produce estimates and
associated measures of variation. Recommended methodologies and appropriate
approaches are addressed in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES Web
site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NHANES has moved to a continuous sampling
schedule, scheduled release of data, and scheduled release of National Exposure
reports by CDC.
References: 1) the NHANES Web site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; 2) the
Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Web site,
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
article with the most recent estimate of the number of children with elevated blood lead
levels, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm; 4) NHANES
Analytical Guidelines, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
• Annual number of chemicals with proposed, interim and/or final values for
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs). (PART measure)
Performance Database: There is no database. Performance is measured by the
cumulative number of chemicals with "Proposed", "Interim", and/or "Final" AEGL values
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 109
-------
as published by the National Academy of Sciences (MAS). The results are calculated on
a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting
data, from both published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are
derived, are collected, evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory's scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for
public comment in the Federal Register. After reviewing public comment, interim values
are presented to the AEGL Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
for review and comment. After review and comment resolution, the National Research
Council under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) publishes the
values as final.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The work of the National Advisory
Committee's Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National Research
Council/National Academies of Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for
Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous Substances.
NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences' Subcommittee on
AEGLs, have developed standard operating procedures (SOPs), which are followed by
the program. These have been published by the National Academy Press and are
referenced below. The cumulative number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" and
"interim" by the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the National Academy of
Sciences represents the measure of performance. The work is assumed to be
completed at the time of final approval of the AEGL values by the NAS. AEGLs
represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 min to 8 h. Three levels—AEGL_1, AEGL_2, and
AEGL_3—are developed for each of five exposure periods (10 min, 30 min, 1 h, 4 h, and
8 h) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity of toxic effects (detection,
disability, and death respectively). They provide a high degree of flexibility for their use
in chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention for accidental or terrorist
releases of chemicals. The AEGL Program pools the resources of US and international
stakeholders with needs for this information in a cost effective program which develops
one set of numbers for use by all stakeholders (DOD, DOT, DOE, States, The
Netherlands and others in the international community).
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include public comment via the Federal
Register process; review and approval by the FACA committee; and review and
approval by the NAS/AEGL committee and their external reviewers.
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is the first time acute exposure values for
extremely hazardous chemicals have been established according to a standardized
process and put through such a rigorous review.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 110
-------
References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001
(http://www.nap.edu/books/030907553X/html/). NRC (National Research Council). 1993.
Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Substances. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
AEGL Program website at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
• Percent reduction from baseline year in total EPA cost per chemical for
which Proposed AEGL value sets are developed (PART efficiency
measure)
Performance Database: OPPT maintains records on AEGL program income,
expenditures and carryover from one year to the next, and on the number of FTEs
allocated to the program. Information from these records is aggregated to determine
total EPA cost per chemical for which a proposed AEGL data set is tracked through a
GPRA and Budget Accomplishment Word document. The denominator of the measure -
number of proposed AEGL value sets - is tracked using the AEGL Chemical Status
sans Structure Access 2000 database containing the approval dates for proposed AEGL
values.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting
data, from both published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are
derived, are collected, evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory's scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for
public comment in the Federal Register and then referred to the National Academies of
Science (NAS) for further review and action. Although proposed AEGLs are not
considered final until so designated by the NAS, the proposed values are suitable for
many purposes. This performance measure is tied to proposed values rather than to
final ones because actions through the proposal stage of the AEGL process are largely
under EPA's control whereas subsequent action to finalize the AEGL values is largely a
matter within NAS jurisdiction.
Methods and Assumptions: The methods involved in developing and reporting on this
performance measure consist of simple computational steps performed on data relating
to AEGL cost and accomplishment. For these computational steps it is necessary to
track the number of FTEs assigned to the AEGL program and then find the associated
labor cost by multiplying by standard cost-of-living factors. Likewise, the extramural cost
associated with managing the program is determined by pulling cost and budgetary data
from the relevant files, multiplying an appropriate percentage estimating the proportion of
staff and contractor resources devoted to proposed AEGL development, summing as
needed, and adjusting for inflation. One assumption underlying these computations is
that the appropriate percentage is used to reasonably estimate the proposal stage's
share of total cost devoted to AEGLs. Targets are based on what is considered
reasonable and achievable.
The data used to estimate this performance measure represent all the costs for
developing a proposed AEGL value set and are the most acceptable for this
requirement. The data meet the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed
by senior management.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 111
-------
Suitability: The indicators used for this measure are suitable because reductions in
cost per AEGL value are expected to result from improvements in program
implementation. These cost reductions will enable EPA to achieve the goals of the
AEGL program with greater efficiency.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. Specific QA/QC procedures for AEGL development
include public comment via the Federal Register process; review and approval by the
FACA committee; and review and approval by the NAS/AEGL committee and their
external reviewers. AEGL documents are formally reviewed for QC purposes by
designated contractors and EPA staff at critical junctures utilizing detailed checklists.
Cost information from available records is also subjected to QA/QC controls.
Data Quality Review: Information developed in the course of measurement will be
presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to
technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight.
Data Limitations: No specific data limitations have been identified with respect to the
information relied upon in developing or reporting this measure.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from
statistical samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Access databases, spreadsheets and other files are
maintained and improved on an ongoing basis. A new database is being developed to
document rationales used to develop AEGL values. Once completed, this new database
should enhance the efficiency of AEGL development.
References: Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Guideline
Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, National Academy Press, Washington, DC 2001
(http://www.nap.edu/books/030907553X/html/). NRC (National Research Council). 1993.
Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Substances. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. AEGL Program website at
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
• Percent of chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not
pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment
Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several
EPA databases: Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS), pre-
manufacture notice (PMN) CBI Local Area Network (LAN), 8(e) database for new
chemicals called ISIS, and the Focus database. The following information from these
databases will be used collectively in applying this measure:
• CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
• PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports
on chemicals submitted for review. In addition, the information developed for each PMN
is kept in hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC);
• ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 8(e). TSCA 8(e) requires that chemical manufacturers, processors, and
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 112
-------
distributors notify EPA immediately of new (e.g. not already reported), unpublished
chemical information that reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA
8(e) substantial risk information notices most often contain toxicity data but may also
contain information on exposure, environmental persistence, or actions being taken to
reduce human health and environmental risks. It is an important information-gathering
tool that serves as an early warning mechanism;
• Focus Database: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including
decisions on
whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.
Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal-year basis and draw on relevant
information received over the 12-month fiscal year.
Data Source: The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is responsible for
the implementation of the TSCA. The office will compare data submitted under TSCA
Section 8(e) with previously-submitted new chemical review data (submitted under
TSCA Section 5 and contained in the PMN). This comparison will determine the number
of instances in which EPA's current PMN review practices would have failed to prevent
the introduction of new chemicals or microorganisms into commerce which pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment. Inconsistencies between
the 8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data will be evaluated by
applying the methods and steps outlined below to determine whether the inconsistencies
signify an "unreasonable risk."
Methods and Assumptions: EPA's methods for implementing this measure
involve determining whether EPA's current PMN review practices would have failed to
prevent the introduction of chemicals or microorganisms into commerce that pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers or the environment, based on comparisons of
8(e) and previously-submitted new chemical review data. The "unreasonable risk"
determination is based on consideration of (1) the magnitude of risks identified by EPA,
(2) limitations on risk that result from specific safeguards applied, and (3) the benefits to
industry and the public expected to be provided by the new chemical substance. In
considering risk, EPA looks at anticipated environmental effects, distribution and fate of
the chemical substance in the environment, patterns of use, expected degree of
exposure, the use of protective equipment and engineering controls, and other factors
that affect or mitigate risk. The following are the steps OPPT will follow in comparing the
8(e) data with the previously-submitted new chemical review data:
1. Match all 8(e) submissions in the 8(e) database with associated TSCA Section 5
notices. TSCA Section 5 requires manufacturers to give EPA a 90-day advance notice
(via a pre-manufacture notice or PMN) of their intent to manufacture and/or import a new
chemical. The PMN includes information such as specific chemistry identity, use,
anticipated production volume, exposure and release information, and existing available
test data. The information is reviewed through the New Chemicals Program to determine
whether action is needed to prohibit or limit manufacturing, processing, or use of a
chemical.
2. Characterize the resulting 8(e) submissions based on the PMN review phase. For
example, were the 8(e) submissions were received: a) before the PMN notice was
received by EPA, b) during the PMN review process, or c) after the PMN review was
completed?
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 113
-------
3. Review of 8(e) data focusing on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was
completed.
4. Compare hazard evaluation developed during PMN review with the associated 8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination
6. Revise risk assessment to determine if there was an unreasonable risk based on
established risk assessment and risk management guidelines and whether current PMN
Review practices would have detected and prevented that risk.
Suitability: The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to
this measurement and therefore suitable for measurement purposes. This measure
supports the New Chemical program's goal to ensure that new chemicals introduced into
commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
This measure provides a suitable year to year comparison against this goal because
supporting data and analysis are conducted on an annual basis, directly linking to this
long-term goal.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Reviews: Information developed in the course of measurement will be
presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to
technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the National Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Advisory Council (NPPTAC), which consists of external experts
providing independent review and direction to OPPT, has provided comment on this
measure.
Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from
differences in the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for
example, OPPT cannot evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information
on chemical identity. The review is also affected in some cases by a lack of available
electronic information. In particular the pre-1996 PMN cases are only retrievable in hard
copy and may have to be requested from the Federal Document Storage Center. This
may introduce some delays to the review process.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from
statistical samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error. OPPT will
review all 8(e) submissions received in the year with corresponding previously-submitted
new chemical review data, and not a sample of such submissions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing the integrated,
electronic Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) system that will provide real time access to
prospective PMN review.
References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 114
-------
• Percentage of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals identified as
priority concerns through assessment of Screening Information Data Set
(SIDS) and other information with risks eliminated or effectively managed
Performance Database: EPA will track the number of agency actions (e.g., regulatory,
voluntary), targeting risk elimination or management of high production volume
chemicals, using internal program databases or the Agency's Regulation and Policy
Information Data System (RAPIDS). Many types of Agency actions qualify as risk
management or elimination actions. Issuance of a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)
under TSCA is an example of regulatory action that can be tracked by the RAPIDS
Promulgation Data field. An example of a non-regulatory risk management/elimination
action is a written communication from EPA to chemical manufacturers/users indicating
the Agency's concerns and suggesting but not requiring actions to address chemical
risks (chemical substitution, handling protections, etc.). These actions would be tracked
by monitoring internal communications files. The results are calculated on a calendar-
year basis.
Data Source: RAPIDS stores official Agency data on progress of rule-making and other
policy program development efforts. Data are supplied by EPA programs managing
these efforts. For voluntary actions not tracked in RAPIDS, performance data are
tracked internally by program managers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As EPA identifies HPV chemicals that are
priorities for risk management action, following protocols currently under development,
the Agency will commence regulatory or non-regulatory actions to address identified
risks. All such actions will be recorded for the HPV chemical(s) subject to those actions,
enabling EPA to report on progress in responding to the risks on a chemical- or
chemical-category-specific basis. This annual performance measures (APM) commits
the Agency to eliminate or effectively manage all such risks. Using data contained in
RAPIDS, in the case of regulatory risk management action, EPA's progress towards
meeting this APM will be documented by the sequence of formal regulatory development
steps documented in that system. Where risk management action takes nonregulatory
form, such as issuance of advisory communications to chemical manufacturers or users,
progress toward meeting this APM will be tracked by internal files documenting such
actions. The definition of risk is being addressed in the development of the protocols
used in the HPV screening/prioritization process.
QA/QC Procedures: RAPIDS entries are quality assured by senior Agency managers.
Data Quality Reviews: RAPIDS entries are reviewed by EPA's Regulatory
Management Staff.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A
References: None
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 115
-------
• Percent increase from baseline year in cost savings due to new chemical
pre-screening (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Implementation of this measure will require the use of several
EPA databases, all of which play a role in tracking Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) and
the action EPA decides to take on such notices. The principal databases involved in
PMN tracking, with separate identification of prescreened chemicals, are:
o The PMN Status web page
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/tools/dropstat.htm, which
provides the regulatory status of TSCA Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs)
and Low Volume Exemptions (LVE) as determined at EPA's Focus
Meeting: Contains information on the decisions reached at Focus
meetings, including whether to drop chemical from further review, to
pursue regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Section 5(e) to prohibit or limit activities associated with the new chemical
or to pursue regulation under a non-5(e) Significant New Use Rule
(SNUR) to require manufacturers, importers and processors to notify EPA
at least 90 days before beginning any activity that EPA has designated as
a "significant new use," or, alternatively, to refer the chemical for full-
scale standard review. It is critical to know the number and percentage of
PMNs going to each of these outcomes in order to perform base year
cost savings calculations in support of the cost savings measure.
o Sustainable Futures prescreening tracking databases: Contain
information on PMNs which display evidence of chemical prescreening
using OPPT screening methods, including data on the types of
assessments and model evaluations performed by the submitter.
o Measurement results are calculated on a fiscal year basis and draw upon
relevant information collected over the 12-month fiscal year.
Data Source: The major data sources involved in this measurement are fully described
under "Performance Database," above. No external data sources play a significant role
in the calculation of measurement results.
Methods and Assumptions: EPA measures percent change in cost savings as a result
of chemical prescreening relative to a base year by: 1) determining the base year pre-
screening rate and base year cost savings from prescreening; 2) calculating the current
year prescreening rate (prescreened PMNs as a percentage of total PMNs); and 3)
determining the actual percent change in cost savings resulting from prescreening by
multiplying the base year cost savings by the ratio of the current year prescreening rate
to the base year prescreening rate. This procedure assumes that cost savings from
prescreening will change in proportion to the change in the prescreening rate. Targets
are based on what is considered reasonable and achievable.
Prescreening rate is determined by:
o Checking the data systems described above to obtain the number of new
prescreened chemicals going through the PMN review process and the
total number of chemicals undergoing prescreening review. The
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 116
-------
prescreening rate is simply the ratio of prescreened chemicals to total
chemicals undergoing PMN review.
Cost savings are determined by:
o Checking the relevant databases to determine the number and
percentage of PMNs that are (a) prescreened PMNs and (b) non-
prescreened PMNs;
o Estimating the number of prescreened PMNs that would have gone to
regulation or standard review if there were no prescreening program (this
is done by multiplying the number of prescreened PMNs by the
percentage of non-prescreened PMNs that go to one of the "post-Focus
meeting outcomes" of standard review, regulation under TSCA Section
5(e), or issuance of a non-5(e) SNUR;
o Subtracting the number of actual prescreened PMNs going to one of the
post-Focus meeting outcomes from the projected number derived in the
previous step gives the estimated number of PMNs avoiding a post-
Focus meeting outcome. The rationale is that some pre-screened PMNs
still end up requiring post-Focus action, but at a lower rate than for PMNs
which are not pre-screened. The number estimated in this step, the
difference between the projected and actual numbers of pre-screened
PMNs requiring a post-Focus meeting outcome, represents the number of
cases to have avoided post-Focus action as a result of pres-screening;
o Multiplying the number of cases estimated to have avoided post-Focus
action as a result of pre-screening by unit cost factors to obtain estimates
of the cost savings realized by avoidance of post-Focus meeting
outcomes resulting from prescreening (unit cost factors are generated
separately from information/estimates maintained by EPA on the labor
hours (Agency and contractor) associated with each post-Focus meeting
outcome and the EPA cost per labor hour); and
o Summing the cost savings realized by avoidance of specified post-Focus
meeting outcomes to arrive at total cost savings for the base year.
Suitability: Pre-screening decreases the number of chemicals that EPA must regulate
and reduces the percentage of chemicals that require resource-intensive standard
review after the Focus meeting. The indicator is suitable to show progress toward the
goal because fewer chemicals going into standard review reduces costs, thereby
improving the efficiency of the New Chemical review program. The data used to estimate
this performance measures are the most acceptable, because they capture costs and
pre-screening rates within the program. Unit costs are calculated to calibrate to the base
year. The data are collected under OPPT's QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by
senior management.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 117
-------
Data Quality Reviews: Information developed in the course of measurement will be
presented to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to
technical outcomes and to provide quality oversight.
Data Limitations: No specific data limitations have been identified with respect to the
measure presented here, except to the extent that the measure requires certain
assumptions, discussed above, in addition to inputs of hard data.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from
statistical samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None planned.
References: Additional information on EPA's New Chemicals program forTSCA Section
5 can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/index.htm. Information on the
Sustainable Futures Initiative is available at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/sustainablefutures.htm.
• Cumulative number of chemicals for which VCCEP data needs documents
are issued by EPA in response to industry-sponsored Tier I risk
assessments.
Performance Database: Internal VCCEP program activity tracking database. Data
needs documents are issued by EPA to conclude work on all Tier I submissions.
Documents may indicate data are sufficient to reasonably demonstrate that children are
not subject to significant risks. Documents also may indicate that additional
assessment and associated data development are required, commencing Tier 2 work.
The results are calculated on a calendar-year basis.
Data Source: Formal EPA files of VCCEP Tier I data needs communications. Data
needs are also subject to peer review, results of which are posted and made public on
the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment website found at
http://www.tera.org/peer/MeetingReports.html
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Information is tracked directly through internal
record-keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are
employed.
QA/QC Procedures: The VCCEP program operates under Information Quality
Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/
Data Quality Reviews: The VCCEP program operates under Information Quality
Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: None
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 118
-------
References: http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/index.htm
• Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-based score of
releases and transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities
(PART measure)
Performance Database: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model
feeds these measures and uses annual reporting from individual industrial facilities along
with a variety of other information to evaluate chemical emissions and other waste
management activities. RSEI incorporates detailed data from EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and Integrated Risk Information System, the U.S. Census, and many
other sources. Due to a two year TRI data lag, most recent performance data are only
available for FY 2005 and earlier. The data are based on calendar year.
Data Source: The RSEI model incorporates data on chemical emissions and transfers
and facility locations from EPA's Toxics Release Inventory; chemical toxicity data from
IRIS; facility location data from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS); stack data from
EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem and National Emissions Trends Database and the
Electric Power Research Institute; meteorological data from the National Climatic Data
Center; stream reach data from EPA's Reach File 1 Database; stream discharge data
from EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information
System (ICIS); data on drinking water systems from EPA's Safe Drinking Water
Information System; fishing activity data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife; exposure factors
from EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook; and population data from the U.S. Census
Bureau.
Methods and Assumptions: The RSEI Model generates unique, unitless, numerical
values, known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose,
toxicity and exposed population for each release-exposure event. Indicator Elements
are risk-related measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility,
chemical, release medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Together
these values form the building blocks to describe exposure scenarios of interest.
Indicator Elements are like index numbers that can be compared to one-another but do
not reflect actual risk, and are proportional to the modeled relative risk of each release
(incrementally higher numbers reflect greater estimated risk). These Indicator
Elements are summed in various ways to represent the risk-related results for releases
users are interested in assessing. RSEI results are for comparative purposes and are
only meaningful when compared to other scores produced by RSEI. These data are
acceptable for use in performance measurement as they are national data reflecting
releases and transfers of chemicals from manufacturing facilities, including a number of
high production volume chemicals i.e., the data of interest for this measure.
Suitability: The first measure supports the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
program's goal to reduce risk from new and existing chemicals. This measure provides
a suitable year to year comparison against a long term goal of 26% reduction in the
RSEI index. The second measure supports the long term goal to reduce the RSEI index
for HPV chemicals 30% by 2011. This measure provides a suitable year to year
comparison against this goal and looks specifically at the reduction of risk for the subset
of TRI chemicals that are also HPV chemicals. The year to year comparison can reveal
trends in the risk from HPV chemicals over time. Despite a two year lag in TRI data,
annual comparisons of overall RSEI results (first measure) and RSEI HPV results
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 119
-------
(second measure) can reveal trends in chemical risk over time. Further, depending on
how the user wishes to aggregate data, RSEI can also address trends nationally,
regionally, by state or smaller geographic areas.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. Additionally because TRI facilities self-report
release data and occasionally make errors. TRI has quality control functions and an
error-correction mechanism for reporting such mistakes. Finally during each RSEI
update, the output data are checked against TRI data for consistency, and the results
are compared against previous years' RSEI results.
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of
which has completed a data-specific quality review process managed by the providers of
the data sources. RSEI includes data from the many sources listed in "Data Sources",
above. All data are collected for regulatory or programmatic purposes and are of
sufficient quality to be used by EPA, other Federal agencies, and state regulatory
agencies. Over the course of its development, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). The RSEI model has undergone
continuous upgrading since the 1997 SAB Review. Toxicity weighting methodology was
completely revised and subject to a second positive review by SAB (in collaboration with
EPA's Civil Rights program); air methodology was revised and groundtruthed using New
York data to demonstrate high confidence; water methodology has been revised in
collaboration with EPA's Water program. When the land methodology has been
reviewed and revised, EPA will have completed its formal, written response to the 1997
SAB Review.
Data Limitations: RSEI relies on facility-specific data (for parameters such as stack
height, discharge stream reach, location) from EPA data sources. Where such data are
not available, default assumptions are used, or in some cases, the release is not
modeled. Offsite releases (from transfers of toxic chemicals) are particularly affected by
a lack of reported TRI data, and while RSEI addresses this through a process that
optimizes the available data, the data are limited and of uneven quality. In addition,
toxicity data are not available for some of the less-toxic TRI chemicals. Releases to
water are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S. territories, and some
releases to water (for reporting facilities and offsite facilities) may not be modeled
because of inadequate coverage in the stream reach data. It should also be noted that
TRI data include releases only from TRI-reportable facilities for TRI-reportable
chemicals. It does not include all releases from reporting facilities or all releases of TRI-
reportable chemicals. TRI data may also have errors that are not corrected in the
standard TRI QC process.
Error Estimate: In developing the RSEI methodology, both sensitivity analyses and
groundtruthing studies have been used to address model accuracy
(www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/. For example, groundtruthing of the air modeling performed
by RSEI compared to site-specific regulatory modeling done by the state of New York
showed virtually identical results in both rank order and magnitude. However, the
complexity of modeling performed in RSEI, coupled with un-quantified data limitations,
limits a precise estimation of errors that may either over- or under-estimate risk-related
results.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 120
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other
Agency databases (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Information System and Reach File
databases) and incorporates updated data into the RSEI databases. Such
improvements can also lead to methodological modifications in the model. Corrections
in TRI reporting data for all previous years are captured by the annual updates to the
RSEI model databases. EPA is now using data from the FRS to assign geographic
locations to TRI facilities.
References: The methodologies used in RSEI were first documented for the 1997
review by the EPA Science Advisory Board. The Agency has provided this and other
updated technical documentation on the RSEI Home Page.
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model (RSEI) Home Page. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental
Indicators Model, Peer Reviews. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/pubs/faqs.html
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Methodology Document.
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/method2004.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI User's Manual. Internet:
http://www.epa. gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/users_manual.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Fact Sheet,. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/factsheet_v2-1.pdf
• Number of risk management plan audits completed
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) is the database
for the number of risk management plan audits.
Data Source: OSWER's Office of Emergency Management implements the Risk
Management Program under Clean Air Act section 112(r). Facilities are required to
prepare Risk Management Plans (RMPs) and submit them to EPA. In turn, EPA
Headquarters (HQ) provides appropriate data to each Region and delegated State so
that they have the RMP data for their geographical area. The Regions and delegated
States conduct audits. About ten States have received delegation to operate the RMP
program. These delegated States report audit numbers to the appropriate EPA Regional
office so it can maintain composite information on RMP audits.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Regions enter data into the Agency's Annual
Commitment System. HQ prepares an annual report. Data are count data and not open
to interpretation.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, and
reviewed at the time of Regional data entry. Data are regularly compared to similar data
from the past to identify potential errors.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 121
-------
Data Quality Review: Data quality is evaluated by both Regional and Headquarters'
personnel.
Data Limitations: Data quality is dependent on completeness and accuracy of the data
provided by state programs and the EPA Regional offices.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Reference: N/A
Objective: Communities
• Number of Brownfields properties assessed [PART performance]
• Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
• Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at
Brownfields properties. [PART performance]
Performance Database: The Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange
System (ACRES) tracks the performance information for the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include, but are not limited to:
Property Acreage, Assessment Completion Date, Cleanup Required, Cleanup
Completion Date, Funding Leveraged, Jobs Leveraged, Number of Participants,
Completing Training, Number of Participants Obtaining Employment
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will not be available for the FY
2009 PAR; data will be available for the FY 2010 PAR.
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm) prepared by assessment, cleanup,
revolving loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response
Program cooperative agreement award recipients. Information on Targeted Brownfields
Assessments is collected from EPA Regions.
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: Cooperative agreement recipients report
performance data in quarterly reports and property profile forms. Data are reviewed by
Regional EPA grant managers to verify activities and accomplishments. Given the
reporting cycle and the data entry/QA period, there is typically a six month data lag for
ACRES data.
Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields
Cleanup Grantees, Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grantees, Brownfields Job
Training Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, and State and Tribal
128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees all contribute towards these performance
measures. "Number of Brownfields properties assessed" is an aggregate of
assessments completed with Assessment Grant funding, Regional Targeted Brownfields
Assessment funding, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program funding.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 122
-------
"Number of Brownfields properties cleaned up" is an aggregate of properties cleaned up
by RLF Grantees, Cleanup Grantees, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response
Program Grantees. "Number of Acres Made Ready for Reuse" is an aggregate of
acreage assessed that does not require cleanup and acreage cleaned up as reported by
Assessment Grantees, Regional Targeted Brownfields Assessments, Cleanup Grantees,
RLF Grantees, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program Grantees.
"Number of cleanup and redevelopment jobs leveraged" is the aggregate of jobs
leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup and RLF Grantees. "Amount of cleanup and
redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties" is the aggregate of funds
leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup and RLF Grantees. "Percentage of Brownfields job
training trainees placed" is based on the "Number of Participants Completing Training"
and the "Number of Participants Obtaining Employment" reported by Job Training
Grantees.
QA/QC Procedures: Data reported by cooperative award agreement recipients are
reviewed by EPA Regional grant managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate
interpretation of performance measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly with
detailed data trends analysis.
Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews.
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program updated the Property
Profile Form in FY 2006 to improve data collection and to expand the community of
grantees completing the form. The Program launched an online reporting form in FY
2007; this system will be phased in over the next several years.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Investing in
Partnership, Possibility and People: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA
Brownfields Program (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake_report.htm);
assessment demonstration pilots and grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm); cleanup and revolving loan
fund pilots and grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm); job training pilots and
grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm); and cleanup grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm).
Objective: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
• Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study
areas [PART annual measure]
• Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored [PART annual
efficiency measure]
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds has
developed a standardized format for data reporting and compilation, defining habitat
protection and restoration activities and specifying habitat categories. The key field used
to calculate annual performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported
since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 123
-------
Information regarding habitat protection is accessible on a web page that highlights
habitat loss/alteration, as well as the number of acres protected and restored by habitat
type http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. This allows EPA to
provide a visual means of communicating NEP performance and habitat protection and
restoration progress to a wide range of stakeholders and decision-makers.
Data Source: NEP documents such as annual work plans (which contain achievements
made in the previous year), annual progress reports and other implementation tracking
materials, are used to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected.
EPA aggregates the data provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for the entire
Program. EPA is confident that the data presented are as accurate as possible. Each
NEP reviews the information prior to reporting to EPA. In addition, EPA conducts
regular reviews of NEP implementation to help ensure that information provided in these
documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Measuring the number of acres of habitat
restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health of the
habitat reported,-or of the estuary overall, but it is a suitable measure of on-the-ground
progress. Habitat acreage does not necessarily correspond one-to-one with habitat
quality, nor does habitat (quantity or quality) represent the only indicator of ecosystem
health. Nevertheless, habitat acreage serves as an important surrogate and a measure
of on-the-ground progress made toward EPA=s annual performance goal of habitat
protection and restoration in the NEP. EPA has defined and provided examples of
Aprotection® and Arestoration® activities for purposes of measure tracking and reporting
(see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected" is a
general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to
include created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation
easement or deed restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases,
permanent shellfish bed openings, and anadromous fish habitat increases.
The NEP "Habitat Acres Protected or Restored" efficiency measure will be calculated by
dividing the total ocean and coastal protection program dollars by the total NEP acres
protected or restored. The measure is based on the habitat data collected by the NEPs,
as described above and reported in the annual habitat measure), and the total program
dollars, which is the sum of the NEP/Coastal budget (including the additional funds for
Long Island Sound), the Marine Pollution budget, and the program match as reported by
the NEPs.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the staff of the NEP based on their
own reports and from data supplied by other partnering agencies/organizations (that are
responsible for implementing the action resulting in habitat protection and restoration).
The NEP staff are requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare their reports, and to
verify the numbers. EPA then confirms that the national total accurately reflects the
information submitted by each program. EPA actions are consistent with data quality
and management policies.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information that may be reported
inconsistently (based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 124
-------
definitions), acreage that may be miscalculated or misreported, and acreage that may be
double counted (same parcel may also be counted by partnering/implementing agency
or need to be replanted multiple years). In addition, measuring the number of acres of
habitat restored and protected may not directly correlate to improvements in the health
of the habitat reported (particularly in the year of reporting), but is rather a measure of
on-the-ground progress made by the NEPs.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NEPs provide latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project. These data are then mapped to highlight where these
projects are located in each NEP study area. Not only does this assist both the
individual NEP and EPA in obtaining a sense of geographic project coverage, but it
provides a basis from which to begin exploring cases where acreage may be double-
counted by different agencies. An on-line reporting system—NEPORT-- has been
developed for the NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat projects. EPA has taken
steps to align NEPORT data fields with those of the National Estuarine Restoration
Inventory (NERI) and with the President's Wetlands Initiative, developed for interagency
use.
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically,
graphically, and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and
Outreach Tool (PIVOT). PIVOT data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2002) is available on the
Intranet at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/informationresources/quality/qualitymanage.html
• Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
• Reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce
the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico
Performance Database: (1) Louisiana Coastal Hypoxia Shelfwide Survey metadata
(data housed at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Data
Center, Silver Spring, Maryland). Funds for this research are provided by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program (NOAA/COP)
(2) Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) - Gulf surveys.
The data used in assessing performance under this measure have been collected
annually on a calendar year basis since 1982.
Data Source: (1) Hydrographic data are collected during annual surveys of the
Louisiana continental shelf. Nutrient, pigment and station information data are also
acquired. The physical, biological and chemical data collected are part of a long-term
coastal Louisiana dataset. The goal is to understand physical and biological processes
that contribute to the causes of hypoxia and use the data to support environmental
models for use by resource managers.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 125
-------
(2) The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a
state/Federal/university program for collection, management and dissemination of
fishery-independent data and information in the southeastern United States.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The distribution of hypoxia on the Louisiana
shelf has been mapped annually in mid-summer (usually late July to early August) over
a standard 60- to 80- station grid since 1985. During the shelfwide cruise, data are
collected along transects from the mouth of the Mississippi River to the Texas border.
Information is collected on a wide range of parameters, including
conductivity/temperature/depth (CTD), light penetration, dissolved oxygen, suspended
solids, nutrients, phytoplankton, and chlorophyll. Hydrographic, chemical, and biological
data also are collected from two transects of Terrebonne Bay on a monthly basis, and
bimonthly, off Atchafalaya Bay. There is a single moored instrument array in 20-m water
depth in the core of the hypoxic zone that collects vertical conductivity/temperature data,
as well as near-surface, mid, and near-bottom oxygen data; an upward directed Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) on the seabed measures direction and speed of
currents from the seabed to the surface. There is also an assortment of nutrient and
light meters.
Station depths on the cruises range from 3.25 to 52.4 meters. Northern end stations of
transects are chosen based on the survey vessel's minimum depth limits for each
longitude.
Standard data collections include hydrographic profiles for temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, and optical properties. Water samples for chlorophyll a and
phaeopigments, nutrients, salinity, suspended sediment, and phytoplankton community
composition are collected from the surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
The objective is to delimit and describe the area of midsummer bottom dissolved oxygen
less than 2 (mg. L).
Details of data collection and methodology are provided in referenced reports.
QA/QC Procedures: NOAA does not require written QA/QC procedures or a Quality
Management Plan; however, the procedures related to data collection are covered in
metadata files.
The SEAMAP Data Management System (DMS) conforms to the SEAMAP Gulf and
South Atlantic DMS Requirements Document developed through a cooperative effort
between National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other SEAMAP participants.
Data Quality Reviews: (1) Essential components of the environmental monitoring
program in the Gulf of Mexico include efforts to document the temporal and spatial
extent of shelf hypoxia, and to collect basic hydrographic, chemical and biological data
related to the development of hypoxia over seasonal cycles. All data collection protocols
and data are presented to and reviewed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force (the Task Force) in support of the adaptive management
approach as outlined in the Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (the Action Plan).
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 126
-------
(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the
SEAMAP Information System, managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries
Service - Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data are edited by
the collecting agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to entry into the
system. Data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2003 have been entered into
the system, and data from 2004 surveys are in the process of being verified, edited, and
entered for storage and retrieval.
Data Limitations: Monitoring for shelf-wide conditions are currently performed each
year primarily, but not exclusively, in July. The spatial boundaries of some monitoring
efforts are limited by resource availability. Experience with the datasets has shown that
when data are plotted or used in further analysis, outlying values may occasionally be
discovered.
Error Estimate^ (1) The manufacturers state +/- 0.2mg/L as the error allowance for both
SeaBird and Hydrolab oxygen sensors.
References:
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force.2001. Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Washington, DC.
Rabalais N.N., R.E. Turner, Dubravko Justic, Quay Dortch, and W.J. Wseman. 1999.
Characterization of Hypoxia. Topic 1 Report for the Integrated assessment on Hypoxia
in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15.
Silver Spring Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management for the nutrient enhanced coastal ocean
productivity program. Estuaries 17:900-3
Rabalais, Nancy N., W.J. Wiseman Jr., R.E. Turner; Comparison of continuous records
of near-bottom dissolved oxygen from the hypoxia zone of Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-
407
SEAMAP Information System http://www.gsmfc.org/sis.html
• Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water
pollution and protecting aquatic systems
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will
collect and track the eight (8) components of the index and publish the performance
results as part of annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and as online reporting of GLNPO's monitoring program,
. Extensive databases for the indicator
components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus concentrations, contaminated
sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational agreement with
Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who provide data to
the USEPA (drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of scientists and
natural resource managers is working to establish a long term monitoring program to
determine extent and quality of coastal wetlands.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 127
-------
Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and generally
reported through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The
document, "State of the Great Lakes 2005 -A Technical Report," presents detailed
indicator reports prepared by primary authors, including listings of data sources.
Depending on the indicators, data sources may include U.S. and Canadian federal
agencies, state and provincial agencies, municipalities, research reports and published
scientific literature. Information from the following indicators is used to evaluate the Index
components:
Coastal Wetlands group of indicators:
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Effects of Water Levels Fluctuations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Area of Concern Sediment Contamination (This component is not included in
SOLEC. Information from reports of contaminated sediment remediation
is collected by USEPA-GLNPO and is used by GLNPO to evaluate the
contaminated sediment index component of this Index.)
Benthic Health group of indicators:
Hexagenia
Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Drinking Water Quality
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where
the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal
wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach
closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition), and an indicator for Area of
Concern (AOC) sediment contamination. Each component of the Index is based on a 1
to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good. Authors use best professional
judgment to assess the overall status of the ecosystem component in relation to
established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when available. Each indicator is
evaluated for Status (good, fair, poor, mixed) and Trend (improving, unchanging,
deteriorating, undetermined). To calculate the Index, the data for each indicator are
compared to the evaluation criteria for the numeric, 1 to 5, rating system. Each of the
index components, other than the AOC sediment contamination component, is included
in the broader suite of Great Lakes indicators, which was developed through an
extensive multi-agency process to satisfy the overall criteria of necessary, sufficient and
feasible. Information on the selection process is in the document, "Selection of
Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in
place1(see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order
and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
The SOLEC process relies on secondary use of data, i.e., data for many of the indicators
are collected, maintained and analyzed by agencies and organizations other than
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 128
-------
USEPA. Participating agencies and organizations follow their own QA/QC procedures to
assure high quality data. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed to
document procedures for data assessment and review for the indicators reports
prepared for the State of the Great Lakes 2005 report. See "State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Contaminated sediment remediation information
is collected in conformance with GLNPO's Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project
Summary Support QAPP2 (see reference #2 below).
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given
"outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2
below). GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency Quality standards.
An external Peer Review of SOLEC processes and products was conducted in 2003 by
an international panel of experts familiar with large-scale regional or national indicator
and reporting systems. Panel findings were generally positive and several
recommendations were made to consider for future SOLEC events and reports. Many
of the recommendations have been implemented, and others are being considered for
feasibility. The final report by the review panel is available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Peer Review Report" in the SOLEC 2004 section.
A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes
stakeholders in 2004. As a direct result of the findings and recommendations from the
participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped, and a few others
were added. The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify
the indicators relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues.
The final report from the review is available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Peer Review Report, Part 2: Stakeholder Review of the Great Lakes Indicators" in the
SOLEC 2004 section.
Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index.
The data are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination,
benthic health, and air toxics deposition. The data associated with other components of
the index (coastal wetlands, AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking
water quality) are more qualitative. Some data are distributed among several sources,
and without an extensive trend line. Limitations for each of the index components are
included in the formal indicator descriptions in the document, "Selection of Indicators for
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4." The data provided in the sediment
tracking database should be used as a tool to track sediment remediation progress at
sites across the Great Lakes. Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates
provided by project managers. For specific data uses, individual project managers
should be contacted to provide additional information.
Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index have not been quantified.
Each unit of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the
assessment of one of the component indicators would result in a change of the index of
that magnitude. The degree of environmental change required to affect an indicator
assessment, however, may be significantly large.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 129
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The data system specifically for this index is being
developed. Data continue to be collected through the SOLEC process by various
agencies, including GLNPO. Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great
Lakes monitoring programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase
efficiencies in data collection and reporting. Documentation regarding SOLEC is
available on the Internet and from GLNPO4 (see reference # 4 below).
References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-
02-009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
2. "Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support QAPP." March 2006.
Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
4. a. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished. Prepared
as part of Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.
b. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-
34798-6, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-11/35-2003E, and
U.S.
c. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available
on CD and online at .
d. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical
Report." ISBN 0-662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario,
Cat. No. En 164-172003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003. 2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago. Available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html
e. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005." Environment
Canada, Burlington, Ontario(Cat No. En161-3/0-2005E-PDF) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-06-001), 2006 Available
online at
f. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and
U.S. EPA, Chicago. 2000. Available online at .
All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development
processes, conference agenda, proceedings and presentations are available online
at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html . The documents are sorted by SOLEC year
and include the State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following
calendar year.
• Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in
the Great Lakes
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 130
-------
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation are compiled in two
different formats. The first is a matrix that shows the annual and cumulative totals of
contaminated sediment that was remediated in the Great Lakes basin in the reporting
year and from 1997 for each Area of Concern or other non-Areas of Concern with
sediment remediation. The second format depicts the yearly totals on a calendar year
basis graphically. These databases are reported approximately one year after the
completion of work, thus, results from calendar year 2008 remediation will be reported in
FY 2009.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various State and
Federal project managers across the Great Lakes region that conduct and coordinate
contaminated sediments work. These data are obtained directly from the project
manager via an information fact sheet the project manager completes for any site in the
Great Lakes basin that has performed any remedial work on contaminated sediment.
The project manager also indicates whether an approved Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) was used in the collection of data at the site. GLNPO does not accept
unsolicited data without adequate assurance that quality system documentation was in
place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The data collected to track sediment
remediation in the Great Lakes show the amount of sediment remediated (dredged,
capped, other) for that year, the amount of sediment remediated in prior years, and the
amount of sediment remaining to be addressed for a particular site. This format is
suitable for year-to-year comparisons for individual sites.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency project
managers to provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during
remediation of contaminated sediment. This information is used to decide if the data
provided by the project manager are reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes. If an
approved QAPP was not used, sediment data would not likely be reported by GLNPO,
unless GLNPO finds that alternative information is available that provides sufficient
quality documentation for the project and associated data. This approach allows
GLNPO to use best professional judgment and flexibility in reporting data from any
cases where there was not a QAPP, but (a) the remedial action is noteworthy and (b) the
project was conducted by recognized entities using widely accepted best practices and
operating procedures.
The tracking database houses information on the calculated amount of sediment
remediated at individual sites as provided by the project managers. The individual site
project managers are responsible for completing the data request forms, reviewing draft
figures to verify that the GLNPO project manager transferred the data correctly, and
providing any updated or improved estimates. It is GLNPO's responsibility to determine
if the data are usable based upon the information sheet provided by the project
managers. GLNPO does not attempt to verify mass and volume estimates due to the
variability in how to calculate them. GLNPO ensures that the estimates provided make
sense for the site, and that all estimates are reported in the same units. GLNPO
management and Sediment Team members review the data, in the graphic and matrix
formats, prior to reporting. GLNPO's Sediment Team works closely with partners and
has confidence in those who provide data for the summary statistics. This familiarity
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 131
-------
with partners and general knowledge of ongoing projects allows GLNPO management to
detect mistakes or questionable data.
Data Quality Review: The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed
by individual project managers, GLNPO's Sediment Team, and management prior to
being released. Data quality review procedures are outlined in the QAPP referenced
below. GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding"
evaluations in previous peer and management reviews, (see reference # 5 below).
Specific highlights from this review relative to this indicator include: "/Across GLNPO,
assessment of the quality of existing data and documentation of the quality of existing
data for intended use is a standard practice. This is commendable as the Agency is still
attempting to define requirements for usability existing data."GLNPO has implemented
all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
Standards.
Data Limitations: The data provided in the sediment tracking database should be used
as a tool to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great Lakes Basin.
Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates provided by project managers.
For specific data uses, individual project managers should be contacted to provide
additional information.
Error Estimate: The amount of sediment remediated or yet to be addressed should be
viewed as estimated data. A specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Existing tracking systems are anticipated to remain in
place.
References:
1. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. Quality Assurance Project Plan for "Great Lakes Sediment
Remediation Project Summary Support." Unpublished - in Great Lakes National
Program Office files.
2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
3. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in Great
Lakes National Program Office files.
4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets".
Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files
5. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
• Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) 1(see reference #1 below). This program is broken
into two separate elements, Element 1 - Open Water Trend Monitoring and Element 2 -
Game Fish Fillet Monitoring. Each program collects and monitors contaminants in Great
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 132
-------
Lakes fish at alternating locations throughout the Great Lakes Basin; fish are collected at
one set of sites during even years and at another set in odd years. Element 1 began
with the collection of data in Lake Michigan in 1972 and the additional lakes were added
in 1976. Element 2 began with the collection of data in all five of the Great Lakes in the
early 1980's. In FY09, the database will contain quality reviewed field data from fish
collected in 2007 and all quality reviewed analytical data for fish collected between 1972
and 2006. A new grantee was selected for this program in 2005, thus delaying the
release of analytical data collected in 2004 and 2005 until 2007. Data collected in 2007
is expected to be able to be used for reporting in 2009. Data are reported on a calendar
year basis and are specific to the even or odd year sampling schedule (even year sites
are only compared to other even year sites etc.)
Data Source: GLNPO is the principal source of data for the Great Lakes Fish
monitoring program. The Great Lakes States and Tribes assist with fish collection.
Previous cooperating organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This indicator provides concentrations of
selected organic contaminants in Great Lakes open water fish. The Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program is broken into two separate elements that monitor potential
exposure to contaminant concentrations for wildlife (Element 1) and humans through
consumption (Element 2). Only Element 1 is included in this indicator.
The first element, Open Lakes Trend Monitoring Program, was created to: (1) determine
time trends in contaminant concentrations, (2) assess impacts of contaminants on the
fishery using fish as biomonitors, and (3) assess potential risk to the wildlife that
consume contaminated fish. The first element includes data from ten 600-700 mm lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush) whole fish composites (5 fish in each composite) from
each of the lakes. Since sufficient lake trout are not found in Lake Erie, data for 400 -
500 mm walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) are used for that Lake.
All GLFMP data are independently reviewed for quality consideration prior to loading into
the Great Lakes Environmental Database (GLENDA). Included in GLENDA are flags for
each data point that can be used to evaluate the quality of the data. Each Great Lake is
a unique environment with a distinct growth rate, food web, and chemical integrity. For
this reason, a direct comparison of annual concentrations between basins is not
appropriate. However, an average annual basin-wide percent decrease can be
determined using an exponential decrease function, and the 1990 data as the baseline.
The percent decrease of Element 1 can be calculated and compared to the 5% reduction
target to determine if the target has been met. All years of data from all lakes are plotted
on the same graph, with each year containing 5 data points. An exponential decrease is
then found for the entire data set and the percent decrease is calculated from the best fit
line. The Lake Michigan data set represents the worst case scenario in the Great Lakes
Basin for the Open Lakes Trend Monitoring Program.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place2
(see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management. The
Quality Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant
program is approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below). The revised draft
field sampling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and draft Quality Management
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 133
-------
Plan has been submitted to the GLNPO QA Officer for review and approval. Approval of
the revised sampling objectives are subject to peer review, scheduled for Fall 2007.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below).
Specific highlights relative to this indicator include: "QA requirements are systematically
planned using the DQO process. Major programs such as the Open Lakes Monitoring
(Lake Guardian sampling activities), Open Lakes Organics Monitoring, the Biology
Monitoring, the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and the Legacy Act program were
exemplary in systematic planning and documenting QA requirements." (4) GLNPO has
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency
Quality standards.
Data Limitations: Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program data are not well-suited to
portray localized changes. Nevertheless, data collected at a certain site (odd year or
even year sites) can be compared to data collected from the same site. In addition, only
very general comparisons can be made of contaminant concentrations between lakes.
A recent review of the odd year Open Lake Trend Monitoring in Lake Erie data indicate
an increased variability in the data between the years of 1999 and 2003 because during
those years several individual samples (fish) fell outside of the desired size range
leading to a higher or lower than average mean sample size for the composite.
Error Estimate: The data quality objective of the fish contaminant program was to
detect a 20% change in each measured contaminant concentration between two
consecutively sampled periods at each site. Based on changing environmental
conditions, the data quality objective has been tentatively revised to have an 80%
probability to detect a 10% change per year, over three to four sampling periods, at the
95% confidence level. An official outside peer review of this new data quality objective
and associated data is tentatively scheduled for the 4th quarter 2007. This peer review
will also assist in providing a data quality objective for Element 2.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The GLENDA database is a significant new system
with enhanced capabilities. Existing and future fish data will be added to GLENDA.
GLNPO has awarded a new consortium grant for these analyses that allows researchers
from three different universities to specialize in their individual areas of analytical
expertise and provide more timely data of a higher quality.
References:
Supporting Program Documentation: All journal publications relevant to the Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring Program, final project reports, and quality documentation can be found
at the GLFMP website, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html.
"The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A Technical and Scientific Model For
Interstate Environmental Monitoring." September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
"Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-
02-009. October 2002, Approved April 2003. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 134
-------
"Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample
Collection Activities", Great Lakes National Program Office. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_QAPP_082504.pdf
"GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
• Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in the air in the Great Lakes basin
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated
atmospheric deposition network 1 (see reference #1 below) (IADN) operated jointly with
Environment Canada. Reporting starts with 1992 data and includes concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
organochlorine pesticides in air and precipitation; however, this Performance Measure
addresses only PCBs. Monitoring results from 2007 will be reported in 2009. Data are
reported on a calendar year basis the second year after collection.
Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data
for IADN. Data also come through in-kind support and information sharing with other
Federal agencies and Canada. Only data from US stations in IADN are being used for
this measure.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for
each lake, which are supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master
stations are located in remote areas and are meant to represent regional background
levels. Concentrations from the master stations are used for the performance measure.
Concentrations from the satellite stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes
used to demonstrate the importance of urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the
Lakes. Air samples are collected for 24 hours using high-volume samplers containing an
adsorbent. Precipitation samples are collected as 28-day composites. Laboratory
analysis protocols generally call for solvent extraction of the organic sampling media with
addition of surrogate recovery standards. Extracts are then concentrated followed by
column chromatographic cleanup, fractionation, nitrogen blow-down to small volume
(about 1 mL) and injection (typically 1 uL) into gas chromatography instruments.
All IADN data are loaded and quality controlled using the Research Database
Management System (RDMQ), a Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program. RDMQ
provides a unified set of quality assured data, including flags for each data point that can
be used to evaluate the usability of the data. Statistical summaries of annual
concentrations are generated by the program and used as input into an atmospheric
loading calculation. The loadings calculation is described in detail in the Technical
Summary referenced below. However, calculating loadings requires additional data and
constants that introduce further error. Therefore, the averaged annual concentrations
rather than the loadings are used in the performance measure. Concentrations can vary
from year to year due to differences in weather (temperature, wind patterns, etc.), so
comparing concentrations from one year to the next is not always appropriate. This
performance measure examines the average percent decline for the long-term trend
determined using an exponential decrease function. Each year the average percent
decline is calculated after adding new data. A baseline percent decrease was
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 135
-------
determined using data through 2000, and the aim is that this rate of decrease will
continue.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a Quality Management System in place, which
conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 years in
accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management2 (see reference #2 below).
Quality Assurance Project Plans are in place for the laboratory grantee, as well as for
the network as a whole. A jointly-funded QA officer conducts laboratory and field audits,
tracks QA statistics, and carries out special QA studies. Data from all contributing
agencies are quality-controlled using the SAS-based system.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews3 (see reference #3 below).
GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies
with Agency Quality Standards4 (see reference #3 below). The IADN program has a
joint Canadian-US quality system and binational Steering Committee that meets
periodically in person or via conference calls to make decisions on network operation
and data management and quality.
A regular set of laboratory and field blanks is taken and recorded for comparison to the
IADN field samples. In addition, a suite of chemical surrogates and internal standards is
used extensively in the analyses. There are common performance standards for PCBs,
organochlorine pesticides, and PAHs. A common calibration standard for PCBs is now
used. A jointly-funded QA officer conducts laboratory and field audits, tracks QA
statistics, and carries out special QA studies. As previously mentioned, data from all
contributing agencies are quality-controlled using a SAS-based system.
Data Limitations: The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that under-
emphasize urban contributions to deposition; thus, although the data are very useful for
trends information, there is less assurance of the representativeness of deposition to the
whole lake. U.S. and Canadian laboratories use somewhat different sampling and
analytical methods; QA studies have found that differences in resulting data are
attributable mostly to the sampling differences. There are gaps in open lake water
column organics data, thus limiting our ability to calculate atmospheric loadings. This
gap was partially addressed through the recent implementation by GLNPO of the Great
Lakes Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program, which had water
contaminant data collected in Lakes Michigan and Superior.
In the past, there has been a lag in the data from the Canadian sites (Burnt Island on
Lake Huron and Point Petre on Lake Ontario). U.S. data is usually reported two years
after it is collected (i.e., 2004 data was reported in 2006); the Canadian data may not be
available on this schedule; consequently only US data is being used to report on this
measure.
Error estimate: The performance measure examines the long-term trend in
concentrations. Concentrations have an error of +/- 40%, usually less. Differences
between laboratories have been found to be 40% or less. This is outstanding given the
very low levels of these pollutants in the air and the difficulty in analysis. Improvements
in quality assurance (use of a clean lab for Canadian precipitation analysis, making
calibration standards consistent among agencies, etc.) are helping to further close this
gap, and recent inter-comparison site data reflect this.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 136
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: Joint data that has passed quality review will be
available from Canada's National Atmospheric Chemistry (NAtChem) Database and
Analysis System, which includes atmospheric data from many North American networks
and is linked from lADN's website at:
http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/data/form/form_e.html The IADN homepage can be found
at www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/. Copies of IADN data are now held in U.S. and Canadian
databases. Environment Canada management is working to reduce the data lag from
the Canadian IADN stations.
References:
1. "Great Lakes National Program Office Indicators. Air Indicators." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/air.html
Details of these analyses can be found in the Laboratory Protocol Manuals or the
agency project plans, which can be found on the IADN resource page at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/iadn.html
Overall results of the project can be found in "Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the "Technical Summary of
Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 1997-2002". Both (as
well as the Atmospheric Loadings reports) can be found on the IADN resource page.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-
02-009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006". Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
4. "Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Quality Assurance Program Plan -
Revision 1.1. Environment Canada and USEPA. June 29, 2001. Unpublished - in
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office files.
• Cumulative total of Areas of Concern within the Great Lakes Basin that have
been restored and delisted
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Areas of Concern (AOC) and post that information
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html> Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26
located entirely within the United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and five that
are shared by both countries. Since 1987, GLNPO has tracked the 31 that are within the
US or shared. On June 19, 2006, the Oswego River, NY AOC became the first U.S.
AOC to be officially removed from the list of U.S. AOCs. Information is reported on a
calendar year basis, however the system is being designed for semi-annual or more
frequent updates.
Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US
Department of State and the International Joint Commission (IJC).
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office is in regular communication with the Great Lakes States, the US Department of
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 137
-------
State and the IJC, and is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the de-listing of
AOCs. Generally speaking, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, an AOC is
an area in the Great Lakes determined to have significant beneficial use impairments,
such as restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, fish tumors, eutrophication, beach
closings, added costs to agriculture or industry. In 1989, the IJC established a review
process and developed AOC listing/delisting criteria
(http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/annex2/buis.htmStable1) for existing and future AOCs. In
2001, the U.S. Policy Committee, led by GLNPO and including State, Tribal, and Federal
agencies responsible for Great Lakes environmental issues, developed delisting
guidelines for domestic AOCs (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html) and for the
binational AOCs shared by Michigan and Ontario
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html - appendix 5).
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place1
(see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given
"outstanding" evaluations in previous peer and management reviews2 (see reference #2)
below. GLNPO has implemented all recommendations from these external audits and
complies with Agency Quality standards.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
References: GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for de-
listed U.S. or binational Areas of Concern. Information regarding Areas of Concern is
currently available online at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office."
EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
2. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999." Unpublished - in USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office files.
• In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, states and tribes, achieve no net
loss of wetlands each year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
program
Performance Database: Since 1989, the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404
program has been no net loss of wetlands.
Historically, the Corps has collected limited data on wetlands losses and gains in its
Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. The
Corps has compiled national Section 404 wetland permitting data for the last 10 years
reflecting acres of wetland impacts avoided (through the permit process), acres
permitted for impacts, and acres mitigated. However, limitations in methods used for
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 138
-------
data collection, reporting and analysis resulted in difficulties in drawing reliable
conclusions regarding the effects of the Section 404 program.
Data Source: Data included in RAMS is generally collected by private consultants hired
by permit applicants or Corps Regulatory Staff. Data input is generally done by Corps
staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RAMS was designed to be an administrative
aid in tracking permits, thus it lacks many of the fields necessary to adequately track
important information regarding wetland losses and gains. Also, the database was
modified differently for each of the 38 Corps Districts making national summaries
difficult. Furthermore, the database is also proprietary making it difficult to retrofit
without utilizing its original developers.
QA/QC Procedures: Historically, there has not been a high level of QA/QC with regard
to data input into RAMS. Its antiquated format and numerous administrative fields
discourage use. Lack of standard terms and classification also make all aspects of data
entry problematic.
Data Quality Reviews: Independent evaluations published in 2001 by the National
Academy of Sciences (MAS) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) provided a
critical evaluation of the effectiveness of wetlands compensatory mitigation (the
restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland
losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. The MAS determined that available data was insufficient to determine
whether or not the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net loss of either
wetland area or function. The MAS added that available data suggested that the
program was not meeting its no net loss goal. Among its suite of recommendations, the
MAS noted that wetland area and function lost and regained over time should be tracked
in a national database and that the Corps should expand and improve quality assurance
measures for data entry.
Data Limitations: As previously noted, RAMS currently provides the only national data
on wetlands losses and gains in the Section 404 Program. Also, as previously noted,
there are a number of concerns regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from these
numbers. Data quality issues include:
1. Inability to separate restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation acreage
from the aggregate "mitigation" acreage reported;
2. Lack of data regarding how much designated mitigation acreage was actually
undertaken, and how much of that total was successful;
3. Lack of data regarding how much of the permitted impacts actually occurred; and
4. Limitations on identifying acres "avoided," because the figure is only based on the
difference between original proposed impacts and impacts authorized. Often, permit
applicants who are aware of the 404 program's requirements to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands, make initial site selection and site design decisions that minimize
wetland impacts prior to submitting a permit application. Such avoidance decisions
benefit applicants, as their applications are more likely to be accepted and processed
with minor changes. This behavioral influence that the program engenders is difficult to
capture and quantify, but contributes considerable undocumented "avoided" impacts.
Error Estimate: Not applicable
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 139
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The EPA and the Corps have acknowledged the
need for improved 404 tracking. Between 2000-2002, the Corps developed a new
national permit tracking database called ORM (Operation and maintenance business
information link, Regulatory Module) to replace its existing database (RAMS). ORM1, as
it was called, was deployed in most of the Corps' 38 districts by Fall 2006, but in 2004
the Corps began partnering with EPA on a set of comprehensive upgrades to ORM1 to
spatially enable the data management system and improve data sharing capabilities. By
July 2007, the upgraded version of ORM known as ORM2 had been deployed in 37 of
the Corps' 39 districts. This should enable national reporting in 2008. Unlike ORM1,
ORM2 will have expanded GIS capabilities and additional mandatory data fields for
impact and mitigation data. EPA, other federal and state agencies, as well as the public
will also have expanded access to data in ORM2 via a system of web-services and web-
mapping tools. EPA's interface with ORM2 (tentatively named the Wetlands Information
Layer (WIL)) is currently under development and will provide EPA with the ability to
access and manage the data available in ORM2 to help meet business needs in the
Section 404 program.
ORM2 is being designed to provide improved tracking regarding:
• Type of impacts (i.e., work type)
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resources impacted (Using Cowardin
classification system)
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resource mitigation (Using Cowardin
classification system)
• Type and quantity of mitigation by method (i.e., restoration, creation,
enhancement, or preservation)
• Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
• Spacial tracking via GIS enhancements for both impact and mitigation sites
(planned)
• Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation
site (credits) if assessment tool is available and applied
• Mitigation banks via the inclusion of a comprehensive module for tracking and
managing mitigation banks known as the Regional Internet-based Bank
Information Tracking System (RIBITS). With EPA's assistance RIBITS has been
piloted in 4 Corps districts to date.
References: Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) website:
http://www.cecer.army.mil/td/tips/product/details. cfm?ID=265&TOP=1
Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website:
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/WWW_WELCOME.NAVIGATION_PAGE?t
mp_next_page=114145
National Academy of Sciences (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the
Clean Water Act. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
• Working with partners, achieve a net increase of acres of wetlands per year
with additional focus on biological and functional measures and assessment
of wetland condition.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 140
-------
Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces information on
the type and extent of the Nation's wetlands and deepwater habitats. The Emergency
Wetland Resources Act of 1986 requires the Service to conduct status and trend studies
of the Nation's wetlands, and report the results to Congress each decade. To date the
Fish and Wildlife Service has produced four such documents. On Earth Day 2004,
President Bush announced a wetlands initiative that established a federal policy beyond
"no net loss" of wetlands. As part of that same Earth Day message, the President
directed the Fish and Wildlife Service to accelerate the completion of the status and
trends and to undertake this study at more frequent intervals. This information is used
by Federal, State, and local agencies, academic institutions, U.S. Congress, and the
private sector.
The status and trends report is designed to provide recent and comprehensive estimates
of the abundance of wetlands in the 48 conterminous States. This status and trends
report indicates whether there is an actual increase in wetland acreage or if wetlands are
continuing to decrease. Up-to-date status and trends information is needed to
periodically evaluate the efficacy of existing Federal programs and policies, identify
national or regional wetland issues, and increase public awareness of and appreciation
for wetlands.
The last status and trends report19 provided the most recent and comprehensive
estimates of the current gains and losses for different types of wetlands in the United
States on public and private lands from calendar year 1998 to 2004. In calendar year
1997, there were an estimated 105.5 million acres of wetlands in the conterminous
United States. In calendar year 2004 107.7 million acres of wetlands were estimated.
Of this total, approximately 102.4 million acres (95 percent) are freshwater wetlands and
5.3 million acres (5 percent) are saltwater wetlands. Although the report shows that
overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from 1998 through 2004
(approximately 32,000 acres/yr), this gain is primarily attributable to an increase in
unvegetated freshwater ponds, some of which (such as aquaculture ponds) may not
function as wetlands and others of which may have varying functional value. The Report
also notes the following trends in other wetland categories: freshwater vegetated
wetlands declined by 0.5%, a smaller rate of loss than in preceding years; and estuarine
vegetated wetlands declined by 0.7%, an increased rate of loss from the preceding
years. The Status and Trends Report does not assess the quality or condition of
wetlands. EPA will continue working with FWS and other federal agencies to refine the
methodology used in preparing future reports, to subdivide current wetland categories, to
provide further clarity and information on the types of wetlands that are found on the
landscape and to describe the functions and values they provide. In addition EPA is
preparing to undertake a National wetland condition study that is scheduled for
completion in 2013.
Data Source: The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the only Federal study that provides
statistically valid estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in the
conterminous United States. Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used
with reliable collateral data such as topographic maps, coastal navigation charts,
19 Dahl, I.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, B.C. 112pp.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 141
-------
published soil surveys, published wetland maps, and State, local or regional studies. A
random number of sites are also field verified. All photography is cataloged, numbered,
tagged, and traced in a database management system.
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with procedures
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The results are compared with previous era
imagery, and any changes recorded. The differences between the data sets are
analyzed and a statistical estimate of the change is produced.
The five major kinds of wetlands are: 1) freshwater (or palustrine), 2) saltwater (or
estuarine), 3) riverine, 4) lacustrine (or lakes and other deepwater habitats), and 5)
marine wetlands. For analysis and reporting purposes, these types of wetlands were
further divided into subcategories such as freshwater forested wetland, freshwater
emergent wetland, estuarine and marine intertidal wetlands.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: An interagency group of statisticians
developed the design for the national status and trends study published in 2000. The
study was based on a scientific probability sample of the surface area of the 48
coterminous States. The area sampled was about 1.93 billion acres and the sampling
did not discriminate based on land ownership. The study used a stratified, simple
random sampling design. About 754,000 possible sample plots comprised the total
population. Geographic information system software was used to organize the
information of about 4,682 random sample plots. The plots were examined with the use
of remote sensed data in combination with field work. Estimates of change in wetlands
were made over a specific time period.
QA/QC Procedures: The Service has developed and implemented quality assurance
measures that provide appropriate methods to take field measurements, ensure sample
integrity and provide oversight of analyses, which includes reporting of procedural and
statistical confidence levels. The objective was to produce comprehensive, statistically
valid acreage estimate of the Nation's wetlands. Because of the sample-based
approach, various quality control and quality assurance measures were built into the
data collection, review, analysis, and reporting stages. This includes field verification of
the plots. Six Federal agencies assist with field verification work.
Data Quality Reviews: Not Applicable
Data Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source to detect wetlands. This was consistent with
previous wetland status and trends studies conducted by FWS.
Error Estimate: Estimated procedural error ranged from 4 to 6 percent of the true
values when all quality assurance measures have been completed. Procedural error
was related to the ability to accurately recognize and classify wetlands both from multiple
sources of imagery and on the ground evaluations. Types of procedural errors were
missed wetlands, inclusion of upland as wetland, misclassification of wetlands, or
misinterpretation of data collection protocols. The amount of procedural error is usually
a function of the quality of the data collection conventions; the number, variability,
training and experience of data collection personnel; and the rigor of any quality control
or quality assurance measures.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 142
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to
improve data quality and geospatial integrity. Newer technology allowed the generation
of existing digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly over an image base.
References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publi.htm
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen reduction
practices (expressed as progress meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of
162.4 million pounds reduced ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake
Bay Program]
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of phosphorus reduction
practices (expressed as progress meeting the phosphorus reduction goal
of 14.36 million pounds ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay
Program]
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment reduction
practices (expressed as progress meeting the sediment reduction goal of
1.69 million tons reduced ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay
Program]
• Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars
to implement agricultural BMPs [PART annual efficiency measure]
Performance Database: Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Sediment.) Implementation of point & nonpoint source nitrogen and
phosphorus reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as % of
reduction goal achieved. The nitrogen goal is a 162.4 million pound reduction from 1986
levels to achieve an annual cap load of 175 million Ibs (based on long-term average
hydrology simulations). The phosphorus goal is a 14.36 million pound reduction from
FY1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 12.8 million Ibs (based on long-term
average hydrology simulations). Achieving the cap loads is expected to result in
achievement of the long-term restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and
dissolved oxygen. Point source loads are monitored or estimated based on expert
evaluation of treatment processes. Nonpoint source loads are simulated based on
reported implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that reduce nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to
measure the effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs,
with various pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the
watershed - to a common currency of nitrogen and phosphorus reduction.
Implementation of sediment reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed,
expressed as % of land-based sediment reduction goal achieved. The sediment
reduction goal is a 1.69 million ton reduction from FY 1986 levels to achieve an annual
cap load of 4.15 million tons (based on average hydrology simulations). Achieving this
cap load is expected to result in achievement of the long-term restoration goals for
submerged aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen. Loads are simulated based upon
reported implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that reduce sediment
pollution. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 143
-------
effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with various
pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the watershed - to a
common currency of sediment reduction.
Agricultural BMP costs include all capital and O&M costs assumed by both landowners
and government agencies. This measure focuses on agricultural BMPs because they
are the most cost effective way to reduce nutrient loading in the watershed.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been
reported for calendar years 1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and are expected
on an annual basis after 2005. Data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of
NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC.
The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for these measures is based on the results of
the 2006 data collection. We received the results for 2006 in October 2007.
Data Source: Each jurisdiction (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) tracks and
approves annual point source effluent concentrations, flows data as well as non-point
source BMP data. It submits the data to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Contact
Jeff Sweeney, jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net.
Agricultural practice costs used in the PART efficiency measure are in the guidance
document "Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay
Designated Uses and Attainability" (Technical Support Document) found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ecoanalyses.htm under "Part I: Documentation of
Estimated Costs of the Tier Scenarios". The direct address is
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-ecoanal-Partl.pdf Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on electronic page 59 and a summary table of unit BMP
costs is on electronic page 93.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are of high quality. Data are
consolidated by watershed boundaries at the state level and provided to the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office for input into the watershed model.
What is the Watershed Model? A lumped parameter Fortran-based model (HSPF) that
mimics the effects of hydrology, nutrient inputs, and air deposition on land and outputs
runoff, groundwater, nutrients and sediment to receiving waters. Ten years of simulation
are used and averaged to develop the reduction effects of a given set of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Using a ten-year average of actual weather (hydrologic,
temperature, wind, etc.) ensures wet, dry and average conditions for each season are
included. The effectiveness of the model is dependent upon the quality of the
assumptions, BMPs and landuse descriptions used. The model is calibrated extensively
to real-time monitoring, outside peer review and continual updates as better information,
data collection and computer processing power become available.
What are the input data? The model takes meteorological inputs such as precipitation,
temperature, evapotranspiration, wind speed, solar radiation, dewpoint, and cloud cover
to drive the hydrologic simulation. The changes in nutrient outputs are primarily
determined by such factors as land use acreage, BMPs, fertilizer, manure, atmospheric
deposition, point sources, and septic loads.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 144
-------
BMPs: Watershed Model BMPs include all nutrient reduction activities tracked by the
jurisdictions for which a source has been identified, cataloged and assigned an
efficiency. Efficiencies are based on literature review, recommendations of the
appropriate source workgroup and approved by the Nutrient Subcommittee. It is the
responsibility of the jurisdictions to track and report all nutrient reduction activities within
their borders and maintain documentation to support submissions.
Land use acreage is determined by combining analyses of satellite imagery and county-
based databases for agricultural activities and human population. Fertilizer is
determined by estimated application rates by crop and modified by the application of
nutrient management BMPs. Manure applications are determined by an analysis of
animal data from the census of agriculture.
Atmospheric deposition is determined by an analysis of National Atmospheric Deposition
Program (NADP) deposition data and modified by scenarios of the Regional Acid
Deposition Model. Point Source loads are determined from Discharge Monitoring
Reports. Septic loads are estimated in a study commissioned by the Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP).
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
What are the model outputs? The watershed model puts out daily flows and nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment loads for input to the water quality model of the Chesapeake
Bay. The daily loads are averaged over a 10-year hydrologic period (1985-1994) to
report an average annual load to the Bay. The effect of flow is removed from the load
calculations.
What are the model assumptions? BMPs: Model assumptions are based on three
conditions: knowledge, data availability and computing power. The ability to alter what is
used in the watershed model is a function of the impact the change would have on
calibration. In many cases there is new information, data or methodologies that would
improve the model, but changes are not possible because of the impact on the current
calibration.
Changes in manure handling, feed additives, new BMPs and some assumptions could
be incorporated into the model without impacting the calibration. In these cases, the
changes were made.
Other input assumptions, such as multiple manure application levels, increasing the
number of and redefining some land uses, defining new nutrient or sediment sources,
adjusting for varying levels of management (range of implementation levels) are items
scheduled for incorporation in the new model update (2008)
Input assumptions are documented in the above publications. Assumptions of the actual
model code are in the HSPF documentation:
ftp://water.usgs.gov/pub/software/surface_water/hspf/doc/hspfhelp.zip
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 145
-------
Input data are collected from states and local governments programs. Methods are
described at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, (refer to CBP Watershed
Model Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.3). For more information contact Kate
Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov or Jeff Sweeney isweeney@chesapeakebay.net
QA/QC Procedures: State offices have documentation of the design, construction and
maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they
conform to existing U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service (USDA/NRCS) technical standards and specifications for nonpoint source data
and EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) standards for point source data. State
offices also have documentation of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs)
based on USDA NRCS standards and specification and the Chesapeake Bay Program's
protocols and guidance. BMPs are traditionally used to reduce pollutant loads coming
from nonpoint sources such as urban/suburban runoff, agriculture, and forestry activities.
References include: the USDA NRCS Technical Guide and Appendix H from the
Chesapeake Bay Program (contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov). Quality
assurance program plans are available in each state office.
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual
jurisdictions (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) before input to the watershed model.
QA/QC is also performed on the input data to ensure basic criteria, such as not applying
a BMP at a higher level than allowed. A specific level of input should yield output within
a specified range of values. Output is reviewed by both the CBPO staff and the
Tributary Strategy Workgroup as an additional level of QA/QC. Any values out of the
expected range are analyzed and understood before approval and public release. The
model itself is given a quarterly peer review by an outside independent group of experts.
There have been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews.
Data Limitations: Data collected from voluntary collection programs are not included in
the database, even though they may be valid and reliable. The only data submitted by
state and local governments to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office are data that are
required for reporting under the cost share and regulatory programs. Cost share
programs include state and federal grant programs that require a recipient match. State
and local governments are aware that additional data collection efforts are being
conducted by non-governmental organizations; however, they are done independently of
the cost share programs and are not reported.
Error Estimate: There may be errors of omission, misclassification, incorrect
georeferencing, misdocumentation or mistakes in the processing of data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The next version of the watershed model is currently
under development and will be completed in 2008. The new version (phase 5) will have
increased spatial resolution and ability to model the effects of management practices.
The phase 5 watershed model is a joint project with cooperating state and Federal
agencies. Contact Gary Shenk gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm
References:
See http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.htm, refer to CBP Watershed Model
Scenario Output Database, Phase 4.3. Contact Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 146
-------
or Jeff Sweeney jsweeney@chesapeakebay.net Reducing Pollution Summary
(Controlling Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment) indicators are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=186. The nutrient and sediment loads
delivered to the Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. See "Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings,
Appendix H: Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the
Chesapeake Bay Program, A Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling
Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August
1998, available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide available at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/. The indicator and data survey is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/lndicatorSurveyReducingPollution0329
06.doc
See "Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated
Uses and Attainability" (Technical Support Document) found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ecoanalyses.htm under "Part I: Documentation of
Estimated Costs of the Tier Scenarios". The direct address is
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-ecoanal-Partl.pdf. Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on electronic page 59 and a summary table of unit BMP
costs is on electronic page 93.
• Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds
achieved [PART annual outcome measure- Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16 million pounds
achieved [PART annual outcome measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
Performance Database: Point source nitrogen and phosphorus reductions are reported
as % of goal achieved and pounds. The goal for point source nitrogen reductions is 49.9
million pound reduction from FY 1986 levels. The goal for point source phosphorus
reductions is 6.16 million pound reduction from FY 1986 levels. Point source nitrogen
and phosphorus data is reported based upon monitored results from the previous
calendar year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/127-data-2002.xls. Data have been
collected 1985-2005 and are expected on an annual basis after 2005.
The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for these measures is based on the results of
the 2006 data collection. We received the results for 2006 in October 2007.
Data Source: Each jurisdiction (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) tracks and
approves annual point source effluent concentrations and flow data. It submits the data
to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Contact; Ning Zhou, zhou.ning@epa.gov.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Point source loads are calculated from
measured or estimated values of effluent flows and concentrations. The Chesapeake
Bay Program Phase 4.3 Watershed Model is the tool used to transform calculated point
source discharge loads (generally, from monitored flow and concentration data) to
nutrient loads delivered to Chesapeake Bay tidal waters.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 147
-------
Peer-reviewed methods are employed to estimate point source discharges where
measured data are not available. Refer to: "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Application & Calculation of Nutrient & Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Point Source Loads" at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs7114.pdf; Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
"Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay
Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
The following methods/assumptions pertain to discharge data:
• Monitored discharge data are generated from the EPA-approved standard
sampling and analysis methods and documented in the Data Monthly Reports
from facilities to jurisdictions.
• Discharge data which date to the earlier years of the record are inadequate for
many regions in the Bay watershed; however, the 1986 baseline is consistent
throughout the record.
• Facilities have been added to the point source database over the years, not
necessarily because they physically came on-line, but because they were
previously untracked. In addition, facilities have been turned inactive in the point
source database over time because they went off line or combined with other
facilities as new plants.
• Protocols of calculating discharges from measured or estimated flows and
effluent concentrations have been adjusted throughout the data record to better
reflect actual end-of-pipe loads.
• Tributary-specific pollution reduction and habitat restoration plans ("Tributary
Strategies") for some jurisdictions are not final so the goals will be adjusted in the
future as jurisdictions update implementation plans that better reflect projected
point source discharges.
QA/QC Procedures: Jurisdictions (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) providing point
source effluent data to the Bay Program office are expected to submit documentation of
their quality assurance and quality control policies, procedures, and specifications in the
form of Quality Assurance Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans.
Jurisdictional documentation, however, is limited and it is unknown if protocols follow
EPA-approved objectives as established in the "Chesapeake Bay Program Quality
Assurance Guidelines and Requirements" section of the CBP Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Guidance, which is relevant to projects involving the collection of
environmental data.
Procedures for compiling and managing point source discharge data at the Chesapeake
Bay Program office are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan: "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data -
Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer,
Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data Quality Reviews: Point source data sets from seven jurisdictions are merged at
the Chesapeake Bay Program office. Continual peer-review of the thoroughness of
discharge data and methods of managing the information by the Point Source
Workgroup promotes consistency and completeness among the jurisdictions of
calculated end-of-pipe loads.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 148
-------
Data Limitations: The CBP relies on information submitted and approved by the
jurisdictions (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC).
Error Estimate: The CBP tries to trace significant variability in the data and limit its
impact.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Study/survey design procedures for point source discharges can found at:
• "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of Nutrient &
Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Point Source Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs7114.pdf
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for
Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA
grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
The Point Source Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Bay indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay. net/status. cfm?sid=127.
The Point Source Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Bay indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay. net/status. cfm?sid=128.
The Wastewater Pollution Controls indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay. net/status. cfm?sid= 226.
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/lndicatorSurveyReducingPollution0329
06.doc
• Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved [PART
annual outcome measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
Performance Database: Forest buffer planting is reported as % of goal achieved. The
long term goal is to plant 10,000 miles of forest buffers. The information is based on
cumulative acres planted since FY 1997 provided by the states for the previous calendar
year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/83-data-2002.xls. Data have been
collected 1996-2006 and are expected on an annual basis after 2006.
The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for this measure is based on the results of the
2006 data collection. We received the results for 2006 in March 2007.
Data Source: Sampling design is formulated by the USDA for tracking projects and
funds. Data and metadata are sent to the Forestry Work Group (state-level Departments
of Forestry) by participating state coordinators and field personnel. Geographic
Information System maps are produced by the UMD Center for Environmental Science.
Contacts: Sally Claggett, sclaggett@fs.fed.us and Judy Okay,
jokay@chesapeakebay. net
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 149
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data collected for tracking linear ft, miles, and
acres of forest buffers are measured directly. State data are merged to get cumulative
miles. Submission criteria have been set and agreed to by State agencies. The data are
summarized in a spreadsheet by geographic location with related extent of project sites.
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is used to help generate the indicator data.
Data Quality Reviews: The data are collected by state field personnel and submitted to
the state-level Departments of Forestry for QA/QC checks.
Data Limitations: The data are only as good as the data originally submitted by the
states. This information passes through many hands before being merged into the
annual cumulative miles. Human error enters into this type of record. The data are
compiled and released with utmost attention to accuracy and validation of locations and
extents of riparian forest buffers.
Error Estimate: none calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: The indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay. net/status. cfm?sid=83.
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/ForestBuffersRestoredlndicator030607
.doc.
• Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the Chesapeake Bay
Performance Database: SAV acres in Chesapeake Bay. Total acres surveyed and
estimated additional acres from 1978 through 2006, excluding the years 1979-1983 and
1988 when no surveys were conducted. The FY 2007 Annual Performance Report for
this measure is based on the results of the survey conducted the previous calendar year
(2006). We received the survey results for calendar year 2006 in March 2007.
Data Source: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences provides the data (via an EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) grant to Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences). EPA
has confidence in the third party data and believes the data are accurate and reliable
based on QA/QC procedures described below.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The SAV survey is a general monitoring
program, conducted to optimize precision and accuracy in characterizing annually the
status and trends of SAV in tidal portions of the Chesapeake Bay. The general plan is to
follow fixed flight routes over shallow water areas of the Bay, to comprehensively survey
all tidal shallow water areas of the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Non-tidal areas are
omitted from the survey. SAV beds less than 1 square meter are not included due to the
limits of the photography and interpretation. Annual monitoring began in 1978 and is
ongoing. Methods are described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) on file
for the EPA grant and at the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/).
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance project plan for the EPA grant to the Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences describes data collection, analysis, and management
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 150
-------
methods. This is on file at the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The VIMS web
site at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/ provides this information as well. Metadata are
included with the data set posted at the VIMS web site
(http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/metadata/recent.html).
Data Quality Reviews: This indicator has undergone extensive technical and peer
review by state, Federal and non-government organization partner members of the SAV
workgroup and the Living Resources subcommittee. Data collection, data analysis and
QA/QC are conducted by the principal investigators/scientists. The data are peer
reviewed by scientists on the workgroup. Data selection and interpretation, the
presentation of the indicator, along with all supporting information and conclusions, are
arrived at via consensus by the scientists and resource manager members of the
workgroup. The workgroup presents the indicator to the subcommittee where extensive
peer review by Bay Program managers occurs.
There have been no data deficiencies identified in external reviews
Data Limitations: Due to funding constraints, there were no surveys in the years 1979-
1983 and 1988. Spatial gaps in 1999 occurred due to hurricane disturbance and
subsequent inability to reliably photograph SAV. Spatial gaps in 2001 occurred due to
post-nine-eleven flight restrictions near Washington D.C. Spatial gaps in 2003 occurred
due to adverse weather in the spring and summer and Hurricane Isabel in the fall.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Some technical improvements (e.g.,
photointerpretation tools) were made over the 22 years of the annual SAV survey in
Chesapeake Bay.
References:
See Chesapeake Bay SAV special reports at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savreports.html and bibliography at
http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savchespub.html. The SAV distribution data files are
located at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/savdata.html and also at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/88-data-2002.xls. The SAV indicator
is published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=88.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
• Improved protocols for screening and testing (PART Measure)
• Effects and exposure milestones met (PART Measure)
• Assessment milestones met (PART Measure)
• Risk management milestones met (PART Measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 151
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annual milestones in support of the Multi-
Year Plan for Endocrine Disrupters research are developed and revised during the
annual budget and performance planning process. Self-assessments of progress
toward completing these activities are based on the pre-defined goals.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones
be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones
and outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and
independent program reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Additionally, completion rates of research outputs are program-generated, though
subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Endocrine Disrupters Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/edc.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Endocrine Disrupters PART Program Review, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002280.2004.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
• Number of states using a common monitoring design and appropriate
indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological resources and
the effectiveness of national programs and policies (PART measure)
Performance Database: Internal Regional EPA tracking system.
Data Source: Data are derived from internal assessments of state activities.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data for this measure are collected based on
assessments of the number of states using Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) data to monitor the condition of ecological resources. EMAP data are
generated, in part, by a cooperative agreement with twenty-three states to conduct the
National Coastal Assessment Monitoring survey, which introduces a standard protocol
for monitoring the ecological condition of estuaries; including, probabilistic sampling
designs, response designs for indicators, laboratory analyses, statistical analyses and
reporting formats.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 152
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA anticipates by 2007 all states will have adopted
and implemented the National Coastal Assessment Monitoring survey. Improvements in
the management of contracts, coordination of the shipment of samples, and distribution
of resulting data are now performed by EPA to give states without capability the
opportunity to partner with the agency.
References: EMAP data, available at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/emap/index.html (last
accessed on July 20, 2007) US EPA. 2001. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP): National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan, 2001-
2004. EPA/620/R-01/002. Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
Ecological Research PART Program Review, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001135.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
• Average cost to produce Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment
documents (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of cost per Air Quality Criteria/
Science Assessment document.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The HHRA Program's efficiency measure
tracks the cost to produce AQCDs for use by the Office of Air and Radiation in
developing their policy options for the NAAQS. Total FTE and extramural dollar costs are
cumulated over a five year period and divided by the number of AQCDs produced in this
time period, to create a moving annual average S/AQCD.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities.
However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to
measure the quality and impact of the program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Risk Assessment PART Assessment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
• Average time (in days) to process research grant proposals from RFA
closure to submittal to EPA's Grants Administration Division, while
maintaining a credible and efficient competitive merit review system (as
evaluated by external expert review) (Efficiency Measure)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 153
-------
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of grants processing time.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Human Health Program's efficiency
measure tracks the average time to process and award grants.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities.
However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to
measure the quality and impact of the program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of public health
outcomes long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data
long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the aggregate and
cumulative risk long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the susceptible
subpopulations long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support efficient and effective
clean-ups and safe disposal of contamination wastes.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security
initiatives
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of risk assessors and
decision-makers in the rapid assessment of risk and the determination of
cleanup goals and procedures following contamination.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered on time in support of
establishment of the environmental National Laboratory Response Network
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA health
assessments. (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Air Quality
Criteria/Science Assessment documents (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical
Support Documents (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered. (PART Measure)
• Percent progress toward completion of a framework linking global change
to air quality. (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management Systems (internal
database) or other internal tracking system.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 154
-------
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned
program outputs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of
key research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is
finalized by the start of the fiscal year, after which no changes are made. The program
then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-
determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from
the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs
being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates
of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hh.pdf
(last accessed July 20, 2007).
Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf
(last accessed July 20, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hhra.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007).
Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/sp2.pdf (last accessed July 20, 2007)
Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/eco.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007)
Human Health Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Global Change Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004307.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
GOAL 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective: Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 155
-------
• Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a
result of concluded enforcement actions [PART]
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollution be
reduced, treated, or eliminated [PART]
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of
improved environmental management practices [PART]
• Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement
actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs)
• Pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a
result of audit agreements [PART]
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal
Enforcement & Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and
administrative civil enforcement actions. Criminal enforcement cases are tracked by the
Criminal Case Report System (CCRS) which became operational in FY 2006.
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS FE&C is
collected through the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which Agency staff begin
preparing after the conclusion of each civil, judicial and administrative enforcement
action. EPA implemented the CCDS in 1996 to capture relevant information on the
results and environmental benefits of concluded enforcement cases. Information from
the CCDS is used to track progress for several of the performance measures. The
CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which, when completed, describe specifics
of the case; the facility involved; information on how the case was concluded; the
compliance actions required to be taken by the defendant(s); the costs involved;
information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the
settlement; the amounts and types of any penalties assessed; and any costs recovered
through the action, if applicable. The CCDS documents whether the
defendant/respondent, in response to an order for injunctive relief or otherwise in
response to the enforcement action, will: (1) implement controls that will reduce
pollutants; and/or (2) improve environmental management practices to curtail, eliminate
or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future.
The Criminal Enforcement Program also collects annual information on pollution
reductions for concluded criminal prosecutions on a separate case conclusion data form.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions which result in
pollution reductions, staff estimate the amount of pollution reduced for an immediately
implemented improvement, or for an average year once a long-term solution is in place.
There are established procedures to be used by EPA staff to calculate, by statute, e.g.,
Clean Water Act (CWA), the pollutant reductions or eliminations. The calculation
determines the difference between the current Aout of compliance® quantity of pollutants
released and the post enforcement action Ain compliance® quantity of pollutants
released. This difference is then converted into standard units of measure.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures [See references] are in place for both the
CCDS and ICIS FE&C data entry. There is a CCDS Training Booklet [See references]
and a CCDS Quick Guide [See references], both of which have been updated and
distributed throughout regional and headquarters= offices. The criminal enforcement
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 156
-------
program has prepared a companion guide for use by its field agents. Separate CCDS
Calculation and Completion Checklists [See references] are required to be filled out
when the CCDS is completed. Criminal enforcement measures are quality assured by
the program at the end of the fiscal year.
Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are prepared for each office within The Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). The Office of Compliance's (OC)
QMP, effective for 5 years, was approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) and is required to be re-approved in 2008. To satisfy the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Agency's information quality guidelines, and
other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement,
OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall
accuracy of ICIS information. In addition, in FY 2003, OC established a quarterly data
review process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's
enforcement and compliance information.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS FE&C are required
by policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and
accuracy. ICIS data are quality-reviewed quarterly, and reviewed and certified at mid-
year and end-of-year.
Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS are projected
estimates of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated if the defendant carries out the
requirements of the settlement. (Information on expected outcomes of state enforcement
is not available.) The estimates are based on information available at the time a case is
settled or an order is issued. In some instances, this information will be developed and
entered after the settlement, during continued discussions over specific plans for
compliance. Because of the time it takes to agree on compliance actions, there may be
a delay in completing the CCDS. Additionally, because of unknowns at the time of
settlement, different levels of technical proficiency, or the nature of a case, OECA=s
expectation is that the overall amount of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated will be
prudently underestimated based on CCDS information.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: In November 2000, EPA completed a
comprehensive guide on the preparation of the CCDS estimates. This guide, issued to
headquarters and regional staff, was made available in print and CD-ROM, was
supplemented in FY 2002 and updated in FY 2004. The guide contains work examples
to ensure better calculation of the amounts of pollutants reduced or eliminated through
concluded enforcement actions.
ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2006. This new data system has all of the
functionality of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but also has an added feature for tracking EPA
enforcement and compliance activities. In addition, another component of ICIS, "ICIS-
NPDES" is being phased-in as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and it includes all federal and state
enforcement, compliance and permitting data. States are currently being migrated to
ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS).
States are being phased-in to ICIS-NPDES in accordance with their current data and
system capabilities and the completed migration process is projected to be completed in
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 157
-------
FY2009. As a state's data is migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too is its NPDES
federal compliance and enforcement data. ICIS-NPDES will have a new feature that did
not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic data directly
from facilities. This new data reporting function is expected to increase data accuracy
and timeliness. To date ICIS-NPDES has become the national system of record for 21
states, 2 tribes, and 9 territories.
References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life
Cycle Management Guidance, (IRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994,
reference Chapter 17 for Life Cycle Management). CCDS: CCDS, Training Booklet,
issued November 2000; Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000, and "Guide for
Calculating Environmental Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update"
issued August 2004 available: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf.
Information Quality Strategy and OC=s Quality Management Plans: Final Enforcement
and Compliance Data Quality Strategy, and Description of FY 2002 Data Quality
Strategy Implementation Plan Projects, signed March 25, 2002. ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA,
ICIS Phase I, implemented June 2002. Internal EPA database; non-enforcement
sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Criminal Enforcement Division Case Conclusion
• Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-
site compliance inspections and evaluations
Performance Databases: ICIS FE&C and manual reporting by regions.
Data Sources: EPA regional offices, Office of Civil Enforcement - Air Enforcement
Division (Mobile Source program), Office of Compliance - Agriculture Division (Good
Laboratory Practices), and the Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division
(Wood Heaters).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet,
(ICDS) is -used to record key activities and outcomes at facilities during on-site
inspections and evaluations. Inspectors use the ICDS form while performing
inspections or investigation to collect information on on-site complying actions taken by
facilities, deficiencies observed, and compliance assistance provided. The information
from the completed ICDS form is entered into ICIS or reported manually. This measure
was selected because it directly counts the complying actions taken by the facility to
address deficiencies communicated by the inspector during on-site
inspections/evaluations. ICDS data can be used to identify trends and generate targeting
strategies.
QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system has been developed per Office of
Environmental Information Lifecycle Management Guidance, which includes data
validation processes, internal screen audit checks and verification, system and user
documents, data quality audit reports, third party testing reports, and detailed report
specifications for showing how data are calculated.
Data Quality Review: The information in the CCDS, ICDS and ICIS FE&C is required
by policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and
accuracy. In FY2003, to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines,
and other significant enforcement and compliance policies on performance
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 158
-------
measurement, OECA instituted a requirement for semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of information. ICIS FE&C data are reviewed quarterly and certified
at mid-year and end of year.
Data Limitations: ICIS FE&C is the official database of record for all inspections not
reported into the legacy data bases (with the exception of some regions participating in
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) database pilot who must still report manually).
Legacy databases still operational include Air Facility System (AFS), RCRAInfo, and
PCS for those states not migrated over to ICIS-NPDES.
New & Improved Data or Systems: In June FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data
system, ICIS FE&C became operational. The new data system has all of the functionality
of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but adds functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and
compliance activities. Further, ICIS-NPDES is beginning to replace the PCS as the
database of record for the NPDES program, including all federal and state enforcement,
compliance and permitting data. States are being phased-in to ICIS-NPDES in
accordance with their current data and system capabilities and the completed migration
process is projected to be completed in FY 2009.
References:
» ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS FE&C, implemented June 2006
» ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS-NPDES, implemented June 2006
• Memo dated October 11, 2005: Entering Manually Reported Federal Inspections
into ICIS in FY 2006
• Internal EPA database
• Non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance
from EPA reporting that they improved environmental management
practices as a result of EPA assistance
• Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct assistance from EPA
reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution, as a result of
EPA assistance
Performance Database: EPA headquarters and regions will manage data on regulated
entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA through ICIS.
Data source: Headquarters and EPA=s regional offices will enter information in ICIS
upon completion and delivery of media and sector-specific compliance assistance
including workshops, training, on-site visits and distribution of compliance assistance
tools. ICIS is designed to capture outcome measurement information such as increased
awareness/understanding of environmental laws, changes in behavior and
environmental improvements as a result of the compliance assistance provided.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Compliance Assistance (CA) measures are
automatically produced in the ICIS database which records the number of entities that
received direct assistance from EPA and report that they improved an environmental
management practice and/or report that they reduced, treated or eliminated pollution as
a result of EPA assistance. The Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet
(CACDS) was created to facilitate entry of data in ICIS on the on-site CA visits. ICIS
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 159
-------
produces the percentage by dividing the number of respondents to each of two follow-up
survey questions by the number of respondents for each question who answered
affirmatively. The figure is aggregated nationally from the regional data. A percentage
measure was chosen to track the goal for year to year comparability as opposed to a
direct number which varies year to year.
QA/QC: Automated data checks and data entry guidelines are in place for ICIS.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the ICIS is reviewed by regional and
headquarters staff for completeness and accuracy. In FY2003, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information
to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant
enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement. ICIS data are
reviewed quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of year.
Data Limitations: At the request of OMB, OECA has agreed to add language to caveat
CA results in EPA's annual Performance and Accountability Report. The language will
explain that our GPRA performance measures are not calculated from a representative
sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the
number of regulated entities that answer affirmatively to questions on our voluntary
surveys and do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to
answer these questions or a survey.
Error Estimate: None
New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA continues to improve and/or modify elements
of the compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system. OECA will
conduct a study and develop a strategy to use statistically valid techniques to tie
outcomes to EPA-provided compliance assistance activities. Beginning with a pilot
survey in FY 2008, EPA will conduct a survey every three years of a statistically-valid
sample of compliance assistance recipients to measure behavior changes resulting from
compliance assistance.
References: US EPA, ICIS Compliance Assistance Module, February 2004; US EPA,
Compliance Assistance in the Integrated Compliance Information System Guidance,
February 20, 2004. US EPA, 2005 Guidance Addendum for Reporting Compliance
Assistance in the ICIS, March 2005.
Objective: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
Innovation
• Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants (PART
measure)
• BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or offset by P2 program participants
• Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants
• Business, institutional and government cost reduced by P2 program
participants (PART measure)
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs, or results centers, include Green
Chemistry (GC), Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering (GE), Regional
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 160
-------
Offices for Results, Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx), Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing (EPP), Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH), and Green
Suppliers Network (GSN). Each of these program/results centers operates under the
principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with others to reduce waste at the
source, before it is generated. The programs are designed to facilitate the incorporation
of pollution prevention concepts and principles into the daily operations of government
agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Each
program/results center contributes outcome results which are added to the combined
flow of results. Data is rolled up into a single tracking tool: "P2 Program 2011 Strategic
Targets -Contributions by Program.xls," which aggregates annual progress toward the
goals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic metrics database ("matrix")
that allows organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on
alternative feedstocks, processes, and safer chemicals. The database was designed to
store and retrieve, in a systematic fashion, information on the environmental benefits
and, where available, economic benefits that these alternative green chemistry
technologies offer. The database was also designed to track the quantity of hazardous
chemicals and solvents eliminated as well as water and energy saved through
implementation of these alternative technologies. Green chemistry technology
nominations are received up to December 31 of the year preceding the reporting year,
and it normally takes 6-12 months to enter new technologies into the database. The
database currently has information on all technologies received through 2006. In
addition, approximately one third of the 2007 nominations are already entered.
Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE has an evaluation spreadsheet that is populated
for all its programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame
Retardant Alternatives, the Formulator Program, and a collaboration with the Air Office
on DfE approaches as implementation mechanisms for regulating Local Area Sources,
such as Auto Refinishing). Spreadsheet content varies by project, and generally includes
measures comparing baseline technologies or products to safer ones, as well as
information on partner adoption and/or market share of safer alternatives. For example,
the DfE Formulator Program tracks the move to safer chemicals (such as pounds of
chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and conversely pounds of safer
ingredients), and reductions in water and energy use, where such outcomes are
available.
Green Engineering (GE): GE will be developing an electronic database to keep track of
environmental benefits of GE projects including pounds of hazardous chemicals
prevented and/or eliminated, gallons of water, British Thermal Units (BTUs) and dollars
saved and pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions eliminated.
Regional Offices: EPA's Regional Offices' (Regions) P2 results come primarily through
grants they award, and results from projects managed by EPA Regional staff. Regional
Offices use the GranTrack database to collect and organize information on the P2 and
Source Reduction grants they award. GranTrack includes multiple information fields
covering administrative and financial aspects of the grants as well as results reported by
grantees. The database can be searched and reports developed in numerous ways,
including by Region, type of grant, year grant awarded, and year of results. Data may be
displayed for individual grants or in aggregate covering multiple grants. While GranTrack
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 161
-------
has been used for a number of years it has some limitations. This year the program is
exploring options for upgrading GranTrack and/or using additional tools to simplify and
improve results reporting.
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx)\ There are 8 regional P2 Information
centers which coordinate and supply information, training and conferences for local and
state technical assistance providers as well as businesses. These centers report to EPA
through grant reports. The centers have received Information Collection Rule (ICR)
approval to survey for customer satisfaction (with the P2Rx information and services)
and changes in customer awareness and understanding of P2 approaches. In
subsequent years these centers will collect case study information to document the
success of their intervention in motivating changes and achieving environmental
outcomes. These 8 P2Rx centers also host regional modules that contribute to the
National P2 Results system that was developed under a grant from the EPA National
Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) program. Any program can
enter measures of outputs and outcomes into this data system. Over 30 state-level P2
organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements to provide data. The P2Rx
centers have trained and assisted organizations in entering their data. EPA is funding
an evaluation of P2Rx services to estimate the portion of potential customers these
centers reach. EPA support of these regional centers and the technical assistance,
publications, training, and information supplied by the P2Rx centers contributes to
national P2 progress. To capture this indirect effect of EPA's role, 10% of the results
reported through the P2Rx center will be counted in EPA performance measurement
systems.
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH) Program: The Partnership for Sustainable
Healthcare (PSH) program is the new name for EPA's continued effort with the health
care sector, as the former "Hospitals for a Healthy Environment" (H2E) program (now
the H2E organization has become a fully independent non-profit organization.). PSH
works, in collaboration with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS),
and H2E, as NCMS' sub-grantee, in providing technical assistance to the health care
sector. H2E maintains its own electronic program database. Data are collected
voluntarily from Partners on an ongoing and continuous basis. Data are requested on
mercury and waste reduction information broken down by types of waste. Information
on BTUs, gallons of water, and dollar savings are only requested in award applications.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): GSN utilizes a Customer Relationship Management
database (CRM) in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (NIST MEP) to collect performance
metrics for the program. The CRM was originally configured to collect economic
information from companies receiving services through the NIST MEP system. The
CRM has been modified to capture the environmental metrics collected during a GSN
review at a company, such as the value of environmental impact savings identified,
energy conserved (BTU, kwh/year), water conserved (gal/year), water pollution reduced
(Ibs/year), air emissions reduced (Ibs/year), hazardous waste reduced (Ibs/year), solid
waste reduced (Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use reduced (Ibs/year).
Enirvonmentally Preferable Products (EPP): Results for Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing (EPP) come from the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC), the Electronic
Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), and Green Janitorial Products. FEC
uses the FEC Administrative Database for storage and retrieval of annual reporting
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 162
-------
information from FEC partners. EPP staff run these reporting data through the
Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator to calculate pounds of hazardous and
non-hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among
other benefits) on an annual basis. EPEAT-registered manufacturers provide reporting
data via the Green Electronics Council, which collects and organizes EPEAT reporting
data. As with FEC, the EPP team runs these reporting data through the Electronics
Environmental Benefits Calculator to calculate pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous
pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on
an annual basis. For Janitorial Products, the EPP team will collect annual reporting data
from various EPA contacts for EPA's Environmental Management System (EMS), and
then run these data through the Green Cleaning Calculator to calculate pounds of
hazardous pollution reduced. FY 2007 data will be collected in January 2008.
Data Sources :
GC: Industry and academia submit nominations annually to the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the annual Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in the
nomination packages. Qualitative and quantitative benefit information is pulled from the
nominations and entered in the metrics database. The metrics database pulls this public
benefit information from the nominations. The database currently has information on all
technologies nominated through 2006.
DfE: The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the project and the partner
industry. For example, in DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partners provide
proprietary information on the production volume of their improved formulations. For
other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies (e.g., Alternatives
Assessments and Life-Cycle Assessments) and market/sales/adoption information from
sources such as industry associations.
GE: Data will come from various sources and partners including the regions, academia
and industry. For example, for GE projects related to the pharmaceutical industry, data
will be directly reported by the project leaders. Some information may also come from
profiles of recognized projects taken from technical journals or organizations, such as
the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, or directly reported by project leaders on
industry projects or joint academia-industry projects.
Regional Offices: P2 Grant and Source Reduction grant data are secured from grant
applications, grant reports and supplemental forms and entered into the current P2
Grant Database, Gran Track. In addition, over the coming year the program is piloting
the use of a new tool to assist grantees in projecting and determining grants results and
to assist regional project officers in compiling and analyzing those results.
P2Rx: P2Rx center data will be secured through grant reports, web-based surveys of
customers, pre and post testing of training attendees and case studies following long
term impact of the use of P2Rx services and information.
PSH: Because the PSH program is a voluntary program, the information collected is
voluntarily submitted by hospital Partners. The PSH program maintains an ICR for the
collection of data which allows EPA to collect data from third parties under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 163
-------
GSN: Data are collected by the GSN Review Team during a GSN review at the
company's facility. This team consists of a "lean" manufacturing expert from the NIST
MEP system and an environmental expert usually from the state environmental agency
or its designee. Lean manufacturing is a business model and collection of methods that
help eliminate waste while delivering quality products on time and at least cost. NIST
MEP has a system of lean experts who assist businesses through the process of
becoming more efficient and cost effective. The metrics are recorded in the final report
generated for the company's use and also are entered into the CRM database by the
NIST MEP center. All MEP centers are grantees to the Department of Commerce and
must adhere to DOC's requirements for the collection and handling of data. These
requirements are reinforced by the terms of the "Request for Proposals" to which each
center (e.g., grantee) responds and which must be followed during a GSN review.
EPP: For FEC, the data source is federal partners. For EPEAT, the data source is
EPEAT-registered manufacturers of electronic products. For Janitorial Products, the
data source is EPA EMS contacts for procuring janitorial products.
Methods and Assumptions:
GC: The public information is tracked directly through internal record-keeping systems.
Annual benefits are assumed to reoccur. The performance data, while collected by
individual centers, is acceptable for the purpose of performance measurement for the
program, as it addresses the specific measures and reflects an aggregated and quality
reviewed dataset.
DfE: Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set of chemicals and
industrial processes. For DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partner-provided data
on production volumes is aggregated to determine the total reductions of hazardous
chemicals achieved through the program. For Lead-Free Solder and Furniture Flame
Retardants, market data for the production volume of the chemical of concern provides
the measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the
methods and assumptions for each project's measures.
GE: The information will be supplied directly by project leaders and/or academic-
industry-region partners. The information will be tracked directly through EPA record
keeping systems. GE's Data Program Tracking spreadsheet includes methods and
assumptions.
Regional Offices: The data will come from state and other P2 grantees and other
sources as described above. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are
employed by EPA. The program is developing a new data collection tool (methodology)
for grantees that is designed to increase the consistency of their data collection methods
and to offer a consistent set of costing assumptions.
P2Rx: Data reported by state and local programs in the National P2 Results system will
be collected and compiled by the regional centers. Some portion of these results, based
on an evaluation of the portion of the customer base reached by the center in each
region, will be attributed to the P2Rx center for that region. The ability to attribute
environmental outcomes to Web-based information and training will rely on customer
survey information and Web site user statistics.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 164
-------
PSH: The data comes directly from program Partners, specifically hospitals. No models
or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
GSN: Data are entered by the NIST MEP. The data are collected using the standard
procedures normally utilized by the environmental agency participating in the GSN
review. A standard set of metrics has been defined by the GSN program and is
collected at each review, and includes the value of environmental impact savings
identified, energy conserved (BTU, kwh/year), water conserved (gal/year), water
pollution reduced (Ibs/year), air emissions reduced (Ibs/year), hazardous waste reduced
(Ibs/year), solid waste reduced (Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use reduced
(Ibs/year). The data are aggregated by NIST MEP headquarters and reported to EPA on
a quarterly basis in September, December, March, and June. The data can also be
aggregated by sector. The data are aggregated to maintain confidentiality for all
companies participating in the program. No models or statistical methods are employed.
EPP: For FEC, the program assumes that partners report accurate data. The
assumptions needed for the Calculator to translate environmental attributes and
activities into environmental benefits are relatively extensive and are laid out in the
Calculator's inputs (e.g., the average lifecycle of a computer, the weight of packaging for
a computer, etc.). The assumptions were reviewed when the Calculator underwent the
peer review process. The Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator assists
institutional purchasers in: 1) measuring the environmental and economic benefits of
purchasing environmentally preferable electronics; 2) enabling energy efficiency features
on electronics during use; 3) extending the useful life of electronics; and 4) disposing of
old electronics in an environmentally sound manner through reuse or recycling. For
Janitorial Products, the method involves reporting the types of products and work
practices used during routine cleaning activities in office buildings. The Green Cleaning
Calculator assists in calculating pounds of hazardous pollution reduced.
Suitability: Hazardous pounds reduced, dollars saved, BTUs of energy reduced
conserved or offset, and gallons of water reduced represent the four Pollution Prevention
measures. These annual measures have corresponding long term goals identified in
EPA's 2006-2011 strategic plan and are suitable for year to year comparisons due to the
program's ability to show annual progress towards reaching these long term goals.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as well as under the Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality Management Plan for
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances," June 2003), and the programs will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use
only.
GC: Data undergo a technical screening review by the Agency before being uploaded to
the database to determine if the data adequately support the environmental benefits
described in the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards application. Subsequent to Agency
screening, nominations are reviewed by an external independent panel of technical
experts from academia, industry, government, and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs). Their comments on potential benefits are incorporated into the database. The
panel is convened by the Green Chemistry Institute of the American Chemical Society,
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 165
-------
primarily for judging nominations submitted to the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards Program and selecting winning technologies. Quantitative benefits
are periodically reviewed to be sure they were accurately captured from the nominations.
DfE: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being added to the
spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the
environmental benefits described.
GE: Data will be reviewed by the partners including industry, academia, and the regions.
Data will also be reviewed by GE to ensure transparency, reasonableness and accuracy.
Regional Offices: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff and their contractor before being placed into GranTrack. Data for
projects managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel.
Additional QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate. The program has been
working with the regional offices this past year to develop consistent QA procedures,
which can be applied at the beginning of the grant and throughout the life of the grant.
P2Rx\ Data entered into the National P2 Results system will undergo technical
screening review by P2Rx centers and EPA regional and Headquarters staff.
PSH: Data undergo technical screening review by the grantee (National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, which administers the program through a cooperative
agreement) before being placed in the database. QA/QC plan is a part of the
requirement of the cooperative agreement.
GSN: Data are collected and verified under NIST MEP's QA/QC plan. Each NIST MEP
Center must follow QA/QC requirements as grantees to the Department of Commerce.
Additionally, the environmental data are collected under the specific requirements of the
state environmental agency participating in each GSN review. Each state agency
utilizes their own QA/QC plan for data collection because they utilize the data for
purposes in addition to the GSN program.
EPP:. Regarding FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, the calculators of environmental
benefits (e.g., the Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator and the Green Cleaning
Calculator) underwent internal and external review during their development phases.
Regarding FEC and EPEAT, instructions and guidelines are provided to partners on how
to report data. Reporting forms are reviewed by EPA management when they are
submitted. For EPEAT, EPEAT-registered manufacturers sign a Memorandum of
Understanding in which they warrant the accuracy of the data they provide. For
Janitorial Products, contractors sign a contract stating that they are providing janitorial
products according to certain specifications. For FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products,
data undergo an internal technical review before these data are run through the
calculators.
Data Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs
operate under EPA's Information Quality Guidelines as found at
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines and under the OPPT's Quality
Management Plan (QMP).
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 166
-------
GC: Review of industry and academic data as documented in U.S. EPA, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Green Chemistry Program. Files available at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
DfE: Data collected includes those from industry associations and government reports.
Source data is compared with industry trends and examined by industry and NGO
partners.
GE: Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.
Regional Offices: The GranTrack metrics and data system incorporate ideas and system
features from the National Pollution Prevention Results System, developed with EPA
support by such organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association, Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Data for projects managed directly by EPA Regional
staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel. Data will undergo technical screening
review by EPA Regional and Headquarters staff and their contractor before being placed
into GranTrack. The P2 program has been working with the regional offices this past
year to develop consistent QA procedures which can be applied at the beginning of the
grant and throughout the life of the grant.
P2Rx\ The new metrics and data system were based, in part, on recommendations in
the February 2001 GAO report, "EPA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and
Encourage Pollution Prevention" (GAO-01-283). They also incorporate work by such
organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, Pacific
Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable.
PSH: Not applicable
GSN: Not applicable.
EPP: For FEC, data are entered on-line with an additional error-checking function on
the online form. FEC staff also review the data to ensure that it is sensible, given the
context. The mechanism by which the EPP program is receiving data from the Green
Electronics Council is still being determined. For Janitorial Products, data quality review
steps (as of 4th quarter 2006) are still under development.
Data Limitations:
GC: Nominations sometimes omit data for a given technology due to confidential
business information. Nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge
Awards Program are in the public domain.. Because the Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge is a voluntary public program, it cannot routinely accept or process CBI. If the
program stakeholders cannot verify a technology because of proprietary information,
especially during the final judging stage of the awards program, they can and do ask
EPA to conduct the verification internally. EPA will then ask the company to share
confidential information with CBI-cleared OPPT staff in order for EPA to conduct the
verification. It also is occasionally unclear as to what is the percentage market
penetration of implemented alternative green chemistry technology (potential benefits vs.
realized benefits). In these cases, the database is so noted.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 167
-------
DfE: Occasionally, data on innovative chemistries or technologies are claimed CBI by
the developing company, thus limiting the implementation of beneficial pollution
prevention practices on a wider scale.
GE: There may be instances in which environment benefits are not clearly quantified
and/or available due to various reasons including CBI. In those instances, the data
have to be carefully evaluated and considered for reporting. If the information is
included, the uncertainties/limitations will be noted
Regional Offices: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and other P2
grantees and other sources to gather data. These programs vary in attention to data
collection from sources within their jurisdictions, data verification and other QA/QC
procedures. Also, despite changes described below to add consistent metrics and
definitions, some differences exist. EPA is attempting to address these concerns by
strengthening reporting requirements in its P2 grants, focusing on outcomes, and
standardizing GranTrack metrics with those in the National P2 Results System. EPA is
also in the process of adding a P2 component to the EPA Information Exchange
Network (which provides financial support and a comprehensive data system to link
state data with EPA). In addition, the program is working this year on developing and
integrating new tools to assist grantees in projecting and determining results and to
assist project officers in interpreting and reporting those results.
P2Rx\ Limitations arise from variability in individual state and local P2 programs and
their reporting sources, QA/QC procedures, and what is reported. Differences may arise
in how programs quantify environmental benefits, based on state or local legislative
requirements.
PSH: Not all hospital Partners have turned in their facility assessment information.
However, in order to be considered for an award under the program, hospital Partner
MUST submit facility information; therefore, the program has a very complete set of
information for hospital Partners who have applied for awards. This introduces self-
selection bias to the reported data as the hospitals with the best track records are those
that apply for the awards. The program has roughly 10% of all Partner facilities'
assessment data. An internal assessment conducted of data collected from Partners
revealed some calculation errors and data inconsistencies regarding how waste data is
captured by the hospital Partners. The program has gone back to correct some of those
errors.
GSN: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual programs to gather data. These
programs vary in attention to data collection from sources within their jurisdictions, data
verification and other QA/QC procedures. The GSN program has attempted to address
these concerns by strengthening the data collection requirements in the Request for
Proposals that MEP centers must be respond to in order to perform a GSN review.
EPP: FEC and EPEAT have a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting.
Error Estimate:
GE: There may be instances in which environmental benefits are not clearly quantified.
In those instances, the data will be excluded.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 168
-------
DfE: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
P2Rx: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis.
Error estimates are not available.
Regional Offices: Any errors detected during internal technical review of performance
data submitted would be addressed, either through correction of data or elimination of
data.
PSH: The program does not use a statistical approach to collect the data and therefore
does not have confidence intervals for the performance estimates.
GSN: Not applicable.
GC: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
EPP: Any errors detected during internal technical review of performance data
submitted would be addressed, either through correction of data or elimination of data.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Regional Offices: EPA recently updated and expanded GranTrack, both to improve
usability and to add a much greater level of detail regarding results reported by grantees.
In regard to reporting of results, GranTrack includes activity measures, behavioral
measures, and outcome measures. The metrics chosen and their definitions generally
are consistent with those used in the National Pollution Prevention Results System,
described in the P2Rx center. Also, EPA is planning to grant the public restricted access
to GranTrack. The following fields will be accessible: general information, projects and
results data, status of grant, funding, keywords, partners, and sectors. The program's
system for estimating and reporting results will undergo further change and improvement
this coming year. We anticipate working to improve the process of projecting and
reporting results through the development of new tools and methodologies. We
anticipate that these changes will simplify results reporting for grantees and will improve
the credibility and predictability of those results.
P2Rx\ This center's survey and data collection systems are under initial implementation.
Improvements will be based on the outcome of the pending evaluation
PSH: The H2E organization is in the process of commercializing a new facility
assessment software which will help hospital Partners collect and compute facility
environmental improvement data. The software automatically converts units and
tabulates information from the hospital's source data, as well as calculating costs for
different waste streams. Anticipated roll-out for the software will be in 2008. The H2E
organization has agreed to share the consolidated information with EPA when data
collection begins.
References:
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 169
-------
GC: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
DfE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
GE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
P2 Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
http://www.p2.org/workgroup/Background.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/Networkg/
PSH: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm
GS/V: www.greensuppliers.gov
EPP: Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm
Information about the Electronics Environmental Benefit Calculator is on the FEC web
site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm
The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web
site at: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf
Regional: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/local.htm
• Reductions of hazardous chemicals per federal dollar spent (Ibs/dollar)
[PART efficiency measure]
EPA measures the accomplishments of the Design for the Environment's (DfE)
Formulator Recognition Program by comparing reductions in hazardous chemicals
achieved to program resources, including FTE, overhead and extramural dollars spent.
The Formulator Recognition Program works with formulators of chemical-intensive
products to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals through green chemistry
innovations. DfE partners provide information on levels of reduction.
Performance Database: The DfE formulator program collects confidential data each
year from a sample of partner companies and enters the information into the formulator
program tracking component of the DfE program evaluation spreadsheet. Key data
elements used to calculate the efficiency measure are the quantity of hazardous
chemicals reduced through reformulation by product type, and spending information
obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database. The efficiency measure numerator
is the sum of the average pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced per formulation
multiplied by the annual quantity of each formulation. The denominator is the annual
program resources expended.
Data Source: Partners voluntarily provide information on the pounds of hazardous
chemicals reduced per formulation and the annual production of those formulations.
Resource data is from OPPT internal sources.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on reductions of chemicals are
averaged with information from previous years to create an average annual quantity of
hazardous chemical reduced per formulation and multiplied by the total number of
formulations recognized by the program. The result is the total annual reduction in
pounds of hazardous chemicals. The method aggregates across all formulators and
assumes that the entire quantity of recognized formulations is reformulated. Program
resources are calculated directly from EPA figures. The efficiency measure corresponds
directly to the program goal of cost-effectively reducing hazardous chemical use and can
compare cost effectiveness year-to-year.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 170
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Design for the Environment operates under EPA's Information
Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html and
under the OPPT Quality Management Plan.
Data Quality Reviews: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE staff before
being added to the program tracking spreadsheet.
Data Limitations: The data submitted voluntarily by partners is confidential. The
information made public information is limited to aggregated values. In addition, only
nine formulators are represented in each annual sample to reduce reporting burden,
which may contribute to sampling error.
Error Estimate: Due to the sampling methodology, no error estimate is possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Each year additional data is added to the program
tracking spreadsheet and averaged with preceding years. Cumulative data will provide a
more stable estimate of total pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced through the DfE
formulator program.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
The DfE Program Tracking Spreadsheet for chemical formulators contains Confidential
Business Information.
• Reduce 3.7 billion gallons of water use; 16.3 million MMBTUs of energy use;
1,050 tons of materials use; 460,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000 tons of air
releases; & 12,400 tons of water discharges
Performance Databases: Both the Performance Track On-Line (a Domino database)
and the Performance Track Members Database (a Microsoft Access database) store
information that facilities have provided to EPA in applications and annual performance
reports. Performance Track members select a set of environmental indicators on which
to report performance over a three-year period of participation. The externally reported
indicators (listed above) may or may not be included in any particular facility's set of
indicators. Performance Track aggregates and reports only that information that a
facility voluntarily reports to the Agency. A facility may make progress towards one of
the above indicators, but if it is not among its set of "commitments", then Performance
Track's data will not reflect the changes occurring at the facility. Similarly, if a facility's
performance declines in any of the above areas and the indicator is not included among
its set of commitments, that decline will not be reflected in the above results.
Members report on results in a calendar year. Fiscal year 2007 corresponds most
closely with members' calendar year 2006. That data will be reported to the
Performance Track program by April 1, 2007. The data will then be reviewed,
aggregated, and available for external reporting in September 2007. (Calendar year
2005 data will become available in September 2006.)
Data Source: All data are self-reported and self-certified by member facilities. As
described below, Performance Track engages in quality control to the extent possible,
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 171
-------
but it does not conduct formal auditing. However, a criterion of Performance Track
membership is the existence of an environmental management system (EMS) at the
facility, a key element of which is a system of measurement and monitoring. Most
Performance Track facilities have had independent third-party audits of their EMSs,
which create a basis for confidence in the facilities' data. It is clear from submitted
reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate or round data. Errors are also
made in converting units and in calculations. In general, however, EPA is confident that
the externally reported results are a fair representation of members' performance.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data collected from members' applications
and annual performance reports are compiled and aggregated across those members
that choose to report on the given indicator. The data reflect the performance results at
the facility; any improvements or declines in performance are due to activities and
conditions at the specific facility as a whole. However, in some cases, facilities report
results for specific sections of a facility and this may not be clear in the reports submitted
to the program. For example, Member A commits to reducing its VOCs from 1000 tons
to 500 tons over a 3-year period. In Year 1, it reports a reduction of VOCs from 1000
tons to 800 tons. Performance Track aggregates this reduction of 200 tons with results
from other facilities. But unbeknownst to Performance Track, the facility made a
commitment to reduce its VOCs from Production Line A and is only reporting on its
results from that production line. The facility is not intentionally hiding information from
EPA, but mistakenly thought that its commitment could focus on environmental
management activities at Production Line A rather than across the entire facility.
Unfortunately, due to increased production and a couple of mishaps by a sloppy
technician, VOC emissions at Production Line B increased by 500 tons in Year 1. Thus,
the facility's VOC emissions actually increased by 300 tons in Year 1. Performance
Track's statement to the public that the facility reduced its emissions by 200 tons is
therefore misleading.
The data can be used to make year-to-year comparisons, but reviewers and analysts
should bear in mind that Performance Track membership is constantly in flux. Although
members should retain the same set of indicators for their three-year participation
period, as new members join the program and others leave, the baseline constantly
changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset
of reported data will represent two years of performance at certain facilities, i.e., the
baseline will be two years prior rather than one year.
QA/QC Procedures: Data submitted with applications and annual performance reports
to the program are reviewed for completeness and adherence to program formatting
requirements. In cases where it appears possible that data is miscalculated or
misreported, EPA or contractor staff follows up with the facility. If the accuracy of data
remains under question or if a facility has provided incomplete or non-standard data, the
database is coded to ensure that the data is excluded from aggregated and externally
reported results.
Additionally, Performance Track staff visit up to 20% of Performance Track member
facilities each year. During those visits, facilities are asked about their data collection
systems and about the sources of the data reported to the program.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 172
-------
Performance Track contractors conduct a quality review of data entered manually into
the database. Performance Track staff conduct periodic checks of the entered data.
As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to the extent possible, but is not
audited in a formal way. However, a prerequisite of Performance Track membership is
an environmental management system (EMS) at the facility, a key element of which is a
system of measurement and monitoring. Most Performance Track facilities have had
independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data.
A Quality Management Plan is under development.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A.
Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data
collection, misreporting, inconsistent reporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of
the facility. Where facilities submit data outside of the Performance Track On-Line
system, Performance Track staff or contractors must enter data manually into the
database. Manually entered data is sometimes typed incorrectly.
It is clear from submitted reports that some facilities have a tendency to estimate or
round data. Errors are also made in converting units and in calculations. In general,
however, EPA is confident that the externally reported results are a fair representation of
members' performance.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Since spring 2004, all Performance
Track applications and annual performance reports have been submitted electronically
(i.e., through the Performance Track On-Line system), thus avoiding the need for
manual data entry. Additionally, the program is implementing a new requirement that all
members gain third-party assessments of their EMSs. Also, the program has reduced
the chances that data may reflect process-specific (rather than facility-wide) data by
paying additional attention to the issue in the review process and by instituting "facility-
wide data" requirements for all indicators.
References: Members' applications and annual performance reports can be found on
the Performance Track website at
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/ptrack.nsf/faMembers?readform. Performance Track On-
Line and the Performance Track Members Database are not generally accessible.
Performance Track staff can grant access to and review of the databases by request.
• Number of pounds of reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as measured
by National Partnership for Environmental Priorities members.
• Number of pounds of priority list chemicals removed from or reduced in waste
streams per cost to perform such actions. [PART efficiency measure]
Performance Database: Under Information Collection Request no. 2050-0190
("Reporting Requirements Under EPA's National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities", renewed April 2006) the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 173
-------
(NPEP) program collects information on partner (mostly from the industrial sector, and
one municipal facility) priority chemical reduction commitments, technical solutions
proposed to achieve reductions, and actual reduction achievements. Achievements are
verified through discussions between EPA waste minimization national experts and
partner technical personnel, and further verified using the Toxics Release Inventory
system where possible.
NPEP efficiency measure: The denominator of the efficiency measure, or the cost to
perform such actions, equals program cost minus quantifiable benefit per pound of
reduction. Program cost is calculated to be the cost for Federal program implementation
(FTE + grant and contract funding). Industry cost is neutral. Quantifiable benefits
include information collected through NPEP success stories on resource savings (e.g.
water, energy) resulting from implementation of waste minimization technologies and
processes.
Data Source: As part of their partnership agreement, NPEP partners provide
information concerning what priority list chemicals they commit to reduce, the process
through which the reduction will be achieved, and the time frame for achieving the
commitment. When the commitment is achieved they provide EPA with a "success
story" which identifies the actual achievement, confirms the process used to achieve the
reduction, and provides additional information of interest to the general public and other
technical personnel concerning how the achievement was met. Information is reviewed
by EPA waste minimization national experts for reasonableness based on best
professional judgment. An internal tracking system is used to track pounds committed,
achievement date, and actual achievement. NPEP partner achievement data is further
verified against TRI reporting when the partner is a TRI regulated facility. The
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), Section 313
(Toxics Release Inventory) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (40
CFR Part 13101; www.epa.gov/tri) requires that regulated facilities report facility-specific,
chemical-specific release, waste and recycling data to EPA.
Methods and Assumptions: Regional targets are calculated to meet the national total
goal. This is a new measure which does not have comparable historical data. EPA
does not intend to reconcile FY 08 results with prior years.
Additionally, when the partner is also a TRI regulated facility, achievement data are
verified against TRI reporting
Suitability: EPA waste minimization national experts are trained in industrial or chemical
engineering and have significant experience in evaluating industrial processes for waste
minimization potential and efficiency. Their professional judgment forms the basis for
accepting the applicants' waste minimization commitment and achievement.
QA/QC Procedures:
Internal tracking: EPA engineers review commitment information. In cases where
commitment information is initially incomplete or lacks substantiation, EPA engineers
may conduct site visits in order to make a determination that the commitment is
reasonably achievable. Information on number of pounds committed for reduction,
achievement date and actual achievement is reported by NPEP partners and stored in
an internal NPEP tracking system. Tracking system data are periodically reviewed by
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 174
-------
EPA regional coordinators to ensure that they accurately reflects partner commitments.
Corrections are made to tracking system data when they are identified.
TRI Database verification: Most facilities use EPA-certified automated Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) Form R reporting tools, which contain automated error checking
mechanisms. Upon receipt of the facilities' reports, EPA conducts automated edits, error
checks, data scrubs, corrections and normalization during data entry and subsequent
processing. The Agency does not control the quality of the data submitted by the
regulated community. EPA does, however, work with the regulated community to
improve the quality of their estimates.
Data Quality Review:
Internal Tracking data: Tracking system data are periodically reviewed by EPA
regional coordinators to ensure that they accurately reflect partner commitments.
Corrections are made to tracking system data when they are identified.
TRI data: The quality of the data contained in the TRI chemical reports is
dependent upon the quality of the data that the reporting facility uses to estimate its
releases and other waste management quantities. Use of TRI Form R by submitters and
EPA's data reviews help assure data quality. The GAO Report Environmental Protection:
EPA Should Strengthen Its Efforts to Measure and Encourage Pollution Prevention
(GAO - 01 -283, February, 2002, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01283.pdf),
recommends that EPA strengthen the rule on reporting of source reduction activities.
Although EPA agrees that source reduction data are valuable, the Agency has not
finalized regulations to improve reporting of source reduction activities by TRI-regulated
facilities.
Data Limitations: For both internal tracking system and TRI data, use of the data
should be based on the user's understanding that the Agency does not have direct
assurance of the accuracy of the facilities' measurement and reporting processes.
Error Estimate:
Internal Tracking: This is a new measurement tool, implemented with the 2006 - 2011
strategic plan. No error estimate is available at this time. However, EPA is developing
an error tracking process for use in 2007 and should have an error estimate for fiscal
year 2007 in early 2008.
TRI data: From the various data quality efforts, EPA has learned of several reporting
issues such as incorrect assignment of threshold activities and incorrect assignment of
release and other waste management quantities (EPA-745-F-93-001; EPA-745-R-98-
012;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.)
For example, certain facilities incorrectly assigned a 'processing' (25,000 Ib) threshold
instead of an 'otherwise use' (10,000 Ib) threshold for certain non-persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals, so they did not have to report if their
releases were below 25,000 Ibs. Also, for example, some facilities incorrectly reported
fugitive releases instead of stack releases of certain toxic chemicals.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 175
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: Use of internal tracking data allows EPA to measure
direct progress resulting from the NPEP program. Historically EPA has measured trends
using TRI. Because TRI data are influenced by a variety of factors, including multiple
EPA and State regulations, voluntary programs, and national economic trends, use of
TRI did not allow EPA to directly measure program results. The internal tracking system
is a limited data set and is 100% reviewed by expert engineers, is a reasonably accurate
data set.
References: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/and additional citations provided above. (EPA-745-F-93-001;EPA-745-
R-98-012;http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data_quality_reports/index.htm;
www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.
• Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated programs (PART
measure)
• Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and assessment occurring
(PART measure)
• Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia work plans (PART
measure)
• Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per
million dollars (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO)
developed an information technology infrastructure, named the Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture (TPEA). The TPEA is a suite of secure Internet-based
applications that track environmental conditions and program implementation in Indian
country as well as other AIEO business functions. One TPEA application, the Objective
5.3 Reporting System, tracks progress in achieving the performance targets under Goal
5 Objective 3 of EPA's National Strategic Plan -"Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country." EPA staff use the Objective 5.3 Reporting System to
establish program performance commitments for future fiscal years and to record actual
program performance for overall national program management. The Objective 5.3
Reporting System serves as the performance database for all of the annual performance
measures and PART measures.
Data Source: Data for the Objective 5.3 Reporting System are input on an ongoing
basis by Regional tribal program project officers, as designated by the Regional Indian
Coordinators. All persons authorized to input data have individual passwords.
The original documents for the statements and data entered into the fields of the
Objective 5.3 Reporting System can be found in the files of the Regional Tribal Project
Officers overseeing the particular programs that are being reported on. For example,
documents that verify water quality monitoring activities by a particular tribe will be found
in the files of the Regional Water 106 Project Officer for the tribe.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated
programs," tracks the number of: Treatment in a manner similar to a State (TAS)
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 176
-------
approvals or primacies; implementations of a tribal program; executions of Direct
Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements (DITCA); and GAP (General Assistance
Programs) grants that have provisions for the implementation of solid waste or
hazardous waste programs.
EPA Regional project officers managing Tribes with delegated and non-delegated
environmental programs input data, classified by tribe, into the Objective 5.3 Reporting
System to derive a national cumulative total.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment occurring (cumulative)," reports the number of active Quality Assurance
Project Plans (QAPPs). All ongoing environmental monitoring programs are required to
have active QAPPs. Regional tribal program liaisons obtain the information from
Regional Quality Assurance Officers and input it into the Objective 5.3 Reporting
System. The data are updated continuously and summed at the end of the fiscal year.
The performance measure, "Percent of Tribes with EPA approved multi-media
workplans," tracks the number of tribes with: Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs);
Tribal Environmental Agreements (TEAs), Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III; Memoranda of
Agreement (MOAs); and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), which demonstrate
Tribe building. EPA Regional tribal program liaisons input data, which are summed
annually. It is possible a tribe will contribute to the measure in more than one way.
The performance measure, "Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian
Country per million dollars," is calculated annually by summing the number of tribes
receiving General Assistance Program (GAP) grants, the number of TAS approvals or
primacies, the number of DITCAs, and the number of GAP grants that have provisions
for the implementation of solid or hazardous waste programs and dividing that sum by
the annual GAP appropriation (less rescissions and annual set-asides.)
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System contains
all the information for reporting on performance. The measure that tracks delegated and
non-delegated programs can be cross-referenced and verified with records from the
Integrated Grants Management System. The measure that tracks monitoring and
assessment programs can be verified from databases maintained by the Regional
Quality Assurance Officers. The measure that tracks multimedia work plans can be
verified from official correspondence files between EPA Regions and Tribes, or from
project officer case files.
QA/QC Procedures:
Data used in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture contains quality assurance and
metadata documentation prepared by the originating agency or program. Because the
information in the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture is used for budget and strategic
planning purposes, AIEO requires adherence to the Agency's Information Quality
Guidelines, (www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html)
Data Quality Reviews: The certifying official for the information submitted by EPA's
Regional offices to AIEO through the Objective 5.3 reporting System is the Regional
Administrator. However, in some cases the Regional Administrator may wish to
delegate the signatory authority to some other official such as the Regional Indian
Coordinator. The Regional Administrator or his/her designee will be responsible for
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 177
-------
certifying that the information in the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, and hence the
information which supports the performance measures and proposed PART measures is
accurate. This procedure generally follows guidance provided in EPA Information Quality
Guidelines, (http://www.epa.gov/quality/information guidelines/index.html)
Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPA's Regional Project Officers on an
ongoing basis, there may be slippages between the time a tribal program status has
been achieved and the entering of that data into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System.
Even though the Regional Project Officer may enter data on an ongoing basis, at the
end of the reporting cycle the Objective 5.3 Reporting System will be "locked down," with
the locked dataset reported for the fiscal year. EPA's Regional Administrator certifies
the accuracy of the locked information
Error Estimate: For the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, errors could occur by mis-
entering data or neglecting to enter data. However, the data from each region will be
certified as accurate at the end of each reporting cycle; error is estimated to be low,
about 1-2 percent.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System, is a part of the
AIEO Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture, and is a part of the same Life Cycle
milestones of that system. Presently, plans are to focus on Operations and Maintenance
activities for the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture beginning FY08.
References:
Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://iasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
OCFO Information Quality Guidelines: http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.htm
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
• Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date
offer is extended, expressed in working days.
Performance Database: Data is derived from EZ-Hire, EPA's implementation of
Monster Inc.'s Quickhire system used for application development, posting, application
submission, and screening. These data is tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year
and quarterly basis. The data are reported by the servicing human resources offices
and rolled up into Agency-wide averages.
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) EZ-Hire System.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on new hires are collected by OHR
using the EZ-Hire system. OHR uses EZ-Hire to generate a raw data report on a
quarterly basis (after the quarter has been completed). The data is downloaded as an
Excel spreadsheet and is tracked by vacancy announcement number and formatted into
the various components of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) 45-day Hiring
Model. OHR staff review the results, and identify any anomalies that may need further
investigation. The draft report is then sent to the servicing HR Offices so the data can
be validated, corrected, and ultimately transferred to the OHR to be finalized. HR
Offices also work with the Selecting Officials to develop explanatory justifications for
those vacancies which exceeded the 45-day timeframe.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 178
-------
QA/QC Procedures: EZ-Hire tracks vacancy announcement activity from the time the
announcement opens until a job offer is made to a candidate by the Selecting Official.
Data Quality Reviews: OHR staff review and analyze the raw data, prior to it being
provided to the HR Offices for validation. Local HR Offices review and validate the data,
identify anomalies or data-entry errors, make corrections, and provide the updated
information to OHR so that the report can be finalized. Questions about the data or
resolution of issues of concern are frequently resolved through discussion and
consultation with OHR.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: In November 2006, EPA upgraded to the web-based
Hiring Management version of Monster Inc. 's Quickhire hiring management system.
This represents a significant milestone building on EPA's early adoption of this system.
References: EZ-Hire
• Average time to hire SES positions from date vacancy closes to date
offer is extended, expressed in working days.
Performance Database: Data is manually maintained by the Executive Resources
Staff (ERS) in a Word format. Data is updated thorough-out the various stages of the
hiring process.
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources' Executive Resources Staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data from the weekly report is tracked and
reported quarterly. ERS staff reviews the results and further investigates any data
anomalies prior to finalizing the quarterly report. These data are tracked manually on a
weekly basis and reported on a quarterly basis. The data are reported by servicing
human resources office and are expressed as an average number of days (where the
time to extend an offer for each vacancy is averaged for that servicing HR office.)
QA/QC Procedures: Data are added as vacancy status changes. The weekly report is
reviewed by the ERS Team leader. Questions about the data or resolution of issues of
concern are frequently resolved through discussion and consultation within the team.
Data Quality Reviews: ERS staff review and analyze the raw data, prior to it being
provided to the Team leader for validation. The Team leader reviews the data, identifies
anomalies or data-entry errors, and provides the updated information to OHR so that the
report can be finalized.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The current system is sufficient for tracking the SES
hiring activities, given the small number of positions filled annually, about 12 per year.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 179
-------
References: Executive Resources Staff
• Percent to which competency/skill gaps are reduced (beginner to intermediate)
in mission critical occupations
• Percent to which competency/skill gaps are reduced (intermediate to expert) in
mission critical occupations
Database: Database populated with competency/skills of employees obtained from a
self-assessment survey, and competency/skills deemed necessary within each
occupation.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Survey data will be used to provide current
competency/skills of the present mission critical occupation (MCO) employees. These
data will be compared to what competency/skills EPA feels is necessary for mission
accomplishment within each MCO to arrive at a baseline assessment.
Yearly surveys of the MCO employee base will be completed and compared to the
baseline.
QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Human Resources will be conducting a survey of
EPA's MCO workforce to reflect competency/skills possessed within each MCO
grouping.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Employees will self-assess their competency/skills. If they over-
inflate or under-inflate this assessment, analysis of the information may not correctly
identify gaps.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new competency/skills database.
References: This is a new competency/skills database.
• Number of new hires recruited through EPA's Environmental Intern Program
(EIP) in Mission Critical Occupations (MCO)
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) PeoplePlus system.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on new hires through the EIP is collected
by OHR and maintained by the National EIP Manager. Using the information from the
PeoplePlus New Hire Report and consulting with the headquarters National EIP
Manager, a determination can be made if the new hire in an MCO was recruited through
the EIP.
QA/QC Procedures: PeoplePlus contains nature of action codes (NOAC) designating
the type of personnel action taken and the appointing authority. Efforts are underway to
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 180
-------
establish an EIP designation code. The NOAC and an EIP identifier will more readily
identify new hires in MCOs recruited through the EIP.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The establishment of an EIP designation code in
PeoplePlus will provide an integrated approach to identifying new hires through the EIP.
References: PeoplePlus.
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption
information quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in
the "Energy and Water Database," which is a collection of numerous spreadsheets. The
contractor is responsible for reviewing and quality assuring/quality checking (QA/QCing)
the data.
Data Source: The Agency's contractor requests and collects quarterly energy and water
reporting forms, utility invoices, and fuel consumption logs from energy reporters at each
of EPA's "reporting" facilities (the facilities for which EPA pays the utility bills directly to
the utility company). The reported data are based on metered readings from the
laboratory's utility bills for certain utilities (natural gas, electricity, purchased steam,
chilled water, high temperature hot water, and potable water) and from on-site
consumption logs for other utilities (propane and fuel oil). In instances when data are
missing and cannot be retrieved, reported data are based on a proxy or historical
average.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's contractor performs an exhaustive review of all invoices and
fuel logs to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct. EPA's
Sustainable Facilities Practices Branch compares reported and verified energy use at
each reporting facility against previous years' verified data to see if there are any
significant and unexplainable increases or decreases in energy consumption and costs.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: EPA does not have a formal meter verification program to ensure that
an on-site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the utility bill.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 181
-------
• Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic
requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of
data.
• Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose
CDX to report environmental data electronically to EPA.
Performance Database: CDX Customer Registration Subsystem.
Data Source: Data are provided by State, private sector, local, and Tribal government
CDX users.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: All CDX users must register before they can
begin reporting. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of
users. Users identify themselves with several descriptors and use a number of CDX
security mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of individuals' identities.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC have been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality
Assurance Plan ["Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange,"
10/8/2004] and the CDX Design Document v.3, Appendix K registration procedures
[Central Data Exchange Electronic Reporting Prototype System Requirements: Version
3; Document number: EP005S3; December 2000]. Specifically, data are reviewed for
authenticity and integrity. Automated edit checking routines are performed in
accordance with program specifications and the CDX Quality Assurance Plan. This Plan
is currently being updated in conjunction with a re-competition of the CDX contract. The
recompete, and performance under the resulting contract will incorporate significantly
improved quality assurance processes. The current plan is to complete the recompete
in FY 2008. [contact: Sana Hamady, 202-566-1674]. In FY 2008, CDX will develop
robust quality criteria, which will include performance metric results, for the upcoming
CDX contract recompete scheduled to be awarded in FY 2009.
Data Quality Reviews: CDX completed its last independent security risk assessment in
January 2005, and all vulnerabilities are being reviewed or addressed. In addition,
routine audits of CDX data collection procedures, statistics and customer service
operations are provided weekly to CDX management and staff for review. Included in
these reports are performance measures such as the number of CDX new users,
number of submissions to CDX, number of help desk calls, number of calls resolved,
ranking of errors/problems, and actions taken. These reports are reviewed and actions
discussed at weekly project meetings.
Data Limitations: The CDX system collects, reports, and tracks performance measures
on data quality and customer service. While its automated routines are sufficient to
screen systemic problems/issues, a more detailed assessment of data errors/problems
generally requires a secondary level of analysis that takes time and human resources.
In addition, environmental data collected by CDX is delivered to National data systems in
the Agency. Upon receipt, the National systems often conduct a more thorough data
quality assurance procedure based on more intensive rules that can be continuously
changing based on program requirements. As a result, CDX and these National
systems appropriately share the responsibility for ensuring environmental data quality.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors in registration
data and that contribute greatly to the quality of environmental data entering the Agency.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 182
-------
These features include pre-populating data either from CDX or National systems,
conducting web-form edit checks, implementing XML schemas for basic edit checking
and providing extended quality assurance checks for selected Exchange Network Data
flows using Schematron. The potential error in registration data, under CDX
responsibility has been assessed to be less than 1 %.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX assembles the
registration/submission requirements of many different data exchanges with EPA and
the States, Tribes, local governments and the regulated community into a centralized
environment. This system improves performance tracking of external customers and
overall management by making those processes more consistent and comprehensive.
The creation of a centralized registration system, coupled with the use of web forms and
web-based approaches to submitting the data, invite opportunities to introduce additional
automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human error.
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
• Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable
systems that are certified and accredited
Performance Database: Automated Security Self-Evaluation and Remediation Tracking
(ASSERT) database.
Data Source: Information technology (IT) system owners in Agency Program and
Regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Annual IT security assessments are
conducted using the methodology mandated by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), the National Institute of Standards, and Technology (NIST) Security Self-
Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems. ASSERT has automated and
web-enabled this methodology.
QA/QC Procedures: Automated edit checking routines are performed in accordance
with ASSERT design specifications to ensure answers to questions in ASSERT are
consistent. The Office of Inspector General consistent with §3545 FISMA, and the Chief
Information Officer's information security staff conduct independent evaluations of the
assessments. The Agency certifies results to OMB in the annual FISMA report.
Data Quality Reviews: Program offices are required to develop security action plans
composed of tasks and milestones to address security weaknesses. Program offices
self-report progress toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review
these self-reported data, conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss
anomalies with the submitting office.
Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staff's ability to validate all of the
self-reported compliance data submitted by program systems' managers.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 183
-------
References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: Annual Information Security Reports to
OMB: http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/: OMB guidance memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19.pdf; ASSERT web site
https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/index.cfm; NIST Special Publication 800-53,
Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. February 2005:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html: and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA final.pdf
• Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk
reduction; environmental and business recommendations or risks identified
for corrective action; and return on the annual dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and investigations
• Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions
Performance Database: The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System
captures and aggregates information on an array of measures in a logic model format,
linking immediate outputs with long-term intermediate outcomes and results. OIG
performance measures are designed to demonstrate value added by promoting
economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and
abuse as described by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended). Because
intermediate and long-term results may not be realized for several years, only verifiable
results are reported in the year completed. Database measures include numbers of: 1)
recommendations for environmental and management improvement; 2) legislative,
regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental, program
management, security and resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4)
best practices identified and implemented; 5) examples of environmental and
management actions taken and improvements made; 6) monetary value of funds
questioned, saved, fined, or recovered; 7) criminal, civil, and administrative actions
taken, 8) public or congressional inquiries resolved; and 9) certifications, allegations
disproved, and cost corrections.
Data Source: Designated OIG staff enter data into the system. Data are from OIG
performance evaluations, audits, research, court records, EPA documents, data
systems, and reports that track environmental and management actions or
improvements made and risks reduced or avoided. OIG also collects independent data
from EPA's partners and stakeholders.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: OIG performance results are a chain of
linked events, starting with OIG outputs (e.g., recommendations, reports of best
practices, and identification of risks). The subsequent actions taken by EPA or its
stakeholders/partners, as a result of OIG's outputs, to improve operational efficiency and
environmental program delivery are reported as intermediate outcomes. The resulting
improvements in operational efficiency, risks reduced/eliminated, and conditions of
environmental and human health are reported as outcomes. By using common
categories of performance measures, quantitative results can be summed and reported.
Each outcome is also qualitatively described, supported, and linked to an OIG product or
output. The OIG can only control its outputs and has no authority, beyond its influence,
to implement its recommendations that lead to environmental and management
outcomes.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 184
-------
QA/QC Procedures: All performance data submitted to the database require at least
one verifiable source assuring data accuracy and reliability. Data quality assurance and
control are performed as an extension of OIG products and services, subject to rigorous
compliance with the Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General20, and
regularly reviewed by OIG management, an independent OIG Management Assessment
Review Team, and external independent peer reviews. Each Assistant Inspector
General certifies the completeness and accuracy of performance data.
Data Quality Reviews: There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by
external groups on data or database weaknesses in the OIG Performance Measurement
and Results System. All data reported are audited internally for accuracy and
consistency.
Data Limitations: All OIG staff are responsible for data accuracy in their products and
services. However, there is a possibility of incomplete, miscoded, or missing data in the
system due to human error or time lags. Data supporting achievement of results are
often from indirect or external sources, with their own methods or standards for data
verification/validation.
Error Estimate: The error rate for outputs is estimated at +1-2%, while the error rate for
reported long-term outcomes is presumably greater because of the longer period
needed for tracking results and difficulty in verifying a nexus between our work and
subsequent actions and impacts beyond our control. Errors tend to be those of
omission.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the Performance Measurement
and Results System as a prototype in FY 2001 and constantly revises the clarity and
quality of the measures as well as system improvements for ease of use. During FY
2007, the OIG implemented an Audit Follow-up Policy to independently verify the status
of Agency actions on OIG recommendations, which serve as the basis for OIG
intermediate outcome results reported in the OIG Performance Measurement and
Results System. The quality of the data will continue to improve as staff gain greater
familiarity with the system and measures, and as OIG performs follow-up verification
reviews to identify and track actions and impacts. The OIG is also implementing full
costing of OIG products to measure relative return on investment from the application of
OIG resources.
References: All OIG non-restricted performance results are referenced in the OIG
Performance Measurement and Results System with supporting documentation
available either through the OIG Web Site or other Agency databases. The OIG Web
Site is www.epa.gov/oig.21
Government Auditing Standards (2007 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-07-162G, January
2007; Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated January 2007.
21 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications;
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated June 26, 2007.
Data Quality Supplemental Information - Page 185
-------
Management Audit Tracking System (MATS)
Audits With Management Decisions But No Final Action After 1 Year
Audits in Appeal excluded For the Period Ending 2007-09-30
ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
2006-P00001-001 Industrial Wipes Congressional Request
Past Due Comments: The Office of the Administrator, Office of Policy, Economic and
Innovation (OPEI) and OSWER has formed a workgroup to examine the questions on
the RAPIDS Action Initiation Form. OPEI has submitted their comments to the
workgroup and OPEI is waiting to see if the workgroup adopts their changes. Also, OPEI
has developed a new guidance document that defines rulemaking docketing
requirements and the document is expected to be release within two months. Final
action is expected by December 2007.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
2006-100015-130 2005 AGENCY F/S - GENERAL (MASTER)
Past Due Comments: OCFO has two remaining corrective actions on this audit. The OIG
is requesting further supporting documentation regarding our People Plus default
payment procedures for recommendation 3. For recommendation 25, OCFO needs to
provide the OIG with additional documentation in support of continuity plans for several
small stand alone systems. OCFO expects final certification of this audit by December
15, 2007.
2006-P00005-130 IS Service Continuity & Physical Access Controls at NCC
Past Due Comments: OCFO has one open corrective action on this audit. Due to
miscommunication with the OIG on which systems were included in recommendation 19,
OCFO still needs to provide documentation to the OIG on several small stand alone
systems. We expect final certification on this audit by December 14, 2007.
2006-P00027-130 Undistributed Superfund Costs
Past Due Comments: As of Quarter 4 FY 2007, OCFO's Office of Financial Management
(OCFO) has not updated Chapter 4 (Direct Site Charging) of RMDS 2550D. As a result
of the conflicting organizational priorities, we have focused our efforts on revising RMDS
Chapter 9~Superfund State Contracts and Cooperative Agreements. Chapter 9 now
includes language that addresses some of the issues that were identified in the audit
findings related to the backlog and timeliness issues for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements which were the main focus of the WQ audit. The Chapter 9 policy document
is ready for the final policy review process. Our current Comptroller Policy
Announcement-OCFO 96-01-is still in place. OFM will continue to update all RMDS
2550 chapters and the OCFO 96-01 language will be incorporated into all relevant
chapters of 2550 D including Chapter 4. OFM estimates that we will have a draft Chapter
4 revised by March 31, 2008.
Page 1
-------
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
2005-P00010-140 Evaluation of CAA Title V Operating Permit Quality
Past Due Comments: EPA has been reevaluating the benefits and most effective action
based on current circumstances. EPA provided the IG an update on progress of all
recommendations as of September 2007 with targeted completion dates of August 2008.
EPA has requested a meeting in October 2007 to discuss remaining recommendations
2.1 and 3.2 to amend or add rules as the EPA disagrees with those recommendations
and suggest they provide little or no potential derived benefit.
2006-P00024-140 IFOSEC SERIES: SECURITY PRACTICES OAR
Past Due Comments: OAR/OAP Ran Technical Vulnerability Scan Results conducted on
Clean Air Markets Division Business System (CAMDBS). OAR has presented: (1) an
up-to-date risk assessment and (2) effective practices to ensure that all production
servers were monitored for known security vulnerabilities. This robust risk data was sent
to NCC. OAR developed and is implementing adequate security practices. OAR will
provide a system-wide computer security plan review by April 01, 2008.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT - HQ
2000-P00029-150 Interagency Agreements Follow-up
Past Due Comments: The Resource Management Directive System (RMDS) 2540-13.1,
Economy Act Funds-ln IAG Indirect Billing Rates, was sent out for Agency review via the
Directives Clearance Review Process in July, 2007. Office of Financial Management
(OFM) is currently reviewing the comments. We expect to issue this directive by
February 28, 2008.
P00005-150 CFDA Program 66.606
Past Due Comments: OARM has resolved the major aspects of proper use of
amendments for assistance agreements with the Competition Policy and will issue
additional procedural guidance in December 2007. The additional procedural guidance
will more clearly outline the proper use of amendments for assistance agreements.
Expected resolution by December 2007.
2004-P00026-150 FINANCIAL APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
CONTROL
Past Due Comments: The Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD12)
Implementation Plan when complete will identify proofing, registration, and card
issuance as part of the process. Federal background investigations on non-federal
workers being issued smart cards will be completed. This will include on-site contractors
and those needing access to EPA high risk IT networks, systems or infrastructures ~
such as IFMS. The expected date of completion is September 30, 2008.
2005-P00019-150 PEOPLEPLUS SECURITY CONTROLS NEED IMPROVEMENT
Past Due Comments: This audit has been overtaken by changing and expanding
security requirements within the Federal Government- i.e., Homeland Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, FIPS 201-1, and OMB Guidance - which mandates a
Page 2
-------
National Agency Check with Inquiries and Credit (NACIC) Investigation be initiated and
favorably adjudicated for non-federal workers needing access to EPA's physical and
logical infrastructures (which IFMS falls under). The expected completion date for this
action is September, 30, 2008.
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES & TOXIC SUBSTANCES
1991-101378-164 PESTICIDES INERTS
Past Due Comments: For the past ten (10) years, program resources were focused on
tolerance reassessment in compliance with the statutory mandate of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). As part of tolerance reassessment, all of the eligible
food-use inert ingredients were reassessed. Therefore, they were reclassified. Tolerance
exemption expressions that were not reclassified were revoked due to lack of reliable
data. The revocation takes effect August 2008 unless reliable data are submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) will take the steps necessary to
officially close out the four (4) open corrections actions related to reclassification of inerts
in the MATS database. Final Action expected August 2008.
2006-P00009-164 Impact of Data Gaps on EPA's Implementation of FQPA
Past Due Comments: This OIG report entitled "Opportunities to Improve Data Quality
and Children's Health through the Food Quality Protection Act" is the second in a series
of three reports reviewing the Office of Pesticide Program's implementation of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The final Jan. 10, 2006 report contained eleven (11)
recommendations. The Program provided OIG a Corrective Action Plan in an April 20,
2006 memo and is actively working on closing all of the recommendations. Expect final
action in 2008. An Audit Management Decision Agreement was provided by Jeffrey
Harris (OIG) to Jim Jones (Director, Office of Pesticide Programs) in a June 15, 2006
memo.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
2000-P00028-167 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
Past Due Comments: This effort involves a cross-office workgroup within OSWER.
There are a large number of program components involved in this effort that need to
reach agreement. We are currently working with OSWER offices to get their comments
on the guidance. We have completed 34 of the 36 corrective action milestones for this
audit. We expect the remaining two milestones to be completed by October 30, 2007.
2004-P00005-167 Mega Financial Responsibilities at Superfund Mine Sites
Past Due Comments: The corrective action milestones have been delayed because the
National Mining Team has taken the lead for the Deputy Administrator's new mining
initiative and they have been reconsidering these milestones are part of a larger mining
strategy. OSWER staff met with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on August 7, 2007
to discuss the DA's new mining initiative and the impact of the new initiative on the
remaining corrective action milestones. We are awaiting feedback from the OIG.
2003-P00010-167 Mega EPA's National Hardrock Mining Framework
Past Due Comments: The remaining corrective action milestone has been delayed
because the National Mining Team has taken the lead for the Deputy Administrator's
(DA)new mining initiative and has been reconsidering this recommendation and
corrective action as part of a larger mining strategy. OSWER staff met with the Office of
Page 3
-------
Inspector General (OIG)on August 7, 2007 to discuss the DA's new mining initiative and
the impact of the new initiative on the remaining corrective action milestone. We are
awaiting feedback from the OIG.
2005-P00026 RCRA Financial Responsibility Requirements
Past Due Comments: The milestone dates were agreed upon by OSWER and the OIG
in our 12/22/2005 response to the audit report. We have completed seven of the nine
corrective action milestones. We expect the remaining two milestones to be completed
by December 31, 2008.
2006-P00013-167 SF Mandate: Program Efficiencies
Past Due Comments: We have completed eight of the eleven corrective action
milestones for this audit. The remaining three corrective action milestones are expected
to be completed by April 30, 2008.
2006-P00016-167 EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
Past Due Comments: The remaining corrective action milestone and date were agreed
upon by OSWER and the Office of Inspector General in our August 7, 2006 response to
the audit. We have completed one of the two corrective action milestones. The
remaining corrective action milestone is expected to be completed by December 30,
2007.
2006-P00027-167 Undistributed Superfund Costs
Past Due Comments: OCFO has the lead on the corrective action milestones for this
audit. As of Quarter 4 FY 2007, OCFO's Office of Financial Management (OCFO) has
not updated Chapter 4 (Direct Site Charging) of RMDS 2550D. As a result of the
conflicting organizational priorities, we have focused our efforts on revising RMDS
Chapter 9--Superfund State Contracts and Cooperative Agreements. Chapter 9 now
includes language that addresses some of the issues that were identified in the audit
findings related to the backlog and timeliness issues for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements which were the main focus of the WQ audit. The Chapter 9 policy document
is ready for the final policy review process. Our current Comptroller Policy
Announcement-OCFO 96-01-is still in place. OFM will continue to update all RMDS
2550 chapters and the OCFO 96-01 language will be incorporated into all relevant
chapters of 2550 D including Chapter 4. OFM estimates that we will have a draft Chapter
4 revised by the second quarter of FY 2008.
2006-P00007-167 MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED ON TOXAPHENE
DEGRADATION PRODUCTS
Past Due Comments: The corrective action milestone date was agreed upon by OSWER
and the Office of Inspector General in our March 22, 2006 response to the audit. We
expect the one corrective action milestone to be complete by December 31, 2008.
OFFICE OF WATER
2002-P00012-168 Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows
Past Due Comments: All of the Recommendations have been completed with the
exception of the Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria noted in 6.2. The guidance has been put on hold pending the resolution of
Page 4
-------
several key issues with stakeholders. We expect a resolution of the issues by December
2007.
2003-P00018-168 DRINKING WATER CAPACITY
Past Due Comments: Corrective Action 1: The final plan is undergoing final
management review and is expected to be released by the end of October 2007.
Corrective Action 2: The capacity development tool described under Recommendation
#3 will be issued as final by the end of October 2007. The memo announcing its release
will note that the intent of the tool is to help regional staff evaluate state capacity
development programs for the purposes of making determinations on withholding.
Corrective Action 3: Beta-testing for the Tool has been completed and it will be formally
released to regions by the end of October 2007. Data entry is expected to start in
November. Corrective Action 4: The final strategy will be released by the end of October
2007. Initial goals and measures will be refined over the next few years. Corrective
Action 5: See Response for Corrective Action 4.
2004-P00030-168 EPA's Pretreatment Program
Past Due Comments: Corrective Actions 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2 and 4.3: Water Permits
Division issued the strategy, "Oversight of SI Us Discharging to POTWs without
Approved Pretreatment Programs" by memorandum from Linda Boornazian, Director of
Water Permits Division, to Regional Division Directors, dated May 18, 2007. Document
was reviewed and discussed during the EPA-States Pretreatment Coordinators National
Meeting in July 2007, during which industrial user survey assistance, permit writing tools,
and other implementation methods were brainstormed. Corrective Action 3.4: Promotion
of Training Opportunities Training will continue to be an ongoing effort. Water Permits
Division (WPD) honored its commitment to work with partner Water Environment
Federation to offer pretreatment training in a classroom format, which was conducted in
Hartford, CT in February 2007.
WPD committed contract funds and staff to conduct the following local training with
Region 4:
• KY, TN, NC Tri-State Pretreatment Conference on May 2-3, 2007, in Gatlinburg, TN;
• FL.GA, SC Tri-State Pretreatment Conference on June 13-14, 2007, in Jacksonville,FL;
• Pretreatment Training for Alabama Department of Environmental Management staff to
occur on October 30-31, 2007, in Montgomery, Alabama;
• Pretreatment Training for Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality staff to occur on November 1, 2007,
in Jackson, MS.
WPD is currently evaluating proposals to conduct similar training for Region 5 in 2008.
As WEF has only scheduled one course for 2008 (St. Louis, MO, in April), WPD has
allocated funding within its strategic plan for developing web-based and self-directed
courses.
Corrective Action 4.1: Pilot Study was conducted in Spring/Summer 2007 which
evaluated 9 draft results-based measures from which final GPRA measures may be
proposed for selection. For each of the draft results-based measures tested, data
availability and data sources were evaluated. Preliminary Pilot Study results were
discussed at the EPA-States Pretreatment Coordinators National Meeting in July 2007,
and selection criteria for a "good" measure was brainstormed (e.g., direct linkage of
environmental results to pretreatment regulation, minimal new burden to collect
data/data already being collected or reported, etc.). Pilot Study report currently being
Page 5
-------
finalized. Draft Measures Implementation Handbook is also being developed to assist
Regions and States when they begin wide scale testing of the options. Wide scale
testing, is to begin in 2008, will test the viability of the measures and refine their
description, source, and reporting factors.
Corrective Action 4.2: This is the same as topic 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. See Answer above.
Corrective Action 4.3: Part of this contained with the Strategy of topics 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and
4.2. Another part will be determined by the results of topics 4.1 and 4.3.
2005-P00021-168 SDWA Tools
Past Due Comments: Corrective Action 4.1: EPA met with the pilot states and Regions
in June 2007. Based on the feedback provided by participants, the Agency plans to
begin rolling the logic model out more for use in additional states in all 10 EPA Regions,
starting April 2008. The capacity development strategic plan should be released by the
end of October 2007. Corrective Action 4.2: EPA is issuing final changes to the Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) that incorporate recommendations made by the NDWAC on
public education and CCR. The final LCR changes include a revision to CCR, which
requires all reports contain a short informational statement about lead in drinking water
and its effects on children. The new language is intended to help consumers understand
the health effects associated with lead, that lead levels can vary from home to home,
that they can take steps to reduce their exposure, and where to get more information.
The Agency plans to release revised guidance on public education by the end of 2007.
The focus of the November 2007 NDWAC meeting will be on communication issues.
This will include discussions about the CCR and related public education materials.
2006-P00021-168 INFORMATION SECURITY SERIES: SECURITY PRACTICES -
SDWIS
Past Due Comments: Corrective Action 1: The security categorization for SDWIS was
changed to "moderate" and reported in ASSERT in June 2007. Corrective Action 2: The
security assessment was completed and reported in ASSERT in June 2007. Corrective
Action 3: The SDWIS entry in ASSERT was updated in June 2007. Corrective Action 4:
The review of the information security oversight process with OW is on-going. The
review process is proceeding with system owner, user and manager interviews and
expected to be complete in December 2007. Upon completion of the interview process
and feedback, a formal OW oversight process will be developed and implemented in
February 2008.
2006-P00007-168 MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED ON TOXAPHENE
DEGRADATION PRODUCTS
Past Due Comment: Corrective Action 1: Neither OSWER, OSW, nor ORD has
approached OW about the method for which OSWER took the lead. OW is in a position
where we are available to consult on the method, should such consultation be needed.
b)Once an Agency-approved method is available, OSRTI will alert site managers that
they should apply the new method at sites where toxaphene was disposed. Corrective
Action 2: No OW action needed.
2006-P00016-168 EPA's Management Strategy for Contaminated Sediments
Page 6
-------
Past Due Comments: For Recommendations 2, 4, 8 and 9, an action plan is being
developed and is expected to be complete by September 2008. The dates for when
commitments under these recommendations will be met will be determined once the
action plan is completed. Recommendation 3 is complete, there is no more action
required. On recommendation 5, the coordination continues but, not certain if the MOU
was renewed. Hopefully OSWER addressed the issue of coordination specifically on
CERCLA sites since they would know best.
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
2001-P00006-180 ENF AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE
Past Due Comments: In mid-2006 OECA developed a final draft performance measure
related to the monitoring of compliance with judicial consent decrees and submitted it to
the Agency's Measures Review Board for approval, which is required prior to
implementation. The Measures Review Board requested additional information regarding
how the necessary information will be captured in the agency's enforcement data
systems and monitored before approving the proposal. When developing Guidance for
the entry and tracking of this information in the ICIS data system it became apparent that
not all of the information which should be captured is capable of being monitored using
the existing data system.
In March 2006 OECA sought to develop interim performance measures to be used
pending modifications to the data system necessary to fully implement the final draft
performance measure. OECA staff determined in September 2007 that implementation
of the interim performance measures would be overly cumbersome for enforcement
staff, not likely to result in useful information for enforcement managers, and would not
advance the goals of greater accountability with respect to consent decree
implementation. Therefore, OECA has established a goal of securing approval of the
final draft performance measure by the Agency's Measures Review Board by March 31,
2008. This approval will constitute the final step in establishing the performance
measure that OECA committed to in response to the IG Report.
2001-P00013-180 STATE ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS - NATIONAL AUDIT
Past Due Comments: There are a total of 17 corrective actions for this report. Five (5)
corrective actions have been fully implemented/completed, and the required
documentation for all actions are maintained in the official files. The remaining 12
corrective actions are pending completion of rule making and activity to develop a
compliance monitoring strategy. All corrective actions will be completed no later than
October 31, 2008.
2004-P00021-180 Evaluation of EPA's Petroleum Refinery Enforcement and
Compliance
Past Due Comments: This report had 17 corrective actions. TO date, OECA has
completed 16 actions. The single corrective action will require OECA to develop a
lessons learned initiative. This effort is currently underway, and completion is expected
no later than March 2008.
2005-P00024-180 Priority Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Universe
Past Due Comments: There are a total of seven corrective actions for this report.
OECA completed five corrective actions, and a copy of the supporting documentation is
maintained in the OECA official files. There are two (2) corrective actions pending which
Page 7
-------
OECA will need to work collaboratively with states to develop a policy for data to be
collected and tracked by states, and to update the performance based strategy. All
actions are planned for completion no later than September 2008.
2006-P00006-180 Performance Measurement and Reporting for Enforcement and
Compliance
Past Due Comments: The contractor was late in submitting the draft report, but expects
to deliver it by the end of October 2007. This will also delay submission of the final report
and OECA's review process.
Revised Projected completion dates:
May 15, 2007 Final Methodology:
May 30, 2007 Field Test Plan
July 15, 2007 Field Test Completion
October 31, 2007 Draft Report (revised)
November 30, 2007 Final Report (revised)
All recommendations are planned for completion by 12/31/2007.
REGION 5
2005-300114-350 North Lawrence Water Authority, FY 2003
Past Due Comments: The Grantee's response states that to correct the finding (i.e.
must fund a reserve fund) requires a rate increase. The Grantee further states that it
expects to fully fund its debt service reserve within four years from the date the increase
in rates becomes effective. Target date for resolution is June 1, 2010.
REGION 9
2005-300212-390 Yavapai Apache Nation FY 2003
Past Due Comments: The corrective action in the FDL set January 31, 2006 as the
original target date and was later revised to July 31, 2007 to complete the tribe's
Accounting policies and procedures. The tribe has been working with its CPA firm to
make revisions to a "best-fit" "real world model". However, the Chief Financial Officer
had a severe health event that has delayed the final corrective action. The new target
date is December 31, 2007.
2005-300211-390 Yavapai Apache Nation FY 2002
Past Due Comments: The corrective action in the FDL set January 31, 2006 as the
original target date and was later revised to July 31, 2007 to complete the tribe's
Accounting policies and procedures. The tribe has been working with its CPA firm to
make revisions to a "best-fit" "real world model". However, the Chief Financial Officer
had a severe health event that has delayed the final corrective action. The new target
date is December 31, 2007.
REGION 10
2003-300117-410 Stevens Village Council
Past Due Comments: This audit cannot be closed until disallowed costs of $46,614 are
collected. Collection on this audit has been combined with collection on audit 2003-
300047 (one billing document covers both audit collections) and the grantee has entered
into a monthly repayment agreement with EPA. Final payment is expected by July 30,
2012.
Page 8
-------
2002-300009-410 Iliama Village Council
Past Due Comments: This audit cannot be closed until funds of $45,481 are collected.
On March 8, 2006 collection on this audit has been combined with collection on audit
2002-3-00042 (one billing document which covers both audits. Region 10 appeal board
reduced amount due on both audit actions to $60,449.59. The amount due from this
audit has been reduced by $18,063.14, to $27,417.86. The grantee was billed for
revised amount. Grantee may: a) elect to pay the full amount; b) request a repayment
agreement; c) appeal to the Asst. Administrator for the appropriate program. On May 3,
2006, the grantee has been issued a payment agreement: $503.75 per month for 120
months (10 years).The final payment is due on April 30, 2016.
2002-300042-410 Lliamna Village Council
Past Due Comments: This audit cannot be closed until funds of $37,559 are collected
from the grantee. On March 8, 2006 collection on this audit has been combined with
collection on audit 2002-3-00009 (one billing document which covers both audits. Region
10 appeal board reduced amount due on both audit actions to $60,449.59. The amount
reduced on this audit is $4,527.75, revising the collectable total to $33,031.75.
The grantee was billed for revised amount. Grantee may: a) elect to pay the full amount;
b) request a repayment agreement; c) appeal to the Assistant Administrator for the
appropriate program. On March 3, 2006 The grantee has been issued a payment
agreement: $503.75 per month for 120 months (10 years) With final payment due April
30, 2016
2003-300047-410 Stevens Village Council
Past Due Comments: This audit cannot be closed until disallowed costs of $52,365 are
repaid. Collection on this audit has been combined with collection on audit 2003-300117
(one billing document which covers both audits) and a monthly repayment agreement
was signed by the grantee. Final payment is expected by July 30, 2012.
2003-300145-410 CIRCLE VILLAGE COUNCIL
Past Due Comments: This audit cannot be closed out until all repayment amounts have
been received. On May 10, 2004 Circle Village entered into a yearly repayment
agreement with EPA. Final payment was expected by May 31, 2006. On August 31,
2006 the grantee defaulted on payment agreement. Collection via Treasury Offset has
been requested by the region.
2004-300011-410 Northway Village Council
Past Due Comments: This audit cannot be closed until the $75,000 is collected from
the grantee. On January 25, 2004 the billing was referred to the Headquarters Finance
Office for collection via Treasury offset. Region 10 is working with HQ to find out about
collection via Treasury offset. Expected final action March 15, 2005. On April 3, 2006 a
Collection via Treasury Offset was requested by the region. No further action can be
taken by EPA at this time. If Treasury is able to collect, funds will be remanded to EPA.
At that time, EPA will be able to record a final action.
2005-300084-410 Hoonah Indian Association - FY 2002
Past Due Comments: Even though the OIG entered this audit into the system on
February 9, 2005, we did not actually receive a copy of the audit until July 6, 2005. Since
Page 9
-------
that time, the Region has been working with the grantee to resolve this audit. As of
September 6, 2005, having received no response from the grantee regarding the audit
issues, the Region declared them High Risk and their grant has been suspended. They
have until October 6, 2005 to appeal the Region's actions & furnish us with a status of
corrective action. We expect to resolve this audit by Oct. 30, 2005. On September 19,
2005, the Region requested OIG close this audit, as enforcement action is planned.
On January 10, 2006, the Region issued a demand letter for repayment of entire grant
amount of $238,648. On June 13, 2006, this debt was referred for collection by treasury
offset.
2005-300218-410 Chalkyitsik Village Council
Past Due Comments: Collection of amount due has been referred to Treasury.
2005-300239-410 Chalkyitsik Village Council
Past Due Comments: Payment agreement calls for payments of $331.15 per month, for
a term of three years, beginning on December 31, 2005. However, agreement and
payment has not received. Referring this to Treasury.
2006-300085-410 Stevens Village Council FY 2003
Past Due Comments: September 19, 2007 - Because of the numerous audit-related
enforcement actions pending against this grantee, Region 10 is waiting collection action
on the disallowed amount from this audit pending resolution of the appeal of the
collection action for audit 2006-3-00014. This has been delayed due to administrative
issues. Resolution is expected within the next 90 days. In the meantime no further
awards are being made to this grantee.
Page 10
------- |